City Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 03, 2025 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting was available via Zoom and in person.
1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting Mayor Gunselman called the meeting to order
PRESENT
Claire Gunselman
Julia Sierk
Dan Riordan
Jim Swift
Susan Feist
ABSENT
Vicky Runquist - Treasurer
STAFF
Tom DuBois
Derek Cole
Erin Ventura
Mason Peters
Dan LaFontaine
2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
The Mayor led the pledge
3. Public Forum
Mike Kirkley - asked about status of wrecking yard, seeing more vehicles coming on to the property.
4. City Manager’s Report
City Manager gave an up using the attached presentation
5. Presentations
A. Proclamation Recognizing Mary Ann Solbrig For Her Contributions to the City of Sutter Creek Continued to future meeting when Ms Solbrig can attend.
B. Amador County Recreation Agency Update
General Manager Michael Rock gave a verbal update on the status of ACRA. There are$1.6M in impact fees available for capital projects in the cities and the county. ACRA is also scheduling activities for the summer including a lot more academic and project based camps for kids. Goal with youth programming is to not just provide babysitting anymore. Summer Fun Days - 8 week program for kids, ages K - 6 includes swimming pool and field trips and other enrichment activities.
Ceramics class in Jackson and Plymouth, 4 week sessions for kids Kids kickboxing in Jackson
Swim lessons coming back - 1 and 2 week long lessins, private and parent/tot class Mens BB League is now happening at Amador high school
Watercolor and Cooking class in Sutter Creek - Grammar School Pickleball - Jackson and Amador City
Bingo - multiple cities
CM Riordan - Is there a process to allocate the impact fees? Policy decision for elected officials on ACRA board, the TAC will proposal projects..
6. Approval of Minutes
A. City Council Minutes of Feb 18, 2025 Special Meeting Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.
B. City Council Minutes of Feb 18, 2025 Regular Meeting Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.
CM Sierck - correction page 9 police costs is 60-65% of general fund. Was 45% in 2021 CM Riordan - typos correction sent via email
CM Swift - On item Number 6 the vote to approve was 3 - 0 - 2 need to correct the vote count.
Motion to pass Special Minutes of Feb 18, 2025 made by CM Swift, Seconded by CM Sierk Motion passed 5 - 0
Motion to pass regular minutes of Feb 18, 2025 by CM Swift, seconded by CM Riordan Motion passed 4- 0 - with CM Sierk abstaining
7. Consent Agenda
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and shall be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.
A. FY22 POA Salary Schedule Revision to resolve CalPERS Audit Motion to approve FY22 POA payscale in proper formatting B. Updated Pool Management Agreement between City of Sutter Creek and ACRA Approve City Manager to sign update to previous pool agreement accounting for increased labor costs, addition of swim lessons, addition of snack shack
Motion to approve Item 7A by CM Swift, seconded by CM Feist - Motion passed 5 - 0
Item 7 B was pulled from consent to be heard by CM Riordan, Sierk and Gunselment to be heard at a date uncertain.
9. Administrative Agenda
A. Joint Session of the Planning Commision and the City Council Mayor Gunselman led the discussion
Reviewed city annual priorities, mentioned Nexus Study and Zoning code updates are in process.
CM Riordan - housing projects have been few and far between, understand goals and roles, CIP made it clear that we need some development to fund needed improvements.
CM Swift - agreed with CM Riordan. Thanks planning commission for their work, lot of technical, detailed items.
CM Sierk - Wants to be aligned and communicating with planning commission PC Baggett - has been fun and interesting to help the community. Challenge to get the appropriate zoning, and if change needed then talk about it
PC Kirkley - concerned about annexations to the city. Look at inventory of what has been approved over the years, Powder House project, Crestview - partially built, Golden Hills phases never got developed within City limits, City annexed 1100 acres in Gold Rush, now an infill project. Want people to be aware of history. Also want to clean up zoning. Get very little property tax from development (4% of 1% property tax).
PC Mulvey - Planning Commission role is to evaluate projects to the code, and flagging where code may be outdated or flawed.
CM Feist - wants to see a walkable town.
Mayor Gunselman - Haven’t had a lot of good development project examples. Need to learn from our history but can’t have future pay for past mistakes. Need to enable projects people want and ensure it pays its own way. Get caught in black and white - annexation as an example, past projects may not matter when evaluated by a property owner. Could look at incentives for infill. Not sure if we are a walkable town, more than half the town can’t walk to downtown safely. Like to see more feedback from planning commission - give us comments and concerns.
CM Feist - Agrees just downtown is walkable, would like to see ways to connect other parts of town.
Like to see higher density for a better mix of housing.
CM Riordan - Annexation vs infill, partially a philosophical discussion on property rights.
CM Swift - existence of infill vs annexation - can’t count on past proposals. Powder house is gone PC Kirkley - general plan, good planning not to keep annexing. Powder house is still residential zoned.
City Attorney Cole spoke to both bodies. PC will make recommendations to Council on annexation, looking at the sphere of influence. Council will determine.
CM Feist - want to keep the identity of small town surrounded by rural area, not suburban sprawl.
PC Kirkley - encourage infill before annexation.
