Ledger-Dispatch

By Kelly Scott (kenos@ledger-dispatch.com) =

Members of the Sutter Creek City = Council and=20 planning commission discussed the Gold Rush Ranch project = Wednesday=20 night.

Photo by: Kelly=20 Scott
The first in a series of workshops on = the=20 Gold Rush Ranch project turned into a briefing session Wednesday night, = when the=20 race to supply elected officials with all the necessary documents needed = for=20 action on the mammoth project came up just short.

Initially, the=20 recommended actions for this first joint workshop between the Sutter = Creek City=20 Council and planning commission included accepting the amendments of the = specific plan, the general plan, zoning ordinances and vesting of the = large-lot=20 tentative subdivision map. But project manager Anders Hauge apologized = up front=20 for not getting the information to them before the meeting. As a result, = the=20 direction of the meeting turned from possible action to a simple = briefing=20 session on what was in the binders.

Hauge explained that while a = 79-page=20 environmental document was incomplete in some areas, feedback from = Sutter Creek=20 residents, city council members and planning commissioners was still = encouraged,=20 as the input would be essential to crafting a final environmental impact = report.=20 The workshops were also intended to prepare the planning commission to = make a=20 final recommendation on the large-scale residential golf course = subdivision to=20 the city council on Sept. 15.

"At the end of the discussion = period, the=20 planning commission should be ready to move forward with approval for = the city=20 council," Hauge explained.

Hauge said planning staff was = recommending the=20 project be "self-mitigating," meaning safeguards and conditions would be = locked=20 in for the life of the project in a contained set of documents. That = way, future=20 councils wouldn't run into problems if circumstances change. "In 10 = years, we=20 may not be around to ensure the city has this single set of documents," = Hauge=20 said. "Fifteen years from now, some of the large lots may have been sold = and=20 subdivided, so we need to set the regulations on that = now."

Specific=20 plans 1 through 21 were outlined by Hauge during a PowerPoint = presentation and=20 sparked several discussions surrounding a mass grading project and = eventual=20 roadways or easements.

"I do not see how this project can ever = move=20 forward without access from the bypass and (Highway) 49," said = Councilman Pat=20 Crosby. "I have harped (on) this subject and I am throwing it in again = for the=20 record."

Crosby said this in response to specific plans 10 and = 11, which=20 say the project would need the inclusion of an easement or an access = roadway=20 connecting Valley View Drive to both Highway 88 and the Highway 49 = bypass, which=20 seemed to hinge on the mass grading project that Hauge was not in favor = of. "The=20 grading plan should be confined to the custom lots," he said. "The maps = now show=20 a mass grading, but it is a masquerade for some partial shrub=20 removal."

Some members of the planning commission expressed = concern over=20 the amount of material they have received on Gold Rush and other = projects over=20 the past couple of weeks.

Commissioner Frank Cunha questioned = where the=20 summary of Gold Rush Ranch fit in the general plan codes. Hauge = explained that=20 the project description in the draft EIR was the most current. Robin = Peters,=20 also a commissioner, pointed out that modifications to the specific plan = hadn't=20 yet made their way into the commissioners' binders, which held only = "partially=20 correct information."

City staff is working on a way to provide = the most=20 current information in an easily accessible format, said Assistant City = Manager=20 Sean Rabe, a challenge due to the scale of Gold Rush. "City staff felt = that the=20 more information we could give to the decision-makers, the better," he = said=20 Thursday morning. "Unfortunately, pulling that information together and = shaping=20 it into an easily digestible format takes an incredible amount of=20 time."

City Attorney Dennis Crabb reiterated that, due to the = incomplete=20 nature of the draft EIR, the issues would be brought back at future = meetings in=20 a condensed version for staff. Joint workshops on the project will again = be held=20 on Aug. 13 and 20 to provide further opportunity for review and input. A = planning commission public hearing will be held Aug. 25 with a = presentation by=20 the city's environmental consultant on the content and findings of the = draft=20 EIR.

Raheem Hosseini contributed to this report.

Kelly = Scott