Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — Nevada City City Council, April 13, 2022

Regular Meeting of
Nevada City Council
City Hall – Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Conference Room
317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959
WEDNESDAY April 13, 2022 5:30 P.M.

CLOSED SESSION—Pursuant to cited authority, the City Council will hold a closed session to discuss the following listed items. A report of any action taken will be presented during the regular meeting.

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are entitled to comment on the closed session agenda before the Council proceeds into closed session.

A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (§54956.9) Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:
• Number of cases: One case
WEDNESDAY April 13, 2022 6:30 P.M.

MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Nevada City is dedicated to preserving and enhancing its small town character and historical architecture while providing quality public services for our current and future residents, businesses and visitors.

Duane Strawser, Mayor
Erin Minett, Council Member Douglas Fleming, Vice Mayor Daniela Fernández, Council Member Gary Petersen, Council Member The City Council welcomes you to its meetings which are scheduled at 6:30 PM on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of each month. Your interest is encouraged and appreciated. This meeting is recorded on DVD and is televised on local public television Channel 17. Other special accommodations may be requested to the City Clerk 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Please turn off all cell phones or similar devices. Action may be taken on any agenda item. Agenda notices are available at City Hall. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Hall at 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA during normal business hours.

In order to minimize the spread of COVID-19 virus, Governor Newsom has issued Executive Orders that temporarily suspend requirements of the Brown Act. Please be advised that the Council Chambers are closed to the public and that some or all of the City of Nevada City, City Council Members may attend this meeting telephonically.

To watch City Council Meetings live you have the follow options:

1. Public Television Channel 17

2. City’s website: https://nevadacityca.gov/pview.aspx?id=20797&catid=563

3. Nevada City Public Meetings, YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSQwrXtey12YIl3IbyGMYQ If you wish to comment during Public Comment time or on any item on the agenda, you have the following options:

1. Please click the link below to join the webinar and use the “RAISE HAND” feature at the bottom of your screen:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89009138474
Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474

2. Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128

3. Email your comments to [email protected] Comments will be accepted until 7pm on the Monday prior to the meeting date. Comments will not be read during the City Council meeting (due to virtual participation option above), but will be forwarded to all Council Members prior to the City Council Meeting, so they have time to read them before to the meeting time. When sending an email it is extremely helpful to include the following:
a. Full Name
b. Address (specific or general, ie: resident in unincorporated Nevada City) c. The item number that you are commenting on.

CALL TO ORDER
NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION: This City Council Meeting Convenes On the Ancestral Territories of the Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL _____ Mayor Strawser
_____ Vice-Mayor Fleming
_____ Councilmember Fernández
_____ Councilmember Minett
_____ Councilmember Petersen
MEETING PROCEDURES: All items on agenda will be open for public comments before final action is taken. Citizens wishing to introduce written material into the record at the public meeting on any item are requested to provide a copy of the written material to the Deputy City Clerk prior to the meeting date so that the material may be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting.

Speakers must restrict comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within a three minutes time limit (or lesser time if the Mayor determines it necessary due to the number of persons who may wish to speak on an item). The Mayor similarly has the discretion of limiting the total discussion time for an item as may be necessary.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (This is the time for agenda modifications)

ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION

PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation: A Proclamation Honoring the Grand Opening and Ribbon Cutting of Lika's Quarter Cafe
PUBLIC COMMENT: Government Code Section 54954.3 provides that any member of the public may address the City Council on any matter NOT ON THE AGENDA that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. The Brown Act, with limited exceptions, does not allow the Council or staff to discuss issues brought forth under Public Comment. The Council cannot take action on non-agenda items. Concerns may be referred to staff or placed on a future agenda. Please note that comments from the public will also be taken on each agenda item. At the time it is heard. Speakers must restrict comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within a three minutes time limit (or lesser time if the Mayor determines it necessary due to the number of persons who may wish to speak on an item). The Mayor similarly has the discretion of limiting the total discussion time for an item as may be necessary.

CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Council or staff has requested a change under Adoption of the Agenda, in which case the item will be removed for separate consideration. Any item so removed will be taken up following the motion to approve the Consent Agenda

1. Action Minutes March 23, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve

2. Accounts Payable—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

3. Police Activity Report—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

4. Building Activity Report—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

5. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency
Recommended Action: Reconfirm resolution

6. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-22: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City to Extend for 60 Days Resolution No. 2022-13 Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to the December 27, 2021 Snow Storm Recommended Action: Adopt resolution

7. Sierra Academy Graduation, Parade and Street Closure Request 2022 Recommended Action: Review and authorize Sierra Academy graduation, parade, and street closure request per application

8. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-24: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City for the Approval of the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Inflation Adjustment Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution

9. Approve Purchase of Tarps for the City Swimming Pool in an Amount of $14,540.41
Recommended Action: Approve purchase of tarps for the City swimming pool from the lowest total cost vendor Lincoln Aquatics

10. Notice of Public Hearing with California Regional Water Quality Control Board for Waste Discharge Permit Renewal for the City of Nevada City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant
Recommended Action: Receive and file the notice

11. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-21: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Affirming the City Manager’s Finding of Exception to the City’s Personnel Code Policy 2120 “Hiring of Relatives” Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution affirming the City Manager’s findings

12. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-04: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, State of California, Adding Chapter 8.11 to the Nevada City Municipal Code, Relating to Woodstoves and Fireplaces Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt ordinance CONSENT ITEMS FORWARD: Items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be discussed individually with action taken by separate motion.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Notice to the Public:

The City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions:
a) Open the Public Hearing
b) Presentation by Staff
c) Presentation by Applicant or Appellant (if applicable) d) Accept Public Testimony
e) Applicant or Appellant Rebuttal Period (if applicable) f) Close the Public Hearing
g) Council Comments and questions
h) Council Action
Once the hearing is closed, no further public comment will be taken. If you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you, or someone else, raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the city at or before the public hearing.

Public hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuance. Any matter not noted for continuance will be posed separately.

13. Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Map Amendment Request to Relocate and Add a Driveway to Serve an Existing Residence at 230 American Hill Road
Recommended Action: By motion do one of the following:

Adopt Resolution 2022-XX to Uphold the Planning Commission Decision: Motion to deny the appeal and a map amendment request to relocate and add a driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road because the approval of this driveway location would require substantial demolition and alteration of the distinctive site feature of a rock wall along the front of the property. That demolition and reconstruction would be inconsistent with the requirements of the City code found in Title 15, section 15.12.010 which states “The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed.” As the applicant already has approved access to the site and voluntarily purchased the property with full knowledge of the approved access, staff recommends denial of this appeal and uphold the decision of the planning commission.

OR
Adopt Resolution 2022-XX to Overturn the Planning Commission Decision: Motion to grant the appeal and approve a map amendment to provide a direct driveway access to American Hill Road based on the established law of an abutter’s rights to access to a public street, which is a priority of rights, and consistent with Nevada City Municipal Code section 15.12.010 because that section provides that “[t]he removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible” and in this case the alteration of the distinctive rock wall is unavoidable.

14. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 2022-05: An Uncodified Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, California Adopting a Military Equipment Policy of the City of Nevada City, California Governing the Use of Military Equipment and Declaring it an Urgency Measure to Take Effect Immediately upon Adoption.

Recommended Action: Waive reading of Ordinance 2022-05, read by title only, and adopt an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Nevada City adopting a military equipment policy and declaring the Ordinance to be an emergency measure to take effect immediately upon adoption.

BUSINESS

15. Receive a Presentation from the Nevada City Chamber of Commerce on Special Events Through 2022 and Consider Approval of Applications.

Recommended Action: Hear presentation and approve special event applications with conditions as provided.

16. Update on Nevada County Courthouse Discussions to Maintain the Courthouse at its Current Location for Historic Preservation and Economic Stability Recommended Action: Hear verbal report with possible direction to staff and Mayor Strawser representing the City on the Judicial Council committee reviewing options for siting of a new county courthouse

17. Consideration of Adopting Resolution No. 2022-25: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Declaring a continued Stage 3 (Water Shortage Warning) Drought and Implementing Actions set forth in the March 2015 Drought Action Plan:

A Water Shortage Contingency Strategy for the City of Nevada City Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution declaring a continued Stage 3 Drought

CITY MANAGER, COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
THE MEETING WILL ADJOURN AT 9:30 P.M. UNLESS A DECISION IS MADE BY MOTION OF A COUNCILLMEMBER TO EXTEND THE TIME.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) REQUESTS
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at 530-265-2496 x133.

Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

Certification of Posting of Agenda
I, Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk for the City of Nevada City, declares that the foregoing agenda for the April 13, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Nevada City City Council was posted April 8, 2022 at the entrance of City Hall. The agenda, along with staff reports, is also posted on the City’s website.

Signed April 8, 2022 at Nevada City, California
____________________________________________________________ Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk Regular Meeting of
Nevada City Council
City Hall – Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Conference Room
317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959
WEDNESDAY April 13, 2022 5:30 P.M.

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are entitled to comment on the closed session agenda before the Council proceeds into closed session.

To watch City Council Meetings live you have the follow options:

1. Public Television Channel 17

2. City’s website: https://nevadacityca.gov/pview.aspx?id=20797&catid=563

1. Please click the link below to join the webinar and use the “RAISE HAND” feature at the bottom of your screen:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89009138474
Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474

2. Telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128

CALL TO ORDER
NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION: This City Council Meeting Convenes On the Ancestral Territories of the Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (This is the time for agenda modifications)

ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION

1. Action Minutes March 23, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve

2. Accounts Payable—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

3. Police Activity Report—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

4. Building Activity Report—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

7. Sierra Academy Graduation, Parade and Street Closure Request 2022 Recommended Action: Review and authorize Sierra Academy graduation, parade, and street closure request per application

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Notice to the Public:

Public hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuance. Any matter not noted for continuance will be posed separately.

BUSINESS

15. Receive a Presentation from the Nevada City Chamber of Commerce on Special Events Through 2022 and Consider Approval of Applications.

Recommended Action: Hear presentation and approve special event applications with conditions as provided.

A Water Shortage Contingency Strategy for the City of Nevada City Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution declaring a continued Stage 3 Drought

CITY MANAGER, COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
THE MEETING WILL ADJOURN AT 9:30 P.M. UNLESS A DECISION IS MADE BY MOTION OF A COUNCILLMEMBER TO EXTEND THE TIME.

Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2021
NOTE: This meeting is available to view on the City’s website www.nevadacityca.gov – Go to Quick Links and Click on Agendas & Minutes and find the Archived Videos in the middle of the screen. Select the meeting date and Click on Video to watch the meeting. For website assistance, please contact Gabrielle Christakes, Deputy City Clerk at (530) 265-2496, ext 133. - City Council Meetings are available on DVD. To order, contact City Hall - cost is $15.00 per DVD. - Closed Session Meetings are not recorded.

CLOSED SESSION – Call to Order 5:31 PM Adjourned 6:15PM Nothing to report out.

REGULAR MEETING – 6:3 PM - Call to Order

NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Strawser, Vice Mayor Fleming, Council Members Minett and Petersen, Fernández
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:

Action: Motion by Petersen, seconded by Fleming to adopt the agenda as presented. (Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Minett, Strawser, Petersen, Fleming, Fernández PRESENTATIONS:

None
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:

PUBLIC COMMENT (Per Government Code Section 54954.3)
Please refer to the meeting video on the City’s website at www.nevadacityca.gov.

CONSENT ITEMS:

1. Fire Activity Report—February 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file

2. Nevada City Farmer’s Market Street Closure Request 2022 Recommended Action: Review and authorize Nevada City Farmer’s Market street closure request per application
2 3. Receipt of Nevada County Transportation Commission’s (NCTC) Draft FY 2022/23 Overall Work Program (OWP) and Request for Approval of Resolution 2022-21: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Approving the Projects Proposed for Inclusion in the Nevada County Transportation Commission’s FY 2022/23 Overall Work Program Recommended Action: Review projects proposed for inclusion in the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23) Overall Work Program (OWP) and pass Resolution 2022-21 approving the projects proposed for inclusion in the NCTC FY 2022/23 OWP

4. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency Recommended Action: Reconfirm resolution

5. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-02: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, State of California, Amending Chapters 8, 10 and 38 of Title 8 of the City of Nevada City Municipal Code Relating to Fire Control, Vegetation Management, Debris Removal and Abatement, Open Burning and Fireworks Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt ordinance

6. Incorporate a List of Projects Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act Recommended Action: Approve Resolution No. 2022-21 approving the list of projects proposed to be funded with Local Partnership Program (LPP) formulaic funds for fiscal year 2020-21 and 2021-22; appoint the City Manager, or designee
execute all applications, negotiations and agreements which may be necessary; and authorize the City Engineer, or designee, to execute and submit all reports, payment requests, and changes to the project description.

7. Award of Contract with Robinson Enterprises for Removal of Hazardous Trees at Sugarloaf Mountain
Recommended Action: Award Contract with Robinson Enterprises for Removal of Hazardous Trees at Sugarloaf Mountain.

Action: Motion by Fernández, seconded by Minett to approve Consent Item 1-7. (Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Minett, Strawser, Petersen, Fleming, Fernández

PUBLIC HEARINGS

BUSINESS

8. Receive a Presentation from the Nevada County Arts Council and Request for Approval of a Letter of Support for Governor Newsom’s 2022-23 State Budget Proposal, the California 3 Blueprint, that includes $30 million in One-Time Funding to Support and Expand the California Cultural Districts Program
Recommended Action: Hear presentation and approve the letter of support.

Action: Motion by Fleming, seconded by Minett to approve letters of support (Approved 4-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Strawser Minett, Fleming, Petersen. Councilmember Fernández recused herself due to employment relationship.

9. Update on Storm Debris Clean-Up
Recommended Action: Hear verbal report with possible direction to staff on storm debris clean-up and cost recovery actions

10. 2021 Housing Element Progress Report
Recommended Action: Authorize Transmittal of the 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the Department of Housing and Community Development
Action: Motion by Fleming, seconded by Fernández to authorize transmittal of the 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report to the Department of Housing and Community Development (Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Strawser Minett, Fernández, Fleming, Petersen

11. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2022-04: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, State of California, Adding Chapter 8.11 to the Nevada City Municipal Code, Relating to Woodstoves and Fireplaces
Recommended Action: Hold first reading, waive reading of Ordinance in its entirety, read by title only, and schedule for second reading and adoption for April 13, 2022 Action: Motion by Minett, seconded by Fleming to approve Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, State of California, Adding Chapter 8.11 to the Nevada City Municipal Code, Relating to Woodstoves and Fireplaces
(Approved 5-0, - Roll call votes ayes; Strawser Minett, Fernández, Fleming, Petersen CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: Verbal report provided ADJOURNMENT: 7:49 PM
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Duane Strawser, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk
Honoring the Grand Opening and Ribbon Cutting of Lika's Quarter Cafe

PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, business initiation, development, growth and expansion are important threads that bind strong communities, and Lika’s Quarter Café is open for business at 401 Commercial Street; and WHEREAS, Lika’s Quarter Café continues the long tradition of a restaurant presence at the location in the historic downtown; and
WHEREAS, Malika Nonomura is the namesake (Lika) and owner/proprietor of Lika’s Quarter Café in partnership with George Nonomura, having both moved to Nevada City in 2021; and WHEREAS, Malika has expressed her true desire to, make the dining experience to be the joy of life for all who enter her restaurant; and
WHEREAS, a grand opening and ribbon cutting ceremony will be held at Lika’s Quarter Café on April 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the grand opening and ribbon cutting ceremony will be an opportunity for the City, community, visitors, and other businesses to visit and enjoy Lika’s Quarter Cafe; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Nevada City wish to recognize and applaud businesses as investors in our community;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Nevada City does hereby honor the opening of Lika’s Quarter Café and urges those who visit, live, work, and play in Nevada City to Eat Local by patronizing Lika’s Quarter Café or by attending the grand opening and ribbon cutting ceremony on April 18, 2022.

Dated this 13thday of April 2022
______________________________________
Duane Strawser
Mayor

Date
Record
Number
Record
Type Description Address Status Short Notes
3/28/2022 221138 Express
Permit
Digital. c/o pkg unit on the ground, 2 ton, 14 seer, 80% afue.All new heating and cooling components. This permit includes one inspection.

Final Inspection required.
293 BOURBON HILL ROAD,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Mechanical
3/25/2022 221111 Full Review Residential addition to enlarge existing bedroom, 144 sf. New rear & side decks with stairs, 362 sf.Includes 6 inspections.
126 ORCHARD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959
In
Review
Residential
Residential
Addition
3/22/2022 221059
Over the
Counter
Permit
Install Generac Back Up generator with automatic transfer switch.This permit includes two inspections.
125 MARTIN STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Generator
3/22/2022 221053 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. CHANGE OUT 3 TON 16 SEER AC AND COIL IN BACK YARD, 70K BTU 96% FURNACE IN GARAGE.All new heating and cooling components.

This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required. 230 WOODPECKER LANE,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Mechanical
3/16/2022 220994 Full Review
Commercial tenant improvement. Convert existing space to espresso bar. 207 sf.Inspector to verify completion of theater stage. Expired permit 10001376.Includes 4 inspections.
325 SPRING STREET, Nevada
City CA 95959
In
Review
Commercial
Tenant
Improvement
3/16/2022 220996
Over the
Counter
Permit
Replace siding in rotted areas. Replace deck surface boards only. No structural work. Replace rotted rafter tails.Verification of sewer backflow preventer required. Includes 2 inspections.
450 BROAD STREET, Nevada
City CA 95959 Issued Residential Remodel
3/15/2022 220975 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. C/O EXISTING 30 GALLON, GAS WATER HEATER, LIKE FOR LIKE.

LOCATED IN CLOSET OUTSIDE.This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required.
203 ROBIN STREET, Penn
Valley CA 95946 Issued
Residential
Plumbing - One
Inspection
3/14/2022 220965 Express
Permit
REPLACEMENT RETROFIT OF (4) WINDOWS ON RESIDENCE. LIKE FOR LIKE.This permit includes one inspection. Final inspection required. 302 GETHSEMANE STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued
Residential
Window
Change Out
3/9/2022 220911 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. Main Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required. 520 EAST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
MARCH 2022 BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
3/7/2022 220910 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. Main Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required. 522 EAST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220872 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. Main Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.THIS PERMIT INCLUDES ONE INSPECTION.
523 WEST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220908 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required. 524 EAST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220873 Express
Permit
DIGITAL: Main Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.THIS PERMIT INCLUDES ONE INSPECTION.
529 WEST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220909 Express
Permit
DIGITAL: Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required. 512 BROAD STREET, Nevada
City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220868 Full Review DIGITAL. Main Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.THIS PERMIT INCLUDES ONE INSPECTION.
517 WEST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220870 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. Main Service Conversion from Overhead to Underground.THIS PERMIT INCLUDES ONE INSPECTION.
519 WEST BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued Residential Electrical
3/7/2022 220871 Express
Permit
DIGITAL: Platinum Roofing Member. Re roof, cool comp, like for like, 80 squares.This permit includes one inspection. Final Inspection required. 313 RAILROAD AVENUE,
Nevada City CA 95959 Issued
Residential
Platinum
Program
Reroof
3/4/2022 220840 Full Review Residential Addition. Add bedroom, bath and mudroom. New covered porch.This permit includes 6 inspections.
155 PARK AVENUE, Nevada
City CA 95959
In
Review
Residential
Residential
Addition
3/4/2022 220835 Express
Permit
DIGITAL. PLATINUM MEMBER. Tear off existing roof, install Owens Corning lifetime shingles on residence. No exemption, installing cool roof.This permit includes one inspection.
510 SACRAMENTO STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959 Finaled
Residential
Platinum
Program
Reroof

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 05
Subject: Consideration of Reaffirming Resolution No.
2021-44: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Making the Legally Required Findings to
Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote
“Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: April 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager:

City Attorney:

Recommended Action: Reaffirm resolution
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

This is the resolution previously adopted by council authorizing the continued use of remote “telephonic” council meetings. As advised by the City Attorney, this resolution must be reaffirmed at each council meeting until such time as the requirement is rescinded.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution No. 2021-44

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 06
Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-22: A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City to Extend for 60 Days Proclamation No. 2022-13 Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to the December 27, 2021 Snow Storm
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: March 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager:

City Attorney:

Recommended Action: Adopt resolution
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

On January 5, 2022, Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-01 ratifying a declaration of emergency issued on January 3, 2022 by Interim City Manager Joan Phillipe declaring a local emergency based on the existence of conditions of extreme disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property in the city caused by the December 27, 2021 snow storm. On February 23, 2022 Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-13 extending the emergency declaration by 60 days through April 23, 2022.

There remains storm debris, damage to structures and property and other impacts from the snow storm. The City continues to process claims, provide remediation and repair damages. The impacts of the storm persist as a local emergency to the City.

Council must act to extend an emergency declaration every 60 days to keep in effect the mandates of the proclamation. By adopting Resolution No. 2022-22, the extension will provide for those provisions to be effective until June 14, 2022. Action can be taken sooner if conditions change to terminate the order. If conditions remain, another resolution will need to be adopted to extend the emergency.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

None with the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution 2022-22
Resolution No. 2022-13
Resolution No. 2022-01
Proclamation No. 2022-02
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY TO EXTEND FOR 60 DAYS RESOLUTION NO. 2022-13 DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE DECEMBER 27, 2021 SNOW STORM WHEREAS, the city manager, acting in her capacity as the Director of Civil Defense and Disaster declared existence of an emergency pursuant to Government Code Section 8630 and Nevada City Municipal Code Section 2.44.0505(A)(1) and enacted Proclamation 2021-02 on December 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council ratified the proclamation on January 5, 2022 by adopting Resolution No. 2022-01; and
WHEREAS, the proclamation provides that:
- the City was inundated by a snow storm that created excessive amounts of snow in an area that generally does not received much snow;
- the impacts of the storm resulted in a large number of fallen trees and limbs creating safety hazards throughout the city as well as downed power lines and loss of power; - the conditions presented by the storm have taxed the city’s small staff to the limit and conditions created by the storm are beyond the control, capacity and resources of the city’s
WHEREAS, while power has been restored, the other conditions of downed trees and other debris combined with limited staff and resources continue to exist and warrant continuation of the emergency declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-13 on February 23, 2022 continuing the local emergency for 60 days; and
WHEREAS, the declaration must be renewed every 60 days to maintain its full force and effect; and
WHEREAS, the conditions cited in the proclamation continue to exist in and around the city; and
WHEREAS, a true and correct copy of Proclamation 2021-02 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Nevada City that Proclamation 2021-02 declaring an emergency is hereby continued in full force and effect.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Duane Strawser,
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Niel Locke
City Clerk

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 07
Subject: Sierra Academy Graduation, Parade and Street
Closure Request 2022
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: March 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager:

City Attorney:

Recommended Action: Review and authorize Sierra Academy graduation, parade and street closure request per application.

ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

On March 15, 2022, the City received an application for the Sierra Academy graduation and parade, including street closures, on Friday June 10, 2022. The proposed event hours are 8:00am to 2:00pm with setup beginning at 7:30 AM and take down by 4:00 PM. The proposed street closures below are consistent with prior years closures for the event and include:
- Cottage Street between Pine and Main Streets
- Main Street between Alexander and Court Streets
A summary of the specific event characteristics and recommended staff conditions are included in the application packet.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The total fees to be collected if the application is approved are $100.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Street Closure/Special Event Application and staff conditions

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 08
Subject: Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2022- 24: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City for the Approval of the Regional Transportation
Mitigation Fee Program Inflation Adjustment
From: Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
Date: April 6, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager: STG
City Attorney: DJP
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

Nevada City and the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) are each empowered by law to conduct, participate in, and provide regional transportation planning activities and desire to cooperate in the exercise of those powers. The purpose of the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program is to finance improvements to the regional network of streets and roads that are needed to mitigate the impact of increased traffic that will result from new development in western Nevada County. The Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2016 Administrative Plan, adopted by NCTC on November 16, 2016, serves as the guideline for implementation and administration of the RTMF Program. Staff is recommending the Council adopt a Resolution approving the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Inflation Adjustment in accordance NCTC adopted Resolution 22-05.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable. This is a pass-through fee which is identified in the attach NCTC resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2022-24, a Resolution Approving the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Program Inflation Adjustment
• NCTC Resolution 22-05 Approval of RTMF Inflation Adjustment RESOLUTION NO. 2022-24

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION

FEE (RTMF) PROGRAM INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, Nevada City and the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) are each empowered by law to conduct, participate in and provide regional transportation planning activities and desire to cooperate in the exercise of those powers; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program is to finance improvements to the regional network of streets and roads that are needed to mitigate the impact of increased traffic that will result from new development in western Nevada County; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2016 Administrative Plan, adopted by NCTC on November 16, 2016 and by the City of Nevada City on November 30, 2016, serves as the guideline for implementation and administration of the RTMF Program; and
WHEREAS, the RTMF Administrative Plan recommends that the RTMF be reviewed annually and that fee adjustments should be based on the San Francisco Construction Cost Index as reported in the Engineering News Record (ENR) "20- City Construction Cost Index" for the 12-month period ending December of the prior year; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorized the collection of the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) on November 30, 2016.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Nevada City to approve the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Inflation Adjustment in accordance with NCTC adopted Resolution 22-05 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Nevada City held on the 13th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Duane Strawser, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 22-05
OF THE

NEVADA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

APPROVAL OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE (RTMF)

INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2016 Nexus Study Update Final Report, and the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2016 Administrative Plan were approved by Nevada County Transportation Commission on November 16, 2016; and WHEREAS, the RTMF Administrative Plan states: "The RTMF may, at NCTC's discretion, be adjusted to account for the inflation of construction, right-of-way, acquisition, and design costs"; and WHEREAS, the RTMF Administrative Plan recommends that the RTMF be reviewed annually and that fee adjustments should be based on the San Francisco Construction Cost Index as reported in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) "20-City Construction Cost Index" for the 12-month period ending December of the prior year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nevada County Transportation Commission approves the recommended RTMF increase presented below:

ENR San Francisco CCI:
2021 Fees:
2022 Recommended Fees:
(with 8% increase)
Dec-2020
Dec-2021
13168.76
14228.24
0 /o Increase: 8%
Residential Development
$449.44
Residential Development
$485.40
Non-Residential Development
$79.37
Non-Residential Development
$85.72
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of the Nevada County Transportation Commission is authorized to forward this recommended fee increase to Nevada County, City of Grass Valley, and City ofNevada City for their consideration and approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Nevada County Transportation Commission on March 16,2022, by the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioner Aguilar, Commissioner Burton, Commissioner Hoek, Commissioner Scofield, Commissioner Strawser, Commissioner Zabriskie
Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Attest:

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 09
Subject: Approve Purchase of Tarps for the City Swimming Pool in an Amount of $14,540.41
From: Dawn Zydonis, Parks & Recreation Manager
Date: April 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved: STG
Recommended Action: Approve purchase of tarps for the City swimming pool from the lowest total cost vendor Lincoln Aquatics
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

The swimming pool uses tarps to cover the pool in the evenings and during times that the pool is not in use. The tarps help to maintain the temperature of the swimming pool as well as keep dirt and debris from getting into the water.

The swimming pool tarps used by the City were last replaced in 2013. The longevity of the tarps is partially dependent on how much they are used. Since the swimming pool is generally closed during the winter, the tarps were mostly only used during summer months and then stored inside the pool office during the winter. This helped with longevity. If we continue to have swimmers during the winter months, they may need to be purchased on a more regular basis.

Three quotes were requested, two were received. Those quotes are attached to the staff report. Staff recommend purchase of the tarps from Lincoln Aquatics. Although the amount on the attached quote from Lincoln Aquatics is more than the quote from Recreonics, the Recreonics quote does not include tax.

Once that is added on the tarps from Lincoln Aquatics will be the lower of the two.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The fiscal year 2021/22 budget allows for $10,000 of Capital Outlay for the swimming pool. The remainder of the cost of the tarps will come from the materials and supplies budget of the swimming pool.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
LEGAL REVIEW:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

ATTACHMENTS:

Quotes for replacement tarps

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 10
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing with California Regional Water Quality Control Board for Waste Discharge Permit
Renewal for the City of Nevada City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant
From: Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
Date: April 7, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager: STG
City Attorney:

Recommended Action: Receive and file.

ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

The City of Nevada City owns and operates the Wastewater Treatment Plant, a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system, which provides sewerage service to the City of Nevada City. Treated municipal wastewater is discharged to Deer Creek, a water of the United States and tributary to the Yuba River. The State Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates discharges from the Treatment Plant, in accordance with Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order R5-2017-0060 (NPDES CA0079901) which became effective on 1 August 2017. This permit is renewed every five years and a Tentative Order has been issued with a Draft Permit for review. The hearing on the tentative Order will be conducted by the Central Valley Water Board on June 9th, 2022. Interested persons wishing to comment, in writing, on the tentative Order shall submit comments no later than 5:00 p.m. on 21 April 2022 to the Central Valley Water Board email at [email protected] .

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Compliance with SWRCB Waste Discharge in accordance with the annual City budget for wastewater treatment.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Public Hearing for Tentative Order Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2022- Xxxx National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
11020 Sun Center Drive, #200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670-6114

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
concerning

TENTATIVE ORDER
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER R5-2022-XXXX

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PERMIT CA0079901
FOR

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY OF NEVADA CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

NEVADA COUNTY
Discharger and Tentative Order Information
The City of Nevada City (Discharger) is the owner and operator of the City of Nevada City Wastewater Treatment Plant (Facility), a publicly-owned treatment works located at 650 Jordan Street, Nevada City, California. The Facility provides sewerage services for the City of Nevada City, serving a population of approximately 3,150. The Facility provides treatment for an average dry weather flow of 0.69 million gallons per day of domestic and industrial wastewater. The Facility discharges tertiary treated wastewater to Deer Creek, a water of the United States. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) and United States Environmental Protection Agency classify the Facility as a minor facility.

Discharges from the Facility are currently regulated by Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2017-0060, issued by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 June 2017. An Order is proposed to renew the NPDES permit. The proposed Order includes new or updated effluent limitations for ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dibromochloromethane, dichlorobromomethane, nitrate plus nitrite, pH, total mercury, and total suspended solids.