CM Sierk - Concerned about the HCD report, if Danco doesn’t happen? Consequences? Planner Ventura - disconnect between state and jurisdictions, cities don’t build houses. Have Danco application but not much otherwise for low income housing.
City Attorney Cole - HCD could penalize, SB35 could kick in, allowing development by right. No city review.
Mayor Gunselman - wants to see both legislative bodies evaluating projects based on merits of the project. How do we insure we are covered? Would like Planning Commission - how does it meet our needs, benefit residents, how do mitigate impacts?
B. Sutter Creek Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2024 Motion to accept and approve the report for submittal to HCD Planner Ventura reviewed the HCD annual report. Projects that are entitled, denied, permits issued, permits finaled. Also report on programs that incentivize low income. 1 ADU produced. Made progress on some programs.
CM Riordan - Thinks we made progress on application procedures - #22, new TAC process.
CM Gunselman - some could be implemented by staff, some by working group, some far off Planner Ventura - Reporting is based on the year we start working on things.
CM Gunselman - indicate which could be done internally, see how we can make progress. Planning Commission or Council could help make progress.
CM Gunselman - How does housing element impact funding? LEAP’s only requirement is you do the report. Are grants available if we are making progress? Planner Ventura - HCD wants to see that cities are removing constraints.
CM Swift - seems to go above and beyond housing production, what is a reasonable accommodation? Program 54 - what does it mean? ANSWER: It’s for people with disabilities. 13 of 25 programs are not yet implemented, factor of budget. How much would it cost to do it all? Ventura - goal of housing working group is cost will be shared across all the cities. Not a huge cost when shared.
CM Sierk - Question on federal voucher program on page 57, how does it work? Planner Ventura - This is Section 8 subsidized housing.
Motion to accept the annual report with some updates on progress on certain programs.
Motion made by CM Riordan, Seconded by CM Sierk
Motion passed 5 - 0
C. Prescreening 150 Home Project Proposed in Gold Rush
Staff presented the project via a presentation, and council asked questions throughout.
City Manager DuBois - This is a pre screening - not a decision meeting, not yet a complete application.
This is a chance for the council and community to get an early look, ask questions. It’s been a long time since the previous developer had a development agreement. There are now new owners who are interested in a project under the existing zoning, defined in the City’s specific plan.
FIrst we’ll go over definitions and then an overview of the proposal.
Mayor Gunselman - EIR and piecemealing? Is it a concern? No, the EIR studied the entire area.
CM Riordan - What about traffic?
That was done and mitigation measures were identified. Will we ask for a baseline update study Mayor Gunselman - how do you look at infrastructure impacts, like water? Reviewed background info - was examined in the EIR, part of the expired development agreement. THey will need to get “will serve” from AWA.
What was submitted in 2023?
Submitted a new specific plan then decided not to pursue it.
CM Riordan - Can they build ADUs? Lot will constrain ability and SB9 is constrained in a fire zone.
State law supersedes general city ordinances.
PUBLIC
Sandy Anderson - Golf courses are a negative in terms of habit.
Greg Bardini - Asking to split Phase 1 - used to be 500 total housing units, golf course, broken into smaller sizes to implement. Using 150 sewer hookups, Couldn't finance entire phase 1 due to lack of sewer hookups. Plan is to help with the sewer and get effluent to the property. Only a portion of 150 is in the restricted grading zone, heard concern on trees, and thinks there is a solution. Available for questions
Craig Barracco - how many homes in 1B? 150 homes plus vacation rentals, hotels, golf course. A lot of trails is 1B, and add more to the west, 1B includes that geography. Updating environmental documents - traffic and water supply.
Al Bierce - Size of 6900 sq ft lot, similar to some near castle oak. What is the full build out? Total is 1334 originally, scaled back to about 900.
Bob Lapmphere - Introduced Tim and Beau - 4 year discussion, first 150 is what is available for sewer hookups, 4 - 5 years to develop and build, gives us time to figure out new plant. Will help, but can’t do it all. If costs are too high, then it won't happen.
CM Sierk - concerned about erosion. Like to understand the building process. Tree removal is a concern. Want an upgraded tree plan. Balance removal of old trees with new trees - not an easy tradeoff - like to retain some existing canopy.
CM Feist - Tree removal is a concern, 100-200 yr old trees, newly planted trees elsewhere died.
Concerned about grading, I like the density. 8.4 miles of trails is a concern, and was one of the best things for the community in plan. Looking at Grass Valley, active outdoor living.
CM Swift - Conflict between getting density and not removing trees. Some concerns about grading, give some visual examples. Will get some visuals. Like to have details on trees cut vs saved Greg - 38 trees to be removed is the estimate.
Mike Kirkley - fire safe plan needed
Planner Ventura summarized concerns that she noted. 2 council members indicated trails were a concern.
COUNCIL REPORTS
none
CiTY ATTORNEY
none
10. Mayor and Council Member Reports
This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present updates on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.
11. City Attorney’s Report
This section provides an opportunity for the City Attorney to report on any activities or upcoming legislation of importance to the City. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.
12. Future Agenda Items
This section provides an opportunity for Council members to request items to be added to the agenda in the future with a majority Council vote.
13. Information and Correspondence
14. Closed Session - None
15. Report from Closed Session
16. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting is March 17, 2025
Approved: March 17, 2025