Topics included:
- Governance and museum: Minutes approved; inquiries deferred due to the mayor’s absence. A city-appointed oversight committee for the museum was discussed and the formal agreement approved, including a 180-day cancellation clause; mayor authorized to sign.
- Funding and transportation: Approved borrowing about $57,000 from the Regional Surface Transportation Program to cover railroad costs, aiming for a cash balance by spring 2002. Resolution 2001-26 adopted to seek release of funds from the Nevada County Transportation Commission.
- Budget and procurement: A three-quarter-ton 4x4 Public Works pickup approved, based on a single bid of $24,731 from a local dealer, within budget.
- Planning, annexation, and sphere of influence: Update of the five-year sphere of influence plan underway, featuring a substantial 60-page annexation plan and eight maps/policies. Emphasis on annexing priority green-line areas first; eight annexation policies address development, fiscal analysis, revenue sharing, interagency coordination, open space, and the city’s impact area. Discussion of AB 1600 funds and flexible funding for parks/cultural projects; Miners Foundry theater not guaranteed.
- Boundary issues and GIS: Discussions of boundary planning near the airport using an intuitive sphere-of-influence framework with multiple overlapping lines; goal to keep the 1986 blue line as the ultimate boundary; some areas outside the green line may not be annexed for 10–20 years. Noted infrastructure/utility concerns (water/sewer capacity and costs). Public hearings, CEQA, and LAFCO processes emphasized; annexations to be considered case-by-case.
- Public process and legality: Calls for clarity, standards-based analysis, and adherence to Brown Act and state law; concerns about notices, multiple drafts, and which version was approved; reference to Grass Valley precedent and Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act changes; push for staged review and cautious pacing.
- Miscellaneous and next steps: Park Committee to consult the city attorney on easements and park-use ordinances; several items continued to December 10; no old business noted; public outreach improvements requested.

Full Transcript of the Video:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much.

We have before us the minutes from the regular meeting on October 22nd and the special joint workshop on October 29th.

Move to approve.

Second.

Okay, moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as presented.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
Motion carries.

Department reports.

Chief is not here, so if anyone has any questions for the chief, they can see him.

We have a motion to approve the minutes.

>> At least three, if not four meetings, had the city clerk set in on a couple or three.

There were numerous phone calls.

And as I indicated in the memo, I would recommend that the city enter into the agreement with the society.

It's hopefully -- I think that the key thing in it that I believe is the oversight committee that's proposed in there.

I think that will keep city representation involved that will be appointed by the council.

And for the operation, I think there's probably a lot of things at this time that neither party really knows as to the full -- what the problems may be in the operation of the museum.

So certainly there may be questions.

But -- >> Well, just to get things rolling, I would move that we accept the agreement between the city of Nevada City and the Nevada County Historical Society concerning the Nevada County narrow gauge railroad museum.

>> Second.

>> Now, as I understand this, we own the building, they own everything inside of it.

>> Yeah, they will be bringing -- they will be having a sense of second dedication of the museum itself in May to coincide so that everything inside will be theirs.

The reason I -- only because there's a clause on page two that says at least may be canceled at any time by the party providing the other party 180 days advance notice.

So if at some point they decide to get out of the museum business, they can take all the toys and leave and we own a 4,000 square foot barn.

>> Well, then -- >> I mean, it's not -- that wouldn't be a good deal.

But I mean, that's what I'm reading here.

>> That's true.

>> Well, there is that possibility.

>> Based on the history of the historic society, we'll assume they're going to be there for a long time.

>> Yeah, but they made you say they don't -- doesn't work out, we'll say.

We have a 4,000 square foot building.

>> Right.

>> Well, I'm sure we can get more money for what we're paying for.

That's not the problem.

>> Just as a technical issue in case anybody's listening to this tape 100 years from now, you also own the property in the building.

>> Yeah.

>> You own the land, fee type of land.

>> Yeah.

We can't lose on the deal, but I'm wrong with that.

>> No, nothing wrong with that.

>> No, we can't lose.

We just need to understand there is a clause in there that somewhere down the road, some other historical society with some other dynamic may just say the heck with it.

>> I don't have a question.

>> Okay.

>> I hope they don't.

>> I also assume that you're authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement as part of your motion.

>> You bet.

>> Oh, yeah, no, it's been second.

>> Part of my second, yes, it was.

>> Okay.

All right.

>> I have a motion.

>> All those in favor?
>> I.

>> Opposed?
Motion carries.

>> Well, you have a second item, which is asking through the Transportation Commission for an additional $57,000 under the Regional Surface Transportation Program.

We effectively are borrowing two years ahead of that funding that the city has.

We did borrow last year when we did the -- particularly when we did Rock Road in conjunction with all the paving that took place in the city.

We will go back into a positive position in the spring of 2002.

Really in the presentation of the council, when we awarded the contract, I thought that we had a total of all funds from the Transportation Commission.

If you go back to the memo I gave to the council, some 90-some thousand as it worked out.

We were only in the range of some 50-some thousand.

I think both Dan Landen and myself in those discussions probably assumed that we would be attempting this if there was funds available.

So there are funds available, and the city will be so that everyone understands we would be going two years -- potentially two years in advance of getting those funds in order to get this 57,000, which is needed to handle the payoff based of the way it was presented to the city council.

>> I move that we adopt Resolution 2001-26, requesting the Nevada County Transportation Commission release funds for railroad improvements.

>> Second.

>> Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve Resolution 2001-26.

Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
>> Aye.

>> Opposed?
Motion carries.

>> The third item that I have in the memo, just as a statement of the act of dealing with the state of California when the state controllers report finally arrived and when they expect that report to be in.

We're probably going to meet that deadline that they imply Kathy and Ed McSweeney, the information that I needed was completed last week.

That is for me to complete onto the new format of theirs.

They've been working diligently to try to -- and Kathy, whatever in the computer and trying to get this new program in, but it's rather unique that they can be two months or three months late getting their forms out, but when they finally get around to send them to you during the -- I think most people are aware that November has a couple holidays in it, particularly Thanksgiving, that they say, you know, but all bets are off, get them in by the end of the month or you'll get fined $5,000.

The other item that's listed on the agenda, however, is that there was -- and there's a memo from Vern Taylor, a very simple one to me, that we did call for proposals on a three-quarter ton four-wheel drive pickup, and we received one proposal for $24,731 from Jim Cale Chevrolet, and I certainly recommend we accept that and purchase the vehicle.

So moved.

I'll second that.

I should comment.

It's in the budget.

It is in the budget.

Steve, was that both?
Yeah, there's a motion to.

Any questions?
Oh.

B and C, right?
Oh, we already did B.

Yep.

So we're just doing C?
Yep.

Okay.

All right.

So just the one.

Oh, good.

It's been moved and seconded that we authorize the purchase of a four-wheel drive pickup track for the Department of Public Works from Jim Cale at 24,731.

I'm glad to see that we're able to purchase something locally.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
I guess we're getting 1% sales tax.

Yeah, that would be neat.

Yeah.

Well, and ups and downs.

That's a little more.

It might be going to our sister's day.

That's right.

Yeah.

Keep it in the colony.

We're happy to donate $400 for crash felling.

There's a mayor's breakfast on Thursday.

That's a quarter ton.

That still hurts.

Okay.

Thank you, Bruce.

The Grass Valley Councilmember's monthly salary.

City engineer, Bill?
This is straightforward.

It's a final map for this building that we're sitting in.

We did a record of survey just to culminate the project.

This wall right there that's against Hillis's.

It was the original wall that we left.

It approaches on him a little bit.

He has no trouble.

He's family trust has agreed to sign it over to the city.

This will forever create the record of survey.

And I recommend the council that we just go ahead and record it.

Move to adopt resolution 2127.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Moving seconded to adopt resolution 2127.

Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
Motion carries.

Council committee reports.

Park committee.

We don't really have a report to make.

We did have a meeting this morning.

As a result of that meeting, either myself or David and I combined will be meeting with the city attorney.

We're telling him for the -- yeah, now you see.

We don't have a report.

But we'll be meeting with the city attorney to discuss some easement issues and appropriate language for draft ordinances that will bring back to the council relative to the use of the park.

Very good.

Thank you.

Hearing from the public, comments on items not on the agenda are welcome at this time.

However, action or discussion by the council may not occur at this time.

Comments are limited to three minutes.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the council on an item not on this evening's agenda?
Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Kathy for correspondence.

This one won't move.

It's gone as far as it can go.

We have two items of correspondence that are on the agenda tonight and a third item that was received under the door this morning.

The first item is from a letter from Cindy Chamberlain.

She's a neighbor on American Hill and some concerns about the American Hill track and the impacts on the neighborhood.

That letter is from Don Porter and this is regarding the wall on Prospect Street.

There's a question about the wall and someone built it.

I believe it's on city property.

And the city attorney has written some correspondence back that Mr.
Porter wasn't happy with his answer.

There hasn't been one since this then.

I'm not sure if Jim would have to turn it.

I've spoken with Ms.

Rapozi on this matter on two different occasions.

The first one was to listen to what she had to say and the second one was to tell her what I had learned.