Public Hearing Date and Location
A public hearing concerning the tentative Order will be held during the Central Valley Water Board meeting scheduled for:

DATE: 9/10 June 2022
TIME: 8:30 a.m.

PLACE: Online Meeting
AND
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY OF NEVADA CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

NEVADA COUNTY
The final meeting agenda
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_info/meetings/) will be available at least 10 days before the meeting. The agenda will provide the anticipated date the hearing will be held for this item and anticipated order of all agenda items; however, the Board may consider agenda items out of their listed order. The agenda materials may also include staff revisions to the tentative Order.

Nature and Purpose of Hearing
At the hearing, the Central Valley Water Board will hear testimony and oral comments regarding the tentative Order. This proceeding will be a formal adjudicatory proceeding.

The procedures governing Central Valley Water Board adjudicatory hearings (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/) may be found at California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 648 et seq. and are available upon request.

Prehearing Submission of Written Comments and Evidence
The Discharger is a party to this proceeding. As a party, the Discharger must submit written evidence or comments, if any, for the Board to consider no later than 5:00 p.m. on 21 April 2022 to the Central Valley Water Board email at RB5S-NPDES[email protected].

Interested persons include any non-party that is interested in the outcome of the hearing. Interested persons wishing to comment, in writing, on the tentative Order shall submit comments no later than 5:00 p.m. on 21 April 2022 to the Central Valley Water Board email at [email protected].

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 648.4, the Board Chair may refuse to admit written evidence or comments that are not submitted in accordance with this Notice and shall refuse to do so when there is a showing of prejudice to the Discharger or the Board. Excluded material will not be considered by the Board.

Visual Presentations
Hearing participants may use PowerPoint or other visual presentations at the hearing, but the presentation content shall not exceed the scope of previously submitted written material. Presentations, if any, must be provided to the below Central Valley Water Board Contact by 12:00 p.m. on 7 June 2022.

Hearing Procedure and Time Limits
The hearing on the tentative Order will be conducted in the general order listed under California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 648.5, except that the Board Chair may modify the order for good cause.

The Discharger will be advised in advance of the hearing of the total amount of time allocated for their presentation and closing statement. The Discharger is invited to NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 3

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY OF NEVADA CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

NEVADA COUNTY
contact staff in advance of the hearing to discuss how much time they believe is necessary.

Interested persons may speak at the hearing and are expected to orally summarize their written submittals, if any. Each interested person will have 3 minutes to present oral comments. Additional time may be provided, upon request, at the discretion of the Board Chair.

Hearing Accommodations
The hearing facilities will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to send an e-mail to [email protected] or call 916-464-4839 at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. TTY users may contact the California Relay Service at 1-800-735-2929 or voice line at 1-800-735-2922.

Availability of Documents
The tentative Order and related documents may be found on the Central Valley Water Board’s Tentative Orders Page
(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/tentative_orders/).

Copies of these documents may also be obtained by contacting or visiting the Central Valley Water Board’s office at 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200, Rancho Cordova, California, 95670-6114 weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Scheduling an appointment to review the file by contacting the below Central Valley Water Board Contact in advance is not required but calling ahead will help ensure timely access to these documents.

Central Valley Water Board Contact
Anyone having questions regarding this hearing item should contact Sarah Thompson at (916) 464-4713 or [email protected].

Please bring the above information to the attention of anyone you know who would be interested in this matter.

Adam Laputz, Assistant Executive Officer

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 11
Subject: Adopt Resolution 2022-21 Ratifying the City
Manager’s Finding of Exception to the City’s Personnel Code Policy 2120 “Hiring of Relatives”
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: April 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution ratifying the City Manager’s findings ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

Generally, the City’s Personnel Code Policy 2120 prohibits employment of spouses and relatives unless the two findings can be made:

1. No adverse impact on safety, morale, security or supervision; AND

2. No direct supervision or decision making (including work assignments, promotions, demotions, salary or the like) over the relative.

After an exhaustive search for part-time employees to provide summer staffing for the City’s swimming pool and related programming there are an insufficient number of personnel available to hire to meet the City’s needs. The daughter of the City’s Parks & Recreation Manager is qualified for the noted vacancies and is willing to work for the City in the noted capacity. However, this employment would include direct supervision from a relative, her mother.

Section 2120.90 of the Personnel Code provides that the City Manager may authorize an exception to the policy if it is found that:

1. substantial bona fide efforts have been made to locate and employ such a person who is not a relative of any employee (2120.90(2)) OR

2. the relationship between the relative and the employee is unlikely to materially affect his or her employment by the City (2120.90(3)).

Attached is a Memorandum issued by the City Manager allowing for the employment of the daughter of the City’s Parks & Recreation Manager by authorizing an exception to policy 2120. Section 2120.90 provides that “any such exception authorized by the City Manager must be ratified by Council.” Adoption of Resolution 2022-21 provides the required ratification by the City Council.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy exceptions as described above.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
LEGAL REVIEW:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution 2022-21
City Manager Memorandum Finding an Exception to Policy 2120

-1-
RESOLUTION 2022-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY RATIFYING THE CITY MANAGER’S FINDING OF EXCEPTION TO THE CITY’S PERSONNEL CODE POLICY 2120 “HIRING OF RELATIVES”
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Personnel Code that included “Hiring of Relatives” policy 2120 which prohibits employment of spouses and relatives unless two findings can be made:

1. No adverse impact on safety, morale, security or supervision; AND

2. No direct supervision or decision making (including work assignments, promotions, demotions, salary or the like) over the relative.; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is authorized under Section 2120.90 of the Personnel Code to authorize an exception to the policy if it is found that:

1. substantial bona fide efforts have been made to locate and employ such a person who is not a relative of any employee (2120.90(2)) OR

2. the relationship between the relative and the employee is unlikely to materially affect his or her employment by the City (2120.90(3)).; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has issued a memorandum authorizing an exception under both provisions of 2120.90 for employment of Ms. Grace Zydonis as a part-time lifeguard or substantially similar position under the supervision of her mother Ms. Dawn Zydonis, the City’s Parks & Recreation Manager; and
WHEREAS, Section 2120.90 provides that any such exception authorized by the City Manager must be ratified by Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Nevada City ratifies the memorandum issued by the City Manager authorizing an exception to the City’s Personnel Code allowing for the City employment of Ms. Grace Zydonis.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Duane Strawser, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk

City of Nevada City
City Hall · 317 Broad Street · Nevada City, California 95959 · (530) 265-2496 TO: Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager / Deputy City Clerk
FROM: Sean Grayson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization of Employment Under Exception to Personnel Code Policy 2120
DATE: April 8, 2022
Generally, the City’s Personnel Code Policy 2120 prohibits employment of spouses and relatives unless the two findings can be made:

1. No adverse impact on safety, morale, security or supervision; AND

2. No direct supervision or decision making (including work assignments, promotions, demotions, salary or the like) over the relative.

Section 2120.90 of the Personnel Code provides that the City Manager may authorize an exception to the policy if it is found that:

1. substantial bona fide efforts have been made to locate and employ such a person who is not a relative of any employee (2120.90(2)) OR

2. the relationship between the relative and the employee is unlikely to materially affect his or her employment by the City (2120.90(3)).

The City has exercised its usual and customary approach to the recruitment for the noted vacancies and conducted extensive outreach in person and through social media. I find that the first exception identified in the Section 2120.90 of the Personnel Code is present.

Authorization of Employment Under Exception to Personnel Code Policy 2120 April 8, 2022 City Hall · 317 Broad Street · Nevada City, California 95959 · (530) 265-2496 Should the daughter of the City’s Parks & Recreation Manager be employed as a cashier, lifeguard or related part-time employee for the City, it is unlikely to materially affect her employment by the City. The employment relationship would be the same as or similar to all other part-time employees at the swimming pool.

To avoid any potential conflict the Parks & Recreation Manager may provide direction and oversight of her daughter as a part-time employee but I direct by this memorandum and its inclusion in the relevant personnel file that the daughter shall report to Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager / Deputy City Clerk for any matters that may generate conflict between mother and daughter.

This memorandum and its provisions shall be in effect upon its ratification by Resolution of the Nevada City Council (to be attached to this memo) and shall remain in effect for 12 months from its effective date.

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 12
Subject: Consideration of Ordinance No. 2022-04: An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, State of California, Adding Chapter 8.11 to the Nevada City
Municipal Code, Relating to Woodstoves and Fireplaces.

From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: April 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

Recommended Action:

Hold second reading and adopt Ordinance 2022-04
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

At the March 23, 2022 meeting City Council introduced Ordinance 2022-04 for a first reading, for the update of the Municipal Code with regard to the burning of material in woodstoves and fireplaces. The City has recently been issued health and safety advisories pertaining to use of solid fuels in woodstoves and fireplaces. The request was to address what materials can and cannot be burned in a woodstove or fireplace as burning of materials outside is addressed in the City’s vegetation management ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would add Chapter 8.11 to the Nevada City Municipal Code and provide regulations with regard to woodstoves and fireplaces. The ordinance prohibits the burning of any materials in woodstoves and fireplaces other than those are allowed in the ordinance. The materials that are allowed to be burned in the ordinance are: Untreated wood; Uncolored paper; Manufactured logs, pellets, and similar manufactured fuels; Cardboard; and Undyed organic cloth.

Staff has reviewed the proposed ordinance under the California Environmental Quality Act and implementing regulations, known as the Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Council determine that the proposed ordinance is not a project subject to environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Code of Regulations. The proposed ordinance would essentially reorganize existing law and is therefore an organizational activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable.

LEGAL REVIEW:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

ATTACHMENTS:

Ordinance 2022-04
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.11 TO THE NEVADA CITY MUNICIPAL

CODE, RELATING TO WOOD STOVES AND FIREPLACES
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitutions provides that cities may make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws; and
WHEREAS, the City of Nevada City currently does not directly regulate the use of wood stoves and fireplaces; and
WHEREAS, the City of Nevada City has recently been issued health and safety advisories pertaining to use of solid fuels in wood stoves; and
WHEREAS, it is prudent in order to protect public health, safety and welfare that the City of Nevada City enact an ordinance regulating use of wood stoves and fireplaces; and WHEREAS, the City of Nevada City, California, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§21000 and following) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§15000 and following) has determined that this ordinance is not a project under CEQA pursuant to Section 15378 (b)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, general policy and procedure making;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and incorporated into this ordinance.

SECTION 2. Chapter 11 is hereby added to Title 8 of the Nevada City Municipal Code, to read as follows:

Chapter 8.11 – WOOD STOVES AND FIREPLACES

8.11.010 – Purpose.

This chapter is enacted for the purpose of improving and maintaining the level of air quality of the city in order to protect and enhance the health of its citizens by controlling the emissions of particulate matter and other wood burning pollutants into the air of the community of Nevada City.

8.11.020 - Definitions.

For purposes of this ordinance:
2 "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. "EPA certified appliance" means any solid fuel burning appliance utilized for space or water heating or cooking that meets the performance and emission standards as set forth in Part 60, Title 40, subpart AAA code of Federal Regulation, February 26, 1988. "EPA Phase II certified appliance" means a solid fuel burning appliance that meets the emission requirements of no more than 4.1 grams per hour particulate matter emission for catalytic and 7.5 grams per hour for non-catalytic appliances. Pellet fueled wood heaters or gas fueled appliances shall be considered as meeting Phase II requirements. Any other solid fuel burning appliances, including fireplaces, shall be considered non-certified. "Nevada City city limits" means the legal boundaries of the City of Nevada City. "Pellet fueled wood heater" means any heater designed to heat the interior of a building that operates on pelletized wood and has an automatic feed.
"Permanently inoperable" means modified in such a way that the appliance can no longer function as a solid fuel heater or easily be remodified to function as a solid fuel heater.

Conversion to other fuels, such as gas, is permitted.
"Gas fueled appliances" means any heater designed to heat the interior of a building that operates on either propane, natural gas or oil.
"Solid fuel burning appliance" means any fireplace, heater, stove or structure that burns wood, coal or any other non-gaseous or non-liquid fuels, or any similar device burning any solid fuel used for aesthetic, water heating or space heating purposes. A pellet fueled wood heater is specifically excluded from this definition.

8.11.030 – Standards for regulation of solid fuel burning appliances.

A. All new and replacement solid fuel burning appliances shall be certified and labeled as an EPA Phase II certified appliance.

B. All solid fuel burning appliances, pellet fueled wood heater and gas fueled appliances shall not be installed without first obtaining a building permit from the city. All installations shall require an inspection and approval by the building division prior to operation.

C. Verification that the appliance complies with the required emissions standards and with this chapter shall be verified by an inspector of the city's building division and such verification shall remain on file with the building division.

D. No person shall advertise, sell, offer for sale, supply, install or transfer a solid fuel burning appliance within the Nevada City city limits unless it is either:
3 1. Tested, certified and labeled as meeting the emission requirements of the EPA Phase II certified appliance;

2. A pellet fueled wood heater including those labeled exempt from 40 CFR Part 60; or

3. Permanently inoperable.

E. Solid fuel burning appliances shall not be the primary form of heat in any new construction.

F. The following are exempt from the requirements of Section 8.11.030:

1. Gas fueled appliances.

2. All existing, permitted solid fuel burning appliances as of the effective date of this ordinance.

3. One fireplace located in a hotel/motel lobby or similar common area lobby or in the common area of a condominium project.

8.11.040 – Limiting number of certified solid fuel burning appliances.

A. No more than one solid fuel burning appliance shall be installed on any property after the effective date of this ordinance.

B. The following are exceptions to Section 8.11.040:

1. Existing properties with one or more existing solid fuel burning appliances, as of the effective date of this ordinance. Such properties shall not be permitted to install any additional solid fuel burning appliances.

2. One additional solid fuel burning appliance may be installed in a dwelling if it is on a parcel greater than sixty-seven hundredths of an acre (twenty-nine thousand fifty-five square feet).

8.11.050 – Prohibited fuels.

A. Materials that are allowed to be burned in a solid fuel burning appliance are listed below:

1. Untreated wood;

2. Uncolored paper;

3. Manufactured logs, pellets, and similar manufactured fuels; 4 4. Cardboard; and

5. Undyed organic cloth.

B. Burning of any other fuels or materials in a solid fuel burning appliance is prohibited within the Nevada City city limits.

8.11.060 - Reserved.

8.11.070 - Penalties.

A. It is illegal to violate any requirements of this chapter. Any owner of any property which is in violation of the requirements of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. Any person operating a solid fuel burning appliance in violation of this chapter is guilty of an infraction. The third violation by the same person within a twelve month period shall constitute a misdemeanor. Prosecution of any violation of this chapter may be against the property owner, the occupant, or both.

B. Violation of any portion of this chapter may result in assessment of civil penalties against the property and against an individual person or persons as follows:

1. First violation within a twelve month period, fifty dollars;

2. Second violation within a twelve-month period, one hundred dollars;

3. Third violation within a twelve-month period, two hundred fifty dollars; and

4. Four or more violations within a twelve-month period, five hundred dollars per violation.

C. Each and every day a violation exists is a new and separate violation. Right to appeal, hearings and collection of civil penalties shall be pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.22 of this code.

D. Nothing in this section shall prevent the city from pursuing criminal penalties or using any other means legally available to it in addressing violations of this chapter.

E. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this code, or whenever the air pollution control officer or his authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any condition which violates the provisions of this chapter, the air pollution control officer or his authorized representative may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the air pollution control officer by this code; provided, that if such building or premises be unoccupied, he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry. If such entry is refused, or if the owner or person 5 having charge or control of the building or premises cannot be contacted, the air pollution control officer or his authorized representative shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry.

SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental procedures, and has been found to be not a project under Section 15378 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, general policy and procedure making.

SECTION 6. INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Nevada City Municipal Code or appendicies thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and/or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect commencing thirty (30) days after its final adoption and a summary hereof shall be published once within fifteen (15) days in The Union, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Nevada and circulated in the City of Nevada City and hereby designated for that purpose by the City Council.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner and form provided by law in The Union, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Nevada City, State of California, which said newspaper is hereby designated for that purpose.

Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ___ day of ____, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT

ABSTAINED
Passed and approved at the regular meeting of the City Council on the ____ day of ____, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
6 MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST:
_____________________ __________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk Duane Strawser, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Dean J. Pucci, City Attorney

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 13
Subject: Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to
Deny a Map Amendment Request to Relocate and Add a
Driveway to Serve an Existing Residence at 230
American Hill Road
From: Amy Wolfson, City Planner
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager: STG
City Attorney:

Recommended Action: By motion do one of the following:

ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

The Planning Commission heard the map amendment proposal at their meeting held April 15, 2021. The Commission voted to deny the Map Amendment Request with the following action:

Motion by L. Oberholtzer to deny the application for the driveway change (map amendment proposal to add and relocate a driveway) based on the fact that there is currently reasonable access to both properties that was approved by a previous planning commission which resulted in the creation of the second lot and also because the City has not done adequate environmental review on the cultural, aesthetic, or traffic safety issues.

Seconded by A. Cobden
Vote: 5 ayes / 0 noes / motion carries
Applicant and property owner, Scott Rice timely filed an appeal within the 15-day appeal period for review by the City Council. The original map, recorded in book 18 of Parcel Maps, Page 388, was approved with a single driveway located on the adjacent property (APN 005-094-012). A shared driveway easement crosses Parcel 2 of the map and benefits both Parcels 1 and 2. The subject property, (Parcel 1) is developed with a single-family residence and currently uses the existing off-site driveway to access the residence. The applicant is proposing to construct a new driveway to serve Parcel 1 directly off of American Hill Road and a new driveway for Parcel 2 along the eastern boundary. Construction of the new driveway to serve Parcel 1 will require partial demolition of an existing rock retaining wall.

This appeal was originally scheduled to be heard at the May 26, 2021 City Council Meeting. However, the applicant requested a continuance of the item in order to consider alternative site development options. Rice has since determined that there is not a feasible alternative to meet his development goals.

Staff originally advised that the City could not deny the driveway request based on a long history of California State Law that protects “abutter’s rights.” However, a careful review of the City Municipal Code Section 15.12.010, subsection B.2, provides the City clear discretion when faced with removal or alteration of the distinguishing original qualities or character of a pre-1942 site or structures and historic material.

Given that State legal precedence for “abutter’s rights” is in conflict with the City’s local requirement to preserve pre-1942 distinguishing qualities in this particular circumstance, staff recommends that appropriate findings can be made to support either an action to uphold, or an action to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the driveway encroachment. Staff has drafted two resolutions to support either action.

Any Resolution adopted by the City Council in relation to this action shall bear the identifier Resolution 2022-23.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Biological Resources: A biological management plan was prepared for the project site to determine the extent of any sensitive biological resources, including special status plant and wildlife species and whether or not stream or wetland resources are present. The inventory notes an intermittent stream that has been buried within a 24-inch culvert near the property line shared between vacant Parcel 2 and with 502 Spring Street to the east. Matuzak recommends that because there is no longer an open stream channel, that the 25-foot setback normally applied to seasonal streams is not appropriate in this case. However, the City Engineer is requiring a minimum 15-foot setback to maintain both the culvert and a sewer line. Matuzak identifies eight special status plant and animal species that have been identified within 3 miles of the project site. However, his overview of each of these species includes a conclusion for each that their potential to occur on the site is low or non-existent.

Geotechnical Study: The applicant has provided a Feasibility Assessment prepared by Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, NV5. While steep slope constraints were not recorded on the Parcel Map, it appears that the constraints map was used in the approval of the Tentative Map to show that a building site was feasible on Parcel 2 without need of a Variance. The Feasibility Assessment found that several areas shown as steep slopes “lined with boulders or stacked rock walls, that were found throughout the property appear to be cut excavations and were stable.” Because the steep slope constraints are not on the recorded map, this is not a matter that relates directly to the map amendment discussion, but will be important prior to a building permit issuance.

Floodplain Constraints: The original approval letter and the constraints map sites a floodplain constraint on Parcel 2. The applicant has prepared a FIRMette using FEMA floodplain mapping software that shows there is not a designated floodplain at this site. The closest designated floodplain hazard area is located along the Deer Creek channel The project was also reviewed by the City Engineer who does not have concerns regarding flooding, particularly since the intermittent stream is now enclosed within a 24 inch culvert.

Archeological Resources: The applicant has provided a letter from the North Central Information Center (NCIC), the State agency that oversees the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS).

They conclude that given the extent of known cultural resources and the environmental setting, there is a moderate potential for locating prehistoric-period and high potential for locating historic period cultural resources on the project site.

A representative from NCIC clarified in an email to the applicant that the primary reason for the “high potential” rating designated for historic cultural resources in this case has to do with the potential for the existing nineteenth century house on the property to hold architectural significance. The moderate rating given for prehistoric-period cultural resources is due to the intermittent stream and exposed bedrock in and around the property. The NCIC letter and the follow-up email to the applicant are attached to the staff report for reference.

Access: The project has frontage along American Hill Road, a City maintained road. The Engineering and Fire Departments have reviewed the project proposal and have determined that this roadway is adequate to serve the project. The City Engineer has indicated that the driveway location provides adequate stopping sight distance on that portion of American Hill Road, subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

The proposed driveway will be similar to other private driveways on residential streets throughout the City.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS: None
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff recommends that the project can be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15305(a) of the CEQA guidelines which allows for minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of 20% or less not resulting in the creation of any new parcel are exempt. The average slope of the affected Parcel Map is 18.3%.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2022-XX to Uphold planning commission decision

2. Resolution2022-XX to Overturn planning commission decision

3. Land Use Application

4. Recorded Map, Book 18 of Parcel Maps, Page 388

5. Original Parcel Map Conditional Approval Letter, dated June 22, 1998

6. Project Description

7. Constraints Map (not recorded) with driveway proposals

8. Site Photos

9. Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment

10. Biological Resource Inventory (with enclosed FIRMette)

11. NCIC Records Search Results and email to applicant_

12. City Engineer Letter

13. Applicant Rebuttal

14. Letter dated April 7, 2021 from Allan S. Haley, Attorney at Law (representing applicant)

15. Letter dated May 7, 2021 from Craig Diamond, Attorney at Law (representing neighborhood)

16. Public Comments and petition (received prior to the originally scheduled May 26, 2021 public hearing

17. Public Comments (received as of the writing of the staff report)

18. Letter dated April 8, 2022 from Keith Brown, Architect

19. Letter dated February 16, 2021 from Andy Cassano, Nevada City Engineering

20. Rice Appeal Application (includes encroachment permit applicaiton)

21. Map Amendment Refund Check and email from A. Wolfson dated March 1, 2021 Rice Parcel Map Amendment, 230 American Hill Road

ATTACHMENT LIST

1. Resolution 2022-XX-((Upholding PC Decision)pholding PC Decision)

2. Resolution 2022-XX (Overturning PC Decision)

3. Land Use Application

4. Recorded Map, Book 18 of Parcel Maps, Page 388

5. Original Parcel Map Conditional Approval Letter, dated June 22, 1998

6. Project Description

7. Constraints Map (not recorded) with driveway proposals

8. Site Photos

9. Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment

10. Biological Resource Inventory (with enclosed FIRMette)

11. NCIC Records Search Results and email to applicant_

12. City Engineer Letter

13. Applicant Rebuttal

14. Letter dated April 7, 2021 from Allan S. Haley, Attorney at Law (representing applicant)

15. Letter dated May 7, 2021 from Craig Diamond, Attorney at Law (representing neighborhood)

16. Pubic Comments and petition received prior to originally scheduled May 26, 2021 hearing

17. Public Comments received as of the writing of the staff report

18. Letter dated April 8, 2022 from Keith Brown, Architect

19. Letter dated February 16, 2021 from Andy Cassano, Nevada City Engineering

20. Rice Appeal Application (includes encroachment permit applicaiton)

21. Map Amendment Refund Check and email from A. Wolfson dated March 1, 2021 Back to List
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY

UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A MAP

AMENDMENT BY SCOTT RICE TO ADD AND RELOCATE A DRIVEWAY,

SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, construction of the new driveway to serve Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map recorded in book 18 of Parcel Maps, Page 388, will require partial demolition of an existing historic rock retaining wall; and
WHEREAS, the demolition and reconstruction of an historic wall would be inconsistent with the requirements of the City code found in Title 15, section 15.12.010 which states “The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed;” and
WHEREAS, the applicant already has approved access to the site and voluntarily purchased the property with full knowledge of the existing approved access.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. the city council hereby upholds the planning commission decision to deny the map amendment request for a driveway encroachment through an existing rock wall.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Nevada City on the 13th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Duane Strauser
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Niel Locke
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY

OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A MAP

AMENDMENT BY SCOTT RICE TO ADD AND RELOCATE A DRIVEWAY,

SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the State of California has long recognized “abutter’s rights” for safe access to an abutting street as a basic property right afforded to a property owner; and WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel Map Amendment to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road, together with its design and existing improvements, is consistent with the Nevada City General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map Amendment to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road does not impact the availability of adequate public services that exist within the project area and are available to serve the project, including water, sewer, fire service and other utilities; and
WHEREAS, no finding is made pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 that requires denial of Parcel Map Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the design of the proposed map as amended to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road from Parcel 1, and its improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map Amendment to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map Amendment to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road will not impact preservation and protection of the natural resources and unique amenities of the environment, including topographic and geologic features; open space lands, recreational areas, and fish and wildlife habitats, and to maximize the public's access to public resources through the dedication and continuance of public easements thereto; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel Map Amendment to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road does not affect the sufficiency of the lot sizes and appropriateness of design for the purposes for which they are to be used; and WHEREAS, the proposed design as amended to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road provides adequate access to each building site; and
WHEREAS, the Parcel Map Amendment will not impact the adequacy of the streets capacity and design for the traffic that will use them and to ensure the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; and WHEREAS, the design of the subdivision as amended to relocate and add a new driveway to serve an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road will not affect the adequacy of systems of water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, storm drainage, street lighting and other utilities needed for the public health, safety and convenience.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. the city council hereby overturns the planning commission decision to deny the map amendment request, subject to Conditions of Approval outlined in “Exhibit A. ” PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Nevada City on the 13th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Duane Strawser
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Niel Locke
City Clerk

From: SCOTT RICE <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 7:57 PMTo: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>Subject: Sight distance clearingCAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Please include in staff report somewhere, or I can redo my cover letter sent originally::Applicant plans to limb up branches on all trees / removal of low bushes / scrubs / fencing - that currently front on American Hill / Bennett streets. This will allow greatly enhanced site distance from top of American Hill all the way to Spring St in both direction to the benefit of all...vehicle traffic and pedestrians alike. Thanks,

C-1

DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT
5 0 5 - B C O Y O T E S T R E E T N E V A D A CITY
( 5 3 0 ) 2 6 5 - 6 9 1 1

ENGINEERING SURVEYING

PLANNING
NEVADA
CITY
ENGINEERING, INC.

792 Searls Avenue | Nevada City, CA 95959 | www.NV5.com | Office 530.478.1305 | Fax 530.478.1019 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE – INFRASTRUCTURE – ENERGY – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL Project No. 5547.00
January 11, 2021
Scott Rice
P.O. Box 2541
Grass Valley, California 95945
Reference: 230 American Hill Road
Nevada City, California
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Consultation- Feasibility Assessment Dear Mr. Rice,
NV5 prepared this letter to summarize our geotechnical feasibility assessment for residential development on the eastern portion of the property located at 230 American Hill Road in Nevada City, California (herein referred to as the “Site”). We understand that prior to approving a map amendment to split the subject property, the Nevada City building department is requiring a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and feasibility assessment of the property. Our services were performed in accordance with our signed proposal dated December 17, 2020.

This letter describes our site assessment observations and preliminary conclusions regarding geotechnical feasibility for residential development on the eastern portion of the subject property.

OBSERVATIONS
The following observations were made during our site visit on January 4, 2021:

1. According to a tentative parcel map of the property prepared by Nevada City Engineering and dated May 1993 (revised Dec. 1993 & May 1998), the subject property is comprised of two lots.

2. Based on conversations with our client, we understand that proposed residential development of the property may include splitting the lots and constructing a new singlefamily residence located approximately between the existing accessary driveway and the lower paved parking area and clearing. A new accessory driveway along the western property boundary may also be constructed to access the existing residence on Lot 1.

3. Lot 1 is located on the western half and contains an existing residence and shed structure with rear parking. Lot 1 topography is moderate sloping towards the east.

Project No. 5547.00 Geotechnical Engineering Consultation – Feasibility Assessment January 11, 2021 230 American Hill Road
NV5 | Page 2

4. Lot 2 is located on the eastern half and contains a cut/fill accessory driveway passing through the middle that accesses the rear parking areas of Lot 1. An additional lower paved parking area and clearing is located at the eastern corner. Lot 2 topography is generally moderate to steeply sloping towards the eastern property boundary where drainage is collected into city storm drain.

5. The northern edge of the property contains a very steep north facing cut slope up to approximately 20 feet high and at an approximate gradient of 0.5:1 (H:V). The slope face was lined with thick vegetation however exposure of large granitic bedrock outcroppings were observed beneath the thick vegetation.

6. During the time of our site visit, both lots were sparsely vegetated with small to large diameter native trees and grasses. We observed steeply sloping areas lined with boulders or stacked rock walls up to 3 feet high and were isolated in small areas of apparent cut. Additional large, highly resistant, granitic bedrock outcroppings were also observed throughout Lot 2.

7. During the time of our site visit, we did not observe any recent slope failures or instabilities.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on our review of the conditions observed during our site visit:

1. It is our opinion that the proposed residential development at the Site is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided the following findings are incorporated into design and development of the property.

2. The very steep north facing cut slope along the northern edge of the property appeared stable at the time of our site visit, however development in this area should be restricted by applicable code-based slope and property setbacks.

3. The isolated steeply sloping areas lined with boulders or stacked rock walls that were found throughout the property appear to be cut excavations and were stable at the time of our site visit. Slope stabilization and sediment and erosion control measures, in accordance with industry standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), should be implemented to any proposed disturbance on these slopes. Foundation elements proposed on or against these slopes should be designed as retaining structures that include wall back drains.

