The Nevada City Council weighed AHDC’s plan for about 80 affordable housing units (Mattson Meadows), a proposal that has drawn strong support in principle for addressing housing needs but sharp opposition over its size and potential impacts. Critics warn the density would overwhelm aging infrastructure, worsen traffic, strain water/sewer and drainage, harm trees and habitat, and threaten the town’s historic character, prompting calls for further environmental review or denial and highlighting Brown Act/CEQA concerns; a 90-day moratorium on variances was approved 3–2 amid wider governance disputes. Unit-count is central to rural HOME funding, with some urging a smaller or scattered-site project to preserve awards, while officials may consult HCD on funding implications of size changes. Public comments remain divided, and the discussion continues toward an Environmental Impact Report and additional hearings, alongside broader questions about AHDC’s scale, financing (not Section 8), and a more community-led planning approach.

Full Transcript of the Video:

[ Background noise ] >> Every place in the-- OK, here we go.

[ Background noise ] >> That's right.

[ Background noise ] >> I'm sorry.

[ Background noise ] >> OK.

We're going to open the public hearing at this time.

And I'd like to reiterate the ground rules is that because of the large number of people that need to speak and the limited amount of time as this meeting will end at 10.

30 this evening, and I'd like to have everybody have an opportunity to speak, that the speakers will be limited to three minutes.

I have the official timekeeper of the Nevada City Council.

And state your name and address for the record.

And please remember, no applause.

[ Background noise ] >> Well, I don't want to get into talking about a bridging public hearing which is stated in the First Amendment.

I will talk as rapidly as I can.

Two people in the audience have yielded their three minutes to me.

I will try and condense it.

>> Three minutes, Candace.

I'm sorry.

We have to be fair to everybody.

>> Thank you.

>> If only we had a moratorium on variances.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to talk about the so-called affordable housing.

Just that Nevada City doesn't want to carry its share of affordable housing, I can say that that simply is not true.

An overwhelming number of residents that I've spoken to concur that were eager to comply with state mandates.

And in fact, we have many low-moderate units already.

And it is my understanding that we are not known, nor have we ever been in gross violation of the existing mandate, which applies countywide.

We've elected not to build inner city style housing projects to date for a variety of sound reasons.

Massive complexes do not adhere to the essence and objectives of our general plan.

In the case of HDC's proposal, our zoning ordinance allows.

We made a commitment to protect our neighborhoods in 1986 so as people, so as a people, we could foster a more human relationship between our residents.

The likelihood of crime diminishes radically when everybody on the block knows each other.

The feasibility of ownership increases when neighbors stick together and don't sell out to developers that want to maximize profits.

And then hit the road unconcerned with the aftermath.

It is in a pleasant neighborhood.

People do not think of their residents as solely as an investment or a probable payout.

They think of it as home.

In looking at the AHDC's file at City Hall recently, I noticed that developers submitted a list of many projects that vast majority line in the-- and the vast majority line in the arid, flat terrain of the Central Valley of California, but no photographic examples of their work and no list of contacts to inquire about their track record.

No letters of recommendation to tenants or neighbors surrounding the project.

This seems contrary to any wise businesspersons--wise businessperson trying to propose that one buy their product.

My portfolio is crammed with examples of many portraits that I've done over the years as well as almost an equal number of letters from satisfied clients.

With a project of this magnitude, I would have imagined that someone at City Hall would have at least requested a few examples of both.

The public at large thought it would be a good idea and found out that the City of Auburn recently approved a NATO unit AHDC development with a negative debt--not an EIR-- but only after their citizens appealed and lost all within a three months start to finish.

We know that AHDC sued the City of Stockton and citizens--and the citizens--preveiled there.

That surely would be enough for any shrewd individual or authority to look a little deeper.

So many unanswered questions remain in the minds of many regarding agreements between the developer of City Hall, the actual demands of the state on municipalities, as well as the agreement with the developer, the recipients of this wonderful housing that they keep indicating is almost unilaterally sanctified by all.

I can assure you the idea of an EIR at this point in time would be a minor stipulation by comparison to the lengthy list of items that this bizarre proposal and process has raised in the minds of people to present.

Besides, as Mr.
Spann has informed us on numerous occasions, time has run out.

We are all well aware that there is a seemingly endless funding cycle for these types of projects, and there seems to be no possibility of housing developments of the whole world ending here tonight.

The scrutiny public has demanded where we are tonight.

And this ain't rocket science.

No one has really gotten into affordable housing, but I went and examined some.

And I did an objective look.

I had some people look at some of their projects in the Central Valley, but I photographed one in Truckee.

And over here you'll see the one up above is 104 units, which is 24 more units than the developers proposing.

One of the things that I really want to address and have you all remember is that they talk a lot about cutting down trees and replacing them two to one.

I've talked to a couple of geologists, biologists, and they say, well, that's ludicrous.

The trees that are there right now don't require any water.

If you cut all those trees down, you put two trees, ornamental trees for every tree that you cut down, you're going to have to use twice as much water.

And on a hot, hot summer day, as the sun evaporates water, you're going to use more and more water.

The people -- Time.

The woman that's in this lower one, she is a family of nine living in a four-bedroom unit.

The fellow and his two sons below, his wife is pregnant.

They live in a two-bedroom, and that does not equate to one and a half people per bedroom.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to address the council on this issue?
Great job.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm Carol Barnes.

My husband and I live on the West Broad Street Speedway at 540, and I agree with our police chief about the issue of traffic.

It's difficult to believe that that many people up on West Broad would not severely impact the traffic, the speed, the numbers of trips down West Broad Street.

And I want to tell you that there's hardly a day that goes by that I don't take my life in my hands.

So it's a problem.

It's a narrow street, and people coming down from Highway 49 use it as a real speedway into town.

So I'm urging the council to reject this project, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Carol.

Jerry Satterfield, 539 West Broad Street, and 543 West Broad Street.

I'm at as hell, and this is a no-brainer.

And I think most of the people in this audience concur with me that this is ludicrous.

It's not going to fly.

The drainage, the sewage, the water problem, the fire department, you know the NFPA, what they require.

You not only have no water, you have no personnel.

You have no personnel to fight fire.

In a congregation like this, the police department is on a vacuum situation.

We don't have enough policemen.

And so I'm telling you people that the traffic on West Broad Street is deplorable.

People come down off 49, 40, 50, 60 miles an hour, I guarantee you.

They cross over the double yellow line going uphill.

They almost tore the door off my car.

I was getting out of my car.

They almost hit me cheating over the double line trying to save a half a second.

Once you -- now they repaved our street.

It's beautiful.

But up at the cemetery, it needs paving.

The street is really deficient there.

And from Bennett Street on down, it's deficient into town.

It's crumbling.

The drainage and the ditch going behind there, Chick-Chaconi, put 55-gallon barrels with the ends cut out of them and covered them over.

I don't know if you know that.

The drainage is -- Chick is not with us anymore.

But those barrels are collapsing.

That whole drainage system in the back is deficient.

And if you get a problem up there with a doo-doo or whatever you got, the drainage or whatever it is, the grinders, so on and so forth, this is terrible.

Every turn, every person, every professional that has stated their case here has shown to us that this project won't fly.

And I want you to consider everything that they've said here.

That's about all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Today I decided to take two hours of my time, even though I have 5 million things to do because I only live here in the summer anymore.

I've lived here for 30 years.

In the last five, four years, people that know me know I work in Alaska, and I'm only here in the summer.

So I devoted two hours a day to talk to people about this.

We, the undersigned citizens of Nevada City by our signatures here, recommend to the City Council that the 80-unit apartment complex called Mattson Meadows, proposed by the AHDC Development Company, be denied on the grounds that it is incompatible and inappropriate with the general plan, the scenic corridor, various zoning ordinances, and that this project cannot be supported by the existing infrastructure of Nevada City.

In the last two hours, I got 73 signatures.

I got signatures.

People were grabbing this out of my hand.

All I had to do was to have a group of people talk to them about it, and I had people coming up saying, "Let me sign that.

"
No one is supporting this that I am aware of other than the very, very, very small group of people that will profit from it.

And I understand that everybody has a right to make a living.

I understand that real estate developers have a right to develop.

I understand that real estate people have a right to sell land.

But you don't do it at the expense of all the other people that you live with.

In Alaska, I live in a tribal community with the Inupiat people.

Our system here, I have discovered in four years, is so different and so twisted.

For instance, in a tribal setting, we would all sit in a circle, and you would see my face, and you would know who I am.

And when I come back home and I see the difference between the tribal community and this community, it upsets me.

Now, I am living in the Arctic where the Bush boys want to drill.

