Jackson – About 35 people attended a meeting last week to hear about the Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council programs at Lower Bear River Reservoir and the North Fork of the Mokelumne River. Public input was and still is being sought for “prioritization of potential measures for preserving and enhancing” both areas, and the council was asking interested organizations for plans on their proposed involvement. The Stewardship Council will look at qualifications of future landowners and conservation easement holders. Council Land Conservation Director Ric Notini gave a Land Conservation Program overview, and said the Stewardship Council was formed by Pacific Gas & Electric Company in a 2003 bankruptcy settlement. It was formed to permanently protect PG&E lands, “to develop and implement a plant to permanently protect lands and maintain and improve public access.” Notini said PG&E owns 140,000 acres of watershed lands. The company owns and manages that land, in 22 counties across California, grouped into 47 planning units within 9 watershed areas. The key element of the program, Notini said, is to retain lands needed for operations and make the remainder available to qualified organizations. He said “existing agreements for economic uses” will be honored, and conservation easements – or satisfactory assurance – will be placed on both PG&E retained lands and donated lands. Another key element is tax neutrality. The Stewardship Council’s Mary Adelzadeh, regional land conservation manager, talked to the group about which organizations had expressed interest in the program. 4 organizations were interested in taking a fee title of the “Lower Bear Area Planning Unit,” including Amador County and the Amador County Research Conservation District. Amador County was also among 10 groups listed with interest in taking fee title of the “North Fork Mokelumne River Planning Unit.” Amador County was also among 5 groups interested in getting a conservation easement on the “Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Area.” Notini said the Stewardship Council would have future preservation and enhancement activities to involve landowners, conservation easement holders and land conservation partners. Non-profits, public entities and tribes are eligible to participate. Notini said the program will have “$70 million in funding over 10 years,” being provided by “PG&E ratepayers.” The “funding is available for studies, transaction costs and enhancements.” Its funding policy will be developed with public input. The next step is developing a “land conservation and conveyance plan,” with objectives to preserve and enhance public benefit at the 2 areas, and develop potential measures to achieve the objectives. Online, see www.stewardshipcouncil.org. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sutter Creek – Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort partner Bill Bunce laid bare some of the extra benefits that the developer has agreed to, as they work with Sutter Creek City Council on a development agreement. Planning Commissioner Frank Cunha asked City Attorney Samuel L. Jackson if it was a good idea to have the development agreement signed before approving the project. Jackson told the council that it is “very wise and prudent to have the development agreement executed,” before approving the project. Bunce said that agreement is a public document and has some changes he would like the council to consider, but it tells what they “have requested in very great detail.” He said the project began as 833 acres on the Noble Ranch, with 900 units. It then grew to the current size of 945 acres, with the addition of the Allen Ranch. The specific plan now includes 1,334 housing units, an18-hole golf course, 300 resort time share units, a 60-room hotel and 20,000 square feet of commercial space. They also would have 20 acres for more commercial usage, on city recommendation. Bunce said they will pay mitigations required by law, and agreed to form a Community Facilities District for fire coverage. He said after a fiscal impact committee meeting 2 weeks ago, it looked like the city was headed toward requiring traffic impact fees, along with improvements at 2 intersections. Bunce said Gold Rush will also pay “Sterling” fees in a standard format, plus they “agreed to supplemental mitigation measures,” in dedication of a 17-acre school site, that was “beyond legally required mitigations.” Councilman Pat Crosby asked if they would be willing to build a school at the size and location the school district desires. Bunce said “possibly,” but the Sterling fee agreement takes the place of an “age restrictive” approach, based on older home buyers’ ages, which reduce impact costs. Bunce said Superintendents Mike Carey and now Dick Glock said they “need more than fees to get school constructed,” leading to the 17-acre land dedication agreement. But regarding building a school, Bunce said: “We’re certainly open to talk to the school district to make that school happen.” Crosby asked if the “agreement guarantees no busing of Sutter Creek students.” Bunce said the school district identified the need for a junior high, and the 17-acre site is adequate for a kindergarten through 8th grade school, with ball fields. