Ledger-Dispatch

By Kelly Enos (kenos@ledger-dispatch.com) =

Dozens of people packed the Sutter = Creek City=20 Council meeting last week.

Photo by: Kelly=20 Enos
Lingering questions about the process = for=20 annexing the 176-acre Erickson Ranch into Sutter Creek's control = prompted the=20 city council last week to schedule an official report at its Feb. 18=20 meeting.

Most of the concerns have been raised by resident Ed = Swift, who=20 is questioning how much the annexation will cost the city and who will = have=20 access to a large tract of land that will be designated an open space=20 park.

In separate e-mails to Loraine Davis, a Sutter Creek = resident who=20 runs a mass distribution list, City Manager Rob Duke and Charles Field,=20 executive director of the Amador County Transportation Commission, = explained the=20 reasoning behind the city's acquisition.

Long before the city got = involved with this mitigation site, Field said the U.S. Fish and = Wildlife=20 Service was going to stop progress on the Highway 49 bypass for two = years so the=20 county could conduct red-legged frog surveys for a 2-mile radius around = the=20 bypass alignment. "Given all that's gone on with state transportation = funding=20 since then, the bypass would not be built today if that had happened," = Field=20 said in his e-mail.

Rather than paying what Field estimated would = be=20 roughly $1 million in surveys, he said the city, county and federal = legislators=20 pressured Fish and Wildlife to remove their demand in exchange for the = city's=20 agreement to purchase the ranch and leave it undisturbed "in perpetuity = as open=20 space/wild land."

"The ACTC and others enjoying the bypass today = need to=20 thank Sutter Creek for taking on this responsibility," he = said.

The city=20 is in the process of taking control of the land from the California = Department=20 of Transportation. The agreement will provide the city with a roughly = $50,000=20 lump sum from the state for managing the land, according to Planning=20 Commissioner Mike Kirkley. Duke noted that the property contains = protected=20 criteria under the city's general plan, including visually sensitive = areas and a=20 creekside drainage area.

The city does have the right to build a = walking=20 trail around the perimeter of the property and has already completed=20 three-fourths of the eastern parcel's trail. Duke said the city is = hoping to=20 finish the northern portion of the trail this summer, though that = depends on=20 when the funding becomes available.

As for the access = restrictions, Duke=20 tried to explain those as well.

"The city agreed to place a deed=20 restriction on the property to preserve the park and open space = forever," he=20 said in his e-mail. "This is good public policy and is the same = condition that=20 the city requires of private developers when they set aside park or open = space."

These conditions were developed with a committee of local = residents from government, environmental causes, ranching and = agricultural=20 interests, as well as some Native American interests, he said. Native = Americans=20 have the right to access the property to manage native plants and = cultural=20 sites, while representatives of the Amador Land Trust can enter the = property to=20 inspect the habitat areas.

Duke cited the reasons for annexing = the=20 property, saying the city would avoid paying property taxes on it, could = place=20 it under police jurisdiction and limit use of the property "in = reasonable ways,"=20 such as controlling hours of operation and making sure residents clean = up after=20 their pets if they use the walking trail.

While Kirkley isn't = opposed to=20 the annexation, he has taken issue with the recent mitigation work = Caltrans has=20 done on the property, saying it has "scarred" a scenic oak woodland = parcel. He=20 is also questioning the Fish and Wildlife requirement to build the = fenced=20 trail.

In other business, the city of Sutter Creek will soon = impose=20 mitigation fees on new development following a corrected study presented = by=20 Goodwin and Associates Consulting last week.

Duke explained that = state=20 law requires that before a mitigation fee can be imposed on new = developments, a=20 study must show a justification of that fee for the purpose of = establishing a=20 "nexus" between impacts created by new construction and the amount being = charged=20 to offset those impacts on public services and facilities. The amount = charged=20 needs to reflect the developments' fair share of the costs, but not be = used as a=20 means to correct existing deficiencies.

"This is in compliance = with the=20 AB1600 mitigation fee act to develop capital facilities for the future = of the=20 city," Duke said of state legislation. "You must identify the purpose = and use in=20 relation to the type of development and what it will be levied=20 upon."

According to the study, the city currently has = approximately 2,945=20 residents with a 4 percent growth rate projected by 2027. The estimated=20 population increase to 6,453 would cause an increased need for police, = fire and=20 other city services. The council adopted the study and new fee=20 schedule.

"It's almost impossible to set a fee that pleases = everyone,"=20 said Councilman Pat Crosby. "This is probably as close as we'll = get."

The=20 new fee schedule will take effect within 60 days and is available for = review at=20 city hall.

Kelly = Enos