Regular Meeting of
Nevada City Council
City Hall – Beryl P. Robinson, Jr. Conference Room
317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959
WEDNESDAY August 10, 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 Initiation of litigation pursuant to § 54956.9(d)(4)
One (1) case
WEDNESDAY August 10, 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.
Doug Fleming, Mayor
Daniela Fernández, Vice Mayor Gary Petersen, Council Member Adam Kline, Council Member Lou Ceci, Council Member
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised that the Council Chambers are currently open to the public. This meeting is accessible to the public in person, via Zoom video conference, via YouTube, or on the local government cable channel 17. Individual City Council members may participate remotely in accordance with applicable open meeting law requirements. In-person meetings will be conducted in accordance with local and State Department of Public Health orders and guidance and requirements of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA).
The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:
1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Nevada City Council Chambers located at 317 Broad Street Nevada City, California.
2. Attending this meeting via Zoom video conference by linking to the following site:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89009138474 or,
by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474
3. Observing this meeting live from the City of Nevada City YouTube channel at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSQwrXtey12YIl3IbyGMYQ
4. Observe this meeting live from the local government cable channel 17 Public comments may be made:
1. In person: Live at the meeting. Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration. Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes.
2. Via Zoom: If you choose to join the City Council Meeting via Zoom video conference you will be able to utilize the “Raise Hand”. If joining by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474, dial *9 to “Raise Hand”. The Mayor will call on those who wish to speak at the appropriate time, not to exceed three minutes.
3. In writing: 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:
Full Name
Address (specific or general, ie: resident in unincorporated Nevada City) The item number that you are commenting on
Any writing that is a public record that relates to an agenda item for open session distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at City Hall, 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, California during normal business hours. Government Code § 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.
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 530-265-0187 Extension 133. 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].
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 Fleming
_____ Vice-Mayor Fernández
_____ Councilmember Petersen
_____ Councilmember Kline
_____ Councilmember Ceci
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)
PRESENTATIONS
Employee Introduction: Nick Kendrick, Police Officer
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 July 28, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve
2. Accounts Payable – July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
3. Police Activity Report July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
4. Building Activity Report July 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
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.
6. Conduct a Public Hearing in Consideration of Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City Recommended Action: Hold first reading, waive reading of Ordinance in its entirety, read by title only, and schedule for second reading and adoption for August 24, 2022
BUSINESS
7. Consideration of a Request to Authorize the Placement of a Dedication Plaque at the Pioneer Park Bandshell in Honor of Rusty Schuetz and the Donation of Services to Repaint the Bandshell Ceiling
Recommended Action: Approve the request pending concurrence of the applicant and City Manager as to final placement location and accept the donation of services to be coordinated with and approved by the City Manager
8. Consideration of 1) Receive a Presentation From Pioneer Community Energy on Community Choice Aggregation (CCA); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to Initiate an Implementation Study for the Purposes of Evaluating Nevada City joining Pioneer Community Energy’s Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in an Amount Not-ToExceed $15,000 Recommended Action: Receive the presentation, authorize the implementation study and the related expense
9. Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition
Recommended Action: Receive, file, and accept the Certificate of Sufficiency and take action to:
1. Conduct the first reading of the proposed ordinance; or
2. Adopt a resolution that calls a regular election on the proposed ordinance for June 4, 2024; or
3. Adopt a resolution that calls a special election on the proposed ordinance for November 8, 2022; or
4. Direct staff to prepare a report on the impact of the proposed ordinance.
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 Councilmember to extend the time.
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 August 10, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Nevada City City Council was posted August 5, 2022 at the entrance of City Hall. The agenda, along with staff reports, is also posted on the City’s website.
Signed August 5, 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 August 10, 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 Initiation of litigation pursuant to § 54956.9(d)(4)
One (1) case
WEDNESDAY August 10, 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.
Doug Fleming, Mayor
Daniela Fernández, Vice Mayor Gary Petersen, Council Member Adam Kline, Council Member Lou Ceci, Council Member
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised that the Council Chambers are currently open to the public. This meeting is accessible to the public in person, via Zoom video conference, via YouTube, or on the local government cable channel 17. Individual City Council members may participate remotely in accordance with applicable open meeting law requirements. In-person meetings will be conducted in accordance with local and State Department of Public Health orders and guidance and requirements of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA).
The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:
1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Nevada City Council Chambers located at 317 Broad Street Nevada City, California.
2. Attending this meeting via Zoom video conference by linking to the following site:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89009138474 or,
by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474
3. Observing this meeting live from the City of Nevada City YouTube channel at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSQwrXtey12YIl3IbyGMYQ
4. Observe this meeting live from the local government cable channel 17 Public comments may be made:
1. In person: Live at the meeting. Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration. Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes.
2. Via Zoom: If you choose to join the City Council Meeting via Zoom video conference you will be able to utilize the “Raise Hand”. If joining by telephone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 Webinar ID: 890 0913 8474, dial *9 to “Raise Hand”. The Mayor will call on those who wish to speak at the appropriate time, not to exceed three minutes.
3. In writing: 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:
• Full Name
• Address (specific or general, ie: resident in unincorporated Nevada City) • The item number that you are commenting on
Any writing that is a public record that relates to an agenda item for open session distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at City Hall, 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, California during normal business hours. Government Code § 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.
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 530-265-0187 Extension 133. 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].
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 Fleming
_____ Vice-Mayor Fernández
_____ Councilmember Petersen
_____ Councilmember Kline
_____ Councilmember Ceci
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)
PRESENTATIONS
Employee Introduction: Nick Kendrick, Police Officer
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 July 28, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve
2. Accounts Payable – July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
3. Police Activity Report July 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
4. Building Activity Report July 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
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.
6. Conduct a Public Hearing in Consideration of Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City Recommended Action: Hold first reading, waive reading of Ordinance in its entirety, read by title only, and schedule for second reading and adoption for August 24, 2022
BUSINESS
7. Consideration of a Request to Authorize the Placement of a Dedication Plaque at the Pioneer Park Bandshell in Honor of Rusty Schuetz and the Donation of Services to Repaint the Bandshell Ceiling
Recommended Action: Approve the request pending concurrence of the applicant and City Manager as to final placement location and accept the donation of services to be coordinated with and approved by the City Manager
8. Consideration of 1) Receive a Presentation From Pioneer Community Energy on Community Choice Aggregation (CCA); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to Initiate an Implementation Study for the Purposes of Evaluating Nevada City joining Pioneer Community Energy’s Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in an Amount Not-ToExceed $15,000 Recommended Action: Receive the presentation, authorize the implementation study and the related expense
9. Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition
Recommended Action: Receive, file, and accept the Certificate of Sufficiency and take action to:
1. Conduct the first reading of the proposed ordinance; or
2. Adopt a resolution that calls a regular election on the proposed ordinance for June 4, 2024; or
3. Adopt a resolution that calls a special election on the proposed ordinance for November 8, 2022; or
4. Direct staff to prepare a report on the impact of the proposed ordinance.
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 Councilmember to extend the time.
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 August 10, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Nevada City City Council was posted August 5, 2022 at the entrance of City Hall. The agenda, along with staff reports, is also posted on the City’s website.
Signed August 5, 2022 at Nevada City, California
____________________________________________________________ Gabrielle Christakes, Administrative Services Manager/Deputy City Clerk 1 CITY OF NEVADA CITY
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2022
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 – No Closed Session
REGULAR MEETING – 6:31 PM - Call to Order
NISENAN TRIBE RECOGNITION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Fleming, Vice Mayor Fernàndez, Council Members Petersen, Kline and Ceci
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
Action: Motion by Petersen, seconded by Fernàndez to adopt the agenda as presented. (Approved 5-0)
PRESENTATIONS:
Employee Introduction: David Scafani, Public Works Maintenance Worker Amy Freeman, Police Officer
Gary Anderson, Police Officer
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. Action Minutes July 14, 2022 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Review and approve
2. Fire Activity Report – June 2022
Recommended Action: Receive and file
3. 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
2 Action: Motion by Fernàndez, seconded by Kline to approve Consent Items 1-3.
Approved 5-0
BUSINESS
4. Consideration of a Report on the Appointment of Planning Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Recommended Action: Receive and file the report and direct staff to seat the Commissioners as the August 2022 Regular Planning Commission.
Action: Motion by Ceci, seconded by Kline to Receive and file report and direct staff to seat the Commissioners at the August 2022 Regular Planning Commission Approved 5-0
5. Consideration of Authorization of Procurement for a Trailer Mounted Emergency Generator for the City Hall from Bay City Electric Works in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $62,055.00 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Purchase Order Recommended Action: Award the contract and authorize the City Manager to execute related documents
Action: Motion by Fernàndez, seconded by Petersen to Award the contract and authorize the City Manager to execute related documents
Approved 5-0
6. Consideration of Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-57: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, California, Adopting a Policy and Permitting Process for the Scattering of Cremated Human Remains on City Property
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution
Action: Motion by Ceci, seconded by Kline to adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City, California, Adopting a Policy and Permitting Process for the Scattering of Cremated Human Remains on City Property
Approved 5-0
CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: Verbal report provided ADJOURNMENT: 7:06 PM
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Doug Fleming, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk
Date
Record
Number Record Type Description Address Status
7/27/2022 22TMP-003991 Full Review Residential one-story addition of bedroom and small office, 216sf total, on west side of residence. Roof will be the same as current roof (Class A composition Cool Roof—specifically, GAF Timberline HD Reflector series asphalt shingles)
25 TURPENTINE DRIVE,
Nevada City CA 95959
7/21/2022 222696 Express Permit WEB: REPLACE EXISTING SPLIT SYSTEM CONDENSING UNIT.PERMIT INCLUDES 1 INSPECTIONS.
332 BRIDGE WAY,
Nevada City CA 95959
Issued
1/0/1900 222626 Express Permit Digital. Replace a natural gas boiler.Backflow prevention device verification from Nevada City required at final. This permit includes one inspection. Final inspection required
200 REDBUD WAY,
Nevada City CA 95959
Issued
7/13/2022 222588 Full Review Convert rear portion of existing garage into one bedroom. This permit includes ? inspections. Final inspection required. 103 GOLD TUNNEL
DRIVE, Nevada City CA
95959
Issued
7/12/2022 222580 Over the Counter
Permit
Tear off and reroof residence with Cool comp. 35 squares.Sewer backflow verification required.Includes 2 inspections.
245 BROCK ROAD,
Nevada City CA 95959
Issued
7/12/2022 222575 Express Permit Digital. Re-roof, like for like, cool comp 22 squares.Backflow prevention device verification required at final.This permit includes one inspection. Final inspection required.
559 NORTH PINE
STREET, Nevada City CA
95959
Issued
7/11/2022 222549 Express Permit Digital. Installation of 22KW Generac standby generator with 200 amp automatic transfer panel and load shed modules.Sewer backflow prevention device verification required from Nevada City before final.This permit includes two inspections. Final inspection required.
545 JORDAN STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959
Issued
7/11/2022 222542 Express Permit Installing (16) SunPower SPR-X22-360-E-AC Panels on the roof. 332 JORDAN STREET, Nevada City CA 95959
Received
JULY 2022 BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
7/10/2022 222857 Express Permit Partial roofing replacement, 2nd floor only, with Malarkey Ecoasis NEX cool roof shingles.Partial replacement of wood lap siding (lower) with fiber-cement siding and fiber-cement shingles (upper) (North and East gables only). Partial replacement of sliding and double-hung windows with vinyl sliding and single-hung double glazed windows (North and East gables only).
341 LONG STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959
Received
7/8/2022 222527 Express Permit DIGITAL: RESIDENTIAL- 3.65kw Roof mount solar with Sunlight Backup, (10) Certainteed CT365HC11-06 Modules, (10) Enphase IQ8Plus micro inverters, (1) Enphase 200A ATS, New 100A dedicated loads sub panel fed by 15A breaker, Point of interconnection - 20A breaker in existing 200A MSP.PERMIT INCLUDES 2 INSPECTIONS. 506 SACRAMENTO
STREET, Nevada City CA
95959
Issued
7/5/2022 222467 Express Permit DIGITAL: As-Built tenant improvement for 2nd floor R-1 occupancy and 3rd floor R-3 occupancy. Second floor is 8 room transient use.
Third floor is 3 bedroom, 2 bath apartment. All work in interior only.
Includes ? inspections. Includes inspections.
233 BROAD STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959
In Review
7/5/2022 222509 Express Permit Digital. Replace 4in. sewer main from cleanout to backflow preventer. Run water line and 3/4 in gas line from meter to cottage, approx. 70ft. Run electrical from house main panel to cottage subpanel.This permit includes 2 inspections. Final inspection required.
757 UREN STREET,
Nevada City CA 95959
Issued
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 10, 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: August 1, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Reconfirm 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: August 10, 2022 Agenda Item No. 06
Subject: Conduct a Public Hearing in Consideration of
Ordinance No. 2022-09: An Ordinance of the City of Nevada City, California Adding Chapter 12.32 (“Filming Activities”) to Title 12 (“Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places”) Regarding the Regulation of Filming Activities on or Using Public Property of the City
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: August 2, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Hold first reading, waive reading of Ordinance in its entirety, read by title only, and schedule for second reading and adoption for August 24, 2022.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Nevada City has famously been the filming site of several commercials, television series episodes, television movies, and theatrical release movies. The City is also a hub of filming related activities in relation to it being the home of the Nevada City Film Festival. Recently the City has received inquiries on future proposed filming projects and has worked with the Chamber of Commerce to support future filming activities.
While filming activities may have a positive impact on the economy and perception of the community, it may disturb the quality of life of residents and impact businesses and visitors. In order to ensure a balance of impacts an ordinance regulating filming activities is proposed. The ordinance creates a permitting process for filming activities on or using public property in the City. The ordinance allows exceptions to permitting for:
• Filming activities conducted for breaking news purposes; • Filming activities conducted for use in a criminal investigation or civil or criminal court proceeding;
• Noncommercial filming activities conducted solely for private or family use; • Commercial still photography or staging thereof, when conducted to the exclusion of any other filming activity under certain specific conditions;
• Filming activities conducted by or for the city or for any public access or governmental programming channel;
• Student filming activities conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school.
