Sutter Creek planning commissioners deliberate during Monday's meeting on Gold Rush.

Photo by: Jerry Budrick

"We're 25 or 30 percent of the way through the document," said Sutter Creek Planning Commission chairman Robin Peters, referring to the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort general plan consistency evaluation.

Nearing the three-hour mark at Monday night's formalized review, Peters seemed to be subtly reminding colleagues, staff and residents that the issues involved were proving to be more complex than might previously have been thought.

Project Manager Andy Hauge served as moderator for the meeting, employing the latest in high-tech visual displays, with occasional map overlays. Hauge had also authored the evaluation and led the commissioners through it point by point, stressing that "the specific plan cannot be adopted until proven consistent with the general plan."

The format chosen was to discuss each element of the general plan in turn, beginning with the land use element.

The very first entry on the evaluation list, Goal 2.1, states, "Allow the city to grow and prosper, while protecting existing neighborhoods and the existing quality of life that is the essence of Sutter Creek."

Inasmuch as Goal 2.1 raised fundamental questions, Peters suggested that it be held over until the end of the discussion, which was done.

Goal 2.2 speaks of protecting the skyline, prominent hillsides and other topographically sensitive features. "I'm not convinced that the grading of the project is consistent with this goal," said Peters. "Mass grading is proposed by the developer."

Planning commissioner Frank Cunha noted, "This is the only area of the city that has not had a visually sensitive area overlay applied to it."

Hauge asked the commissioners how many similar projects they had done.

"There's never been a project like this before in Sutter Creek," replied commissioner Mike Kirkley.

"There's never been grading on this massive scale," Peters added.

"We have done this before," injected commissioner Cort Strandberg. "On Powderhouse Estates, major changes were made to the grading plan."

With little hope of resolution of this issue, Hauge assured the commissioners that further analysis would be done and Goal 2.2, along with chapter six of the specific plan, would be brought back for a subsequent discussion.

Concerning policy 2.1, which states that growth management is necessary and a project should be consistent with the growth assumptions and policies of the general plan, Cunha said, "I don't think this project can ever be brought into consistency with the general plan. It will be up to the city council to modify the general plan to achieve consistency."

This matches the staff findings, which state, "With the recommended amendment to the general plan to update population forecast the project is consistent with general plan policy 2.1"

It was this sort of language that had led the commission to change course two weeks previously and given rise to staff creation of the consistency evaluation. At that time, Peters and others had questioned the propriety of the numerous findings that assumed that the city would modify its general plan to achieve consistency with the Gold Rush plan.

"This project has chosen to totally ignore policy 2.1," Peters said. The policy encourages in-fill rather than leap frog development.

"This is leap frog development," Kirkley said. "I've requested an inventory of available lots to make what I consider true in-fill."

Hauge assured the commissioners that policy 2.2 will also be brought back, with the information that Kirkley requested.

Next up was the conservation and open space element, which deals with surface and groundwater resources, water conservation, air quality, geology, soils, erosion control and grading, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries and energy conservation.

"The grading has been the subject of many workshops and no one wants mass grading," Cunha asserted. "We went to two projects in Calaveras (County) - Greenhorn Creek and Saddle Creek. Greenhorn is contour-graded and Saddle Creek is mass graded. We have all pretty much agreed about the grading issue."

Commissioners appeared reluctant to set precedents for future projects that may come along. "It looks like we could move some things around," Cunha said, "and bring this plan into conformance with the general plan, but this could come back to haunt us in the future."

Policy 3.4 brought a return to the grading issue, the recurrent theme of the night. Peters spoke of areas as large as 3/4 mile that were planned for grading. "I don't think this project has made a significant attempt to conform to this policy," he said.

Objective 3.2 of the 1994 general plan was to establish a grading ordinance that would "minimize excessive grading," but this was never done.

Policy 3.19 states that oak trees will be replaced, protected and maintained. How and to what extent this will be done has been and continues to be the subject of much technical discussion.

Gold Rush's mitigation plan for oak trees includes a 7-year monitoring program, with interim checkpoints aimed at insuring the intended reforestation.

The highly visible and apparently failed oak tree mitigation project along the Highway 49 bypass rings alarm bells in many quarters.

"Is there any standard for monitoring?" Kirkley asked. "I could come back in seven years and say, 'Oh, there's been 100 percent mortality.'" Monitoring details are expected.

In a rare moment of humor in an otherwise serious night, Peters said, "I have only one comment. You might not be surprised that it's about the grading."

Limiting the use of automobiles by various means is sought by Policy 3.21 of the general plan. The project plan does include bicycle lanes, as well as pedestrian facilities. There is also a commercial core and mixed-use area in the project.

Connectivity of the project to existing communities and areas became the final official topic of the meeting. "We should be taking advantage of this opportunity to connect old town, Gold Rush, Martell, schools," Cunha said.

"We'll be looking into this," Hauge responded.

Public comment was minimal.

Traffic congestion and the deterioration of levels of service on local roadways were major concerns voiced by Sutter Creek resident Bart Weatherly. "Eleven new signals will be required," he noted, "and the (draft environmental impact report) calls 12 intersections and 17 road sections unmitigatable."

In referring to earlier discussion about swales, Foothill Conservancy attorney Tom Infusino recalled his law school dictum, "All means all, that's all all means." Infusino also chided the city for inaction, saying, "The city should have a grading ordinance. You're 14 years into a 20-year general plan."

Hauge had the last word: "We have our homework and you have your homework."

The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for Oct. 1. Seven more elements await discussion, plus the revised documents that constitute staff "homework."

After nearly five years of working on a proposal to do so, Amador County school district officials approved a Gold Rush school site Wednesday night. "The school district needs growth," district Superintendent Dick Glock told the board of trustees following its vote. "I'm not talking about volcano growth or unmanageable growth," he said, adding that the district's population will not be doubled as a result of the Gold Rush development.

If the site is not approved for a school, the developers will pay the district $1 million, said legal counsel Bill Wright.

Bethany A. Monk contributed to this report.