Ledger-Dispatch

By Jerry Budrick (jbudrick@ledger-dispatch.com= )=20

Jim Harnish of Mintier & Associates = and Gold=20 Rush project manager Anders Hauge, background, discuss consistency = issues=20 with the Sutter Creek Planning Commission Monday night.

Photo by: Jerry=20 Budrick
The final few consistency issues = separating=20 the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort Specific Plan from the Sutter Creek = General=20 Plan were discussed at Monday night's meeting of the city's planning = commission.=20 Issues covered had to do with parks, housing, growth, annexation, noise = and=20 historic resources.

The authors of the 1994 Sutter Creek General = Plan had=20 a lot to say about parks and recreation, so much that they made the = topic into=20 an entire element. In that element, they identified needs for different = types of=20 parks "within the 20-year planning horizon." The types they identified = are: a=20 regional park/sports complex; community park(s); neighborhood parks; a = linear=20 parkway; a perimeter greenbelt/recreational trail; and an interlinking = bicycle=20 and pedestrian trail network.

As has been the case through the = entire=20 consistency review, the applicant, the project manager, the planning=20 commissioners and members of the public have had to deal with their=20 often-conflicting definitions and interpretations of the general plan. = On Monday=20 night, the number and types of parks that will be created by the Gold = Rush=20 project became the focus.

A regional park/sports complex in the = Sutter=20 Hill area, identified in the general plan, was the first topic of=20 inquiry.

"How does a project contribute to creation of such a = complex?"=20 asked commission Chairman Robin Peters.

Assistant City Manager = Sean Rabe=20 replied, "The development agreement includes funding for a community = park,=20 though it won't be inside the project boundaries."

"The community = park=20 should be in the project," Peters countered. "The city council may see = this=20 differently." There has been conjecture that a property in "the bowl" is = the=20 park site preferred by city council members. Details are not presently=20 available.

"The project is planning to dedicate 8.8 acres and = 12.3=20 acres," Peters pointed out. "We don't like those two parcels. They are = certainly=20 large enough, but the two sites are fraught with = difficulties."

"We are=20 going above and beyond what the general plan calls for," said the = applicant's=20 representative, Jim Harnish of Mintier Associates. "We are dedicating = land and=20 paying the fee."

Project manager Andy Hauge advised the = commissioners,=20 "You should let the city council know right now that you want a = community park=20 in the project."

Staff recommended inclusion of nine neighborhood = parks,=20 scattered throughout the project, each 1/4 acre in size. Commissioner = Frank=20 Cunha objected. "One-quarter acre is way too small," he said. "It's only = the=20 size of this building - 10,000 square feet."

A curious sentence = in the=20 existing general plan raised some hackles. Implementation Measure 9.4 = includes=20 the line, "Neighborhood parks may include private parks provided they = are=20 maintained and accessible to all residents of the neighborhood being = serviced=20 for little or no fee."

"I'd like to see open parks," said = Commissioner=20 Robert Olson, "and the funding mechanism has to be clear."

"That = is the=20 city's general plan language," Harnish responded. "Our proposal is that = all of=20 the parks be turned over to the city. The development agreement provides = for the=20 financing."

Financing was a recurrent theme and the existence of = an=20 established parkland dedication/in-lieu fee surfaced often. This fee is = known as=20 a Quimby fee, for the name of the state act under which it was levied. = The=20 Quimby fee is charged on new residential development and is in addition = to the=20 recreation fee associated with the Amador County Recreation=20 Agency.

During public comment, Foothill Conservancy Attorney Tom = Infusino=20 said that there are two parts to consistency - a project must further = objectives=20 and policies and it must not obstruct attainment of the objectives and = policies.=20 "If it doesn't get done here," he asked, "when does it?"

"This = project is=20 going to affect every project that comes to the city in the future," = added=20 Cunha.

Housing came next. The applicant proposed to include 66 = attached=20 housing units; 64 secondary units; 70 homes that will be "affordable by = design";=20 two acres dedicated to the city for high-density affordable housing; and = creation of an affordable housing trust fund, into which $850 per house = and a=20 real estate transfer tax will be deposited.

Lengthy discussion = about=20 second units ensued. Olson told of a visit to the Washington D.C. area, = where=20 "they built secondary housing that has all become everything but the = affordable=20 housing it was intended to be."

"Will second units have a = separate sewer=20 hook-up fee and separate sewer bill?" inquired Sutter Creek resident = Sharyn=20 Brown, while informing the commissioners of her own second unit and = second=20 hook-up fee and sewer bill.

"No," answered applicant = representative Greg=20 Bardini. "We will hook up through the main house."

This brought = John=20 Motto-Ros to the microphone. If he had to pay for a second hook-up and = pays a=20 second sewer bill for his second unit, he said in no uncertain terms, = everyone=20 else who puts in a second unit will be doing likewise.

Harnish = returned=20 to the podium to say, "The project will comply with the city = rules."

In=20 closing the meeting, Hauge complimented the commissioners for having = resolved=20 all of the consistency issues. "The next step," he said, "is we start = reviewing=20 the specific plan and subdivision map. We will begin that process on the = 24th of=20 November. We will begin with Chapter 6, including the grading."

Jerry = Budrick