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sutter Creek – Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort partner Bill Bunce told the Sutter Creek City Council last week that he was trying to keep his project alive. Mayor Gary Wooten asked Bunce to attend last week and answer city council questions about the project’s specific plan, currently under council consideration for approval. Councilman Pat Crosby said the “project is too big for Sutter Creek” and asked whether developers could consider a smaller number of units. Bunce said the project began by identifying its feasible size, and concluded the 1,334 housing units as the goal project. He said if the number of units was reduced, Gold Rush’s abilities to offer amenities would be affected, including wastewater system improvements, school agreements, a water pipeline and water tanks. Bunce said: “We feel that the project has been compromised” and “we are doing the best that we can to make sure it survives.” Crosby said he thought the project has “shocked enough people that they will probably accept a project of 400 or 500 units.” He said he thought the city needed a “large area for an active park,” and he did not agree with the golf course. Bunce said the development agreement includes a 15-acre park, and they plan to build a golf course first, to make the project a “destination.” They have a goal to “get started as quickly as possible.” He said a driving range will be built in the form of an outdoor amphitheater, and he expects it to be used that way. Bunce said the clubhouse will include public space to be used for meetings. Wooten asked if they were committed to sewer improvements, noting that the council decided earlier in the meeting to not issue bonds to replenish $750,000 spent on sewer maintenance and expansion. Bunce said Gold Rush is committed to following the city Wastewater Master Plan, designed to require upgrades based on housing development sizes. He said the site is “visually un-intrusive,” and was chosen for tertiary disposal purposes. Bunce said they “have invested an incredible amount of money” and they are aware of the economy, real estate and capital markets; and the delay to start hurts them. Mayor Pro Tem Tim Murphy said 2 developments in Sutter Creek had not sold 150 homes, and he asked if Gold Rush would have “production homes” to help sales. Bunce said the “demand for the project is driven by the quality of the project itself.” And custom and production homes both will be part of the golf course project. The council next meets on the Gold Rush issue next Monday, October 19th. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Jackson – The Amador County Planning Department this week released a draft “glossary of terms” for the county General Plan Update. The text includes strikethroughs to language, and staff recommendations. Examples include definitions of the words “shall” and “should.” It says “shall” is “that which is obligatory” and “an unequivocal direction.” The word “should” is defined as “a less rigid directive than ‘shall’” and is “a directive to be followed if at all possible in the absence of compelling or contravening considerations.” The glossary includes several entries that planning staff recommended for removal from the glossary. Staff says the word “adequate” should be removed because it is a “subjective” word. Staff also recommends removing the words “balance,” “developer,” “discourage,” and “encourage.” The note suggests the word “developer” could “be removed from goals and policies” in the county general plan. They also recommend removing the glossary entry of the noun form of the word “preserve,” because “is not used as a noun in the goals and policies.” Staff also suggested reevaluation of the use of the term “Community Water Systems,” and potentially deleting it from the glossary. The entry for Large Retailer is defined as “large commercial retail or warehouse stores with footprints greater than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area,” but it deleted about 370 words defining large retail stores, including the names of many franchise stores. Deleted categories included “big-box retail facilities,” “discount department stores,” “category killers”, “outlet stores,” and “warehouse clubs.” The planning department noted that “staff would prefer to develop a single, simple threshold rather than devise several types of retailers, with different sizes for each.” The term “Economically Viable Agriculture” is defined, and staff notes that the “county intends to support the economic viability of agricultural activities by allowing a wider variety of activities in appropriate areas.” Those include roadside stands, processing activities, and agri-tourism uses. The “agri-business” glossary entry notes that “specific agriculture-related businesses which would be permitted on a particular parcel will be regulated by the Amador County Zoning Code.” With an entry on “agriculture-related businesses,” staff noted that those “may include some uses which are not permitted on lands under Williamson Act contracts.” Those “uses would not apply to parcels under Williamson Act contracts. The General Plan Update and related materials, including the new glossary, can be seen online at the county’s website, www.co.amador.ca.us. For information, call the Amador planning department at 223-6380. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.