Nevada City’s council meeting mixed ceremonial proclamations with a dense housing discussion. Certification timelines for the housing element, inclusionary zoning framing, transparency, and December 31 follow-up. CEQA debates and procedural tensions surfaced around several housing proposals, including a motel-to-condo case and assisted-living questions, with concerns about timing and public comment. The centerpiece is a co-housing proposal behind the library, using a Planned Development overlay for about 48 homes (including seven micro units), substantial open space, deed-restricted affordable housing, and a consensus-driven design; residents aim to live there, work with planners, and emphasize inclusivity and stewardship. The plan seeks a small-village feel with reduced density, extended setbacks, tree preservation, and ecological features (swale, retention pond), but it faces regulatory and environmental hurdles (steep-slope rules, scenic-corridor setbacks, soils cleanup at the burn dump) and affordability questions. Public testimony is mixed, with supporters citing local housing and character preservation, and opponents warning of affordability, environmental, and legal risks. The Planning Commission approved a compromise aligned with the general plan; the City Council is urged to thoroughly review variances and subdivision rules, underscoring the need for careful, deliberate consideration consistent with Nevada City’s historic character.

Full Transcript of the Video:

[ Background Conversations ] >> Yeah.

So at least we could do our October 27th.

Would you please join us in the Pledge to the Flag?
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, on the ground, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> Thank you.

[ Background Conversations ] >> Oh, okay.

[ Background Conversations ] >> We just have some housekeeping business here.

We have some proclamations this evening.

Start things off.

I'd like to proclaim the month of November as Nevada City Hospice Month.

And the City Council urges the citizens of Nevada City to educate themselves on the services rendered by hospice of the foothills and support the efforts of this fine organization.

Next item is a proclamation recognizing the South Yuba River Citizens League on their 20th birthday.

And so we proclaim yesterday, Sunday, October 26th, South Yuba River Citizens League Appreciation Day in Nevada City.

[ Applause ] And the last proclamation we have this evening is a proclamation recognizing Jim Anderson's first 20 years as City Attorney for Nevada City.

[ Applause ] Okay, this is fairly short.

We'll read it.

Whereas on the night of October 11th, 1983, a fuzzy cheeked young attorney, namely James Robert Anderson Esquire, attended his first City Council meeting and whereas on October 11th, 2003, Jim completed his first 20 years as City Attorney in Nevada City and whereas over these past 20 years, Nevada City has had its share and more of complicated legal issues and whereas Jim Anderson has at all times represented the city with professionalism and distinction in handling said complicated legal issues and whereas Jim Anderson has offered his advice to 18 City Council members, 27 Planning Commissioners, two City Managers, two City Planners, two City Clerks, three Police Chiefs, five City Treasures, 10 Department Heads and a host of private citizens during his tenure as Nevada City's Legal Counsel and whereas to date at least, Jim has kept Nevada City safe from any catastrophic claims or losses and whereas that fact alone warrants special note.

Now, therefore, I am pleased and honored to proclaim that James Robert Anderson is here with and commanded for his first 20 years of service to Nevada City and as Mayor of this fine community, I extend congratulations to Jim on behalf of a great City Council Planning Commission, City Staff and residents.

[applause] Was there a partridge in a pear tree along with all those?
And a great big thank you to Councilman Cottrell for his research.

Well, I was researching something else at the time.

[laughter] Serendipity.

Thank you, Jim.

Keep up the good work.

Okay, we have before us minutes of the October 14th meeting.

Any corrections, comments?
Move for adoption.

Second.

Okay, moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
Motion carries.

We have the bills from September 2003.

Move for adoption.

I'll second that.

Moved and seconded.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
Motion carries.

Committee, Councilmember reports.

Unlisted.

Department reports.

City engineer.

This is going to be deferred.

Okay.

City planner, response to HCD from Mayor's signature regarding housing element.

Well, you have a draft letter in your packet, Mayor, Councilmembers, and it's your direction.

It's getting a draft letter in my packet.

That must have been an oversight.

I did.

Well, hopefully if you concur, we'll put the Mayor's signature on the letter and send it to HCD.

It's a positive, upbeat letter because we want to work with these folks and get certification with our housing element.

And I'll follow up after the letter is sent and call staff and get together with them and see what we can do to get this thing on track by December 31st.

When would, as far as timeline goes, when would we expect a reply to our letter?
Up to now they've had 90-day and 60-day review periods.

I think right now we're just going to be working hand in hand and hand sort of until we get this done under the deadline.

Hopefully.

I thought your letter was upbeat.

And I'm not one to know whether that's what they want, working with the bureaucrats all the time, but where you are.

And so, but I think you're right.

It is a positive upbeat and should be fine.

Okay.

So, yeah, I'd concur with that.

Obviously I don't.

I haven't concurred with this whole idea.

Just a couple things I'd like to point out.

On page two, there's a statement that we added a very aggressive inclusionary zoning policy.

That might be an editorial statement.

Some might call it regressive rather than aggressive.

But that might be subject to interpretation.

On page three under response, the small block that could be added says, "For example, in the past two years, the city saw two existing B&Bs convert to housing units.

"
I'm not quite sure how that fits into a housing mix.

Those homes sold for over a million dollars.

I don't think that's what the state was looking for.

And then it says, "Plus processed an application to convert a multi-unit motel into a condominium.

"
So, yeah, Tom, it does.

Sounds good to the state.

We processed it.

It's also true that we denied it.

Well.

And then -- We have to get something back.

Well, I just don't think it's -- I think it's good spin, but I don't think it represents what we've actually been doing.

And then the third paragraph from the bottom, again, this was section 5.

55, says, "The conditional use permit process was successfully used to permit a 70-room assisted living facility.

"
That's a true statement, but the permit expired and they never built it.

Then the last sentence in the next paragraph, this is what it says, "Staff will review this information and make additional recommended changes to the housing element concerning.

"
I'm puzzled as to what it's concerning.

Okay.

Sounds like an incomplete sentence.

We'll let Paul answer there.

And finally, I think finally -- or almost finally, on page 4 under policy 4, program 10, talks about how the city continues to support use permits for Odyssey House and Levitt House, and then boasts how the Levitt House is the only residence program catering indigent and homeless in Nevada County, failing to indicate that the county established both of those facilities.

We really didn't do it.

It's nice that we have allowed them to stay, but we didn't initiate it.

Then on the page 5, the statement in the middle again -- I think there are just some tense errors and spelling errors there, but attending obviously was attended.

And this idea that one-on-one relationships between staff and applicants provide for ample opportunity to explore the use of density bonuses, and that is true.

I would like us to add a sentence that says staff will advise applicants of density bonus options.

So we don't just say that we have it available, but we say we are aggressively letting people know that it's available.

And that begins with the sentence that says the city has a planning staff committee attended by all department heads.

And that's the meetings that kept on your clipboard upstairs?
Yes.

The last meeting was June.

No, we met last Tuesday, as a matter of fact.

You don't have those minutes, does it?
We met on a regular schedule, now it's on an as-needed schedule.

As-needed schedule.

Okay, well, those are my comments, and I agree, Tom.

It's very favorable, but I just don't think it truly reflects what we're doing.

Well, I'm sure it'll come back, regardless, you know.

Well, they're hoping not this time.

What's that?
He's hoping not this time.

Well, you never know.

On the one comment you had, Steve, on page three regarding process and application to convert the multi-unit motel into condominiums, although that application was denied at this table, it went back to the planning commission, and it was approved as a conversion without the PD zoning.

Right, without the PD.

The reason the subject came up was because HCD questioned whether we should be including our SL and local business zoning districts as potential for multiple residents.

And it is a permitted use, and I was given examples of when we have looked at such applications for that purpose.

Right.

The same goes for the assisted living facility, the prestige.

They asked what kind of use permit process do you have for institutional type housing, and so I was able to use that as an example.

Complete statement would have been that regrettably the project was never built.

Yes, and that's fine.

I don't think that's important whether it got built.

We gave them the permit.

That's what they're asking.

They want to know what opportunity we're given, not whether.

.

.

Is the city putting up a constraint, and that was an economic constraint.

And finally, the Lovett House and the Odyssey House do operate on Nevada city use permits, and that's the point is that we do have these operating in here, and it's been working out.

We wouldn't have all these people here tonight.

What now?
Same property.

Honestly, that's up behind the library.

I know this was the assisted living.

The assisted living that was behind.

Tom, can you use your microphone so we can hear you?
Sure.

Originally, there was to be an assisted living right at the top of Broad Street, where in the same area where the co-housing is applying.

That was my understanding.

Well, I just said, if we had built that, if they had gone ahead with that, we wouldn't be here tonight.

All these people wouldn't be here tonight.

That is true.