The permitting process involves an application and vetting of the project against its impacts on the community. The ordinance allows for fees as determined by resolution of the City Council for the application and related activities and specifies that the applicants be required to pay for the cost of required use of City staff or resources for filming.
California Government Code § 14999.21 requires that the city submit a draft of the proposed ordinance to the California Film Commission (Commission); that the Commission respond with findings to the submission; and that the City Council consider the Commission’s findings prior to the final adoption of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance was transmitted to the Commission and their findings were received on August 3, 2022. The findings have been included in the proposed ordinance.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The ordinance allows for the application of a fee for film permitting as established in the Citywide Master Fee Schedule, depending upon use. The ordinance also allows for cost recovery for filming use of the City personnel or resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 2022-09
ORDINANCE 2022-09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 12.32 (“FILMING ACTIVITIES”) OF TITLE 12 (“STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES”) OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FILIMING ACTIVITIES ON OR
USING PUBLIC PROPERTY OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the California constitution authorizes the City Council to enact laws that promote the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City of Nevada City has been used as a site for commercial filming activities and continues to receive interest from commercial filming vendors; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the unregulated filming in public places within the City has the potential to interfere with vehicular traffic, pedestrian access, and other negative impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that filming regulations are necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare from disruptive and potentially dangerous filming activity in the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Chapter 12.32 ("Filming Activities") of Title 12 ("Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places") is hereby added to the City of Nevada City Municipal Code as follows:
CHAPTER 12.32 – FILMING ACTIVITIES
12.32.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide rules governing the issuance of permits for filming activities on or using public property of the city. The intent of this chapter is to ensure that still photographers and motion picture, television, commercial and non-theatrical filming companies will be encouraged to use locations within the city for filming activities so long as those activities are consistent with public safety and the protection of property.
12.32.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
A. "Applicant" means the person, organization, corporation, association or other entity applying for a permit to film in the city.
B. "Filming activity" means the staging, shooting, filming, videotaping, photographing, or other similar process conducted for the making of still photographs, motion pictures, television programs, commercial and nontheatrical film productions.
C. "Film permit coordinator" means the person designated by the city manager to issue film permits in the city.
D. "Film permit" means written authorization from the film permit coordinator to conduct the filming activity described in the permit.
E. "Fee schedule" means those fees and reimbursements for costs as adopted by resolution of the city council.
F. "Breaking News" means a filming activity conducted for the purpose of reporting on persons, events or scenes which are in the news for newspapers, television news, and other news media.
G. "Permittee" means the person, organization, corporation, association or other entity issued a film permit under this chapter.
H. "Public property" means any street, right-of-way, public trail or bikeway owned and maintained by the city, or any public park, building or other real property owned or leased by the city.
I. "Still photography" means and includes all activity attendant to staging or shooting commercial still photographs.
J. "Student filming activity" means filming activity conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school.
12.32.030 Private property.
An applicant shall obtain the private property owner's permission, consent, and/or lease for use of property not owned or controlled by the city and shall comply with and be subject to all other provisions of state law and this code, including but not limited to any regulations or restrictions governing the use of the private property as may be applicable to the filming activity. Filming conducted on private property that utilizes city streets, sidewalks, parking or other city property in any manner requires a permit as defined in 12.32.040.
12.32.040 Permit required.
A. It is unlawful to conduct a filming activity on public property within the city without first obtaining a film permit from the film permit coordinator.
B. The film permit must be in the possession of the permittee at all times while on location in the city.
12.32.050 Permit exceptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any of the following activities, provided that the activity will not require the closure of a city street or substantially impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic thereon:
A. Filming activities conducted for breaking news purposes; B. Filming activities conducted for use in a criminal investigation or civil or criminal court proceeding;
C. Noncommercial filming activities conducted solely for private or family use; D. Commercial still photography or staging thereof, when conducted to the exclusion of any other filming activity when the following conditions apply:
1. The still photography, or staging thereof, will not require the parking of more than two motor vehicles on any public street within the city; E. Filming activities conducted by or for the city or for any public access or governmental programming channel;
F. Student filming activities conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school.
12.32.060 Application.
A. Applications for a film permit shall be submitted to the film permit coordinator in accordance with the following minimum time frames:
1. A minimum of two business days in advance of the day the film activity is to begin; or
2. A minimum of four business days in advance of the day any traffic controls exceeding three minutes are proposed in association with the film activity; or
3. A minimum of ten business days in advance of any of the following activities proposed in association with the film activity: street closures, stunts, pyrotechnics, and/or special effects.
B. Applicants shall submit applications at the earliest advance date possible in order to facilitate coordination between city departments.
C. Upon showing of good cause, the film permit coordinator shall consider applications which are filed after the filing deadline if there is sufficient time for city staff to process and review the application and to prepare for the filming activity.
12.32.070 Application form.
The permit application shall be on a form furnished by the city and signed by the applicant or agent thereof. Such application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:
A. Name, address and telephone number of applicant;
B. Name, address and twenty-four hour telephone number(s) of person in charge of filming on location;
C. Filming location(s), dates and approximate daily call times of the filming activity; D. Description of scenes to be filmed and/or diagrams of the site of filming, including details of any hazardous filming activity employing firearms, explosives, the use of open flame, other pyrotechnical effects, animals, use of amplified noise, stunts, filming of moving motor vehicles, watercraft and aircraft;
E. Description of the types and number of motor vehicles which will be parked on public streets, and description of any equipment to be placed on public property; F. Evidence of adequate insurance certification as required by the city pursuant to Section 12.32.120;
G. Such other information, descriptions, diagrams and technical information as the film permit coordinator may require. The film permit coordinator may impose reasonable restrictions as may be necessary to ensure the filming activity does not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.
12.32.080 Permit review.
The application shall be promptly reviewed by the film permit coordinator. The film permit shall be denied if the film permit coordinator finds that any of the following will occur:
A. The filming activity will substantially disrupt the use of a public right-of-way or street at a time when it is usually subject to traffic congestion, or interfere with the operation of emergency vehicles.
B. The location of the filming activity will substantially interfere with a right-of-way or street maintenance work, or a previously authorized excavation permit.
C. The filming activity will substantially interfere with other previously authorized activities or contracts, or the safety of the public or employees on public property.
D. The filming activity will substantially interfere with ordinary municipal functions, or the scheduled maintenance of city buildings or grounds.
E. The filming activity will create a substantial risk of injury to persons or damage to property.
F. The filming activity will substantially disrupt the privacy and/or disturb the peace of individuals residing in the vicinity.
G. The applicant has failed to complete the application after being requested to do so, or the information contained in the application is found to be false in any material detail.
H. The particular filming activity would violate federal or state law, or other applicable city ordinances, including licensing or permit requirements.
12.32.090 Permit conditions.
The film permit coordinator may impose reasonable conditions on the issuance of a film permit relating to the time, place, manner and duration of filming activities. The conditions shall be attached to the film permit and may include, but are not limited to, any of the following conditions:
A. Requirements for the presence of employees of the city or use of city property at the applicant's expense, when required for the particular filming activity; B. Requirements concerning posting of no parking signs, placement of traffic control devices, and employment of traffic and crowd control monitors at the applicant's expense;
C. Requirements concerning posting of the outer boundaries of the filming activity, and providing advance notice to affected and/or adjacent property owners, residents and businesses;
D. Requirements concerning the cleanup and restoration of the public property used in the filming activity;
E. Restrictions concerning the use of city or other public agency employee services, vehicles and other equipment in the filming activity;
F. Requirements that the applicant pay all fees, and obtain all permits and licenses required for the filming activity under local, state and federal laws, including an encroachment permit, if necessary;
G. Restrictions on the use of firearms, explosions and noise-creating or hazardous devices;
H. Restrictions on the use of stunts involving pyrotechnics, open flame, vehicle crashes or other hazardous materials;
I. Requirements concerning cover-up of police, fire and other official uniforms worn by actors, when the actors are not on camera;
J. Restrictions concerning the use of city and other public agency logos, insignias, badges or decals for filming purposes;
K. Restrictions on the locations and/or daily hours the filming activity may be conducted within the city;
L. Requirements concerning the city's or other public agency's receipt of proper acknowledgment for any assistance provided in making feature, television or commercial productions;
M. Any other condition which the film permit coordinator deems necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, or which may be necessary to protect public and/or private property.
12.32.100 Fees.
A. The applicant shall pay all applicable city permit fees including a film permit fee in the amount set by resolution of the council.
B. In addition to the above the applicant shall pay actual costs incurred by the city for providing employees (including overtime pay if applicable); equipment rental; facilities rental, utilities, and any similar type costs including but not limited to the following:
1. The cost of providing, erecting and moving barricades and/or signs;
2. The cost of providing and moving garbage or waste receptacles;
3. The cost of providing street sweeping and related cleanup activities;
4. The cost of providing personnel/equipment for security purposes;
5. Reimbursement to the city for facilities and/or utility charges shall be at rates established by the respective agency.
C. The city may require that a sum be deposited with the city to meet any or all of the above costs prior to the commencement of filming activities.
12.32.110 Change of filming activity.
Upon reasonable written notice by the permittee in advance of the filming activity, the film permit coordinator is authorized to make changes, such as change the date for which the film permit has been issued and similar types of changes, without requiring a new application.
12.32.120 Insurance required.
The applicant for a film permit shall procure and maintain for the duration of the filming activity such insurance in the forms, types and amount as may be prescribed by the city. The applicant shall request from the film permit coordinator limits of liability and all required forms prior to submitting the application, and shall submit all required and completed forms concurrent with the application.
12.32.130 Indemnification.
The applicant shall agree in writing to comply with the terms and conditions of the film permit, which shall include an agreement to indemnify the city in a form approved by the city attorney.
12.32.140 Street closures.
If the applicant requests that the city authorize a street closure on the application, an encroachment permit or street closure permit may be required by the city in addition to the film permit, as determined by the city engineer.
12.32.150 Pyrotechnics.
During the filming of any special effect or stunt requiring the use of pyrotechnics or any material deemed hazardous, including but not limited to fireworks, open flames or explosives, the applicant shall obtain any required permits from the city fire and police departments.
12.32.160 Permit revocation or suspension.
A. Permit Revocation. The film coordinator may revoke the film permit if the permittee, or any agents, employees or contractors of the permittee fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the film permit, or any information contained in the permit application was false in any material detail.
1. Notice of the grounds for revocation of the film permit shall be provided in writing to the applicant or person in charge at the location of the filming activity.
2. Appeals of the permit revocation shall be conducted in the manner specified in Section 12.32.170.
B. Permit Suspension. A Police Department officer or Fire Department firefighter may suspend the film permit when the filming activity poses an immediate hazard to persons or property and the location manager will not, or cannot, prevent the hazard after being instructed to do so by a city official.
1. The grounds for the permit suspension shall be provided in writing to the permittee within one business day of the suspension.
2. Appeals of the permit suspension shall be conducted in the manner specified in Section 12.32.170.
12.32.170 Appeals.
The permit applicant or permittee may appeal a film permit denial, revocation, suspension, permit condition, insurance/fees requirement or the film permit coordinator's decision not to waive a deadline pursuant to the following:
A. The appeal must be submitted to the city council within ten (10) days of the film permit coordinator’s decision. Such appeal may be a simple statement in writing setting forth in common terms the basis of the appeal.
B. If a hearing is requested, the city council shall set a time for the hearing. The request for hearing shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee in an amount as established by council resolution. At least fifteen (15) days' notice of hearing shall be given.
C. The decision of the city council shall be final.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Nevada City Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of the Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase or portion of this code 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 all other provisions of this ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the ordinance codified in this chapter, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Nevada City City Council held on this 10th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Doug Fleming, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVE 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
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 10, 2022 Agenda Item No. 07
Subject: Consideration of a Request to Authorize the
Placement of a Dedication Plaque at the Pioneer Park Bandshell in Honor of Rusty Schuetz and the Donation of Services to Repaint the Bandshell Ceiling
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: August 2, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Approve the request pending concurrence of the applicant and City Manager as to final placement location and accept the donation of services to be coordinated with and approved by the City Manager.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Julie Wagner Schuetz has requested to place a bronze plaque on or near the Pioneer Park Bandshell in honor of her late husband Rusty Schuetz (application attached). Ms. Schuetz is also requesting the ability to pay for the repainting of the ceiling of the band shell in coordination with Parks and Recreation. Mr.
Schuetz was local architect who designed the bandshell and public restoration projects including the Hat Store on Broad Street; Lika’s Quarter Café on Commercial Street; the Nevada City Winery on Spring Street; and the Trinity Church on Nevada Street among others. Mr. Schuetz was also a Nevada City Planning Commissioner for 9 years.
Ms. Schuetz has agreed to work with City staff, including the Parks & Recreation Manager, City Engineer, and Public Works Superintendent to choose a location for the plaque. The action requested delegates authority to the City Manager for final location and will not require additional City Council action.
The proposed plaque (rendering attached) meets, is smaller than, the maximum allowable under the Policy for Placement of Items in City Parks & Open Space (attached) and would have an image of the architectural rendering of the bandshell as created by Mr. Schuetz along with the following language:
NEVADA CITY BANDSHELL
DESIGNED BY
RUSTY SCHUETZ, A.I.A
The Policy does allow for new facilities and the proposed plaque does fall into that category, although other plaque requests in Pioneer Park have been for benches. The Policy states, “While memorials and new amenities may enrich a park experience for park users, public open space is also a very precious commodity, and new memorials, amenities and facilities should be carefully reviewed to balance these two public benefits to protect the greater good. Any new structures should represent community values, and be mindful of future generations.” Staff has conferred with the Nevada County Concert Band (NCC Band) as the primary user of the bandshell. The NCC Band had no objections to the plaque but provided input for consideration in placement. The requested plaque and the offer to repaint the bandshell ceiling appear consistent with the policy.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The project would be fully funded by Ms. Schuetz. No City funds have been requested. Similar plaques do not require regular maintenance but do discolor over time. The City has not made it a practice to perform any maintenance on the existing plaques throughout Pioneer Park.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorial Placement Request
Policy for Placement of Items in City Parks & Open Space Draft Plaque Rendering
Nevada City BandShell
Designed by
Rusty Schuetz, A.I.A.