And I have been to the meetings with the Inupiat people, where Bush men have come down and have talked about, "We are going to help you, people.

We are going to do this in your village, and we are going to help you.

"
And they are lying straight to their face.

They are only interested in profit.

And I come home, and I see the same thing.

I see people coming here from out of state, whose business it is to go to communities like this, with weak city councils and weak communities, to get these projects and get their profit and leave and not deal with the problems they are going to create for us in our retirement, in our lives, in our children's lives.

I am not going to leave Nevada City.

I am going to stay here, and I am going to do everything I can to fight this project.

Now, I want to tell you, because you are supposed to represent the people of Nevada City, and I want to tell you the comments that I heard.

I heard comments like, "What's wrong with our planning commission?
How did this thing get this far?
How in the world did anybody that loves Nevada City?
How did they hear this proposal and even consider it for it to get this far?"
There are serious questions being asked.

And if you do represent us, you do love Nevada City.

Don't do this to us.

Think tribal.

Thank you.

Carol, could you state your name and address for the record, please?
My name is Carol Cameron.

I live at 207 Tribulation Trail, and I love Nevada City, and I want us all to be a tribe when I come home.

Thank you very much.

Please remind everyone that we need them to state their name and address for the record.

Good evening.

My name is Margaret Erke.

I'm the executive director of CABPro, California Association of Business, Property, and Resource Owners.

Our business address is 293 Lower Grass Valley Road in Nevada City.

About a year ago, the City Council in Nevada City unanimously passed a general plan amendment and ordinance approving a transfer of density rights or development rights.

It transferred that density from the American Hill Road subdivision where the neighbors didn't want apartments to a 13-acre parcel on West Broad Street, giving the owner, Erickson Realty, a mandate to build affordable housing.

I understand there are over 3,000 jobs in Nevada City and only 1,100 homes.

Therefore, many of the people who work in Nevada City can't find affordable housing.

However, now that this 80-unit project is before you, there is opposition from NIMBY neighbors and no-growth elitists.

The first ploy was to get you to pass a 90-day moratorium on variances, which was targeted at this project.

It passed with a 3-2 vote, but that bullet was dodged when the City Attorney -- I may not have my facts straight on this, but I understand that the next day he realized that a 4-1 vote was required.

I want to thank Councilman Tom Balch and Steve Cottrell for not supporting that moratorium.

One issue with the transfer of development rights is that this is one of the tenets of smart growth, and the Nevada County NH2020 is promoting smart growth.

And if this fails here, if you basically stick it to these people by not allowing them to do this project, you have reneged on a promise that you made a year ago, and it's going to cause repercussions throughout the county, particularly within NH2020.

Now, the woman that spoke just before me commented that the only people that would benefit from this project were people who were going to make a profit from it.

First of all, there's nothing so nasty about profit, but there are a whole lot of other people, at least 80 families, who will benefit from this project.

I just came home Sunday evening from being in Southern California visiting my daughter, who had our fifth grandchild.

Fun experience.

But I started thinking about my son and his wife and my daughter and her husband, and what their lives are like.

They are all young professionals.

My daughter has her teaching credential as a home economics teacher at the high school level.

My son is an electrician.

His wife is a hair stylist.

My son-in-law is a golf professional.

They all have responsible jobs.

They need housing.

They would qualify.

In spite of the fact that they have such good jobs, they would qualify for this housing.

And they would love to have it if they lived in this area.

You have the privilege of providing homes for 80 young families that will desperately want them and need them, and would probably be very good citizens for Nevada City.

You need to remember that you represent not just the people who are already here, but plenty of others who work here and would like to live here as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret.

Person at the microphone.

Is there a reason why you don't want to provide that?
Not really.

I live in Paradale.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Please, we don't need any of this kind of attitude.

Let's keep this on a nice, professional level.

Carla?
My name is Carla Arons.

I own property at 513 Nimrod Street, which I've owned since 1982, and I'm a realtor with Good & Company at 424 Broad Street.

Others have stated eloquently the problems with this project.

So I'm not going to reiterate all that, although obviously from where I work, it's obvious that my life would be very impacted by this project.

But I want to speak on another subject.

Many of you might know that I served on the Nevada City Planning Commission with Lon Cooper for over five years.

And that Planning Commission, under the tutelage of Lon Cooper, strived to uphold Nevada City ordinances and listen carefully to the public.

Now, granted, we were taken to task and fired for being advocates of enforcing ordinances.

That being said, I want to tell you that I am appalled at the whimsical departure from enforcing ordinances of your Planning Commission.

The whimsical approval of variances is not in the best interest of Nevada City.

And this is the time, gentlemen, that you can take it back, and you can take a stand, and you can say that we have a good general plan, and we have a good town, and we have good ordinances, and that you're going to enforce them and deny this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kallo.

Hi, my name is Tracy Kalloway.

I live at 236 American Hill.

And I would like to speak to, what's your name, Carol?
Actually, you need to address the council.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I would like to just say that affordable housing is extremely important, and I could probably benefit from it, but not at the risk of the community that I live in.

The traffic on East Broad is just not, it's already amazing, and it will just climb higher with 80 units going in, if it goes in down there.

And the sewage and the water issues are just valuable.

The tree issues that John brought up are all very important.

And I wouldn't want to live in a unit that is destroying the community that I live in.

And so I just don't think it's a very valuable, and I hope that you turn it down.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tracy.

We might as well get all the out-of-towners out of the way.

My name is Jennifer Ellen Goss.

I live at 15934 Airport Road near the old airport where the BMX track is.

I've not become involved before now because I assume that the Planning Commission would continue in its inimitable way to deny this project because of its scale.

Because of the compressed timeframe, I've not prepared any factual comments.

Happily, those who we pay to know, research and explain these things are good at what they do, and I trust their professional judgment.

Instead, I'll hit the high points of my non-infrastructure concerns.

How I came here is relevant, and a story for another time.

[ Inaudible ] Why I stay is more pertinent.

[ Inaudible ] I stay to preserve the notion of my children's heritage while looking forward and outward for their benefit.

This is making it very much longer, and I apologize.

When my husband and I came here, we tried to take over.

My in-laws part in a group trying to improve Airport Road for fire safety.

We were unsuccessful in our endeavor in part because the city refused to permit us to cut 113 trees of varying diameter, height and species.

Airport Road crosses four-tenths of a mile of city property.

We currently and in the future apparently have no fire service in a wildland fire.

The road does not meet minimum fire safe standards.

The city has inhibited us from having a fire safe road because of 113 trees ostensibly.

I'm insulted that now it's all right to cut and permanently destroy the habitat for the opportunity for renewal for well over 300 trees.

Another of my favorite head shakers is that the city council first tried to block and has delayed the installation of a stop blight at the intersection of Highway 49 and East Broad and North Bloomfield.

But I have to say that by this time, I was not surprised by this narcissistic action, nor did it surprise me when regular citizens also opposed its installation.

So when I heard that the traffic study suggested remedying the new traffic congestion generated by the development with a light at Broad and Pine, I snickered.

As an employer and mother, I liked the idea of more affordable housing and I absolutely support it.

Even on that site, I'd love for more families to live here.

I'd get a warm glow if any project brought people here whose first language is not English and/or who are not lily white.

I would be ecstatic if even my friends could move here with their families.

I want my kids to have neighbors for classmates, not kids from other areas who are able to come to school here because we have room.

We must make it possible for regular families to live here.

However, this is not where I'd want to live, nor would I want my friends or family to live in this development.

I would know that I am marginalized literally and figuratively.

My connection to the town would be tenuous rather than integrated as the rest of the city is.

I would not live in a neighborhood my kids would live in those apartments by the jail.

I would not be connected by town directly by sidewalks and my children would have to walk an arduously circuitous route to school in order to be safe.

I would know by geography and by attitude that I am fundamentally unwelcome.

None of us is entitled to live here in Nevada City.

I'm not entitled to live in Ross or Atherton.

They could use this project.

I've lived and worked where I could afford to live, including in a $475 a month house in a drive-by shooting neighborhood in Woodland.

Really, on the other side of the tracks.

That's what I could afford.

That's the way the world works on the whole.

It would have been nice to live in a newer house in a safe neighborhood.

A pool would have been superfluous compared to these things.

Personally, my bottom line would benefit greatly from this development.

I hold stock in a construction and rock products company which would supply materials at a minimum.

Yet I'm incredulous and distressed that this project was not rejected out of hand.

This is a ham-fisted, inelegant, disproportionate development.

Let's not permit this good idea to be poorly executed.

Thank you.

Just for the record, the traffic signal on Highway 49 and North Bloomfield is the delay is strictly due to Caltrans.