Basically what I had learned was the same as what Mr.
Anderson had said.

So I just re-verified that for her.

But I don't think it was the answer that they were looking for.

Was that subsequent to this letter as well?
Or prior to the letter?
Because they didn't catch that conversation prior to this letter being written.

Yeah, I spoke to them on the 6th of September initially and I was going to get back with them within the next several days.

But then September 11th came along and kind of sidetracked my thinking on that.

And so we did speak again last month, was prior to this letter being written.

Well, you know, I just think they've asked for prompt attention.

Whether you want to call them back and say we stand by our city attorney's letter or the city attorney wants to send them a letter and say he stands by his previous comments.

But they have asked for a response.

I'd be happy to sign a letter or Jim could sign a letter either way.

So we understand that's our final position.

Where is that one?
It's next door to Mr.
Falcone's house.

And then the third item of correspondence is a letter that came in today.

It's actually addressed to the Planning Commission.

However, the envelope had it addressed to both the City Council and the Planning Commission.

And it's dealing with an item tonight.

I think there's maybe a misunderstanding that says you're doing the general plan, but you might want to consider it at the time that you take up the sphere of influence.

Thank you, Kathy.

There is no old business this evening.

Under public hearings, Mr.
Walker has requested that his item be continued until the December 10th meeting.

So that item will be continued.

And so we now turn to the public hearing on the Nevada City Sphere of Influence plan update.

We'll start things off.

Paul?
Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

We have before you the draft five-year sphere plan.

And this is a plan that a document that on the one hand is an approved document by the Planning Commission.

On the other hand, it is still a draft document as it states so on the cover.

We want to submit to the LAFGO an up-to-date document and following approval by the Planning Commission.

We have updated information, including new 2000 census information and 2001-2002 budget numbers.

So a modification in the maps had a rippling effect throughout the document, which meant different numbers and tables and so forth for vacant property and how many acres the sphere is, that type of thing.

So we have finally brought it to you.

And we are introducing it to you tonight because it is a 60-page document with eight new maps and eight new policies concerning annexation to the city.

And it may take some time to digest.

It also has a master service element, which I think the city engineer may have some words to say because there are some, I think, maybe some changes we still want to make in that.

The heart of the, as I just mentioned, I just want to reiterate, there's three parts to the plan.

There's a map, which is map number one, plus there are some supportive maps.

There are eight policies and there's a master service element.

The master service element is a background element of the document.

I want to bring your attention to the map so you can see what you're looking at.

And I put it up on the board there.

There you go, Paul.

We're seeing live take number one.

This map was prepared by the Nevada County Geographical Information Systems Department, GIS.

It digitizes all of the parcels that are within the city and also within the sphere.

The outer blue line is the existing sphere of influence.

The red line is the existing city limits.

And what the purpose of this plan is, is to prepare a five-year plan.

And the five-year plan is a requirement of LAFCO, which are the priority properties to annex to the city.

Those are represented by the green dash plan and you're here.

What this does not mean in the next five years, we're going to annex everything within the green line.

It simply means that as an annexation of proposals from the city, these will have the first priority.

And until the properties that are within the green line are annexed, properties outside the green line cannot be annexed unless a new document is prepared.

Since this is digitized, we now have information we didn't have before.

To begin with, the U.

S.

Census reported to us in the year 2000, but in the incorporated limits, the population of Nevada City is 3,001.

And also within the green line, currently at this time, we estimate the population to be 646.

>> That's between the red line and the green line, what's already in between those spaces, 640 something?
>> That's right.

>> Okay.

>> The city currently has, let me see my notes here, we have the existing city is 1,300 acres.

And the green line is 1,100 acres.

We didn't have a much resh about half the size as the original sphere.

So there's 1,100 acres in the sphere with existing population of Nevada City.

And there is also based, because this is digitized, we know how much acreage is there, we also have the designations of our general plan.

And so through the GIS system, we were able to calculate, and the methodology is shown in your report, that this area within the sphere can accommodate, according to the Nevada City general plan, approximately 520 new units.

That would generate a new population of about 1,200 within that area.

So with the existing 646 and the 1,200 that could be of, new units could generate the total new population within the sphere would be about 1,900 citizens.

That's a build out scenario.

If you're next to all of this within the green line today, it would increase the population by 646.

Nevada City has grown.

Nevada City has grown very slowly.

It started out at 630 acres.

As I mentioned, it's about double that size now, 1,300 acres.

I just want to emphasize that we're not suggesting that we start increasing the rate of growth, but that this is a report that allows for that expansion to occur.

Can I clarify something?
During the red line and the green dotted line, you said that was about 650 people.

There's already people living out there in that space.

So if we were to annex that and not build anything new in there, that would be 650 new people.

That's right.

Then you mentioned another figure of 1,200.

What was that relating to?
That's related to build out under our general plan.

Build out meaning to the blue line?
To the green line.

For the zoning, you could split them up.

Okay.

Based on how much vacant parcels there are, they are annexed and developed.

A hypothetical number.

Very hypothetical number, assuming some future date when there's no more land to build on.

The other aspect of the report I want to briefly discuss is the policies themselves.

There's eight policies, and there's a discussion about each policy.

Very briefly, policy number one is the criteria that provided the criteria for the boundary that is shown on the map that I was just discussing.

Policy two pertains to general plan consistency, and it is the goal of this policy to assure that the SPHER plan is absolutely consistent with the general plan.

Part B of that policy, which has four parts, was a policy that was added by the planning commission.

It involves the development plans.

What page is that?
I have a summary on page one and two.

You're speaking to the top of page two right now.

Policy two, part B, is a policy addition by the planning commission setting criteria for development plans for certain annexation areas with its sphere.

Policy three is regarding fiscal costs and benefits.

This is an explicit requirement from LAFCO, and it's to ensure that development is fiscally sound.

Policy four is regarding sharing annexation revenue.

The city already recognizes annexation should have no adverse effect on any public agencies, and we enter into development agreements with NID and the county, and this formalizes that process.

Policy five, concerning communication and coordination, is a policy that was suggested by LAFCO concerning coordination among various public agencies when annexation occurs.

Policy six is another LAFCO suggested policy to assure services are provided cost effectively.

It was also modified by the planning commission, parts B and C.

Policy seven, open space.

It's the goal of both our general plan and LAFCO to provide for open space, and this policy is to assure that lands that are designated open space that are annexed into the city remain in open space.

Finally, policy eight defines a Nevada City impact area, which is basically the ridge line overlooking the basin.

This is an area that's outside of our sphere of influence, but which has impacts on the city when development occurs because of their visual impacts, because of traffic impacts, and this policy encourages the city to participate in the decision making of the county and Department of Forest and processes for THPs, that type of thing in that area.

So this shaded in area on map three is the kind of that?
Yes.

That's basically the area that you can see for Nevada City and also the area that generates traffic to our freeway on ramps.

And Bill, would you talk to the master service element?
I can speak to a few of these items after discussions with the staff and Paul and me and my city manager.

There's a couple of things.

What page are you on, Bill?
Well, they need to be clarified, and we'll start with page 28.

And the estimated capital improvements.

Now, these numbers were generated, and as you can tell, this document took a while to get through.

It went through the Planning Commission.

It started back in April, and it went through the LAFCO meetings and through the city and through Paul.

And so this stuff has been fooled with.

So there's been some changes.

So if you look on page 28 and you look at the estimated capital improvements, the maintenance yard is complete in the first about seven or eight down the road.

The maintenance yard is complete, so that will be removed from the document.

So if you go three quarters of the way down, you'll find administrative, the city hall is complete.

And just in case anybody's asking questions, because the city manager asked, and I want you to know that the 831,000 was generated.

A lot of these numbers were generated out of the wish list of projects for the city, including the AB 1600 fund.

So that's how we generated this.

And you say administrative, delete administrative costs, city hall.

We did city hall.

Yeah.

We haven't paid for it.

Well, you have, according to this document, that's already in your budget, and it's budgeted for.

So it's not something that's left to be done.

Right.

In other words, these are improved projects.

I'm not going to deal with that, Steve.

I get it.

That would be part of the joy of throwing a million bucks out, but you still have to pay for it.

I understand that, but I got you.

It's not hard.

That's not something that we're going to attack, and that we're going to be part of any annexation, or going to be part of any funds that are going to be generated.

You based the funds and the city hall on income and budgets that the city manager gave you.

We're going beyond that point.

Does the railroad museum fall in that category?
Well, AB 1600 is where these came from.

Like Steve's saying, there's still money owed on city hall, so he said, "How do you remove city hall from it?"
This document has nothing to do with the money that's owed on city hall.

And what about railroad museum?
Is that also something that's considered done?
It does for some time, not the projects.

The railroad museum is not done.

Okay.

It will be by the end of the year, but it's just not.

So I really can't say that at this point.

Okay.

You're moving on?
Moving on.

A question about the park and cultural improvements.

We've gone through this before at the table.

We list Miners Foundry in an event theater as a capital improvement project of over $5 million.

And then down under the footnote, this is funding will be public-private partnership.

My question that I wrote, the reading this, is that an assumption?
Or do we have some existing policy that says we're going to share the cost other than being good neighbors and helping them with grant applications, which we've done?
What existing policy do we have that says that that's $5.