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 10, 2022 Agenda Item No. 08
Subject: Consideration of 1) Receive a Presentation From Pioneer Community Energy on Community Choice
Aggregation (CCA); and 2) Authorize the City Manager to Initiate an Implementation Study for the Purposes of Evaluating Nevada City joining Pioneer Community Energy’s Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $15,000 From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: August 2, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Receive the presentation, authorize the implementation study and the related expense.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), authorized by Assembly Bill 117, is a state law that allows cities, counties and other authorized entities to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to purchase and/or generate alternative energy supplies for residents and businesses within their jurisdiction while maintaining the existing electricity provider for transmission and distribution services.
The goal of a CCA is to provide options for electrical service providers (i.e. cheaper rates, renewable energy choices, etc.) than Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Under Public Utilities Code section 366.2, customers have the right to opt out of a CCA Program and continue to receive service from PG&E.
The City of Grass Valley and Nevada County are moving forward to join the Pioneer Community Energy CCA. Nevada City could choose to proceed in the same fashion. A small listing of the benefits to residents and business of joining Pioneer Community Energy, as your local CCA include, for the first time ever, constituents:
1. Have control of the region’s energy future
2. Can realize monthly savings on energy bills
3. Have a choice in energy provider
4. Can purchase energy needs from 100 percent renewables sources. with the optional Green100 program
Prior to joining a CCA the City and the CCA conduct an Implementation Study to outline the benefits, costs, impacts, and risks to both entities. Pioneer Community Energy will provide a presentation to the City Council and request that the Council authorize such an implementation study.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The cost to initiate the Implementation Study is $15,000 representing 50% of the cost with Pioneer Community Energy responsible for the remaining $15,000 cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
Pioneer Energy CCA Presentation
Community Choice
Aggregation Overview
For Nevada City
August 10, 2022
What is a CCA?
2 • CCA stands for Community Choice Aggregation
• Authorized in California by Assembly Bill 117
(Migden, 2002)
• A CCA allows any city, county, or combination thereof to form an entity (JPA) to take over the responsibility for purchasing power on behalf of their community
How do CCA’s Work?
3 • Should a CCA be established, one big thing changes
and three things remain the same
Utility purchases
power
Utility maintains
transmission lines
Utility provides
customer service &
programs
How an InvestorOwned Utility
works?
How a Community
Choice Aggregation
works
Utility bills
customer
CCA purchases
power
Utility maintains
transmission lines
Utility bills
customer
Utility & CCA
provides customer
service & programs
Who Joins?
4 • Once elected officials vote to join a CCA, all the electric customers in their jurisdiction are automatically signed up
• Customers can remain with PG&E if they want, but its
up to them to contact the CCA and go through the optout process • Opting out is free and can be done at any time
• At launch, opt outs may occur a maximum of 60 days
prior to automatic enrollment
• Opting out after the 60-day grace period requires the customer to remain with PG&E for a minimum of 12
months
Statewide CCA’s
5 Options for Nevada City
6 01 Join Pioneer
02 Form your own JPA
03 Dept of City
04 Do Nothing
Advantage - Reduced risk and start-up capital
Disadvantage - 1 of numerous Board
Advantage - You control JPA
Disadvantage - Start-up capital, operational
risk and need of outside financing
Advantage - You control Department
Disadvantage - General Fund at risk
You don’t have to do anything.
Many off ramps in the process before power
is procured on your behalf.
Benefits to Nevada City
7 • Local Control
• Energy Procurement
• Setting of Rates
• Programs
• Creation of Jobs
• Economic Development
• Environmental/Social Goals
• Green100
• PG&E owned by shareholders, CCA’s owned by
constituents/ratepayers
Who is Pioneer?
8 • Pioneer is a Joint Powers Authority (CCA formed
in 2017)
• Town of Loomis, Cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln,
Placerville and Rocklin
• Counties of El Dorado and Placer
• Over 150,000 accounts
• Launched in 2018
• Provides electricity, rates and programs
consistent with local community goals
Where is Pioneer?
9 Pioneer Governance
10 • Pioneer currently has 9
board members
• 1 each for every
member agency
• Placer County has 2
seats as founding
member
• Nevada City would get
one seat on board
• Expansion only with
like-minded areas
Summary of Process
11 • Pioneer Board approval to move
forward
• MOU approved by City Council
* Staff briefs Pioneer’s
Expansion Committee
* Hire consultant for Impact
Assessment Study
* Staff briefs each Member
Agency with expansion and
language change to JPA
* Receive results of Impact
Assessment Study
* Go/No Go Decision.
* Member Agencies vote to amend
JPA to add Nevada City
* Nevada City, City Council would
vote to join Pioneer
* Pioneer Board approves amendment to JPA
and Amendment to Implementation Plan
* Pioneer submits implementation pan to CPUC
Steps 1 – 6 occur in 2022 Nevada City online 2024
Solar
12 • Over 30,000 solar customers have joined
Pioneer
• Individualized bill analysis has shown solar
customers can save with Pioneer
• Pioneer pays ½ cent more than PG&E for
excess kWh
• Pioneer true-up is monthly vs. PG&E
annually
• Pioneer assists customers to understand
energy consumption and billing questions
Customer Savings
13 • 2018 thru 2021 Actual Savings
• Placer County - $21.9 million
• 2022 Projected Savings
• Placer County - $12.2 million
• El Dorado County - $6.3 million
PG&E vs. Pioneer – June 2022
14 • PCIA – Vintage Year 2022
• Residential Customers see a 6.5% savings on generation E-1 Residential
(Based on 690 kWh/month usage)
Pioneer
(Standard)
Pioneer
(Green100)
PG&E
(Bundled)
Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.11528 $0.11528 $0.12602
Green100 Rate ($/kWh) N/A $0.01088 N/A
*PG&E Delivery Rate ($/kWh) $0.19849 $0.19849 $0.19849
PG&E Surcharges ($/kWh) $0.02663 $0.02663 $0.02572
Total Electricity Cost ($/kWh) $0.34040 $0.35128 $0.35023 Average Monthly Bill ($) $234.88 $242.38 $241.66
Advocacy in Action
15 • PSPS – Advocated at CPUC & CCAs
• EPSS (Fast Trips) – Raised issue to CPUC & CCAs
• AB 843 – Sponsored biomass funding bill
• Local Spending – First option is local vendors
• River Fire – Waived up to $50,000 in bills
Next Steps
16 • Requesting that City Council authorize the City Manager to move forward with the Impact Assessment, at a fee of
$15,000
• Upon completion of Assessment, Pioneer will come back to the City Council with a recommendation related to the next steps, as it relates to joining Pioneer’s JPA
Thank You
17 Mark Riffey
Director, Public Affairs, Marketing and Programs
Pioneer Community Energy
916-758-8950
[email protected]
www.pioneercommunityenergy.org
CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF: August 10, 2022 Agenda Item No. 09
Subject: Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of
Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition.
From: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Date: August 5, 2022
Reviewed & Approved:
City Manager:
City Attorney:
Recommended Action: Receive, file, and accept the Certificate of Sufficiency and take action to:
1. Conduct the first reading of the proposed ordinance; or
2. Adopt a resolution that calls a regular election on the proposed ordinance for June 4, 2024; or
3. Adopt a resolution that calls a special election on the proposed ordinance for November 8, 2022; or
4. Direct staff to prepare a report on the impact of the proposed ordinance.
ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION:
On May 18, 2022, James A. Khatami and Cathy Wilcox-Barnes (Proponents) filed a proposed initiative measure referred to as the “Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative.” The text of the initiative is attached to this staff report. In accordance with Elections Code (EC) Section 9203, the City Attorney prepared a Ballot Title and Summary (Attached). On June 8, 2022, the Proponents filed proof of publication of a "Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition" with the City Clerk's Office. The Proponents had one hundred eighty (180) days from receipt of the Ballot Title and Summary to circulate the petition and obtain the requisite amount of signatures.
Pursuant to EC Section 9215, to qualify the petition for the ballot, the Proponents needed to obtain verified signatures from a minimum of 245 or 10% of the 2,454 registered voters of the City. On June 23, 2022, the Proponents submitted their petitions and the City Clerk's Office conducted a prima facie review of submitted petitions. In accordance with EC Section 9210(b), it was determined that the petition contained 369 signatures; therefore, the petition was accepted. Pursuant to EC Section 9114, the City Clerk had thirty (30) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, within which to verify signatures on the initiative petition. The signatures on the petition are verified to determine whether or not those who signed the petitioner registered voters within city limits. On July 13, 2022, the City Clerk's Office transmitted the petitions to the ROV to verify the signatures on the initiative petition. On August 2, 2022, the ROV advised that a sufficient number of signatures were submitted to qualify the initiative petition for the ballot under EC Section 9215. Attached to this staff report is the letter from the ROV. Based upon information provided by the ROV, the Deputy City Clerk has deemed the petition sufficient and has issued the attached Certificate of Sufficiency. Consistent with the Election Code, the Certificate of Sufficiency and the initiative petition are submitted to the City Council via this staff report for the August 10, 2022, City Council meeting, the next City Council meeting occurring after the issuance of the Certificate of Sufficiency.
EC Section 9215 requires that upon issuance of a Certificate of Sufficiency for the initiative petition, the City Council must take action on one (1) of four (4) options:
1. Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented; or
2. Call for the initiative to be placed on the City’s next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of the election (EC Section 1405(a)). Under this option, the petition would be considered by the voters at the June 4, 2024 regular municipal election; or
3. Call for the initiative to be placed on a special election occurring not less than 88 days nor more than 103 days after the order of the election (EC Section 1405(b)). Under this option, the petition would be considered by the voters at the General Election on November 8, 2022; or
4. Order a report analyzing the impact of the initiative measure pursuant to EC Section 9212. Under this option, staff must present the report to the City Council no later than 30 days after it is ordered by the City Council. When the report is presented to the City Council, the City Council shall either adopt the ordinance within ten (10) days or submit the initiative measure to the voters.
Staff recommendation is that the City Council receive, file, and accept the Certificate of Sufficiency provided by the Deputy City Clerk and take action on one of these four required options as listed.
Resolutions calling for the election are attached as would be required to be adopted should option 2 or option 3 be selected.
FINANCIAL AND/OR POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
An additional ballot measure to be added to either the June 4, 2024, or November 8, 2022, election is estimated to cost between $3900 - $5900.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Clerk Certificate of Sufficiency
Title and Summary Prepared by the City Attorney
Proposed Ballot Initiative as Submitted
Confirmation of Signatures from the County Registrar of Voters Resolution Calling for a Regular Municipal Election on June 4, 2024 Resolution Calling for a Special Municipal Election on November 8, 2022
RESOLUTION 2022-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CALLING A REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON JUNE 4, 2024 FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections Code, a petition has been be filed with the City of Nevada City (“City”), signed by more than 10% of the registered voters in the City to submit a proposed ordinance entitled the “Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative” (“Ordinance”) relating to the creation of an historic neighborhood district; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Election Official has examined voter registration records and ascertained that the petition has been signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of adoption of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Code requires the City Council to submit the Ordinance to the voters at a general or special election; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to hold a regular municipal election on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question of whether to adopt the Ordinance; and WHERAS, the City Council finds that whenever two or more elections are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory or in part of the same territory, such elections should be consolidated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Nevada City, that:
Section 1. The text of the Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The question submitted shall appear on the ballot as follows:
Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative. Shall an ordinance that amends the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code to establish an Historic Neighborhoods District be adopted? YES
NO
Section 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast.
Section 4. The City Clerk is instructed to transmit the Ordinance to the City Attorney along with a request that an impartial analysis be prepared pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280.
Section 5. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
Section 6. Notice of the time and place of holding of the Election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give further or additional notice of the election in the time, form, and manner as required by law.
Section 7. Pursuant to Section 10400 et seq. of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of Nevada County is requested to consolidate the election on this ballot measure with other elections held on the same day in the County.
Section 8. The Board of Supervisors is authorized to canvass the returns of the Election pursuant to Section 10411 of the Elections Code.
Section 9. Pursuant to Section 10002 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors is requested to permit the County elections office to render all services specified by Section 10418 of the Elections Code relating to the election, for which services the City agrees to reimburse the County, in accordance with current County pro-rations and allocation procedures.
Section 10. Pursuant to Section 9282 of the Elections Code, the legislative body of Nevada City, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by the body, or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument, not to exceed 300 words in length, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, for or against the City measure.
Section 11. Rebuttal arguments will be accepted for this measure, and the City Council reiterates its adoption of the provisions of Section 9285 of the Elections Code regarding rebuttals.
Section 12. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County elections official.
Section 13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Nevada City City Council on the 10th day of August, 2022 by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Doug Fleming, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2022-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEVADA CITY
CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022 FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections Code, a petition has been be filed with the City of Nevada City (“City”), signed by more than 10% of the registered voters in the City to submit a proposed ordinance entitled the “Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative” (“Ordinance”) relating to the creation of an historic neighborhood district; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Election Official has examined voter registration records and ascertained that the petition has been signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of adoption of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Code requires the City Council to submit the Ordinance to the voters at a general or special election; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to hold a special municipal election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question of whether to adopt the Ordinance; and WHERAS, the City Council finds that whenever two or more elections are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory or in part of the same territory, such elections should be consolidated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Nevada City, that:
Section 1. The text of the Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The question submitted shall appear on the ballot as follows:
Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative. Shall an ordinance that amends the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code to establish an Historic Neighborhoods District be adopted? YES
NO
Section 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast.