At this point, that's right.

Nothing to do with the city and has not for a considerable amount of time.

Recently, yes.

I'd just like to clear that.

Thanks.

Anyone else wish to address the council on this issue?
Gail Damsky, 310 Nile Street.

I took some time out of my life today and I walked this parcel of property, which by any bystander, if you drive by it, you don't really know what's there.

And my own personal opinion as a horticulturist was the fact that it was very sterile.

It is very sterile.

I brought some party favors for you.

This is what is left from the mining.

I will pass it around.

Usually one who wants to plant in this type of soil would turn their back on it.

This fourth bag is a combination of DG and native clay.

Please open them up and smell.

Go ahead, Richard.

It's okay.

This is a tactile exercise.

It is also one for the senses to be delighted with.

My fifth bag is local topsoil.

If you do open it up, you will actually get an essence of life in it.

The last one is soil in compost stage, which is very much alive, and you will definitely smell it.

If you do not open the bags, you will also deter your interest in this whole project, which shows me that you have no interest at all as to what's out there.

Now, we heard last night from our representative on this project that this was a good thing.

This is not a good thing.

This has the citizens of this city or perhaps this county against our local politicians.

This is not a good thing.

Martha would not like this.

I do not like this.

By three hours that I spent out there, the first thing that happened to me today is I flushed out a dough.

There's life.

Somebody has said, "Oh, well, these animals, these birds will just have to migrate someplace else.

"
If you know your birds, you can sit there.

You can listen to their call.

I have loaned the bird calls since I was a young girl.

There's the Rufus-sided towie.

There's the red-headed nuthatch.

There are numerous sparrows, the white crown, the yellow crown, the golden crown, the fox sparrow.

The Rufus-sided towie is constantly there.

This is an area that is incredibly delicate.

The soil is so, so sterile that I have no idea how anyone would even attempt to landscape.

And the drainage is going to become a major problem.

I think this definitely needs to be looked into.

This is a very -- it's a special spot.

You wouldn't know it, but if you took the time, I think everyone should actually spend three hours out there and just walk it.

As far as the sewer goes, this is a major concern.

I know in the last two weeks of a spot where it does drain into Deer Creek.

So before we put our money of the city into this project, we need to complete what has not been completed within our own back roads.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gail.

Bill?
David?
No.

The one that's -- that one.

Is that -- Bill, is that decomposed granite?
Is that what that is?
Butter.

Butter?
Clay.

Okay.

As an interjection, my name is Jenny Goss again.

It's decomposed something.

It is.

It's a mixture of D.

G.

and clay.

Decomposed granite and clay.

Thank you.

Which is pretty common in those.

Which, as I recall from our field trip up there about six, seven years ago, is the point at which they stopped hydraulically.

Exactly.

That would be the host rock for the gravels.

Once again, my name is Jenny Goss and I apologize.

I profoundly apologize.

I was completely inaccurate on the tree count.

My husband reminds me that it was 13 trees that the City Council refused to let us remove, seven of which were over eight inches in diameter at chest height.

Thanks.

Thank you for the clarification.

Your husband had a better memory than any of us.

Don't be shy.

Step right up.

My name is Martha Meredith and I live at Tooten Drummond.

I've lived here for 26 years and own a business in town for 13.

As you guys all probably know, I've followed local politics and historical preservation all the time I've been here.

I've saved a lot of articles along the way that have meant something to me.

I was looking through my file the other day and I found something from 1993.

It was in the union and I'd like to read it to you.

"25 years ago we were in desperate economic straits with our economy," said Bob Payne, a historian and City Councilman, "when the historical district law was adopted.

We had nothing to sell but found that yesterday was a marketable commodity.

We were figuring out what the town had to offer," said Joe Day, another 1968 Councilman.

"Most of the other towns had modernized but we were too late for that, so we went the other way.

"
The foresight was remarkable, today's city officials say.

"I think we owe a debt of gratitude to those 10 people on the City Council and the Planning Commission," City Councilman Steve Cottrell said.

Steve, this is your opportunity to repay that debt of gratitude that Bob Payne and Lon Cooper and the others that we respect so much did, created for us.

Your vote to deny this project will continue their legacy.

I urge the rest of the Council to vote along with Steve to say no to this development.

Let's pull together with a new vision to provide affordable housing that is suitable to our town.

Thank you, Martha.

Good evening, Mr.
Mayor and members of the Council.

My name is Gustav Vai.

My address is 270 Boulder Street.

I used to be a practicing attorney at one time until I decided to do something that made me a lot happier.

Given all the legal issues that have come up, I just thought I'd mention that because I wanted to address four issues that were raised at yesterday's meeting.

One of them is the request for a de novo hearing by the Council for Affordable Housing.

In other words, he wants the opportunity to bring new issues before this Council that are not part of the appeal and possibly weren't even addressed by the Planning Commission.

He wants to throw open the entire matter to a new review.

I urge the Council to deny affordable housing that opportunity because conducting a de novo hearing violates principles of appellate procedure.

Generally, those rules do not allow a de novo hearing at the appellate level unless specifically authorized by law.

This legislative body is acting tonight in a quasi-judicial capacity, and as the representatives for affordable housing are aware, there are policies preventing a de novo hearing by appellate bodies that apply to this forum as well as to the Supreme Court.

One of those policies involve fairness.

If you will allow one side to bring up matters that are not before the Council, the opposing side may not have had a chance to prepare.

Last night, many citizens obviously prepared long and hard on very complicated matters in that work, and those presentations should not be undermined merely by violating procedure once more and letting affordable housing open the entire matter to new issues.

Another policy involves conservation of judicial resources, opening the entire matter once again and letting AHDC make a new case means that this body will be taking the place of the Planning Commission rather than acting as an appellate forum.

These are the main reasons why the appeal application form that has to be filled out to get to this point requires specificity.

There are other policies involved, but primarily because of fairness, AHDC should be confined to the matters currently before the Council and not be allowed to open this hearing in a de novo fashion.

He's going to speak tomorrow.

There's another night, and this is, I think, important to mention this.

Also, another issue was the history of law procedure and history of violations by the Planning Commission in this matter and the city generally.

Last night, we heard from several people about violations concerning CEQA and the Brown Act.

Specifically, the chairperson at the Planning Commission meeting, Ruth Poulter, violated Lee Pemberton's Brown Act and First Amendment rights by attempting to silence his criticism of the city planners' actions in this matter.

She threatened to have him removed from the room, I understand, unless he stopped his comments.

That was a clear and egregious violation of the Brown Act.

On January 22nd at the ARC meeting, Ruth Poulter once again violated the Brown Act, contrary to the city attorney's opinion, merely by appearing as a member of the public at the meeting.

And I'm sure I can find legal authority to show that the Brown Act was violated when she took Harry Stewart's place on the ARC.

There were statements made regarding CEQA violations on this project, and there's a history of other CEQA violations on other projects and violations of other laws by the city and city employees.

Some accusations regarding the Brown Act go back to 1991.

It seems to me that somebody's asleep at the wheel here.

Given the violations and procedure mentioned by a panelist last night, I urge the council to take a stab at cleansing the city of this taint by denying the AHDC and their project.

Last night, Mr.
Spann also talked about how much money his company would contribute to the city if he allowed this project to go forward.

Is your decision for sale?
Clearly, only this panel can answer that question tonight.

The third issue is regarding the timetable.

There was talk last night, and tonight also, of starting this process all over again, may be doing it right without any legal violations.

I thought that AHDC had a strict time limit and couldn't go past this June without losing its federal tax breaks.

Has that changed, or was that a sincere claim to begin with?
And the fourth and last issue was the historical site.

Last night, Mr.
Spann mentioned that there is no historical value at this site, and it's just a "torn away hillside.

"
Well, there are many places back east where civil war battles took place that are just plain open fields with nothing on them except a plaque commemorating the event.

Maybe instead of this building complex, this council should have a plaque placed at this site commemorating hydraulic mining and man's ability to destroy his environment by development.

[Applause] Okay.

Anyone else?
I want to know if I can respond to something that was said about the.

.

.

Well, you said we want to be here at 10.

30, so if everybody is interested in the report, we should be able to address what's been addressed.

Mr.
Hardy?
Mr.
Mayor, members of the council, my name is John Hardy.

I live at 219 Drummond Street up on American Hill, just a couple doors off of American Hill Road.

I'm in favor of affordable housing.

I'm in favor of affordable housing on the site mentioned.

The problem with this particular project is evident from sitting here for two nights.

First of all, I appreciate, based on experience, that these projects require last-minute changes and additions, but this one I feel they're making it up as they go along.