5 million will be a public-private partnership?
I'll have to yield to the city manager.

I can't answer that.

I think that we don't have a policy as you ask the question of the policy.

I think that's the capital cost that they would, some of those studies they've done and et cetera.

So it's nothing more than putting that figure down.

A few years ago, we had it in for some reason and we decided to pull it out because they're not municipal projects.

We had it listed when they thought that money would be available for in all counties and they asked us for, if you will, a wish list of projects that if you were to get full funding, you would like to see.

And if I remember, we put that as one of our projects.

The current governor, however, blue-lined Nevada County.

So we did not receive any money from that.

So that's where it was on a wish list, I believe.

As I recall, our stake in the Nevada Theater is one-sixteenth of an inch or something of the front facade.

Mainly so that we can serve as the catalyst to apply for the grants and et cetera, but funding would always come from some, it isn't going to come from.

So we can always assume that it's going to be on a proportion basis there.

We certainly wouldn't want to be good neighbors in the system.

I wouldn't want anyone who looks at this document to say, "Hold these folks, $5.

3 million.

"
One of the things, if I could point out, these did come off of our AB 1600, most of the items on this list.

When we first generated this list, we did not want to be specific.

We had figures in there taken from the AB 1600, but we didn't have a specific Nevada Theater Miners Foundry and a figure next to it.

I believe one of the planning commissioners wanted the list expanded and more information in it because we complete projects and list changes and stuff.

We thought it should be more flexible than that, which is the way we first started out.

So that as we completed a project, there's always another project dropping into place to take the .

.

.

that are requiring those monies.

So it's not like we finish everything off and that said AB 1600 goes away.

There's always another project coming along.

We overlay a street and then there's always another street that needs to be taken care of.

If we're building, then there's always another one that comes up that we need to do.

We came up with some examples to put in here to give you an idea or to give actually .

.

.

Paul can correct me, but I think it was one planning commissioner asked for some specifics in there.

I think that's how the table became what it is.

I don't remember seeing that in a minute.

Well, it's been a while and it may be that it was the executive director of LAFCO that asked us when she reviewed an early version of this and made some suggestions and that may be where we put it in.

But it was after the original consultant who Pat Norman put together a document and we added this later at somebody's suggestion.

Perhaps it was SR Jones if it wasn't the planning commissioner.

I have no problem.

We've always helped him in the past and I'm assuming he could help him in the future.

Maybe that footnote could be modified to explain to the average citizen that speculative $5.

338 million is not a city project and both of those buildings are owned by nonprofit corporations.

It doesn't mean we can't help them.

I think Steve's point is well taken and it should be kind of noted.

That's the largest number on the page.

It kind of skews the whole thing and it's not even ours.

And so I think it is an important note to make.

Right.

And it won't make any difference to LAFCO whether that number is there or not.

No, I wouldn't just as soon have it deleted.

Why does it even have to be there?
It's there because parks and cultural has 6,685,000 and that counts for the bulk of it.

It needed some explanation.

Otherwise it looks like Pioneer Park is getting a new Ferris wheel.

I have a question.

Hopefully it's an easy answer.

I noticed on a couple of different places the dotted line didn't follow the natural you would think a road.

I was just curious how that line was established.

I can speak to that.

That's the computer system that kind of they're supposed to be following the roads or the property lines.

I've seen that too.

It's a computer generated thing and it didn't overlay exactly.

It's an overlay and it didn't overlay exactly.

But there is somewhere a map that is more precise.

But I think it's good that it does get the level.

This is the map.

I think it's good though that it does show all the parcels because it.

It kind of does.

I mean at least you get an idea.

So somewhere we should make sure that there is a map that defines whether that little line like where you're pointing to right here actually goes down to here.

And is that where you're talking about?
Like right up above where it's Graniteville Road up on the top of the airport.

It kind of goes right through those properties in the middle of them there right at the airport.

And that shouldn't be.

Yeah, or I was looking down the opposite of that down where it goes a little bit on Pittsburgh Mine and then dips in and then kind of looks like it meets back up again further on.

I just was curious why it didn't just follow a natural.

I might point out it's not.

There's not much to perfecting it and putting it on boundary lines because lot line adjustments are something that can happen very administratively in the county.

And we could go to great effort to make sure everything follows a lot line and it won't be there.

And it changes.

It'll change.

Okay.

This is a pretty logical line that was put together by staff.

It was a it is an intuitive line.

We didn't put a lot of data in computers and this line popped out.

We looked at it and figured it out by logic.

And let's remember in this document this is a sphere of influence document and the dotted lines are merely to try and give you an educated overview.

It doesn't mean that if you look at the little parcel in pink to the right of your on the east side of the property, you're going to cut off that little corner.

Right.

I saw that.

That's not supposed to mean that.

Okay.

So they just lost that piece of information.

It doesn't mean you couldn't annex another piece or something.

It's just giving you it's saying if all things are equal and judging from what the desires are, what the needs are, where things are going, what's going to happen over the next year, give us an idea what you think this is going to be.

This is what our best estimate is.

That's it.

Thank you.

Just one other quick question and maybe you said it during your initial thing.

I was lost in the map.

The 1986 adopted sphere is larger than what will be the new five year sphere.

Is that a common practice to contract the spheres as years go by?
Yes.

That's what LAFCO has asked us to do is see our sphere has unchanged.

Our ultimate boundary, which is that blue line that was adopted in 1986.

What LAFCO has asked us to do is prioritize which properties should come in first.

So anything outside of that green dashed line at this point in time is not eligible to come into the city until the green line, until there's a new report or this.

So that could be called like the 20 year?
That would be a 10 or 15 year.

One more clarification.

The dotted green line now contains some 600 and change.

650.

Something in that neighborhood.

Estimate.

Persons.

Is that what you're saying?
Right.

Okay.

Were that to remain outside of the city limits, you said it could achieve 1,200 persons.

Was that what you said?
Were it adopted as city?
Annexed into the city?
Is that the number?
Yes.

Okay.

In rough terms.

1,900, I think it says.

Yeah, it would be additional 1,200 if it were built.

Additional 1,600?
Additional 1,200 total.

Additional 1,900 total.

Yes.

Okay.

Just for point of reference, were that to the city limits to remain at the red line and that to remain county, what would the number be?
Probably about the same.

The same as which?
As 619.

619.

Probably about the same because the county plan is modeled after the Nevada City General Plan.

They try to, as closely as possible.

So as they come into our borders, they try and have it match what we would have if we went out.

So the overlap is mutual.

Yes.

So if it stays in the county at build out, we're probably at around the same population.

All right.

I guess that's about it.

The sphere plan, unless anybody has more questions.

You have more.

I have some more.

And they're kind of, some of it's just bookkeeping stuff, but it's just stuff that we need to clarify.

I don't want the council to walk out of here.

On 29, we're looking at the water system.

Okay.

And if you're down to about the fourth paragraph there, it says, "Given large projects in the outer limits of the existing gravity system, the whole new system would be required to accommodate them," blah, blah, blah.

It goes on and on and on.

I feel that that paragraph should be removed from the document because it's trying to out guess whether we need a whole new system or what we're going to do.

And so if you go to the next paragraph, it's generally accepted that fire flows.

That's all correct, but there's one last line and it says, "There are currently no plans to increase fire flow.

"
The staff has been directed by the city manager.

We've been working on the water system.

So I want the council to know that the city is not, according to the report I gave you months back, the city is not sitting here doing nothing.

We're working on the water system.

We've determined pressures and we've determined other things, and we're going to be in the position of coming to the council in the future, not so distant future, to hire additional consultants to help us with the water system.

So I would recommend that we take that one paragraph out to speak to upgrading the system and building new, which we may or may not do, depending upon what we may just add to the existing system.

I also would remove that one line that says, "There are no plans to increase fire flow.

"
That is not true.

And then if you go over to page 30, in the public sewer, it's much the same thing.

If you go to the second paragraph, it says, "Currently there is a 14-inch trunk line which carries sewage from downtown of the plant.

"
That's correct.

But the next part says, "You're going to replace it with all 18-inch lines and blah, blah, blah.

"
I'm not so sure that that's what I'm going to do.

So I wanted to recommend that it would be that the city is replacing portions of the main with larger diameter pipe.

Sewer lines are small with main lines that are six inches or less than you go into that.

It's because I do have some areas in there that are 16-inch, for instance, that I wouldn't recommend that we change them.

So we're not going to, so if we had our brothers of them, it would be 14, 16, 18, you're going to have a little bit of it.

So I don't think we should tie ourselves to everything being 18-inch.

And then on page 35 at the bottom, it was pointed out by the city manager, and I think it's very well taken.

The last paragraph on 39 is totally correct, okay?
But it doesn't mention the fact that we had 255,000 in overlay funds.

But it doesn't mention the fact that the city spent in total last year $598,317 on the road system.

And they spent the 255 of federal money, plus other monies that were set aside, plus gas tax monies, plus sidewalk monies, monies that we did Brock Road with, monies that we did the sewer plant work with that came out of the sewer plant fund.