Section 4. The City Clerk is instructed to transmit the Ordinance to the City Attorney along with a request that an impartial analysis be prepared pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280.
Section 5. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
Section 6. Notice of the time and place of holding of the Election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give further or additional notice of the election in the time, form, and manner as required by law.
Section 7. Pursuant to Section 10400 et seq. of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of Nevada County is requested to consolidate the election on this ballot measure with other elections held on the same day in the County.
Section 8. The Board of Supervisors is authorized to canvass the returns of the Election pursuant to Section 10411 of the Elections Code.
Section 9. Pursuant to Section 10002 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors is requested to permit the County elections office to render all services specified by Section 10418 of the Elections Code relating to the election, for which services the City agrees to reimburse the County, in accordance with current County pro-rations and allocation procedures.
Section 10. Pursuant to Section 9282 of the Elections Code, the legislative body of Nevada City, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by the body, or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument, not to exceed 300 words in length, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, for or against the City measure.
Section 11. Rebuttal arguments will be accepted for this measure, and the City Council reiterates its adoption of the provisions of Section 9285 of the Elections Code regarding rebuttals.
Section 12. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County elections official.
Section 13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Nevada City City Council on the 10th day of August, 2022 by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Doug Fleming, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Niel Locke, City Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comment Historic Neighborhood District Initiative. August 10 Council Meeting Dear Council,
You have before you the Historic Neighborhood District Initiative aiming to re-zone a majority of the R-1 neighborhoods in Nevada City with a restrictive historic overlay, and greatly limit property rights. HND proposes to amend both the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Council can adopt the initiative without change, order a report addressing areas of concern, or put it on the next General Election Ballot.
Major changes to the General Plan and Municipal Code usually occur after many hours of public hearings, staff reports, and council deliberation. When done by voter initiative, very little of this occurs.
Because of the serious nature of this proposed land-use amendment, and the fact the public will not have adequate time or breadth of knowledge to understand the complexity of all facets, I am asking you to order a study, specifically consistency with the General Plan, the legality of insufficiently founded private property “taking,” and the likelihood of state legal action.
A General Plan amendment must be consistent with the existing document. It also cannot violate the constitution or laws of the United States or the State of California. Below are excerpts from the initiative and high-lighted sections of the General Plan showing either inconsistency or more fully contextualizing the excerpt.
HND: The General Plan begins “the most important single purpose of this Plan is to preserve the existing essential character of Nevada City.”
The HND claims this bolsters their argument. But reading on, that is not so apparent:
The Plan is based on four major principles
1. Preserve the sense of wooded enclosure by protecting views from the highways and by maintaining rural density surrounding a tight urban cluster.
2. Enhance the historic core by appropriate complementary development such as visitor accommodations and infill residential.
HND: “This Initiative recognizes the importance of architectural review by including this requirement in the General Plan.”
The General Plan leaves specific implementation methods to the Municipal Code. Page 51, Implementation: The General Plan provides long-range and comprehensive policy guidance for the development of Nevada City and its eventual extensions. It will be necessary to translate these longrange policies into implementation measures for Zoning, Development Approval Process, Environmental Impact Reports, Design Review, Specific Plans, and Annexation Program HND: The General Plan states: “Primary among the goals of the community are those relating to historic preservation.”
General Plan (pg. 9): Historic Preservation 3) As the City grows and new buildings are added outside the historic district, it is the aim to encourage design which is appropriate to our own age, but which is unassertive, allowing the dominance of the City’s primary, nineteenth-century historic period.
General Plan (pg. 37): Objectives- “Maintain the dominance of the city’s primary, nineteenth-century historic period.”
HND: General Plan: “Nevada City is basically a city of single-family homes.” General Plan (pg. 10): Immediately following the above: “A goal of the City is to preserve this quality, yet recognize that new forms of housing can offer economies in both housing cost and land requirements.” HND Initiative, Page 5, Item 9: “The State Senate’s website for SB9, the California H.O.M.E. Act, provides an overview of the law and clarifies that SB 9 “Preserves historic neighborhoods. SB 9 excludes historic and landmark districts.””
This item explicates that avoidance of complying with SB9 was the reasoning for this initiative. The State of California has already warned Pasadena about avoiding SB 9 with Landmark Districts. Pasadena was able to show their Landmark Districts have been in existence for years and are based on stringent criteria with documentation and careful process. The HND initiative, on the other hand, has no criteria other than “50 years old.” It is certain that this skimpy, newly created initiative will be challenged by the state.
Because of the paucity of rationale for the need to protect these neighborhoods as historic resources, the lack of proof that implementing SB9 would cause harm, and the considerable property rights revoked, the initiative most likely is violating federal law as well.
HND: Requires architectural review in both the General Plan and the Municipal Code: “the City shall require an architectural review permit for the erection or exterior alteration of any buildings or structures.”
The ADU law allows ministerial review and applies in all residential zones, including historic. This is by right and cannot be changed by ordinance.
General Plan Land-Use and Economic Development, page 26, 4th bullet point: Change specific land-use designations only after it has been determined that the change enhances eventual achievement of objectives, policies, and plans of the General Plan, and it will serve a public purpose to make such a change.
There are many, many inconsistencies with the General Plan’s most recent Housing Element, such as these General Plan H.E. objectives:
“Encourage innovative housing types, smaller housing stock.” “The City has always fostered a compact form of development emphasizing infill opportunities.” “Nevada City is a compact, mixed-use, walkable, small town.” “With its existing infrastructure (sewer, water, roads) the financial and energy costs of extending these systems is largely avoided with most development projects, especially the many infill sites. The current City form promotes housing affordability, maximize existing land resources, and takes advantage of existing City infrastructure. Due to Nevada City’s compact form, most housing units are in close proximity to jobs, shopping, schools, and recreation opportunities. This fact reduces traffic congestion and long commutes.”
Housing Element Policy and Ordinance Review:
“Current policies and ordinances should be continually reviewed to ascertain the realistic impact on retaining or expanding affordable housing in the City. When necessary, changes or additions to the City’s [policies] and ordinances should be created.”
Housing Element, Second Units/Accessory Units:
“This type of housing is an important source of potential affordable housing in the City.” “As with the 5th Cycle, it can reasonably be assumed that future creation of these accessory units will help fulfill part of the 6th State Cycle Housing Element RHNA.” “Program 7 of this Housing Element was created to assure that the City continues monitoring future regulatory changes, such as Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to minimize future constraints to the production of lower income housing.”
It is abundantly clear that the HND initiative is inconsistent with the General Plan and violates state law.
By ordering a report, the council can decide what action to take in thirty days, understand the legal ramifications, and better inform the public on this confusing issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Miriam Morris
Nevada City
From: Dayle Smidt
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Thursday, August 4, 2022 10:09:04 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 support a historic district in Nevada City. Architectural values are important, for cultural and economic reasons..
Signed,
Dayle Smidt, Nevada County Historical Society
10524 Mercury Drive
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Pauli Halstead
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for August 10th
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:14:52 PM
Attachments: General Plan.doc
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.
The following public comment is to make the city council aware that The Nevada City Historic District Initiative is inconsistent with the General Plan, and therefore should be sent back to the Committee for Nevada City Historic District Initiative as such.
I have taken some key points (attached) from the General Plan which reveal the fact that the creators of the General Plan always planned for growth which is "both essential and desirable", and mostly to be accomplished by infill. This General Plan vision is consistent with the State of California's law SB9, which gives homeowners the opportunity, if they choose to do so, to create infill housing by splitting their primary lot in two; resulting in a total of four dwelling units. It is unlikely that many residents will choose to do this.
Everyone should read the General Plan in its entirety to understand the fact that the creators of the General Plan always planned for growth and adding needed housing to support the anticipated growing workforce. So far Nevada City has not met the estimated need of 1,700 units by the year 2000. We are way behind.
One last thought. The process by which this Initiative came into being, happened behind closed doors with city staff and the city attorney, out of public knowledge for most of the four months since the law firm, hired by the Historic Committee to write the Initiative, first made contact with Amy Wolfson in April.
One of the main purposes stated in the General Plan is this:
To provide citizens with background information about their community, and allow them the opportunity to participate in planning and decision making.
In this instance, because of the secrecy and rush to get the city council to adopt the Initiative at the August 10th city council meeting, most of the community has been denied the opportunity for input on amending the General Plan. For the future, I would like to see the city adopt a written plan/process for amending the General Plan consistent with the five examples I have previously submitted to the city.
In lieu of rejecting the Initiative on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the General Plan, the next ethical choice for the city council is to ask for a 9212 Report to determine if the Initiative is something the city really needs.
Please include this public comment and the attachment in the agenda packet.
Thank you,
Pauli
--
Pauline Halstead
423 South Pine St.
Nevada City, Ca 95959
home: 530-265-6704
1 Public Comment for August 10th City Council Meeting
To be entered into the agenda packet
Excerpts from the Nevada City General Plan
Forward
“Nevada City must take stock of its valuable qualities and ensure their preservation, while still allowing a measure of desirable and beneficial growth consistent with the adopted goals of the community.”
The General Plan was adopted by action of the City Council on August 22, 1983.
The Plan is based on four major Principles
1. PRESERVE THE SENSE OF WOODED ENCLOSURE by protecting views from the highways and by maintaining rural density surrounding a tight urban cluster.
2. ENHANCE THE HISTORIC CORE by appropriate complimentary development such as visitor accommodations and infill residential.
3. REINFORCE EXISTING COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATIONS and strongly limit additional commercial locations.
4. CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND REVENUE
GENERATORS tucked away in wooded surroundings, but ties closely to the highways.
What is a General Plan
“It is intended to describe a generalized “vision” of the city’s proposed future pattern of growth and development.”
The purpose of this General Plan is as follows:
• To provide citizens with background information about their community, and allow them the opportunity to participate in planning and decision making. • The respond to relevant county and state law policies. • To establish the foundation for further planning efforts, such as zoning amendment and the environmental review process.
The City of Nevada City is a compatible mixture of historic, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial development representing both the best and worst examples of nineteenth and 2 twentieth-century architectural styles and planning modes which foster a desirable variety of lifestyles and endeavors.
Many of the residents have grown up in Nevada City. Others are long-time residents, while others have come more recently because of these same city attractions. Few, on the other hand, express any desire to live anywhere else. This means the City should anticipate some growth which is both essential and desirable.
Historic Preservation
1). The City aims to continue its efforts to preserve and enhance the architectural diversity of historic buildings in the central area, to maintain the remarkable collection of city-owned historic buildings, and to encourage private efforts of historic preservation and restoration.
Residential Areas
Nevada City is basically a city of single-family homes, all within a reasonable walk from the center of town. A goal of the City is to preserve this quality, yet recognize that new forms of housing can offer economies in both housing cost and land requirements. In addressing the question of housing, the City will seek to preserve its residential neighborhoods and to maintain the diversity of people and economic strata within each neighborhood.
The City’s Commercial Goal Are:
1. Maintain the central business area as a dominant historic district, keeping all commercial activity and building in character and scale with the historic period.
Growth
The City recognizes and accepts the fact that Nevada City exists in a dynamic society where growth is inevitable. The City believes that some growth is both essential and desirable.
Therefore, it is the City’s goal to provide for a balanced mix of residential, commercial, historic, and industrial development at a scale complimentary to that existing, in order to promote and maintain a fiscally sound and aesthetically acceptable environment for present and future residents and business.
Limits to Future Growth
Nevada City, in formulating its goals, has stated that it wants a balanced mix of uses at a scale complimentary to that existing. Thus, both new housing and new employment should be accommodated---the question is in what proportions This issue will have to be addressed periodically over the time frame of the General Plan. Priority will be given to whatever use is most needed at the time, within the overall purpose of balanced growth complimenting what exists.
Future Population and Growth Assumptions
Nevada City’s current incorportated area is projected to contain 3,400 persons in the year 2000, a growth of 970 person’s or approximately 500 new households. The total Sphere of Influence is 3 projected to contain approximately 6,400 persons, as increase of 3,700 persons or some 1,700 households more than are now estimated (in 1983) to live in the Sphere. The growth in population is partially a result of new residents moving in and partially a result of existing residents in the territory added.
This analysis assumes future economic development will include community commercial sufficient to serve the new residents, plus approximately 3,500 new jobs in office, research, and development, and light industrial use (e.g. Grass Valley Group), and 200 new hotel/motel units.
The implication of these assumptions is that for every five new jobs, Nevada City would accommodate two new households; other employees would either be drawn from existing pool of available labor, or would commute from elsewhere. Even though Nevada City would attempt to accommodate only 40% of the households generated by new employment, there would still be 1,700 new dwelling units needed.
LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES Policies
• Encourage urban-type development to occur as infill within the city. Urban-type development in county territory in most cases is inconsistent. • Designate additional urban land only when it is clearly demonstrated that the supply in a particular area is insufficient to permit a reasonable choice of sites for new development of desired uses, and that scattered development will not occur. • Change specific land use designations only after it has been determined that the change enhances eventual achievement of the objectives, policies, and the plans of the General Plan, and that it will serve the public purpose to make such a change.
The City’s adopted goals most relevant to this section include those on Commerce, Economic Development, Growth and Annexation. These issues are the most urgent to be faced by the city, and the immediate reason for the present update of the General Plan.
In a nutshell, the city’s aim is to grow and diversify economically, while still maintaining the good qualities so cherished by residents and visitors. The following objectives and policies are intended to reinforce that aim.
Policies (among others)
• Do not permit urban density uses beyond the Sphere of Influence boundary as shown on the Land Use Plan.
4 • Encourage urban-type development to occur as infill within the city. • Designate additional urban land only when it is clearly demonstrated that the supply in a particular area is insufficient to permit a reasonable choice of sites for new development of desired uses, and that scattered development will not occur. • Change specific land use designations only after it has been determined that the change enhances eventual achievement of the objectives, policies, and the plans of the General Plan, and that it will serve a public purpose to make such a change.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Objectives-
• Maintain the dominance of the city’s primary, nineteenth-century historic period. • Allow new development which is complimentary to the form and scale of its context. • Ensure continued concentration of public and cultural activities which reinforce the historic core as the “heart” of Nevada City.