Perhaps that needs to be reflected in the letter.

[laughter] I don't think so.

I move that we authorize the mayor to sign this letter, and with the grammatical corrections that Steve pointed out, that the letter is not going to be in the letter, and that sentence that just kind of ends incomplete, other than that, in its entirety, to be sent down to HCD.

Second.

Okay, motion second.

Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
No.

Motion carries, 4-1.

Thank you, Paul.

Okay, hearing from the public.

We have one item of correspondence.

It came from a group of citizens on Park Avenue.

They had some concerns about the city of New York, and they had some concerns about the city of New York.

We had some concerns about the city of New York, and they had some concerns about the city of New York, and they had some concerns about a residence on Park Avenue.

It's my understanding that the police department has been in contact and is working on that situation.

Good.

And a further update to that, we received a letter from the owner of the property saying that the renters had their lease terminated, so the renters that apparently were causing the alleged problems will be no longer in that neighborhood.

One other item to add, not related to the correspondence, but just to report that you may have read about a strike team from Nevada City going to Southern California to assist in the fires.

We actually sent two engine companies, two engines, a total of six firefighters, five of which were volunteers, one paid staff down for that terrible fire that's going on in Southern California.

Thank you.

Okay, old business discussion, historic preservation and review.

This is continued to the November 10th meeting.

I'd just like to comment on that, that I really didn't appreciate that item being continued.

It was on the agenda for the last meeting, and due to the late hour that we were finishing up, I agreed to continue to the next meeting, and I am very disappointed.

I am too, I came prepared to talk.

I didn't see continuance on here.

When was that decision made?
Last week before the-- Well, I knew that was when I saw it on the agenda.

Yeah, but it doesn't say continued.

Yeah, it does.

It says-- It says note this item will be continued-- Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Okay.

To the November 10th meeting.

Okay.

So what's the-- Okay.

I'd like to respect the crowd that is here and try to work with them.

I don't think the crowd that's here dictates what our agenda is going to be when you're talking about the proper procedure.

I also, just as an aside, I certainly agree and appreciate freedom of speech and expression and so forth.

I do not think that a council chamber such as this is a place to display slogans, badges and so forth, supporting or for or against any project or any item that we're discussing.

I think it's just in very poor taste.

Well, I would refer you to the preamble to our agendas, say all citizens will be afforded an opportunity to speak consistent with their constitutional rights.

I believe that is a form of speech, so I have no problem with it.

Okay, we're going to open the public hearings.

Could I just ask a procedural question?
Certainly.

I-- I wasn't real pleased with the agenda either kindly, but I've made my opinion knowing the staff and I'm not going to belabor the point.

The agenda was issued where the notice that the meeting will adjourn at 10 p.

m.

and that any items that have not been complete will be continued to the next meeting.

I think it's one thing to set the agenda.

It's another to tell me when the meeting is going to adjourn before it even starts and to tell me when the next meeting is going to be held.

I think that whatever we do before we begin this public hearing and all these appeals is we need to let these folks know, obviously, this is going to go beyond 10 o'clock.

I mean, you're daydreaming if you think it's going to be earlier in 10.

I think we have an obligation to tell these folks that when it says 10 o'clock, it means 10 o'clock, and additionally, tell them when they should come back so that we can complete the public hearing and not make them wait until 10 o'clock to find that out in case they have other commitments tonight.

So this says it would be completed-- item not completed will be continued to the next meeting.

I certainly hope for not thinking of waiting two weeks to complete the public hearing and our discussion, or Conley's item will be tabled one more time.

I'd like to see us make a commitment before we even get started these folks to tell them that when it gets to be 10 o'clock, we're going home and we'll see you tomorrow night at 7 and not wait two more weeks.

And I'm not sure how that accommodates other people's schedules, but I think that's a policy decision that should be made at the table and not made unilaterally as part of assigning an agenda.

So I don't know what anyone else's feelings are, what their schedules are, but my preference would be if we don't complete it by 10 o'clock, come back tomorrow at 7 and keep going.

Well, the reason that I decided-- I asked if that could be put on there, and I think I mentioned it at the end of the last meeting, was that this is an important topic.

This is a topic that needs everyone's full attention and concentration, and staff has done their 11 hours today, they have 11 hours tomorrow.

These people have worked their eight-hour days.

Everybody is, I think, here, but in order to keep it-- to make the best decisions possible, I'd like it to be done with as fresh a mind as possible.

And I think that after three hours of meeting, that may not be always possible.

Okay, can we make a determination then at 10 o'clock, we're going home and we'll be back at 7 o'clock tomorrow night?
I would not think that that would be feasible.

I would suggest that we just, as we always do normally, we proceed with the agenda.

We reach a certain point where we have a natural break, and we feel that perhaps it's time to cut it off.

Then we continue it to the next meeting.

I do not see trying to do it again the following night.

I mean, people have all kinds of schedules.

I could not be here tomorrow night in any way, shape, or form.

I don't think that we should go beyond our normal-- Well, we have these people to consider too.

They also work all day.

Well, then we should do the best we can to finish the job tonight.

Yeah.

Don't give an arbitrary 10 o'clock cutoff.

We have five appeals to hear, Connor.

Yeah.

Then we have a public hearing.

Thank God the fire chief has his eyes closed as to how many people are in this room.

[laughter] Just okay.

So what is our message to these folks?
At 10 o'clock, we're going home, and we'll see them in two weeks.

I don't agree with that.

I don't either.

Mr.
Mayor-- We need to resolve it before we start.

Mr.
Mayor, let's not haggle around here.

We're trying to solve a problem here.

I realize that, but let's just use some common sense here.

Let's go--you know, as 10 o'clock approaches, we'll see.

If we're just almost near the end, we'll finish, or we'll just take it up then.

When we can sit here for 30 minutes trying to figure out who can come when, let's just do that and see what happens.

When do we continue it, then?
Well, I think I agree with Tom.

The mayor thinks he's going to have it all taken care of.

We will decide when we get close to 10 how much we have left to do.

The sooner we start, the sooner we can finish.

Amen.

I would like to remind everyone that in the effort to keep things fast moving, that comments be as brief as possible.

And please, no applause.

You can clap your hands inside your head or something.

Jim, you want to start things off?
Yes.

My thought--it's up to you, obviously, in the council--but my thought would be to hear from all of the appellants and then open the public hearing after all the appellants have had their opportunity to speak, and then hear from the public.

And then you may want to grant some time for the appellants to wrap up.

Microphone, please.

And then you may want to give some rebuttal time or time for the various appellants to wrap it up before we take it back to the council for deliberation.

OK.

Thanks.

Do you suggest the presentation first?
Yes.

That's the first thing on the agenda would be a presentation of the project which made sense to staff as that would allow everybody to have a pretty good picture of what the project is before we try to understand what the appeals are about.

Now, just to keep everybody happy, is there any objections if we kind of set--I had thought maybe to set some time boundaries on these type of things.

Is that--anybody have a problem with that?
No.

All right.

We have to do.

You know what the guidelines are.

Well, I just thought that for the opening presentations, do you feel that 10 minutes would be an adequate time to give your-- I think that Ellen has about seven minutes and I have about 15.

We had to order you to get a project right downtown.

I think it's--I think it's 22 minutes would be perfect.

Well, let's call it 15 then.

And you'll just have to give us the Reader's Digest condensed version.

Okay.

And then--we'd like to keep the--well, okay.

And then now, Paul, how much time is he going to need?
Same.

Oh, it won't take 10, 20, 15 minutes.

Well, then that will make things speed along the way better.

Shall I begin?
Go for it.

Okay.

I'm going to be very brief because I think we want to hear from every-- Speak into the microphone.

We want to hear from the presenters.

There are--you got, I think, a very thorough package.

I hope you had time to take a look at the items that are in there.

My staff report was in three parts.

First part involved the City Council actions that you'll be asked to address tonight.

I also included a detailed chronology of the co-housing planning process.

We accepted this application in March and deemed it complete.

And we have been working with this application ever since then.

And if you had a chance to read the chronology, I think it would--it might throw some light on to issues that you are facing tonight.

And then finally, there's the findings for project approval at the very end, including a public good statement that the Planning Commission approved and sent forward to you.

Regarding the City Council actions, the Council's being--first of all, co-housing comes to you tonight, having received all the Planning Commission approvals that were necessary to allow it to proceed to you.

And there are three actions that the City Council has to do in order for co-housing approvals to be complete at this point.

The first would be to--the first would be to act on a recommendation by the Commission that the Council amend the zoning district map to allow for a PD plan development type of project on the property.

And then what that does is that accommodates the seven smaller single-family lots that are undersized.

We wouldn't otherwise have a provision to allow that.