4. Proposed excavations across the property will likely encounter large diameter tree roots and highly resistant granitic bedrock that may require cutting, heavy ripping, hammering or other resistant bedrock excavation methods to achieve the required excavation depth(s).

Project No. 5547.00 Geotechnical Engineering Consultation – Feasibility Assessment January 11, 2021 230 American Hill Road
NV5 | Page 3

LIMITATIONS
We performed a cursory site visit of the subject site. Therefore, we may not have completely identified all the conditions on the site. We can assume no responsibility for the future performance of the property. We can provide a more detailed investigation or analysis of the site, if requested.

We did not perform a full-scale geotechnical investigation for the site. The conclusions presented in this letter are based on site conditions observed at the time of our investigations and our experience in the region. Our professional services were performed consistent with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices employed in northern California. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with the findings of our work.

These services were performed consistent with NV5’s agreement with our client. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of our services. We do not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, or the use of segregated portions of this report. Any reliance on this report by a third party is at the party's sole risk.

The findings of this letter are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property and Site can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards can occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this letter should not be relied upon after two years without being reviewed by our firm.

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding our observations or the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report.

Sincerely,
NV5
Daniel A. Vieira, P.G. 9725 Chuck Kull, G.E. 2359
Project Geologist Principal
Copies: PDF to Scott Rice, [email protected]
X:\1 Projects\5547 230 American Hill Road\5547.00, 230 American Hill Rd_Feasibility Letter.docx Management Plan for
230 American Hill Road in Nevada City, CA
(APNs: 05-094-11, -12, 0.62 Acres)
Prepared for:

Scott Drice (Applicant)
384 Railroad Avenue
Nevada City, CA 95959
Prepared by:

Greg Matuzak, Principal Biologist
Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Nevada City, CA 95959
Email: [email protected]
January 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1.0

2.0 Methods and Results ........................................................................................................ 2.0

3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ……………........................................................... 3.0 Appendices
Appendix A Parcel Reports
Appendix B Tentative Map
Appendix C National Wetland Inventory and FEMA Flood Hazard Maps Appendix D Photo Log

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Management Plan (Management Plan) contains an evaluation of a 0.62- acre project area containing a parcel at 230 American Hill Road and the parcel immediately adjacent to the east of it. The two parcels are located in the City of Nevada City, Nevada County, California (see Appendix A for Parcel Reports and Appendix B includes the Tentative Map covering the two parcels). They are identified as APN: 05-094-11 and APN: 05-094-12 and together are 0.62 acres in size. The subject parcels do not contain any soil units listed on the hydric soils list for Nevada County nor does it contain any previously mapped wetlands or streams under the National Wetland Inventory (NWI – see Appendix C for an NWI Map). The attached Parcel Reports in Appendix B and the NWI map in Appendix C shows the location of the intermittent stream within the parcel located at 502 Spring Street directly to the east of the two subject parcels covered under this Management Plan (see blue line feature mapped within 502 Spring Street parcel within the Parcel Reports and NWI mapping attached). It appears that at some point in the past, the surface water feature was moved along the parcel boundaries between 502 Spring Street and APN: 05-094-12 and buried within a 24” culvert along that fence line.

The subject parcel contains existing development, including a single family residence and a non-attached shed adjacent to the residence. The subject parcel also includes an existing access off of Bennett Street and the adjoining parcel containing the existing culverted intermitted stream. APN: 05-094-12 contains an entrance off of Bennett Street and a drain inlet is located at the northeast corner of the parcel (see Photo Log in Appendix D).

This Management Plan is being developed for submission and approval by the Nevada City. The intent of this Management Plan is to identify the presence of the intermittent stream and any areas where the stream flows at the open surface within the subject parcels and to identify any potential sensitivity in terms of the biological and stream resources that may be located within or directly adjacent to the proposed subject parcels. The evaluation focuses on the intermittent stream and the location of the requested 25-foot non-disturbance buffer of intermittent stream by the City of Nevada City Planning and Engineering Departments. In addition, this Management Plan provides recommendations on where development within the site could minimize potential negative impacts to such sensitive biological resources, if they occur within or directly adjacent to the subject parcel.

2.0 METHODS AND RESULTS
Methods
In order to evaluate the Project area for the presence of any sensitive biological resources, baseline information from databases and reporting for similar projects in Nevada City and Nevada County was collected and reviewed prior to conducting reconnaissance-level biological surveys within the subject parcel. The database searches, background research, and reconnaissance-level biological surveys characterized the baseline conditions of the subject parcel. Based on the baseline conditions of the subject parcel, an assessment was implemented to determine if any special-status plant or wildlife species have the potential to use the subject parcel or adjacent areas at any time during their life cycles. The baseline conditions also identified the presence of any sensitive habitat or communities, if they were identified within the subject parcel.

Sensitive Biological Resources
The following information was used to identify potential special-status plant and wildlife species within the region surrounding the subject parcel that could be found to use the subject parcel:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database records search of a 3-mile buffer around the Project area (CDFW, 2020); • California Native Plant Society’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California known to occur within the 7.5-minute Nevada City USGS Quadrangle where the proposed Project is located (CNPS, 2020); • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) for endangered, threatened, and proposed listed species for the proposed Project area (USFWS, 2020);
• National Wetland Inventory (NWI, 2020);
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2020);
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soils Mapper (USDA, 2020); and • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Hydric Soils List for Nevada County (NRCS, 2020).

Reconnaissance-level Biological Resources Field Surveys Reconnaissance-level biological surveys were conducted on foot of the entirety of the Project area by Greg Matuzak, Principal Biologist at Greg Matuzak Environmental Consulting LLC, on December 13th, 2020. The purpose of the surveys was to identify sensitive habitat and vegetation types within the overall Project area and to identify the location of the mapped seasonal stream located within the attached Tentative Map that is mapped along the northern border of the project area and to determine if the intermittent stream exhibits any surface flow and sensitive riparian vegetation.

Additionally, the surveys and assessment also determined whether a 25-foot nondisturbance buffer associated with the intermittent stream is justified based on the findings of the background research and field survey.

Results
Plant communities have been classified based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System developed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The CDFW also manages the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), which is a database inventory of the previously identified locations of rare and endangered plants, wildlife, and natural communities in California. The dominant plant communities are discussed below.

Western Ponderosa Pine Forest
The western ponderosa pine forest habitat within the subject parcels is dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and includes incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and several small California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) trees within the subject parcels as well. Given the disturbance and development within both subject parcels, there is sparse native understory plants and lack of shrubs. Invasive, non-native ivy occurs within the steep slopes and some of the understory.

Intermittent Stream
The intermittent drainage enters the project area from the neighboring parcel to the west and enters a 24” culvert prior to entering the eastern parcel making up the project area (APN: 005-094-012). Therefore, given the intermittent drainage is located within a culvert throughout the extent of the northeastern border of the subject parcels and there is no apparent surface flow within either of the subject parcels under evaluation, a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer to the intermittent stream is not justified given that any disturbance within the parcel would have no direct impact on the intermittent drainage (no filling or dredging or culverting of the drainage proposed) or indirect impact on the intermittent drainage due to erosion and sedimentation on the intermittent stream given a lack of surface flow. However, the underground culvert and existing sewer line should be maintained as an open area such that the City of Nevada City can access both the existing culvert and sewer lines.

Furthermore, FEMA has mapped the two parcels as Zone X and an “Area of Minimal Flood Hazard.” Therefore, neither of the two subject parcels contains a mapped flood elevation that must be avoided as part of any proposed development within the subject parcels given FEMA has not mapped a 100-year floodplain with a base flood elevation or a mapped 100-year floodplain without a base flood elevation.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species were considered for this Management Plan based on a current review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and database information provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the subject parcel. The database searches did reveal eight (8) species that have been previously identified within 3 miles of the subject parcels. The species identified within the CNDDB include: Brandegee’s clarkia, dubious pea, finger rush, Scadden Flat checkerbloom, coast horned lizard, Cooper’s hawk, foothill yellow-legged frog, and western bumble bee. In addition, the USFWS has mapped Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) for the California red-legged frog (CRLF) and it has been mapped within 3 miles to the north and northeast of the subject parcels and the DCH covers the Rock Creek watershed where the species has been previously identified. However, CRLF, foothill yellow-legged frog, finger rush, and Scadden Flat checkerbloom are not discussed below given the lack of aquatic and vernally moist soil habitats within and directly adjacent to the subject parcels required for such species.

Brandegee’s Clarkia (Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeeae) – California Native Plant Society List 4.2
Brandegee’s clarkia inhabits chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower montane coniferous/mixed conifer forest habitats. It is most often found in road cuts between 75 and 915 meters above MSL. The species has been documented within 3 miles of the subject parcels. During field surveys this species was not identified within the subject parcel and no suitable habitat for this species is located within the subject parcels. Given that this species is most often found in road cuts on north facing slopes, the likelihood of this species occurring within the subject parcel is considered very low given the subject parcels do not contain any road cuts that are north facing with adequate sunlight. Therefore, any future proposed development within the subject parcels would have no impact on this species.

Dubious Pea (Lathyrus sulphureus var. argillaceus) – California Native Plant Society List 3 Dubious pea is a perennial herb that inhabits lower and upper montane coniferous forest and cismontane woodlands, normally between 150 and 930 meters above MSL. This species has been identified within 3 miles of the subject parcels and the species is known to associate with western ponderosa pine forest habitats. However, the species was not identified during field surveys within the subject parcels and the disturbed nature of the understory within the subject parcels would preclude this species from being located within the subject parcels.

Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) – CA State Species of Concern The coast horned lizard occurs in open sandy areas, scattered low bushes, chaparral, manzanita, and oak woodland habitats. It is found in the Sierra Nevada foothills from Butte County to Kern County and throughout the central and southern California coast. Coast horned lizards forage on the ground in open areas, usually between shrubs and often near ant nests. The species relies on camouflage for protections. Predators and extreme heat are avoided by burrowing into loose soil.

Periods of inactivity and winter hibernation are spent burrowed in the soil under surface objects such as logs or rocks, in mammal burrows, or in crevices (Zeiner et al. 2000). They inhabit mostly open country, especially sandy areas, washes, flood plains and windblown deposits in a wide variety of habitats and can be found at elevations up to 8,000 feet (2,438 meters) (CaliforniaHerps, 2014).

There is a lack of potential suitable habitat within the subject parcels for the coast horned lizard given the lack of rockier and sandy areas that this species requires.

This species has been documented within 3 miles of the subject parcels. Given the subject parcels do not contain open areas with scattered oak trees with rockier and sandy soils, it is not likely this species would occur within the subject parcels. Therefore, any future proposed development within the subject parcels would have no impact on this species.

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) – CDFW Watch List, MBTA Protected Cooper’s hawks are forest and woodland birds. These hawks are a regular sight in parks, quiet neighborhoods, over fields, at backyard feeders, and even along busy streets if there are trees around. The species has been documented successfully nesting approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast of the subject parcels in 2014. The species is known to occur and nest in Sierra mixed conifer forest, which is located at higher elevations than where the subject parcels are located. In addition, nesting sites for this species are mainly in riparian growths of deciduous trees in canyon bottoms on river floodplains (CNDDB 2020). Therefore, given the species has been known to successfully nest at higher elevations and the subject parcels do not contain typical nesting habitat for the species, the potential for this species to occur and nest within the subject parcels is considered very low. Therefore, any future proposed development within the subject parcels would have no impact on this species.

Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) – CDFW Candidate for State ESA Listing This species was documented within 3 miles of the subject parcels approximately

2.00 miles to the northeast of the subject parcels in 1968. It is known from a single collection on May 20th of that year. Given the species has only been documented a single time within 3 miles of the subject parcels in 1968, there is a very low probability of the species occurring within the subject parcels. No western bumble bees were observed during the site visit and survey. Therefore, any future proposed development within the subject parcel would have no impact on this species.

Nesting raptors and other migratory birds species - Protected under MBTA, Protected under CA State DFG Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 There is a low potential for nesting raptors and other nesting migratory bird species protected under the MBTA to occur within the subject parcels given the presence of the forested areas within and adjacent to the subject parcel. The subject parcels represent potential habitat for bird species protected under the MBTA, such as ground nesting species like the spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis). Active and inactive nests within and adjacent to the subject parcels were not identified during field surveys. Therefore, any future proposed development within the subject parcels would have no impact on these species given the level of disturbance within and directly adjacent to the subject parcels.

Critical Deer Habitat
Known migratory deer ranges outlined in the Nevada County General Plan was reviewed for deer migration corridors, critical range, and critical fawning areas. The subject parcels are not located in any known major deer corridors, known deer holding areas, or critical deer fawning area. Per the Migratory Deer Ranges Nevada County General Plan map, the subject parcels are located on the border of two mapped areas, including Deer Winter Range and Resident Deer Herd. The field survey did not record any observations of deer or deer trails within the subject parcels.

The subject parcels do not contain any known major deer migration corridors, known deer holding areas, nor critical deer fawning areas.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The subject parcel is located within a rural developed setting just southwest of Downtown Nevada City in Nevada County, CA. The subject parcel is adjacent to/nested within a largely developed area given the proximity to downtown Nevada City and the residential properties that are located adjacent to the subject parcels.

Therefore, any development within the subject parcel would have an overall low potential to impact sensitive wildlife and plant resources given the low likelihood of such sensitive biological resources to occur within or immediately adjacent to the subject parcels.

There will be no direct or indirect impacts to the intermittent drainage along the border of the project area given it is culverted throughout the subject parcels.

Furthermore, given that the applicant will not encroach directly upon the buried culvert and existing sewer line within the subject parcels, the applicant is requesting to develop up to a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. That would leave a minimum of a 10- foot open area along the existing fence line such that the existing sewer line and buried culvert can be accessed if needed.

Recommendations and measures to minimize such potential impacts to the intermittent stream immediately to the west of the subject parcels and at the existing drain inlet at the northeast corner of the parcel are included below. The conclusion of this Management Plan is that if the measures outlined below are included as part of the proposed Project design and approvals, any potential impacts to the intermittent drainage and 10-foot property line setback would be less than significant and any proposed development should be approved given a lack of sensitive biological resources within the parcel and the drainage itself is buried without any surface flow within the subject parcels. Furthermore, there is a minimal risk of flooding within the subject parcels per the attached FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (see Appendix C and Appendix D) and therefore, there is no base flood elevation associated with the intermitted drainage. The 10-foot setback from the property line and a minimum 1 foot elevation gain for any development adjacent to the 10-foot setback should be sufficient to avoid any issues related to water resources and flood hazard.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS – ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
A number of state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have regulatory authority over special status species and sensitive habitats.

The regulatory aspects include:
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA (“waters of the United States” include wetlands and lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries). Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas “…inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated solid conditions.” Project proponents must obtain a permit from the USACE for all discharges of fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed action. • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The act protects listed species from harm or “take” which is broadly defined as “…the action of harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.” For any project involving a federal agency in which a listed species could be affected, the federal agency must consult with the USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. The USFWS issues a biological opinion and, if the project does not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, issues an incidental-take permit.
• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under section 2080 of the CDFW Code. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits take of state-listed threatened and endangered species. The state Act differs from the federal Act in that it does not include habitat destruction in its definition of take. The CDFW defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CDFW may authorize take under the CESA through Sections 2081 agreements. If the results of a biological survey indicate that a state-listed species would be affected by the project, the CDFW would issue an Agreement under Section 2081 of the CDFW Code and would establish a Memorandum of Understanding for the protection of state-listed species.

CDFW maintains lists for threatened, endangered, and candidate species.

California candidate species are afforded the same level of protection as listed species. California also designates Species of Special Concern (SSC), which are species of limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational or educational values. These species do not have the same legal protection as listed species but may be added to official lists in the future. • Compliance with Section 401 of the CWA is required for any project requiring a federal action (i.e. USACE) permit or federal funding) with construction that could have an impact to surface water quality. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is a responsible for administering the Section 401 permitting program in California. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit group dedicated to preserving the state’s native flora. It has developed lists of plants of special concern in California. The special-status plant species discussed above is listed as CNPS List 4.2, which characterizes “Plants of Limited Distribution.”
• Nevada City Municipal Code protecting stream resources, trees, and other biological resources.

MITIGATION FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 25 FOOT SETBACK
The applicant is requesting to develop up to a minimum of 10 feet from the property line where the existing sewer line and buried culvert are located. The Management Plan for the encroachment into the requested 25-foot setback from the intermittent drainage as detailed below and includes measures to minimize potential impacts to water quality within and downstream of the subject parcels. It is recommended the applicant implement the following during and immediately following construction:
• Limit construction to periods of extended dry weather and/or the dry summer season;
• No encroachment within the area containing the existing sewer line and culvert will occur during construction and thereafter;
• A minimum of a 10-foot open area along the existing fence line and property line will be left for access to both the existing sewer line and buried culvert by the City of Nevada City;
• Use appropriate machinery and equipment to limit disturbance in the proposed disturbance areas;
• No dewatering of the intermittent stream will occur during construction or thereafter; and
• Implement Best Management Practices during and immediately following construction.

IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION To protect the stream channel and water quality to the east of the subject parcels on the downstream side of Bennett Street where there is a clear, open stream channel, the contractor shall implement standard Best Management Practices during and immediately after construction to protect sedimentation and other pollutants from entering into the drain inlet at the northeast corner of the subject parcels. These measures should include, but are not limited to:
• Minimize the number and size of work areas for equipment and spoil storage sites in the vicinity of intermittent drainage and inlet. Place staging areas outside of the 25-foot non-disturbance buffers to the intermittent drainage within the subject parcel.
• The contractor shall exercise reasonable precaution to protect the intermittent drainage and its adjacent setback from pollution with fuels, oils, and other harmful materials. Construction byproducts and pollutants such as oil, cement, and wash water shall be prevented from discharging into or near these resources and shall be collected for removal off the site.

All construction debris and associated materials and litter shall be removed from the work site immediately upon completion. • No equipment for vehicle maintenance or refueling shall occur within the 25-foot non-disturbance setback to the intermittent drainage and inlet.

The contractor shall immediately contain and clean up any petroleum or other chemical spills with absorbent materials such as sawdust or kitty litter. For other hazardous materials, follow the cleanup instruction on the label.
• For ground disturbing and construction related activities occurring within the 25-foot setback, straw bales, straw wattles, or another accepted erosion control and sedimentation BMP should be located between the ground disturbance or construction area(s) and the top of the location of the intermittent drainage and the drainage inlet. This is to minimize any potential runoff from erosion and sedimentation caused by any proposed disturbance within 25 feet of the buried drainage culvert and drainage inlet.

Post Construction Erosion Control
Exposed bare soil along the intermittent drainage and drainage inlet, including the 25-foot setback should be protected against loss from erosion by the seeding of an erosion control mixture and restored with native grasses and mulching. Non-native species that are known to invade wild lands, such as orchard grass, velvet grass, rose clover, winter and spring vetch, and wild oats should not be used as they displace native species.

Provide Copies of Mitigation Measures to Contractors
To ensure the proper and timely implementation of all mitigation measures contained in this Management Plan, as well as the terms and conditions of any other required permits, the applicant shall distribute copies of these mitigation measures and permit requirements to the contractors prior to grading and construction within the nondisturbance buffer/setback to the intermittent drainage and drainage inlet within the subject parcels. All contractors shall be completely familiar with the mitigation measures contained above and with the terms and conditions of all permits.

References
Burt, William Henry. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America north of Mexico. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980.

Calflora. Information on California Plant for Education, Research and Conservation. [web application]. 2020.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1987. Five-Year Status Report:

California Black Rail. Non-Game Bird and Mammal Section, Wildlife Management Division, Department of Fish and Game. California.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011. Special - 898 Taxa. California Natural Diversity Database, The Natural Resources Agency, Biogeographic Branch, Department of Fish and Game. California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. RareFind Verion 3: Search of 3- mile buffer around subject parcel. California Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Threatened and Endangered Species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California.

CaliforniaHerps.com (CaliforniaHerps). 2020. A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in California. CaliforniaHerps.com. California.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2000. A Manual of California Vegetation. [web based version]. California Native Plant Society. Information Center for the Environment, University of California Davis.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California, V9-02. California Native Plant Society. California.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer covering the subject parcels.

Jennings, M.R.; Hayes, M.P. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. 1994. Inland Fisheries Division, California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova, California.

Jepson Herbarium, The. (Jespson eFlora). 2020. The Jepson Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, California.

Legislative Counsel of California (LCC). 2004. Senate Bill 1334- Oak Woodlands Conservation Act. Official California Legislative Information. California.

Legislative Counsel of California (LCC). 2013. California Law: California Fish and Game Code. Official California Legislative Information. California.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California bird species of special concern:
a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.

Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Spautz, H., Nur, N., Stralberg, D. 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus): Distribution and Abundance in Relation to Habitat and Landscape Features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report: PSW-GTR-191.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 1918.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1940. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. Endangered Species Act.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Determination of Endangered Status for Four Plants and Threatened Status for One Plant From the Central Sierran Foothills of California. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Federal Register. October 18, 1996.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) for the Subject Parcel in Nevada City and Nevada County. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. National Wetland Inventory (NWI).

Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer Jr., W.F., Mayer, K.E., White, M. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife, Vol. I-III. Updated 2000. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

Appendix A
Parcel Reports
Nevada County GIS
Nevada County Parcel Report
January 7, 2021
Parcel APN: 005-094-011-000
© Nevada County GIS 2021
Nevada County GIS
Overview
Land Value: $28,937
Improvement Value: $63,464
Zoning: R1 NevCty
General Plan: NEVCITY
Fire District: Nevada City
Elementary Sch. Dist: Nevada City
230 AMERICAN HILL ROAD

Acreage: 0.27
Water District:

Nevada Irrigation Dist:

Public Utility:

Park District:

Service Area:

Elevation: 2578
0 0.075 0.15 0.3 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km 1:9,028
Scale:

Snow Load: 46
Wind Exposure: C
Climate Zone: 11
Nevada County GIS
Nevada County Parcel Report
January 7, 2021
Parcel APN: 005-094-012-000
© Nevada County GIS 2021
Nevada County GIS
Overview
Land Value: $36,836
Improvement Value: $0
Zoning: R1 NevCty
General Plan: NEVCITY
Fire District: Nevada City
Elementary Sch. Dist: Nevada City

Acreage: 0.35
Water District:

Nevada Irrigation Dist:

Public Utility:

Park District:

Service Area:

Elevation: 2562
0 0.075 0.15 0.3 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km 1:9,028
Scale:

Snow Load: 46
Wind Exposure: C
Climate Zone: 11
Nevada County GIS
Nevada County Parcel Report
January 8, 2021
Parcel APN: 005-094-015-000
© Nevada County GIS 2021
Nevada County GIS
Overview
Land Value: $122,538
Improvement Value: $659,362
Zoning: R1 NevCty
General Plan: NEVCITY
Fire District: Nevada City
Elementary Sch. Dist: Nevada City
502 SPRING STREET

Acreage: 0.49
Water District:

Nevada Irrigation Dist:

Public Utility:

Park District:

Service Area:

Elevation: 2559
0 0.075 0.15 0.3 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km 1:9,028
Scale:

Snow Load: 46
Wind Exposure: C
Climate Zone: 11
Appendix B
Tentative Map

Appendix C
National Wetland Inventory and FEMA Maps
230 American Hill Road
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
January 7, 2021
0 0.01 0.02 0.04 mi
0 0.015 0.03 0.06 km
1:1,190
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October, 2020.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 1/8/2021 at 12:42 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B

20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
121°1'43"W 39°16'3"N
121°1'6"W 39°15'35"N
Appendix D
Photo Log
Photos of the December 2020 Surveys for the Subject Parcel Photo 1: Entrance off of Bennett Street with driveway into 230 American Hill at posted sign and entrance into the adjacent parcel with existing culvert and drain inlet at the fence line past the mailboxes.

Photo 2: At northeast parcel corner looking west at the existing drain inlet off edge of Bennett Street. Culvert is underground along fence line and no surface water present.

Photo 3: At northeast parcel corner at the existing drain inlet off edge of Bennett Street.

Culvert is underground along parcel boundary and crosses under Bennett Street to east.

Photo 4: Drainage with the 24” culvert inlet that continues all the way under Bennett Street at the entrance to the parcels. Photo at property line looking into the subject parcel towards the east. No signs of water flow within the subject parcels.

Photo 5: Fence line is the parcel boundary and the culvert inlet is located on the other side of the fence line. Subject parcels do not contain any open surface water features.

Photo 6: Fence line is the parcel boundary where the culvert inlet is located. Photo looking west from within the subject parcels - no open surface water features.

Photo 7: From the northwestern section of the subject parcels looking northeast along the parcel boundary (fence). Culvert buried and no signs of surface water.

Photo 8: From the northeastern section of the subject parcels looking northeast along the parcel boundary (fence). Culvert buried and no signs of surface water. Bennett Street in photo at entrance into the subject parcel.

Photo 9: From the northeastern section of the subject parcels looking northwest along the parcel boundary (fence). Culvert buried and no signs of surface water.

Photo 10: From the northern subject parcel looking northwest up steep slope looking at the existing residence within the 230 American Hill parcel.

Photo 11: From Bennett Street looking northwest at the existing residence within the 230 American Hill parcel. Adjacent parcel with culvert to the right.

Photo 12: From Bennett Street looking northwest with the 230 American Hill parcel on the right and American Hill Road at the turn to the right.
1/11/2021 NCIC File No.: NEV-21-8
Scott Rice
P.O. Box 2541
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Records Search Results for
230 American Hill Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 (APN: 005-094-011) Scott Rice:

Per your request received by our office on 1/11/2021, a complete records search was conducted by searching California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maps for cultural resource site records and survey reports in Nevada County within a 1/4-mile radius of the proposed project area.

Review of this information indicates that the proposed project area contains zero (0) recorded prehistoricperiod resource(s) and zero (0) recorded historic-period cultural resource(s). Additionally, zero (0) cultural resources study reports on file at this office cover a portion of the proposed project area.

Outside the proposed project area, but within the 1/4-mile radius, the broader search area contains one (1) recorded prehistoric-period resource(s) and two (2) recorded historic-period cultural resource(s).

Additionally, three (3) cultural resources study reports on file at this office cover a portion of the broader search area.

In this part of Nevada County, archaeologists locate prehistoric-period habitation sites “along streams or on ridges or knolls, especially those with southern exposure” (Moratto 1984:290). This region is known as the ethnographic-period territory of the Nisenan, also called the Southern Maidu. The Nisenan maintained permanent settlements along major rivers in the Sacramento Valley and foothills; they also periodically traveled to higher elevations (Wilson and Towne 1978:387-389). The proposed project search area is situated in the Sierra Nevada foothills and an intermittent stream flows adjacent to the parcel. Given the extent of known cultural resources and the environmental setting, there is moderate potential for locating prehistoric-period cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area.

Within the search area, the 1867 GLO plat of T16N, R8E shows evidence of nineteenth-century roads, buildings, and mines in the vicinity. The 1948 Nevada City 7.5’ USGS topographical map shows evidence of buildings within the parcel and the current alignment of American Hill Road adjacent. The house within the parcel was built circa 1880 according to public property records. Given the extent of known cultural resources and patterns of local history, there is high potential for locating historic-period cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area.

SENSITIVITY STATEMENT:
1) With respect to cultural resources, it appears that the proposed project area is sensitive. 2) Should the lead agency/authority require a cultural resources survey, a list of qualified local consultants can be found at http://chrisinfo.org.
3) If cultural resources are encountered during the project, avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified cultural resources professional has evaluated the project area. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric-period resources include: chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, and other flaked-stone artifacts; mortars, grinding slicks, pestles, and other groundstone tools; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include: stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; mine shafts, tailings, or ditches/flumes; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
4) Identified cultural resources should be recorded on DPR 523 (A-J) historic resource recordation forms, available at https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351. 5) Review for possible historic-period cultural resources has included only those sources listed in the referenced literature and should not be considered comprehensive. The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. If the area of potential effect contains such properties not noted in our research, they should be assessed by an architectural historian before commencement of project activities.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

Thank you for using our services. Please contact North Central Information Center at (916) 278-6217 if you have any questions about this record search. An invoice is enclosed.

Sincerely,
Paul Rendes, Coordinator
North Central Information Center

H:\CLERK\Engineering\Development\230 American Hill\Ltr01_engineering comments - Driveway at 230 American Hill Road.doc 317 Broad Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Bryan McAlister, P.E., P.L.S.

City Engineer
(530) 265‐2496
April 9, 2021
Via E-mail and Hand Delivery
City of Nevada City Planning Department
Attn.: Amy Wolfson
317 Broad Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Re: Engineering Department Review ~ 230 American Hill Road Proposed Driveway Amy,
City Engineering Dept. reviewed the preliminary plans submitted on April 9, 2021 for the above referenced project. The project consists of a new driveway to an existing residence at 230 American Hill Road.

The proposed driveway width, slope and location complies with City codes pertaining to grading and driveway construction standards. The plan includes the required width (14’ min.), allowable slope (less than 16%), vertical clearance (15’), back-out maneuvering area for parking and provisions for continued pedestrian access. There is also adequate stopping sight distance for through traffic on this street. The driveway plan conforms applicable codes (County Code Sec. L-V, Article 13, Grading and Sec. L-XVI 3.2 Private Driveway Construction Standards adopted by City Council Resolution No 2020-02).

It is our understanding that the Planning Commission will review the application as an amendment to Parcel Map 18-388 which showed a shared driveway easement across the existing driveway to the back of the residence. No permits will be issued until the change in the location of the driveway and modification of the map is approved by Planning Commission.

Please contact our office with any questions.

