News Archive (6192)
Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission will resume discussion of the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort today, with a presentation from City Attorney Dennis Crabb. The 6 p.m. meeting today will discuss a development agreement and a fiscal analysis of the Gold Rush Environmental Impact Report, as the commission works to get a recommendation, or non-recommendation, to their governing body. At a later meeting the commission will see staff recommendations on how to minimize grading and maximize oak tree removal; issues last Wednesday that the commission deemed as part of important last steps. Commissioner Mike Kirkley said “ultimately the City Council will decide” on Gold Rush. He said Gold Rush “is out of proportion in relation to the size of Sutter Creek.” He thought “it needs to be remodeled drastically.” Commissioner Frank Cunha pointed to the model the city used for Gold Rush: the Greenhorn Golf Course community in Angels Camp. The circa 1996 project has sold all of its lots “and it’s still not built out.” Cunha said he wanted “no mass tree removal” and to look at increasing tree retention. He did not “think anyone can look at a property across from the Martell triangle and say it is never going to be developed.” He said the best approach is to find the best use of the property. Chairman Robin Peters said they should modify the Gold Rush specific plan to limit grading to roads, the golf course, and individual building sites. He said they should look at the project parameters and find the best way to allow growth while saving the small town appeal described in the city’s general plan goals. Peters said: “It’s all about the general plan consistency,” and he is “perfectly happy with minimizing tree removal and grading in other projects in the city.” Commissioner Robert Olsen agreed. Cunha said “golf courses are going under,” and this one “could fold in 5 years.” Cunha said “we need to make sure as a commission that people want to live there.” He said the golf courses being “bulldozed are the ones that were mass-graded.” Peters said in his mind, oak tree preservation and minimizing grading “are fundamental issues” when considering recommendation. Cunha said today’s meeting should not discuss the “conditions of approval,” until the commission discusses that general plan consistency issue of trees and grading, and other areas within the Gold Rush specific plan. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – Aesthetics came to the forefront Monday in Sutter Creek Planning Commission’s latest meeting to look at the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort Specific Plan. Noise also played a part as areas of the plan covered sound walls and ridgelines. Chairman Robin Peters said sound walls can be built on hills to minimize visual impacts and to allow them to go unnoticed. He said “there are sound walls in town and people do not know they are there because they are 3 feet tall.” He said he thought “there are certain types of sound walls that Sutter Creek will tolerate.” Resident Sharyn Brown in public comment said in the Bay Area, where she is from, they did not allow solid walls and she encouraged the commission to try that. She also encouraged the use of “story poles,” which tell a “story” of the visual impact of proposed housing in a neighborhood by being constructed in the footprint of the project. She said “story poles” and tenacity helped reduce the size of a project in the Bay Area. Peters said no one on the commission was opposed to “story pole,” but how does the city enforce the revelations of the “story pole,” and what does it enforce? Gold Rush Project Manager Jim Harnish said “story poles are connected with a discretionary act, most often with a design review process.” He said the design standards help say what does or does not work. Commissioner Frank Cunha asked about preservation of visual ridges, and a staffer for Anders Hauge said the language on the plan’s “scenic ridgelines” is in the section on “implementation measures.” The commission and Hauge agreed to look at changes for the visual ridgeline section, in part, which said that “structures that rise above the crest of a visible ridge shall be partially obscured by surrounding vegetation, meaning that the mass of the vegetation shall be more prominent than the mass of the structure.” Resident Toni Linde said they should “be extremely careful with” ridgelines, and she noted that a Visions Committee workshop a few years ago found that attendees wanted “no houses on ridgelines.” And she said an 8-foot sound wall “screams gated community.” Peters agreed, saying short walls on berms are OK, but 8-foot walls are not good. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Plymouth – The Plymouth City Council meets at an earlier time than usual, 5:30 p.m. Thursday, to continue public hearings on the city’s draft General Plan, and on its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Report. City planning staff took direction in early July and made recommended changes. Staff gave “strikethrough” editions of the General Plan EIR to city council members on July 31st, giving the council and the public 2 weeks to read the document, before the public hearings resume. That meeting is 5:30 p.m. Thursday at city hall. The early meeting time was set “so as to allow plenty of time for public input to be taken. In the first hearing of the night, the council will consider a resolution “certifying the program Environmental Impact Report and adopting findings, a statement of over riding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program” for Plymouth’s General Plan. The council in the second hearing will consider a resolution “adopting the Plymouth General Plan Update for the horizon year 2025.” The hearings allow a continuation of public comment on the FEIR and General Plan. After the close of the public hearings, the council will discuss and possibly take action on the update and FEIR. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – The Amador County Planning Department is inviting “stakeholders” to its 2009 Housing Element Program Implementation Workshop Thursday. The meeting will cover existing programs and achievements, and offer points for discussion. The results of the workshop will be sent to the Amador County Board of Supervisors, for its Housing Element update, due in 2010. Planner Susan Grijalva said in a release last week that to prepare for the meeting, people should see chapters 10 and 11 in the Amador County General Plan, at www.co.amador.ca.us. Grijalva and the department evaluated achievements since 2005, and with that will encourage topics issues for discussion. On providing adequate sites for housing, Grijalva said the “county plans to incorporate a higher-density General Plan designation,” but the “key barrier which limits appropriate sites for affordable housing in Amador County is the lack of water and sewer infrastructure, not lack of appropriately-designated land.” She said to “remove governmental constraints to housing,” the county waived fees in 2008, but it “did not result in the production of affordable units.” She said of creating “new affordable units,” that no income-restricted units have been created in Amador County since 2005. 23 second family dwelling permits were issued, along with 4 medical hardship trailers and a 5-year permit for farm labor quarters. Planners found that to “encourage special needs housing,” the “county enforces the Fair Housing Act and provides information.” Many of the programs “call for amendments to the zoning code to remove constraints to special needs housing.” She said the county plans a substantial update to the zoning code following adoption of the updated General Plan. Some of the special needs groups that the programs are intended to help include parents with children, single adults, seniors, farmworkers, and low-income residents. On providing housing assistance, Grijalva said “the county served a total of 13 families with two grants between 2005 and 2008,” and received a third grant, which is now available to homebuyers. Grijalva said the county remains in contact with the Central Sierra Planning Council regarding housing vouchers; however, new vouchers have not been made available in recent years. The County’s first-time homebuyer program has been successful and effective. For conservation of existing housing, Grijalva said, several programs call for enforcement of state regulations and code enforcement. She said the county meets these objectives. But other programs have not been implemented, or have qualitative objectives. The county is not currently active in encouraging conservation of existing housing. The Housing Element Implementation Worshop, open to the public, is scheduled for 2 to 5 p.m. Thursday in supervisors’ chambers. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – Nearing the latter of dozens of meetings, the Sutter Creek Planning Commission talked about Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort’s specific plan and started looking at its conditions of approval Monday. Gold Rush’s Troy Claveran told the commission that the sole purpose of an agreement with Sutter Creek was to get tertiary treated water for its golf course. Claveran said Gold Rush helped the city and Amador Regional Sanitation Authority in a pinch, when they were close to lose the property on which the sewer treatment plant stands. Gold Rush provided $2.5 million dollars, matched by $375,000 dollars each from the city and ARSA, to save the sewer facility. He said “there has always been a subdivision” on Gold Rush, and “that was the basis for the project.” Commissioner Cort Strandberg said that the first and second phases of residential and golf were accepted, but when Phase 3 came out with 1,100 total homes, that’s when people “filled the auditorium” – to hear about the hotel and time-shares. Claveran said “no one has ever stated how many homes we are ever going to have.” And the “only number that ever existed” was one the engineer came up with and put in the EIR. Commissioner Mike Kirkley said Gold Rush, to his knowledge, “may be the biggest project ever proposed in the city.” But he was worried that it never addressed traffic. And despite the Highway 49 Bypass, he thought the city would still have a “Level of Service” rating of “F” on its traffic. Kirkley said he “could support maybe 500 homes because of traffic.” And he said it was “hard to believe we have this demand for 1,400 or 1,500 homes.” Peters said the city has “locked in this process and someday we’ll come to a conclusion.” He said the they “get the specific plan right, it will be consistent with the General Plan, no matter what the size of the project.” The commission was short 2 members, Frank Cunha and Robert Olson, both on vacation, but went through Peters’ comments on the “Conditions of Approval” for Gold Rush. Commissioner Cort Strandberg said he was “not satisfied” with the specific plan’s consistency with city General Plan Goal 2.1, on preserving the city’s feel. He asked to move on and return to the topic when all 5 commissioners are there. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – If you build it, they will come. But when? That was the question in Sutter Creek Planning Commissioner Frank Cunha’s mind Monday night when he asked for a timeline from developers of the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort. If commissioners approve it, when will they start to see tangible results? Cunha asked what he tells people who confront him in their shops and tell him he is holding up the process, and that if they approve Gold Rush, will it have people golfing in Sutter Creek, shopping in Main Street stores within a year. He asked about a stipulation that would give Gold Rush a 5-year extension on permits in certain instances. Gold Rush principle Bill Bunce said conditions of approval require Gold Rush to have a new wastewater treatment plant operational and serving the city before the project can get building permits. Bunce said design and construction of the wastewater plant would take 18 months, but grading can begin before that time. He said: “In a best-case scenario, it will take a year to a year-and-a-half to get earth moved, after city approval.” If they cannot get earth moved in a year-and-a-half, they would seek the extension. Weather is a seasonal variable of the timeline too. He said having the wastewater plant in place – to give the city its 480,000 to 600,000 gallons a day treatment capacity – is a provision “typical in light of the current economy.” He told the commission: “I can’t tell you if the economy is getting better or worse.” But the project’s phasing is documented in the conditions of approval. Bunce said: “We take our hat off to the care and consideration of the city … but we also look forward to the wrapping up of the approval process.” City Manager Rob Duke said a deal that would give the city wastewater plant to Gold Rush developers was the best value for the city, because developers in turn would give a boost in the level of treatment, expand the daily treatment capacity and also expand the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority’s storage capacity at Henderson Reservoir, and piping. “From our standpoint, this is a great deal,” Duke told commissioners. He said the ARSA and plant improvements funded by Gold Rush could equal $30 million dollars in value to Sutter Creek over the next 30 to 40 years. The commission revisits the Gold Rush specific plan in July and August. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – The Ione Community Preservation Project was discussed last week at the Ione City Council meeting. City Manager Kim Kerr said a community committee recommended that the city council set up a non-profit organization with a separate elected or appointed board. The committee also wished that “there would be an ex-officio seat on the board for a member of the city council to be on that board.” She said there were 15 people at the meeting, all interested in being involved. The committee met in early June and recommended the city set up its Main Street program as a non-profit organization, Kerr said, with a separate Board of Directors, elected or appointed by the organization’s members. They also recommended that the City Council have the committee create its Articles of Incorporation. In public comment, Jack Brotherton said he thought there would be a non-voting advisory committee that governs the nonprofit organization. Kerr said “there may be one, but it will have to be set up by the non-profit’s board, or they may elect to do something else.” She said the ex-officio seat is a requirement of the city council, to act as a liaison to the board from the city council, as a non-voting member. Brotherton thought the council should have some non-voting membership on the board. Kerr said the ex-officio member would be that. She said there is no organization yet, so the city has given it no money, and there will be no agreement between the 2 bodies until the nonprofit organization is formed. Kerr said the organization’s board will “technically” be a “public meeting,” and would be best run as such. She said staff will bring in an expert to professionally train the board members. Kerr will work with City Attorney Kristen Castanos on guidelines for articles of incorporation, and e-mail those to the committee. The articles would delineate the board make-up, appointments, and how members would be elected. The community preservation program could potentially have a total of $284,775 dollars from two closed 1980s CDBG grants, which the city council may spend as it sees fit. $25,000 could be in the façade program and $75,000 is in the “Main Street Program”, with another $4,775 dollars to set it up. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – The specter of the Mello Roos default may have returned to Ione. About 200 parcels are on a list of Castle Oaks property parcels that are in default of the second payment of a Mello Roos/Community Facilities District special tax payment. Amador County Tax Collector Michael Ryan said he reported to the city of Ione that about 200 parcels were in default of the 2006 Mello Roos special tax. The Ione City Council tomorrow will discuss a staff report that focuses on properties owned by the developer, JTS Communities Incorporated, and other defaulted parcels in the Castle Oaks Subdivision. City Planner Christopher Jordan said staff prepared a letter to JTS partners to notify them of possible impending action against them. That included 99 parcels owned by JTS. Jordan said other letters would be sent out to individual parcel owners and homeowners. He said the defaults have occurred in all areas of Castle Oaks housing development’s Improvement Areas 1, 2 and 3. Jordan said the staff report in tomorrow’s meeting highlights JTS’s portion of the default areas, but focus on involved private homeowners will not be highlighted that way. A report prepared last Thursday by City Manager Kim Kerr detailed the notification of JTS and its partners and delineated the steps toward foreclosure. The report included information from consultants on Improvement Areas 1 and 2, which Kerr said “have reached the applicable foreclosure threshold.” Kerr said the “next step for these improvement areas is for the city to send letters to delinquent property owners notifying of their