I share council's concern that this would not make it past judicial review.

Secondly, and more importantly, more obviously, this is just too big.

This is like trying to push a grand piano through a transom.

This is, I'm told, a unit which would not require a variance or a retaining wall if it were 24 units, and 24 units is about what would be appropriate for the site and for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.
Hardy.

Just a question.

We keep getting back to this size and number of units.

I wonder if, I'll go to our council and perhaps their council may want to comment.

It's my understanding that under this grant program, the minimum number of units is 80, and that our charge is, well, like the Ask Learning Council, I've been told that the minimum number of units under this grant program is 80 units, which is why there's 80 here.

There's 81 in Grass Valley Proposers, like 80 out in Penn Valley or something, and that under this particular federal program, that's the minimum number of units.

So the ability for the council to reduce the number of units doesn't seem to be a viable option.

It's either 80 or zero, and I just like some council on that information that I've been provided with.

I'll state what I know, and Rick can fill in for anything he wants to say, but it's my understanding from talking to Rick's partner that 80 is the maximum number, not the minimum number.

The minimum is four, as I understand it, and that the reason 80 is chosen is the larger the project, the larger the development fee that the developer gets.

And so 80 gets you the largest fee, and probably the economy of scale, I'm sure, is part of the reason for wanting the maximum.

But actually, as I'm told, as little as four would potentially qualify.

Just as a point of order, I think that we're here tonight to hear public hearing and these questions, although very valid, should be noted down, and I thought we were going to discuss these things tomorrow.

Yeah, but if people keep addressing it, if it's a legal question, we can dispose of it and not waste their time.

That was my point.

>> Spann?
>> Bill Spann, 26302, Table Metal Road, Auburn, California, in response to the issue that has been raised here.

The funding that we have appropriated to our project, which is the home program, was issued on the basis of fair and open competition with other projects throughout the state of California.

Part of that competition had to do with a scoring system that dealt with different elements of points.

One element was leveraging.

The amount of home funds requested compared to the amount of funding the project could service in a debt was part of a point calculation.

By that system alone, the larger the project, the greater the chances are that you're going to get leveraging points in that category.

Now, this project was awarded a score that was successful in that competition and therefore awarded the home funds based upon the score, based upon the leveraging, based upon the size.

This 80-unit project would be out of another 60-unit project somewhere else, or a 40-unit project in yet another community based on leveraging scores and points.

That's how it happened.

Now, for you or for the project to be reduced in scope and size means that we have lost our points because we no longer have an 80-unit project that was awarded funds on the basis of its score.

And that score was partially predicated on the basis of its size.

Now, I think what the city attorney is alluding to is that perhaps, and I don't know the full content of the discussion, but I believe that Mr.
Judd may have been referring to the tax credit program.

Now, the tax credit program has a rural set-aside, and within that rural set-aside, you can only do a project up to 80 units.

And if you exceed that, then they kick out of the rural set-aside and you have to compete in the general pool, far more difficult.

Generally, you try to keep the project 80 units or less to be in that rural set-aside if you're in a rural environment.

So clarification on these two issues.

Our issue is the home program.

If we lose the 80-unit complex in size, we lose the home funds.

Thank you very much.

Don't be bashful.

I was just going to ask a question.

I obviously haven't reviewed the scoring for this project, but do you lose that home funding if the units in this project are reduced?
Is it specific to what you submitted in your application?
So if you do 79 units, will the state not give you the money?
The scoring competition is over with.

I understand.

I'm asking about what ability, if any, you have to modify the project without losing the award.

We will lose the award if we do not build 80 units as the application was submitted and scored.

And I'd welcome anyone to call HCD and the home program and ask the question.

If you get a different answer, please let me know.

Is 80 units based -- Because if there's a solution here, I'd like to find it.

Is 80-unit application based on this site plan?
Was the 80-unit application based upon this site plan?
How did you come up with 80 units to fit on this property?
Yes, we created a site plan at that time.

That was back in late October, I believe it was.

So you gave that 80-unit site plan to the feds before coming to the city?
No, I believe that we made our initial pre-application submittal or pre-development submittal on October 23rd.

We didn't submit to the home program until November 15th, I believe it was, or November 17th.

You made a city application prior to that?
We made a pre-development application, I believe it's termed as?
With the city.

With the city.

And we paid a fee of $560 for a pre-development or pre-application review.

I'm not certain of the terminology, but I believe that's what it was.

That was when?
I believe it was October 23rd.

I believe it was November 2.

Okay.

All pre-application.

Folks, this is a public hearing portion of this meeting.

Tomorrow night is when we will discuss these type of issues.

So, thank you.

I appreciate the interest.

I urge everyone to write down their questions and have them for tomorrow evening.

Mr.
Mon.

I've been handed a note by the legal experts in the audience that says we should ask for another 15 minutes for the public to compensate for time lost here.

I wasn't going to -- that's not part of what I was initially going to talk about, but I spent a fair amount of time today on the home fund website.

Your name and address, please.

I'm sorry.

My name is John Vaughn.

I live at 121 Orchard Street, which is a small street in Nevada City that runs parallel to the West Broad Street Freeway.

In any case, I wasn't going to talk about the home fund, but I spent a fair amount of time on their website today.

And unless I'm completely misinterpreting how the process works, I believe you can get home funds for single-family homes, small apartment complexes, rental assistance, and a wide variety of projects if you choose to apply for it that way.

I'm not an expert in home funds by any means, but I would also add that if the developer applied wrong and happens to lose an award, that may not be our problem.

Okay.

What I actually intended to say was that this debate is really not about affordable housing.

Nobody here is against affordable housing.

That's just absurd.

Last night, Victor Prusak, a middle school teacher, here made an eloquent speech against this project.

It happens about a week ago.

I heard him make another eloquent speech in favor of affordable housing for teachers in this community.

He's clearly not against affordable housing.

Nobody here who's against this project is against affordable housing.

This debate is whether this project is right for Nevada City.

Over and over and over again, the answer appears to be no.

It just makes no sense.

No one here has said this is a good idea, with the exception of the developer.

The traffic issue has been brought up a number of times.

There's been suggestions that most of the traffic would impact Highway 49, and a byproduct implication that, therefore, it's not an issue for the people in Nevada City.

I think there's a number of questions the council should ask.

Consider asking the people who live on North Bloomfield Street whether they want 600 to 800 additional trips down Highway 49 to happen as a result of this project.

Ask the people who live on Bloomfield, excuse me, on Samantha Hill whether they want 600 to 800 additional trips per day.

Ask the people who work at the county if they want 600 to 800 additional trips per day.

Ask the people who turn left from West Broad or East Broad or Coyote Street if they want 600 to 800 additional trips per day.

And ask the people who are in the wreck on the corner of Highway 49 and 20 yesterday, about 530, whether they want an additional 600 to 800 trips per day.

I would also suggest that we should ask the people in Nevada City that you represent whether an additional 600 to 800 trips per day is reasonable for this community.

We should also ask the people in Nevada City whether or not we're willing to take the risk that our sewer system won't function at peak load.

We should ask the people of Nevada City whether or not the water system reduction in pressure is viable for our community.

And we should ask the people of Nevada City whether it's reasonable to give people hardship variances because they want them.

And I would ask the council to ask themselves, do we need to provide 20 to 40 times the affordable housing required in one step?
Would you even consider a single family home that's 20 to 40 times bigger than it needs to be for this community?
I don't think so.

Ask yourselves, would this project even be considered if affordable housing were not waved around as if it were motherhood and apple pie?
Ask yourselves if this is what you want your legacy to be for how the council runs Nevada City.

Ask yourself, do you want to be remembered for how you supported reasonable growth in affordable housing by creating a plan that works for this community?
Or ask yourself, do you want to be remembered for supporting this project?
This is wrong for Nevada City.

I ordered you to turn it down immediately.

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Lisa Q.

Sel and I live on American Hill Road.

I would first like to point out to Paul Mattson that I may never again be able to write my return address on an envelope without picturing in my head a hairy water pipe.

I really wanted tonight to be at the Don Baggett Theater sitting next to my husband Victor Prusak, the aforementioned Victor, watching his students from Nevada City School of the Arts dance and sing their performance night numbers.

Victor really wanted to be here, but he's invested in the children.

He's invested in their future.

He wouldn't miss their performances for the world.

I'm invested in the future of Nevada City.

I believe I know what's in the hearts of many of the people behind me and next to me.

That's because I've come to know many of them.

For this, I would like to thank AHDC.

Ever since they moseyed on into town so many months ago, the community spirit has come alive.

I should talk faster.

We've turned off our TVs and talked over fences in the grocery store.