Policies
• Encourage private efforts at historic rehabilitation and restoration. (not mandatory Architectural Review)
• Seek innovative means to maintain and improve city-owned historic buildings (leases to appropriate private use, grants from private and/or government sources. • Formulate design guidelines laying out the essential elements constituting Nevada City’s special “flavor”. These guidelines would be a handbook to prospective developers and a guide for evaluation by the architectural review committee. • Retain a maximum amount of city and county government functions in downtown Nevada City.
• Encourage appropriate infill uses in downtown (e.g. visitor accommodations and cultural facilities).
Pauli Halstead
423 South Pine St.
Nevada City
From: Pauli Halstead
To: Public Comment; Douglass Fleming; Adam Kline; Daniela Fernandez; Gary Petersen; [email protected]; Sean Grayson
Subject: YIMBY LAW: Additional Letter forAugust 10th Agenda Packet Date: Thursday, August 4, 2022 7:00:43 AM
Attachments: 220802 YL Letter to SHRC re AWC.pdf
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.
This letter was forwarded to me by YIMBY LAW. It is addressed to The California State Historical Resources Commission. The letter reminds the Commission to abide by all state housing laws, including fair housing under Government Code 8899.50 The letter is important for the Nevada City city council to consider in the fact that historic districts "tend to shed residents who are renters, non-college-educated, and lower-income."
"The data suggest that the national historic district has natural segregative effects." "Low-density residential zoning is a key cause of both racial and economic segregation."
We do not want Nevada City to be known for its unfair housing practices. The General Plan states, "In addressing the question of housing, the City will seek to preserve its residential neighborhoods and to maintain the diversity of people and economic strata within each neighborhood."
Pauli
--
Pauline Halstead
423 South Pine St.
Nevada City, Ca 95959
home: 530-265-6704
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org
The California State Historical Resources Commission
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected] August 2, 2022
Re: Nomination of the United States Maritime Service Officers School (Agenda Item VIII.B.2); Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Dear Commissioners:
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. As you know, the Historical Resources Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when administering its functions. This includes the duty to affirmatively further fair housing under Government Code § 8899.50. We write to remind the Commission that the proposed historic designation of the U.S. Maritime Service Officers’ School will block the development of 100 supportive-housing units, and therefore “relat[es] to housing” within the meaning of § 8899.50.
We reminded the Commission of its duty to affirmatively further fair housing in April.
During the April 29 Commission meeting, the Commission’s attorney was asked whether the Commission was “in conflict” with § 8899.50. The Commission’s attorney first misstated the law, claiming
this Commission or the I should say, the national register, is not a housing and community development program so … the national register doesn’t apply to this section.
1 1 Attorney Tara E. Lynch, speaking at Commission meeting (Apr. 29, 2022), at 4:13:46 in video recording, https://cal-span.org/unipage/?site=cal-span&owner=CSHRC&date=2022-04-29&mode=large This is untrue. The law is not limited to “housing and community development programs,” § 8899.50 applies more widely to all “programs and activities relating to housing and community development.” The attorney later corrected this 2 misstatement, but the error does not create confidence that the Commission takes seriously, or even understands, its duty under the law. The Commission’s attorney then erroneously claimed:
the national register program is not a program that relates to housing and community development.
3 This claim is also untrue, as the facts of the application for the United States Maritime Service Officers’ School (USMSOS) reveal. But this claim is also untrue regarding the Commission’s activities and the National Register more generally. The Commission’s activities and the National Register relate to housing in a significant, measurable, and consistent way.
This Application “Relat[es] to Housing”
The USMSOS application implicates the site of a planned Wellness Campus intended to provide 100 housing units for formerly unhoused seniors, as well as a planned medical respite building.
In addition to conducting numerous public hearings, the operator of the planned facility, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), conducted a feasibility study on initial proposals to rehabilitate the existing structure. These processes made clear that if 4 4
Ikeme, Ekene. “McKay Avenue Facility Design Amendment Approved by Planning Board” Alameda Sun, April 7, 2022,
https://alamedasun.com/news/mckay-avenue-facility-design-amendment-approved-planning-board 3 Attorney Tara E. Lynch, (April 29, 2022), at 4:14:11 in Video recording 2 Gov. Code §8899.50(b)
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 2
the application currently before the Commission is successful, it would impose such high costs on APC that the Wellness Campus could not be built. The action the 5 Commission takes on the USMSOS application thus threatens to block 100 units of supportive housing.
Additionally, the 100 planned supportive housing units are already included in the City of Alameda’s Draft Housing Element. So the Commission’s activity could not only kill a 6 100-unit supportive-housing project, but also moot a significant part of Alameda’s draft Housing Element. The Commission cannot deny that this “relates to” housing under § 8899.50.
Historic Preservation “Relat[es] to Housing”
The Commission’s activities also relate to housing more generally. Empirical research shows that historical preservation relates to housing and community development.
This research primarily focuses on residential areas which are given Historic District status. There are enough of these districts to constitute a statistically useful sample size.
The research shows there are disparities in which neighborhoods are designated historic. Prior to designation, such neighborhoods tend to be both wealthier and more racially segregated than the cities in which the districts are located. 7 7 McCabe, Brian J., and Ingrid Gould Ellen. "Does preservation accelerate neighborhood change? Examining the impact of historic preservation in New York City." Journal of the American Planning Association 82.2 (2016): 134-146; Noonan, Douglas S., and Douglas J. Krupka. "Making—or picking—winners: Evidence of internal and external price effects in historic preservation policies." Real Estate Economics 39.2 (2011):
379-407; Pavlik, Jamie, and Yang Zhou. "Are Historic Districts a Backdoor for Segregation? Yes and No." (November 18, 2020) (2020).
6 City of Alameda 2023-2031 Housing Element: HCD Review Draft (May, 2022), E-4, E-7, B-1. 5 Jensen, Karin. “McKay Avenue Facility Debated at Housing Element Workshop” Alameda Post, June 17, 2022, https://alamedapost.com/news/mckay-avenue-facility-debated-at-housing-element-workshop/ Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 3
These disparities only deepen after a historic designation. Historic districts tend to shed residents who are renters, non-college-educated, and lower-income; this effect is even more pronounced in lower-density neighborhoods. The data in one study 8 “could suggest that the national historic district has naturally segregating effects.” 9 The measurable effects of historic designation are heightened within California, as historic status exempts properties from several State housing laws. Government code § 65852.21 allows duplexes in single-family residential zones, except in historic districts. Government Code § 66411.7 permits lot splits, generally for lots of 2,400 10 square feet or larger, but again, except in historic districts. Historic districts (and 11 properties) also receive exemptions from the SB 35 streamlining process. 12 These exemptions for historic districts and properties under California law reduce potential housing density by 50% or more. And these exemptions in many cases 13 affect sizeable neighborhoods. The Floral Park Historic District includes 575 contributing buildings, and the Carthay Neighborhoods includes over 1,000. Both are suburban areas composed overwhelmingly of single-family homes, and both were recommended by the Commission for designation on the National Register. 13 Schneider, Benjamin. “St Francis Wood earns historic designation, sparks backlash” San Francisco Examiner, 14 Jul 2022,
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/st-francis-wood-earns-historic-designation-sparks-backlash/ar ticle_bff67cf0-02e0-11ed-87c7-e3d2da717575.html
12 See Gov. Code §§ 65913.4(a)(7)(C), 65913.4(d)(1)(B). 11 See Gov. Code §664411.7(a)(3)(E).
10 See Gov. Code §65852.21(a)(6).
9 Pavlik & Zhou (2020).
8 McCabe and Ellen (2016), 135-141; Werwath, Peter. "Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr's “The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development”." (1998):
487-495; Grevstad-Nordbrock, Ted, and Igor Vojnovic. "Heritage-fueled gentrification: A cautionary tale from Chicago." Journal of Cultural Heritage 38 (2019): 261-270.
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 4
The density effect of SB 9 exemption is of particular significance. Low-density residential zoning is a key cause of both racial and economic segregation. Two 14 seminal papers on the subject by Rothwell and Massey (2009 and 2010) analyze an expansive dataset to show a causal, consistent, and strong relationship between anti-density zoning and segregation. While low density causes segregation, upzoning 15 to higher density has a “strong influence” on the pace of racial desegregation. 16 What this research reveals is that every time a residential district is designated on the National Register and thus blocked from upzoning, segregation is measurably preserved or intensified. State law requires the Commission to “tak[e] meaningful 17 actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.” But the Commission persists in doing 18 the opposite, undertaking to preserve patterns of segregation and foster exclusionary communities.
Historic Preservation Is Explicitly Used to Block Housing As just shown, the Commission cannot deny that historic designation of a building, which is planned for redevelopment as supportive housing, “relate[s] to housing.” 18 Gov. Code §8899.50(a)(1).
17 Rothwell and Massey, (2010); Rothwell and Massey, (2009). 16 Rothwell and Massey, (2010), p. 793.
15 Rothwell and Massey, (2010); Rothwell and Massey, (2009). 14 Pendall, Rolf. "Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion." Journal of the American Planning Association 66.2 (2000): 125-142; Rothstein, Richard. The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing, 2017; Rothwell, Jonathan, and Douglas S. Massey. "The effect of density zoning on racial segregation in US urban areas." Urban Affairs Review 44.6 (2009):
779-806; Rothwell, Jonathan T., and Douglas S. Massey. "Density zoning and class segregation in US metropolitan areas." Social science quarterly 91.5 (2010): 1123-1143; Shertzer, Allison, Tate Twinam, and Randall P. Walsh. "Zoning and segregation in urban economic history." Regional Science and Urban Economics 94 (2022): 103652; Trounstine, Jessica. Segregation by design: Local politics and inequality in American cities. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 5
Applicants who seek the Commission’s designation of residential neighborhoods often show a keen understanding of this relationship.
Consider the recent example of the Carthay Neighborhoods Historic District in metro Los Angeles. Walter Dominguez, a member of the Carthay National Register Committee (which organized the application), openly admits the application arose from discussion of “ways to better protect their community from future development.” Organizers of the application “specifically cited potential state laws 19 that seek to override local zoning ordinances so more multi-family housing can be added.” Committee member Ann Rubin stated that the value of National Register 20 designation is that “it hedges against up-zoning legislation.” 21 Here, too, the applicants intend to leverage the Commission as a weapon to block housing. Before applying to the Commission, the Wellness Center’s opponents have unsuccessfully (1) appealed to the City Council and Planning Board, (2) filed a CEQA lawsuit, and (3) promoted a ballot measure to block the development. In March 2019, the current applicant publicly endorsed Alameda’s “Ballot Measure B,” which sought to rezone the site as open space, demolish the existing building, and develop a park. 22 Her social media post endorsing the measure is copied on the next page. [space intentionally blank]
22 See Fig. 1, Carmen Reid, Facebook post from March 29, 2019; East Bay Times Editorial, “Editorial: Back Alameda wellness center; reject park subterfuge” The Mercury News, March 27, 2019, https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/27/editorial-back-alameda-wellness-center-reject-empty-park-div ersion/
21 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
19 Folven, Edwin. “Carthay Receives National Designation” Beverly Press Park LaBrea News, January 26, 2022, https://beverlypress.com/2022/01/carthay-receives-national-designation/ Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 6
Fig. 1
23 Later in 2019, the applicant advocated for the rezoning and demolition of the USMSOS buildings to create a park which would prevent the Wellness Center from being built. 23 Carmen Reid, Facebook post from March 29, 2019
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 7
Now, in 2022, the applicant has changed her tune, asking the Commission to preserve, as “historic,” these buildings that she recently wanted demolished.
The only consistent thread in these otherwise inconsistent actions is that both tactics would, if successful, prevent the Wellness Center from being built. It thus appears that the applicant’s real objective is to stop the construction of 100 units of supportive housing.
The Moving Target of Discriminatory Housing Policies
Pretextual housing policies have a long and sordid history in America. While explicitly racial zoning ordinances were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buchanan v.
Worley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), such ordinances were replaced by facially race-neutral zoning policies that were implemented in “both a racially and ethnically discriminatory fashion.” Ever since, discriminatory housing policies have presented a “moving 24 target” for reformers. For decades, discriminatory tactics have been couched in 25 facially neutral objectives, while continuing to have a disparate racial and economic impact.
This was the dynamic that motivated the Legislature to enact § 8899.50. This law applies to nearly all state bodies, and the Commission is no exception. The Commission must take meaningful steps to identify the fair housing issues present in the applications it considers, and assess how the Commission’s own activities affect those issues.
25 Massey, Douglas S. "Racial discrimination in housing: A moving target." Social Problems 52.2 (2005):
148-151.
24 Shertzer, Allison, Tate Twinam, and Randall P. Walsh. "Zoning and segregation in urban economic history." Regional Science and Urban Economics 94 (2022): 103652.
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 8
Historic Designation of Single-Family Districts Appears to Be Increasing Finally, we note that the Commission appears to have increased the rate at which it designates predominantly single-family districts as historic in recent years. Consider the following:
2019–22 Application Year Contributing Buildings
Carthay Neighborhoods 2022 1,003
St. Francis Wood 2022 501
Pasadena Avenue 2021 141
Floral Park 2021 576
Inspiration Heights 2021 78
Wilshire Vista West 2020 113
Fairglen Additions* 2019 218
2009–18
View Park* 2016 1,800
Boulevard Heights* 2012 81
Markham Place* 2012 71
New Fair Oaks* 2011 11
Raymond Summit* 2011 22
Boulevard Park* 2011 300
* Archived applications downloaded from Commission website Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 9
The trend is clear: historic preservation of single-family districts appears to be increasing, exacerbating California’s housing shortage. The Commission must consider the effect of historic preservation on fair housing in evaluating applications.
