The Sutter Creek Planning Commission took a sharp turn toward the technical at its Monday night meeting, which had only one major item on the agenda: Discussion and possible action on the content of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort.

After three full hours of discussion, action was taken in the form of a major change in the agenda for the planning commission's Sept. 22 meeting. That meeting was expected to be for DEIR approval. Instead, it will be devoted to discussing how to deal with the project's many inconsistencies with the city's existing general plan. The 1994 Sutter Creek General Plan contains goals, policies and objectives that bump directly into the Gold Rush project plan. Proposed amendments to the general plan and zoning ordinance are listed in a July 30 memorandum from Anders Hauge, the city's project manager, to the Sutter Creek City Council and Planning Commission, available online at the city's Web site under Public Meetings - July 30, 2008.

Growth assumptions and projections would need to be changed, along with population densities and development on slopes in excess of 30 percent. Amendments would also have to be made to more than a half-dozen maps. Another study in May 2007, by Mintier & Associates, also suggested changes to the 1994 general plan with regard to open space policy, circulation, noise and numerous maps. This study is available online at the city's Web site under Project Application - General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency Analysis and Proposed General Plan Amendments.

"The public comment period for the Gold Rush DEIR closed on Aug. 29," said assistant city manager Sean Rabe. "The purpose of tonight's meeting is to allow the commissioners an opportunity to discuss the project."

The meeting's purpose was fulfilled, as each commissioner weighed in. Commission chair Robin Peters began by introducing project manager Bob Delp of Environmental Stewardship & Planning. "We received 45 comment letters," said Delp. "Forty-five pounds," was Peters' quick riposte.

"We will be preparing responses to all comments," Delp continued, "including verbal comments." Rabe said that all the comments received are available both online and in a viewable binder at Sutter Creek City Hall. Peters invited the commissioners to present their comments individually.

Commissioner Mike Kirkley extemporized from a two-sided page of comments that he offered to his fellow commissioners. "What is affordable?" Kirkley asked, mentioning that he had asked this question early in the process. He suggested further study of the approved or potential residential units within the city.

Kirkley noted that there are no developed parks proposed in the project and there is no walking trail in the city's 176-acre open space.

As a recently retired CAL FIRE division chief, Kirkley had much to say about fire protection. "The project should be required to enter into a wildland fire protection agreement with CAL FIRE," he said, pointing out that the project will be in the city limits, which are not within the area of responsibility for CAL FIRE.

One of the rare moments of humor came when Kirkley mentioned bicycle lanes as inadequate mitigation for traffic impacts, noting his own amusement every time he sees the bicycle lane that leads to Costco in Folsom.

"First and foremost, the oaks are important," offered Commissioner Robert Olson. "Three million yards of dirt will be moved in this project, and it's tough to bring back vegetation when you move this much dirt." Olson also intimated that heavy equipment operators are prone to error, which would result in more trees being injured than anticipated in the DEIR. About traffic, Olson said, "Every trip has to go out. Why can't there be a town center?"

"I can hardly hold back," exclaimed Dan Walker, owner of the Sutter Creek Palace. "You're assuming lots of things. You're assuming that when they are doing the grading, they'll be knocking trees down. That should be stricken from your comments."

Walker also commented on the city's economic situation, saying, "Downtown Sutter Creek is not successful. We're all hurting. Every business in downtown is down by 30 to 35 percent."

Commissioner Cort Strandberg, referring to studies he thought would be included in the DEIR, said, "To me, the lack of financial and sociological studies is enough to call the DEIR inadequate."

Kirkley told his colleagues they could ask for additional studies. "Take water," he said. "If (county resident Bill) Condrashoff is in a battle with (general manager Jim) Abercrombie or an engineer at the Amador Water Agency, we can ask for a third analysis." Looking at project manager Delp, Kirkley asked, "Right?"

"Yes," Delp answered, at which point Rabe spoke up to say, "The fiscal analysis is done and will be the topic of the city council meeting next week."

"But it will not be considered part of the DEIR," Strandberg responded.

"This is going to double the population of our city," said Commissioner Frank Cunha, "and the secondary impacts are huge." Cunha presented figures estimating the number of households needed for secondary housing at 1,013. "Saddle Creek (a golf course and residential development in Calaveras County) didn't prepare for the secondary housing impact," he said. "That's why they're including 200 affordable housing units in Copperopolis (the new town under construction)."

Chairman Peters was the last commissioner to comment. "There are aspects of the project that are inconsistent with the general plan," Peters began, "and the mitigations say 'The city shall change the general plan.' The burden of compliance should be placed on the developer, rather than on the city." Peters' verbal comments were accompanied by 26 pages of written ones.

Though more was said, consensus of the commissioners was to return in two weeks, prepared to probe deeply into the issues of consistency with the general plan.