CITY OF NEVADA CITY
Bryan McAlister, P.E, PLS
City Engineer for Nevada City
1 JOHN E.BAKER
President

DAN HOAGLAND
Land Surveyor
ANDREW R. CASSANO
Land Use Planner NEVADA CITY ENGINEERING, INC.
505 COYOTE STREET, SUITE B • P.O. BOX 1437
ROBERT M. ROURKE
Civil Engineer
NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA 95959 • TELEPHONE (530) 265-6911 • FAX (530) 265-8058
Engineering • Surveying • Planning
April 2, 2021
Planning Commission

CITY OF NEVADA CITY
317 Broad Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
REGARDING: Support for Approval of the Scott Rice Driveway Modifications at 230 American Hill Road and Monroe Street
Honorable Commissioners:

Representing Scott Rice:

It is our privilege to assist Scott Rice in his effort to improve the design of the old Rod Veblen parcel map. We have worked for Scott on various City and County projects over the last several decades. Scott often specializes in small in-fill projects that improve and provide new housing. Most recently, we assisted Scott with a land division on Railroad Avenue.

Scott is refurbishing a house that was long neglected, and we are creating an additional building site lot.

Let’s Fix this Parcel Map:

In 1998, after being contract Nevada City Planner for 13 years, I joined Nevada City Engineering doing private sector planning. One of my first assignments was to go to the City Planning Commission on behalf of Rod Veblen to get his parcel map approved.

Behind the scenes, my boss Ken Baker and I hated this lot design, where a driveway easement for an adjoining parcel was created right through the middle of the new lot. But we were unable to dissuade Rod Veblen who absolutely insisted on this design because it was the way he had always used the lot. We thought the City might reject the design, but unfortunately, it was approved and recorded. I am excited about this opportunity to fix it.

It is important to note that the City did not MANDATE the alternate access nor did the City PROHIBIT a direct driveway in the future to 230 American Hill Road. There were no conditions or restrictions to this effect. It was strictly Mr. Veblen’s preference. 2 Imagine having a lot where the neighbor’s traffic goes right through the middle of your land, sharply limiting your building options. And if you do build, the neighbors will be driving right past your windows, your backyard barbeque, and your children’s playset.

Without eliminating the driveway easement, the future construction on this lot will almost certainly require variances in order to enjoy a reasonable use of their land. With the easement gone, other setbacks can likely be adhered to.

A Driveway: A Fundamental Property Right:

For the vast majority, the typical American home has a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom, and a driveway. Where it is physically and safely possible, everyone wants and needs a driveway. It allows their cars to get off the street, often provides guest parking, provides for easy drop off of groceries, and critically facilitates emergency access.

In Nevada City, constructing a single-family driveway has never been a discretionary decision by the Planning Commission, but rather a ministerial decision by the City Engineer.

If certain basic safety and performance standards are met, the driveway will be allowed. In our case, before Scott’s purchase of the land, the City Engineer felt comfortable with this driveway location. As private sector engineers, we feel comfortable with it, also.

Being “comfortable with it” means that it meets or exceeds basic City safety standards in terms of sight distance and safe operation. Clearing vegetation along the front of Mr. Rice’s property will not only provide for safe use of the driveway, but it will also enhance visibility for people using American Hill Road as well.

We have noticed that many walkers stay on the street in front of the property. The extra visibility will support their safety too, and the presence of the driveway will provide a safe haven where they can easily get completely out of the street for passing traffic, without trying to step up on the wall.

Making this driveway subject to public comment and Commission discretion is treating this applicant different than all other past driveway applicants. We trust that the Commission will apply uniform City standards in making their decision.

Existing Driveway: Not Good Enough:

Some will say that 230 American Hill already has a driveway over the adjoining lot. In making your decision, you simply must take the time to drive up this driveway so that you can see that it falls way short of servicing the needs of the home. It ends at a considerable distance from the rear of the house.

Consider bringing home your groceries in the rain. You need for the driveway to be near the house. Consider an ambulance call, when the driveway is on a separate street from your address and is not near the house to assist the paramedics. This house needs and deserves a decent, serviceable driveway.
3 Land Use: Not a Popularity Contest:

I’ve been around and followed many Nevada City land use controversies over the years, but I must say that I’ve never seen such a pumped-up outrage on whether a neighbor’s house can have a private residential driveway. I find it astonishing.

Fortunately, land use is not a popularity contest. The City Staff and Planning Commission are experienced and able to review applications in a highly objective manner, separating unfounded fears and allegations from the legitimate concerns that need to be adequately addressed along with approval.

I am sure that no matter how many objectors an opponent drums up, the reasonable land use expectations of the applicant, simply asking for the rights conferred on other similar property owners, will be honored.

Illegitimate Public Concerns:

The idea that this property can be denied a driveway under any circumstances is not a reasonable or legitimate position. This is asking way too much of this property to be fair.

I have addressed safety above, pointing out the comfort level of the City and applicant’s engineers, so this is not a valid concern.

The Nevada City Codes do not regulate rock walls, so denying an encroachment permit on the basis of disturbing the wall cannot be appropriate. Even historic buildings in the City are modified from time to time to accommodate the landowner’s functional needs.

Legitimate Public Concerns:

There are valid concerns that can and should be addressed in the conditions of approval for the new driveway reflected in a detailed engineering plan to be approved by the City Engineer prior to, during, and after the driveway work:
• Rockwork: The rock wall should be respected by adding new rock walls to the new driveway transition edges. Where possible, some of the rock removed for the driveway opening could be used for this purpose.
• Sight Distance: Shrubbery on this site needs to be trimmed back and maintained to assure proper sight distance for those exiting the driveway and those passing by. • Turnaround: The on-site portion of the driveway needs to include a hammerhead design to allow vehicles to turn around on-site and to discourage anyone from backing out of the driveway on to the street.
4 • Public Pedestrian Use: The design needs to provide for continued pedestrian use by the public along the lot’s street frontage.
• Construction Standards: During and after construction, the work needs to conform to normal standards for traffic control, erosion control, and proper drainage practices.

Procedural Authority:

We note again, for the record, that we disagree with the City Attorney’s opinion and believe that the issuance of an encroachment permit is a staff level, ministerial decision, and that the elimination of the off-site easement is a private, civil matter between the lot owners.

Summary:

We greatly appreciate the Planning Commission’s review of the facts, consideration of the testimony, and objective decision. We urge your conditional approval of the new driveway and elimination of the off-site easement. Please contact me anytime with questions or for a field review of the site.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrew R. Cassano
Town and Regional Planner
Professional Land Surveyor
cc: Scott Rice
Allan Haley, Esq.
/arc

CRAIG A. DIAMOND. Esq.*
Diamond Baker Mitchell Cole, LLP (Also Admitted in NY and WA) (*Fellow, American Board of Trial Advocates)
[email protected]
149 Crown Point Court, Suite B ◊ Grass Valley, CA 95945 ◊ (P) 530. 272.9977 ◊ (F) 530.272.8463 www.DiamondBaker.com Diamond Baker Mitchell Cole, LLP
May 7, 2021
To the Nevada City, City Council
317 Broad Street Via E-Mail Only
Nevada City, CA 95959 [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: 230 American Hill Rd., Nevada City
To the Honorable City Council:

By way of introduction, this firm has been retained by neighbors of 230 American Hill Rd., to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and to object to the appeal taken by the homeowner, Mr. Rice, by and through his attorney, Mr. Haley.

I have reviewed the email from Ms. DeGraw regarding this subject and was taken aback by her historical perspective on this issue. Ms. DeGraw was exactly right when she noted that too much of the heritage and “feel” of our communities is being taken from us in the name of “convenience.” My first foray into this subject matter was as the President of the Board of Fire Delegates for the Grass Valley Fire Department, during which time I staunchly defended the need to retain our City Department’s historical richness by not sacrificing the history of the fire department for the sake of convenience. Ultimately, both the Nevada City Fire Department and the Grass Valley Fire Department have been able to maintain their historical character while still allowing for an improvement in cooperative efforts for the purpose of public safety.

In the case of 230 American Hill Road, Mr. Rice, who has ready access to his property is seeking to take away the historical aspects and feel for that part of our community, solely for his convenience, and without regard for how his proposed changes are going to affect the feel and ambiance of the neighborhood for others living nearby.1 1 Posted to the agenda is an 11 page petition signed by neighbors who believe an encroachment by a superfluous driveway will negatively impact their neighborhood.

Mr. Haley’s argument and discussion asking this Council to ignore the findings of its duly appointed Planning Commission ignores, not only the requirements of the legal authority he cited, but also the character and qualities that make Nevada City such a special place.

Separate and apart from a community perspective, it is also from a legal perspective, that Mr. Rice’s request should be denied.

While admittedly, this rendering is hardly “to scale” or scientific, it is demonstrative of the Mr. Rice’s “ask.” The arrow is meant to be an indicator of where his existing driveway is located, and the two parallel lines further up the street depict the area across the rock wall where he wants to install a second driveway.

Mr. Haley argues that because Mr. Rice’s property abuts the street, his rights trump those of the community and local neighbors. By arguing that access is “required” is a misleading overstatement of the law as it applies to this claim. Lost in Mr. Haley’s purported authority is the fact that Mr. Rice is not “landlocked” but rather, already has direct access to an adjoining street to the one in which he is seeking access. For example, in Mr.

Haley’s citation, which references an eminent domain case, the very next paragraph recognizes the delimiter referenced above:
“To designate the right, however, is not to delineate its precise scope. Not every interference with the property owner's access to the street upon which his property abuts and [61 Cal. 2d 664] not every impairment of access, as such, to the general system of public streets constitutes a taking which entitles him to compensation. Such compensation must rest upon the property owner's showing of a substantial impairment of his right of access to the general system of public streets.” (Emphasis added.)(Breichart v. Southern Pacific (1964) 61 Cal.2d. 661.) Not only must Mr. Rice show that denial of that particular access constitutes a substantial or unreasonable impairment, but also that the denial creates an actionable interference with Mr. Rice’s right of access. (Rose v. State of California (1942) 19 Cal. 2d 713.)
There simply is no protected property right simply because Mr. Rice’s property abuts the street. Suggestions to the contrary are misleading and inaccurate. As stated above, unless Mr. Rice, who already has access to the adjoining street, must show substantial impairment and an actionable interference with his right of access.

In Mr. Haley’s letter he references the second parcel and the ability to preserve an easement for himself should he split his two parcels through the sale of one. Because Mr.

Rice has that option, a denial of the particular encroachment request will not interfere with his right of access; Mr. Rice can have unfettered access simply by exercising his easement rights over his existing property. It is noteworthy that Mr. Rice purchased this property in its current condition, inclusive of the right to an easement over his second parcel. He knew what he was purchasing, and he knew he had access to both parcels reserved in the lot split documentation.

With all due respect, Mr. Haley is not correct when he argues the issuance of the encroachment permit is simply ministerial. He relies on his bald statement that the encroachment is an absolute right by referencing only a portion of a holding by Justice Tobriner, without reference to the other requirements clearly stated in that very same opinion.

Mr. Cassano appears to be brushing over access issues when he references pedestrian use along the lot’s street frontage. Unfortunately, the proposal would require a person to cross over an active driveway and may create an inaccessible trail along that frontage.

Despite the plaint of Mr. Cassano suggesting it would be fair to destroy the hundredplus year-old rock wall, the California Historical Resources Information System, recognizes that with respect to cultural resources that the proposed project is sensitive.

For all of these reasons above, the many neighbors, who recognize that Mr. Rice has an alternative access to this property, ask that his appeal of the Nevada City Planning Commission’s decision for a map amendment to add an additional driveway be denied.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours,
CRAIG A. DIAMOND
CAD:bna
cc: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Clients
W:\aaCAD WIP\AMERICAN HILL 5_7_2021\AmericanHill NC City Coucil.docx From: Reinette Senum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:20 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: 230 America Hill
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Morning Amy,
I wanted to write to you regarding the upcoming driveway that is being proposed for 230 American Hill. Please add this letter to the agenda package when the time comes.

This section of American Hill has a lovely S-curve and the rock wall adds a great deal to the aesthetics on that portion of the street. If a driveway is put into this section, the beauty will be greatly effected, and quite frankly, that is a bit of a blind curve. Cars race up and down this section coming off of Bennet St all the time, and a driver would have little time to see a vehicle pulling out from such a blindspot. In addition, it’s also particularly dangerous during snowy and icy conditions. Cars slip and spin out down that section of the road regularly throughout the winter. Having vehicles pulling in and out of that property during bad weather conditions is a recipe for disaster.

I have no idea of the history of the wall, but it seems like it has been there for a long time and is part of our historic charm.

I hope the planning commission does the right thing and denies the construction of the driveway in such a dangerous and awkward location, ultimately ruining the beauty and charm of that street.

Most Sincerely,
Reinette Senum
Nevada City, California
530-264-6048 Cell
[email protected]
www.thefoghornexpress.com
From: Randall Frizzell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:43 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: 230 American Hill Drive
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Amy,
I had a couple thoughts about the subject:

To get a feel for how hazardous the proposed driveway encroachment could be, consider driving up and down American Hill while imagining the driveway. It looks a lot different from a car than on foot.

Second, I think the developer may have alternatives to the need breaching the wall, removing a large healthy black oak, and changing the grade across a large section of the property. Could he (1) do a lotline adjustment or (2) write an Easement into the deed that retains the use of the original driveway, either of which may eliminate the need for such a destructive project? Thanks for your consideration,
Randall Frizzell
215 Drummond Street
530.263.4601
From: samgitchel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:50 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed driveway on 230 American Hill Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Amy and Planning Commission members:

I am writing about a proposal to add a driveway at 230 American Hill Road. I use this road every day to get to and from my house. I have several problems with the proposal:
-- it is in a hazardous position: blinded by a curve in the road; on a slope that is routinely slick in freezing conditions; and near an intersection where there is already a fair amount of confusion (event parking, U-turners, and Tribute Trail visitors).
-- The wall is a charming part of our neighborhood's character. In my mind it serves as the entrance to the Lost Hill neighborhood.

I ask you to stand up for existing residents by not approving this driveway to move forward.

Sincerely,
Sam Gitchel
265 Giles Street
Nevada City
From: James Khatami <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Driveway on American Hill Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Amy Wolfson,
Regarding the recently purchased property at 230 AMERICAN HILL RD, the new owner, Mr. Scott Rice has informed us that he plans to build a new driveway into the property from American Hill Road. The proposed driveway would knock down a substantial part of a retaining wall on city property and would eliminate a section of a long standing and popular pathway on top of the retaining wall. This proposed new construction would dramatically alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, both for the immediate neighbors, but also for many of the local residents who come to the area to walk the American Hill loop.

We have already spoken to many of our neighbors, and they share our concerns about the charm of the area
being sacrificed for the convenience of the developer. We hope you will recommend that the Planning Commission rule against this proposed new construction.

Thank you,
Jim and Linda Khatami
236 American Hill Rd.

Nevada City, CA 95959
E-mail [email protected]
Tel. 415-641-5176
From: James Khatami <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:48 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Driveway at 230 American Hill Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Wolfson,
Please help us preserve the charm and function of the wall and pathway on American Hill Road.

As you walk up Bennett St., there is a path that people walk on to avoid being in the street. It is such an iconic reminder of the past. Children and dogs often run along the path, enjoying the natural grass and rocks, a respite from sidewalks and the street. Many take a break on a hot summer day under the oak tree that shades the curve of the hill. Unfortunately, the trees will be cut down to make room for the proposed driveway.

Every morning you will find citizens and visitors alike making their way on the soft grass trail to walk the American Hill loop. Right away you appreciate the simple country feel. That bucolic experience is about to be taken away forever.

Recently, the property above the wall at 230 American Hill Road was sold to a developer, Scott Rice. He is proposing to put a new driveway into the property, which already has a driveway on Bennett. His plan is to dig down at the widest section of the walkway on American Hill Rd, remove a substantial section of the wall and pathway, to put in a driveway in with staircases on each side to access what is left of the wall.

Aside from placing a driveway at the blind spot of a dangerous S curve in the road, this planned construction will completely change the walking experience and the Nevada City charm of the area. The driveway will eliminate the freedom of children to run along the path on the wall. Now parents will be forced to stop their children and help them navigate stairs and a driveway, which means looking out for cars exiting and entering. These stairs will also make it harder for seniors to walk here.

We are hoping that the city planners will approach this as a part of our town that is just fine the way it is. Let's work together to preserve the uniqueness of Nevada City that we want to protect and preserve. A driveway in the middle of a beautiful stone wall used by many is not the future we want for our town.

Thank you,
Linda Khatami
[email protected]
Tel. 415-641-5176
236 American Hill Rd.

Nevada City, CA 95959
From: Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:14 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Neighborhood Concern
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Amy Wolfson
This is to inform you of a huge concern in our American Hill neighborhood:

A contractor by the name of Scott Rice recently purchased the property at 230 American Hill Road, off Broad Street , in Nevada City. I am writing about concerns that we and other neighbors have about Mr.

Rice’s plans to construct a driveway in the steep, blind “S” curve of the start of American Hill Road.

There is an original driveway onto Mr. Rice’s property at 230 American Hill Road- located off of Bennett Street. But since he plans to cover up this original driveway, he is intending to propose creating a new driveway, as described below.

This new driveway will require taking down a significant portion of the decades old ( century old?) lovely stacked stone wall that borders a popular walking path. This path, which is city owned, is used by residents and tourists alike- old and young.

Mr. Rice is also planning to build a staircase on each side of his proposed new driveway— thereby cutting off the flow of the pathway, requiring people to descend and then ascend the already steep path on their way.

This historic pathway is so charming, and adds to the look of the neighborhood- so close to Broad Street!
Also, this proposed construction of a driveway at this location, just after a right hand curve up American Hill , a steep, blind ascent— not only is at an unnatural angle, but will require the cutting down of more trees. It will also require digging down at least 4 feet ( or more), creating a retaining wall in front of neighbors front yards, and THEN removing a historic shack/old storage shed that is in the line of sight.

To conclude and restate :
this driveway proposal , which Mr. Rice is planning to include in the February 18, 2021 city zoom meeting will result in the following:

First— it will destroy the look and flow of a historic and charming pathway in our neighborhood. This pathway , with it’s old stacked stone borders the curve of the path, and is constantly being used by us all — and has always added original charm to our neighborhood.

Second—it will create an unnatural and unnecessary driveway entrance where one already exists on Bennett Street .

This proposed driveway, would occur just after a right hand blind “S” curve up a steep ascent at tj start of American Hill Road.

Third— it will require the removal of trees, digging down at least 4 feet of dirt, adding a retaining wall that will exist at the borders/ fences of other front yard properties.

Fourth—it will require the removal of a historic structure in the way of this intended driveway, behind the existing house.

Please review these concerns before making decisions about Mr. Rice’s plans. It would be our hope that Mr. Rice, the city, and the neighborhood could agree on a solution, preserving the original intent of the charming neighborhood layout.

Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Richard Avansino
Pat Avansino
530-388-8256
[email protected]
From: Maggie Cull <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6:28 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Driveway at American Hill Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms Wolfson,
As an immediate neighbor to the proposed driveway at 230 American Hill Road, I am deeply concerned about the safety of any vehicle ingressing or egressing this proposed driveway. It is located on the S curve of American Hill just off the intersection of Bennett St. and American Hill. When people turn the corner from Bennett St. on to American Hill, they accelerate their car to climb the steep hill. A broadside collision is almost inevitable at some point in time. My home is located on the S curve and I cannot tell you how often I have been nearly hit broadside by a vehicle coming up the hill. The proposed driveway would be in greater jeopardy of an accident than mine.

The driveway that already exists to Mr. Rice's property is on Bennett St. and is much safer than the proposed driveway on American Hill. It is on level ground, a straight street and can be seen from both directions. It is also before cars begin to accelerate at the turn to go up the hill.

During Nevada City celebrations, ie., parades, festivals, bike races, etc., people from out of town park (illegally) on the curve, all the way from the intersection of Bennett St. and American Hill up to my driveway, making it nearly impossible to egress my driveway safely. That would be completely unsafe to have a driveway on American Hill where Mr.

Rice plans to place it.

Please consider an alternative solution. I strongly object to this proposed driveway location.

Thank you,
Margaret Cull
[email protected]
Tel. 530-470-0415
238 American Hill Rd.

Nevada City, CA 95959
From: Hazel Shewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:34 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: map amendment - Scott Rice
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Wolfson,
I was unable to attend the meeting in which the Scott Rice project was discussed however I would like to add my concerns into the record.

The driveway access, proposed by Scott Rice, enters American Hill on a bend where the traffic flows from down town to go up American Hill. ( If the traffic goes straight, it passes my house on Monroe St.). As the cars enter American Hill on that bend, they tend to gain speed in order to get up the hill. If a car was exiting the proposed driveway, a dangerous situation would occur.

There is also a walking path above the road which the driveway would cut through and I believe that Mr. Rice intends to add steps beside either side of the new driveway for pedestrians.

There is an existing driveway on the other side of the house but I understand the Mr Rice plans to build a new house on that side. I assume the house would take the existing driveway.

I am sorry that I was unable to express my concerns prior to or at the planning commission meeting. I will stop by City Hall and hopefully catch up with you. My tel number is 470-6109 Sincerely, Hazel Shewell
Ps As the town offices were not open when I came by this morning, I left a copy of this letter in the Pay Bills box outside.

From: James Khatami <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:00 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Project Proposal for 230 American Hill Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ms Wolfson,
Regarding the property at 230 American Hill Road, Mr. Scott Rice has told neighbors that he intends to go forward with his plan to remove a section of the city-owned stone wall and pathway and to put in a new driveway on American Hill Road.

My wife, Linda, and I, and many in the neighborhood have two requests:

1. Could you please give us as much advance notice as possible before Mr. Rice's proposal comes before the Planning Commission. There was a lot of confusion about the previous notification, and many in the neighborhood (even within 300 feet) said they were not informed.

2. Would it be possible for you to reach out to the Historical Commission to look into the historical background of the wall and pathway along American Hill Rd. We have neighbors who remember running along the pathway when they were kids. In addition, Barbara and Hal Degraw said that the outbuilding that Mr. Rice is proposing to demolish is an old assayer's hut.

For us, this is all about preserving the history and charm of our city. We certainly do not have an issue with Mr. Rice's right to develop his property, but we hope he can come up with a plan that shows respect for our town's values...

From: Christopher Khatami <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:16 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Cc: Bryan McAlister <[email protected]>
Subject: Scott Rice proposal for 230 American Hill Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms Wilson and PlanningCommission members,
We are very concerned about the plans to demolish sections of the trail and wall for a driveway as our previous letters have explained.

Recently, a neighbor called to our attention that in the Project Description it states that another driveway will be constructed on Bennett street , also demolishing more of the path and old wall Please do not allow our path to and from town to be carved up and make more pedestrians walk in the street.

Thank-you,
Linda and Jim Khatami
From: Barbara DeGraw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 8:20 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 230 American Hill Map Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Amy
I’m a little unsure what this email means. So the City Attorney determined this was not an appropriate mechanism for this proposal. Is there an appropriate mechanism for Scott Rice doing this driveway? I liked your last sentence but will he be back with another proposal? He has contacted many neighbors trying to get them to see it his way. But the majority of the neighbors (only one person doesn’t care and I think he has an ulterior motive for wanting the driveway) do not want the rock wall and pathway cut into.

Sorry to bother you with this but the pathway is important to us since we use it all the time.

Thanks Amy. Hope all is well with you and your family.

Barb DeGraw
Sent from my iPad
From: James Khatami <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2021 2:16 PM
To: Bryan McAlister <[email protected]>; laurie oberholtzer <[email protected]>; Amy Wolfson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 230 American Hill Road Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Bryan,
Thanks much for getting back to me regarding the 230 American Hill Road project and the developer,
Scott Rice's proposal to put a new driveway thru the wall and path on American Hill Road. All of us
in the neighborhood are happy to hear that the City Planner, City Attorney and Nevada City elected officials will be involved in future decisions regarding Scott Rice's proposals.

I (and others in the neighborhood) wanted to emphasize that we have no objection to Mr. Rice's right to develop his property. We just hope that he will listen to the neighborhood and other Nevada City residents and amend his proposal so that our cherished neighborhood wall and pathway are preserved in full.

My wife, Linda, and I have spoken to Mr. Rice several times, and he did not appear willing to compromise
or even to acknowledge neighborhood concerns. We are hoping that you and others with the city can help guide Mr. Rice in a direction that respects our city's commitment to preservation.

He has other options to make his project profitable.

We are also hoping that with the involvement of other departments, we'll have better communication
and less confusion about the project going forward.

Sincerely,
Jim Khatami
Linda Khatami
236 American Hill Rd.

Tel. 415-535-2440
[email protected]
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:20 PM Bryan McAlister <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for that information. I look forward to seeing what else you and others may come up with as it relates to the history of the path and the wall.

I will consider the application within my limited purview and will also consult with others such as city attorney and city planner. We try not to oppose projects for certain individuals or specific instances when it would otherwise be approved for others. Where applicable many decisions can b made by elected officials so we'll be looking at that option as well.

Bryan McAlister, PE, PLS
City Engineer
From: James Khatami <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 11:49 AM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Bryan McAlister <[email protected]>; Linda Sutter <[email protected]>; Barbara DeGraw <[email protected]>; Barbara Roemer <[email protected]>; Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>; To: Sam Gitchel <[email protected]>; Randall Frizzell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 230 American Hill Road Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Amy,
Please do not allow this driveway at 230 American Hill Road to go through without a proper review.

Mr. Rice told us that he is a developer, that he doesn't intend to live on his recently purchased property,
and that he plans to develop it. How can you say that there is no developer and no development involved in this issue?
I spoke to Erin Minett on Sunday at a community clean up event about Mr. Rice's proposal for a new driveway on American Hill Road. She was familiar with the wall and pathway and asked if Mr. Rice was a developer. Could you please consult with her and members of the City Council to see how to proceed on this issue.

This is a very important neighborhood issue that many people feel strongly about, as you know from the many letters you have received. Why does it seem like you are not taking the neighborhood concerns seriously? Bryan Mcalister suggested that we get together at the site to review the proposal. Would you be able to attend and help us understand the city's approach to this issue. Believe me, I am not the only person who is confused by what is going on.

Thank you,
Jim Khatami
From: Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:10 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Scott Rice driveway encroachment permission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Regarding Scott Rice’s plan to install a driveway on lower American Hill Road:

Many of our neighbors , including ourselves, have written to you with our objections to this plan- since the legal department has turned it over to the engineer, Bryan McAlister, it appears that the neighborhood’ s concerns are dismissed.

What exactly is a planning commission for— if not to preserve historic continuity and neighborhood charm?
And what exactly is a legal department for - if not to protect city liability for possible lawsuits due to unsafe decisions as approved by engineering departments? The lower part of American Hill Road is a BLIND “S” curve- anyone trying to make a right turn there into a theoretical driveway needs to pull into oncoming traffic lane..... very dangerous and a very stupid idea! It is imperative that this matter is not swept under the proverbial rug!!! We realize that Mr. Rice , the owner/ developer, has a right to build a house on his second parcel-he already has an existing functional driveway - and he doesn’t live in this neighborhood- so his stake is only financial. We who live and drive here are very concerned about the look and safety of our lovely neighborhood.

Besides disfiguring and hindering a popular historic path and rock wall, this proposed driveway will increase city liability—- not only because of the 2 proposed stairways, but the angle , shape and steepness of this road!
We all certainly hope that you will drive this area for yourselves and try to imagine the logistics of turning into this proposed driveway- while considering the above consequences for the city of Nevada City.

Richard Avansino
Patricia Avansino
[email protected]
From: Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:14 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Neighborhood Concern
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Amy Wolfson
This is to inform you of a huge concern in our American Hill neighborhood:

Rice’s plans to construct a driveway in the steep, blind “S” curve of the start of American Hill Road.

To conclude and restate :
this driveway proposal , which Mr. Rice is planning to include in the February 18, 2021 city zoom meeting will result in the following:

Second—it will create an unnatural and unnecessary driveway entrance where one already exists on Bennett Street .

This proposed driveway, would occur just after a right hand blind “S” curve up a steep ascent at tj start of American Hill Road.

Third— it will require the removal of trees, digging down at least 4 feet of dirt, adding a retaining wall that will exist at the borders/ fences of other front yard properties.

Fourth—it will require the removal of a historic structure in the way of this intended driveway, behind the existing house.

Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Richard Avansino
Pat Avansino
530-388-8256
[email protected]
From: Gus Richard <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: 230 American Hill
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >
> Hi Amy,
>
> I own the home at 234 American Hill. Scott Rice just purchased 230 American Hill and the adjoining lot.

As I understand from a neighbor he plans on putting in a driveway along the property line next to my house. I was hoping you might have a drawing of the planned driveway or the location of the curb cut.

Also could you let me know what the set backs requirements are to the property line for a driveway. It sounded like he plans on lowering the grade 4 feet which would cut across a foot path used by some pedestrians. Will he be required to have a graded slope or stairs so pedestrians don’t have to jump down and up 4’ to cross the driveway. What I know is just hearsay and just want to understand if you have seen plans or aware of them. Any help is appreciated. If a call is easier my cell phone is 408-499- 9163. I am flexible and willing to work with my neighbors. >
> Thank you,
>
> Gus Richard
This is being written in response to the application for a map amendment to the map of property owner, Scott Rice. The notice we received mentions only the removal of the current driveway which I assume is on Bennett Street to which we have no objection. However, we understand that the application also calls for replacement of the driveway on American Hill further up the hill on a blind curve. It is this relocation of the driveway to which we object.

The location of the driveway on American Hill would be much more subject to objection as disruptive of a current public easement and destructive of a beautiful rock wall, not to mention more dangerous due to the proposed location on a blind curve.

There is currently a public easement to walk up and down the hill on public land that would be interfered with, with steps down and up in a more dangerous location - further up the hill on a blind curve. This location is more dangerous because it is not as visible as the location of the current driveway - completely hidden for downhill traffic.

It is also my understanding that the old “Assay Office” for the Lost Mine is located on the property where the proposed driveway will be going through. I hope someone is looking into this.

Barbara and Hal DeGraw
217 Drummond St
Nevada City, CA
From: Hazel Shewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:34 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: map amendment - Scott Rice
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Wolfson,
I was unable to attend the meeting in which the Scott Rice project was discussed however I would like to add my concerns into the record.

There is also a walking path above the road which the driveway would cut through and I believe that Mr. Rice intends to add steps beside either side of the new driveway for pedestrians.

