Amador County – The lead proponent of the group Preserve Historic Sutter Creek this week filed his “primary argument” for the June 8th vote on city council action to approve the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort, setting the time line for rebuttals to be filed within 10 days. Bart Weatherly, a Sacramento fire captain and resident, filed the argument Tuesday at Sutter Creek City Hall, and was the lead proponent of Measure N, which could decide the fate of the Gold Rush Ranch project. Weatherly’s “Argument Against Measure N” was signed by 5 Sutter Creek residents, including Planning Commissioners Cort Strandberg and Mike Kirkley, past city Police Chief Robert Bugni, Jean Pinotti, and Amador High teacher Giles Turner. Weatherly in the argument said the project “is out of character for our small town and will destroy our quality of life.” The argument said the project is “too big,” and “out-of-town developers persuaded our City Council to approve a massive development with 1,300-plus houses, 300 condos, hotel, and golf course.” Weatherly said a “sprawling golf course housing development is not the Sutter Creek we love.”
The argument said the city has “room to grow for 20 years without Gold Rush,” a “massive housing development that will more than double Sutter Creek’s population.” Weatherly’s filing said the city has 314 approved housing sites and the potential for 248 more “within the current city limits.” He argued that Gold Rush will result in “an additional 16,700 vehicle trips a day on our congested roads,” and that “Caltrans advised the city to deny this development.” He said it would destroy “up to 13,000 oak trees” and clear-cut “nearly a square mile of beautiful wildlife habitat.” He said voters should say “no to a risky ‘Mello Roos Bonds’, without which there will be an annual $1.4 million budget shortfall.” Weatherly said “Preserve Historic Sutter Creek members are civic-minded volunteers, your friends and neighbors” who “want you to hear the whole story about Gold Rush.” He said: “Our overriding concern is to protect Sutter Creek’s small town quality of life. Let’s keep Sutter Creek from becoming the next Elk Grove.” The argument said the “City Council listened to the developer and financial special interest groups and approved Gold Rush. Their decision does not reflect the will of the citizens of Sutter Creek.” It said a “no” vote would “force the City Council and the developer to consider a smaller development that won’t forever change our town.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010 17:00
Bart Weatherly Files Primary Statement on Gold Rush Election
Written by Tom-
font size
decrease font size
increase font size
Amador County – The lead proponent of the group Preserve Historic Sutter Creek this week filed his “primary argument” for the June 8th vote on city council action to approve the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort, setting the time line for rebuttals to be filed within 10 days. Bart Weatherly, a Sacramento fire captain and resident, filed the argument Tuesday at Sutter Creek City Hall, and was the lead proponent of Measure N, which could decide the fate of the Gold Rush Ranch project. Weatherly’s “Argument Against Measure N” was signed by 5 Sutter Creek residents, including Planning Commissioners Cort Strandberg and Mike Kirkley, past city Police Chief Robert Bugni, Jean Pinotti, and Amador High teacher Giles Turner. Weatherly in the argument said the project “is out of character for our small town and will destroy our quality of life.” The argument said the project is “too big,” and “out-of-town developers persuaded our City Council to approve a massive development with 1,300-plus houses, 300 condos, hotel, and golf course.” Weatherly said a “sprawling golf course housing development is not the Sutter Creek we love.”
The argument said the city has “room to grow for 20 years without Gold Rush,” a “massive housing development that will more than double Sutter Creek’s population.” Weatherly’s filing said the city has 314 approved housing sites and the potential for 248 more “within the current city limits.” He argued that Gold Rush will result in “an additional 16,700 vehicle trips a day on our congested roads,” and that “Caltrans advised the city to deny this development.” He said it would destroy “up to 13,000 oak trees” and clear-cut “nearly a square mile of beautiful wildlife habitat.” He said voters should say “no to a risky ‘Mello Roos Bonds’, without which there will be an annual $1.4 million budget shortfall.” Weatherly said “Preserve Historic Sutter Creek members are civic-minded volunteers, your friends and neighbors” who “want you to hear the whole story about Gold Rush.” He said: “Our overriding concern is to protect Sutter Creek’s small town quality of life. Let’s keep Sutter Creek from becoming the next Elk Grove.” The argument said the “City Council listened to the developer and financial special interest groups and approved Gold Rush. Their decision does not reflect the will of the citizens of Sutter Creek.” It said a “no” vote would “force the City Council and the developer to consider a smaller development that won’t forever change our town.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Latest from Tom
- Richard Forster previews this week's Amador County Board of Supervisors meeting with host, Tom Slivick. (2 of 2)
- Richard Forster on TSPN TV News December 7, 2015 (1 of 2)
- Ebbetts Pass (State Route 4) Closed for Winter
- State HWY 89 Closed for the Winter
- Richard Forster on TSPN TV News November 23, 2015 (2 of 2)
