Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission decided Wednesday that it wanted to try to preserve oak trees and minimize grading in the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort. In a 4-1 vote, Commissioners decided those issues were pertinent to their recommendation. Chairman Robin Peters asked lead consultant Anders Hague to “come up with a bulleted list of ways for us to implement those concepts.” That must be done in time for their next meeting, 6 p.m. Monday. Hague said it might mean that the commission has more than one meeting left, to get the issues handled and addressed properly. Commissioners took public comment on the Gold Rush Final Environmental Impact Report and took commissioner comments. Peters told the public not to “feel that if they are not prepared that this is the last opportunity to comment, because it is not.” The public may comment at later meetings. Peters said foremost for him was satisfying Goal Number 2.1 of the 1994 Sutter Creek General Plan. It was an issue in previous meetings they put aside to take up later. Goal 2.1 said the General Plan should “Allow the city to grow and prosper while protecting existing neighborhoods and the existing quality of life that is the essence of Sutter Creek. The existing quality of life includes the city’s rural small town atmosphere, its historic qualities and its current level of public services and facilities.” Peters said it was his intent to look at project’s General Plan consistency from the perspective of Goal 2.1. Hague said the Angels Camp housing development, Greenhorn Golf Course, was the model for Sutter Creek City Council and Planning Commission members in their vision of developing the city. Peters agreed, saying that Greenhorn had grading and tree removal done for roads only, and he wanted to apply that to Gold Rush as much as possible. Commissioner Frank Cunha said in the consistency analysis, “there’s at least a dozen policies that speak directly to Goal 2.1. And from the 1994 general plan to 2007 neighborhood meetings, everyone wants the same thing:” just like at Greenhorn, “we don’t want any mass grading.” Cunha said Greenhorn was built by a “handful of people who lived in Angels Camp.” It had “no grading or tree removal except for (building) pads, driveways or streets. I think this is what we’ve been moving toward for 2 years.” Commissioners Mike Kirkley and Robert Olsen agreed, while Corte Strandberg said he thought grading and tree removal were good concepts. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Friday, 19 June 2009 00:42
Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort
Amador County – The Sutter Creek Planning Commission decided Wednesday that it wanted to try to preserve oak trees and minimize grading in the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort. In a 4-1 vote, Commissioners decided those issues were pertinent to their recommendation. Chairman Robin Peters asked lead consultant Anders Hague to “come up with a bulleted list of ways for us to implement those concepts.” That must be done in time for their next meeting, 6 p.m. Monday. Hague said it might mean that the commission has more than one meeting left, to get the issues handled and addressed properly. Commissioners took public comment on the Gold Rush Final Environmental Impact Report and took commissioner comments. Peters told the public not to “feel that if they are not prepared that this is the last opportunity to comment, because it is not.” The public may comment at later meetings. Peters said foremost for him was satisfying Goal Number 2.1 of the 1994 Sutter Creek General Plan. It was an issue in previous meetings they put aside to take up later. Goal 2.1 said the General Plan should “Allow the city to grow and prosper while protecting existing neighborhoods and the existing quality of life that is the essence of Sutter Creek. The existing quality of life includes the city’s rural small town atmosphere, its historic qualities and its current level of public services and facilities.” Peters said it was his intent to look at project’s General Plan consistency from the perspective of Goal 2.1. Hague said the Angels Camp housing development, Greenhorn Golf Course, was the model for Sutter Creek City Council and Planning Commission members in their vision of developing the city. Peters agreed, saying that Greenhorn had grading and tree removal done for roads only, and he wanted to apply that to Gold Rush as much as possible. Commissioner Frank Cunha said in the consistency analysis, “there’s at least a dozen policies that speak directly to Goal 2.1. And from the 1994 general plan to 2007 neighborhood meetings, everyone wants the same thing:” just like at Greenhorn, “we don’t want any mass grading.” Cunha said Greenhorn was built by a “handful of people who lived in Angels Camp.” It had “no grading or tree removal except for (building) pads, driveways or streets. I think this is what we’ve been moving toward for 2 years.” Commissioners Mike Kirkley and Robert Olsen agreed, while Corte Strandberg said he thought grading and tree removal were good concepts. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