And also for the certain encroachments into the steep slopes, about 900 square feet, and also a culvert in the stream, would have required variances, but with this PD overlay, that's not necessary.

The--it is a PD cluster development and does fit the definition of a plan development.

That's the only rezone that's involved here.

There's no rezone in terms of density or any--or land use.

There was a newspaper article this morning that talked about a rezone, and that's what they were referring to.

The second thing the Council's asked to do is a recommendation from the Planning Commission-- or is to act on this--the recommendation by the Planning Commission that the Council approve the tentative map.

And that is for this development project.

This development project consists of 34--a 34-unit condominium development, includes a 4,162 square foot common house.

There are seven single-family lots, and they're small.

They range in size from 6,000 to just under 8,000 square feet each.

They would not allow homes for larger than 2,000 square feet, and each of those homes would also have a seven--would have second units detached.

Finally, the Commission recommended that the Council approve a statement of public good so that more than 35 lots may be approved and built within one year.

And I'm sure you all remember the ordinance about a year ago that makes that requirement necessary.

I have been asked to provide a staff recommendation on what to do tonight.

I can't give a staff recommendation because we have a very independent thinking staff, and you'd have to ask individually each person what they think of this project.

But I would be happy to give you my opinion.

I was a member of the ARC.

I intended all the meetings and was a voting member at that point.

And in my opinion, the environmental review and the planning process was very thorough for this application.

And the mitigation measures adopted by the Planning Commission adequately addressed the issues raised during the public review period.

And in my opinion, this project does forward many of the goals of the general plan and would be an asset to this community.

Prior to taking action on those approvals that are requested by the applicant, you have the appeals before you.

The appeals of Steve Dodge requests that the council overturn the CEQA approval for the project in favor of the document that was originally issued by the ARC in June.

And the difference between that document and the document that was approved by the Planning Commission, some of the differences were that it did not allow it for any encroachment on steep slopes.

It eliminated certain homes and there were other changes concerning affordability, which would be perpetual, some scenic corridor issues, an undisturbed open space.

I'm sure Mr.
Dodge will present his reasons for wanting that document.

The appeal of Abigail Givens also indicates that the CEQA document was not adequate.

She actually, in her appeal from my reading, thinks that this project should have had an EIR level of analysis.

And so she's gone one step further.

Her argument that an EIR was necessary centers on the issues of site toxicity, affordability requirements, scenic corridor, and water pressure issues.

There is also an appeal by the applicant.

The applicant is appealing a mitigation measure which is requiring retaining walls.

Originally, the grading plan that was submitted had graded slopes and was reviewed by staff and submitted to the ARC as adequate and would work out.

But during the ARC process, retaining walls were added and they remained in the document when the issue came up at the planning commission level.

It was not on the agenda.

There was not an opportunity to discuss it other than there was some discussion, but there was certainly no action was allowed to be taken.

So they have brought that issue back to you and the applicant will describe their reasons for wanting to have the retaining walls removed.

And I think that sums up my summary so we can get on with the rest of the evening.

Thank you.

My name is Chuck DeWitt.

I'm the architect of the project.

I'm also planning to move there.

Chuck, why don't you move the microphone a little bit there.

I can't get close to it.

Yeah, Ellen Feets Hall is the first person to speak here.

So good evening City Council and city staff and friends and neighbors.

So I'll do the fast reader digest condensed version and not talk too fast here.

My name is Ellen Feets Hall and it's my pleasure to be a spokesperson for Nevada City co-housing this evening.

We're a diverse group of people from children to seniors, singles, couples, and we don't have any common affiliation at all except our desire to be co-housing neighbors in Nevada City.

And among us where there's a variety of occupations represented, teacher, nurse, other kinds of health care professionals, assorted computer whizzes, stay at home moms, engineer, house cleaner, did I say teacher, and a variety of folks.

And just so you get a picture of who we are, would the co-housing families please stand up.

So if you already stand in you can raise your hand back there.

And so this is who hopes to be in the Nevada City co-housing.

We've all shared a long time dream of living in a co-housing neighborhood and this came about either because sometime in the last ten years we read the book co-housing by our award winning architects Chuck Doret and Katie McCammet or else we lived near or visited or were involved in a co-housing community someplace else.

And so this dream started taking shape more than a year ago.

Now you can tell from who stood up that we're not the usual sort of developer for a residential project.

Usually such a developer would not be planning to live in the development and wouldn't know the future residents.

So we come with a different kind of interest.

We're the individual future homeowners we hope and we are going through this process collectively, not just one at a time, but collectively of planning for our homes in this project.

We're not in this for profit, it's not like an investment for us.

It's just that we want to have a house like we want to live in and we want to be able to afford to buy it when it gets built.

And so to help us shape our dreams we started working with this experienced professional team and its preliminary planning.

Last fall we invited a hundred of the closest neighbors around the site to a site plan preview to hear what their interests and concerns were ever since the beginning and throughout all this year we've been talking with city staff, with city residents, with the planning commission and out of this project, this whole process, we've developed the project that's before you that we think does a good job of optimizing solution to providing houses on what's been a challenging site.

So the project reflects our goals to be in a neighborhood that's safe, that's aesthetically pleasing, that is environmentally sensitive and that it's economical.

And so that we've worked for solutions, to find solutions that balance all these goals so that all the houses could remain economically priced.

And we know that these goals also match Nevada City goals because we've looked at the general plan and the housing element, we've also looked at the architecture and landscaping in various Nevada City neighborhoods and we believe that our project is consistent with the city values and goals and objectives, particularly related to new residential housing.

So for infill, for second units, for smaller houses, for deed restricted affordability, pedestrian orientation, preservation of open space, just to name a few of those.

And so over these months there's been these 20 families who have put heads and hearts together through very many meetings to come up with this proposal.

And our process of working is a consensus process.

So that means we seek to find the solution that's best for the whole project that also accommodates the priorities and needs of the group and of individuals.

And so through this whole process of many voices being heard within the group and then the input from the Planning Commission and the city staff, we've come up with a project that feels like it's cost effective, it's well integrated, and it works really well.

So part of that whole process was that not everybody got their preference on everything.

Certainly not each co-housing family got its preference, the co-houses, the planning commissioners, you know, not every preference was met on everything.

But the important thing was that we came out with a workable package, and not just workable, but that it works well.

It does balance a lot of considerations.

It's able to be this well integrated cost effective proposal before you.

And so, you know, our view, it serves the needs of the co-housing community, it serves the needs of the city.

We appreciate all you've read.

I know you must have a stack of paper that thick to wade through to see our documents.

And we very much appreciate you helping us move forward with this.

Chuck is going to give some overview and details of the project.

I want to mention that we have here tonight, I believe, Steve Becker from Department of Toxic Substance Control, and also Chris Risota from Holdridge and Cole.

They are available here tonight.

I don't know that they will be at another time to address issues you may have concerning anything regarding site safety and site cleanup.

So as the agenda unfolds, I want you to know of that resource that's here.

And I couldn't quite hear when Jim was speaking, kind of the order of things.

So we're giving this initial overview, and then there will be an opportunity for us to make closing remarks after the public has finished speaking, or how's that unfolding?
I'm looking at having all the appealance with closing remarks after the public has finished speaking.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So Chuck is going to give you a quick run through here.

Hi, as I said, my name is Chuck Durette, and I'm the architect, but I'm also looking forward to moving here.

I grew up, I was born just down the road, and moved down to here when I was about 22, and very much looking forward to moving back.

So as Ellen said, you know, co-housing is designed by the future residents, and with the idea of getting a home, many of these people will be their first home ever next.

It's been an incredible process working with the future residents.

That's a very, very fine grain turning over every rock.

No rock was unturned and considered, and I think a fine site design ensued.

Actually, each of the co-houses broke into two groups, which actually worked on two separate site plans, and quite coincidentally, it came up with the exact same site plan, and probably the reason was because of the slope of the terrain and the solar access on the site.

Next, please.

And as Ellen said, there's been a great deal of participation, and in fact, there's been very little neighborhood opposition, considerable or some neighborhood participation, and a great deal of community support for the project.

Next.

Basically, the challenge on this very terrained site was fitting 34-unit co-housing project into this basically southern-facing bowl in the middle of the site.

The seven single-family houses on the outside was done for several reasons.

One, to interface with the town in a consistent way with the rest of the town as opposed to having, for example, a parking lot, and others to help amortize the site.

As you know, it's zoned for 82 units.

We're only proposing a total of 48 units, some of them seven of the units as small as 506 square feet.

In fact, it's zoned to allow for 219,000 square feet, and we're only building out about 60,000 square feet.

Next.

As usual with co-housing, we're here to preserve over half the site as open space.

Next.

The internal part of the project is very community-oriented and very, very well maintained by the future residents, by the then residents.

Next.