We've had breakfast together on Saturday mornings.

"What do you think of this 80-unit apartment complex that some big company wants to build down on Broad Street?"
you hear people asking.

You also hear, "What can I do to help stop it?
What alternatives can we come up with for affordable housing?"
I want to thank AHDC for these new friendships.

I also want to thank Michael Conway and Peter Herzog, the two main principles of the company, for being so clumsy and mean in their lawsuit against the citizens of Fresno, California.

It helps make real clear who we're up against.

A June 16, 1997 Fresno Bee editorial reads as follows, "In March, hundreds of residents of Northwest Fresno crowded into City Council chambers to protest the construction of a low-income housing development in their neighborhood.

In an outrageous case of blatant bullying, 12 Northwest residents are now being sued for $27 million for speaking out against developer Peter Herzog's plan.

The agenda here could not be more plain.

This lawsuit has ramifications far beyond Herzog's Wellington Place disappointment.

When Mr.
Herzog goes to propose his next development, he will have demonstrated his willingness to crush private citizens who oppose him with litigation costs.

No lawsuit should attempt to intimidate American citizens to give up their right to free speech, the right to instruct their representatives, petition government freely for redress of grievances and assemble freely.

It may make for profitable real estate deals, but it makes for dreadful public policy.

"
Is that all there is to life?
I imagine Peter Herzog sitting at his desk in Clovis, California.

He gets a call from some realtor in Nevada City.

"There's an R2 zoned piece of land," she might say.

"So maybe he sends his guy William Spann out to the site.

Tell me how many trees we need to cut, how much dirt we need to move, how many miles of retaining walls we need to build," he might say.

"What's it going to take to put as many units as possible on this site?"
He'll want to know.

"No one really thinks of housing as units, right?
I mean, these are supposed to be homes.

People inside, music, the smell of soup.

Does Peter Herzog think of these 80 units as homes?"
I cite the January 2000 edition of The Grid, a real estate magazine.

AHDC in Fresno, California, which has built approximately 4,000 affordable housing units and more than 11,000 market rate units in its 17-year history, has closed 15 tax credit transactions with related capital over the past three years.

AHDC's CEO Peter Herzog found Charter Max dramatically streamlined underwriting procedures, a boon for his high-volume operation.

Herzog says, "It allows us to move a greater amount of product through the system with less effort.

"
"We don't think of the homes in Nevada City as product.

Our homes are where we live.

Our homes are our castles, really.

Everyone should be regardless of their income.

"
"Council members, don't let AHDC ravage our town and max out our infrastructure.

Keep our traffic flowing.

Keep the sewers moving.

Keep the tourists visiting.

Keep our precious town in Nevada City safe from millionaire developers who don't know anything about us.

"
Last night, Mr.
Spann stated that he has never had problems like these in "other jurisdictions.

"
Well, Mr.
Spann, the thing is, we're not like other jurisdictions.

We invest in our future carefully.

AHDC is not investing in our future.

They're destroying it.

Please deny the variances.

[Applause] My name is Roger Savage, and I live on Nevada Street in Nevada City.

I'm asking the council to deny this proposed project.

Denying the project could be based for many reasons, but at the top of my list is the variances that they've been asked to receive for the project.

And I don't see any reason why the city should grant those.

As it was stated last night, the variances are not normally allowed and should not be easy for an applicant to obtain.

And I feel that the permission to build on a 30% slope should not be approved, and permission to disturb the creek areas in any fashion should not be approved.

We've heard the testimony about the 170 trees that would be removed, but I haven't heard any figures on the additional trees that we all know will be lost during the construction of some of the roadways and also the retaining walls.

As I was mentioning, if you take a 20-foot-tall retaining wall, it's going to go out quite a ways in each side.

I haven't seen any studies that show the trees that are in those areas that would be the possibility that they could be lost.

As was explained tonight, I think very well to all of us that are existing supply systems, both water and sewer, are very fragile, very expensive to replace.

And we really don't know when this kind of additional pressure is put on that system, where it might fail or if it would fail, and these systems are awful expensive to replace unless I misunderstood Mr.
Falcone's image in the figure of off-site improvements to the water of around $750,000.

I really didn't hear any additional figures on the sewer other than was mentioned one or the other at the planning meetings of around $600,000.

And I believe that the developer had offered to put up to the city around $150,000 for off-site improvements and at least taxpayers of the town with a sizable amount of money to spend on those improvements.

I haven't seen a breakdown of financial studies of the city costs compared to city revenues from the project.

Now the projects that have been proposed in the past residential neighborhoods don't support themselves.

They just don't pay their own way.

An example tonight is the fire chief and the police chief talking about additional expenses.

Without some kind of a cost study, we don't have any idea where that money is going to come from.

This is the fourth meeting I've been to and about the only fact that I can really see that sticks out in my mind that is a fact is that the property is zoned R2 and it has some kind of an affordable housing tag attached to a certain part of it.

I've never seen anything that says how many affordable units has to be built on that site.

That I think is your decision.

I think when we talk about the Nevada City's obligations concerning affordable housing, I believe that our city attorney has stated that he felt that Nevada City is in compliance with the state.

Last night it was admitted that there have been mistakes made by both the applicant and the city and the planning meetings to say the least were long and I thought very confusing and there seems to be more unanswered questions than answers.

The applicant has stated that without the variances and the mitigation process, that 24 units would be the number of units that could be built on the site.

Perhaps that's a true number of units.

Perhaps it isn't.

We don't know.

So in closing, I'd just like to see if you have any doubts about building on the 30% slopes, disturbing the creeks.

If you have any doubts about the tree removal and the draining walls, I would ask you to vote no on the project.

If you have any doubts about serving the site with sewer and water, I would like you to vote no.

If you have just any doubts about this project, I'd like you to vote no.

And along with the legality things that came up last night, I think we definitely, you definitely should vote no.

And when you do vote no, which I hope you will, I would prefer you not to refer this back to the Planning Commission for just an additional study.

I would hope that you would direct them, if this is to go forward, to have them direct whoever's going to do this to file a full environmental impact report.

And again, I request you to vote no on the project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.
Savage.

My name is Lisa Sterner.

I live at 345 American Hill.

I would like to state first, like most other people have already said, I am not against affordable housing.

This is not a newbie issue for me.

It's an issue of a project that is simply too big for our community.

I've been to three meetings.

I have listened to city staff.

I've listened to hired consultants.

I've listened to the developer's consultants.

I've listened to hired attorneys.

And I honestly have not heard yet anyone say, yes, we can handle this project.

The infrastructure is able to handle this project.

I wrote down, I've heard that the water system will be compromised and will require immediate upgrading.

The sewage system will be compromised and will require immediate upgrading.

The fire chief has said that additional equipment, additional personnel would be needed.

Police chief has said the very same thing.

Parking is in short supply.

We've heard repeatedly that there would be 800 additional car trips a day on Broad Street.

I envision coming off 49, how long I sit in traffic, trying to get through how many cycles of a traffic light to get up to my house.

It's also been, the attorney mentioned that the mitigated negative declaration is no longer really applicable.

What was originally approved is no longer the plan that now exists.

And so the question came up, I believe Steve Cottrell asked, well, if we did an EIR, could we salvage the project?
Could it be saved, basically?
If the EIR revealed that there were not going to be any additional environmental repercussions because of this project, could we move forward?
My question to you is, isn't there already enough information, even if the EIR came back and said there will be no additional problems?
I personally already feel that my life, my quality of life would be compromised enough by this project as it stands.

So I would personally request that you reject the proposal, that you do not request an additional EIR, that you reject it as it stands currently.

Thank you.

Lisa, you get a chance, I don't know if you have a copy of Mr.
Judd's opinion, but you should get a copy of it and take a look at it because it is the uncertainty that is suggested in there.

It is not the known facts, it is the uncertainty of facts that he continually refers to.

I think it would be very helpful if you got a copy of that in red.

Mine is full of notes or I would give it to you.

Well, I would remark that regardless of his uncertainty, it seems to me tonight there has been quite a bit of certainty based on the city staff and the consultants.

It doesn't seem to be a question of uncertainty to me as an observer and a witness.

But you might want to read his opinion.

Okay, I will.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh-oh.

Sit down.

Sit down.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Dodge.

I live at 20 Heilman Court in Nevada City, a 19 PSI area.

I would like to join the hundreds, hundreds of Nevada City citizens and voters who are opposed to this project.

We are all here tonight.

There is a lot more out there too.

As many people have mentioned, there is no place in the world like Nevada City.

Nevada City is on the National Historic Register.

I don't think there are too many towns that are on the National Historic Register.

The City Council, the past City Councils and you have worked hard to achieve that status.