There is an existing driveway on the other side of the house but I understand the Mr Rice plans to build a new house on that side. I assume the house would take the existing driveway.

My wife, Linda, and I, and many in the neighborhood have two requests:

Dear Ms Wilson and PlanningCommission members,
We are very concerned about the plans to demolish sections of the trail and wall for a driveway as our previous letters have explained.

Sorry to bother you with this but the pathway is important to us since we use it all the time.

Thanks Amy. Hope all is well with you and your family.

He has other options to make his project profitable.

We are also hoping that with the involvement of other departments, we'll have better communication
and less confusion about the project going forward.

Sincerely,
Jim Khatami
Linda Khatami
236 American Hill Rd.

Tel. 415-535-2440
[email protected]
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:20 PM Bryan McAlister <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for that information. I look forward to seeing what else you and others may come up with as it relates to the history of the path and the wall.

Hi Amy,
Please do not allow this driveway at 230 American Hill Road to go through without a proper review.

Regarding Scott Rice’s plan to install a driveway on lower American Hill Road:

Richard Avansino
Patricia Avansino
[email protected]
From: Katy Jacobs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:20 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Cc: ICE. Cliff Newell <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Driveway: 230 American Hill Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of County of Nevada email system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Wolfson,
We write to you regarding the additional driveway that is proposed for 230 American Hill Road by new owner, and contractor Scott Rice. Please distribute this letter as appropriate to Nevada City officials, and add this letter to the agenda package scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on April 15th, 2021. We will be in attendance.

Earlier this year, this proposal was very surprising to all of the neighbors in the American Hill neighborhood. As we understand it, this proposal was originally tentatively considered by the City without any notice to the surrounding neighbors. Thankfully, as the affected neighbors became aware, and the level of upset and concern rose, the City has taken steps to make the process more transparent. All of us in the neighborhood are happy to hear that the City Planner, City Attorney and Nevada City elected officials will be involved in future decisions regarding Mr. Rice's proposals.

This section of the American Hill rock wall goes back to at least 1950, if not many years before, and adds a great deal to the aesthetics to this historical neighborhood. The proposed driveway would tear down a substantial part of the retaining wall on city property and would eliminate a significant section of a longstanding and heavily-travelled pathway on top of the rock retaining wall. Tearing down this wall to insert a modern driveway with two sets of stairs in the middle of the raised pathway will have a negative effect on the neighborhood, the people that have lived and walked here for many years, the beautiful historical aesthetic of this location, and create a dangerous situation on a blind curve. Our family lives 150 feet up the street from the Applicant’s proposed driveway. This portion of American Hill has a blind curve at either end. Cars and trucks speed around these two blind curves daily. People rely on the raised pathway to stay out of harm's way, and have for many years. At night, the dark blind curves are even more dangerous, and the raised path is the only place to walk safely. Every couple of years, a car crashes into our fence and trees at the top curve, because a driver is going too fast.

The wall has been there for a long time and is part of our neighborhood’s historic charm.

The Applicant currently has an existing driveway on Bennett Street. It appears that there is also a second driveway access on Bennett Street for ingress/egress. We are aware of an agreement between the City, and prior owner of 230 American Hill, Rod Veblen in 1998, as to the limits of ingress/egress onto the subject property in exchange for allowing a lot split into two buildable lots. The City of Nevada City’s 1998 approval of a lot split of the property indicated that "lot 2 would have a developable building site meeting City requirements and shared driveway." Certainly, a developer with the history of Mr. Rice could reconfigure his project in such a way that honors the 1998 agreement and its constraints, and does not negatively impact the neighborhood to the extent proposed.

We urge the planning commission to take neighborhood, as well as Nevada City heritage and historic concerns into consideration and deny the construction of the Applicant’s proposed driveway in such a dangerous and awkward location.

Most Sincerely,
Kathryn E. Jacobs
Clifford H. Newell
Kathryn E. Jacobs
Clifford H. Newell
Law Office of Kathryn E. Jacobs

300 Austin Street
Nevada City, California 95959
530.913-3230
To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better whether by a healthy child, a garden path or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you lived. This is to have succeeded. ~R.W. Emerson

To: Amy Wolfson, City Planner
Mayor, Erin Minett
Council Members, Duane Strawser, Gary Petersen, Doug Fleming, Daniela Fernandez Concerning the appeal of Scott Rice to the City Council to overturn the Planning Commissioners’ decision denying Mr. Rice’s request to relocate the drive for 230 American Hill Road
I am writing to you requesting that you uphold the Planning Commission’s ruling to deny a driveway on American Hill Road for Mr. Rice’s project at 230 and 232.

Introduction
The case to deny such a driveway is very persuasive and includes legal, aesthetic, preservation, and safety grounds. An overwhelming number of neighbors suggest modifications to Mr Rice’s proposal.

We are neighbors and friends, people who live in and walk and bike from Lost Hill to town. We don’t want to deprive Mr. Rice of the development of his property. We just want such development to be legal, safe, pleasing, and fit the historic context of one of the best preserved towns in the West.

What We Want to Preserve
You’ve probably walked or driven American Hill Road by now, and taken a closer look at the charming cottages along this blind stretch of American Hill. Just two blocks from downtown, nestled above the rock wall and path, with no apparent access, the cottages look magical, as though you’d conjured them as you drove up Bennett Street.

You’ve seen some pictures of the area. Here’s the progression as you move onto American Hill from Bennett Street:

The first thing you see as you round the bend is the Khatamis blue cottage at 236 with the “Dogs Welcome” sign. As you progress, the Richard home at 234 comes into view. Both these homes are handsomely restored. Then you can look back slightly to your right and see Mr. Rice’s property, 230, a 1940’s structure. Next, you look up the block again to catch a glimpse of yet another restored cottage, the Cull house, at 238. The Avansinos’ home at 242 reveals itself at the end of this fanciful row. The path is narrow here, but well-used. A driveway just west of 238 serves 234, 236, 238, and 242, an easement shared among four parcels. The reason Ms. Cull at 238 has granted easements to the other three properties is that there is no safe drive to any of the other homes here that could abutt American Hill Road. There is no safe drive from 230 that could abutt American Hill Road.

Preservation and Improvement
Nevada City’s General Plan Housing Element states, “Since the City’s circulation system was historically designed around the horse and carriage, most of the City’s streets are very narrow with many having steeper than normal slopes…. From an engineering design standpoint, these local streets lack adequate site distance and width, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. However, the General Plan recognizes such eccentricities as a part of the unique character of the City and encourages their preservation.” (Section 5-10, emphasis added) Increased Risk or Improved Accessibility?
The Housing Element also calls for improvement of pedestrian access, particularly where there is an opportunity to improve accessibility. (Section 5-23) Mr. Rice’s proposal pushes pedestrians into the driveway and on the street, putting them at more risk than they now are on a difficult stretch of the street. This is surely not improved accessibility. Who is at risk here? We are mostly elders in this neighborhood, and the senior population of Nevada City is about 40% of our citizenry. Many of us in the Lost Hill neighborhood have some disabilities, just as does 30% of our population here. We walk this wall and path with our grandchildren. I’m 75, and I taught my grandchildren about biking and walking blind curves on this section of American Hill between Drummond and Bennett Streets.

What’s Worth Saving
Another argument to put to rest is that the historical wall and path are not worth preserving because the wall has been repaired. It’s evident that there are at least three types of rockwork on the curve at 230. But the rubble restacking is there precisely because this steep, blind curve is inherently a challenge to drivers, particularly in bad weather. These repairs were made after vehicles slid into the wall from the icy road.

Many neighbors have planed over ice, narrowly missing that wall in snowy weather. Margaret Cull attests to the many times fast-moving vehicles have hit her property at 238, and it’s on a safer stretch than is Mr. Rice’s proposed drive.

Legal Arguments - Easements vs Abutment Rights
But to me, the legal arguments for maintaining the shared drive at the safe, nearly level, low slope area on Bennett street are most persuasive. Mr. Rice does not have the legal right to street access on American Hill by dint of his property abutting the roadway. Mr. Rice’s property is not landlocked. He has the power to exercise his easement to create access to Parcel #2, while maintaining access to Parcel #1. Mr.

Diamond, the residents’ attorney, has laid out the law clearly: Mr. Rice has no significant impairment. He can address access by exercising his easement. Such easements are designed to solve access problems. Such an easement is an appurtenant one, one that flows with the land, so the tenants of both Parcels 1 and 2 are guaranteed access, even with subsequent owners beyond Mr. Rice. While the fact that a property abuts a roadway does not guarantee encroachment on that roadway, it also does not preclude the use of an easement for access. And surely this easement encroaching on Bennett Street is a good solution to access to these two parcels. Let’s look at why the 230 driveway is in this spot.

How Does the Bennett Street Access Serve the Parcels?
Mr. Cassano attests that, in 1998, despite his best offices, Mr. Veblen wanted to maintain the Bennett drive because that’s where it had always been - at the “back” of the house. It’s common and reasonable in our terrain for access to come to the rear of the house. In fact, Gus Richard’s “back” entrance from the four-party shared driveway is among the most attractive approaches I’ve seen anywhere. Mr. Veblen, the owner of 230 for years before Mr. Rice purchased it, recognized that given a choice, humans will choose the most direct path. The drive to 230 could have been relocated to the front of the house in 1942 when the original house was replaced, or moved in his 1994 proposal, or again in 1998, but Mr. Veblen put it where it is because that’s was the best choice. The Bennett drive has been the best access to 230 since our town sprang up, and it remains so now, more than a hundred years later.

Summary
I ask, along with every neighbor I’ve spoken to, that, as you represent us, the City Attorney look again at the law regarding abutment versus easement and recommend to uphold the Planning Commission vote to deny a driveway that encroaches on American Hill Road in favor of a shared driveway from Bennett Street; and that the Council recognize our concerns about safety and preservation of the unique character and charm of our neighborhood. The Planning Commission made the best choice 23 years ago in conditioning a shared Bennett driveway, and your current Planning Commissioners made a sound decision in denying the American Hill Road driveway.

Thank you for your time.

Barbara Roemer
325 American Hill Road
May 9th, 2021
From: Barbara Roemer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 1:24 PM
To: Amy Wolfson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: final parcel maps
Hi Amy,
Thanks for the speedy reply. I appreciate the information on conditioned easements. We are focused on the historical value as well as the pedestrian access on the path and wall. You mentioned a professional evaluation of resources that are sensitive. I was immediately reminded that when Bill Falconi came out to 230 last year, he told us the sawed off posts implanted in the wall are evidence that there was a railing put in there by the City years ago. Perhaps he's the person to speak to for an evaluation of this sensitive area. Bill didn't find documentation at City Hall about when the work was done, but obviously, it's old. Our neighbor, Dave Murray, still lives in his family house on American Hill, built in 1949, and he remembers hopping from post to post as a school boy. He's in his 70's, I believe. His best friend who grew up across the street on Gold Tunnel, Gary Sparks, I think will also attest to taking the path to town and school.

The photograph I picked up at the historical society yesterday is a laser print of Spring and Bennett. (I wouldn't duplicate it because the quality of the print doesn't show the wall well. I can get other glossy laser copies for $10. at Searles.) I left it in Erin's box at City Hall; she said you are welcome to go get it. Gretchen Bond indicates the picture was taken prior to 1855 because the frame buildings in the foreground are the old foundry, which burned in 1855. When I was researching the wall at Searles last year, I came to a dead end searching on American Hill. Then I remembered, since we live on the old Valentine property, that Calvin Valentine, the last of his line which had been here since the 1800's, refused to use the new postal address of 325 American Hill Road for this property. He never gave up using 325 Lost Hill Road, the historical name for the road. It was only when I searched on Lost Hill Road that I came up with the photograph you now have.

The photo you have was used by the senior Kilroys for their Christmas card long after the photo was taken. There is a note on the original, indicating a date of about 1900, but that was a guess, and I'd defer to Gretchen's records on the foundry. The Kilroys were very active in the historical society and used old photos for their Christmas cards, according to their son, another neighbor of ours on Drummond.

If you look at the upper right quadrant of the photo, the property at 230 and the adjacent lot are very clear. There is a wide space running from the top of the wall toward the house at 230. Now, comparing that photograph to the parcel map, you'll see that there is a wide section of city property where the path runs. The City property and the path start out as a broad stretch at Bennett and American Hill, and narrow sharply at the Cull property at 238 through both blind curves. If you have both the parcel map and the photograph in hand, it's easy to parse the wall, an evergreen tree, and a post. You can also see from this photograph why Rod Veblun said the shared driveway easement should remain where it's always been - it is a cart track in this picture. Surely the conditioned easement that now exists was carefully considered years ago, or access to 230 would have been sought and granted through American Hill.

It's likely that the wall has been rebuilt several times, or at least portions of it. If you've ever slid around the two blind corners there in ice and snow, you'll understand immediately what's happened over the years. Clearly, because the street is so much lower than the properties, and because the curves were blind, there was a need to provide for safe pedestrian access. Even the street was less hazardous in the 1850's than it is today because transportation was by horse. It seems to me that the path was much more than a casual footpath, particularly since the City had sunk money into mounting a safety railing there.

I hope all this helps. I'd suggest you call Gretchen to get authentication on the date of the photograph, if you need it. And I hope Bill will be able to flesh out the construction and railing....I think his family has been in town since the 1800's, and with his duration at the city as engineer, you have a good resource. Another resource who comes to mind is Chris Ward, the forensics anthropologist who has done a good deal of work here. Chris came out last year. Both he and Ken Holbrook think it's likely a small frame building in the path of the proposed drive is the old assay office for either Champion or Providence Mine. We have not yet hired Chris to do that sleuthing, but would when it comes to demolishing the building.

Please call me if there is anything I can help with. There are thousands of photos in the Kilroys' barn, but I haven't had time to go through them searching for the bits that might be useful.

Please feel free to pass along this information to Sean, as well.

Best,

Barbara
530 575-9345

From: Louis Flint Ceci
To: Public Comment
Subject: 231 American Hill rock wall issue
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 8:23:31 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Honorable Council Members:

I am opposed to the partial demolition of the rock wall along American Hill Road for the sake of adding a driveway.

Hand-laid rock work is one of the unique charms of Nevada City. Its signature craftsmanship unites all our neighborhoods, displayed in chimneys, retaining walls, staircases, and terraces from Jordon and Zion Streets to Nursery St., from Prospect Hill to Bourbon Hill to 7 Hills.

Even partial demolition of the rock work on American Hill would break the thread of connection we have with each other and to our past. It would also interrupt the footpath that sits atop the wall, and disrupt its daily use by neighborhood residents.

Folks who buy property in our city should not look on our heritage as something to be exploited for gain or discarded to increase their return on investment. It is worth preserving in its own right—on American Hill and throughout our town. —Lou Ceci
309 Cross Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
From: Barbara DeGraw
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision on 230 American Hill Map Amendment Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 12:47:24 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

I am resubmitting my previous letter to the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission Decision on 230 American Hill Map Amendment.

Thank you,
Barbara and Hal DeGraw
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Barbara DeGraw <[email protected]>
Date: May 4, 2021 at 10:57:07 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision on 230 American Hill Map Amendment
Dear Nevada City Council Members,
My name is Barbara DeGraw. My husband Hal DeGraw and I live at 217 Drummond St and I have lived in the area for over 45 years. I am unable to attend the zoom meeting on May 12th and I want to address the appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of a proposed map amendment at 230 American Hill, in which we are in agreement with the PC.

In 2021 alone, we have lost two historic buildings on Broad Street and a magnificent Blue Atlas tree. Now we have someone wanting to destroy a rock wall that has been here since the late 1800’s for a driveway! If we keep chipping away at these important details, we lose the special characteristics that make Nevada City unique and charming. The Planning Commission efforts in this regard thus far are noted and appreciated.

For our neighborhood, it is not about providing access to a lot - it already has access, a fact that Mr. Haley neglected to mention but the PC was aware of and made it clear in their decision.

It is about destroying a historic rock wall that serpentines alongside American Hill Road and serves as a walking path for the community and a gateway to our neighborhood.

Scott Rice purchased the property knowing the conditions of the lot split.

The lot split was approved in 1998 with the condition that it have a “shared driveway” on Bennett Street. I doubt that back in 1998 the PC would have even approved the lot split if it meant destroying the rock wall for a driveway. The PC in 1998 made sure both the lots had a driveway, albeit “shared”. There are plenty of shared driveways in NC, as well as plenty of homes without driveways. So the “shared” driveway is not a unique situation. In fact the first driveway off American Hill is a shared driveway serving several homes.

Many neighborhood residents are concerned about the safety issues on American Hill. This is why many people use the pathway to get off the street.

Mr Rice’s proposal of placing stairs on either side of his driveway just makes it more dangerous to go up and down, especially at night. There are already many dangerous driveways on blind curves and hills in NC. Why would we want to continue to add to this safety issue?
The vast majority of the neighborhood is against this driveway as seen by the overwhelming response of over 40 letters and a petition signed by 70+ neighbors.

I urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the proposed map amendment.

Thank you,
Barbara and Hal DeGraw
Sent from my iPad
From: brian evans
To: Public Comment
Subject: 230 American Hill driveway application
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:47:33 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

To the Nevada City Council,
We understand the owner of 230 American Hill Road has appealed the Planning Commission's unanimous 5-0 decision last April to deny the request to demolish a portion of the historical rock wall and build another access point for a driveway. We are strongly opposed to this request as it would significantly degrade the aesthetic and historical attributes of this section of Nevada City.

Our family has lived in Nevada City for 21 years and enjoy its historic beauty. The continued prosperity of Nevada City depends upon maintaining standards that benefit all residents and visitors. Please vote to deny this appeal.

Warm regards,
Brian and Jennifer Evans
630 Chief Kelly Dr.

Nevada City
From: Barbara Roemer
To: Public Comment
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision 230 American Hill Road Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 12:46:34 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Dear City Council Members and Staff,
On Tuesday, April 5, 2022, I walked the path and wall at 230-236 American Hill Road with three long time residents who have spent time on and around the wall since they were children. Their recollections and banter were delightful, and I learned quite a bit about the area. David Murray lives at the corner of American Hill Road and Gold Tunnel in a house his parents built in 1949.

Gary Sharpe lives opposite his cousin David on American Hill and Gold Tunnel. Bill Falconi has lived in Nevada City all his life, and worked as the City Engineer. For nearly half a century, Bill has overseen the city's infrastructure, much of which dates from the 1880's.

David and Gary related where they'd played in the surrounding woods, and how they'd walked the path to school. For as far back as they remember, the path has had no railing, but Gary remembers as probably kindergarteners, when they were finally tall enough to straddle the tallest of the posts that remained. David and Gary are both over 70 years of age.

Bill is the eldest among us, and recalls jolting along in his dad's pickup on the way to the dump up on Chief Kelly, watching the wall and path unfold.

As we walked the path, Bill pointed out the beginning of it where there are large stones, still in place and also visible in the Kilroys' Christmas Card photo from about 1900. The old frame building that was the Miner's Foundry is in the foreground, and above it the corner of American Hill and Bennett are visible. The path and wall are clearly evident, and we were able to link the stones in the picture with those remaining on the ground today. Bill thinks it likely that the wall is about 130 years old, and stacked before or at the time the little houses above were built. The Khatami house at 236 was built in 1889, so Bill's date for the wall fits.

The path has changed a bit in that 130 years. It has narrowed and become much more uneven as dirt from the hillside above has eroded and been deposited on the path. It's easy to see where it did run, and the spacious width David and Gary remember when they were kids can be seen in the Kilroy Card photo. As we walked the path uphill, we could see that a fence now stands well in the path, in the City property, and narrows the walkway. All three men agreed with Cathy Wilcox Barnes' statement that the path was there long before they were born. The old photo is attached below. The corner of American Hill and Bennett is visible in the upper right quadrant. The streets meet at greater than 90 degrees, and are treed now. The house at 230 is a small white frame building with a much larger house behind it. A fence runs on the north or right side of the path.

Submitted by Barbara Roemer, courtesy of Searls Historical Library. 325 American Hill Road
Nevada City
--
We are stardust,
We are golden,
We are billion-year-old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
-Joni Mitchell
From: David Murray
To: Public Comment
Subject: Proposed Map Amendment - 230 American Hill Road Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 5:14:29 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to object to establishment of a driveway easement on the NW side of the referenced Lot 1.

The proposed driveway on Austin Street would reaquire the partial destruction of the heritage pathway and rock wall going up the hill along American Hill Road. This pathway and rock wall are as much of an inportant part of Nevada City’s heritage as the wooden sidewalk on upper Main Street.

As a kindergarten student, almost 70 years ago, I can remember being instructed by my mother that for safety’s sake to always walk on the pathway when going to and returning from school. When my mother, her sisters, and friends were growing up in Nevada City they would walk the pathway on outings to the Lost Hill area.

Additionally adding a driveway in the middle of the steep S-turn going up American Hill Road would greatly increase the existing danger to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic in this area. This section of the street is quite narrow and has limited sight lines through the S-turn. The pedestrian pathway on American Hill Road should also be maintained as it is the only safe way for pedestrians, especially children and visitors to our community unfamiliar with the traffic patterns, to negotiate this section of the road.

It would be more practical from a community heritage and safety standpoint to have a common driveway easement on the NE side of the referenced Lot 2 providing access from Bennett Street. This is a flat area that would provide an unobstructed view of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic on Bennett Street.

It is extremely important for our community to preserve the historical monuments that make up the character of Nevada City.

Thank you for your consideration,
David Murray
David Murray
101 Gold Tunnel Drive
Nevada City, CA 95959
From: Elaina Breen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 7:23 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: 230 American Hill Road
Good morning and sincere thanks for your on-going work in preserving the beauty of our charming mountain town and approving changes / modifications where appropriate.

As the owner of a home at 306 American Hill, I frequently walk into town along the pathway for which Mr. Rice is asking for modification / partial removal.

I am opposed to that decision for both aesthetic and safety reasons. The path in front of his property is at a blind curve where there are often cars speeding.

As a 77 year-old woman, it has contributed significantly to my sense of safety and also to a sense of connection to Nevada City's past to be able to walk on that path.

Sincere thanks in advance for your opposition to this modification / destruction.

Elaina Breen, Owner
306 American Hill Road
Nevada City, CA 95959
[email protected]
1 Gabrielle Christakes
From: Merry Byles-Daly <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 2:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: The wall on American Hill and Bennett
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Dear City Council Members,
We are writing to urge you to support your Planning Commission and refuse Scott Rice's application for a driveway on American Hill Road.

We have lived on the corner of Drummond Street and American Hill for 35 years and we frequently walk that stretch with the old wall and pathway. Our children grew up using it as the safe path to walk into town and to school. We are hoping our granddaughter will be able to do the same. We oppose cutting the driveway into the steep blind curve on American Hill and adding traffic to it. Such a cut would make the path difficult for pedestrians to navigate, and be extremely unattractive. Mr. Rice already has access from Bennett Street, sufficient to allow him to build on both of his lots. Please preserve our heritage, the beauty of our neighborhood, and public access by refusing Mr. Rice's request to repeal the Planning Commission's decision..

John M. Daly and Merry Byles Daly
Drummond and American Hill
From: Nancy Bleile
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comments for April 13, 2022 City Council Meeting Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 12:10:32 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

April 7, 2022
To: Members of the City Council of Nevada City
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for a new driveway by Scott Rice I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission decision. Please do not add to the traffic and pedestrian challenges along this section of American Hill by disrupting the walking path and adding a new driveway.

Nancy Bleile
265 Giles St
Nevada City, CA
1 Gabrielle Christakes
From: Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Council meeting April 13, 2022
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet. 4/5/2022
Re: Upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Scott Rice’s proposed second driveway at 230 American Hill Rd.

Our names are Patricia and Richard Avansino, and we live at 242 American Hill Road, Nevada City. We urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s ruling 5 to 0 and deny the applicant Scott Rice’s appeal to place a second driveway on the lower American Hill Road curve.

The first issue is the proposed plan’s removal of a large part of the old stone wall and path , which exists on a grade , to insert a second driveway to the property at 230 American Hill Road.

Mr. Rice’s driveway proposal deprives the public of a safe use of lovely, historic pathway used by both neighbors and many others who walk the American Hill loop. This historic path with its old stacked stone is used by people of all ages , strollers, children, and pets, and exists with the old remains of hand rail support posts—and was likely built by a well known Nevada City resident, Joe Day so many years ago.

Mr. Rice’s proposed driveway would destroy a significant part of this historic path and rock wall, creating obstacles to the flow of the path. This destruction of an area of this lovely path will impact all who walk on it— people will have to exit the path, walk across a driveway, and back up on the path via some version of steps—‐ hard to do with strollers, walking sticks, canes , arthritic knees or young children.

Preserving historic buildings, edifices, stone paths and structures‐the beautiful nooks and crannies of this charming town is one of the goals of the Planning Commission‐ and they rejected Mr. Rice’s unnecessary driveway plan by 5 to 0.

Unnecessary, because there already exists a driveway to his property exiting on Bennett Street‐ a driveway stipulated to serve both of his parcels in 1998 , when the property was split.

Another issue regards the safety of the drive up and down lower American Hill Road. It is a double blind “S” curve, a relatively narrow street, and subject to blinding sun at certain times of the day on the ascent in summer , and very icy conditions on the descent in winter. Being a double blind curve necessitates very careful negotiation of the road to avoid head ons and bicyclists , not to mention those pedestrians that would have to walk in the street if part of the old rock pathway was demolished for a driveway.
2 Definitely unsafe and unwise for driving in both directions‐ And the truth is most people do not negotiate this curve carefully.

It seems obvious that Mr. Rice will be developing his second parcel and creating more living spaces, which will create more cars exiting and entering this proposed driveway . This will affect the safety of driving in this area even more.

For all these reasons, we urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision last year and deny this unsafe, unnecessary and awkward placing of a driveway on lower American Hill Road.

Thank you,
Patricia Avansino
Richard Avansino
242 American Hill Road
Nevada City
Sent from my iPhone
1 Gabrielle Christakes
From: Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 5:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Scott Rice Appeal to the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Patricia Avansino <[email protected]>
Date: May 7, 2021 at 4:28:56 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Scott Rice Appeal to the City Council
To : Nevada City Council Members
Re : Mr. Rice’s proposal to add an additional driveway to lower American Hill Road We are among many neighbors , on American Hill Road , who strongly oppose this proposal —and hope the City Council will agree and side with the Planning Commission on this matter.

It has been put forth by Mr. Rice that every house has a right to a driveway. We believe that this statement is not applicable to this situation for the following reasons. 1) He already HAS a functional driveway on Bennett Street, as stipulated in the Nevada City’s agreement of the lot split with the prior owner in 1998‐ a driveway that is meant to serve both lots. 2) His proposal to build another driveway on lower American Hill Road not only puts the public in danger, by adding a driveway onto a steep blind , unsafe “ S” curve, but also severs a public walking path and historic rock wall. Just because this developer wants to build over his existing driveway on Bennett Street shouldn’t justify negatively affecting the public and the environment.

We who live , walk, drive in this neighborhood, know well the dangers of this steep curve‐ in the ice and snow of winter, in the rain, and also in the blinding afternoon sun. The street is narrow, the steep curve is blind, and the traffic has been increasing over the years ‐ due to the increasing construction above Chief Kelly Drive and Highway 49.
2 Drivers turning right from Bennett Street, proceeding up American Hill Road always accelerate. There would be obvious occasions of drivers having to stop short for entering or exiting cars from this proposed and ill‐conceived driveway, if allowed. Drivers stopping short both up and down the curve risk both head ons and rear end accidents. This driveway proposal needs to be considered in the full context of real life safety —‐where city liability may be in question — and not be based on a cursory observation of the street design.

And then our second objection regards the chopping up of a lovely historic public path. The proposal of stairs on both sides of the planned additional driveway would interfere with the flow of the walking path, and causes those who are unable to negotiate stairs to use the narrow street.

And all because a developer who has an existing driveway already, wants another one. There is no reason that Mr. Rice cannot change his building plans to accommodate public safety and neighborhood foot traffic.

He did purchase the property for investment, with full knowledge of the existing driveway , but obviously thought he had some advantage in his ability to persuade others and manipulate their opinions to get his new driveway plan approved.

But Mr Rice doesn’t live in this beautiful neighborhood and won’t suffer the consequences of this sad conversion of our landscape with all its repercussions to the community.

Please deny this unnecessary driveway proposal.

Sincerely,
Richard Avansino
Patricia Avansino
242 American Hill Road
Nevada City
Sent from my iPhone

!"
#

"

$

%&'#() $*(*$"(*
"(")+,- ./0- +1
)+,- ./0- 2 --
34567689:;<=45676>9:;?@AB9>>CDD4=:EFD69BG>CDH IJC?CK477J954L6;6:MC=JC46=7N4==4::GO:JC=FB;C??CK47GPQ6=RKG -

O:454N6@FQD6=STU
$
V W,-&-&&,

!
$%U$$

T

$

T
$$
%

T
$$

%
)

T
$$

XY--

Z%U%0)
"U%)%"
$
)

Y

"[%")" "U"
\

!"
#%

% "

,]
X
,^*_,^
,
`
-0-&--&
From: samgitchel
To: Public Comment
Subject: 230 American Hill appeal
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:32:25 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Dear City Council members:

I understand that Scott Rice will appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to deny his proposal to add a driveway to 230 American Hill Road. I travel this section of American Hill Road nearly every day and sometimes use the roadside path.

I reiterate my opposition to adding a driveway off American Hill Road. I oppose it because :
– it would put a hazardous driveway on the steep S-curve, increasing the risk of vehiclevehicle and vehicle-pedestrian accidents; -- it would render the footpath unusable or impractical to use; – it would destroy the integrity of the existing stone wall; – it would add to the confusion and traffic congestion at the Monroe-American Hill intersection, which regularly accompany large downtown events; – the two existing driveways are adequate to serve the property.

Mr. Rice should be required to present his complete development plans, including traffic engineering studies, before his appeal is considered. Until that point I urge the Council to summarily reject it.

