Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission pored through three chapters of the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort Specific Plan. With “current economic conditions” thick in the air, about 40 people heard an early discussion on single-family lot sizes. Commissioner Frank Cunha asked whether the City would agree on having a “majority” of single family lots with parcels in the 5,000- to 7,000-square-feet size. Cunha said the single-family lot size limit was 7,000 square feet in the city General Plan. Chairman Robin Peters asked Gold Rush if they had a percentage number in mind for the number of single-family lots they wanted under 7,000 square feet. Consultant Anders Hauge said that was an unknown number. He said part of the problem was that they do not know what the market will allow, and the aim was to allow the developer an ability to maintain flexibility. Commissioner Robert Olson said “majority” meant that most properties would be under 7,000 square feet. Gold Rush’s Jim Harnish pointed out areas in the plan where 10 to 20 percent of the parcels are 10,000 square feet or larger. Cunha said that “to say the range is 5,000 to 7,000, you might as well say all of them will be 5,000.” Peters said “right out of the gate we found an issue that needs much more discussion.” He said “Sutter Creek is not the most progressive city around in regard to planning.” Gold Rush’s Greg Bardini said they did not want to get caught up on the lot sizes, because the project is fixed in its number of units and limited by acreage. He said if they “build all of the homes on 5,000 square foot lots, that would leave a lot more open space.” He said they did not have a number on which lots would be under 7,000. Cunha said if they could come up with a percentage, “I’m willing to talk about this.” Hauge said he thought the planning commission should “keep a unique designation for this specific plan and where it comes to single family lots, work with the applicant on the percentages.” Peters said he could agree with that but he did not want to give Gold Rush “cart blanche” when it came to lot sizes. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – Amador County stakeholders working on the economic element of the General Plan Update discussed economic development at length last week, hearing a presentation from Doug Svenssen of Applied Development Economics. Svenssen said 25 percent of tax revenue in Amador is generated by non-retail sales; and manufacturing adds “tremendously to the tax base.” He said “the more higher paying jobs we have, the more income there is to spend locally,” also adding to the tax base. He said the county should look to invest revenue toward economic growth and toward grants such as Community Development Block Grants. He said that is especially important for projects that benefit multiple jurisdictions. He noted that the CDBG could have close to $1 billion in funding with the federal stimulus spending. Jim Conklin of the Amador County Business Council asked about language in the Economic Element policy that would require that a fiscal impact analysis be compiled for large businesses seeking to locate in Amador. One man asked if that had been studied for Wal-Mart in Martell, and several in the audience said it had not been studied. Svenssen said a fiscal analysis “isn’t something communities normally have done in the past,” but due to lawsuits, the California Environmental Quality Act now requires it. Conklin said it would be “adopting words that are restrictive in nature.” Jeff Henderson of EDAW said a court struck down a business Environmental Impact Report in Bakersfield “because the court found that the project caused physical blight.” Ron Mittelbrunn of Amador County Economic Development Corporation said the new business park on Ridge Road had an inquiry from a company that would have been in direct competition with existing local stores, including Meek’s and the Feed Barn. Mittelbrunn said “they had the attitude that they didn’t care what they would do to the local businesses.” He said “they didn’t come in because I ignored them.” The joint panel of Amador County Supervisors and Planning Commissioners will discuss the Economic Element and also the Governance Element, including all public and stakeholder comments, during its next series of meetings, set for March 24th, 25th, and 26th. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County - The first stakeholder meeting concerning the Economic Element of the General Plan was held Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information from the stakeholders on the Economic Element to be presented in draft form before the Board of Supervisors. The “stakeholder” groups were originally conceived by the Supervisors as a way to gather county-wide input on two separate elements of the General Plan- an economic element and a governance element. Economic element stakeholders include a dozen groups or organizations within the county and each city, all of whom were invited to the meeting. City Planners from every city within county limits were in attendance, except Amador City. ACTC Director Charles Field and a representative from EBMUD sat with the City Planners on a stakeholder’s panel surrounding a wall projection of the plan. A cross-section of county officials were also in attendance, including Planning Director Susan Grijalva, County Administrative Officer Terri Daly, and the Board of Supervisors with the exception of Richard Forster. Discussions focused on potential conflicts and overlay between city General Plans and the county, specifically in reference to property and development. Jackson City Planner Mike Daly said his city has finished there General Plan and is looking now at a potential expansion of its Sphere of Influence. Christopher Jordan of Ione said there Draft EIR is being prepared. Sutter Creek’s Sean Rabe said his city’s plan is “generally done.” The meeting moved along quicker than expected, with public comments taking up the bulk of the session and relatively few remarks from the stakeholders themselves. Katherine Evatt of the Foothill Conservancy expressed a need for the county to ensure that “(the public) is deeply involved in the development process” by “reaching across jurisdictions” and “taking advantage of technology that’s out there.” Resident Sue Hokana said the website link for the General plan was like “going to the dentist and getting the drill out.” Each member of the public contributed a list of agencies it believed should be considered when relating to state and federal agencies. Grijalva said she will prepare a revised draft based on this new input and present it to the Board of Supervisors in the beginning of March. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Ione City Council Tuesday approved a transitional land use designation that would help keep commercial enterprises operating around town. The council was considering the Land Use Element of the new city general plan and approved the full slate of designations, setting in motion environmental reporting on the paperwork. Many spoke about their commercial use on property around town that was earmarked for being designated residential property. After hearing the disputes, consultant Daniel Hamilton and City Planner Christopher Jordan suggested a transitional residential/commercial designation. Jordan said it would allow rebuilding of homes or commercial uses. The suggestion passed 3-1 with Councilman Jim Ulm voting no. Mayor Lee Ard, presiding over his first meeting, voted yes, with Vice Mayor Skip Schaufel and Councilman David Plank, while Councilwoman Andrea Bonham was recused due to her business interest in downtown. Ron Smylie of Smylie’s Trophies told the council his 30-year-old business depended on commercial zoning, because his suppliers will not deliver to non-commercially zoned businesses. City Manager Kim Kerr said the designation would have to be tailored for Smylie’s requirement. Other owners asked to be left commercially zoned. The council voted to make transitional residential/commercial areas, based on historic and current uses and zoning. Ione Planning Commissioner Joe Wylie said the commission passed the Land Use Element on to the city council without resolving the commercial zoning issue. He said it was sent to the council only after Jordan and city staff agreed to notify property owners of potential affects on their properties. Wylie agreed with the Land Use efforts of Jordan and consultants and said it would work in a newly designed city, but the existing zoning and history of Ione needed to be preserved. Wylie said he was “very uncomfortable” with the issue and the city has its problems, but it’s the people’s right to have commercial interest “and they have a right to keep it.” Ard said he personally did not believe on “infringing on people’s property rights.” Ard said he “would rather see it left the way it is now and handled on an individual basis, if necessary.” Story by Jim Reece