I believe the impacts from this project are so numerous, I think the historic status could be compromised.

So I urge you to deny this project and not just postpone it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.
Dodge.

Gary Johnson, 210 Drummond Street.

I've spoken a lot about this project already and I'm going to say one more brief thing just to the CabPro representative to clear something up.

When she referred to the zoning for the low income being for the 13 acres, I would like to point out that the density transfer went from the 20 unit subdivision American Hill site to a 2.

14 acre parcel and a 2.

69 acre parcel and does not include the balance of 8.

5 acres.

That's all on the project.

Next I'd like to talk about the people involved with the project.

And I'd like this to become part of the public record.

I'm going to read a couple of letters to the editor from the Grass Valley Union, the first one on May 31st, entitled "Walk Before You Talk About 80 Unit Project.

"
"Have you walked the site proposed for the 80 unit affordable housing project in Nevada City?
Let me tell you what I found that Gary Johnson failed to mention in his testimony.

It is an ugly site with trashed cars and other discarded junk.

Walking there is difficult since there are many man-made piles of dirt and other stuff to get around.

There is one big scarred hillside that is too steep to climb.

The site is next door to a burned dump, a highway, and a 150 foot hydraulic cliff.

Affordable housing would be a great improvement to this site.

Most of the complaining neighbors live high above this site, so high, in fact, that even if a building was built 55 feet from Mr.
Johnson's property line, he would be unable to see it because he's 150 feet above the site.

Let's not oppose affordable housing just to be honorary.

This is something that will benefit the entire community.

"
Signed, "Stan Meckler Grass Valley.

"
I went into Stan Meckler's business that morning, and I introduced myself with a handshake and told him that, in fact, my property was between 20 and 60 feet below the site.

That would be below the ground level.

The buildings would be higher, of course.

He agreed to come out and visit my property, which he did the next day.

Walked out there and said, "Boy, this is not what I was told.

"
And I said, "You were duped, weren't you?"
And he said, "Yes, I was.

"
And I said, "Who did that?"
And he told me the name of the local organization that asked him to front that letter.

I asked him what he was going to do.

He said, "I'm going to go quit that organization, and I'm going to write you a letter of apology.

"
That was on a Friday.

On Sunday, he called me back and he said, "You know, after talking to the organization, they didn't check that out.

"
He kind of backpedaled a little bit and said, "I'd prefer not to expose the organization in this.

I'm going to expose the author.

"
So he wrote another letter, and it reads as follows.

"Apologies for letter.

I'm writing to apologize to Gary Johnson and the readers of the union for my letter that was published last week.

As a favor to someone I trusted, I wrote a letter regarding the proposed site for the Affordable Housing Project in Nevada City.

The draft for that letter was prepared by the real estate agent for the developer and contained many false and/or misleading statements.

The person that gave me the draft had no idea that the statements in it were untrue.

After walking Mr.
Johnson's property with him, I was shown that my letter was a misrepresentation of the facts.

For this, I apologize.

The site in question may be a good site for the project, but the neighbor's concerns are valid and must be taken into consideration.

The project should be planned so that it does not interfere with the beauty of the surrounding area.

This is not an MB issue, not in my backyard.

It's an issue of common sense and courtesy.

Stan Meckler, Grass Valley, from the Grass Valley Union, June 7th.

"
As I spoke with him, it turned out that one of the things that this organization mentioned was that maybe we should have given you one of the other letters.

Which makes me think that the other half a dozen letters in support of this project from Grass Valley, Penn Valley, and Cedar Ridge may have been penned by the same author.

I'm not sure of that.

Who would have thought that this would happen in our town?
Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.
Johnson.

I'm Dina Math-Quintell, 250 Harris Avenue, Sacramento.

I work for Community Resource Project in Sacramento.

Community Resource Project is a non-profit community-based organization.

We are also the Managing General Partner of the Matson Meadows Limited Partnership.

As a community-based organization for the past 27 years, we have developed many relationships with other community-based organizations.

Some of those relationships involve organizations here in the Nevada City area.

Someone stated earlier that nobody wants this affordable housing, and we do have a couple of letters.

Granted, not a lot of support, so it shouldn't take much time.

I'm sure you are aware of the declining enrollment in our schools in Nevada City.

While some of this has to do with the alternative school options available in our area, the real problem is associated with the actual number of students entering our schools as opposed to five years ago.

This number has gone from 1995 in the area of 1,666 down to in May of 2000, 1,467.

As you can see from the numbers, we view our declining enrollment as a continuing pattern with no relief in sight.

One reason for the decline in the younger grade enrollment, K through third, is that the cost of living in Nevada City is higher, which makes it difficult for young families to find affordable housing.

Therefore, the younger families are locating in other areas.

Please consider making alternative affordable housing options available for young families in Nevada City.

We believe this would favorably impact the Nevada City School District and ensure the financial stability of our schools for the future of all children.

This was written by John Halverson, Superintendent of Schools, Nevada City School District.

Also, as Coordinator of the Community Network for Children and Families, this letter represents my support of the affordable housing project located at the corner of West Broad Street and Highway 49 in Nevada City, California.

I agree that the project will help to meet the needs of the community.

I currently work with the residents of five subsidized apartments in Grass Valley, so I understand the need for these types of accommodations.

Thank you for your time and hopefully your support of Matt's and Meadows, as it will greatly help the community.

Thank you.

My name is Gene Fox.

I reside at 115 Cottage Street, Nevada City.

And as a sideline, I don't think that the gentleman you referred to has been reading the statistics of this county is getting older like I am.

And it's not a lot of fun to be a father of 70.

I'm licensed as a General Engineering Contractor and General Building Contractor for the last 30 plus years.

And it was amazing to me that the planning commission and staff, some of the planning commission and staff, were able to reach a positive understanding of this project, particularly as it was applied to the preliminary grading plan dated April 15th.

It was a lousy grading plan.

It was incomplete and would probably get tossed out of any other place that I can think of that I've been around.

Okay.

Let's talk about uncorrected encroachment shown on the plans mentioned earlier.

Some of the buildings have been moved to clear the encroachment zone.

However, the site plan identifies remaining encroachment such as retention basin two and this overflow pipe, basin number four on the overflow pipe, the overflow pipe for basin number one.

The plan also fails to show invert elevations and discharge elevations of these various pipes.

In studying the plan elevations, differences are approximately from 10 to 35 feet, vertical drop.

This creates a problem.

We're now back in the dark ages when they were first doing their sluicing up there.

There are no decelerator pitch shown.

You don't dump even a small amount of water out of a two inch pipe 35 feet down over any distance and not make a big hole.

The outflow pipes from basins one and four flow directly into the wetlands.

Fertilizer, roadway contaminants, used oil really don't work in wetlands.

It generally wipes them right out.

Several questions have not been answered.

Significant grading excavation activities must occur to construct the walls.

The footings will be quite large on higher walls.

The faces of some of these retaining walls are shown on top of the encroachment limit lines.

If this is a correct assumption, whereas the stream side edge of the footing, it's in the stream bed.

What type of excavation equipment is to be used and how will they access their work and not be in any of the encroachment zones?
No bridges are built and they've got to go through two various zones to get to those sudden reaches.

What type of, how will the trees in the south half of the property be removed without encroachment?
How will they get their equipment to the work area without encroaching into the stream bed?
The revised site plan eliminated several significant retaining walls previously proposed, in addition to buildings two, three, four, seven, eight, nine and ten.

Without these retaining walls, construction must include significant stem walls to support the structures, more than just a jackwall.

Stem walls are significantly after the, alter the elevations of the building.

Revised elevation for each building to process the stem wall should be reviewed.

Stem walls may result in buildings that exceed the maximum 35 foot height limit contained in the zoning ordinance.

For example, a nearly 20 foot tall retaining wall was previously proposed adjacent to building nine.

Elimination of this wall will result in a stem wall of nearly the same height.

The zoning ordinance calculates building height using the average elevation, the highest and lowest point occupied by the building.

The water tank mitigation measure approved by the planning commission states, "Prior to project approval, the water tank shall be cited to minimize its visual impact from any Nevada City roadway.

"
This has not been done as a 28 foot tall water tank is located only 15 foot from a Nevada City roadway, Chief Kelly Drive.

And I think that there won't be any trees around Damascus.

Is there a sewage detention tank or is it located?
It's not shown on the plans that I could find.

I'll show you a map that is probably worthless now because I'm sure another one will be coming in.

And that has to do with the original retaining walls that have now been reduced substantially to save on grading costs.

My last and most important question is who's going to monitor this program for the city of Nevada City?
The county has had a miserable track record using their own inspectors to follow the ball, keep people out of the encroachment area, do what they're contracted to do and keep the project flowing.