delinquency and of the commencement of foreclosure proceedings if special taxes are not paid.” She said the city will need to hire foreclosure attorneys before October 1st, in order to commence proceedings prior to that date. The city also sent a letter to JTS and its partners requesting payment and telling of possible repercussions. The Ione City Council will also be faced with the possibility of conflicts of interest affecting a quorum on the council, as three city council members, Mayor Lee Ard, Vice Mayor Skip Schaufel and Councilman David Plank all live in the Castle Oaks Subdivision. An issue regarding a parcel adjustment request in Castle Oaks came up at the last meeting, with all three potential having to excuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. Staff resolved the matter, to maintain a quorum of at least 3 of the council members to hear the issue, by drawing straws. Plank won the draw, but the issue was tabled. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission finished weeding through its errata sheet for the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort Tuesday, finding a few items that needed work. Among those was whether houses should broach the crest of hills or whether the hilltops should be preserved. Commissioner Robert Olson said he would like to bring up the point that the specific plan for Gold Rush allows a house top to surpass the “crest of a visible ridge” by 15 feet. He said “you won’t see structures poking above the ridges in really nice subdivisions.” Olson said: “I don’t see why we are going above the ridge tops.” Commission Chairman Robin Peters said they settled on the 15-foot limit in a previous study of the city General Plan. Olson said it was a major issue for him, because after a home is built, above a crest of a hill, it would be up to the owner to provide tree cover to hide the home. He said that would make it more unlikely to happen. Peters didn’t “want to revisit the General Plan compliance conversation,” and he said “it might be good for commissioners to keep a list of issues to revisit.” Olson said they would “call it an unresolved issue.” Consultant Anders Hague said a group of maps that the commission received was prepared by Gold Rush’s Greg Bardini, in response to directions the commission had already given staff and the applicant. Peters said the maps would be available for public review at City Hall. Among other items, Peters recommended raising the standard height of sound barrier fences to 5 feet. Peters did “some research and found 5 feet was a common height.” He also suggested a rewording that made it clear that a need for sound barriers higher than 5 feet tall could be done, and “shall be accomplished with a berm and a wall or fence.” Also, it could be done with a staggered series of walls or fences, built in a terraced manner. He suggested walls for sound control over 5 feet tall be required to have terraces, like the retaining walls on the Sutter Hill bus center. Hague said they would get with Assistant City Manager Sean Rabe to use the same language used in the buss center specific plan. The commission next meets on Gold Rush June 17th. Hague said “the next time we get together, you are going to see a complete specific plan,” with changes recommended changes suggested by the commission. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Amador County – The Ione City Council and Planning Commission made several land use designations last week to plan for the city’s future. The joint panel worked on the General Plan Update and designated 3 properties in the land use map as “Future Growth Areas.” That included about 100 acres of the Silva property, west of 5 Mile Drive. Another was a smaller portion of the Rancho Arroyo Seco, located north of Mule Creek State Prison. The third “Future Growth Area” designation was placed on the “Mule Town” area. All 3 properties lie outside of the city limits and also outside of the city “Sphere of Influence,” but are within the “Planning Area” used by city staff to create the land use map. City Planner Christopher Jordan said that the Future Growth Area designations would help plan for 20 years in the future. Planning staffer Daniel Hamilton said the Future Growth Area will “give guidance for the next general plan update.” Several residents spoke against some of the FGA designations, including Lynn Winter, who said 5 Mile Road historically has been designated by LAFCO as the “boundary between city and agriculture.” Jordan said “this is going to be one of the last times to make some substantive changes to the meat of the General Plan,” before the Environmental Impact Report is released, in early June. After that, the Planning Commission will review and make recommendations to the council on both the General Plan Update and its EIR. The council and commission also designated Q Ranch as a Special Planning Area. One man spoke against the designation, and said agriculture across the road from Q Ranch typically sends dust clouds all across the ranch. Jordan said making the SPA designations is “not approving any project,” but the council is “designing a yard stick to measure these projects.” Jordan said property owners were involved in selecting designations for their properties. Several spoke, including Bill Bunce of Rancho Arroyo Seco and Amador Ranch Associates, who said: “I concur with all staff recommendations as they relate to our lands.” Virginia Silva said “Bob and I requested Special Planning” or Future Growth Area designation west of 5 Mile Drive. They plan to develop part of the property in about 10 years. Tim Smith of Howard Properties urged the panel to keep in mind “the potential for phasing infrastructure” and “phased development” as the city shifts to larger uses. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
