Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission finalized its review of the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort Specific Plan last week, setting the calendar for several other hearings. Commission Chairman Robin Peters stopped short of calling for revising the Specific Plan in draft form, but he said it was difficult to stay on target. Consultant Anders Hague acknowledged that, adding that “one of the difficulties is continually having to revise these things.” He said “it is good to talk about the elements of conditions of approval,” and he said the “overall Wildlife Habitat Management Plan must be approved so the developer can follow it.” The details will come with the conditions of approval, agreed upon by Gold Rush and the Sutter Creek City Council. Peters agreed, saying it would answer questions, such as “who would build or pay for which trails.” Commissioner Franck Cunha said the specific plan included “5 miles of trails” that are “not tied to any other phase.” He said the point is, “when are those trails going to be built?” They agreed that the Wildlife Plan should have its own language associated with the state Fish & Game Department, then have the final authority be Fish & Game. Commissioner Robert Olson said the wildlife section required a “qualified biologist,” but he did not “see anything where a penalty is provided for cutting too many trees.” Gold Rush Project Manager Jim Harnish said local, state and federal governments provide penalties for environmental violation. Peters said “it seems that any permit sought will be in for a difficult process,” and he thought Olson’s point was a good one. Commissioner Mike Kirkley said the “procedure needs to be spelled out a little more clearly.” Haque said he liked Peters’ idea of a chart for the process. Kirkley said he did not “like the biologist concept, because they are not licensed.” For the environmental aspect, he said “we better have our ducks in a row, because if our environmental document is not good, or if the specific plan is not good, it will be thrown out” in court. On Monday, the planning commission hosts a public hearing on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Gold Rush, specifically for the traffic impact study. The commission’s first meeting in May will wrap up loose ends and look at the errata sheet and conditions of approval. The commission could have a recommendation ready for the city council by the end of June. The council could consider the recommendation in July. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 00:35
Sutter Creek Planning
Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission finalized its review of the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort Specific Plan last week, setting the calendar for several other hearings. Commission Chairman Robin Peters stopped short of calling for revising the Specific Plan in draft form, but he said it was difficult to stay on target. Consultant Anders Hague acknowledged that, adding that “one of the difficulties is continually having to revise these things.” He said “it is good to talk about the elements of conditions of approval,” and he said the “overall Wildlife Habitat Management Plan must be approved so the developer can follow it.” The details will come with the conditions of approval, agreed upon by Gold Rush and the Sutter Creek City Council. Peters agreed, saying it would answer questions, such as “who would build or pay for which trails.” Commissioner Franck Cunha said the specific plan included “5 miles of trails” that are “not tied to any other phase.” He said the point is, “when are those trails going to be built?” They agreed that the Wildlife Plan should have its own language associated with the state Fish & Game Department, then have the final authority be Fish & Game. Commissioner Robert Olson said the wildlife section required a “qualified biologist,” but he did not “see anything where a penalty is provided for cutting too many trees.” Gold Rush Project Manager Jim Harnish said local, state and federal governments provide penalties for environmental violation. Peters said “it seems that any permit sought will be in for a difficult process,” and he thought Olson’s point was a good one. Commissioner Mike Kirkley said the “procedure needs to be spelled out a little more clearly.” Haque said he liked Peters’ idea of a chart for the process. Kirkley said he did not “like the biologist concept, because they are not licensed.” For the environmental aspect, he said “we better have our ducks in a row, because if our environmental document is not good, or if the specific plan is not good, it will be thrown out” in court. On Monday, the planning commission hosts a public hearing on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Gold Rush, specifically for the traffic impact study. The commission’s first meeting in May will wrap up loose ends and look at the errata sheet and conditions of approval. The commission could have a recommendation ready for the city council by the end of June. The council could consider the recommendation in July. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