Sincerely,
Sam Gitchel
265 Giles Street
City Council,
I’m writing regarding the proposed driveway entering 230 American Hill Road. I believe the City Council should uphold the previous Planning Commission decision and deny approval of the driveway.

I’ve lived at 210 Drummond Street, near the subject site for 29 years. In that period of time I’ve experienced snow and ice conditions that have caused me to avoid that section of American Hill Road and take an alternate route, even in my four wheel drive vehicle.

I believe that placing a driveway in the steep curved section of the street with its poor sight lines could create very unsafe driving conditions. The existing driveway that served 230 American Hill Road prior to the lot split should be modified to serve both of the parcels.

Gary Johnson
210 Drummond Street
Nevada City, CA
To: City Manager, Sean Grayson
Amy Wolfson, City Planner
Mayor, Duane Strawser
Council Members, Erin Minett, Gary Petersen, Doug Fleming, Daniela Fernandez Concerning the appeal of Scott Rice to the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission decision denying Mr. Rice’s request to relocate the drive for 230 American Hill Road.

I am writing to you to request that you uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous ruling to deny a driveway at 230 American Hill Road which would remove a portion of the historical wall and path there. Photos of the wall and path as it exists today, and from ~1900, follow.

Historical Wall at 230 American Hill, a Portion of which is Slated For Removal American Hill & Bennett Neighborhood ~ 1900. 230 is Small White House in Upper Right Quadrant.

Stones at Beginning Path and at Bennett Driveway Show Up as White Patches.

Last year when Mr. Rice proposed to the Planning Commission that he slice through a sizable portion of the old wall and path and replace them with a driveway, the community rose up to voice its support for preserving the aesthetic of the Lost Hill neighborhood, for the conserving of historical treasures, and for assuring public access and safety. Attorney Craig Diamond argued that since Mr.

Rice already has a conditioned easement from Bennett Street (which he knew when he purchased 230 American Hill), there is no “taking” in the Planning Commission turning down his driveway proposal. Our Planning Commission concurred that Mr. Rice’s proposal was inappropriate and rejected it summarily. Mr. Rice is appealing to the City Council to overturn its Planning Commissioners’ decision.

Let’s revisit some of the considerations, first among them, the aesthetic one.

BACKGROUND
Inviting Path and Stones at Corner of Bennett Street and American Hill Rounding the Bend from Bennett
Three Cottages above the First Bend
Neighborhood Aesthetic
Stacked stone walls, steep lanes, houses with no curbside vehicle access, all echo our landscape here, a watershed of ravine and rise. Nevada City’s engaging charm reflects our topography and history. Last year, Laurie Oberholtzer recalled, “As you drive up Bennett Street toward American Hill, this is one of the most beautiful little views in Nevada City. It is a well loved historic picture - a picture postcard view…..It looks like a watercolor painting. Above the wall and pathway, three small cottages share a driveway tucked beyond the last house.” Charming homes perched above a wall with no apparent auto access are magical, but they are not unique to American Hill Road. Indeed, such homes with their quirky hidden drives are a major piece of our vernacular. Whether the houses are set above or below the street, whether their walls are parged cement, rough mine rubble, or are laid up of hewn granite, they speak of prospect and refuge, of possibility and roots. They reveal both the limitations and delights in the lay of the land.

Reasonable Rather Than Direct Access
About a block from Mr. Rice’s property, seven such houses face West Broad Street between Finley and Spring. Six are accessed from below, on Spring Street. On North Pine Street, four houses far above the street are accessible from the road behind. On High Street, just above the freeway, all four houses are accessible only from the street beyond. For the first block of Boulder Street, houses have no driveways at all because the street is steep, the roadway is much lower than the houses, and Little Deer Creek runs at the rear of those properties. These houses all abut the street they face, but not one has direct access to it. Central to Mr. Rice’s proposal is that he has encroachment rights on American Hill because his property abuts it. Just as dozens of other owners in Nevada City access their properties through easements rather than from the streets they face, so the property at 230 can be accessed from the conditioned easement on Bennett Street.

Legally, access to American Hill need only be reasonable: it need not be direct.

Following Four Photos of Walls Not Breached by Driveways. Note Various Masonry Styles. 1870’s hewn granite wall, West Broad
Massive Stones, Staircase, North Pine

Note parged cement wall.

High Street, No Direct Vehicle Access to Street
This handsome 1860’s wall at the Episcopal Church was restored in 1998.

Hewn Granite Wall, High Street. No Direct Vehicle Access Two Mine Rock Walls on High Street, Similar in Character to the One on American Hill Note the old steel railing and posts, echoing those sawn off at 230 American Hill Road. These walls are about the same age as the one on American Hill, and were built in the 1870’s-1880’s.

PUBLIC ACCESS
Another consideration is the public access to the historical path on American Hill Road. Some shots of the existing path and wall follow, along with a picture of the proposed driveway. Neighbors now in their 70’s played on this path as children, and walked to school on it. Bill Falconi remembers riding to the dump as a kid in his dad’s truck, up American Hill next to the wall and path. Here’s what Mr. Rice’s asphalt driveway would look like. Rice’s proposal replaces the path and wall with his asphalt drive. The cut, including a set of stairs down to the drive from the path and one up from the drive to the path, appears to be about 22’ wide where it would cross the historical path. That demolishes about 20% of the pathway and wall. In 2013, California passed an Active Transportation Program, SB99, a directive to communities to enhance and support non-vehicle modes of transportation. Nevada City has been very industrious in creating and promoting pedestrian trails and bike access, both for recreation and transportation to school, work, and shopping. It would be a shame to REMOVE this existing much-used historical trail and replace it with something far less accessible.

Wall and Path at 230- 236 American Hill
Bill Falconi estimates the wall was built in the late 1880’s, as were the houses above it.

Driveway Cuts Through Wall at This Point
Most of this section would be removed. Note steel posts from old railing.

Proposed Asphalt Drive
Mr. Rice’s slide from last year.

This doesn’t seem to be an accurate picture of the house at 230.

PUBLIC SAFETY
Walkers are much safer on the path than on the street. With the Rice Proposal, fewer people, particularly biking children and less steady seniors, will choose to negotiate the steps but rather will walk on American Hill. The next slide shows the two blind curves on American Hill between Drummond and Monroe. These curves are sufficiently dangerous that people who currently walk the street, rather than the path, cross it twice to assure being seen by oncoming traffic. Here is where Rice proposes to demolish the wall and path. It’s in the middle of the blind curve. His proposed drive is right at the point of the shortest, tightest radius. The drive has a cross slope of about 15 degrees in each of two directions. Fifteen degrees is treated as fairly steep. Now, consider that Mr. Rice is not yet applying for building permits. He is merely applying for a driveway encroachment.

Curved line represents the tightest radius between the blind curves which begin and end at the straight lines. That tight radius is where the proposed driveway goes.

Let’s think long-range about the impact of housing to be developed at 230. If a house and one ADU are built on 230, that’s two households emptying onto this tight, blind curve. Mr.

Rice’s proposed new drive ends just short of the landlocked lot north of 234, a parcel he has owned a couple of times in the past.

Unsafe at Any Speed
If that landlocked parcel ever passes to amenable owners in the future, the owner of 230 might, for consideration, grant an easement to it. Traffic from yet another house and ADU, or, if split, two houses and two ADUs, would pour onto that tight, steep, blind curve. Picture from four to six households entering the blind curve at 230. Surely a stop sign would be necessary at Bennett and American Hill to control the speed of accelerating uphill traffic. The stretch of road from Bennett to Drummond is so unsafe in icy weather that many of us have slid out of control on those curves. Negotiating that piece is sufficiently challenging that our new City Manager reports teaching his daughter to drive there so she is equipped to deal with difficult situations. We surely hope the City agrees that while we have many such narrow, steep roadways in this old town, roads that were laid out in the 1800’s for horses and carts, we don’t need to create MORE dangerous routes. We need to look ahead of the curve for planning, not bulldoze what exists.

Snowy Blind Curves at 230. Note sawed off post stubs from previous railing.

CONCLUSION
Mr. Rice claims his driveway amendment is merely a ministerial consideration. That means he would have to meet only objective measurable standards in which there is “no exercise of discretion by the public official.” If ever there were a case for local decision-making and the exercise of discretionary powers, this proposal would be the one. An overwhelming number of people suggest modifications to Mr. Rice’s proposal. We are adults and children, friends, neighbors who live in and walk and bike from Lost Hill to town. We don’t want to deprive Mr. Rice of the development of his property. We just want such development to be legal, safe, pleasing, and fit the historic context of one of the best preserved towns in the West. We hope that in working with Mr. Rice to develop his property, the City Manager, the staff - including the City Planner, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and Council members will protect this historical path and wall, provide for citizens’ safety, and celebrate the character of our Queen of the Northern Mines.

From: James Khatami
To: Public Comment
Subject: ITEM 13 on CC Agenda for Wed., April 13,2022
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 3:04:38 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

To the Nevada City Planning Office,
Regarding Mr. Rice's Map Amendment Application, submitted to the April 13, 2022 City Council meeting, on Page 74, in the City of Nevada City Project Information Questionnaire, No. 2 d., "Describe project potential to change the character of the surrounding area, including loss of open space." Mr. Rice responds: "None"
On Page 83, in the Project Information Questionnaire, under the subhead RECREATION, No. 16 a, "Describe any public recreational facilities existing or proposed on the project site, including trails. Describe any known historic, public use of this site." Mr.

Rice responds: "None"
These two responses to the questionnaire by Mr. Rice are not accurate and misrepresent the facts that need to be considered by the City of Nevada City in evaluating Mr. Rice's project.

We would also like to note that there is no engineering or any other report in the Map Amendment Application on Mr. Rice's proposal to relocate an existing driveway on the Bennett Street side of his property. If Mr. Rice moves the existing driveway on Bennett Street towards the corner of Bennett Street and American Hill Road, he will be demolishing an entire section of the historical wall and pathway that starts on Bennett Street, turns the corner and goes up along American Hill Road.

We met with the City Engineers in 2021 on a visit to the wall, and they said they had not signed off on any proposal to "relocate" the existing Bennett St driveway.

This information on the relocation of the existing driveway should have been included in Mr. Rice's Map Amendment Application. How can the City of Nevada City approve a driveway relocation that doesn't even show where the driveway is being moved?
Sincerely,
Jim Khatami
Linda Khatami
From: James Khatami
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: City Council Hearing May 12 Regarding 230 American Hill Road Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:16:06 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Here are some photos that we prepared for the May, 2021, City Council meeting, when Mr. Rice's first appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was scheduled. All the information and photos are still relevant to the April 13, 2022 City Council meeting that will consider Mr. Rice's appeal. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: James Khatami <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:00 PM
Subject: City Council Hearing May 12 Regarding 230 American Hill Road To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Erin Ruark-Minett <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Here are some photos that should help everyone understand Mr. Rice's proposal to put an additional driveway into his property through the rock retaining wall and pathway on American Hill Road.

1. Existing driveway from Bennett St. that serves 230 American Hill Road, old house on property.

2. Wall on American Hill Road that would be removed for new Driveway.

3. Wall and path on American Hill Road

4. S curve where proposed new driveway exits on American Hill Road

5. S curve in snow

6. First 3 houses next door to 230 American Hill Road.

7. Shared driveway of 3 houses next door to 230 American Hill.

The American Hill neighborhood is united in its effort to preserve the historical rock wall and pathway that frame the entrance to our neighborhood. To that end the City Council and Planning Commission have received well over 40 letters from the community on this issue, as well as a petition with over 70 signatures to SAVE OUR HISTORICAL WALL AND PATHWAY.

We urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission unanimous decision to deny Mr. Rice's proposed Map Amendment.

Thank you,
Jim and Linda Khatami
415-535-2440
Jim and Linda Khatami
415-535-2440

From: Amy Wolfson
To: Public Comment
Subject: From Maggie Cull FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:19:40 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maggie Cull <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 12, 2021 at 3:41 PM
Subject: Map Amendment Application by Scott Rice located at 230 American Hill Rd To: <[email protected]>
I strenuously object to a driveway at the proposed location on American Hill Rd. It is a dangerous spot, as cars turning the corner from Bennett St. start accelerating in order to come up the steep hill. I live at 238 American Hill Rd and see and hear this all the time. I have owned my home for 33 years and the driveway to the residence at 230 has been used without any problems to the occupying residents. The driveway was there before I purchased my home. It should be noted as well, that the mailbox for that residence is located at the driveway residence.

Why not consider changing the address to Bennett St. since the entrance driveway and the mailbox are located on Bennett St? It is very confusing to have an American Hill address when the mailbox and driveway are located at a safe spot on Bennett St! Sincerely,
Maggie Cull
From: Miriam Morris
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 13, Planning Commission Appeal
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 7:57:21 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

Dear Council,
I am not going to go on about the need to respect the past. Enough people have done that. I am asking Council to protect the separated paths, the walkways, the pass-throughs in Nevada City, for the convenience, joy, and health of what they provide to today’s citizens.

Back when the American Hill neighborhood sprang up, there were no cars. People walked. Then came the primacy of cars. We are shifting back to valuing non-motorized transportation, especially emphasizing a walkable core. Look at the Commercial Street project, cars are minimized in their importance. This is how we are shifting as a community.

I live on Willow Valley expressway. I would love to have a safe pedestrian path along this road frequented by walkers and bikes.

I urge you, anytime you can offer or retain a safe or enjoyable path for pedestrians, do it.

Miriam Morris
Nevada City
From: Linda Meyers
To: Public Comment
Subject: proposed driveway at 230 American Hill Rd
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 12:49:00 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external sender. If you are not expecting this email or don't recognize the sender, consider deleting.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

I am writing for the second time to register my objections to the proposed driveway at 230 American Hill Rd.

My husband and I live right around the corner on Drummond St. We are highly familiar with this section of the road because we use it routinely for both walking to downtown and driving to and from home. The rock wall along this section of road is historic and is part of the charming character and aesthetics of this neighborhood. The placement of a wide driveway effectively eliminates half of this wall.

My concerns center on the safety risk of having a driveway in this location. The proposed driveway opens on to a steep hill just above a blind curve. Currently, cars speed up around this blind corner to gain speed to ascend the hill, and could not see an emerging car from this proposed driveway in time to brake. There is insufficient visual clearance. This is a danger to both vehicles and to pedestrians that might be on the road. Furthermore, this section of American Hill gets icy in winter and both the steepness of the road and the curves have caused cars to lose control, slide, and crash into this wall.

Driveway access to this property already exists.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda Meyers
215 Drummond St
Nevada City, CA
From: Amy Wolfson
To: Public Comment
Subject: From Maggie Cull FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:19:40 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maggie Cull <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 12, 2021 at 3:41 PM
Subject: Map Amendment Application by Scott Rice located at 230 American Hill Rd To: <[email protected]>
I strenuously object to a driveway at the proposed location on American Hill Rd. It is a dangerous spot, as cars turning the corner from Bennett St. start accelerating in order to come up the steep hill. I live at 238 American Hill Rd and see and hear this all the time. I have owned my home for 33 years and the driveway to the residence at 230 has been used without any problems to the occupying residents. The driveway was there before I purchased my home. It should be noted as well, that the mailbox for that residence is located at the driveway residence.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

I live on Willow Valley expressway. I would love to have a safe pedestrian path along this road frequented by walkers and bikes.

I urge you, anytime you can offer or retain a safe or enjoyable path for pedestrians, do it.

Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have more questions search for Cybersecurity Awareness on the County InfoNet.

I am writing for the second time to register my objections to the proposed driveway at 230 American Hill Rd.

Driveway access to this property already exists.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda Meyers
215 Drummond St
Nevada City, CA
To: Amy Wolfson and Nevada City Council Members
Subject: Comments on a Council Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Map Amendment Application by Scott Rice Located at 230 American Hill Road, Nevada City
The decision by the Planning Commission actually occurred in 1998 and was only reinforced by the Planning Commission decision on 15 April 2021. The council should uphold these decisions.

In 1998, the owner of parcel 005-094-011 applied to the Planning Commission for permission to split the lot into two parcels. The concern at that time was that the buildable space on the newly created lot was too small. The owner’s planning engineer, Mr. Andrew R. Cassano from Nevada City Engineering assured the Planning Commission that this small lot was consistent with the neighborhood as the vacant lot across the street would someday be apartments. As I owned the lot across the street, I told the Planning Commission that there was no such proposal for my lot and this remark should be removed.

Mr. Cassano then assured the Planning Commission that even with the driveway to the adjacent property, there would be adequate buildable space for the lot split and access would be guaranteed for the original lot via an easement. He assured the Planning Commission that easements for driveways were found in many locations throughout Nevada City and Nevada County and they functioned fine. Based on this, the Planning Commission, in 1998, approved the lot split with the shared driveway. It appears in Mr. Cassano’s letter of 2 April 2021 to the Planning Commission that he never believed in the lot split in the first place. It should not be the city’s responsibility to give up its historic resources to correct something that was faulty in the first place.

In addition, climate change is now affecting the American Hill Road. The more intense rain storms of the past decade have caused increased erosion on Bennett Street at the base of American Hill, just down from the proposed new driveway. Pieces of the roadway are beginning to break away as the erosion continues. The new driveway would increase the storm drainage that flows onto American Hill Road and then onto Bennett Street.

I urge the Council to up hold the Planning Commission decisions of 1998 and 2021.

Dennis Westcot
Owner of Parcel: 005-120-014
14202 Timm Lane
Nevada City, Ca 95959

Sheila Anne Stein
11070 Red Dog Rd
Nevada City, CA 95959
530.913.9377
City of Nevada City
317 Broad Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
April 10, 2022
Re: 230 American Hill Encroachment permit
Dear members of the Council,
I wish to address the Encroachment application at 230 American Hill. Some of you may know I am a Realtor in Nevada City for over 30 years, a previous Nevada City City Council Member and a previous appointment to the planning commission for Nevada City.

Allow me to define encroachment in California, as written in the SFGATE by By Marie Murdock
Encroachments come in all shapes and sizes and consist of a property improvement that crosses or protrudes over an established line such as a neighbor’s property line or an established building setback line. Purchasing property subject to an encroachment means you are aware of the encroachment and willing to assume any risk associated with it.

Some people may be willing to assume the risk associated with a minor encroachment but rarely will you find someone willing to take on the problems associated with a major one.

Scope of the Encroachment
Minor Encroachments are usually discovered while inspecting a survey that details the property lines and locates all buildings and improvements. Many do not affect the house at all, just the property upon which it sits. Minor encroachments might consist of a fence, portable outdoor shed, doghouse or garden spot that crosses a property line. The encroaching object might belong to your seller and cross onto the neighboring property or belong to the neighbor and encroach onto your seller’s property.

Mr. Rice purchased the subject property knowing the property could possibly be two parcels. After analysis with surveyors, changing the driveway encroachment seemed to be considered a minor encroachment. If Mr. Rice can move the driveway to allow safe access with a new driveway encroachment onto the road thus benefiting both parcels, why would the City deny such a proposal?
My 30 years of study in the Real Estate employ and experience, including five years on the Nevada County Association of Realtor's Education Committee and one year as Chair.

I believe in furthering the knowledge of all Realtors so they may shed light in difficult situations such as the encroachment issue which has come before you regarding 230 American Hill.

Placer Title Company’s finest Chief Title Officer, Larry Ingersoll, helped Realtors (prior to his retirement) for decades understand the ins and outs of easements, encroachments and title issues in general. Larry taught one cannot grant an easement through your own property when you own contiguous properties or you wish to develop, therefore you must reserve an easement with the new encroachment to utilize future access through the other parcel after the parcel transfers ownership and apply for a revised, safe encroachment. Realtors are not lawyers, and in no way do I purport to know law, I only know I have referred many buyers and sellers to a Title company to seek answers from the professionals who know their business. With the help of the Surveyor and the Title Company, the new encroachment may serve to further beautify the corner with a smooth entrance.

I ask the Council to consider approval of the reservation for a safe encroachment to allow Mr. Rice to move forward with his project. California desperately needs housing, including Nevada City. Mr. Rice is known to be a quality builder and a beautiful home added to an already magical town would be a marvelous addition to our cute little town known as Nevada City. BTW, I did not sell Mr. Rice the subject property in question, I must speak up on his behalf. I have sold or shown several of his homes. If you have time, take a look at his most recent remodel on Railroad Ave or Lost Hill Court, both in the City limits of Nevada City.

Thank you for your consideration.

Warmly,
Sheila Anne Stein

Hi Amy,
As you know, Scott Rice has been working on the process of changing the driveway access to the existing house on the above project. Scott is a capable and experienced contractor and has done most of the work himself in preparing and processing the application, following your lead and suggestions along the way.

Now that the hearing has been scheduled and the staff report issued, Scott asked me to assist him at the meeting with the Planning Commission, especially in light of the letters of opposition. So now, I’ve taken the time to step back and look at the whole application and it’s background. I attended the original planning commission meeting when this was approved as one of my first tasks when I came to work for Nevada City Engineering. Unfortunately, I did not have any input into the design of the lots or access, which was totally driven by the land owner, Rod Veblen.

Keeping in mind that Scott should place any issues in the record that might be used in an appeal, I have to say that honestly, I don’t understand how you arrived at the idea that a map amendment was required. There was no original mandate in the map approval or conditions to require the current driveway location nor was there any prohibition on the existing house taking direct access from the City street. If either of these were true, I could understand your interpretation.

The simple realignment of easements between private parties happens from time to time and there is no requirement in any jurisdiction to consult the City or County. So imagining that the lots were owned by two owners, they could change the easement location by mutual consent, without permission from the City.

The encroachment permit for a new driveway has long been an over-the-counter permit based entirely on the judgement of the City Engineer as to location, standard, and safety. Encroachment permits are not within the purview of the Planning Commission as a general rule. Now in Scott’s case, the neighbor’s feel a right to object under the map amendment process, and the simple driveway to a single family home has become a popularity contest. No other encroachment permit applicant has faced this, as far as I know.

If the application is denied or continued, it may be prudent to ask the City to take a closer look at the appropriateness of the map amendment approach.

My other comment is that you indicate that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. I believe that in dealing with parcel map, typically 4 parcels or less, the final authority is the Planning Commission, unless there is an appeal.

I believe it’s Scott’s desire to carry on with the hearing, but I felt it was important to get my procedural concerns into the record. Having said that, Scott and I both appreciate the work that you have put into this and your ability to schedule a timely hearing. It is not my intent to argue the procedural issue during the hearing, but only to place the concern in the record.

Thank you and will “see” you on Thursday. Andy

From: Amy Wolfson
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:31 AMTo: Scott Rice <[email protected]>Cc: Andy Cassano <[email protected]>; Bryan McAlister <[email protected]>Subject: 230 American HillGood morning Scott,I am working on the refund for the map amendment application. I have also notified those who commented on the proposal, that it will not be returning to the planning commission for discretionary action. Please work with Bryan for an encroachment permit for the new driveway and for the easement abandonment or relocation. Amy WolfsonCity Planner(530) 265-2496 x130

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 14
Subject: Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 2022-05: An
Uncodified Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, California Adopting a Military Equipment Policy of the City of Nevada City, California Governing the Use of Military Equipment and Declaring it an Urgency
Measure to Take Effect Immediately upon Adoption
From: Ted Stec - Interim Police Chief
Date: April 7, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager: STG
City Attorney:

ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”) went into effect on January 1, 2022, and requires cities to adopt an ordinance establishing a military equipment use policy before using, purchasing, raising funds for, or acquiring military equipment. The Nevada City Police Department currently has some military equipment and in order to comply with the new law, the City must adopt a policy governing its use.

AB 481 requires special noticing of the proposed military equipment policy. At least 30 days before a public hearing where adoption of the policy will be discussed, the City must: (1) post the proposed policy and related documents on the police department’s website; and (2) submit the policy to the City Council itself.

The proposed policy was posted on the Nevada City Police Department’s website on February 17, 2022 and was attached to the consent agenda for City Council review at the March 9, 2022 city council meeting. If adopted by an urgency ordinance after a public hearing on April 13, 2022, the policy will become effective immediately to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare and in order to comply with the May 1, 2022 deadline imposed by the State.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

None
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Proposed Military Equipment Use Policy
Ordinance 2022-05
Policy NEVADA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
706 Policy Manual
_____________________________________________________________________________________ (Draft 2/16/22)
Governing Body Specific Equipment Approval Policy
Military Equipment
706.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of California Government Code defined military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
706.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Nevada City Police Department
California Government Code defined military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs)
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions
Policy NEVADA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
706 Policy Manual
_____________________________________________________________________________________ • Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight
706.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Nevada City Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 706.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member(s) of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
a. Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy
b. Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the department, or the equipment the department intends to acquire, that requires approval by the governing body
c. Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually d. Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Nevada City Police Department (Government Code § 7071) e. Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment
f. Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
g. Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the department will respond in a timely manner
706.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
12 gauge less-lethal beanbag munition for use in standard patrol shotguns 706.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment Policy NEVADA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
706 Policy Manual
_____________________________________________________________________________________ policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
a. Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. b. Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
c. Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
d. Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. e. Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
f. Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
g. Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 706.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by any member of this department shall be approved for use and in accordance with this department policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this department shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid.
706.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory.
706.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Policy NEVADA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
706 Policy Manual
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

End
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-05

AN UNCODIFIED URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A

MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY,

CALIFORNIA GOVERNING THE USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT

AND DECLARING IT AN URGENCY MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT
IMMEDAITELY UPON ADOPTION.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”), adding Chapter 12.8, “Funding, Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment”, to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code (sections 7070 – 7075), relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used; and
WHEREAS, the Nevada City Police Department is in possession of items of equipment that qualify as “military equipment” under AB 481 and may acquire additional such items at a later date; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 requires, inter alia, that a law enforcement agency possessing and using such qualifying equipment must prepare a publicly released, written, military equipment use policy covering the inventory, description, quantity, purpose, capabilities, use, lifespan, acquisition, maintenance, authorized use, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the Department’s use of such equipment; and
WHEREAS, the policy must be approved by the City Council by ordinance, and reviewed annually thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the military equipment inventoried and presented to the City Council is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
WHEREAS, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and WHEREAS, prior military equipment use complied with the applicable equipment use policy (which included equipment now defined as military equipment) that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy (“Policy”) will safeguard the public’s health, welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and WHEREAS, military equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department has submitted the proposed Policy to the City Council and thereafter has made those documents available on the Police Department’s website for at least 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that there is a need to enact the restrictions contained in this Ordinance immediately as an urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Policy satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070(d); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Nevada City, having received the information required under AB 481 regarding the Nevada City Police Department’s use of military equipment as defined in said law, finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the Military Equipment Policy; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY HERBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Recitals. The City Council finds that all the recitals, facts, findings, and conclusions set forth above in the preamble of this Ordinance are true and correct.

Section 2: Approval of Military Equipment Policy.

Military Equipment Policy.
(a) The Military Equipment Policy, attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance, shall govern the use of military equipment by the Nevada City Police Department. (b) The Policy shall be made publicly available on the Police Department’s website for as long as any military equipment is available for use or as otherwise ordained by the City Council.
(c) The Police Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the City Council containing the information required by Government Code Section 7072 and the City Council shall thereafter determine whether each type of military equipment identified therein complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code Section 7071(d).
(d) The City Council shall on an annual basis and at a regular meeting thereof review this ordinance and vote on whether to renew it pursuant to Government Code Section 7071(e)(2).
(e) The definitions set forth in Government Code section 7070 shall apply to this ordinance. Any provision of state law referred to herein shall mean and include any amended or successor provision thereof.

Section 3. Emergency Declaration. The City Council declares this Ordinance to be an emergency measure, to take effect immediately upon adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36934. The facts constituting the emergency are as follows: On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of “military equipment” by law enforcement agencies. Assembly Bill 481 requires a law enforcement agency to obtain approval from the applicable governing body, via adoption of a “military equipment” use policy by ordinance, prior to the agency funding, acquiring, or using military equipment. The Nevada City Police Department has been analyzing and preparing the “military equipment” use policy since AB 481 was enacted into law. Nevertheless, given the extensive requirements and notice provisions in the law, which includes mandatory publication of the proposed policy 30-days prior to public hearing, as well as the current state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting staffing shortages, the policy and ordinance could not be made ready by the City for hearing in time to accommodate the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the ordinance. If this ordinance does not become effective immediately, the City may be prohibited from acquiring and thereafter using “military equipment”, as the term is defined in California Government Code section 7070, until the ordinance becomes effective. Such a delay would curtail the Nevada City Police Department’s ability to acquire and use less-lethal tools, and would hinder the effectiveness of the Department in preventing and addressing crime in the City, which would jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of residents of and visitors to the City.

Section 4: Compliance with CEQA. Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is not a “project” and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 5: Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Nevada City Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 6: Uncodified Ordinance. This Ordinance shall not be codified in the Nevada City Municipal Code unless and until the City Council so ordains.

Section 7: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors.

Section 8: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

Section 9: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted or published in the manner as required by law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 13th day of April, 2022.
_________________________
Duane Strawser, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ ________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk Dean J. Pucci, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF NEVADA ) ss

CITY OF NEVADA CITY )
I, __________________, CITY CLERK of the City of Nevada City, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing urgency ordinance was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Nevada City, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the ____ day of ___, 2022, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Nevada City, this __ day of ___, 2022.
__________________________
_________________, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
Military Equipment Use Policy

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 15
Subject: Receive a Presentation from the Nevada City
Chamber of Commerce on Special Events Through 2022 and
Consider Approval of Applications
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: April 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager:

City Attorney:

Recommended Action: Receive a report from the Nevada City Chamber of Commerce, review and authorize the Chamber’s events and street closure request(s) per the applications.

ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

On March 11, 2022, the City received a binder of applications for the Nevada City Chamber of Commerce planned events with street closures through 2022. Additional information pertaining to this request and the following events is summarized in the attached materials with staff conditions from the Fire Department, Police Department and Department of Public Works:
• Earth Day Celebration April 30th
• Art Walk June 3rd, July 1st, August 5th, and September 2nd • Long table Awards Dinner June 11th
• Nevada City Village Market Day June 12th
• Fourth of July Parade July 4th
• Summer Nights Markets July 13th, 20th, and 27th
• Constitution Day Concert September 17th
• Constitution Day Parade September 18th
• Halloween Safe Trick or treat October 31st
• Victorian Christmas December 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, and 18th • Mardi Gras February 19, 2022
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Consistent with previous approvals the Chamber is requesting a waiver of fees for all events. The City anticipates fees being paid by the Chamber to offset City Public Works employees that will be dedicated to the varying events as determined by the City Manager.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Street Closure/Special Event Application and staff conditions

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 16
Subject: Update on Nevada County Courthouse Discussions to Maintain the Courthouse at its Current Location for Historic Preservation and Economic Stability
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: April 8, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

Recommended Action: Hear verbal report with possible direction to staff and Mayor Strawser representing the City on the Judicial Council committee reviewing options for siting of a new county courthouse
This will be a verbal report from Mayor Strawser and staff.

CITY OF NEVADA CITY

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: April 13, 2022 Agenda Item No. 17
Subject: Consideration of Adopting Resolution No. 2022-25:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Declaring a Continued Stage 3 (Water Shortage Warning)
Drought and Implementing Actions set forth in the March 2015 Drought Action Plan: A Water Shortage Contingency
Strategy for the City of Nevada City
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Bryan McAlister, City Engineer
Date: April 6, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:

City Manager: STG
City Attorney:

Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution declaring a continued Stage 3 Drought ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:

On March 21, 2022 the State of California Water Board issued a letter (see attached) to the City of Nevada City and other water right holders with an early warning of Drought Impacts and Actions. The City is urged to prepare for more drought impacts due to ongoing dry conditions and to collaborate with our local community to develop cooperative water management solutions that meet both local and state-level needs.

On March 27, 2022 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-7-22 on the drought aligned with the Water Board notice.

The State Water Board finds that an emergency exists due to severe drought conditions and that adoption of emergency regulations is necessary. During 2021, Governor Newsom proclaimed a drought state of emergency for all counties in California, culminating, to date, with his October 19, 2021 proclamation, urging Californians to step up their water conservation efforts. Immediate action is needed to ensure all Californians are taking sufficient actions to conserve water and preserve the State’s water supply. On January 4, 2022, the State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation by resolution. On January 18, 2022, the emergency regulation became effective. It will remain in effect for one year from the effective date, unless the State Water Board acts to end, modify, or readopt it.

CA Emergency Regulation Requirements (currently in effect) include prohibition of the use of potable water for the following:
· Outdoor watering that lets water run onto sidewalks and other areas (except incidental runoff)
· Washing vehicles without an automatic shutoff nozzle
· Washing hard surfaces like driveways or sidewalks that don’t absorb water · Street cleaning or construction site preparation
· Filling decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds
· Outdoor watering within 48 hours after it rains at least 1/4 inch of rainfall (Exceptions are granted in cases as needed to protect the health and safety of the public) On February 9th, 2022, The NID Board of Directors passed a resolution to implement Stage 1 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). This resolution asks that customers voluntary reduce water use by 10% as compared to the same time period in 2020. The importance of NID’s actions is that they are triggers in the city’s Drought Plan (March 2015, attached) for the city declaring its own stages of drought. The City is also a raw water customer of NID. Typically, the City receives water from its own source on Little Deer Creek until late summer (Aug/Sept.), then the City purchases raw water from NID in late summer/early fall to supplement its water supply.

On June 18th, 2021 the City Council of Nevada City declared a Stage 3 Water Shortage Warning in Nevada City. Given the severity of the State’s water shortage and mandatory conservation requirements which are forthcoming for all water suppliers, staff is recommending the City Council declare a continued Stage 3 Water Shortage Warning in Nevada City. Per the City’s adopted Drought Plan, Stage 3 Water Shortage Warning is the appropriate contingency plan that would meet both the State Water Board and NID’s regulations. Declaration of a State 3 Water Shortage Warning is intended to increase awareness of drought challenges and reduce water usage. Per the city’s drought plan, a public information campaign will include mandatory water conservation, encouraging customers to reduce water usage by 20% of 2020 levels, limit outdoor watering to 2 days per week, repair water leaks, and not use potable water to wash hard surfaced areas. Upon approval by City Council, a mailing flyer will immediately be sent all property owners for the continued Stage 3 Water Shortage Warning. The City would also prominently display “save water” signage, post notices on city website and other media sources including local newspaper and radio.

FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Declaration of a Stage 3 water shortage warning is consistent with policy as set forth in the March 2015 Drought Action Plan. The fiscal impact is not able to be determined at this time due to the inability to know how much water will actually be needed to be purchased from NID.

Staff anticipates advancing water conservation projects to the City Council in this fiscal year and in the development of the fiscal year 2022/23 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable for the recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution No. 2022-25
Drought Letter from State Water Board
Fact Sheet from State Water Board and SWRCB Resolution No. 2022-0002 NID Resolution No. 2022-10
March 2015 Drought Action Plan: A Water Shortage Contingency Strategy for the City of Nevada City

CITY OF NEVADA CITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-25

RESOLUTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY DECLARING A STAGE 3 (WATER SHORTAGE WARNING) DROUGHT AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SET FORTH IN THE DROUGHT ACTION PLAN: A WATER SHORTAGE

CONTINGENCY STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY
WHEREAS, despite record-breaking storms in October and December 2021, most of California is experiencing a severe drought due to the driest January and February on record. These conditions are worsening quickly and can threaten water supplies, impair critical habitat, reduce recreational opportunities, and create uncertainty for all water users.; and
WHEREAS, during 2021 California Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a drought state of emergency for all counties in California, culminating, to date, with his October 19, 2021 proclamation, urging Californians to step up their water conservation efforts; and WHEREAS, on January 4, 2022, the State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation by Resolution No. 2022-002 which prohibits the use of potable water for certain uses; and WHEREAS, on February 9th, 2022, the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) Board of Directors passed a resolution to implement Stage 1 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). This resolution asks that customers voluntary reduce water use by 10% as compared to the same time period in 2020; and WHEREAS, staff review of current conditions and the State and NID regulations is that they are indicators necessitating the implementation of components of the March 2015 Drought Action Plan: A Water Shortage Contingency for the City of Nevada City (attached hereto and made a part hereof); and WHEREAS, conservation measures are necessary to ensure sufficient water supply for both fire suppression and potable residential and business use; and WHEREAS, the current conditions trigger Stage 3 of the plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Nevada City as follows:

1. The City of Nevada City hereby declares a Stage 3 drought (Water Shortage Warning), with mandatory water conservation measures as described herein and the City of Nevada City’s adopted Drought Plan.

2. The persons, businesses and agencies served water by the City of Nevada City, shall join with all Californians to conserve potable water, and shall abide by the following standards, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency:

General Provisions
A. All customers will be required to reduce potable water use by 15-25 percent as compared to the amount used from those sources for the same months in 2021.

B. All customers shall make conscious efforts to conserve water. Water is to be used for beneficial purposes only; all unnecessary and wasteful uses of water are prohibited.

Outdoor Irrigation
C. All customers shall limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes as follows:
i. Residential, garden and landscape watering shall be limited to two days per week; ii. Limit watering to the evening and early morning hours only (9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.) to prevent water loss from evaporation;
iii. Sprinklers shall be avoided in favor of drip and micro-spray irrigation systems and hand watering;
iv. Do not water past the point of saturation;
D. Customers shall inspect systems and make a reasonable effort to repair water leaks in toilets, plumbing fixtures and water lines within 24 hours; adjust spray heads to provide optimum coverage and eliminate avoidable over-spray; change run-time for valves consistent with weather fluctuations; reduce minutes of run-time for each irrigation valve if water run-off is occurring; E. Outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes shall remain on the intended vegetation and not cause runoff to adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, roadways, parking lots, or structures; F. Water is to be confined to the customers property and not allowed to run off to adjoining properties, sidewalks, ditches, gutters or storm drains; G. Customers shall not use potable water on outdoor landscapes within 48 hours of measurable rainfall (i.e., precipitation having a water content of at least 0.01 inch (0.25 mm); H. Irrigation of outdoor landscapes of newly constructed homes and buildings shall occur in a manner consistent with regulations established by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development; I. Municipal users shall not use potable water to irrigate ornamental turf on public street medians; Other Outdoor Uses:

J. Customers shall wash cars, boats, trailers, or other vehicles only with a hose equipped with an automatic shut-off nozzle and bucket;
K. Customers shall use re-circulating water only in ornamental fountains, ponds, or lakes, and shall post signage nearby that states that re-circulated water is being used; L. Customers shall not use potable water to wash or otherwise clean or clear sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots, or other hard surfaced areas; Commercial Uses
M. All commercial customers shall prominently display “save water” signage. The City will provide commercial users with uniform signage for this purpose. The City is temporarily waiving the Drought Action Plan mandatory measure for every commercial user to prepare a conservation plan until the City has developed sufficient water-use profiles for individual users; N. Eating and drinking establishments shall serve drinking water only upon customer request and shall provide on each table a notice of water shortage, provided by the City as noted in subsection (M) above;
O. Operators of hotels and motels shall launder towels and linens of multiple-day guests only upon the specific request of guests, and shall provide prominent notice in each guestroom that guests have the option to not launder towels and linens on a daily basis in order to promote water conservation;
P. Hotel and motel operators shall post a notice of water shortage and tips for water conservation in each room.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Nevada City Council on the 13th day of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
___________________________________
Duane Strawser
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Niel Locke
City Clerk
State Water Resources Control Board
March 21, 2022

PREPARE FOR MORE DROUGHT IMPACTS DUE TO ONGOING DRY CONDITIONS Despite record-breaking storms in October and December 2021, most of California is experiencing a severe drought due to the driest January and February on record.

These conditions are worsening quickly and can threaten water supplies, impair critical habitat, reduce recreational opportunities, and create uncertainty for all water users.

Plan Ahead
As we head into a third dry year, it’s important to plan for water supply shortages and identify actions you can take to conserve water and adapt to drought conditions, such as reducing irrigated acreage, using innovative irrigation techniques, managing herd size, or diversifying your water supply portfolio. Your early efforts can help minimize the potential impact of water management actions on businesses, homes, farms, and California’s environment.

Report Water Use
The Division of Water Rights needs accurate and timely data to manage California’s water and keep diverters informed, particularly when water supplies are limited. Now more than ever, it is vital that you report your water diversion and use data on time. All diverters must report their annual water use by April 1, 2022. Many diverters are also required to report diversion metering and measuring data by this deadline.

Accurately reporting your water use and diversion data on time fulfills your legal obligation and allows the Division of Water Rights to better manage the state’s water rights system, protect lawful diversions, and more precisely curtail when needed. Better reporting by all diverters is the cornerstone of a modern water rights system.

Dry Conditions
We are experiencing historic dry conditions: February is usually California’s wettest month, but January and February 2022 were the driest we’ve seen in recorded history.

Statewide, precipitation is less than half the yearly average, and dry conditions are forecast to continue through spring. Last year, extreme drought conditions led to unprecedented actions by the State Water Board that included curtailment of water rights in many California watersheds.
- 2 - March 17, 2022
The Division of Water Rights is preparing similar actions for 2022, and we plan to ask the State Water Board to consider emergency regulations to curtail water rights in certain watersheds if dry conditions continue or worsen. If you are in the Bay-Delta, Russian River, Scott River, Shasta River, Mill Creek, or Deer Creek watersheds, you should prepare for earlier curtailments.

We are monitoring the situation closely and will engage with water users as we know more. We encourage you to collaborate with your community to develop cooperative water management solutions that meet both local and state-level needs. Drought resources are included below:

Drought Resources
State Water Board Drought Information
Information and updates on Division of Water Rights drought activities, including emergency regulations, curtailment updates, and regional drought responses are available at waterboards.ca.gov/drought.

Emergency Drinking Water Assistance
Help is available if you are having trouble getting water in your home or your drinking water well has gone dry. Information about programs in your area are available at waterboards.ca.gov/drought/drought_assistance.

Drought Funding Programs
The state offers a variety of funding programs to help Californians during drought.

Information is available at waterboards.ca.gov/drought/funding_available.

Annual Water Use Reporting
Water diverters must report their annual water use each year. Requirements and details on how to report are available at bit.ly/AnnualWaterReport.

Measuring and Metering Requirements
Many water right diverters are required to report measuring and metering data each year. Guidance on these requirements is available at bit.ly/WaterMeasurement.

Questions
Email your questions to [email protected].

Drought Water Conservation Emergency Regulation –
Frequently Asked Questions
January 2022
Updated: 1/28/22
Where can I find information on the emergency regulation? You can find information and subscribe to the Water Conservation Regulations email list for updates at bit.ly/conservationreg.

What wasteful water uses are prohibited?
Using potable water for the following activities:
· Outdoor watering that lets water run onto sidewalks and other areas (except incidental runoff)
· Washing vehicles without an automatic shutoff nozzle
· Washing hard surfaces like driveways or sidewalks that don’t absorb water · Street cleaning or construction site preparation
· Filling decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds
· Outdoor watering within 48 hours after it rains at least 1/4 inch of rainfall · Watering ornamental turf on public medians
What is potable water?
Potable water, also known as drinking water, is water that meets state and federal drinking water standards and is safe for sanitary purposes such as drinking, cooking or handwashing.

Who does this apply to?
The prohibitions apply to all water users including individuals, cities, counties, and businesses. The prohibitions may apply to different users in different ways. For example, the prohibition against watering public medians more likely applies to local governments than to individuals, while the prohibition against filling decorative fountains may apply to individuals, state and local governments, and some commercial properties.

Are there exceptions from the prohibitions?
Yes. Water can be used for immediate health and safety needs. 2 What are examples of “health and safety needs”?
Health and safety needs must be reasonable and legitimate. Examples include using potable water for removing animal or human waste from sidewalks, controlling dust, or activities where people may have direct contact with the water. When possible, people should use cleaning methods that do not require water, such as a broom to remove debris.

The regulation was adopted right after an extremely wet December.

Why do we need a drought emergency regulation?
These prohibitions are low-cost, easy-to-implement measures that save water as well as raise awareness of drought conditions that may possibly worsen, despite the precipitation in December 2021. The prohibitions focus on reducing outdoor water use, which is one of the best ways to save water in both the dry and wet seasons. For instance, large water savings were observed when homeowners and communities stopped watering lawns during the rain events of late 2021. Even with these early winter storms, California remains in a drought, and we are obligated not just to save water but also to prevent wasting it.

What is “incidental runoff”?
“Incidental runoff” is an unintended, unanticipated, and infrequent amount of water that escapes the area where it was applied (for example, a sprinkler causing a small amount of water to unintentionally flow from a lawn onto the sidewalk). Runoff is not considered incidental if it is a result of excessive application, the facility or system design, intentional overflow, or negligence.

Should I skip irrigation when it rains?
Yes. If it rained recently or is going to rain soon, you should change your lawn irrigation schedule. Check the weather to plan for and confirm the amount of rainfall in your area.

Why does the emergency regulation prohibit irrigation during or within 48 hours of at least one fourth of an inch (1/4”) of rainfall specifically? During the last drought, irrigation was prohibited after “measurable rainfall.” A number of comments suggested that the State Water Board use ¼ of an inch of rain to make the prohibition clearer. After this amount of rain, an irrigation system can generally be turned off for at least 48 hours without harming most landscapes.

Can communities still water trees?
Yes. The emergency regulation only prohibits irrigating turf (lawn) on public street medians. Trees provide many environmental benefits, such as shade, carbon storage, and animal habitat. Urban trees also reduce heat island effects and associated health impacts, absorb and filter storm water, reduce urban flooding risk, protect air quality, and save energy by shading buildings. For more information on taking care of trees while saving water, see the Save Our Trees section within SaveOurWater.com. 3 Who enforces the prohibitions?
Any local agency or government authorized to enforce infractions can enforce these prohibitions at their discretion, along with the State Water Board. The emergency regulation allows agencies/governments to decide if and how to enforce these prohibitions along with their own existing conservation rules.

Does the emergency regulation give new enforcement authority to anyone?
No. The emergency regulation does not give new authority to public (or private) entities that don't already have it. Also, the emergency regulation does not limit or specify how existing authority can be used. The emergency regulation makes prohibited activities a violation, so any entity already authorized to enforce violations may choose to enforce these violations. The State Water Board does not maintain a list of California governmental entities with enforcement authority.

What does enforcement look like?
Enforcement may include warning letters, mandatory water use audits (for large commercial or institutional properties), and fines (up to $500 per day). Before charging fines, the State Water Board directs staff, and encourages other enforcing agencies, to provide warnings, consider a person’s ability to pay, offer payment plans of at least 12 months without a tax lien, and not shut off a person’s water service for nonpayment.

The State Water Board also encourages agencies to provide additional assistance to disadvantaged communities and translate conservation announcements and materials into the languages spoken by local customers.

Are local agencies or governments required to use the emergency regulation’s enforcement authority?
No. This emergency regulation does not require specific enforcement. Local agencies or governments get to decide how to use enforcement resources. They may choose to enforce their own drought conservation rules, including those in their Water Shortage Contingency Plans (WSCPs), as opposed to this emergency regulation, but the emergency regulation gives local agencies and governments additional options to address water waste and can assist with conservation messaging.

Where can I report water waste violations?
You can report water waste violations online at SaveWater.ca.gov. These reports are sent to local water suppliers and the State Water Board. The website allows you to upload photos, which helps with enforcement decision-making.

Can HOAs or cities enforce their landscaping guidelines that conflict with homeowners’ drought responses?
Homeowners’ associations (HOAs) are prohibited from fining residents who are taking appropriate drought measures to conserve water. In drought emergencies, many homeowners want to change their landscaping to plants and structures that require less 4 water or to reduce watering turf. The State Water Board regularly receives complaints during drought from homeowners frustrated by HOAs enforcement of landscaping rules, such as requiring lawn watering or maintaining specific plants. This enforcement may violate the Davis-Stirling Act The State Water Board or a local agency could impose penalties on any HOA that violates specific portions of the Davis-Stirling Act. The emergency regulation includes a similar provision prohibiting cities and counties from restricting certain drought responses.

How is the State Water Board addressing the needs of economically disadvantaged communities in this emergency regulation? The State Water Board has directed staff and encourages enforcing entities to 1) provide warnings, consider a person’s ability to pay, and offer payment plans before charging fines and 2) not shut off a person’s water service for nonpayment.

How is the State Water Board addressing linguistic needs? The State Water Board develops plain language materials; translates water conservation announcements, notices of violations, enforcement actions, and other materials; and encourages local agencies to do the same.

How long will this emergency regulation be in effect?
This emergency regulation will be in effect until January 18, 2023 (one year after it took effect on January 18, 2022), unless the State Water Board modifies it, readopts it, or determines the emergency regulation is no longer necessary.

What changes were made from the draft emergency regulation to the final emergency regulation adopted by the Board?
There are two minor differences between the draft emergency regulation and the final emergency regulation adopted by the State Water board on January 4, 2021:
1) Clarifying changes were made to the street cleaning/construction site preparation prohibition. This change clarifies that the prohibition on using potable water does not apply to all uses of water for construction activities (such as mixing concrete) and that it only applies to construction site preparation if no other method is available. 2) The prohibition against using potable water for irrigating turf on public medians was modified to remove “landscaped areas between the street and sidewalk” and to include “ornamental.” These changes remove the prohibition against using potable water to irrigate turf on parkways, which are generally the area between the sidewalk and the street; they also provide clarity and make the prohibition easier to implement. Water agencies likely made changes in the last drought regarding irrigating medians, so limiting the prohibition in this manner should not lead to significant new costs or have a notable potential impact on trees.
5 What is covered by the “construction site preparation” prohibition? Construction purposes refer to spraying the ground with potable water to prepare a construction site. This rule does not apply where potable water is required to protect public health and safety, or where no other method can be used to accomplish the same goal.

Does the emergency regulation prohibit filling swimming pools? The emergency regulation does not impact swimming pools.

How is the State Water Board promoting drought resilience and water conservation for the long-term?
Among other ongoing activities related to water rights and water quality, the State Water Board is working on regulations to Make Conservation a California Way of Life, including adopting long-term standards for the efficient use of water and water loss performance standards for urban retail water suppliers. The Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program supports permanent and sustainable drinking water solutions that ensure all Californians have access to safe, affordable, and reliable drinking water. For information and updates on the State Water Board’s drought activities, visit waterboards.ca.gov/drought.

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0002

TO ADOPT AN EMERGENCY REGULATION

TO SUPPLEMENT VOLUNTARY WATER CONSERVATION
WHEREAS:

1. On April 21, May 10, and July 8, 2021, Governor Newsom issued proclamations that a state of emergency exists in a total of 50 counties due to severe drought conditions and directed state agencies to take immediate action to preserve critical water supplies and mitigate the effects of drought and ensure the protection of health, safety, and the environment.

2. On October 19, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a proclamation extending the drought emergency statewide and further urging Californians to reduce their water use.

3. There is no guarantee that winter precipitation will alleviate the current drought conditions.

4. Many Californians have taken bold steps over the years to reduce water use; nevertheless, the severity of the current drought and uncertainty about Water Year 2022 require additional conservation actions from residents and businesses.

5. Water conservation is the easiest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to quickly reduce water demand and extend supplies into the next year, providing flexibility for all California communities. Water saved is water available next year, giving water suppliers the flexibility to manage their systems efficiently. The more water that is conserved now, the less likely it is that a community will experience such dire circumstances or that water rationing will be required.

6. Most Californians use more water outdoors than indoors. In many areas, 50 percent or more of daily water use is for lawns and outdoor landscaping. Outdoor water use is generally discretionary, and many irrigated landscapes would not suffer greatly from receiving a decreased amount of water.
2 7. Public information and awareness are critical to achieving conservation goals, and the Save Our Water campaign (SaveOurWater.com), run jointly by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Association of California Water Agencies, is an excellent resource for conservation information and messaging that is integral to effective drought response.

8. SaveWater.CA.Gov is an online tool designed to help save water in communities. This website lets anyone easily report water waste from their phone, tablet, or computer by simply selecting the type of water waste they see, typing in the address where the waste is occurring, and clicking send.

These reports are filed directly with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board) and relevant local water supplier.

9. Enforcement against water waste is a key tool in conservation programs.

When conservation becomes a social norm in a community, the need for enforcement is reduced or eliminated.

10. On October 19, 2021, the Governor suspended the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act to allow State Water Board-adopted drought conservation emergency regulations and other actions to take place quickly to respond to emergency conditions.

11. Water Code section 1058.5 grants the State Water Board the authority to adopt emergency regulations in certain drought years in order to: “prevent the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion, of water, to promote water recycling or water conservation, to require curtailment of diversions when water is not available under the diverter’s priority of right, or in furtherance of any of the foregoing, to require reporting of diversion or use or the preparation of monitoring reports.”

12. On November 30, 2021, the State Water Board issued public notice that the State Water Board would consider the adoption of the regulation at the Board’s regularly scheduled January 4, 2022 public meeting, in accordance with applicable State laws and regulations. The State Water Board also distributed for public review and comment a Finding of Emergency that complies with State laws and regulations.

13. The emergency regulation sets a minimum standard that many communities are already doing more but not everyone is taking these lowcost, easy to implement actions that can save significant amounts of water during a drought emergency.
3 14. Disadvantaged communities may require assistance in increasing water conservation, and state and local agencies should look for opportunities to provide assistance in promoting water conservation, including but not limited to translation of regulation text and dissemination of water conservation announcements into languages spoken by at least 10 percent of the people who reside in a water supplier’s service area, such as in newspaper advertisements, bill inserts, website homepage, social media, and notices in public libraries.

15. The Board directs staff to consider the following in pursuing any enforcement of section 995, subdivision (b)(1)(A)-(F): before imposing monetary penalties, staff shall provide one or more warnings; monetary penalties must be based on an ability to pay determination, consider allowing a payment plan of at least 12 months, and shall not result in a tax lien; and Board enforcement shall not result in shutoff.

16. The Board encourages entities other than Board staff that consider any enforcement of this regulation to apply these same factors identified in resolved paragraph 15. Nothing in the regulation or in the enforcement provisions of the regulation precludes a local agency from exercising its authority to adopt more stringent conservation measures. Moreover, the Water Code does not impose a mandatory penalty for violations of the regulation adopted by this resolution, and local agencies retain their enforcement discretion in enforcing the regulation, to the extent authorized, and may develop their own progressive enforcement practices to encourage conservation.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The State Water Board adopts California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 995, as appended to this resolution as an emergency regulation.

2. State Water Board staff will submit the regulation to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for final approval.

3. If, during the approval process, State Water Board staff, the State Water Board, or OAL determines that minor corrections to the language of the regulation or supporting documentation are needed for clarity or consistency, the State Water Board Executive Director or designee may make such changes.
4 4. This regulation shall remain in effect for one year after filing with the Secretary of State unless the State Water Board determines that it is no longer necessary due to changed conditions or unless the State Water Board renews the regulation due to continued drought conditions, as described in Water Code section 1058.5.

5. The State Water Board directs State Water Board staff to work with the Department of Water Resources and the Save Our Water campaign to disseminate information regarding the emergency regulations.

6. Nothing in the regulation or in the enforcement provisions of the regulation precludes a local agency from exercising its authority to adopt more stringent conservation measures. Local agencies are encouraged to develop their own progressive enforcement practices to promote conservation.

CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on January 4, 2022.

AYE: Vice Chair Dorene D’Adamo
Board Member Sean Maguire
Board Member Laurel Firestone
Board Member Nichole Morgan
NAY: None
ABSENT: Chair E. Joaquin Esquivel
ABSTAIN: None
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
5 ADOPTED TEXT OF EMERGENCY REGULATION
Title 23. Waters
Division 3. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Chapter 3.5. Urban Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Article 2. Prevention of Drought Wasteful Water Uses
§ 995. Wasteful and Unreasonable Water Uses.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) “Turf” has the same meaning as in section 491.
(2) “Incidental runoff” means unintended amounts (volume) of runoff, such as unintended, minimal overspray from sprinklers that escapes the area of intended use.

Water leaving an intended use area is not considered incidental if it is part of the facility or system design, if it is due to excessive application, if it is due to intentional overflow or application, or if it is due to negligence.
(b)(1) To prevent the unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, the use of water is prohibited as identified in this subdivision for the following actions:
(A) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes more than incidental runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures;
(B) The use of a hose that dispenses water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use; (C) The use of potable water for washing sidewalks, driveways, buildings, structures, patios, parking lots, or other hard surfaced areas, except in cases where health and safety are at risk;
(D) The use of potable water for street cleaning or construction site preparation purposes, unless no other method can be used or as needed to protect the health and safety of the public;
(E) The use of potable water for decorative fountains or the filling or topping-off of decorative lakes or ponds, with exceptions for those decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds that use pumps to recirculate water and only require refilling to replace evaporative losses;
(F) The application of water to irrigate turf and ornamental landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall of at least one fourth of one inch of rain.

In determining whether measurable rainfall of at least fourth of one inch of rain occurred in a given area, enforcement may be based on records of the National Weather Service, the closest CIMIS station to the parcel, or any other reliable source of rainfall data available to the entity undertaking enforcement of this subdivision; and
(G) The use of potable water for irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians.
6 (2) Notwithstanding subdivision (b)(1), the use of water is not prohibited by this section to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need. This may include, but is not limited to, the use of potable water in a fountain or water feature when required to be potable because human contact is expected to occur. (c)(1) To prevent the unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, any homeowners’ association or community service organization or similar entity is prohibited from:
(A) Taking or threatening to take any action to enforce any provision of the governing documents or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies of a common interest development where that provision is void or unenforceable under section 4735, subdivisions (a) and (b) of the Civil Code; (B) Imposing or threatening to impose a fine, assessment, or other monetary penalty against any owner of a separate interest for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during a declared drought emergency, as described in section 4735, subdivision (c) of the Civil Code; or (C) Requiring an owner of a separate interest upon which water-efficient landscaping measures have been installed in response to a declared drought emergency, as described in section 4735, subdivisions (c) and (d) of the Civil Code, to reverse or remove the water-efficient landscaping measures upon the conclusion of the state of emergency.
(2) As used in this subdivision:
(A) “Architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies” includes any formal or informal rules other than the governing documents of a common interest development.
(B) “Homeowners’ association” means an “association” as defined in section 4080 of the Civil Code.
(C) “Common interest development” has the same meaning as in section 4100 of the Civil Code.
(D) “Community service organization or similar entity” has the same meaning as in section 4110 of the Civil Code.
(E) “Governing documents” has the same meaning as in section 4150 of the Civil Code.
(F) “Separate interest” has the same meaning as in section 4185 of the Civil Code.
(3) If a disciplinary proceeding or other proceeding to enforce a rule in violation of subdivision (c)(1) is initiated, each day the proceeding remains pending shall constitute a separate violation of this regulation.
(d) To prevent the unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, any city, county, or city and county is prohibited from imposing a fine under any local maintenance ordinance or other relevant ordinance as prohibited by section 8627.7 of the Government Code.
7 (e) The taking of any action prohibited in subdivision (b), (c) or (d) is an infraction punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each day in which the violation occurs. The fine for the infraction is in addition to, and does not supersede or limit, any other remedies, civil or criminal.
(f) A decision or order issued under this section by the Board or an officer or employee of the Board is subject to reconsideration under article 2 (commencing with section 1122) of chapter 4 of part 1 of division 2 of the Water Code.

Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code.

References: Article X, Section 2, California Constitution; Sections 4080, 4100, 4110, 4150, 4185, and 4735, Civil Code; Section 8627.7, Government Code; Sections 102, 104, 105, 275, 350, 491, and 1122, Water Code; Light v. State Water Resources Control Board (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1463; Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State of California (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 976.

