Amador County – The Sutter Creek City Council on Monday finalized wording of the city’s official ballot statement for the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort referendum in June, with the statement urging support and also telling what a “no” vote would do. The language notes that a “no vote means that the council’s actions will be overturned and development of the property could proceed in accordance with existing zoning, which allows for approximately 1,800 dwelling units.” The statement says “this scenario would generate significant and unavoidable impacts similar to those expected from Gold Rush Ranch, however the city would have no ability to reduce or eliminate these impacts.” The ballot statement says “additionally, the city would not receive any of the community benefits that the council negotiated for its citizens.” Planning Commissioner Mike Kirkley said the property in the project has been industrially zoned for a long time, and the 1,800-unit scenario was a “scare tactic.” He said “industrial development could go through just as easily as development.” Mayor Pro Tempore Tim Murphy said the paragraph “is a gross over-simplification of what would happen if there was a ‘no’ vote,” and if the project is stopped. Planning Commissioner Frank Cunha said “it could be denser that 1,800 equivalent dwelling units.” The statement said that the “city council diligently evaluated Gold Rush Ranch and approved a project that represents an appropriate future land use plan and provides for significant community benefits.” City Treasurer Cathy Castillo said there is “no municipal bond market,” and “demand has just evaporated.” She also asked how the shortfall would be fixed between the city General Fund and its deficit. Councilwoman Sandy Anderson said: “These things have been taken care of, and it is your opinion that these things haven’t been taken care of.” Cunha said in the planning process, it was know that “if there is no market, the project doesn’t get built.” Planning Commisison Chairman Robin Peters said the industrial property could be rezoned, but the owner should “be prepared to pay.” Cunha said the commission spent considerable time working on the issue with City Planner Bruce Baracca, and learned that “there would be no mitigations because the project is already permitted,” getting its permit in 1994. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tuesday, 09 March 2010 09:03
Council Urges “Yes” Vote, Debates “No” Vote on Gold Rush Referendum
Amador County – The Sutter Creek City Council on Monday finalized wording of the city’s official ballot statement for the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort referendum in June, with the statement urging support and also telling what a “no” vote would do. The language notes that a “no vote means that the council’s actions will be overturned and development of the property could proceed in accordance with existing zoning, which allows for approximately 1,800 dwelling units.” The statement says “this scenario would generate significant and unavoidable impacts similar to those expected from Gold Rush Ranch, however the city would have no ability to reduce or eliminate these impacts.” The ballot statement says “additionally, the city would not receive any of the community benefits that the council negotiated for its citizens.” Planning Commissioner Mike Kirkley said the property in the project has been industrially zoned for a long time, and the 1,800-unit scenario was a “scare tactic.” He said “industrial development could go through just as easily as development.” Mayor Pro Tempore Tim Murphy said the paragraph “is a gross over-simplification of what would happen if there was a ‘no’ vote,” and if the project is stopped. Planning Commissioner Frank Cunha said “it could be denser that 1,800 equivalent dwelling units.” The statement said that the “city council diligently evaluated Gold Rush Ranch and approved a project that represents an appropriate future land use plan and provides for significant community benefits.” City Treasurer Cathy Castillo said there is “no municipal bond market,” and “demand has just evaporated.” She also asked how the shortfall would be fixed between the city General Fund and its deficit. Councilwoman Sandy Anderson said: “These things have been taken care of, and it is your opinion that these things haven’t been taken care of.” Cunha said in the planning process, it was know that “if there is no market, the project doesn’t get built.” Planning Commisison Chairman Robin Peters said the industrial property could be rezoned, but the owner should “be prepared to pay.” Cunha said the commission spent considerable time working on the issue with City Planner Bruce Baracca, and learned that “there would be no mitigations because the project is already permitted,” getting its permit in 1994. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Latest from
- 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)