And so there needs to be another line in there that says that we provide -- there was federal funds of 255,000; however, a total amount of city funds was 598,317.

And I think the only other one that I would mention is on page 39, if you look at page 39, the transportation proposed street improvements, table three.

We worked with Caltrans, and we talked to them, to the manager, myself, and the police chief.

And right now, there is no signalization designated for 2049.

And I don't think the city ought to encourage that.

That's been the policy of the council, and it's, you know, it's your policy.

But we could just put that, you're in state route 20, intersection improvements.

And I would recommend that, too.

>> Didn't you tell us last meeting that that appears to be what they're going to do with -- >> Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> I think we ought to improve more of that.

>> Yeah, right.

>> That should say improvement.

>> Yes.

>> Just reach -- signal app.

There's just no signal app.

>> Yeah.

>> Everything else -- >> Delete those two words.

>> Yeah.

>> Oh, I have a procedural question.

Bill has made some suggestions, and I would hope that we've read this enough to where we may individually make suggestions.

At what point would we begin to decide whether or not to incorporate these modifications to the planning commission's draft?
Would that be done -- in other words, are we at some point going to go back and start on page one and work our way through and make whatever changes that we may feel are appropriate or a majority may feel are appropriate?
>> Or in other words, will this be visited to us five times as it was to -- >> Exactly, yeah.

>> It's -- >> You know, I mean, Bill had some good suggestions, but, you know, do we vote on those now?
Do we go back to page one?
>> I think we can put in Bill's suggestions and any other suggestions and give you another version that incorporates these changes.

Also, this was noticed as a public hearing.

We may get some input from the public, which you may want to consider.

And at the point where you feel comfortable submitting this to LAFCO, that is where you would make that decision.

LAFCO will be the agency that will assume authorship of this document.

They will do the CEQA document on it.

And it will be a LAFCO document in the final -- when it's -- in its final form.

>> You're saying LAFCO has veto power over us?
>> No.

No.

They will be the agency that adopts this document of -- >> Right, but they'll adopt it.

>> They'll adopt it.

We will submit it.

They will do the CEQA document on -- that's required.

And then if they submit it -- if they don't like it, they can send it back.

We'll see.

>> Well, I guess my other question -- kind of a follow-up question to you would be, having been through five public hearings, recognizing this began at the Planning Commission in October of 2000, some 13 months ago, what would be your recommendation for us?
Would we -- would the logical way to approach this after staff has had its input and after the public has had its input to start on page one and any concerns that any council member might have to raise the concern or the question at that point and chronologically work our way through this document?
>> That would work.

We could -- >> Maybe I could shed a little light on it from just being the city's representative on LAFCO.

In 2000, there was adopted the Cortese-Knox-Hirschberg Act, which literally changed the world of LAFCO and of the cities and special districts, et cetera.

The first thing being that, number one, we're all paying for it, whether we want to or not.

The city of Grass Valley -- LAFCO has finished the city of Grass Valley recent sphere update, which took about two years to do.

We are working on Truckee.

I happen to be on the Truckee committee.

When you really look at the document and you make suggestions and then it's a time-taking proposition.

And we're starting here on this.

Probably LAFCO wouldn't get to this for a year or two because the new Cortese-Knox requires that they go through and make sure that every special district and every city and every county that says they are delivering fire safety, for example, is doing that.

That says they're -- what happened?
So it's going to be a slow period while they figure out what they're going to do next.

My suggestion would be that after we have this public hearing, that perhaps we write a letter to LAFCO indicating that we are in the middle of finalizing our LAFCO -- for LAFCO submission and then ask LAFCO due to the slowness of the process -- there's got to be a better word than that -- that should any minor annexation come in, if a fire station needs to be annexed, this or that, that would not require long-term study, et cetera.

Perhaps they would consider doing that.

That would allow us to do anything small.

And then we could get to our final update when the time is correct.

I don't know that they would go for that, but that's what they actually did with Grass Valley.

And so I would think it would be worth our -- at least we wouldn't have to turn to somebody coming to the city and say we would like our LAF to annex because half's in the county and half's in the city, et cetera, saying we can't do anything for two or three years.

That would give us a chance to that.

I don't think anybody really knows how fast or how slow these things are going to move because the whole process is just completely slowed down.

>> It's your opinion that there's no sense of urgency at this time.

>> My opinion is there's no sense of urgency, but I do feel that we have taken a big step tonight in the fact that it's been presented to us and that we're now working on it.

>> Councilman Balsch, do you feel that if we submit this to LAFGO, will it help them with their work?
Can they make a document that is consistent with ours?
>> It's hard to say.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, but I think -- >> Pick it up.

>> Yeah.

>> That letter we got from the executive director of -- >> Take your time.

They're not ready.

>> Well, yeah.

It was after that letter that I went to her and said, hey, you know, we do have some small things.

And so she said this is what Grass Valley did, that they allowed any little -- and we did.

We took in a -- LAFGO allowed them to take in a -- like the record connection right there in Glenbrook because of sewer and water problems, excuse me.

So -- >> That's an excellent point.

If the council would give staff direction, that would be -- because right now we have a couple of small parcels that we've hooked to the sewer.

We've given them a year to annex.

They cannot do anything.

And to help us from those things slipping through the system, it would be nice to come and complete those.

>> Well, maybe if nothing else tonight, we can agree to have the mayor send a letter to LAFGO with that precise question and that we are -- although we've only begun and none of us have commented on anything in these 63 or 70 pages yet, that we are with due diligence attacking -- >> I think that's the whole thing.

I think that would be a wise move on our part and then it would -- and I really don't think that there would be a reason that they would say no to that because -- and like I say, we have 26 special districts, three cities, one county, and we are very fortunate.

I attended a LAFGO session in Yosemite two weeks ago and it's amazing in talking to the people from other cities that they are in big fights when you have 26 cities in a county to who sits on the board and how they pay their share of money.

And it's really quite a deal.

We're fortunate Grass Valley Trucking Nevada City all agreed that we would do it based on a formula that Will came up with and it's very fair.

Places couldn't believe that we actually got all agreed.

>> Just like the council.

>> Yeah.

>> That would be my recommendation.

>> Okay.

>> Good recommendation.

>> Is that -- >> What does that do?
>> We need to do a public hearing before -- >> Yeah, we should do that.

That being done, I assume we're going to do that.

What would be your suggested approach to this document by us and by the public?
>> We're here to listen, staff, and to input anything that you have.

You made a suggestion of going through it sequentially page by page and that's a reasonable way to go through it.

It's a certain kind of -- >> A lot of the stuff is repeated later but if it's changed once, it's automatically be changed a second time.

>> Steve, this may sound trite.

>> I'm saying what we need to do is start the process.

We need to hear from the public.

We need your input.

We need you to say give you two weeks or whatever you want.

>> I'm just asking -- >> Whatever you have to do.

>> We need to kick it back and forth until we got a document that the staff and the council can agree to.

We throw it up the last page.

>> Absolutely.

You and I are exactly on the same page.

I'm seeking guidance from the man who sat through five public hearings to tell me what is the most efficient way -- >> I think that works.

>> -- the most efficient way -- >> Start with page one and move forward.

>> I do have a question.

>> I'm surprised.

I bet how -- it won't be -- it doesn't sound as laborious as, you know, some things will go rather swiftly.

>> Some probably will.

Some may take a while.

I do have a question -- I do have a question of you now that you have made your presentation and you've referenced page 35, for instance.

>> Well, you referenced the bottom of 30 over to 35 because there are maps in between blank pages.

But on the top of page 35, for instance, you say -- I assume this is based on your input -- the system is approaching capacity -- this is sewage -- serving the existing estimated 12 to 1300 households.

City staff estimates currently there's a 15 percent cushion for new sewer hookups.

The question of you, Bill, is that something that you determined before or after our analysis of the 80-unit proposal on West Broad Street?
>> Yeah, that is -- this is before.

And once again, see, this is something I missed.

This needs clarification because you already know what the answer is going to be.

We're serving this many people.

We can still serve a few more people, but as you begin to serve a few more people, you need to do some improvements to the plant.

You need to change some pumps.

You need to change some certain things.

It's an incremental thing.

It can't go up to 700,000 gallons, which is a capacity that you can dump into the sewer plant when you're at roughly 60 percent of that today without doing something to the plant.

And that's why we're listening to my report.

And that needs to be put in there.

I agree with him.

>> Okay.

But I have noticed in reading it, and I have read every word of it, including the census group stuff, which I think is great.

But when we start talking about capacities, and I'm glad to know that this is based upon information prior to that study of the 80-unit, rather than after, because it would seem to me that whatever figures you have are not -- I don't want to use the word suspect, but probably subject to revision.

>> Absolutely.

>> Okay.

>> And that's a matter -- >> And we would need also to know, I would think, when you talk about the potential for additional sewer hookups, in which specific areas of our sphere is that potential there, and in which are they not?
For instance, we -- and in water as well.

I'm talking about, you know, sewer and water both.

I mean, we have a situation now where we've approved 20 homes up on 8 Acres American Hill Road.

They have to put in a pump station for their water.

So I think that we need -- you know, I don't want to get the cart before the horse.