March 2015

DROUGHT

ACTION PLAN

A WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY STRATEGY
for the CITY OF NEVADA CITY
Prepared by
Burdick & Company
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency Plan
March 2015
2 DROUGHT ACTION PLAN
A Water Shortage Contingency Strategy
for the City of Nevada City

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. How to Use This Plan 3

2. Water Shortage Stages 4

3. Water Shortage Declaration Triggers 6

4. City Implementation Actions by Water Shortage Stage 7

5. Customer Actions by Water Shortage Stage 10

6. Outreach: Public Information and Education 13

7. Crisis Communication Plan (Drought Stage 5) 16

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Water Shortage Planning Overview and Plan Maintenance Appendix B: Precipitation Patterns, Drought History, and Climate Change Appendix C: Nevada City Water Supply and Demand
Appendix D: Water Shortage Impact Avoidance
Appendix E: References
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 3 DRAFT March 2015
Drought Action Plan:

A Water Shortage Contingency Strategy
This document presents the Drought Action Plan (“Drought Plan”), also known as the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, for the City of Nevada City, California. This plan identifies actions and procedures to enable the City government to prepare for, identify, and respond to a drought or other water shortage. The objective of the plan is to help Nevada City preserve essential public services and minimize the effects of a water shortage on public health and safety, economic activities, environmental resources, and the individual lifestyles of its community members.

1. HOW TO USE THIS PLAN
This Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been formatted as an implementation action plan for the City in time of drought or water shortage of any kind. The plan itself describes five stages of water shortage, with each additional stage representing a progressively worsening and critical situation.

The document further describes circumstances that would trigger use of the plan, specific actions for City staff to take during each of the stages, as well as specific actions for water customers to take.

The appendices provide background and other pertinent and useful information:

Appendix A - Water Shortage Planning Overview and Plan Updates and Revisions: This section describes the need for and objectives of the plan, resources used in the preparation of the plan, and a guide for updating the plan.

Appendix B - Precipitation Patterns, Drought History, and Climate Change: Appendix B provides the history of precipitation and drought in the Nevada City area and briefly discusses the potential impacts of climate change on Nevada City’s precipitation patterns.

Appendix C - Nevada City Water Supply and Demand: This appendix describes the water supply system infrastructure in Nevada City, current and predicted sources of water into the future, and predicted growth patterns and how those patterns might influence water supply and demand.

Appendix D - Water Shortage Impact Avoidance: Appendix D identifies water conservation measures that Nevada City has already taken to help avoid water shortages and reduce the impact of shortages when they do occur, as well as future impact avoidance measures the City has committed, or may commit, to taking.

Appendix E – References: The References are both source material for this Plan and reference material for further research on the part of the City or its constituents.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 4 DRAFT March 2015

2. WATER SHORTAGE STAGES
Drought-Related Water Shortages
Prior to the beginning of the irrigation season, but no later than April 1 of each year, Nevada City will evaluate its current reservoir storage, forecasted runoff/snowmelt, and purchase options from Nevada Irrigation District (NID) to determine which water supply stage will apply during the year.

The survey information from California Department of Water Resource’s California Cooperative Snow Surveys will be paramount to evaluating water supply stage and will be used to make a preliminary determination of the City’s water supplies.

Other (Non-Drought-Related) Emergency Water Shortages
For an infrastructure-related failure, water delivery options will be immediately evaluated and a staff recommendation made to the City Council.

Normal Water Years
The City currently supplies about 900 acre feet (AF) of water per year for all classes of customers, with 600 AF coming from Little Deer Creek (water allocations to Nevada City are 50 AF/month) and the needed balance coming from NID, In the past, this has typically been in months of dry weather and high usage, generally from around June to September.

There is no carry-over storage from water season to water season, with the exception of the 53-AF City reservoir storage, an amount of storage that typically comprises less than a month of the City’s water needs.

The City has pre-1914 water rights on Little Deer Creek and does not have any in-stream flow requirements of which the City is aware. See Appendix C for more information on water supply and demand.

Water Shortage Stages
There is no statewide standard for water shortage stages; purveyors determine stages appropriate for their particular circumstances. The following drought stages and water supply conditions were identified for Nevada City based on review of guiding public documents, discussion with City staff, use of samples of other small communities’ drought plans and NID’s drought stages.

Consistency with NID’s water shortage stages is important, given that NID provides water during the dry season when shortages are more likely to occur. However, it should be noted that as a water purveyor, Nevada City may call a drought stage independently of NID, and the State may impose voluntary or mandatory restrictions as well. If and when the State imposes restrictions, they may or may not coincide with NID’s and Nevada City’s stages and customer action type, i.e., voluntary or mandatory.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 5 DRAFT March 2015
Table 1. Water Shortage Stages
Stage
Water
Shortage
Type
Water Supply
Available on
April 1*
(or beginning of
irrigation season,
whichever comes
first)
Water Supply
Available
(% of normal)
Customer Action
Type
Water
Demand
Reduction
Goals1
1 Normal 71.25-75
AF/mo.
95-100% None or voluntary 0-5%
2 Alert 63.75-67.5
AF/mo.
85-95% Voluntary 5-15%
3 Warning 56.25-63.75
AF/mo.
75-85% Mandatory 15-25%
4 Emergency 48.75-56.25
AF/mo. 65-75% Mandatory 25-35%
5 Crisis 37.5-48.75
AF/mo. 50-65% Mandatory 35-50%
* Based on 900 AF/year of average and projected water usage, which equates to 75 AF per month on average. 1 Demand reduction goals should be re-evaluated at regular intervals; see Plan Maintenance in Appendix A.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 6 DRAFT March 2015

3. WATER SHORTAGE DECLARATION TRIGGERS
As noted above, in normal years, Nevada City receives the majority of its water from Little Deer Creek and supplements this with water from NID in months of high usage. If NID declares a drought stage during this time, Nevada City and its customers will also be affected, with the same (or greater) conservation measures required. However, because Nevada City is itself a water purveyor, Nevada City may declare a drought stage independently of NID. Further, the State may declare a water shortage at any time, which will also affect Nevada City and its customers.

The following table identifies the thresholds, or “triggers,” for declaring a Water Shortage. The description section includes a general characterization of the amount of reduction for Stages 2 through 5 (i.e., minimally, moderately, severely and critically), and whether supplies are meeting or expected to meet demands. These descriptions can be useful when communicating with customers and the public.

Table 2. Water Shortage Declaration Triggers
NOTE: The State Water Resources Control Board may at any time declare a water shortage emergency that affects all Californians. The declaration, generally in the form of emergency regulations, will describe specific measures called for by customers and water purveyors, as well as whether measures are voluntary or mandatory.

Stage Description of Water Situation Trigger for Declaring Water Shortage 1 0-5% shortage
• Supplies available to meet
demands.
• Normal or near normal operating
stage for the water system
No water shortage declared
2 5-15% shortage
• Probability that supplies will not
meet normal demands
• Minimally reduced supplies
• When NID board declares a Stage 2 Water
Shortage, and/or
• When the Nevada City water storage levels fall
below 85-90% of storage capacity
3 15-25% shortage
• Supplies will not be able to meet
expected demands
• Moderately reduced supplies
• When NID board declares a Stage 3 Water
Shortage, and/or
• When the Nevada City water storage levels fall
below 75-85% of storage capacity
4 25-35% shortage
• Supplies not meeting current
demands
• Severely reduced supplies
• When NID board declares a Stage 4 Water
Shortage, and/or
• When Nevada City water storage levels fall
below 65-75% of storage capacity
5 35-50% shortage
• Supplies not meeting current
demands
• Critically reduced supplies
• When the NID board declares a Stage 5 Water
Shortage Alert, and/or
• When the Nevada City water storage levels fall
below 35-50% of storage capacity.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 7 DRAFT March 2015

4. CITY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS BY WATER SHORTAGE STAGE
The following describes recommended actions to be taken by City staff at each progressive stage of water shortage. Measures not described below may be necessary in certain situations, and it will be incumbent on the experience and discretion of City staff to take actions necessary to protect public health and safety, environmental health, and economic resources – including seeking guidance or approval from the City Council if needed.

In general, each additional stage is likely to require additional staff time and other City resources (e.g., engineering, billing, mailings, response to public questions and concerns, internal communications, and external communications with the media and others).

Please refer to Appendix D for measures the City has implemented or will consider implementing as part of its proactive water shortage impact avoidance strategies.

Water Shortage Response Team
The City Council established a Nevada City Water Shortage Response Team to coordinate responses to drought conditions and other water shortages (see Appendix A for more on roles and responsibilities). The team make-up is as follows, with City Manager as Team Leader:

1. City Manager: Team Leader

2. Director of Public Works

3. City Engineer

4. Water Treatment Plan Operator

5. Finance Director/Human Resources & Risk Manager

6. Administrative Senior Clerk/Deputy City Clerk

7. City Attorney
City Implementation Actions by Stage
Stage 1: Normal Water Conditions (0-5% shortage) – City Actions A. Make full water supply deliveries to customers.

B. Operate and maintain water system in efficient and economical manner; conduct distribution system water audit, leak detection, and repair; minimize reservoir spills; conduct well maintenance.

C. Annually review and, if necessary, update current conservation plans and system storage.

D. Explore options to increase City’s use of recycled wastewater and use of non-potable water for non-potable uses.

E. Ensure that municipal water use shall be used for beneficial purposes only; all unnecessary and wasteful uses of water are prohibited.

F. Ensure that municipal water shall be confined to City property and shall not be allowed to run off to adjoining properties or to the roadside ditch or gutter. Care shall be taken not to water past the point of saturation.

G. Continue to provide incentives to residential customers to reduce water consumption, including plumbing retrofit (free low-flow showerheads, financial rebates for purchase and installation of ultra-low-flow toilets) and toilet leak detection tablets.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 8 DRAFT March 2015
H. Explore new customer incentives to reduce water consumption, e.g., high-efficiency washing machine rebate programs. Annually evaluate City’s “WaterWise” program for effectiveness.

I. Encourage voluntary customer water conservation through ongoing quarterly public information and education efforts about need for and benefits of conservation, including specific recommendations for calculating water use and conservation actions. Update and maintain water conservation information on City’s website. Consider possible school education efforts. Encourage voluntary conservation programs for commercial, industrial and institutional accounts. Encourage non-residential large landscape conservation.

J. Respond to customer requests, e.g., leak detection, wasteful water practices.

K. Maintain usage records to track outcome of water conservation efforts. Strive for 20% reduction of water use by 2020 (see DWR’20x202 Water Conservation Report for baseline).

Stage 2: Water Shortage Alert (5-15% shortage) – City Actions A. Continue to implement Stage 1 measures while also implementing Stage 2.

B. Begin public information campaign with clear message. i. Explain drought situation to public and government bodies. ii. Explain other stages and forecast future actions.
iii. Inform customers of water use reduction targets, and request voluntary water conservation with specific recommendations for action to reach targets by using a bill insert, as well as other materials as appropriate. iv. Encourage all customers to know how much water they use and describe how they can achieve this.
v. Ensure City actions visibly demonstrate leadership in responding to water shortage. vi. Review monthly, and update as needed the water conservation section of City’s webpage, including current drought information (e.g., stages, actions, voluntary or mandatory).

B. Reduce municipal water usage by 5-15%, both inside and outside.

C. Limit fire department practice drills and flow testing of fire hydrants.

D. Limit City’s water pipe flushing program to areas required by regulation or as needed to ensure good drinking water quality.

E. Develop procedure for customer reporting of wasted water (if not already in place).

F. Monitor water demand monthly to assess water savings accomplished.

G. Assess current drought stage monthly with current demand and supply information, and considering potential future hydrologic conditions.

Water Shortage Response Team Leader convenes Water Shortage Response Team as needed, and provides monthly updates to City Council members, and other agencies.

Stage 3: Water Shortage Warning (15-25% shortage) – City Actions A. Continue to implement Stage 1 and 2 measures while also implementing Stage 3.

B. Provide monthly updates to media and public on water supply conditions, status of community demand reduction response, and recommended conservation measures, to be determined by City Council needs and/or severity of situation.

C. Reduce municipal water usage by 15-25%, both inside and outside.

D. Encourage that all treated water-metered school grounds and other public grounds reduce their water usage by 15%.

C. Ensure that on all City properties (e.g., buildings, landscapes, playing fields, irrigation equipment and timing) comply with all Stage 1-3 demand reduction measures that it is asking of its customers.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 9 DRAFT March 2015
D. Monitor water demand monthly to assess water savings accomplished.

E. Assess current drought stage monthly with current demand and supply information, and considering potential future hydrologic conditions.

F. Water Shortage Response Team Leader convenes Water Shortage Response Team as needed, and provides bi-weekly updates to City Council members and other agencies as needed.

G. When available, implement conservation pricing on treated water, e.g., water shortage rate structure (change the water rate structure from a uniform rate to an inclining block rate), or drought surcharge.

H. Stage 3 is beginning of mandatory conservation measures; begin enforcement procedures (once they are in place).

Stage 4: Water Shortage Emergency (25-35% shortage) – City Actions A. Continue to implement Stages 1, 2 and 3 while also implementing Stage 4.

B. Ensure that on all City properties, City complies with all demand reduction measures (Stages 1- 4) that it is asking of its customers, including reducing municipal water usage by 25-35%.

C. Strengthen enforcement procedures as necessary (once they are in place).

D. Monitor water demand weekly to assess water savings accomplished.

E. Assess drought stage every two weeks with current demand and supply information, and considering potential future hydrologic conditions.

F. Water Shortage Response Team Leader convenes Water Shortage Response Team and provides updates weekly to City Council members and other agencies as needed.

G. Provide weekly updates to media and public on water supply conditions, status of community demand reduction response, recommended conservation measures, and enforcement information, including fines and reporting procedures.

Stage 5: Critical Water Shortage Emergency (35-50% shortage) – City Actions
A. Intensify implementation of all measures in Stages 1 through 4.

B. Reduce City’s water usage by 35-50%. Ensure that on City properties, City complies with the Stage 1-5 demand reduction measures that it is asking of its customers.

C. Water Shortage Response Team Leader convenes Water Shortage Response Team weekly (or more often, depending on the nature of the crisis), and provides updates to City Council members and other agencies as needed.

D. Implement crisis communication plan (see Section 7).

E. Activate emergency notification lists (see Section 7).

F. Coordinate with California Department of Public Health regarding water quality, public health issues and with law enforcement, and other emergency response agencies to address enforcement challenges.

G. Provide weekly (or more often, depending on the nature of the crisis) updates to media and public on water supply conditions, status of community demand reduction response, and recommended conservation measures.

H. Implement mandatory water rationing, including per capita water use allocations for residential customers, if/as appropriate.

I. Consider any additional measures than may be taken in crisis situation to further reduce water demand and/or identify additional supplies.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 10 DRAFT March 2015

5. Customer Actions by Water Shortage Stage
The following describes recommended restrictions and other actions to be taken by Nevada City water customers at each progressive stage of water shortage. As a water purveyor, it is incumbent upon the City to notify customers of water shortage conditions, conservation measures, and whether the measures are voluntary or mandatory (mandatory actions begin in Stage 3).

If and when the State issues emergency regulations pertaining to water conservation, they pertain to all of the citizens, businesses and agencies of California. The restrictions and other actions called for in the State’s emergency regulations take priority, and may or may not be consistent with local drought plans.

Stage 1: Normal Water Conditions (0-5% shortage) Customer Actions VOLUNTARY:

A. Make conscious efforts to conserve water. Water is to be used for beneficial purposes only; all unnecessary and wasteful uses of water are prohibited.

B. Water is to be confined to the customer’s property and not allowed to run off to adjoining properties, sidewalks, ditches, gutters or storm drains.

C. Residential, garden, and landscape water use:
i. Limit watering to the evening and early morning hours only (9 pm to 9 am); avoid use of sprinklers.
ii. Do not water past the point of saturation.
iii. Irrigation systems: inspect systems and repair leaks; adjust spray heads to provide optimum coverage and eliminate avoidable over-spray; change run-time for valves consistent with weather fluctuations; reduce minutes of run-time for each irrigation valve if water run-off is occurring.

D. Use automatic shut-off nozzles on all hoses (no free-flowing hoses).

E. Do not wash cars, boats, trailers or other vehicles except by hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle and bucket.

F. Do not hose or wash sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots or other hard surfaced areas.

G. Make a reasonable effort to repair water leaks in toilets, plumbing fixtures and water lines within 24 hours.

H. Take advantage of the City’s water conservation incentives, including free low-flow showerheads, free toilet leak detection tablets, and rebates for low-flow toilets (see nevadacityca.gov/water).

I. Implement additional voluntary conservation measures for both short-term and longerterm water savings (see Section 6: Outreach: Public Information and Education).

Stage 2: Water Shortage Alert (5-15% shortage) Customer Actions VOLUNTARY:

A. Reduce water use by 5-15% from prior year for similar billing period according to bill insert instructions provided by the City.

B. Intensify implementation of Stage 1 measures.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 11 DRAFT March 2015
Stage 3: Water Shortage Warning (15-25% shortage) Customer Actions MANDATORY:

A. Reduce water use by 15-25% from prior year for similar billing period.

B. Water is to be confined to the customer’s property and not allowed to run off to adjoining properties, sidewalks, ditches, gutters or storm drains.

C. Residential, garden, and landscape water use:
i. Residential, garden, and landscape watering shall be limited to two days per week.
ii. Limit watering to the evening and early morning hours only (9 pm to 9 am); avoid use of sprinklers.
iii. Do not water past the point of saturation.
iv. Irrigation systems: inspect systems and repair leaks; adjust spray heads to provide optimum coverage and eliminate avoidable over-spray; change run-time for valves consistent with weather fluctuations; reduce minutes of run-time for each irrigation valve if water run-off is occurring.

D. Use automatic shut-off nozzles on all hoses (no free-flowing hoses).

E. Do not wash cars, boats, trailers or other vehicles except by hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle and bucket.

F. Do not hose or wash sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots or other hard surfaced areas.

G. Make a reasonable effort to repair water leaks in toilets, plumbing fixtures and water lines within 24 hours.

H. Require all commercial customers to prominently display “save water” signage and develop conservation plans.

I. Restaurant owners shall serve water only when requested by the customer, and shall provide on each table a notice of water shortage.

J. Hotel and motel operators shall post a notice of water shortage and tips for water conservation in each room.

K. Use re-circulating water only in ornamental fountains, ponds or lakes, and post signage nearby that states that re-circulated water is being used.

Stage 4: Water Shortage Emergency (25-35% shortage) Customer Actions MANDATORY:

A. Reduce water use by 25-35% from prior year for similar billing period.

B. Continue and intensify implementation of measures from Stages 1 through 3, as appropriate.

C. Do not refill a swimming pool, spa or hot tub unless it is equipped with a cover.

D. Do not use potable water for cleaning, irrigation and construction purposes (including but not limited to dust control, settling of backfill, flushing of plumbing lines, and washing of equipment, buildings and vehicles).

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 12 DRAFT March 2015
Stage 5: Water Shortage Crisis (35-50% shortage) Customer Actions MANDATORY:

A. Reduce water use by 35-50% from prior year for similar billing period.

B. Mandatory water rationing, including per capita water use allocations for residential customers if necessary. Water Crisis/Emergency tiered pricing will be in place.

C. Prohibit outdoor irrigation.

D. No water for recreational purposes; close pools.

E. Otherwise, intensify implementation of demand reduction measures in Stages 1 through 4, as appropriate.

F. The primary objective during critical drought conditions is protection of water supply for public health and safety purposes. Water shall be allocated in the following priority per California Water Code:

1. Human Consumption

2. Livestock and animals

3. Perennial crops

4. Annual crops
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 13 DRAFT March 2015

6. Outreach: Public Information and Education
The success of any water conservation effort is dependent upon successfully influencing customers to change their water use behaviors. There is no shortage of water conservation information available; rather surveys show that some customers feel overwhelmed by the amount of information and choices and, as a result, do nothing.

The most effective efforts to change customer behavior draw on the social sciences to develop more sophisticated and effective strategies and materials. In the Spring/Summer 2015 timeframe, City staff will work to develop such an approach for the City to use for various drought stages and for longer-term conservation. (In the same time frame the following drought-related topics will be under consideration and brought forward to the City Council by staff: conservation pricing; conservation incentives; enforcement structures.) The Drought Plan may be amended to include these topics and materials.

Public Notification of Water Shortage and Required or Requested Customer Actions At a minimum, when a Drought Stage is announced, a press release should be prepared, approved by the City Manager, and distributed to local media (see below for media contact list), and water shortage notice and conservation instructions should be provided in water customer bills (see below for sample bill insert announcing state-mandated conservation actions), making clear which actions are voluntary (if any), and which are mandatory.

It is important to provide clear and targeted messages with specific guidance on what actions are requested or mandated. “Government language” can be perceived by the public as stilted and confusing; the most effective messages will use simple messages, short sentences, and provide no more than one to three recommendations (unless mandated actions call for more). As much as possible information and education materials should be targeted to specific audiences, e.g., residential water customers, businesses.

The State Department of Water Resources has partnered with the Association of California Water Agencies to create SaveOurWater.org, a non-profit entity set up to provide effective information and educational materials and opportunities developed by communications professionals, and will be a valuable resource for City staff tasked with communicating with customers. That and select other websites appear below.

For including in public information:

SaveOurH2O.org (State DWR and ACWA; toolkit for customers) For use by City staff:

SaveOurWater.org (State DWR and ACWA; public info samples; business toolkit) CA.com/drought (State drought site)
ACWA.com (Association of California Water Agencies)
RCAC.org (Rural Community Assistance Corp.)
EPA.gov/watersense (Federal site; checklists for customers, how to fix leaks, etc) Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 14 DRAFT March 2015
SAMPLE: DROUGHT EMERGENCY NOTICE for NEVADA CITY

STATE-MANDATED CUT BACK OF OUTDOOR WATER USE
Beginning immediately, the following are
PROHIBITED:

1. Irrigating outdoors more than two days per week is prohibited.

2. Run-off in outdoor landscapes: Using potable water to water outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures is prohibited.

3. Washing vehicles without a shut-off nozzle: Using a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, is prohibited.

4. Hosing down sidewalks and driveways: The application of potable water to any driveway or sidewalk is prohibited.

5. Running fountains that do not re-circulate water: Using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is re-circulated, is prohibited. Prohibitions apply except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency.

Dear Nevada City Water Customer: June xx, 2015
California is in extreme drought. Many are already taking bold steps to conserve water, and if you’re among them, we thank you. In April the state announced mandatory 25% water conservation targets. To ensure that water demands can be met statewide, the State Water Resources Control Board on May XX took emergency action requiring that water suppliers and all citizens step up conservation efforts.

The fastest way to achieve significant savings without undue burden on customers is by reducing outdoor water use, and that is the focus of these mandatory prohibitions.

The State authorized a variety of measures to get customers to meet goals, including fines (as much as $500 per day), raised rates, shut-offs and other similar measures, as well as establishing the possibility of non-compliance fines for the City of up to $10,000 per day. In response, the City of Nevada City on April XX passed a resolution officially putting the City under drought conditions and prohibiting the above uses of potable water.

The City prefers not to use harsh measures to get customers to conserve more. If we all pull together to achieve this 20 percent reduction, stricter, more burdensome and costly measures may not be required. Please be a waterwise neighbor and, if you’re not already, at minimum, reduce your outside water use by honoring these mandatory prohibitions. ~ Thank you!
The drought is on!
REDUCING OUTSIDE WATER USE is our BEST OPTION to SAVE WATER. Start Today! City of Nevada City * 503-265-2496 * nevadacityca.gov
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 15 DRAFT March 2015
Media Contacts for Nevada City
Newspapers
The Union (daily + online)
464 Sutton Way, Grass Valley, CA 95945
phone: (530) 273-9561
theunion.com
[email protected]
Classified Advertising: (530) 273-9567; [email protected] Editorial: (530) 477-4249; [email protected]
Hot News Tip line: (530) 477-4272
The Nevada City Advocate (monthly + online)
nevadacityadvocate.com
Yubanet (daily + online only)
530-478-9600
[email protected].
yubanet.com
Radio Stations
KNCO (830 AM)
News-talk, ABC affiliate, Grass Valley
Business Line (530) 272-342
Listener Line (530) 477-5626
KNCO.com
KUMR (89.5 FM)
Independent Community Radio, Nevada City
https://www.kvmr.org/
Press releases: [email protected]
PSA and Community Calendar: https://www.kvmr.org/submit-psa (Events calendar may be able to use photo)
revised: February 2015
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 16 DRAFT March 2015

7. Crisis Communication Plan (Drought Stage 5)
This Crisis Communication Plan is to be implemented during a Stage 5 drought or other water shortage crisis, such as an infrastructure failure. The Plan consists of scripted messages to be developed based on the circumstances and needs of the situation, and an emergency notification list.

For water shortage disasters, the Nevada City Disaster Plan, revised January 1, 2011 or later, shall be used to guide relief operations. This Crisis Communication Plan is intended to augment, not replace the Disaster Plan, and provides guidance only for the public and internal communication component of emergency operations.

Scripted Messages
When an emergency occurs, the need to communicate is immediate. If business operations are disrupted or water delivery is diminished or threatened, customers will want to know how they will be impacted. Regulators may need to be notified, and other local governments will want to know what is going on in the community. Employees and their families may be concerned and want information.

Each audience will seek—and should be provided with-- information that is specific to them (e.g., residential customers, businesses, regulators, media). Table F-1 below can be used by staff to help develop that targeted information, and must be approved by the City Manager (or his or her designee) prior to use.

Staff should recognize that in a crisis situation there may be limited information about the incident or its potential impacts, and that the “story” may change many times as new information becomes available. It will be important to release information in an organized and coordinated fashion, with one person or department (generally the City Manager or his or her designee) serving as the contact with media.

One of the aims of the crisis communication plan is to ensure consistency of message. If one audience is presented with a particular message and another audience is presented with a different message, it will increase confusion and shake confidence by raising questions of competency and credibility. Internal protocols need to be established to ensure that the core of each message is consistent while addressing the specific questions from each audience.

It will be important to move as quickly as possible from simply reacting to the incident, to proactively developing and managing a strategy to overcome the incident. Management needs to develop the strategy, with both management and staff implementing the strategy. Allaying the concerns of each target audience will help ensure that customers receive the highest possible level of service within the emergency context, and will help position the City to emerge from the incident with its reputation intact.

Table F-1 below provides examples of questions that may arise from various target audiences to help staff develop scripted messages appropriate for the circumstances and conditions of a Stage 5 Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 17 DRAFT March 2015
drought or other water shortage crisis. These messages should be stored on a remotely accessible server for quick editing and release when needed, and hard copies should also be available.

Table F-1 is to be completed and distributed to all employees during Drought Stage 5 conditions. It should include instructions for directing all media inquiries to the City Manager (or his or her designee), and updated regularly as the situation changes.

Emergency Notification List
The entities that must be contacted will likely depend on the circumstances of the crisis. The Emergency Notification List includes an array of agencies and other contacts that are likely to be needed and it should be completed with names, phone numbers and email addresses by April 1 of each year (or before the irrigation season begins, whichever comes first) – do not wait for a crisis to occur and then try to locate the information. When considering additional entities to contact, consider all regulatory agencies that may be pertinent, as well as all interests and entities that may be affected by the crisis.

Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 18 DRAFT March 2015
Table F-1. Scripted Messages Template
NOTE: Direct all media inquiries to the City Manager (or his or her designee): Phone _____ Email _____ Revised: (date and time, by whom)
Contact /
Target
Audience
Sample Questions City Response
Customer/
Community
“When will water flow return to
normal?”
“Is my water use restricted now? If so,
when will the restrictions be lifted?”
“What will you give me to compensate
for any damages to my property
(landscape die-off, etc.)?”
“What are you going to do to prevent
this from happening again?”
Employee “Will this water shortage affect my
job?”
“Will I get paid during any times of
reduced operation?”
Government
Regulator
“When did it happen?” “What
happened (details about the
incident)?” “What are the impacts
(injuries, deaths, environmental
contamination, safety of consumers,
etc.)?”
Elected
Official
“What is the impact on the
community in terms of public safety?
The, environment? The economy?”
“How many employees will be
affected?”
“When will the situation return to
normal?”
Supplier (NID)
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 19 DRAFT March 2015
News Media
See also
Elected Official
and all other
target
audiences for
questions
reporters
might ask.
“What are the current water supply
conditions?”
“What is the status of the community
demand reduction response”
“What is the status of conservation
measures?”
“What is the estimated loss?”
“What caused the incident?”
“What are you going to do to prevent
it from happening again?”
“Who is responsible?”
Nevada City Water Shortage Contingency: Drought Action Plan 20 DRAFT March 2015
Table F-2. Emergency Notification List
Entities to Contact* Means of Contact Person/s Responsible for Communication with Entities
Community
 Customers
 Residents
 Businesses
Radio/website/newspaper
announcements, social media
(Facebook, Twitter, etc.), flyers, mailers,
handouts, banners, Chamber of
Commerce
Water Shortage Response Team Leader
(currently City Manager) and other City
staff
City Council Council meeting or individual contact Water Shortage Response Team Leader (currently City Manager)
Agencies
 Nevada Irrigation District
 Nevada County
 City of Grass Valley
 Department of Water Resources
 Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board
 California Department of Fish
and Wildlife
 US Army Corps of Engineers
 US EPA
Telephone and email Public Works Director or representative Media
 KNCO
 KVMR
 YubaNet
 The Union newspaper
 Social media sites, e.g., Nevada
City Chamber of Commerce
Telephone and email Water Shortage Response Team Leader (currently City Manager)
Staff and Families (as needed) Email or one-on-one conversations City Manager or Department Managers *The entities contacted will vary depending on the nature of the emergency or crisis.

!"#$%

&'(#&

#
&

)#

)$*+,%-.%-/,%.-*0

$*+,%-.%-/,%1 ,,
234565789:;<34565=89:>?@A8==BCC3<9DEC58AF=BCG H5I5JJC3<9@:=89:>BA8=3 ,

K?5>L3<I5=M

N

O P)

, %

Q'
)

0'
)
N

)

$
)RN'
)

N'
)

S(
"

T

(

((
)R

))
$

($
U

U('($(
V
T"

'$
0

0
W

!X)# ,- ,. TS. %&
(

)#$

Nevada City City CouncilApril 13, 2022

Nevada City City Council
April 13, 2022