Amador County – The “No On Measure N” campaign against the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort was criticized Thursday for giving incorrect information on its website. Sutter Creek Planning Commissioner Frank Cunha said the website refers to the original documents and Specific Plan that Gold Rush wrote. He said arguments on the website refer to a fiscal analysis done before Sutter Creek City Council and Planning Commission put in place their conditions that require developers to pay. The early analysis said Gold Rush would cost each house in Sutter Creek a $1,000 a year. Cunha said the “council made sure that would never happen.” He said “There’s going to be no cost to the city,” because developers must pay up-front deposits on impact costs. “Every quarter, they have to put up an estimated amount of what the city thinks the cost will be to serve the development.” When houses are sold, it’s paid as a tax on the homeowner. Cunha said “before the first building permit is issued, they will have to do another fiscal analysis, because the “city wanted to be able to change impact fees, to keep them current. He said a “project like this, like Greenhorn Creek, can go on for 15-20 years.” Cunha said Councilwomen Linda Rianda and Sandy Anderson in an opinion piece due to be published today refer readers to city-approved final documents. Cunha urged people to look at the final conditions of approval or the final development agreement, which address “all of the concerns that the city had with the project.” He said “basically” the Planning Commission and City Council rewrote the specific plan to suit Sutter Creek. The original Specific Plan would have taken out 13,000 oak trees, a figure referred to on the “No On N” webpage, but Cunha said it was “one of the first things we threw out.” Cunha said: “Me personally, I’m not a proponent of Gold Rush, but I am a proponent of the specific plan land use agreement.” He said the final specific plan protects the city against all costs for the development, even “if Gold Rush sells to a dozen different developers. He said: “If ‘Yes’ on Gold Rush passes, they will have to work with this document, and it is really specific.” He said the city council did an excellent job with it. Cunha said “if people don’t want Sutter Creek to grow, that’s fine, but if you put a moratorium on Sutter Creek, that’s pretty much a death sentence.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Friday, 14 May 2010 06:22
Commissioner Says No On N Gold Rush Info Misleading
Amador County – The “No On Measure N” campaign against the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort was criticized Thursday for giving incorrect information on its website. Sutter Creek Planning Commissioner Frank Cunha said the website refers to the original documents and Specific Plan that Gold Rush wrote. He said arguments on the website refer to a fiscal analysis done before Sutter Creek City Council and Planning Commission put in place their conditions that require developers to pay. The early analysis said Gold Rush would cost each house in Sutter Creek a $1,000 a year. Cunha said the “council made sure that would never happen.” He said “There’s going to be no cost to the city,” because developers must pay up-front deposits on impact costs. “Every quarter, they have to put up an estimated amount of what the city thinks the cost will be to serve the development.” When houses are sold, it’s paid as a tax on the homeowner. Cunha said “before the first building permit is issued, they will have to do another fiscal analysis, because the “city wanted to be able to change impact fees, to keep them current. He said a “project like this, like Greenhorn Creek, can go on for 15-20 years.” Cunha said Councilwomen Linda Rianda and Sandy Anderson in an opinion piece due to be published today refer readers to city-approved final documents. Cunha urged people to look at the final conditions of approval or the final development agreement, which address “all of the concerns that the city had with the project.” He said “basically” the Planning Commission and City Council rewrote the specific plan to suit Sutter Creek. The original Specific Plan would have taken out 13,000 oak trees, a figure referred to on the “No On N” webpage, but Cunha said it was “one of the first things we threw out.” Cunha said: “Me personally, I’m not a proponent of Gold Rush, but I am a proponent of the specific plan land use agreement.” He said the final specific plan protects the city against all costs for the development, even “if Gold Rush sells to a dozen different developers. He said: “If ‘Yes’ on Gold Rush passes, they will have to work with this document, and it is really specific.” He said the city council did an excellent job with it. Cunha said “if people don’t want Sutter Creek to grow, that’s fine, but if you put a moratorium on Sutter Creek, that’s pretty much a death sentence.” 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)