As usual, this co-housing group instituted a great number of passive solar, passive cooling devices.

This happens to be a project that we did in Pleasant Hill with a cooling tower.

We don't have any cooling towers on this project, but we have, you know, very aggressive, low energy use, probably we use, can less than, well, easily use less than a half the energy per household as they do now.

Next.

Co-housing is always designed, and this is no exception to be extremely child-friendly.

It's a unique environment where kids can go from house to house very safely, and they really own the joint, actually.

I think they're plotting their next move right there.

Next.

But the parents, of course, as well, as community is a cornerstone to co-housing.

People feeling like they can walk from their car to their house, and there's always somebody that knows their name, basically, just like the song says, "You're always somewhere where someone knows your name.

"
And it's designed to be extremely pedestrian-oriented, not only on this site, but one of the goals for implementing this infill housing, which is a very clearly stated goal, even in your general plan, is to get more people who can access services, church, schools, et cetera, by foot or bus stops by foot.

And that's the goal here as well.

Next.

Co-housing is typically, as you saw when people stood up, very intergenerational.

As you know, what happens in the county, often people get out in the little house in the boondocks and don't have other people around them to spend time with and help them, and then it gets very expensive for the county and the city to service them.

Well, co-housing actually does a lot of that in an old-fashioned community way.

Next.

You know, we have 16 out of our 34 units that you can roll into.

By law, we don't have to do any as ownership housing, but because we have four flats, we had to make four of them roll in, but we chose to make 16 of them roll in.

And that's because, you know, from the beginning, with this group especially, there was a great deal of interest in that, and it was quite a challenge given the kind of grade we have.

But just as an education Christian here, for example, because he moved into a co-housing when he was about eight, because he's a quadriplegic, he's part of this 100-kid study nationwide, and when they discovered that before he moved into co-housing, he had about three hours of interaction with his peers per week, and after he moved into co-housing, he had about 23 hours of peer interaction a week.

It's just a kind of housing that is otherwise normally not very available in the market where an eight- or nine-year-old quadriplegic can go outside and play with mates.

Normally, it was a huge schlepping ordeal for the mother or the father.

Here, I'm always amazed when I visit Davis Co-housing that whether they're playing tag or football or whatever, it's just automatic that they always find a way to incorporate Christian.

Next.

Our houses are very inspired by local Victorian architecture.

Next.

Front porches, horizontal siding.

Next.

The common house is very much inspired by mother-load architecture, asymmetrical windows, asymmetrical forms, very much reminiscent of mining buildings.

Next.

But the common house is really a supplement to the private house.

People use it for, for example, hanging out on a Saturday morning when there's nobody else at home and they go up to the common house and get a coffee and hang out with the neighbors.

Next.

As Paul mentioned, this is a PD zone.

Basically, I couldn't imagine this site being developed as anything other than a PD.

And your zoning code or your general plan encourages more PD, and there's good reason.

Basically, it allows for very sensitive accommodation to the land, very sensitive, well, sensitivity to the land.

I mean, it's supposed to have a cookie cutter development with houses equidistant across the landscape here with a PD.

We're able to tuck it in.

And basically, this would be considered by most people, a very, most professionals, a very state-of-the-art PD, especially because all the parking in these houses here is in the back of their houses, so there's no garages on the front of the house and there's no conflict about that with the future owner.

And either it's a given that their garages are going to be on the back.

That goes a long ways to other ecological goals.

For example, only having about 600 square foot of asphalt per house compared to typical development, which has 2,000 to 3,000 square foot of asphalt per house.

Next.

Like I said, this is a natural setting for the houses, and by setting the houses in the southern slope, we're able to preserve most of the trees.

Thanks.

We've, through the ARC, we decided to leave part of the site, which is the old Madison hydraulic digs, completely untouched and no dwelling units of any kind in here at all.

You know, with the CEQA law, you know, a density reduction is usually considered to be the absolutely, the mitigation of last resort.

You know, you basically do everything else you can, and this is sensitively fit in the land, et cetera.

We started with density reduction as the first step, instead of 82 units, for example.

We're looking at 48 units, instead of 219,000 square feet.

We're looking at 60,000 square feet.

So the group really started off very sensitively.

In fact, I was very surprised how we didn't end up with the houses more spread out across the site.

And there was a serious intention from the beginning to just tuck it in, make it feel like a small village.

Next.

Let's see, I'm just going to hustle through here because some of this is stuff I've talked -- you know, even if we weren't near services like this, Kohouser's studies have shown drive 25% less in typical developments right next door.

And the reason is because a lot of their social life and the kids, you know, just schlepping your kids around to other kids just to have them have a playmate is not really necessary.

Next.

As many of you might have heard about this steep slope controversy, you know, four and a half acres of the site does have slope on it of 30% or more.

Miraculously, we're able to stay on about 958 square feet of that slope, all things considered.

It's actually road slough from where there was a road put through there.

Previously, that little piece of slope is just the downside of a road that was built.

I was out there yesterday and you could just grab it with your hand and dig a tunnel in it like a kid would.

In other words, it's not natural slope, made by the mining, it was simply slope made by the roads.

But in any case, just in comparison, the project that you were talking about with the housing element, the 60 unit senior housing, that was on, that you approved, that was on 30 times more 30% slope than we're on.

That was on 30,000 square feet of 30% slope and run, less than 1,000 square feet of 30% slope.

Next.

There's been some discussion about seeing the houses as you drive into town.

This is the site that you see as you drive into town now.

The houses that we're planning is more or less completely tucked behind them.

There's actually, with a computer, we put one in right there.

You can't really see it.

Go ahead.

This is the context.

This is further down the road and this is across the street.

Next.

And for the most part, this is what that 45 feet of city site looks like now.

I know there's been some discussion about the scenic corridor.

And I have to say that, you know, this is the first group that I've seen step forward and say, "Now let's really make it scenic.

"
If you have any questions about that, the landscape architect is here.

Unfortunately, behind the screen is the very thorough landscaping that we plan to do on the scenic corridor there.

And I think you'll be very, very happy with the improvements.

Next.

As you know, setbacks vary quite a bit in Nevada City.

Personally, I think the ones closer to the street, the front porch offers a smiling face, a happy interface to the street itself, and is a big benefit.

Next.

But because there's been so much push for us to push these houses back, we're now pushing them back 55 to 65 feet, and with the landscaping, you can barely see anything at all.

So I think with the new landscaping and the, you know, able to see the houses or not being able to see the houses, but I'm sure you won't be able to, it'll be fine.

Next.

I'll just say that the group plans to do the internal landscape, and it's typically fantastic.

Co-housing groups do a fantastic job.

Next.

And here's a couple of examples of a project just a few months old in Pleasant Hill.

Next.

We plan to seriously landscape the swale there in the site.

It's an important environmental thing that we chose to do because we have no intention of increasing the silt coming off the site after construction as there is before construction at all.

You know, there'll be basically, in fact, there may be less silt because we have a retention pond there.

In fact, under a real gully washer that hits Nevada City, we'll be able to retain some water on site, and you'll even have less load on your water than you have now.

Next.

So basically, I think you'll find that the project seriously addresses and respects Nevada City's values and planning goals.

Next.

And it helps me to zoning code housing goals, infill housing.

I mean, it's the definition of infill housing.

Your housing element speaks to, you know, being able to address elder houses, single-parent houses.

You're not likely to find a project that can do it better.

This is a unique niche, and it's very little development of middle class or even, you know, generally speaking, much less.

I think the newest house built in Nevada City of recent has been about 650,000.

These start at about 225.

I don't think you'll find another niche like this largely because it's citizen developed.

They have no incentive to make these houses more costly.

Next.

Um.

.

.

Go ahead.

Local families.

We have like eight school teachers, eight local school teachers in the group through nurses and, you know, a variety of good people who should be able to own a house.

Next.

We actually just got an award for another project just being finished in another small town of 5,000 people.

This is the best project in Sonoma County.

Sonoma County is also very discerning and a very discerning population, and they felt like this was the best.

This was given to us by the land use and transportation coalition, a group that I really do respect.

Okay, we're gonna whip through these other ones.

Um.

.

.

This group of people basically have to cut a check for 670,000 dollars to the city, Nevada City, for city services.

And about--it's actually gonna be about a minimum of other infrastructure improvements, sewer, water, and other things, not including the park on the street.

Next.

And we think you're gonna find it very much in the public good.

Did you go back to that last slide?
Yeah, sure.

I just wanted you to quite get the chance to-- Oh, um, basically about a 9 million dollar construction, new property tax revenues, and affordable housing.

These are goals in the city that we think we can, you know, really clearly demonstrate the public good of this project.

Next.

And I think that's--is that the last one?
Yeah.

Thank you guys very much.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Then, uh.