And I'm glad to hear from Tom that we have plenty of time to work on this.

This isn't something we have to send to LAFCO tomorrow or next month, or even springtime.

Is that I think as a council, in determining where we put the lines, is what is our ability to service within those lines?
And without that answer, I don't know how relevant the green line is.

>> One of the newest things -- >> I can't really answer that.

>> Okay.

>> Because everything is unique, in other words.

If you're down off of the old Downieville Highway and you're below the plant, sewer down talking about, it's a lot harder to get to the plant than it would be if you were in the narrow gauge 40 and you're draining down on the gravel.

>> Or you're on a wet hill or something.

>> Whereas -- and I'm not saying, you know, because the NID enters into the equation when it comes to water service.

But let's turn that thing around, and the narrow gauge 40 happens to be in water service.

But it would be easier to serve downstream from us water service than it would be upstream because of the pressure difference between up to -- >> So it's the same for sewage, too.

>> So, yeah.

So, you know -- >> That's why, I mean, I don't -- I'm a late person.

I'm looking for advice from the experts.

But does it make sense to establish that line, recognizing that as a result of our examination on the 80 units, there are some questions as to who we can serve and to what level we can even serve them today.

And you have figures in here for what it would take to bring things up to snuff.

Talking millions of dollars.

There aren't enough AB 1600 fees to pay for this thing, bro.

It's not there.

Would you agree that that -- I mean, at 7,000 a unit, but that's -- and only a portion of that, of course, would go to sewer.

There isn't enough money to bring this thing up.

What I would indicate is the whole process, I would -- it's a state law.

But the reality is, whatever you put on this piece of paper, the reality is it's a sphere of influence.

It's not saying you're going to annex this.

And so you could easily say, we're not going beyond the lines at all.

Well, then you're not going to annex anybody.

It really -- in order to annex anything, you've got to put a line somewhere.

And we could spend -- and we may well, and the city may well spend a year or whatever studying it.

And we can study this thing to death.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

But the reality is there's going to be few annexations.

All you have to do is look at the history, which is shown in here, of the history of our annexations.

And so whatever effort is put in and whatever additional energy goes in, whether we use an outside consultant on this, as is indicated, and staff -- Bill has certain limitations on how much time he can put in on this.

I see it as a process to meet a state requirement.

And we, again, I don't know that it's a process to, per se, stop annexations, because some are going to take the time and effort to go through, as Grass Valley has.

But so I agree with you.

And on the other hand, wherever you put the line will be based, then, on whoever is going to study the report based on all sorts of information that you could say the city doesn't have.

>> Well, right.

It was pretty clear that earlier you mentioned that this line is basically just almost -- it's just pretending in so many ways, and that it's not set in cement.

It's not a wall that's being put there, a foundation that's being put there.

It is just something to put something on the map and say, "This is -- if we were to take an educated guess, this is a sphere of influence that we're just taking our claim to this.

"
>> We're saying that we can serve them.

But we can't annex, we can't serve them.

>> Well, another thing, keep in mind, the fiscal.

We're not -- maybe not very excited about annexing a lot of these properties, because also they have to produce as much revenue as they're going to cost the city.

So the fact you have the report or draw a line, you could draw the line around the two or three annexations that are maybe being considered, have asked to be considered, and let it go at that.

I mean, you could do that and just consider those two or three.

But that's unrealistic based on what you're supposed to be doing is saying, "What is the sphere of influence of Nevada City?"
The reality is there's going to be very few annexations to Nevada City.

That's one reality.

And the second reality is you're not going to take annexations.

Residential does.

At best, you're going to get a push out of it revenue-wise.

If you get a push, you're doing pretty good.

If it's strictly residential.

>> If you look at -- to clarify a couple of things, and I hope I didn't interrupt you, Steve.

>> I'll remember my point.

>> The blue line is set in contact.

Everybody understand that?
>> Yes.

>> Don't go beyond that.

Don't go beyond the blue line.

>> Right.

>> All they're asking us basically to do with the new law that Tom brought you up to date on is they said, "Okay, that's your blue line that you've already agreed to years ago.

The gray is what you already have, the red line.

"
They're saying, "You know, draw a line in between there and come up with what you guys think is going to be happening halfway through the process or sometime down the road.

"
Now, the fact that you're going to generate some numbers about higher -- you know, the potential to serve people doesn't mean that, you know, if the mole property, for instance, the property for Sugarmose, was to make application today to come into the city.

You know, there'd have to be an engineered report like I gave you on the 80 units of that kind of magnitude.

And there would be all kinds of problems from open space to water mitigation to sewer to erosion because of the hill size to visual impact, everything else.

That's not what you're asked to do in this particular document.

That's not the issue here.

The only issue is, you know, what's out there?
What can you do?
And like Tom says, this has got a lot to do with special district and service districts.

It's got a lot to do with that sort of thing.

I guess that's not a particular problem in Nevada City, but it has run up on big problems in other cities that butt up against each other in other towns, especially southern California, and we're kind of stuck in the middle of that.

And that's where we are.

Well, just to summarize, my only point of all of this is I recall during the discussion on West Broad Street, and I wish I could remember who it was so I could give them credit, someone stood at the microphone and said, "We need to have honest zoning.

"
I don't recall who said that, but I remember that statement.

And I just think we need to have an honest sphere of influence.

And if we put down a sphere of influence, which from the beginning says this is the anticipated area that we're going to likely grow into in the next five years, then we ought to be able to prove that we can do it.

And to me, it seems that our city services are so constrained right now.

In fact, on the sewer plant, you say, "Yeah, it's operating at about 60 percent or half.

"
However, in the winter, sometimes it operates at full.

Well, if that's true, overall radio, you know, we can't tell people, "Don't flush your toilet in the wintertime.

"
So if we're operating at essentially full capacity in the winter, what is the -- I mean, we're looking at enormous infrastructure costs to do anything.

So I just think when we're done with this, that green line, yes, I know it's not -- it doesn't say, "Yes, we shall annex this.

"
But there's an indication through this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.
City Planner.

But there's an indication through this that we can reasonably serve those people in that green line.

You know, first of all, I think to think to tag, you know, I know this is the way the system works, and I don't want to be facetious here.

But, you know, if that's a five-year line, Steve, and I've worked for the city for many years, and you've been in this work -- you've worked for the city for many years -- We'll never go there.

-- in five years.

We're already one year into the five-year on that, you know, for -- you know, and I can look at everybody at this table and probably everybody in the audience, you know, I'm not going to bet, you know, my entire fortune on it, but I'll bet yours that, well, that's easy never get there.

Well, I think -- Five years and probably not in 20 years.

That's a pretty cheap bet.

You have to consider -- you have to consider that the law wasn't written for Nevada City.

The law wasn't written for Nevada City.

The law was written to influence -- That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, and -- We're stuck with it.

And we're stuck with it, absolutely, without anywhere to go.

Now we have to consider on annexation water, which never before was a consideration.

When you annex it, you have to be able to prove to LAFCO to allow you to annex that you have water, that you can provide all the services that are in here, and there's also the schools.

Now LAFCO doesn't know what the law means about the schools.

The Attorney General is interpreting it at present.

For us, it's -- you know, but these things aren't a problem for us.

We just have to realize that we've got to go through with the situation and realize that more than likely all we're going to annex is the small partials here and there.

That's at least the way I would see it.

I won't be around when we're doing all that.

I absolutely agree with your conclusion.

So the rhetorical question is why are we going through this charade?
Because we have to -- Because we have no choice.

We have no choice.

You don't have this thing -- Yeah, but we could put the green line around the current city limits.

No, LAFCO wouldn't accept that.

They wouldn't accept all of it.

They would do it.

So what LAFCO is looking for is some earnest effort on our part to recognize that the city may grow even though we can't currently service them.

Steve, I think there's another important element in this, and that's the impact area that we don't think -- we're not planning on growing out to, but that impacts us visually and with traffic.

So this covers more than just what we can serve.

I mean, you know what, we can really annex, but also what impacts us, what they're doing out there that impacts us visually and with traffic coming through.

So there is a reason to adopt it.

Well, there's a reason to adopt it.

I just think when we're done, it ought to be an honest reflection of what we as a city see as our future.

That's all.

Because it's hypothetical, it would be very easy to have five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and all the audience to have different opinion where that line should be.

That's right.

And you would have.

At least in months.

Well, I've read the Minnesota Planning Commission, that's when they kept saying, "Move the green line here, move the green line there.

"
And it was moved.

That's right.

And when we were happy, and then we'd work on that.

I think one thing that we need to all recognize is I really don't think that Nevada City is changing all that much.

I mean, we do change, but if you look at this gray, this was Nevada City when they started in 1869.

Okay.

This is the airport.

We can just kind of throw that out.

That happens to be a city piece, but it's either here or there.

But I'm telling you that this square here was the 1869 city.

Well, that was 130 years ago, right?
132 years ago, is that my math, right?
500 acres.

Yeah, 132 years, that's what you've done.

So if all things are a little legal, if you doubled what we would do, we still can't get there in four years.

You know, only if you tripled it, you know.

So, fine.

Well, I agree.

I don't know how else to.