We don't have anybody like them.

The county doesn't either.

So where is the money going to come from to find a full time qualified individual to do that?
I'm afraid that we taxpayers will probably get another ride on this one.

So I ask you to vote to deny the project.

Thank you, Mr.
Fox.

Hi, my name is Tom Taylor.

I live at 10160 Cedro Road, which is not in town, but I believe it's within the sphere of influence of the town.

However, I do own a couple of properties on Searles Avenue.

And I grew up here.

In the '50s and '60s, well before the freeway, when the old men and the dogs and the kids really were the principal pedestrians.

But it was a dying economy and things have considerably changed.

The question I haven't heard -- well, I think I need to say that I believe that the concept -- people are paying lip service to believing in affordable housing if they don't understand that it has to be done in a cluster manner, in some sort of a cluster development in order for it to be affordable for the future tenants.

I have a huge problem with the scale of this property.

And I would -- the two questions I haven't heard asked are -- and I hope it will be addressed tomorrow night -- is will it pencil out for this outfit or anybody else at something about half the size of this one?
And I think I'd be a lot more interested -- I think that would be worth entertaining.

I think the site is probably appropriate for this kind of a development.

And it's a -- this is a -- this is really an analog for what the whole county is facing.

And I think there's a lot of attention on this project for that very reason.

We have to address this issue or the county is going to become a completely elite community.

And finally, the question I think that hovers over all of this is how does the city benefit?
Thank you.

>> Thank you, Mr.
Jayla.

>> I'd like to ask the audience if anybody here knows if the superintendent of schools has been to the meeting?
>> Actually, you can ask council.

>> Okay.

Do you have any of you seen the superintendent of schools at last night's meeting or tonight's meeting?
Because what I'd like to do is encourage anybody and everybody here tonight to make phone calls tomorrow to invite that person to come to the meeting.

So he really understands what he signed.

So he knows what he was talking about.

Because on paper, yes, we want more kids for our school systems.

But I'm not sure he really understood what he was signing.

Because on paper, in certain respects, it looks like a good idea.

And I have a lot of things I could go into, but that's the one thing that I want to say.

I want to encourage everybody to call this person tomorrow and ask him to come tomorrow night.

Thank you.

>> Could you state your name and address for the record, please?
>> Harriet Totten, 524 East Broad Street, Nevada City.

>> Thank you.

>> So my name is Beth Ballantyne.

My father Kirk Ballantyne is in France right now, or he'd probably be standing here.

He owns a home up on Broad Street.

I don't have his address.

I've been very well-breathed, Candace.

Now I have her face, about this very compelling dilemma that faces your community.

And the question that goes over and over in my mind is what's the genesis of this whole project?
Was it the will of this community?
Was it the will of this council that says, are we meeting the needs of our community?
Do we have low-income folks here that don't have appropriate housing?
Was it that, or was it a developer who came in and said, hey, we're going to do it.

And if we will enforce it, we will take you to court, we will do whatever it takes to have a community.

And I used to have this project ram down the throats of this community.

And I really questioned that.

And I also would suggest that there are very creative ideas and alternatives to a high-density project.

You can use scattered sites.

I work in Sacramento and have dedicated my life to low-income for the last 15 years.

There's plenty of creative ideas in terms of meeting the needs of your community.

And do you, from my understanding, you're already meeting, you're very close to meeting the elements of your housing element here in Nevada City.

So I really question in terms of your need.

And also utilizing the intelligence and the passion of your community to perhaps create a task for it that said, what creative alternatives do we have besides meeting a timeline that's imposed and I believe is held in your community hostage, you know, this June 15th or whatever date, utilize the passion of your community to come up with better alternatives, using scattered sites that would benefit property owners here and other businesses that are in your community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Eric Anderson and 345 American Hill.

I live on the western edge of Nevada City and I will be personally impacted by this project.

Right now my water pressure is adequate, but this summer it will be quite a bit lower.

It's appalling to me that there's no explicit plan to fund or build new water delivery capacity to this area, given that they are beginning to build a new 20 home development, a new juvenile hall, and now they're proposing a 250 to 300 person development.

This project will affect the water pressure for fire, among other things.

And I think the city needs to address this before approving anything that will affect it.

But that's not the main reason I'm against this project.

The appeals you heard last night are backed by weighty and compelling evidence to reject this project.

Its scale is hugely disproportionate for Nevada City.

I'm for affordable housing, but this project should probably come back at about a fifth of its size.

It will have a large and still unconsidered impact on Nevada City services, water delivery, sewer conveyance, police, and fire.

It will increase traffic to such a degree as to negatively affect the long held and carefully maintained ambiance of Nevada City.

And I urge you, Council, to deny this project based on the overwhelming evidence against it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.
Anderson.

I thought there would be more people I would like to make up.

Hi, I'm Fran MacKaman from 224 Reward Street.

I also represent the Old Reward Mine Neighborhood Association.

The Old Reward Mine Neighborhood Association.

We are basically the forgotten stepchild of the school traffic problem.

Our street is not mentioned.

Nobody knows we're there except for the parents who drop off their children.

Which is part of why I'm up here.

But I'm also a little bit confused.

I've heard a lot of things tonight and last night.

And I just have a few questions that are confusing to me.

The first one is, I hear we're an elite community and we need to bring in people to occupy this low income housing.

And on the other hand, I hear, well, people that work here need low income housing.

And who is going to reside in this housing?
The people that live here and need it?
Or are we bringing in people to make us a non-elite community and have these people residing here?
Which is it?
I'm hearing all of this.

Is it part of both?
I don't know.

It's something I'd like cleared up.

The other thing is, why are we bringing in new problems before we solve the old one to get back to the neighborhood association?
We have lots of traffic problems in Nevada City.

Police chief brought them up earlier.

We're saying, okay, let's bring in some more potential traffic problems.

Why aren't we solving the old ones before we even think about bringing in new ones?
And the other question is, why is declining school enrollment always bad?
Are we going to be the first town in California that goes up and complains that, you know what, we have a really low student to teacher ratio.

Please send us some kids.

That's all I had to say, and hopefully my questions will be answered before we're done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to address the council on this issue?
Sorry, what most, Candace?
I think we got the total plot last night.

What's that over there?
Candace, are we trying to talk?
No, no, that's okay.

Victor, you.

.

.

I'm sorry, Candace.

I was just about to take this really personally, Carrie.

I'm sorry, it's nothing against you.

Did anyone ever divulge a treatment rule on anybody else?
We very rarely have this many people here.

And you know, it's like, you go to a buffet, you know, if you go to dinner, everybody should get served first before somebody has seconds.

So if you would please let everybody else have their say, thank you.

And it's nothing personal.

I don't want to take this to anything personal.

No, I know it isn't, Carrie.

I know it isn't.

I know that you don't take it personally when I go to Nevada City videos.

That's right.

But I do need you to take your seat, please.

You need to sit down, Candace.

Oh, why?
Because I'm asking you to.

There are additional speakers.

There are other people that wish to speak.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Once again, thank you for taking some time, council members and city staff, to listen to me speak.

Listen to all of us speak.

I wasn't totally surprised to see lights the long when I drove up at 10 o'clock.

State your name.

Oh, sorry.

Victor Prusak, 234 American Hill.

Sorry, Carrie.

Thanks for reminding me.

Yes, I wasn't totally surprised, but I was actually hoping the meeting would be over.

And I guess it was a lengthy staff report.

I don't really know what was talked about.

It came in about 15 minutes ago, so I just have a small sense of what's been discussed so far.

But I do have a sense of what people are talking about in Nevada City, because people are talking about it wherever you go.

The video store, Carrie.

The other video stores.

SPD.

Bonanza Market.

The post office.

When you're trying to park your car and trying to pull your car out, wherever you go, people are talking about this right now.

And it seems like a lot of people have come out today.

Just a few things I've heard dressed already at this meeting.

One of them has to do with the schools issue.

In case people don't know, I'm a school teacher.

I've been a school teacher for over 10 years.

I'm very actively involved in our school system in the county.

My initial teaching job was actually for the county.

Terry McInteer was my boss.

I taught at the 3R School.

And now I teach at a charter school.

And I live in Nevada City.

So I have a sense of declining enrollment, and it is a concern of mine.

It's not just Nevada City, by the way.

A woman from Sacramento.

It's the whole county.

It's a county problem right now.

We don't have employment tied to housing, but a lot of it is not.

A lot of it is actually tied to jobs.

We don't have the employment to attract working families.

Employment needs to come along with housing.

Two things do not act in a vacuum.