Conclusion
As we have just seen, the Commission’s decision on the USMSOS application will determine whether 100 units of supportive housing get built. Previously, the Commission’s historic designations have effectively blocked thousands of residential lots from developing more housing, amidst a severe housing shortage.
In conclusion, the Commission has a legal duty under § 8899.50 to weigh the impact of these decisions because they “relat[e] to housing.” In the instant case, the impact on housing should lead the Commission to DENY the application.
Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Sue the Suburbs.
yimbylaw.org 10
From: Donna Taggart
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 1:22:00 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.
To the Nevada City Council.
Hello. We are writing to ask the Council to put the Historic Neighborhoods Initiative on the November 8th ballot.
We feel it is important to let our voters decide quickly to stop over building on lots within the Nevada City historical district.
We don’t want overcrowding in our little town and stress on our infrastructure. Seems that State SB 9 would be a boon to developers but not to the people who currently live here.
Please allow the voters to express their concern and wishes on the ballot.
Thank you for your consideration.
Donna Taggart and Peter Selaya
638 Zion St.
Nevada City, CA.
Sent from my iPad
From: Nancy Weber
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Council meeting item Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 4:58:40 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 Flemming, Councilpersons: Fernandez, Cline, Peterson, Ceci Sean Grayson, City Manager
I am an eight year resident of Nevada City at 750 Lindley Ave. I signed the petition to place the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative on the November 2022 ballot.
Our neighborhoods are the basic unit in our democratic form of government. Only the grass is more grassroots. You are our representations at the City Council, a higher authority.
Please take the next step in the process that will give Nevada City Residents the opportunity to cast a vote in the November 2022 ballot on this issue.
Please vote to place the Initiative on the November 2022 ballot.
It would be helpful if you placed on the City website, the facts related to this Initiative. Two questions keep recurring:
1. How would the Historic Neighborhoods designation effect choices I might make in a residential remodel? Please describe the process that I would pursue.
2. Please compare the the design specifications with the Nevada City (downtown) and Victorian homes Historic District with this Historic Designation.
Please use your positions to educate as well as to govern.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, sincerely, Nancy Weber From: Lorraine Reich
To: Public Comment
Cc: Gabrielle Christakes
Subject: August 10 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item - Proposed HND legislation Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 1:52:16 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.
Letter/Public Comment to City Council.
Re: August 10 city Council meeting, agenda item, concerning the proposed HND initiative Dear City Counsel:
I am a 30 year resident of Nevada city, and. I live at 153 Park Ave. Extension. I love my town and I love my community, but I am not happy with the process that is currently being followed with respect to the proposed legislation “HND” I regret I could not attend the meeting in person due to prior commitments.
The proposed initiative is a 20 page piece of legislation drafted by lawyers. I was unaware of this proposed legislation until my friend made me aware of it and then made me aware of the August 10 City Council meeting which will decide whether to enact the legislation or to put it on the ballot.
Pursuant to a public records request I have reviewed the billings of Jones Mayer, the attorneys for the City. I see from a review of the billings that the attorneys were paid :$1,365 In April, and $2,100 in May for work specifically related to “research and analysis” of the proposed initiative, the CA Elections Code, and current challenges to State Senate SB-9. Jones Mayer’s June, July or August billings related to this issue have not been made available. Hence, it is a fact that we have paid our attorneys over $3,500 of May 2022 to educate the City Council on the propriety, legality, and appropriate legal process it must follow to advance the proposed initiative. As a taxpayer and concerned citizen of our fair town, I hope they have counseleded the City Council correctly. This initiative is significant in that it will amend our General Plan as it will also amend our Municipal Code.
My objections are as follows:
1. As a property owner in Nevada City for 30 years I am appalled that I have not been given personal notice that my property is subject to a proposed initiative that will profoundly impact my property rights to renovate, remodel, upgrade, or build secondary units on my property. I am appalled that Nevada City has failed to provide specific notice to the property owners, not even in the City’s July/August 2022 newsletter!
2. I am concerned with the City’s process in advancing this initiative. It is my reading of State law, Government Code Section 65353, that when a city seeks to amend its general plan but the city ordinances do not provide a methodology for amending the law, and the General Plan itself has no provision for amendments, that State law controls. Government Code Section 65353. In this instance Government Code Sections 65090, and 65091 require that the notice of the public hearing to amend the general plan must be “mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property“ that is impacted by the proposed law. No such notice has been sent and I will presume there are many Nevada City residents who remain unaware of this proposed legislation.
3. I also object to the pace at which this proposed legislation is being processed. What is the rush? It is important the City does this right to avoid potential litigation with the State Attorney General's office who is processing "cease and desist" letters to many municipalities seeking to circumvent SB9 across the State.
I assume Jones Mayer has sufficiently educated itself and you our City Council on the law. It appears the City’s attorneys are relying on the “common practice of other jurisdictions“ which allow City Councils to take many liberties in their office, including amending general plans by simple executive process at city council meetings without public input. As a lawyer, I will say that is a perilous position to take. When push comes to shove and you are standing before a court of law, the Judge is mandated to follow the law – that is the written, statutory law, not common practices. So I will hope that Jones Mayer has good liability insurance with respect to potential lawsuits against the City that could arise as a result of poor advice on improper notice and due process in this instance. Remember you have been charged over $3,500 for good sound legal advice.
For these and other reasons I asked the City Council to reject this proposed initiative as improperly processed, and without sufficient notice to the impacted property owners.
Additionally, I ask that the City Council to develop a meaningful and informative public educational series in order to educate the impacted property owners on the details of the proposed Historic Neighborhood District initiative that will appear on the ballot at our next general election, as well as on California SB9. By no means should you adopt this proposed initiative at the City Council meeting!
Thank you for your consideration.
Lorraine Reich
SB#101246
Attorney at Law
(530) 274-1077
From: Stephen Greenberg
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comment re NCCC meeting 8/10/2022, agenda item 9 Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 12:22:38 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.
Date: August 8, 2022
To: Mayor Fleming, Vice-Mayor Fernandez, Councilmembers Petersen, Kline, and Ceci From: Stephen & Marianne Greenberg, 14 Turpentine Drive, Nevada City Re: Agenda item 9, “Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition”
Dear NC City Council -
Thanks for accepting our comment on this important agenda item. As 30-year city residents, we definitely have an interest in the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative (HNDI). More than that, we have several serious concerns about it; so we urge you to choose Recommended Action 4: Direct staff to prepare a report on the impact of the proposed ordinance. That’s the bottom line, but we’ll explain our specific concerns:
1. Apparent suddenness; limited information; absence of debate. It would be difficult to overstate the proposed ordinance’s significance — among other things, it amends NC's General Plan and ‘historicalizes’ what looks to be a majority of the city's housing — so it seems odd that until a month or so ago, we never heard a word about it. Of course, it’s impressive that in June proponents gathered 368 signatures. On the other hand, no one ever came to our door with the petition or otherwise contacted us about it. So for all we know, we’re actually in a large majority of city residents who had no idea this effort was even taking place. For that matter, even for many of the folks who signed it, their introduction to and knowledge of the issue may have come only from the petition’s proponents.
What’s needed, it seems to us, is a robust and thoughtful public debate — one that has yet to take place. True, that will likely happen before it turns up on the ballot. But it's all the more reason why, of the four options presented to you, the most sensible choice would be to direct a staff-prepared report on the proposal’s impact. There will be plenty for interested residents to learn; and that certainly should include whatever information a staff report would produce.
2. No clear need; addresses only a hypothetical problem. Just as we were unaware of the initiative proposal until we happened to read about it in The Union recently, we were equally unaware of the supposed problem the initiative attempts to address: essentially, as we understand it (e.g., from The Union’s story on July 6), the idea is to create new historical districts that would circumvent California’s Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). But SB 9 became effective at the beginning of this year; seven months later, where are the signs that it threatens NC’s character?
It’s a fair question, because too often, people calling for a new ordinance warn us of the terrible things that will happen if we don’t enact it. We’re thinking of three examples from the past 25 years — attempts to create new criminal laws to regulate behavior, specifically loitering and “aggressive panhandling.” All three times, we heard predictions that public misbehavior would scare away tourists and severely hurt the local economy. All three times, the ordinances ended up not being enacted (1998, 2011, 2019). And downtown continues to thrive, as far as we can tell (notwithstanding the pandemic).
If the HNDI does end up on the ballot — in June 2024 — SB 9 will then have been in effect for two and a half years. Surely that’s a reasonable amount of time to take stock of the law’s impact on our town’s character.
3. Impact on property owners. Imposing (or re-imposing) an architectural review requirement threatens to make property owners’ lives more burdensome and expensive than they’d otherwise be. Again, without a clear demonstrated need to take that step, why do so?
4. Questionable legality. A directed staff study should include this area in its hopefully thorough investigation and report. And it’s not an idle concern; if nothing else, it’s been expressed in The Union and directly to the Council. We haven't done the research ourselves, so we have no specifics to offer. But a recent analogy is worth considering. In December 2018, armed only with a city attorney memo green-lighting it, the Council voted unanimously to adopt a panhandling ordinance at first reading. But after residents did their own legal homework — noting that, e.g., the NC ordinance was virtually identical to one already found unconstitutional in federal court — the city attorney changed his position; and in February 2019 the Council ended up rejecting the ordinance by the same 5-0 vote.
5. Violates spirit, if not letter, of SB 9 — and beyond that, violates our sense of empathy for others, now and in the future. SB 9 is one legislative effort to address what Governor Newsom has called California’s “housing affordability crisis.” Is there really such a crisis? Who could seriously question that? Will SB 9 help, at least to some extent? Well, why not put it to the test? Can’t we view Nevada City as a special place, without insisting we’re so special that a statewide affordability effort doesn’t apply to us? Isn’t that the essence of NIMBYism? Much more broadly, with climate change threatening all of humanity, where’s our own humanity; does it stop at the arbitrary borderline of a Historic Neighborhood District? Literally and figuratively, we're all in this together. If SB 9 means, realistically, a fairly limited number of somewhat smaller and therefore more affordable new homes gradually turning up in our non-downtown neighborhoods over the years… isn’t that a pretty good thing? We think so; that’s why, as of now, we’d vote against the HNDI. But it’s not our vote — yet.
So for now, we hope you’ll take the most sensible and careful course, by directing a staff report and ultimately placing the initiative on the June 2024 ballot.
Thanks again.
- Stephen & Marianne Greenberg
From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Historical initiative
Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 5:24:30 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.
We are in favor of the contents.
Christine and Richard Strohm.
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
From: Alan Barlow
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 9, Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative, Aug 10, 2022 Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 10:13:49 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.
Alan Barlow
546 Main Street, Nevada City
Public Comment on Agenda Item 9, “Receive, File, and Accept the Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition for the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative and Take Action on the Petition”
August 10, 2022, City Council Meeting,
Dear City Council members and Involved Citizens
Our beautiful little town carries the ambiance of a simpler time, with charming Victorian streets and architecture, and with unique and lovely shops and restaurants. I love them all.
Nevada City is also energized with something missing in most cities today, that of a strong and vibrant sense of community. People here, as a practice, are involved, active, outspoken and caring. It is this engaged spirit of Community, and a coming together over our differences, that invigorates my very soul every day.
For a moment I ask you to step away from the details of the topic, and take in a big-picture view of where we are consciously as a stewarding species on this planet. As an old hippy at heart, I come from and express a sense that each of us longs to be in a place of love and compassion for all living beings. From a guidance and leadership standpoint of a City official, that means that you are called on to take care of our own, and specifically to ensure respectable and safe housing for all age groups, genders, ethnicities and incomes.
We, and most other cities and towns in the State, have not done this adequately. State Housing Bill SB 9 is a result of our inaction to take care of our own. The challenging question that the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative brings to light is, is architecture more important than people?
As a participant in the Nevada City Strategic Planning Community Workshops we are reviewing the Mission and Vision statements for the City. Reference to historical architecture and preservation are included, but there is no mention of affordable housing, diversity, environment, equity, fire safety, or the recognition of the Nisenan people. These updated values will be offered as inclusion in the forthcoming Strategic Plan.
Our society is at a point of change and transition, not only here in Nevada City, but as a culture. The well-intentioned objective of the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative is understood and appreciated. But with all due respect it is a step backwards. The basic intent of the Initiative is to counter the perceived heavy-handedness of State Senate Bill 9. As a property owner, and as a proponent for more affordable housing in our City, I find the Initiative to be restrictive.
In my opinion, the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative is too widely impactful to be conscionably voted into law by the City Council in the meeting of August 10, 2022. Also, in my opinion, the Initiative is subject to potential legal-challenges, is too restrictive in developing our long-term Strategic Plan, and is too complex to be brought to the electorate for vote without a pre-conducted thorough research of the ramifications. I therefore request that the fourth recommended option to the City Council on this Item be adopted on August 10th, that being to direct staff to prepare a report on the impact of the proposed ordinance.
Thank you.
From: Carole Pyles
To: Public Comment
Subject: NC Historic Initiative
Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:15:56 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.
Kindly ensure this is placed on the ballot now'
v/r,
Carole Pyles
18403 Rogers Rest
San Antonio, TX 78258
Born in NC and am a member of its historical society
From: Eileen Jorgensen
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhood District Initiative Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:37:14 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 Members,
I have tried to follow along as best I can: the lack of pertinent information on this issue does not allow me to make a definite assessment.
PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT so we can learn the facts and talk intelligently.
Thank you.
Eileen Jorgensen - business owner,The Magic Carpet. Board member of the Greater Cement Hill Neighborhood ASsoc.
16547 Indian Flat Rd, NC
265-6415
From: Dayle Smidt
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Thursday, August 4, 2022 10:09:04 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 support a historic district in Nevada City. Architectural values are important, for cultural and economic reasons..
Signed,
Dayle Smidt, Nevada County Historical Society
10524 Mercury Drive
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Susan Bartel
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Council meeting item Date: Friday, August 5, 2022 5:19:31 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.