.

.

I mean, we're all as.

.

.

We'll do.

.

.

I'll draw that green line.

I'll speak for Paul or Burrow or any of them.

Draw that green line anywhere you want it.

It doesn't matter to us.

You know?
Well, I agree with everything that's been said, but philosophically, I would like to see our sphere of influence be as big as we can get away with.

And whether we can actually.

.

.

The line is it.

Yeah.

Fine.

That's it.

Move it out to there as far as I'm concerned.

It's for the five year.

And whether we can actually service it or not, I don't care.

I want our sphere of influence to be as big as it can be.

We'll take a case by case basis and see if we can afford an annexation.

But I think that's kind of what we're still going to do.

I understand that.

I understand if we have to draw an arbitrary line, then we have to draw an arbitrary line.

When you drive down to go on 680, it's amazing how when you're coming back, I noticed a years ago where it said Fairfield City Limits, and I was way over by where those ships are parked in the bay.

And it's amazing how, you know, people set the line way out there, you know.

Look at Truckee.

And, you know, it's like just a way to just kind of say, okay, don't cross that line.

You know, I mean, we're kind of limited by that blue line because of the geographical -- The strength.

The drainage.

Right.

But we're all saying that blue line is way out there as far as anything that we could foresee.

You know, could we ever handle, could we afford, could we ever expect it to be any bigger than that?
I don't think anybody can speculate out of that blue line.

If that's not a requirement -- Then I agree with you.

Then I move it out to the blue line.

No, it has to be a requirement.

If we don't have to do it.

But I look at the top of page 19, and it's -- Well, I -- At the top of page 19, this is the areas within five years' sphere, so on and so forth, are consistent with these objectives and policies because they are, what is the number two bullet?
Serviceable with basic city services.

We don't even know that they are serviceable with basic city services.

So if we don't know that, and this is just some mythical line that's almost meaningless, then I agree with you.

Make it the blue line.

Absolutely.

I don't think we can make it the blue line.

I'm not saying that.

I'm not saying that either.

We had the blue line.

They won't buy that.

I said the biggest -- Yeah.

-- get away with it.

We've already -- I hate to be a Monday morning quarterback, but we've already thought of these things.

I'm sure.

We've tried, you know, we are -- Burl has already tried to get this thing through and to talk to everybody and, you know -- Actually, the blue line's been in place for, I guess, 15 years.

And the requirement of LAFCO was, well, we want to see the incremental development.

We want a five-year plan, a 10-year plan, a 15-year plan, and we're going to treat that outer one as a 20-year plan.

And when we approached this document, we thought, well, now, I can see us trying to describe in the reasons why this is in the 10-year and this is in the five-year, so why do we need to go further than the first increment?
Because it's going to take us many, many years to get through that first increment anyway.

And that's -- so we've made it a five-year plan.

And I guess every five years, we'll just renew it and see where it stands and see if it's still relevant and take it that way.

Very good.

Yeah.

When they first came to us, they wanted -- they wanted to consent in circles, so to speak, of five, 10, 15, and 20.

But LAFCO's not insisting we have to grow out to that boundary.

Oh, no, absolutely not.

No, no, no.

It's got nothing to do with that.

Right.

It's just got -- It has nothing to do with -- It's got nothing to do with that.

It's the state law that we have to figure out.

Anything you've got to go through the process.

You've got to do it if you want to annex anything.

And we don't need really go through the process, and then it's easy.

Everybody knows it's never going to annex anything again.

It could well be the policy of the council.

As long as we all know going in that this is not reality, this is some mythical examination.

I'll tell you what, you better not at the council table tell them what I think of the whole process.

I'm not far from Burrell either, but I mean, we have to go along with the law.

Okay.

Are we -- You don't have a choice.

Are we ready to hear from members of the public?
You're ready for public hearing.

Okay.

I'd like to at this time open the public hearing.

Anyone that would like to address the council on this issue, please step to the microphone, give your name and address for the record.

Thank you.

J.

Lon Cooper, 524 East Broad Street, Nevada City.

Well the council's prolonged, somewhat prolonged discussion or thorough discussion, however you want to characterize it, certainly reinforces that this is a very important decision to make for the future of Nevada City and Nevada City Basin.

I'm sure you wouldn't have taken this much time to discuss this if it weren't of critical importance to the city.

And that's -- although there isn't a great public turnout tonight, I think those of us who are here and have waited for a chance to speak agree that it is a very important issue that will define the future of this community.

I came to City Hall today and looked at the Spear of Influence file that you probably all have.

And then I went back and looked at the general plan, which has a glossary on page 70, and it's very succinct, which kind of helps me.

I need that defining the Spear of Influence concept.

It says it's basically a limit to which a city can annex according to state law.

The Spear of Influence is determined by LAFCO.

And that's pretty much -- those are the two critical elements of this concept.

Obviously the agenda item spells it out in much more detail.

But the point that I raise in mentioning that is that I don't intend to go on any longer than I have to, but as usual, my concern is process.

So let's start with that.

In the file that you have, I noticed that there were a couple of different pamphlets with a beautiful aerial photograph of Nevada City.

Nice handsome looking pamphlet.

There were, however, two different ones in the file.

One was the scope of its five-year plan was 2001 to 2006.

There were two copies of that in the file.

There was a subsequent copy, which the cover page defined the scope as 2002 to 2007.

The Planning Commission approved, according to the record, the Spear of Influence plan on April 12th, April 12th of 2001.

That was preceded by four previous meetings, March 8th.

And then we got into last year, December 14th of 2000, November 9th of 2000, October 26th of 2000.

Those were the meetings that are referred to here as the five different public hearings.

I'm not sure I attended any of those, but there seems to be at this point a concern about efficiency.

Let's be efficient about the way we process this.

So my question to you is, first of all, this is now November.

Seven months ago, the Planning Commission approved something.

And I'm not sure whether it's the 2002 to 2007 version or the 2001 to 2006 version.

I don't know what the differences are between those two drafts.

But certainly, I've listened to the city planner, city engineer, and others.

And their comments certainly underscore the fact that changes are ongoing right now.

Things are being proposed.

Changes are being--.

But the fact that it's been seven months since the Planning Commission approved whatever draft they did approve, and it may not be the one you've got in front of you as the most current one, I don't know.

It's been reworked, retooled.

I don't understand that seven-month delay in getting here, but I think I do understand it.

I understand it because I understand that there are a couple of minor, small proposals out there.

The city's serving them.

It wants to do something about that.

And that's what, I think, prompted us to calendar this thing.

However, in calendaring it for tonight, I think the notice was dated October 29th.

And in that public notice, as public notices usually do, they mention that the public has a right to come to City Hall and review whatever is in the file.

Well, the current version, the 2002 to 2007 plan for the sphere of influence, if you look at the face of it, it's dated October 31st.

Seems to be after the notice went out for this meeting that that was received by City Hall.

Therefore, I would argue this shouldn't even be considered tonight.

It's not been properly noticed.

It's a violation of the Brown Act.

Because the city did not have within its file the material pertinent to this item tonight.

The public could not come in within the notice period and review this because it hadn't been received right on the face of it.

It says October 31st.

As far as what was approved before, I don't know which draft it was.

So that's a notice question that I want to raise because I sense that the council's going to do something kind of a compromise move here.

But since the council's probably going to say we can't really act on this, but we'd like to be allowed to process some minor, small, you know, proposals that may come our way.

And in fact, LAFCO has set that precedent with Grass Valley, as I understand it, and I think that's what Mr.
Balch is saying.

Which brings me to the October 22nd, 2001 letter from the executive officer of LAFCO, SR Jones, which has only been mentioned in passing tonight, but I think deserves a little more attention because going back to the general plan, it is LAFCO.

It's LAFCO's domain here as far as the issue of sphere of influence.

And if you look at the contents of that letter very carefully, which is one of the few recent documents that are in that file that I could find, October 22nd, it makes it pretty clear that once again, state law, LAFCO.

State law, according to the executive officer of LAFCO, has changed.

As Mr.
Balch pointed out, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act has changed some of the procedures, especially concerning municipal service reviews.

If you read the contents of the letter, I'm a little surprised that this -- the only reason this could be put on the agenda tonight would be when you get down to the -- about fifth paragraph of the letter, which proposes a compromise similar to what Grass Valley did.

You know, you really can't annex until we have all the information.

State law has changed.

But here's a way we can maybe accommodate you.

And I think that's why you're here tonight, listening to this input from staff and listening to me.

That's why it's on here.

I'm very concerned about that approach, because what's small to one person may not be small to another.

What begins as minor can become something else.

I think if you're going to go down this path, the definition and the standards have to be very, very precise, specific, well articulated so that we're not opening a can of worms here, ending -- following state law and following what LAFCO is indicating you ought to do here.

So what -- I don't know what small is, but we need to define that clearly before we take that path.

And I know specifically what's out there.

I know what -- you know, what the proposals are, and I know realistically what the city's concerned about taking action on.

It's a kind of a chancy way to go about this.

And Mr.
Balch disagrees with me.

>> I do.

>> Yeah.

But I think you better well know what your standards are and what you're defining, what you're allowing yourself in for.