If we build affordable housing, but there are no jobs to support those people, we'll get essentially unemployed people looking for affordable housing.

So I really think that this school issue is really barking up the wrong tree.

That being said, I think we do have an issue with affordable housing.

That's for sure.

We need some good, quality, affordable housing.

Not 324 people crammed in on a few acres on the corner of a highway.

That's not quality, affordable housing.

That's not going to attract people and engender good growth for their children.

It's not a healthy atmosphere for them.

I say that as an educator.

It's something I know.

So what should we do?
Well, what we should do is we should end this.

Tomorrow you should vote them down, and then we should move on.

I hope that AHDC, when and if you do that, respects my First Amendment rights to speak and not sue me as they have other people who've spoken in public against their projects.

I hope they don't sue the city because they just don't like what we did.

I hope they don't say that we're mean, and that's why they're going to sue us.

Well, that's what they did before.

I don't know if you're aware of the deposition where the president of their company was quoted as saying, "They were mean.

"
So what should we do?
Well, we should move on, and I'll be the first to sign up.

I'll share a committee if you want to do an ad hoc committee.

I'll volunteer my time, should a lot of other people too, and we'll address this issue of affordable housing.

But we'll do it as a community.

And then, if we want AHDC, if we want to bring somebody else in, we'll look for them.

It's not, this is a town of 3,000 people.

We're not looking for a large developer to come in and tell us what to do.

We'll tell them what we need after we've given it careful thought and planning.

Thank you.

[applause] Good evening.

My name is Stuart Sheps.

I live at 450 Broad Street, and I've lived downtown in Nevada City for the past eight years.

I've lived in Nevada City, or in Nevada County, for about 11.

I'm not real politically involved, but the first thing I'd like to do is thank everybody at the front table, because I think you're all doing a fabulous job.

And I think what we're up against here is probably the most unique situation in all of California.

We've got a group of people running an antique train, a town that's got an infrastructure that's 100 to 150 years old, a town that has streets that were laid out for covered wagons, for 20 mule teams, that now have to support traffic.

A street we wish to put a giant project on that barely can hold the traffic of two cars going up and down it.

Somehow there's some confusion as to why this makes some sense.

I think that we all agree we're not against affordable housing.

What we're against is out of control growth.

This particular project, by virtue of the powers that we respect in this community, who know it the best, the engineer who keeps this city running, who keeps those drain pipes flowing, who makes these things work for us, not perfectly, but we don't mind that.

The water pressure drops down.

We don't call City Hall and demand to have more water for our sprinklers.

We contend with it because we love living here and we love the job you're doing.

And we hope that you can see the light of what you're up against.

You're not running a normal town with four-lane highways and streets and stoplights.

You're running an antique.

And if you try to run an antique like it's on a superhighway, it will implode.

It will self-destruct.

And that's what we're looking at.

Do we wish to come up with an inappropriate growth plan which will cause our little city to self-destruct?
I don't think so.

I remember the first councilman that I met on this committee, it was Pat Dyer, and it was 11 years ago about Christmas time.

And he was so proud of the job that he had done on the City Council.

He was more proud than the company he was building, which is a delightful company.

He was so pleased that the way the town had turned around in the past ten years prior to that, I had just moved here and I was so taken with the charm of it all and how pleasant it was and how well it worked.

And he admitted at that point in time, a lot had gone on to bring it to this point in time.

Well, in the past 11 years that I've lived here, I've watched an awful lot go on, and all of it's been good.

Not all of it's been perfect, but all of it's been good.

And the quality of our life is improved, and our town has gotten better, and our economy has gotten better.

And I don't think anybody up there, any of the councilmen, want to see that go in the other direction.

We want to keep going in that direction.

So I urge you all to look at the facts.

To me, I've come to three meetings, and I've heard all about all of the things that sort of confuse the majority of the citizens.

The Planning Commission listened to Mr.
Falcone about the water before they even listened about the water.

They said the water is a red flag, but regardless of that, they said we like the project, so we'll just approve it, which made no sense.

Now we're here, and since we've come here, we've heard how the developers' plans have changed constantly.

But I don't think there's anybody here who knows what plan is on the table.

It continues to change.

And so I think before we can consider any kind of development proposal, whether it be for 24 units or 80 units, whoever brings it to us must bring us a package which gives us something concrete to look at, not something that changes upon every meeting, that nobody fully understands what's really going on.

I certainly, after three meetings, am almost more confused than I am clarified about what they're doing.

I know one thing.

I know that the reason we have to have 80 units is so that they can score enough points, not so we can have a quality of life, not so that people can have affordable housing, but so that they can get enough points to get their loans.

That's not our job.

That's not our responsibility.

That's not our mission.

Our mission is to make this antique continue to run and not implode.

Thank you very much.

[Applause] Mayor, City Council, staff, attorneys, I'm Ronald Jones, 219 North Daugherty Street, Hanford, California.

I introduced myself last night as legal counsel for AHDC.

I wish to address a couple of misconceptions that I have heard here tonight.

The first is pretty simple.

It was referred to as a low-income housing project.

There's very low-income housing projects.

There's low-income housing.

There's affordable housing.

This is not low-income.

This is not Section 8.

This is affordable housing that is generally designed to assist people who are employed because these kinds of projects have very strict requirements imposed by federal and state government to make sure that they are complied with, to make sure that the right people at the right income levels have the ability to pay and will pay, but who can't afford to live in the community they want to live in because housing is expensive.

That was the first misconception.

The second misconception is that AHDC is trying to ram-rud timelines and dates down the City Council's throat.

The federal government a few years ago recognized on a national level the need for affordable housing.

And they created a tax scheme, so to speak, a method to generate interest from entities with money to invest into programs that will provide affordable housing through the ability to obtain tax credits.

Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Service Code was adopted.

If you have insomnia, read it at night.

You will go to sleep in seconds.

It's a very complex section of the Code, but the gist of it is if you comply with lots of different requirements, potentially tax credits are available so that money can be obtained at lower than market interest rates to pay for expensive construction that can be rented to people who need affordable housing at less than market rates.

To get tax credits, every state has to go through a process with the federal government.

The federal government grants tax credit blocks to the states, and the states have committees.

In California, it is the Tax Credit Allocation Committee that accepts applications from different developers for potential projects in order to award tax credits to these projects to serve the purpose of obtaining affordable housing for people.

As you are well aware, as a city council in just this small environment, you get a lot of paperwork.

I'm looking at what you have tonight, and I'm sure this happens on a weekly basis.

The Tax Credit Allocation Committees have created a method.

They've created an application process.

They have created deadlines.

They have done this in order to have a procedure that people can follow, that people can be in tune with so everybody knows what you have to do and when you have to do it.

But creating procedure, as we all know, creates bureaucracy, creates red tape, creates deadlines.

It is not our deadline or our deadlines that is in existence here.

We are functioning under the same procedural sphere that everybody else is that is trying to do these kinds of projects.

So these deadlines are imposed by the state, and there's only a couple of times a year when you have deadlines by which you have to get a tax credit application in, and you have to have certain elements satisfied, including project approval.

And how do these committees decide who's going to get the tax credit, or home funds, or other financing arrangements that exist through federal and state involvement?
You do need to summarize.

>> Last slide and finish here.

>> Yeah, but you need to summarize.

The methodology exists because it's imposed on you and us alike.

And the points is only a way for the committees, the home fund committee, the tax credit occupation committee, to decide who they're going to give credits to, who they're going to give grants to.

They have to have a system, and that's their system, and that's what we have to live with.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> My name is Glenda Zenow, and I live on Nevada Street in Nevada City.

I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I really feel that the last speaker and Mr.
Spann more appropriately should have addressed the council and the issues that they were discussing tomorrow night at the appropriate time.

This is the public hearing time, and I think it's the time when you hear from members of the public who have taken the time to be here this evening and sit through this lengthy process, and who have been here last night and will be here tomorrow night as well.

I think at this point all I'd like to say is I urge you to deny this project.

There has been so much uncertainty, as Steve quoted from the attorney's letter.

It's been a very poorly planned project.

It's been poorly carried out.

It's been poorly presented to you, and I think it just deserves to be denied.

To ask the question Steve asked earlier about the attorney's letter and the uncertainty, I would ask the reverse of that is you ask about approval of the project.

I'd ask about denial of the project and whether or not there would be any reason to go forward with an EIR.

I think this needs to be stopped and cut off and a clean decision made.

Thank you.

>> Thank you, Glenda.

Okay, it is past 1030.

>> Okay, but you can't deny me.

>> Watch me.

I'm sorry, Candace, but this meeting is recessed until 6.

30 tomorrow evening.

Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion.