It was also discussed that the development, if proposed in the city, would be strongly discouraged from developing on the ridgeline (as opposed to the hillside), clustering the homes would be encouraged, landscaping the site would be required to provide screening, reduced road standards would be allowed, and buildings would be reviewed for scale and color through a design process. The county, the city of Sutter Creek and the owner/developers, the Brusatoris, together reviewed the subdivision proposal and discussed requirements for the development that would provide the same or similar development criteria found in the city while at the same time be within the County’s regulations. The desire to have the homes clustered on the newly created properties was a concern of the city. However, because the county requires an “R1A” zoning district to have a one acre minimum parcel size, clustering could not be accomplished. To accommodate clustering the zoning would have to be changed and this is not possible as a countywide moratorium for zoning changes is currently in place for county jurisdictions. Supervisor Richard Forster asked if there was a possible loop hole because the change could be considered as a public benefit. Upon review, Planning Director Grijalva found this was not an area that would allow for leniency. Presented to the Board of Supervisors, as a possible solution to this matter were recommendations that were discussed by all three principal parties. The first was that prior to recordation of any final map, the applicant will provide a site plan map that shows the anticipated building envelope in which all buildings must located for each lot . The balance of the property on each lot must remain open. The second recommendation was that the developer plant a minimum of 3 “pre-development” trees per lot and additionally that a minimum of 4 trees be shown on the road alignment. Also 4 trees for every 1000 feet of living space is required and the trees must be planted before final inspections of the home. The trees are to be Native Oaks mixed with various fast growing species that are currently growing in and around Sutter Creek. Supervisor Forster asked that it be included in the requirements that if a tree were to die or be cut down that it be mitigated for by either replanting or planting a number of other trees.

 County Counsel John Hahn said that this can be done by making it a condition or “even safer” have it recorded on the face sheet of the map for each of the parcels. The third conclusion was that the applicant must have the landscape plan for the northwest side of the existing brick house (which is currently the Brusatori’s residence) completed within in three years or before constructing a structure on any proposed lots, or whichever occurs first. The 4th item they addressed was the road improvement plans, which includes requirements for two 9 foot lanes of paved street. Also included is the tree plan was natural planting and that street lights are not be installed on any streets or driveways, which provides leeway into the next conclusion. The county, city and applicants agreed that any landscape or security lighting be shielded, and downward directed, as to not create glare or offsite impacts. The agreement also states that the buildings be colored in a way that does not draw attention to them, roof colors shall utilize non-glare roofing materials and glazing, and that building heights be limited to 30 feet. The last conclusion states that all designs for the homes must be that of motherlode style. The development of Lot #1 in the subdivision then became a major sticking point for those involved. Brent Parsons of the SC city council stated that the ideal solution from the city of SC’s view point would have been the “preservation of the hillside in a fairly open state”, however they would settle to have Lot #1 relocated. He then proceeded to make several suggestions including that the homes be limited to 1 story and restricted to 30 feet with daylight basements and that the property become “semi forested.” Several others followed him in opposition to the project all voicing concern over the affect of the sub division on the ridge line. Susan Brown of SC suggested that if the sub division is approved that story poles be used so the public would be able to view how the home would look on the hillside from the city. She also voiced concern over who would be policing the color of the homes. John Otto also of SC, suggested downsizing to two lots instead and not maximizing the allowed zoning. Gary Wooten, who also serves on the SC City Council, said that his idea of a compromise would include waiting until the moratorium on county zoning changes is lifted and then considering the project so the homes could be clustered. He also made a point that “nobody here is questioning Ray Bruastori’s building ability.” Directly to Mr. Brusatori he said, “We are not here to attack you directly.” Others public members that took the stand simply asked that the board take into consideration the affect this would have on SC citizens.

Other public members rose in the defense of the Brusatori’s and their project. George Kane said he was upset that people are being told how to build and what to build on their own property when they had worked so hard for that opportunity. He even eluded that those who are so upset with the project just buy the lots so they can stay free of development. “There’s laws that say put your money where your mouth is and you can have that lot.” Robert Allen of SC said, I am not entirely behind SC’s idea of saving the ridgelines for view space.” He also addressed the issue concerning how the property had been annexed into the county and was no longer in the City’s sphere of influence by saying that the property was annexed because of the “unrealistic goals that the city” is placing on its citizens. Developer Brusatori also addressed the board and said that he said, “I met with the city 3 times and came up with 9 conditions…and then Brent (Parsons) gets up and speaks and says he wants to turn my property into a forest and he wants one story building and limits size. We already agreed to something, or I thought we did.” He then presented information to the board on the Cramer Hill, the subject of petitions and much discussion in the city project which he said was finally approved on the consent agenda. However, he said that the city is being unfair because they are asking for more stringent requirement on his project than on the Cramer Hill project. “The projects are different, but I’m just saying treat me fair.”

The final decision made by the BOS is to deny the city’s appeal of the project and impose the conditions discussed. In regards to lot #1 the board decided to hold any development for 3 years. During that time the city will look for an appropriate piece of property to trade the Brusatoris. If the city is unable to secure such a piece of property then the property may be developed under the nine approved conditions.