Because if state law really precludes annexation, and that's what this letter says, until -- you have all the information, then I think that's a questionable practice.

I think the city's got enough litigation going on already.

So those are my concerns.

You know, there's been a lot of comment about ongoing changes and their ongoing tonight.

And I think this is something that's so important to our future here that's certainly worth spending more time on.

I mean, it's been seven months since this was approved, whatever form it was in then.

So there really shouldn't be an urgency at this moment to we've got to make a decision tonight.

And even if it's a compromise decision to allow minor proposals to be processed, even that in itself, I think, is something that ought to scrutinize very, very closely.

So I think that's about all I had to say.

I hope you'll consider what I've indicated.

Thank you.

>> Yeah, thank you.

>> Mr.
Cooper, while you're there, as far as ongoing changes, I think it was pointed out it came as a draft.

So that is part of our charge, is to press.

We will -- if there are three votes for anything, that there perhaps could be some ongoing changes, and that's why it's a draft.

Relative to your concern about municipal services, you may recall that was my whole point with Bill.

I am a concern about that as you are, because if you can't service them, everything I'm meeting here says you can't bring them in.

>> But my first concern, Mr.
Cottrell, is that the notice was not proper for this agenda I had even beyond.

And you can see there's no one here.

And I think this is such a critical issue if it had properly noticed.

I think people probably would have turned out.

>> Well, the noticing, of course, is part of that is up to the media to promote our notices are sent out.

The union apparently decided this wasn't newsworthy.

I don't recall any mention except the little thing in Agate tonight.

It's their decision, not ours.

And KNCL, I didn't hear them today.

I don't know whether they promoted it or not.

>> But that's not my point.

My point is that within the notice, no, the notice went out timely, but the point is that the documents that the public were told they could come and review, because obviously you see how large this is.

The public doesn't have a chance to look at it here.

It's much too comprehensive.

So the meaningful opportunity to review this before the meeting, I don't think was there because the city did not have this document, this final draft, didn't have it until after the notice went out several days later.

Did you get this?
>> Well, that's a question I have, too.

Because a lot of the stuff will come in with a pre-date, and this may have been pre-dated.

But you deserve an answer to that.

>> On its face.

>> Whether it was pre-dated or not.

>> So that's my notice.

>> And as far as doing anything tonight, I guarantee, if we go through three or four meetings before we come to a conclusion, I will be surprised.

I certainly did not come here tonight myself to rubber stamp this and send it to LAFCO.

>> Good.

I think it warrants several meetings.

>> Absolutely.

Couldn't agree with you more.

>> Even the compromise move that I sense is there's precedence for in Grass Valley.

I'd ask you to hold off on that until there's more time to be sure you know what we have here.

It's very important.

>> In that regard, you know something I don't know, because I don't know what you're talking about.

>> I'm going to go back to the >> You're talking about some specific things the city has some interest in bringing in.

>> There are projects out there that are outside the city limits.

I think you know what they are.

>> I'm absolutely serious.

>> Before you make any decision of any kind tonight, please give this a continuance of a couple of weeks or a month or whatever so we can get all the facts and all the state law, all the things that LAFCO is asking for.

It's just critical to the future of our community.

I'll conclude.

Thanks.

>> Do we have an answer for his noticing question?
>> Yes.

State law requires a 10-day notice.

That's a minimum of 10 days notice in the paper and the documents have to be -- it will be able to be reviewed within that 10-day period if this went in the file on October 31st.

I think we met that requirement.

Plus it seems obvious to me we're not going to adopt anything tonight.

We're going to continue two weeks so that will sit in the file another two weeks.

By the time we have the next hearing the public will have had 23 plus days or so or excuse me 26 plus days to have reviewed it prior to any council action.

I think we met our requirement as far as the notice and it may have been predated anyway.

You might have gotten it at the time the notice was sent out.

I have no idea.

>> Do you know, Paul, if it was predated or that we actually received it or Kathy would whether we actually received it in this building on the 31st or received it prior to that and it was just predated?
>> I have no idea when it came in.

It was in a box.

There's probably a slip that shipping tag with it somewhere that -- I don't even know if they shipped it if it was picked out.

>> We had a copy here, the master copy.

There was a master copy sent out to super fast.

There was a copy here as well.

>> Just for simple clarification because I know there was one -- because it's a draft there have been other drafts and once the previous one no longer was valid in the sense that why keep the old one when it's confusing and you've got everything that was in the old one plus the new revisions in this one.

The difference in date of 2001 to 2006 to 2002 and 2007 is this because it's just taking longer and so you're moving it out.

>> That's right.

>> I believe the process was started in 2000 with the idea that it would be set to go back by 2001 and obviously the -- >> The previous versions were all marked planning commission copy.

Okay.

And there was a previous version to that as well.

Thanks.

So this is the third version that we've had public hearings on.

>> If I could just pose one more question.

I guess what I'm wondering is what the planning commission did approve, the draft they did approve in April, how is that different from the current draft you have before you?
Do all of you know what the changes are, what the differences are between those two drafts?
And then we have additional changes being proposed tonight on the draft that you have most currently.

So it's a lot of changes that seem to be flying around and I think we ought to be real clear on what they are.

That's all I'm saying.

>> I think that's why it's phrased a draft.

>> Yeah.

>> Isn't that the whole process?
>> In terms of approving a draft.

>> We are approving a draft.

We're just looking at it.

>> Okay.

>> Crying out loud.

>> Good.

Well, for crying out loud, if I wasn't here, I'm not sure whether you'd be approving it or not.

So I want to make sure that we are clear as far as what you're approving, what you're looking at, why it's been seven months between one action and another.

And again, the compromise of allowing small proposals to be processed, I hope you take a long look at that because I think that can open up a whole lot of problems.

>> Well, a lot of us here at the table get our packets, you know, on Friday right before this.

And so one of my first things I did this morning since Jessica was a holiday was to say I would need more time to read through this.

I do trust the work that the Planning Commission has done.

I'm not a planner.

I may have questions or questions that either I have or that are posed to me through people like you who say, "So call me or come here.

"
And I don't think there's -- I didn't sense in the City Hall today from any staff or tonight I hear the table, I don't hear anybody sounding like they want to rush to judgment on this.

>> Good.

That's what I wanted to hear.

Thank you very much.

>> And also to absolutely ensure you, whether this room were empty or 100 people in here, there's no way in God's green earth I would have voted for this thing tonight.

>> Good.

>> Obviously.

I mean, I agree with everything you said tonight.

>> Okay, Steve, thank you.

>> Yeah.

>> Is there anyone else that would like to address -- >> Maybe I gave you a call and find out what these projects are because I'm unaware of them.

>> Okay.

>> I will.

I gave you a call.

>> All right.

>> Is there anyone else that would like to address the Council on this item?
>> Gary Johnson, 210 Drummond Street.

I was walking up Broad Street the other day, stopped to look at the agenda and saw this item on the agenda.

I thought I would just come in and witness what happened or what was going to happen tonight.

And the only thing that really -- well, first I can see that we as a city have something that's going -- looks like it could take a year or two years to eventually be resolved at the speed LAFCO goes.

And the only thing that really stood out was when Mr.
Balch said, well, in Grass Valley they have an interim proposal for taking in minor or small annexations.

>> That's not what I said.

>> Oh.

>> I said that there was a small portion or a small annexation that Grass Valley wanted to do and they allowed that to take place.

I didn't say we were going to do that.

>> Okay.

>> I just said they allowed that before their final sphere was through.

>> Okay.

I hear that.

>> I think what I heard was that was mentioned as something -- the way I heard it was something that Nevada City might consider doing -- >> If they had something small enough that LAFCO would consider it.

>> Okay.

>> You have to realize it has to go farther than here.

>> I understand that.

My concern is about the word small and minor because, you know, what might -- a quarter acre might be small to one person and 20 acres might be small to another person.

So my concern here is that the council doesn't decide that they will pass any kind of a motion that would allow for annexations to take place that would be of an undefined nature or would be defined by the words small or minor.

I think we would have to be a little more clear than -- >> I think you would have to trust LAFCO to not allow it to happen.

>> I think what you have to have is on a case by case basis.

They wouldn't give you a blanket thing for small annexation.

You would have to come with a reason why you wanted to have a particular parcel annex and it would have to be a case by case basis.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

>> It was warped to mean something else.

>> It wasn't warped intentionally.

Let's say it was misunderstood if it was anything.

>> Okay.

>> Misunderstood.

>> Okay.

And wasn't the reason they decided -- were willing to take a look at the Brunswick thing because it was something that already developed existed.

I thought it was the Brunswick thing.

>> That small record connection.

That was because it was connected already on the sewer and they had to go where they lost it.

>> Right.

So here was something that already existed and it was just kind of getting some old business.

There had been some delays in that area between the county.

>> I couldn't open them until it was -- >> Right.

And they couldn't do the annexation until the city and the county decided on how they were going to share their tax base.

>> Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on this and on the same page.

Thank you.

>> Anyone else?
Seeing no.

Abigail Gibbons, 11-650 Banner Mountain Trail.

The LAFCO letter of October 22nd, paragraphs 4 and 5, specifically addressed Mr.
Bausch's comments.