.

.

We now move into number two on the agenda, correct?
Okay.

The first appeal that was received was from the co-housing, and that was withdrawn.

Second appeal received.

Steve Dodge, appeal of denied--mitigated negative declaration.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is The Lone Ranger.

Also known as Steve Dodge, uh, 20 Heilman Court, Nevada City.

Before I get started on the appeals, I'd like to make a couple comments.

Today, in City Hall, an important document that was not included in the project file that I reviewed a couple days last week.

It happens to be a 23-page illegal brief with my name prominently displayed throughout.

And, uh, this was withheld from me for some reason.

I did not get a copy until I paid for it.

And, uh, I would consider that grounds for a continuance of this meeting.

However, I did make a commitment to follow this through, so I will go ahead with my appeals.

And also, um, I too am a little dissatisfied with the agenda tonight.

Um, I'd like to comment on the appeal process.

Um, the reason we have five different appeals tonight is that I don't believe the appeals were handled in a timely manner.

Uh, right on the appeal form, it says, "The filing of such an appeal within the above stated time limit shall stay the effective date of the action until the City Council has acted upon the appeal.

If stay means to postpone or delay proceedings.

"
So I believe that, um, these appeals should have been handled one step at a time and not all bunched up into one evening.

So that's a nice statement on that.

We can move on to appeal number one.

This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the ARC's original mitigated negative declaration.

And I believe this document, as written, has reasonable mitigations listed for the project.

Specifically, it says, "PD can only be met as planned development if the project will avoid encroachment into 30% slopes.

50 feet west of Broad Street buffer will be undisturbed.

Southern diggens will be open space.

Cultural resource protection area is identified and the required landscaping tree replanting plan is complete.

"
The issue I have is the first two, uh, 30% slopes and the 50-foot buffer.

Again, I believe, uh, these are reasonable mitigations.

And I urge the Council to uphold this appeal and approve the original document as written.

With the addition, uh, the issue came up, um, after this, uh, after the vote was taken about the toxic cleanup on the property.

And, uh, if you approve the original mitigated negative deck, uh, you should add that all toxic cleanup will be complete with state approval before, before project approval.

I think the key, the key term here is project approval, not before grading or anything like that.

So in, in, uh, that's all I have on appeal number one.

Do you want me to just go ahead with, uh, the second one?
The appeal number two.

This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's three-to-one vote approving a mitigated negative declaration essentially written by the applicant.

And I have some specific items on this appeal.

First item is 30%, 30% slope issue.

Now, in reading the general plan and municipal codes for plan development, I can only find two specific items that can be reduced or relaxed in a PD, and that is lot size and property line setbacks.

I cannot find any other specific items that says, uh, there's no mention of 30% slopes.

And the project states that, um, 1,858 square feet of steep slopes at, at 10 feet.

Uh, in reality, there's an additional 1,854 square feet of 9, 9 foot 30% slopes for a total of 2,812 square feet.

And I do not have any figures for any slopes such as 8, 7, 6, or 5 feet, but I assume there's probably a lot more steep slopes in, in that category.

And I think that those should be taken into account because the city has not adopted the county's 10-foot standard.

So I don't know what the city standard is at the moment, but, uh, it is not the 10-foot county standard.

And just as an aside, um, Sugar Loaf is, um, is zoned PD.

So they could build on those 30% slopes up there.

Item number two, front setback.

The entire property is zoned scenic corridor and should provide a buffer of at least 50 feet from the city right away.

Now, scenic corridor, uh, from the general plan says, quote, "The general purpose will be to screen all development except at the center of town so that the appearance from the highway will be as though one were in the forest.

"
That's from the scenic, that's from the general plan.

And also, um, an item from the municipal code, page 304, "The city may consider increasing setbacks to protect the scenic corridor.

"
Two excellent examples of that is, uh, Greenbrier Apartments over off Searles Avenue by the freeway.

Uh, the original plan had, uh, eight units that were visible, um, on the freeway, but the city required them to remove those eight units so they are not visible from the freeway.

I don't know exactly what the setback is, but, uh, it is now you drive up the freeway.

You don't even know Greenbrier is there.

And another good example is Providence Park.

Um, Providence Park was required to move 100 feet back from Zion Street.

You can still see it as you drive up, but still it's 100 feet back and, uh, a lot less visible than the original plan.

They had to reduce the size of their project also to meet that 100-foot setback.

So I see, uh, no reason whatsoever to compromise on this issue.

Item three, uh, Soils Report.

Maybe, uh, later the, uh, two experts we have here can, uh, comment on this.

I believe we have two, two issues here.

Uh, one is, uh, the toxic cleanup on the property itself, and another is, uh, the Nevada City burn dump.

The, uh, toxic cleanup, I believe, has not happened yet.

And I believe this should be complete with a letter from the state stating that it is complete and acceptable before project approval.

Again, the key term is before project approval.

As an example, uh, the Nevada City burn dump, estimate for soils removal was originally 1,000 cubic yards.

Uh, it turned out to be 4,000 cubic yards in reality, so four times more soils had to be removed.

So you really cannot be certain the magnitude of the project.

Uh, regarding the, the, uh, Nevada City burn dump, according to a state, uh, State Department of Toxic Substances Control letter dated March 26, 2001, the Nevada City burn dump does, does not have a final remedy yet.

And it says, I'll read from this letter, "The DTSC recommends that prior to additional development surrounding the Nevada City burn dump, the Land Use Permitting Agency worked with the responsible parties for the Nevada City burn dump to determine what the final remedy will be for the site.

You should then consider how development of land adjacent to the Nevada City burn dump could impact these remedial plans prior to implementing any change in land use.

Any development on land adjacent to the Nevada City burn dump should be conditioned on full disclosure to future buyers of the existence of Nevada City burn dump and how it may impact future land use.

"
Also, in the soils report, here's a quote from the law firm that the city hired to write comments on Durkreet Park 2 EIR regarding toxins.

This letter is dated August 29, 2003.

Analysis and mitigation must be described specifically prior to project approval.

Again, that's prior to project approval, not prior to grading.

So I would ask that those issues be looked into.

Item 4, this is a discussion on public good.

If I remember a few years ago, the city was going to change the awardee on that to measure public good or overwhelming public good.

I don't know if the city actually did that or not, but public good is just something subjective.

Some good items from the project, 12 affordable units, public access path, open space.

If the defined public means the people as a whole or open to all people.

Some other examples to consider might be a mix of affordable housing, low to medium, maybe have meeting rooms available to the public, the whole public of Nevada City, not just the local community, and maybe even access to open space for disabled.

To summarize, I urge the council to uphold this appeal and deny this inadequate, mitigated, negative declaration.

The city must be consistent in its interpretation of the ordinances.

If you deny one project for steep slopes, you must deny all similar projects.

The suggested mitigations in the approved document are watered down, I believe, and as such won't mitigate the impacts.

And that's appeal number two.

Appeal number three, this is an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the project as a result of their previous approval of the mitigated negative declaration, which was appeal number two.

Most of the points I discuss in appeal number two apply to this, so I won't repeat those.

They include plan development, site plan, scenic corridor, possible variances for steep slope.

One additional item that you need to consider regarding the conditional use permit for condominiums, I would urge the council to review the ordinance very carefully and ask for any variances that are required.

There will be variances required for condominium approval.

One example is 17.

104.

110.

What is that again, Steve?
117-.

.

.

or .

104.

110.

This may be a minor issue, however.

Laundry facilities are required individually for each unit, and this project has only one communal laundry facility.

As it stands now, it doesn't meet the condominium ordinance.

And last, that's all for appeal number three.

And lastly, just another comment.

I'm just a citizen who's looking out for Nevada City, and I've been for you many times.

I've spoke many times on different projects.

And I am basically intimidated by attorneys and special interest groups.

And if this is the type of meeting that is going to take place in the future, you might have a problem finding citizens to speak out individually.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Jim, are you recommending that we then hear from Abigail?
We've got to set up for co-housing to do their appeal, and then Abigail lasts.

At least that's the way the agenda reads.

Oh, right.

Okay, well then.

Spokesperson for the Nevada City co-housing.

In the course of our original proposal, we had more or less addressed the slopes adjacent to the houses where we were doing cuts, especially like in these houses right here.

In order to get those guys handicapped accessible, we had to cut some slopes right here in the grading.

And our original proposal had those as either cut banks or fill banks, up to, we had a variety of heights, probably up to eight or nine feet at the most.

And for the most part, you know, two or three feet, maybe average of four feet or so.

In the course of the, looking at the CEQA process, it was asked of us to replace those cut banks with retaining walls, and it added up to about 6,000 square feet of retaining walls.

We did some cost estimates, and we got one cost estimate of 200,000 and another cost estimate of about 268,000, so considerable amount of money.

