The grading plan for the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort proposes to relocate large swaths of dirt.

Photo by: Courtesy to the Ledger Dispatch

Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort grading, circulation, and parks and recreation took center stage at Wednesday night's special meeting of the Sutter Creek Planning Commission, as the commissioners continued working their way through an evaluation of the project's consistency with the city's existing general plan.

Nearly four hours of in-depth analysis of dozens of details in the project's specific plan and notable progress did not result in complete clarity on numerous issues that remain shrouded in mystery and relegated to a pending status awaiting completion of the development agreement and small lot subdivision maps.

Two weeks ago, the commissioners requested a revision of Chapter 6: Community Design and Performance Standards of the Gold Rush Ranch specific plan, partially to deal with concerns over the grading plan. The revised version of chapter 6 replaces the half-page grading plan with 3 1/2 pages, dividing the project area into three grading zones and providing specific guideline applicable to each zone. This did not dispel the commissioners' concerns about grading. Project consultants gave repeated assurances that approval of final maps will come later, as the small lot subdivisions come before the commission.

Policy 4.11 of the general plan states that "road design should minimize necessary grading by aligning roads with topography, running roads along natural ridges or valleys and working with existing grade."

"The alignment of segments of certain roads," Chairman Robin Peters pointed out, "does not appear to minimize necessary grading."

"The project needs to come back in agreement with policy 4.11," said Commissioner Frank Cunha. "Greg (Bardini of Morton & Pitalo) will probably come back with a plan that conforms."

Project Manager Andy Hauge, who once again moderated the meeting, said, "Greenhorn (contour-graded Greenhorn Creek golf course community in Calaveras County) seems to be acceptable."

"How do we get ourselves out of this conflict position?" Peters inquired. "You've given us a plan that directly conflicts with the language in the general plan."

Further revision of the grading aspects of the plan are expected at future meetings, in both large and small subdivisions.

Although traffic issues surrounding the Gold Rush project are largely on roadways outside of the project boundaries, therefore in the hands of the Amador County Transportation Commission, some internal circulation concerns remain. Some lots have been designed with driveways that will require backing vehicles out onto busy roadways. Bardini told the commission that the lots in question would contain internal turnarounds that would make cars come out forward.

"I don't see any way around this," Peters said. "I think we have to design around it." Commissioners Cunha and Mike Kirkley backed Peters, but, once again, any decision will have to wait until completion of small lot subdivision maps.

"For driveways," commented Sutter Creek resident Sharon Brown, "you could demand drive-through driveways or loops."

A direct connection between the Gold Rush project and Highway 88 is planned for completion prior to phases 3 and 4. The property through which this connection will go does not belong to the Gold Rush developers and a decision about cost responsibility has not been made. "It doesn't say who does it," said Hauge, "whether Gold Rush or the neighboring property owner, but it must be done."

Chairman Peters requested that one set of findings that deal with this connection be re-written and brought back for future discussion. The findings for Policy 6.12 state that the project will provide sufficient access for emergency vehicles and for the evacuation of residents by developing two or more routes of access. Policy 4.19 says "new developments should be tied together and to existing parts of the city by an interlinking bicycle and pedestrian trail network."

Bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and walkways are planned throughout the project.

On parks, Peters said, "It boils down to Objective 9.3." This objective in the 1994 general plan states that "one or more additional community parks should be established in the city." "I don't think we can just brush 9.3's message aside," he continued. "If the city doesn't want a community park in the Gold Rush development, the city council needs to get that message out."

According to numerous unconfirmed sources, negotiations have been underway for some time between city officials and the Gold Rush developers about how best to deal with parks and recreation in Sutter Creek. Details of these negotiations are expected to be revealed in the anticipated development agreement.

Lengthy discussion ensued over the complex issues of park financing, law and philosophy.

"It's not good to build a park that you can't afford to maintain," said Amador County Recreation Agency Director Tracey Towner-Yep. "Pretty soon, you have a run-down park."

One solution to the problem came from local builder Ray Brusatori. "They should buy the park and use the $8,700 (park and recreation fee per dwelling unit) to build it," he offered.