Please place the initiative on the November 2022 ballot.
I was born and raised in Grass Valley, and our family has been in the immediate area since the mid1800's. I feel it is of utmost importance to continue protecting our rich heritage.
Susan Jones Bartel
80697 Camino San Gregorio
Indio, CA 92203
From: George Landsburg
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:58:13 AM
Attachments: image.png
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.
From: George Landsburg (petition signatory) August 8, 2022 511 Dean Alley
Nevada City
To: the Nevada City Council:
Please approve and support the Historic Neighborhood Districts Initiative backed by the Nevada County Historical Society and endorsed by many Nevada City residents, of which I am one. Nevada City is not, nor should it become, yet more California suburbia, which SB9 is intended to proliferate. You must maintain the historical R1 zoning provisions here to preserve and protect its character, quality of life, tourist attractiveness, and property values by exempting us from SB9.
The Historical Neighborhood District of Nevada City should be protected from untoward development such as has already occurred or is underway in and around our town. Such dense housing incurs yet-to-be quantified strains on infrastructure and resources, and permanently urbanizes the landscape. The aesthetic beauty of Nevada City must be preserved to maintain its high ranking of desirable locations in the U.S. Let’s keep it a place people want to visit vs. one of the places they’re escaping from. A healthy differentiation from the mainstream is good for our residents, businesses, and environment.
This initiative must be on the November 2022 ballot.
Sincerely,
George F. Landsburg
From: Patricia Hamilton
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historical Neighborhood Districts Initiative Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 7:14:30 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:
I urge you to vote in favor of sending The Nevada City Neiborhood Historical Districts Initiative to the voters for approval on the November, 2022 ballot.
Patricia C.Hamilton
215 Prospect Syreet
Sent from my iPad
From: Barbara Larsen
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historical Neighborhoods District Initiative Council Meeting Item Date: Saturday, August 6, 2022 10:17:02 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 Council Members,
We are encouraging you to place the initiative on the November, 2022. The initiative is too complicated regarding oversight and concerns about the preservation of our historical district. My husband and I have lived in Nevada County for over 44 years and are very connected to our community through our work, volunteerism, and our extended family and friends.
Thank you,
Barbara & Bill Larsen
502 Redbud Way
Nevada City, CA
(live within the city limits
at Nevada City Cohousing)
From: Linda Hartman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Neighborhood District Initiative
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 1:29:51 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.
Honorable Councilmen and Councilwomen -
I am writing to express my support for the Neighborhoods District Initiative which provides an exception to SB9.
The recently passed SB9 eradicates R1 (single housing) zoning by doubling the density thereon and then by allowing the lots to be split which allows even more buildings. Without the Neighborhoods District Initiative our beautiful historic city will become needlessly unrecognizable. Additionally, the impact SB9 has on our water usage, fire risks, roads and city services without oversight is a tremendous problem. We need to combat SB9 by returning planning control to the city. Thank you for putting this initiative on the November ballot.
Linda M Hartman
Retired Deputy County Counsel
511 Dean Alley
Nevada City, CA
I signed the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods Petition Sent from my iPad
From: Allen Poirson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Put Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative on 8 Nov ballot Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 12:13:38 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.
Dear Council MembersI want to have the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative placed on 8 Nov ballot.
I signed the petition asking to get this initiative on the ballot -- and 350+ other people did too! We need to retain local control and protect our historic neighborhoods.
I am a:
resident of incorporated Nevada City
homeowner of home in incorporated Nevada City
property tax payer
Nevada City voter
Allen Poirson
316 Nevada Street
Nevada City, CA
From: Davis White
To: Public Comment
Cc: Rafa Sonnenfeld; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sean Grayson Subject: Nevada City"s Abuse of Historical Designation
Date: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:51:58 PM
Attachments: SB-9 Ordinance Complaint.pdf
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 whom it may concern,
A local ballot initiative is coming before the City Council of Nevada City August 10th which would overrule Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) for large portions of its residents and may be passed by the City Council without sufficient public input or study. The Historical Neighborhoods District initiative (HND) would require Architectural Review for a significant number of singlefamily homes surrounding the existing Historical Downtown commercial district.
The initiative is directly aimed at circumventing SB 9 through its historical exemption clause (Gov. code §65852.21(a)(6)).
This comes on the heels of Palo Alto’s rushed historical-designating and the newly-designated St. Francis Woods exclusionary neighborhood in San Francisco (see linked local articles). Only half of the homes in the proposed HND are over fifty years old, meaning a significant chunk were built after the Nixon administration. If these homes are historical, there should be a reasonable argument for every individual property. Otherwise, a “historical” designation would be meaningless.
And if these properties are supposedly historical, why were they not deemed historical before SB 9’s passage? The City Council should not wholesale adopt this initiative without proper review by staff. This would place an undue constraint on its residents and would represent a severe barrier to development. A complete staff report with impact analysis looking at loss of property tax revenue is in order. The city should also consider the effect of the HND on the city’s ability to meet the RHNA allocation of 135 units. SB 9 projects are a fantastic way to sprinkle units across the whole of the city as opposed to obstructive large projects being overly concentrated in one neighborhood.
If the City wants to maintain its “Mother Lode” aesthetic alongside the innumerable other architectural aesthetics listed in the initiative, it is free to do so. SB 9 allows the implementation of objective design rules that may cover various aspects of a project. Many cities have instituted robust design rules to preserve their unique and special aesthetic (see attached Rollings Hills, Villa Park, and Woodland SB 9 ordinances).
By requiring Architectural Review for any exterior changes or additions, the city risks making repairs and maintenance too expensive for residents, leading to more derelict homes. As the initiative mentions, 10% of homes in the district are not in sound condition. Already, some homes which were too expensive to repair and that the city refused to be demolished or remodeled affordably have burned down (see attached Union article).
As previously stated though, the initiative admits to the many generations of architectural style present in the city, undercutting its argument that new styles would clash. The city already is a clash of styles which creates a diverse quilt. SB 9 is not a threat to that quilt. Instead, it guarantees the rights of individual residents to grow that diversity. Residents, following city design rules, should be able to add small units to their lots or divide those lots.
This has innumerable benefits for the city. It will help to prevent sprawl by keeping home growth in already-developed areas.
It better facilitates aging-in-place by generating rental income for older residents who wish to stay in their homes. It will create needed Missing Middle housing. New homes can be added close to jobs, reducing car commutes while building community.
All told, allowing residents to utilize SB 9 will grow this Mother Lode town, staving off a Ghost Town. Young residents will be forced to leave their hometown if new homes are not constructed and the cost of living is allowed to skyrocket. If the city wants to follow the “most important single purpose” of its General Plan, "to preserve the existing character of Nevada City,” it should allow that character to grow.
Historical Neighborhoods District Initiative (text with maps):
https://www.nevadacityca.gov/files/documents/NevadaCityHistoricNeighborhoodsDistrictInitiative1338040331070722PM.pdf The Union article on HND: https://www.theunion.com/news/historic-district-dilemma-supporters-detractors-of-nevada-citymeasure-make-their-case/ The Union article on recent fires: https://www.theunion.com/news/burned-broad-street-house-set-for-demolition/ Rolling Hills SB 9 Code: https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.45SB9TITPR
Villa Park SB 9 Ordinance: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n7y51ilzh3qoyt6/3.pdf?dl=0 Woodland SB 9 Ordinance: https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/WOODLANDCA/5af97f71-2096-4e63-b45e20d9c86faef1.pdf?sv=2015-12- 11&sr=b&sig=Wc%2FincY9ci2%2B8KA1t646Zjb%2BjY%2BaFNB%2BB1ghxF8Q0Kg%3D&st=2022-07- 08T21%3A11%3A27Z&se=2023-07-08T21%3A16%3A27Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf Palo Alto Online covering the expansion of the Historic Registry: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/03/22/citingsb9-concerns-palo-alto-moves-to-expand-historic-registry San Francisco Examiner on St. Francis Woods’ Historical Designation: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/stfrancis-wood-earns-historic-designation-sparks-backlash/article_bff67cf0-02e0-11ed-87c7-e3d2da717575.html Attached is a letter containing broader considerations for SB-9 and its implementation across California.
Sincerely,
Davis White
--
Davis White he/him
yimbylaw.org
415 298 0788
YIMBY Law
57 Post St, Suite 908
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
2/15/2022
Dear Local Municipality,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws. YIMBY Law has become aware of your municipality’s ordinance or other policy which places restrictions on the 2021 by-right duplex and lot split legislation, SB-9; we have reason to believe you are in violation of state law. Should you fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to pursue any and all available means to ensure the law is followed.
Senate Bill 9 and a number of other state housing laws allow a limited amount of local discretion to regulate housing developments. While cities are permitted to apply various objective standards to SB-9 developments, those standards must not contravene other housing laws. Your jurisdiction may be in violation of one or several other state housing laws because of the nature of your urgency and/or regular ordinance or use of other local police power. These laws include, but are not limited to SB-9 itself, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB-330), state ADU law, or state laws which cover urgency ordinances used to restrict multifamily housing developments. Violations of SB-330, ADU law, and Housing Element law have also been designated by the legislature to fall under the authority of HCD, which may refer cases to the Attorney General’s office for resolution.
Additionally, your regulations may be considered to be constraints to housing, or barriers to development of SB-9 units by the Department of Housing and Community Development, which will burden your efforts to achieve a certified, legally compliant Housing Element, should you wish to include potential SB-9 unit capacity in your 6th RHNA Cycle Housing Element. Having a legally non-compliant or uncertified Housing Element during the 6th RHNA cycle will also expose your jurisdiction to various limits on your local authority to restrict housing developments, including loss of authority to deny zoning non-compliant housing projects, or even the possibility of loss of land use authority altogether.
Violations of SB-9
The California legislature intended SB-9 to be a significant change to the approval process for specified lot splits, single family home, and two-unit developments. While the legislature has allowed cities to create local implementation ordinances, this was not an open invitation for cities to subvert the law. SB-9 is clear that when parcels or developments meet certain specified standards, they shall be approved ministerially. Cities may not invent new standards that are more restrictive than the state allows if those standards have the effect of preventing a development application that otherwise meets the statewide standards from being approved.
Under SB-9, local agencies must provide a ministerial approval process for any proposed 1 housing development consisting of one or two residential units within a single-family residential zone, and for any proposed subdivision of an existing parcel within a single-family residential zone into no more than two parcels. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a), 66411.7, subd. (a).) Both of these provisions apply to parcels satisfying certain requirements identified in section 65913.4 of the Government Code. Examples of local implementation ordinances or policies which may violate the provisions of SB-9 include regulations that would physically preclude a lot split or two-unit development applications that meets all of the state’s requirements, as well as regulations which would expand on the scope of the policies which state law provides exclusions for, such as those found in section 65913.4.
Violations of SB-330
Government Code Section 66300(b)(1), commonly known as the no-net-loss provision of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or SB-330, makes it clear that affected jurisdictions cannot reduce the intensity of land use without a commensurate upzoning:
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (i). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.
This no-net loss provision of SB 330 limits the potential SB 9 project development standards the jurisdiction may adopt as follows:
• The jurisdiction cannot adopt standards such as greater setbacks, a lower height limit, lower Floor Area Ratio, or greater open space requirements for units built under SB 9 than apply to single-family residences constructed within the same zoning district. • The jurisdiction can continue to impose existing objective development standards (setbacks, height, parking space size requirements, etc.) as long as those standards don’t conflict with the mandatory SB 9 standards or preclude the construction of SB 9 units. • The jurisdiction can adopt new development standards as long as those standards don’t reduce the setbacks, height, floor area ratio, or other standards that would reduce the building YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 2 envelope per parcel from below what was allowed in the R-1 Zoning Districts as of January 1, 2018.
Abuse of the Urgency Ordinance Process
Cities cannot make the meritable, substantial findings necessary to justify an urgency ordinance that would be required in order to make zoning ordinance modifications which restrict construction of housing. Gov. Code section 65858 allows cities to pass interim zoning ordinances without following the procedures otherwise required for zoning ordinances, with certain limitations. See below.
Government Code Section 65858 (c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, any interim ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing may not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported by substantial evidence on the record, that all of the following conditions exist:
(1) The continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body. (2) The interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3) There is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1) as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of the proposed interim ordinance.
In California Charter Schools Association v. City of Huntington Park, et al., 35 Cal. App. 5th 362 (2019) Huntington Beach attempted to pass an urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on new charter schools which contained findings that a current and immediate threat to public health existed because, among other reasons, Huntington Park had received “numerous inquiries and requests for the establishment and operation of charter schools,” “the HPMC did not have development standards specifically for charter schools.” The court of appeal found that the facts presented did not meet the urgency standard under section 65858.
Of particular note, cities cannot meet the requirements to lawfully extend an urgency ordinance limiting SB-9 because they do not have objective written health and safety YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 3 standards that SB-9 would negatively impact that cannot be mitigated. Cities also already have the power to disapprove projects which would cause specific adverse public health or safety impacts; there is no urgency in limiting development for public health and safety which cities already have the power to limit.
ADU Law
In recent years the California state legislature has strengthened the rights of property owners to construct Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, by limiting local jurisdictions' ability to deny these housing projects. Government Code section 65852.2(e) specifies that local jurisdictions “shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit” for “One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot” if specified conditions are met.
While SB-9 specifies that cities may restrict ADUs or Junior ADU development in situations where both the lot split provision and ministerial duplex provisions of the law are being utilized, cities are still required to follow ADU state ADU law by ministerially permitting ADUs in situations where only one of the two provisions has been utilized:
GC 65852.21(f) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 or 65852.22, a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 66411.7.
Cities may not create new restrictions to ADU development that would be in conflict with the law, such as by restricting the permitting of ADUs on an unsplit lot when state law requires a city to allow both an ADU and a Junior ADU to be constructed on that unsplit lot by-right.