And I don't think it was appreciated at that point, A, when we agreed to do that, we didn't appreciate the cost, and therefore about eight or nine thousand dollars a house, that the cost of each house would go up if we did that.

And needless to say, there was considerable amount of concern in the group around those costs.

But also, we didn't make it clear at that point how effective we felt like we could landscape those slopes, and we actually feel like we can effectively landscape those slopes very well, especially if we use a couple thousand rocks from the site itself, build up rock walls about one or two feet, or one to three feet, battered back a little bit, bringing top soil to the top of those and in the rocks, and therefore being able to landscape those slopes.

I know that you often see those cut banks and fill banks not particularly well landscaped.

Well, there's two differences here.

One is that we hope to, at the outset, basically format those slopes so that they can be landscaped very well, especially with rock walls that allow for top soil to be held in place, A.

And then, B, you really can't underestimate the amount of finger hours that go into landscaping in the context of co-housing.

It becomes a, you know, not an obsession exactly, but there's a lot of people who get involved with landscaping who have never been involved before because, "Hey, we're all meeting at the common house this Saturday morning at 9, and after we have coffee and bagels, you know, we're going to have some expert there about roses, and then we're going to have some expert there about native grasses.

"
And it's phenomenal how much cross-termination happens at that pedagogical level.

So I actually don't have any doubts that we can landscape that to your satisfaction.

We can definitely landscape those slopes a lot better than we can landscape seven or eight foot high retaining walls, which are hard to landscape.

So we're asking to basically remove that requirement.

We don't think we can save anywhere near that amount of money.

We basically feel like we can save, at this point, about $150,000 by doing so because adjustments were made in the site plan subsequent to that time where the houses were moved back, for example, and we can't really do cut slopes where we had cut slopes previously.

We still have to do retaining walls, especially around the parking areas.

So that's the essence of our appeal, which is -- and by the way, there's a considerable amount of corroboration around that from the chairperson of the Planning Commission, who actually suggested this as a possible thing that we can do.

I have quite a bit of quote here.

The site is going to be graded anyway.

I'm not sure that pulling a few laid-back slopes here and there is going to make much difference.

So this suggestion was actually originally made by the chairperson of the Planning Commission, and we basically would like to adopt it.

Again, as Paul said, it wasn't -- we didn't have time on the agenda of the Planning Commission, and it would be easy to do at this time if you guys would so -- or so inclined.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hey, Abigail?
[Applause] My name is Abigail Givens.

I live at 11650 Banner Mountain Trail, and I come before the City Council this evening to request the following.

Number one, I request that your decision tonight be continued to a later date.

My concern is that there are such a great number of items which are unclear and that raise such a risk for the city and for the co-housing participants, and I feel that they should be addressed before making a final decision.

I have given you a list there of the ones that come to me, and I'm not an expert at any of most of this project, but as a citizen, those are the ones I've seen so far.

Number two, the public comment period for the State of California's Department of Toxic Substances public comment period is not ended yet, and if I understand correctly, it would not be possible to make a decision until that public period had ended and probably not even until the State had responded to all questions that have been delivered to it.

Secondly, thirdly, I guess, I'd like to request that the videotape be made an official part of the record of the meeting this evening in as much as in the past audio has occasionally been missing as it was in a very serious case, very similar to this one concerning the Nevada City Hotel.

Next, I would very much like to appeal to the City Council to make the decision as what is best for the whole city, what is the best project that this project can be or any other project for the City of Nevada City.

And in my estimation, the best way for any group to do that is to go by its own rules carefully, line by line, and not to have to compromise or to variance its rules, leaving itself open to a less than optimal project for this one and for future ones.

I would like to make a brief statement about an issue that I think is fairly clear-cut and just simplify it in terms of my legal standing to address the issue and in the future to be a litigant if I so chose.

My standing is quite clear and I will list the items that come to my mind and it would be, of course, up to a judge to determine whether I had legal standing or not.

Right, but I'm not sure that this would be the-- Well, I understand that in your packet-- Stay with your appeal.

That's what we want to talk about tonight.

I speak to that in the rebuttal then since that's in your packet, the legal issues of whether I have standing.

Ms.

Givens, I'm not in any way challenging your standing at this point.

All right, fine.

Excellent.

Dispensed with adequately.

My first concern, and I'll only address three out of that large list and leave the rest to you all.

The first one has to do with the toxicity of the site and the city dump and I will try to be brief and general statements.

The details must be left up to the state and their assessment of the adequacy of the evaluation.

Number one, the toxic site determination for the extent, that is the width, how far it extends on that site and the depth to which it extends is not completely delineated yet.

So it is not clear what the cleanup project really does need to be, even though they have a proposed plan.

When that plan is carried out, you will not have a clear letter of adequacy by the state until the base has been cleared and one has no idea how deep the base goes.

If the base were to extend very drastically, it could change the whole topography of the site or at least a large enough part of the site that it would be difficult to follow a site plan or grading plan that has already been approved.

So I am unclear as to the wisdom of approving the plan before you really know what the extent of cleanup is going to be.

Secondly, one does not know the depth of the contamination and the underground water flow that has always been on that site in the depth of that canyon prior to the city filling the canyon.

And there was flow there and probably still is flow of some kind.

This is almost identical to the situation on the Nevada City Hotel site, that when the digging was begun, the pressure was relieved, the water springs, which have always been there, then re-errupted and began to change the whole character of the usefulness of the site.

And as you all know, all that has happened there is it had to be filled in and closed until an adequate cleanup plan could be developed.

And that has not been developed yet.

One does not know if it will ever be developed.

That may be too widespread.

Next, in the question of the notice of exemption of the CEQA, I am not really quite clear how an exemption from CEQA can have been filed since the city nor the project knows how far the extent of contamination extends.

So as the cleanup progresses, it may be very obvious that a negative declaration of non-impact on this project wouldn't be valid.

It would have a great impact on the development, on the project, participants on the city and all downstream, conceivably all downstream population to the ocean, because we are in a watershed, a very significant watershed in this area.

Next, and I call your attention to a letter from the Department of Environmental Health.

Toxic Substance Control dated March 26, 2001, to Mr.
Tracy Goodell, County of Nevada, Department of Environmental Health.

There are a number of statements here that are of concern, I think, to all of us that have to do with the permanency of the cleanup of the city dump, and that until that cleanup has been determined what it will be, how far it will extend, and what is required, since present operations on that site for closing it was only a temporary measure.

Those are not necessarily the permanent cleanup of the city dump.

So until a determination is made of what that plan is, I'm not clear how this project's contiguous land can be determined to be safe or clear or wouldn't be needed as a buffer zone to clean the city dump.

All these issues are addressed in this letter of March 26, and I read one single line.

DTSC, that is Department of Toxic Substance Control, recommends that prior to additional development surrounding the NCBD, that is Nevada City Burn Dump, the Land Use Permitting Agency work with the responsible party or parties for the Nevada City Burn Dump to determine what the final remedy will be for the site.

And as far as I can determine, that has not been done yet.

I will not go into any great details, but I do speak to you with the concern not only of a citizen, but as a physician who has cared for children for a fair number of years, and until you really are quite clear, not just legally but in your conscience as well, that this site does not jeopardize children who live there, who play there, who eat food, grown on ground there, and all children and unborn children downstream from this until you are really quite confident that you've answered these issues.

I wish to continue to raise this concern until you are quite satisfied.

The second comment is, major issue is, the housing and affordability to the best of my determination has not been clearly worked out on the project, nor has it completely worked out with the state, and I could see the city finding itself between a rock and a hard place, especially in view of the fact that this is our largest remaining parcel that can be used for affordable housing.

So I think until some of those things are clearly delineated and the project site plan approvals, etc.

, are very clearly stating how the affordable housing will be handled, I think that it's a premature approval.

And thirdly, I think there are a number of issues that still remain that were a problem for AHDC and the city with AHDC, and they have not been solved yet, to my understanding.

The sewer issue is still not adequate.

The water issue is not completely adequate yet.

The parking is less demanding than it had been for AHDC, and the medication for the parking, in terms of allowing fewer parking demands, are based on a social performance of a group of people that may be fine this year, but we have no guarantee that this group of people buying homes here will continue to need less than this amount of parking.

So what you, I think, might accomplish would be, again, getting yourself in between a rock and a hard place, in that you've allowed development of a parcel with too little parking, which then can't be sold on the open market by any real estate agent, because that's not the way co-housing is sold.

It's sold on a website, not by realtors.

It's all sold internally by co-housing members, and how will that synchronize with the state and federal laws for equal opportunity, real estate sales, and how will that coordinate with the city's parking problems, and other problems, such as fire access, sewage, water.

So forth.