And this letter is directed to Paul Cogley, city planner from the executive officer, S.

R.

Jones.

It says I understand that this presents a dilemma for the city as you have told me that the city is eager to annex several properties including some that are already receiving sewer service under contract.

Since LAFCO policy establishes certain requirements that Nevada city sphere does not meet annexation applications cannot be deemed complete and scheduled for hearing.

And it goes on and the end of that next paragraph mentioned specifically case by case way of dealing with these specific ones and they recommend that it be even looked at only for very minor proposals such as promoting more efficient provision of services or eliminating in the logical boundary.

Clarify that these projects that apparently Nevada city is eager to annex ought to fall within pretty narrow guideline.

>> Well, comment, this fascinating subject.

I wish kind of wish I had gotten into this about 30 years ago but land use is obviously very interesting and it seems to me that mountain towns just can't do what flat land cities can do.

They never be able to do it because of the issues of up and downhill, gravity, drainage, mud, slides and all the things that happen on slopes.

So it may be necessary for us to look at this town differently than we would as a big city where we draw a circle five year, 10 year, 20 year circle.

And the best we can do is maybe reverse the process and say, okay, looking at the line we already have, our red line, what is it going to take to provide the really quality service within the red line?
And where is the money going to come from?
And don't look at it from the point of view of annexing in order to get more development funds in order to pay for something that we should have done yesterday because you end up in a vicious cycle of annexing yourself to pay for yesterday and you never can supply enough services just as Mr.
Travato said for the police service he needed another X number of cars, police, et cetera, and this can outgrow itself very quickly.

And maybe it's time for us to be innovative here in Nevada City and say what are the ways we can fund the upgrading of what I think is the oldest and most historic plumbing system, at least in California, if not perhaps in large part in the country.

How can we fund this without growing so rapidly that we ruin ourselves?
And we're really pushing the edges of public health safety here.

We have very serious issues with the sewage.

I'd like to see us slow down and do something new and maybe Mr.
Falcone could help us in grading those areas of the city that would be most likely to be developed at the least expense and categorize that, maybe section A, section B, section C, and then draw a line and say to LAFCO we would like to annex zones A, type zones because they are the least expensive.

We think we can come up with the services for those areas by such and such a date and give some kind of figures and then say zone Bs would be more difficult, zone Cs might be next to impossible and have all that within some kind of a five-year plan, but to be very clear to LAFCO that right up front so that it fits their needs for the districting and what Mr.
Balch says they need to know the truth about what we can and can't do and maybe we can tell them what we can do and what we can't do and if we can't do any of them, if there are no zone A's that we can afford to do, maybe we need to draw the line where it is and say for right now that's as far as we can go and these are the reasons fiscally why we can't go there because once you put it down in paper this thing does become law.

It's not a mythical document, it's serious business.

So that's just one thought.

Thank you.

Okay.

We close the public hearing.

Thank you very much.

And where do we go from here?
Is this at our next meeting or what's your pleasure on that?
We're clearly revisiting this and I could take -- or do we want to see what is our next meeting, 12/10?
12/10.

No, we've got another one.

11/26.

We revisit this after the first of the year again.

We're not going anywhere with it and LAFCO is not going anywhere with it.

I don't see the Russian trying to come back in two weeks when there's a lot to dig through.

That sounds good to me and we could be prepared.

We could have some of the changes Bill mentioned could be presented to you and we can just keep up with any other suggestions to the text or to the map that you want to make.

We can't make suggestions outside the public forum.

No, but we would -- I'm thinking of your question, Steve.

This has three or four parts.

There's a master service element, there's policies, there's some discussions and there's maps and we probably could look at each component separately as a separate item.

That's just scratching the surface.

You want to take a look at my notes?
I'd love to.

Only in a public forum.

Okay.

If you want to wait until the first of the year, never mind to me, as long as there's no urgency, but maybe we could just take it piece by piece at every meeting and just at a nice calm pace work our way through it, decide what we're going to do here.

Say we come back and say okay, we're going to take -- because it's the language.

I've got questions beginning on page one.

And say okay, we're going to take first two chapters on December 10th.

We're going to take chapter three on first meeting in January, chapter young.

So there's some -- If you're going to do that, can I ask a question?
Just -- I marked down that close to public hearing.

If you're going to take those in sections, are they going to be public hearings?
Or the public -- I mean, because you're bringing stuff up.

Do we want to reopen the -- I mean, not close the public hearing or do I need to re-notice it, Jim?
We're not going to make any decisions.

I think we're just closing for tonight.

We want to make it for close for this evening.

We're going to close the public hearing for this evening.

I just want to clarify that.

If I have to send out new notices, I'm -- Well, I think to avoid new notices, I think we should pick a date and say we're continuing this on to session session day to consider either such a chapter, such a page or whatever.

Or such a such element.

Right, whatever.

What do you want to do?
Yeah.

I'm looking at this as basically having three parts to this.

If I'm hearing that we want three meetings and not to take the whole evening up on this issue, one suggestion would be that the next meeting could be on chapters one and two.

That's background and purpose of the five-year SPERIP plan and the general plan considerations, land use and population.

Those are the least controversial.

And start with the background.

I would then move to the master services element, because that's more background.

That's chapter four.

And finally, issues and policies.

After you've learned the background, you'll be ready to make decisions as to what the annexation policies should be for Nevada City.

The summary of five-year SPERIP plan policies on page one just reiterates in a different format chapter three.

So that's the same thing.

But I think if we go through the background, that gives you the information that you'll want to have before you make policy decisions.

That's good.

That's exactly what I was looking for, some guidance from someone that's been there.

Okay.

But we just -- we would go page one through 11, then we would go 27 through 46, then we go back to 15.

Sounds good.

Actually five through 11.

Page one is a summary of the policies.

And we're going to wait until the end for the policies.

Okay.

So chapter one and chapter two.

And we'll wait for the public hearing to be continued until -- Until the first meeting of January, at which time we will discuss chapters one and chapters two.

How does that sound?
Is that a motion -- a motion to -- I'm sorry.

I'm losing -- The city attorney says that we would -- It's been a motion to -- Okay.

That was a motion.

I will move that we continue the public hearing until the first meeting in January.

And at that point, we will discuss -- Chapters one and two.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Moving seconded.

Any further discussion?
Just on the motion, I want to reiterate what Mr.
Cooper was talking about, and that is I am just personally very disappointed that neither Cane nor the union or KVMR felt that this issue was newsworthy -- not newsworthy.

Didn't promote it beforehand.

Didn't promote it after.

All we could do is tack up agendas in three locations and fax them to the union and to the others.

And I want to thank Jack Strickland for bringing F-CAT into this room once again so at least somebody out there in this community knows what the hell we're doing.

And I would hope that by the next time we meet that perhaps one or more of us might have a conversation with people who assign reporters to meetings that perhaps they might attend a meeting that is, as Mr.
Cooper said and Mr.
Johnson, this is one of the most important decisions we're going to make, and we'd better not do it in a vacuum.

Okay.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

In a vacuum?
In a vacuum.

That's what we're doing right now.

Okay.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
Motion carries.

Thank you.

New business.

Nevada County grand jury response concerning the water treatment plant.

Do you want to do this one then?
We got a letter from the Foreman Pro Tem of the grand jury saying that we needed to file our response to the grand jury's findings, and that packet is here for your perusal and a letter that essentially says that we agree with their findings and that we have entered into a contract to rectify the situation as they spelled it out.

I move to authorize the mayor to sign the draft letter dated November 14th.

Second it.

Okay.

Move and second it.

Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
Motion carries.

Announcements.

The Nevada County narrow gauge railroad museum dedication is set for Thursday, December 20th, 2001 at 1 o'clock.

It is cordially invited to attend.

And there is a Nevada County mixer celebrating our community partners 150 years as a county.

Wednesday, November 14th, that would be tomorrow, 5.

30 till 7.

30.

It's at the Erick Rood Center.

I got a call today.

I think the way I put it on there.

But what they're doing is tours of the juvenile hall.

They're running a shuttle.

So go to the Rood Center if you want to enjoy the hors d'oeuvres and stuff that they have and then they'll take you by shuttle over to tour the Carl Bryant.

Carl Bryant.

On item number one, the mayor named myself and Bob Wyckoff and John Christensen meeting with the city manager relative to the ceremonies so that no one is concerned about coming out on a December day and facing the elements.

We have a 4,000 square foot vacant building on December 20th and no one will need to get wet.

It's going to be a beautiful day anyway.

We'll be able to hold the ceremonies indoors and no one will get wet.

I assume you'll schedule a sunny day though.

That would be nice.

All right.

Okay.

We have an executive session this evening.

Very brief.

You've got to meet very quickly on the existing litigation in front of Nevada City just to know that there's something to have next week or two weeks.

And the other one is to decide whether we should initiate a litigation.

Those are kind of the numbers.

I don't know if you have any questions about that.

Okay.

That's not itemized because we have information that the other potential person does not have.

That's correct.

Okay.

After our Brown Act workshop.

Just wait.

Move to adjourn to executive session.

Second.

Okay.

Move and second.