Barriers to Development
Many cities across California are currently updating their Housing Elements of their general plans to meet the requirements of the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, which involves a certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Local restrictive provisions which, though they may be legal to implement, can be barriers to development. Such provisions might include, but are not limited to: utility connection moratoriums, front entry requirements, parking requirements, trees and bushes requirements, affordable housing program deed-restrictions, owner-occupancy restrictions, tenancy in common or condo-creation restrictions, basement restrictions, or other cumbersome, complicated design requirements which impact feasibility of projects.
HCD describes the statutes (Government Code sections 65583(a)(5) & (6)) which require cities to address constraints in their housing development on their website [https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml]:
“The housing element must identify and analyze potential and actual governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including housing for people with disabilities. The analysis should identify the specific standards and processes of these YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 4 constraints and evaluate their impact on the supply and affordability of housing. The analysis should determine whether local, regulatory standards pose an actual constraint and must also demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its housing needs.” Should a city approve Objective Standards such as those listed above, or other land use policies which increase barriers to development, these Standards need to be accounted for in the City’s Housing Element if the City is planning to rely on any SB-9 unit production to meet its Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. Failure to do so will likely result in the City’s housing element not being certified by HCD, and the lack of local control which will follow. Such lack of local control could include loss of discretion to deny zoning non-compliant housing applications, or even loss of local land use authority entirely.
Conclusion
Housing advocates, the legislature and the governor believe in the spirit of this SB-9: to create more housing for every day Californians and easing housing costs overall. When cities undermine the law, they are putting these opportunities further out of reach.
When cities break the law, it is our mission to ensure that justice prevails. YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. We are also reporting law violations to the Attorney General’s office, who has a new team dedicated to housing law enforcement.
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 57 Post Street, Suite 908, San Francisco, CA 94104 5 From: Jessica Subotnik
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:36:44 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 Members,
I have lived in Nevada City for more than 30 years, and am extremely concerned about the effect that SB 9 could have on the character and livability of our town, undoing years of thoughtful planning that has made our lovely small town the desirable place that it is.
I strongly urge you to put the HND initiative on the November 8, 2022 ballot. Let Nevada City residents have a say in this crucial matter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Subotnik
316 Jordan Street
Nevada City, CA
From: Pamela Meek
To: Public Comment
Subject: Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:20:14 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.
Pamela Meek
526 Nevada Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Signer of the petition for the above
Dear Members of the Nevada City City Council,
I guess the time has come to fish or cut bait! Nevada City is not alone in its efforts to mitigate the disturbing impacts of SB9. It doesn't work in this town on so many levels. Yes, somehow we are not considered a severe fire hazard area, altho we are now being canceled multiple times by our insurance companies for fire insurance.
We barely missed not being an urban cluster although we are described as a rural town. Increased density will result in already clogged streets with even more parked and moving cars. Oversight by our Planning Commissioners is seen on every street as they have responsibly followed our design guidelines, now debunked by SB9! The loudest cry from our young people is AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!!, but SB9 includes no mandate for that.
We do however have zoning that will allow developments of multiunit housing.
The workto be done is in finding developers willing to build with the expectations that 30% of the units will be affordable. We have two projects on the books sitting idle...The Grove and Gracie Commons.
The residents of Nevada City with whom I spoke at length while gathering signatures on the petition were in favor with only twonot signing. From now until November 8, 2022, we will ensure that they can make an even more informed decision based on the same honesty with which we presented the facts to them before.
We are folks who prefer to get along...disension tears at the fabric of Nevada City.
Two plus months from now the people will have spoken and we can move on to the next project of protecting our town. Please vote to put the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative on the November 8, 2022 ballot.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Meek
From: DON SCOBLE
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhood Initiative
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 4:13:39 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.
My name is Don W. Scoble. Our home is at 125 Martin St, Nevada City, CA 95959. We have been residents since 1997. I wish to express my whole-hearted support for the effort to insure that the initiative is placed on the ballot in November 2022. We respectfully urge you to take the necessary actions to make sure that this takes place..
Thank you,
Don Scoble
--
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.
Aldous Huxley
The only love affair I have ever had was with music.this Maurice Ravel
Support InConcert Sierra
InConcert Sierra presents exceptional classical music and choral performances that inspire and enhance the cultural life in Nevada County -- offering a warm inclusive community and providing educational opportunities for both young people and adults.
Don Scoble
415-463-0363 mobile
530-470-1720 NC
From: Calais Poirson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Council meeting item Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 5:04:50 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 to request that you place the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District on the November 8 ballot. We want to vote in a timely manner!
Calais Poirson
316 Nevada Street
Nevada City
From: Gary Davis
To: Public Comment
Subject: Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 5:54:39 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 Nevada City Council Members:
As a long time resident of Nevada City, I am strongly urging you Council Members to:
1. At your August 10 meeting, by a vote of the Council, immediately create a new Nevada City ordinance that adopts the language of the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative.
2. Or, if not so created then as a city ordinance, please vote on August 10 to immediately place the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District (HND) initiative on the upcoming November 8, 2022 ballot so that the citizens of Nevada City can themselves then vote to put the HND provisions into place for Nevada City immediately following that election.
The placing of this matter on the upcoming November 8 ballot is imperative in order to prevent the catastrophic and draconian provisions of California Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) being implemented in the very near future (well before any potential initiative ballot vote two long years down the road) in ways that would potentially (and likely) negatively and irreversibly change the entire character of Nevada City’s historic residential neighborhoods by allowing currently existing residential parcels to each be split in two, and then to build a total of 6 homes on lots as small as 1,200 square feet, with only 4-foot side and rear setbacks. In effect, this could rapidly change our rural Nevada City into a densely populated urban catastrophe.
The provisions of SB 9 do not solve any problems of too little affordable housing.
Developers could simply purchase and split single family parcels and build up to 6 residences on each of them without any requirement that those homes be affordable. And meanwhile, resulting gigantic increases in the costs of the need for massively increased public services (e.g. water and sewer, fire protection, etc) would be born by Nevada City. Surely affordable housing can be approached and solved in far more reasonable ways than the potential nightmare of the SB 9 provisions.
Therefore, I strongly and sincerely ask that you Council members vote on August 10 to either immediately adopt the provisions of the Historic Neighborhoods District Initiative into law as a Nevada City ordinance. Or otherwise to certainly vote on August 10 to place the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District (HND) initiative on the upcoming November 8 , 2022 ballot.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Gary Davis
316 Jordan Street
“Piety Hill”
Nevada City, CA
From: gregg schiffner
To: Public Comment
Subject: neighborhood zoning
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 2:36:18 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 members of the Nevada City Council,
In the spring of this year I enthusiastically signed a petition to help maintain the current zoning in the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District. Please let the voters speak by placing the issue on the November 2022 ballot.
Thanks for your consideration.
Gregg Schiffner
640 Zion Street
Nevada City, CA
From: Seth Rosmarin
To: Public Comment
Subject: Historic neighborhood initiative
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:48:17 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. >
> Good morning city council members,
>
> I have been living within the city limits for the last five years and just recently purchased a home also within the city limits. This initiative concerns me as a new home owner and resident of Nevada County for over 21 years. I ask that an impact study be utilized to verify the need and efficacy for this initiative. I know you all must be in agreement that we need more affordable housing in Nevada County and Nevada City, and this initiative virtually illuminates that as an option. We need smart, well thought out plans for reasonably priced housing and for children that grew up here, now young adults, that would like to work and raise a family in Nevada city, to have a viable option to buy a home. Please slow down and consider an impact study. Thank you for your time >
> Seth Rosmarin
> CCOF Organic Inspector
> Grower, Processor/Handler & Retail
> 530-559-3552
>
>
>
>
>
From: Suzanne K
To: Public Comment
Subject: November Ballot initiative
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 5:28:45 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 Nevada City Council members:
Please place the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District on the November 8 ballot. I signed the petition so that we the people will have a chance to discuss this issue and vote on it.
With appreciation for all that you do for our community, Suzanne Koliche
343 Clay St.
From: Aurora Packard
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item Historic Neighborhood District Public Comment Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 3:10:03 PM
Attachments: NC HND_CoC Public Comment City Council Aug 10 2022_signed.pdf PastedGraphic-2.tiff
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.
Hi all,
Please find the attached public comment on agenda item Nevada City Historic Neighborhood District, submitted on behalf of the Nevada County Regional CoC's Housing Committee.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Aurora Packard, MSW, ASW
Associate Clinical Social Worker #100152
SAFE Program Director
Chair, Nevada County Regional Continuum of Care- Housing Committee, CA-531 Input * Achiever * Learner * Intellection * Connectedness Bright Futures for Youth
(The Friendship Club, NEO, SAFE)
200 Litton Drive, Suite 308
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 265-4311 X 208
cell/text: (530) 270-9258
www.bffyouth.org
Please note that my email has been changed to reflect our new organization name of Bright Futures for Youth.Please update your records with my new email address: [email protected].
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this E-mail is confidential and may also contain privileged client information or work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please return the message to the E-mail from which it was received and immediately delete it.
Nevada City – City Council
Mayor - Doug Fleming
Vice Mayor - Daniela Fernandez
Council Member - Gary Petersen
Council Member - Adam Kline
Council Member - Lou Ceci
City Manager - Sean Grayson
City of Nevada City
317 W Broad St
Nevada City, CA 95959
August 10, 2022
Dear Honorable Members of the Nevada City City Council, The Continuum of Care of Nevada County (CoC) is a broad-based coalition of homeless housing and shelter providers, consumers, advocates and government representatives, working together to shape planning and decision-making with the goal of ending homelessness.
As chair of the CoC Nevada County Housing Committee our mission is as follows:
“The Nevada County Regional Housing Committee aims to create achievable and equitable housing solutions for residents. This includes but is not limited to: individuals and families, students, workforce, seniors, veterans, underrepresented communities, people with disabilities and co-occurring illnesses, and chronically unhoused individuals.”
We are writing to you to express our concerns regarding the Nevada City Historic Neighborhoods District (HND) Initiative. As it is written the proposed ballot measure would negatively impact the work we are doing to provide housing for marginalized communities, therefore we ask the City Council to direct staff to prepare a 9212 report on the impact of the proposed ordinance.
In essence, the HND is an equity issue that deeply affects the marginalized communities we represent. It is a form of exclusionary zoning that has served as a conduit for inequality, and will continue to further this divide for generations. This has been explored in depth in articles such as:
❖ "Making—or picking—winners: Evidence of internal and external price effects in historic preservation policies."
❖ "Are Historic Districts a Backdoor for Segregation? Yes and No." ❖ "Does preservation accelerate neighborhood change? Examining the impact of historic preservation in New York City."
According to Nevada City’s latest Housing Element table: HE 3.40 Inventory of Existing Housing Stock Condition, there were 5 homes built from 2010 to 2018. In addition, it states, “The median house price rose by 13% between 2000 and 2010. In sharp contrast, rental prices increased by 64% over the same period.” There are fewer and fewer homes available, what is available is becoming more expensive both for homebuyers and renters, and people are losing their ability to stay in the homes they currently have. We know that this was exacerbated by the pandemic, and current economic conditions.
To help address the houseless problem we need more tools to build more housing, not create more obstacles to development. The proposed HND initiative states the need to obtain,“an architectural review permit under existing rules for erection or exterior alterations of buildings within the HND”. This is often a time consuming and costly process and is a common tactic to block development. Higher standards and longer approval times translates to higher cost to homeowners when doing home maintenance or improvements, which in turn gets passed to renters. For new housing projects it means pricey delays and extraneous costs that often inhibit the project from passing, or if it does pass it’s ability to be built.
In addition, it negates SB9 which is the State’s latest attempt to help mitigate California’s housing crisis.
Only 9.5% or less of homes actually qualify for a parcel split under SB9 (total of 40 - 70 parcels), and since the passing of SB9, not a single lot split has been applied for.
Lastly, it hamstrings SB35 passed in 2017 which created a streamlined process for the development of housing in areas that have failed to meet their housing objectives. Projects like Cashin’s Field, the first significant project to be constructed in more than a decade in Nevada City, would potentially have been delayed and never built given some of the comments from the Planning Commissioners at the time.
We urge the City Council to recommend that staff perform an impact study. This would allow the City Council to be well informed in their decision making. It would also help the citizens of Nevada City to make an informed decision at the ballot.
Sincerely,
Aurora Packard, MSW, ASW
Chair, Nevada County Continuum of Care- Housing Committee, CA-531 References
Noonan, Douglas S., and Douglas J. Krupka. "Making—or picking—winners: Evidence of internal and external price effects in historic preservation policies." Real Estate Economics 39.2 (2011): 379-407; Pavlik, Jamie, and Yang Zhou. "Are Historic Districts a Backdoor for Segregation? Yes and No." (November 18, 2020) (2020); McCabe, Brian J., and Ingrid Gould Ellen. "Does preservation accelerate neighborhood change? Examining the impact of historic preservation in New York City." Journal of the American Planning Association 82.2 (2016): 134-146.
From: Aurora Packard
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item Historic Neighborhood District Public Comment Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 3:10:03 PM
Attachments: NC HND_CoC Public Comment City Council Aug 10 2022_signed.pdf PastedGraphic-2.tiff
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.
Hi all,
Please find the attached public comment on agenda item Nevada City Historic Neighborhood District, submitted on behalf of the Nevada County Regional CoC's Housing Committee.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Aurora Packard, MSW, ASW
Associate Clinical Social Worker #100152
SAFE Program Director
Chair, Nevada County Regional Continuum of Care- Housing Committee, CA-531 Input * Achiever * Learner * Intellection * Connectedness Bright Futures for Youth
(The Friendship Club, NEO, SAFE)
200 Litton Drive, Suite 308
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 265-4311 X 208
cell/text: (530) 270-9258
www.bffyouth.org
Please note that my email has been changed to reflect our new organization name of Bright Futures for Youth.Please update your records with my new email address: [email protected].
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this E-mail is confidential and may also contain privileged client information or work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please return the message to the E-mail from which it was received and immediately delete it.