So there are just so many unanswered issues in such a complex project that I would just appeal to you to continue it.

I also would, in case it hasn't been brought up yet, this is the largest co-housing project that I know of in a pending position or in a finalized position maybe in the country, but certainly in the state.

And the other state programs are co-housing projects, not program, I beg your pardon.

In Sacramento, they have 25 units on Southside Park.

In Berkeley, they have six units called the Sacramento Street Co-Housing.

In Davis, there are 26 units called the Muir Commons Flat.

In Emeryville, there are 12.

And the Benicia Project apparently is on hold, and I don't have the details on the reason yet, but it has not been approved.

Now each of the other projects that I mentioned are on flat ground, so they don't have the topographical issues that we do.

I think they don't have the city dump issues nor the toxicity issues.

I don't know that they would have the AHD past history and potential lawsuit issues.

And I unfortunately didn't have time to really review each of their approvals to determine whether they were risking the city making decisions such as variances that might not comply with their own city plan.

As mentioned by the previous appeal maker that had to do with subdivision and PD zoning issues.

So I just appeal to city council to take your time.

There is no reason to rush something like this other than the financial concerns and the social and emotional concerns of the project.

From the point of view of the city, you need to take all the time necessary to be clear that this is a good decision for us all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I assume we'd open the public hearing and hear from the public on all of the appeals and the project itself.

We're going to limit them to like three minutes.

OK.

We will open the public hearing portion of this.

And some ground rules, please.

If someone has already expressed your sentiment, then we don't-- for the sake of time, a lot of me toos does not move things along.

Also, we will be using the three-minute comment period.

So please state your name and address for the record.

OK.

Olivia Diaz.

I'm Olivia Diaz at 16-9-1-4 Pasqually Road.

I'm currently a candidate for District 1 Supervisor of Nevada County.

And as I'm walking door-to-door as part of my campaign, I've come across a lot of people expressing to me concern over the lack of affordable housing in Nevada City.

They're asking me, where will my children live?
They're asking, where will I live if I become disabled or as I get elderly?
Also, where will our workforce live?
So when I reviewed the plans for the co-housing project, I saw that it really does address these issues.

I think it has some benefit for Nevada City.

And I understand-- I have to applaud you for having brought it this far.

I know it's been a long, hard road, I mean.

And I'm sure you'll do what you have to do.

I hope you're able to make it come to fruition.

Thank you.

Hello.

I'm Steve Gorman.

I live at 18662 Norlin Way in Grass Valley.

And I'm a big proponent of low-cost housing.

I really believe in it.

But I don't think that's what this is.

I'm not in favor of this co-housing project.

It doesn't really address low-income.

$250,000 houses and a housing development is not low-income.

If you look around this crowd, you don't see the McDonald's workers here.

You don't see the people that work at the car wash.

You don't see the people that work behind in the restaurants.

That's actually the low-housing people.

That's your working poor.

I don't think you can variance in low-cost housing.

I don't think variances make low-cost housing.

I think low-cost housing comes from rent control and public seizure of properties and houses that are questioned or not in full control, and then auctioned off for low-income housing without variances.

There's more than enough variances so far.

I really don't think we need any more.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Nathan Beeson.

I live at 110 Great Oak Court in Nevada City.

I'm the president of the Parkside Place Homeowners Association.

I just wanted to compliment the council on the efforts and work they've done to preserve the historic character of the city.

I applaud that.

I'm enthusiastic about maintaining that character.

However, I think it's time to think to the future.

I think this project preserves our historic nature and looks to the future, gives us an opportunity to add vibrancy to our community, which I think is very important.

It gives young families an opportunity.

We'll have children in the community.

It's a win-win.

It's low-impact, and it's the right thing to do.

I urge you to move this forward.

My name is Meg Pally, and I've lived up here since 1974, across the street now from Nevada City.

I would like to be in Nevada City.

I've always thought I was, or sort of belonged here, but maybe not.

I have a lot of sympathy for planning commissions and city councils.

My husband was on the Nevada County Planning Commission, and I know he studied and went out and researched things and cared a lot about what had happened in keeping the place beautiful and keeping it right for people to live here.

I think you're doing that too.

I think you care.

I care personally because I look about and see my peers, other 80-year-olds and 85-year-olds, that are living in senior housing and depressed and despondent and going downhill and bored.

I love the idea of being a part of this community with mixed ages and folks that in the last 15 months, I was thinking it was years, 15 months that we've been struggling to get this going.

I've gotten to know these folks, and I care about them, and I didn't know them before, but they're the kind of folks that I know would make the city a better place.

I want to be a part of that, and I want to thank you for really considering low-cost housing, just low-cost, but modest in terms of what the average house costs here in this county.

If you can do something to provide housing for people that are working at $6.

50 an hour, bless you.

[laughter] Good evening.

My name is Barry Kyle, and I live at 327 Alexander Street here in Nevada City.

I'm a public school teacher, and I have two young children, and currently we rent here in Nevada City, and it's our dream to buy a house within walking distance of downtown.

The way that the realty has skyrocketed, there are no houses in the area that a family living on a teacher's salary can't afford, and that is one of the main reasons why I'm part of the Nevada City co-housing group.

This is our only option for buying a house in Nevada City, and as it stands, we can barely afford to buy a house in the co-housing group.

So tonight, as you discuss the details of our proposal, I'd like you to keep in mind the monetary ramifications of any decisions you make, and because this will affect whether or not there will be housing available in Nevada City that teachers, nurses, firemen, and other working families can't afford, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.
Mayor, fellow City Council members.

My name is Bruce Ivey.

I'm a local general contractor, and I'm a supporter of workforce housing.

I have been donating toward workforce housing for over 10 years now.

I have helped my family, my friends, and my employees buy property and build their own homes.

It's getting harder and harder to do this.

Tonight I'm here to advocate on behalf of the affordable workforce housing in Nevada City.

The co-housing project, which is before you tonight for your approval, is a very good fit for Nevada City.

But be careful about the demands that you put in place on workforce housing, because the more demands you place on it, the more this rises the cost of the housing.

The main reason that builders cannot build workforce housing is the cost of land, housing cost, and government regulations.

I would like to urge you tonight to support this worthwhile project, which will provide much needed housing for our working families, our firemen, our teachers, our nurses, and other service providers.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Great.

Candace Hanson, Nevada City.

I went to visit a co-housing development in Sacramento, and they allow people to conduct businesses out of units.

One person was a masseuse, and so she had people coming all day long while the people were at work.

I just wonder if that's been addressed.

That's something that would concern me if I was going to live in the community.

Two years ago, the City Council, all the same members except Councilman Weaver, turned down a project known as AHDC, 80 housing units that were guaranteed to be available to very low and moderate-income people in Nevada City.

The project was denied variances for steep slopes and stream setbacks.

Now, the City Council is being asked to allow the very same encroachments on steep slope and stream setbacks under questionable interpretations by the City Attorney that PD doesn't require variances.

This is only playing word games.

Disturbing the steep slopes or the stream is the same environmental impact, whether it is PD or not.

What this decision is based on all the testimony during the Planning Commission is you want these types of people for neighborhoods, but nobody wanted those types of people in the other project.

This would be called discrimination.

The City talks about inclusionary housing, but this is exclusionary decision-making at its worst.

This project before you tonight is not a physically gated community, but a philosophically gated community.

Even the findings for public good written up by the developer continually refer to this as the community.

This is not a community.

This is a housing development.

Nevada City is the community.

This is just a 2003 version of Ananda or other similar communities, but this is not for this Council to judge who will live in this project, whether it be teachers or firemen.

Why not dishwashers and people who work at McDonald's?
They deserve a place to live also.

People gated, people gagged at the thought of 80 units, but this project doesn't include the property across Chief Kelly Drive that has density bonuses and can have 20 or more units on it.

AHDC did include that.

This project doesn't show the retention ponds.

Maybe they encroach even further on steep slopes and streams, but who will know until they start building them?
Are they in the undisturbed open space?
This project is almost the same building layout and configuration as AHDC, other than not including the third lot.

The only difference is the price range and the people who live there.

At least AHDC had parking integrated throughout the project, not lined up like mini storage along Broad Street.

If you pass this project with a steep slope intrusions and stream intrusions, then you show that the decision made on AHDC was discriminatory, and that would place the city in not only a position for a lawsuit from AHDC, but also in jeopardy of losing funding, because I'm sure the state would be most interested in how we are technically and selectively making planning decisions based on who will live there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Terry Watley.

I live at 704 West Broad Street, directly across the street from the project.

I'm also a member of the co-housing group.

I'm on the Monday night trash schedule.

On my way to the meeting here, I was out taking my trash out beside the road, and I met two of my neighbors that live in that little complex there.