Amador County – The Plymouth City Council last Thursday peered at the possibilities of protecting its “viewsheds.” The council resumed a public hearing on its General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Plymouth veterinarian Elida Malick said she would like to see a definition of ridgelines, and she also said that a revision of the “Growth Plan” in effect removed the voice of the public from the document. Stephan Horstschraer (Horsetrader), a development partner of Reeder Sutherland, said he agreed with Malick on the definition of ridgelines, and Councilman Mike O’Meara agreed those changes removed the people’s voices. City Planner Paula Daneluk said many of the changes were not yet in the document at the last meeting because of a literally last-minute comment letter from area attorney Tom Infusino. Daneluk said the Final EIR now has those changes, and they will be included in the next meeting’s packet. City Manager Dixon Flynn asked if they wanted a “strikethrough” version, showing edits, with a consensus wanting them. Mayor Jon Colburn said City Building Inspector Jeff Kelley advised that the city needs to include a viewshed study in the EIR. Daneluk said the viewshed study by Reeder Sutherland was done at “project level,” but the city may want to do them at “EIR level” for individual projects. She said she did “not think you are ready to a make citywide viewshed study.” Consultant Richard Prima said 2 parts to that are, where are you looking to, and where are you looking from. Flynn asked if there was a recommendation in the EIR for ridgelines. Daneluk said it was throughout the EIR, and a table listing changes was only meant as a guide to the current draft of the EIR. Daneluk said for the EIR, they could describe basics for the viewsheds, such as views from public roadways and downtown, and at the project level, they can get into more detail. O’Meara said at that level, “you would get down to line-of-sight” issues. Flynn asked if there would be consideration of the visual appearance of the town from anywhere in the area, such as driving through and looking at Plymouth. Daneluk said there are a lot of ways to protect ridgelines. Staff will make recommended changes and give the “strikethrough” edition of the EIR to the city council members by July 31st, giving the council and the public 2 weeks to read the document, before the General Plan EIR public hearing meeting resumes, 5:30 p.m. Thursday, August 13th at city hall. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador County Planning Department will be holding a public workshop July 23 to review the county’s 2005 Housing Element Implementation and Action Plan. The Housing Element is one of the required elements of the county’s general plan. The planning department announced the workshop in an e-mail Monday, and said “unlike other mandatory general plan elements, the housing element must be updated approximately every five years.” As part of the update process, the Planning Department is inviting participation of the public and “stakeholders” to help review, analyze, and update the goals, policies, and implementation programs in the current Housing Element “for the purpose of recommending any changes or modifications that may be needed, or desired.” The e-mail was sent to the media and members of the public who may be affected by, or may be interested in, the process, and the planning department said “we welcome and encourage your participation in developing this update to the county’s Housing Element of its general plan.” The 2005 Housing Element can be obtained online at the county planning department’s webpage, under Current General Plan Documents. The department said to prepare for the workshop, participants should review Chapters 10 and 11 of the General Plan. Handouts will be made available at the workshop for public and attendee written comments. The 2009 Housing Element Program Implementation Workshop will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. Thursday, July 23rd in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers at the County Administration Center, 810 Court Street, in Jackson. See the General Plan Housing Element online at www.co.amador.ca.us/ depts/planning/. For more information, contact Cara Agustin, at the Planning Department at (209) 223-6380. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

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.

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.

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.