We were talking about the Sydney corridor, and we all agreed that we would much rather see 50 feet of landscaping than the current gravel pits, or the effect that we have now.

Thank you.

Good evening.

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

I'm one of the closest neighbors to the proposed co-housing site.

I have over 300 feet of common boundary with the site, so I do have a vested interest in the development there.

I've tried to kind of stay back from this whole situation after being involved in the AHDC, but at this project, I felt like it was really time to come forward.

I was active in the opposition to the 80-unit apartment complex that came in spring of 2001, and a little over two years later, I find myself in support of the co-housing development on the same site.

Whereas the community was overwhelmingly against the 80-unit apartment complex because of the, I think, because of the style of the development, I find that they're overwhelmingly in favor of the co-housing group being on that site.

I haven't heard anything negative from what we call the Lost Hill neighborhood up there, and I have heard a lot of positive comments.

So we as neighbors would, I think, would feel very good about having the co-housing group there.

Without going into all the appeals that are on the table right now, I'd like to say that I sat at that table right there a couple of years ago, and made an appeal against the approval of the Variants for Steep Slopes for the AHDC project.

And when I compare what the co-housing group is asking for in the Variants for Steep Slopes in relation to what AHDC was asking for, I see that it is only a fraction of the amount, and I feel like we have to have some spirit of compromise here.

And in stepping back to look at the big picture, I think we can see here a project that's appropriate to the nature and the culture of Nevada City.

And when AHDC came through, I certainly didn't have any love for that corporation and the hardball tactics that they played here and with other city entities.

And I realized that they were in it for the profit and not for the people.

Once they made their profit, they were gone.

But the co-housing group kind of turns that around with a project that I think is for people and not for profits.

And I realize that's not your decision here, but it certainly influences how I feel about it.

And I look at this project and I say, "What could be better for Nevada City?"
So I support the co-housing group, and I'd like to see some careful determinations on any decisions made on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tom Moores.

I speak on behalf simply of myself and my son, Wes Forslund Moores.

We live at 10113 Celio Road.

And I think this co-housing project would be great for Nevada City.

I'll give one specific example I think of a lot.

Every time I drive to work to my office on Spring Street and I park and I think, "Oh, someday I'll live in the co-housing project.

I'll get to walk to work and Nevada City gets another downtown parking space.

"
More important to me, I think about what it would mean to my son and I.

Last June, my son's mom, my wife, Sarah, died just three days after my son was born, suddenly, unexpectedly.

Needless to say, the last 16 months have been challenging, and I've looked at the co-housing opportunity as just incredibly well-timed and something I'm very grateful for.

And looking ahead to the future, I think, as a single dad, this is great, just on a practical level, getting support for childcare in case I have to work late or want to go for a hike or want to unload the dishwasher or something like that that folks can help out.

And I think of it a lot in terms of my son.

One of the things that's been hard for me is that coming to the realization that my wife and I will never be able to raise a family, as we had long planned and aspired to do, and that Wes, my son, will never have brothers and sisters.

But in getting to know some of the other co-housing participants, I've gotten to know, and Wes has gotten to know my son, has gotten to know some of the other kids, and I look at it as a great opportunity for him to have at least sibling-type relationships with older kids and younger kids and not always just being stuck with his dad.

And also, economically, it's a feasible way for us to move downtown, which is something that I'd like for us to do.

It's already been important to me because the co-housing community has allowed me to think about a future without my wife that my son and I can have that's already been important.

And I really do hope it becomes a reality.

I know that your job is not to look out for my personal, emotional well-being, but still, I hold that out as an example of why the co-housing project would be so great for its residents and I think for Nevada City as a whole, too.

Thanks.

Thank you.

My name is Dave Comstock.

I live in the Nevada City School District.

It's a long walk from my house to City Hall.

And it's for that reason that I seldom ever come before the City Council to try and suggest how they ought to act on a matter.

In this case, I think it's something that is important to me and to lots of other people in this county, many times the kinds of things that Nevada City does.

Nevada City is an important, interesting, fascinating place.

As a historian, I've been researching and writing and publishing books about Nevada City for 25 years.

People have asked me many times, and I ask myself, "What is it about Nevada City that made it unique from the beginning?"
And it's continued to be unique over the years.

As the economy changes and the life of the nation changes, somehow Nevada City always manages to adapt and yet hang on to that special quality.

It's a quality that invited people.

It made people feel at home, all kinds of people, people from all levels.

Nobody was ever excluded.

I was thinking today that if this co-housing group were to call themselves Coyoteville, it would be becoming full circle.

Coyoteville started out the same time as Nevada City, and eventually they got mined out.

But it's not exactly the same place, but pretty darn close.

The matter of co-housing has a long tradition here.

Of course, it started with the Native Americans who moved their villages around and lived together for thousands of years.

But the first miners came here.

They came in companies.

Many of them formed in companies who come to California.

They mined often as companies, and they built cabins and tents in a group.

They did things as a group.

They named themselves as a group.

It's a wonderful quality.

It's not for everybody.

And that's the thing about Nevada City.

There's always been a place for everything in Nevada City.

I think this is a perfect fit for Nevada City.

It's a perfect fit for that piece of land.

When I first talked to Chuck Durette and the other people about this, when they asked me information about the history and about the old houses, I began to realize they had something that would work really well.

And yet I was afraid that it might be a hard thing to get through today's endless red tape.

It's a middity, fearfulness, government regulations, and what have you.

I'm in favor of all of the things that better our quality of life.

But I think sometimes we don't make good evaluations of what's most important.

I think that you people are going to be able to come to a good decision out of this.

Somebody said a little bit ago that they didn't want you to compromise.

Well, it'd be a poor political group that couldn't ever make a compromise.

It would be a poor business that couldn't compromise because you would never get anywhere.

So I hope that you will approve this.

And I hope you'll approve it in a way that these folks can afford.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Carolyn Hinshaw.

I live at 13220 Thoroughbred Loop in Grass Valley.

My comments tonight come not too far behind a member of the Contractors Association.

And I'm a member of one of the local environmental groups.

So I think the fact that we both support this project probably should indicate to you the breadth of support for this project.

It's not often that the Sierra Club and the Contractors Association agree on anything.

But I personally know a lot of the members involved in this co-housing project.

I think they're a committed, active group of people that you would welcome as citizens into your city.

And I hope you find a way to approve this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Charlie Price.

My wife, Delo, and I own six rental units on Zion Street.

We live up on Banner.

And I work as a visual information specialist for the Tahoe National Forest.

I took a lateral to take that job in 1990.

And the reason I took a lateral to come here from Placerville is Nevada City.

It's the work you've all done to make this such a fantastic place.

I just wanted -- the only reason I got up to speak was a previous speaker talked about prejudice against low-income people that would be living in the 80-unit apartment complex that didn't get built.

And I think those apartment complexes segregate those people.

It's not a prejudice to not have that kind of segregation that this type of multi-age, multi -- maybe there's not McDonald's workers being able to afford to buy a home here, but McDonald's workers can't afford to buy a home anywhere.

But there are regular working Joes that can afford to buy one of these units.

And there's a variety of sizes of units.

I think it's a fantastic thing.

It brings diversity to our area.

This different way of living more communally creates a diversity.

It's not for everybody, like someone said, but it is for some folks.

And those folks that it's for are going to work for it and make it a better thing.

That pride of ownership doesn't happen in an apartment complex.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Ruth Polter.

I live at 220 Nevada Street.

And I also serve on the Nevada City Planning Commission.

I have lots of notes here so I can express myself appropriately.

Getting to the point tonight has taken approximately 12 hours of public discussion at the ARC, another six hours or more at the Planning Commission, and the time spent by the City Council considering all of the appeals.

Over the past several months, dozens of citizens have expressed their opinions about the proposed project, these opinions, no matter which side of the issue people might have been on or taken into consideration as the ARC and the Planning Commission deliberated about specific language and specific mitigation measures.

The process definitely had its moments of disagreement and debate, but the Planning Commission's final approval demonstrates that reasonable people can work together to find reasonable solutions.

We worked hard to find compromise where compromise was appropriate and we worked hard to make certain that the intent and purpose of both the general plan and the zoning ordinance were the guides that led us to our decisions.

Tonight the City Council has an opportunity to support the majority of its Planning Commission and grant the applicants an opportunity to move forward with a project that only a small minority of citizens still oppose.

The items they oppose and issues raised here tonight have already been discussed and considered at both the ARC meetings and the Commission meetings.

Opponents may be dissatisfied by the outcome, but the approval granted is a reflection of all issues raised at public meetings.

More specifically, it is a reflection of consensus building by a majority of Commissioners with admittedly divergent views on how best to interpret the rules and regulations by which Nevada City functions.

This is an opportunity.