Sutter Creek City Manager Rob Duke answered questions about the Erickson Ranch annexation at Tuesday night's meeting.

Photo by: Kelly Enos

It looks like a minor division is taking place among Sutter Creek city officials and at least one resident over a done deal involving the annexation of what's come to be known as Erickson Ranch, 187 acres straddling both sides of the Highway 49 bypass.

Sutter Creek resident Ed Swift has been a vocal critic of the transaction, saying at meetings and in mass e-mails that changes were made to the grant deed between the city and California Department of Transportation, which is conducting what he calls forced mitigation that could endanger mature oaks on the property.

"There is now little agricultural, scenic sites or natural habitat left for the benefit of generations to come," he said.

The city acquired the property in 2003 from a Caltrans mitigation project along with an endowment of $50,949 to pay for maintenance and management. The property, which was used as open grazing land, has areas of oak trees and is bisected by a small creek that is now planned to become an oak plantation woodland where trees will cover most of the property.

A proposed easement is to preserve the property, according to an environmental review document presented to the Sutter Creek Planning Commission. And while the general public will be prohibited from accessing portions not along a fenced trail, access will be granted to local Native American tribes to visit archeological sites, or to plant and harvest native plants. The city retains all responsibility for cost of ownership, operation and upkeep of the land.

"My concern ... is that most people (in) Sutter Creek do not know that the city will have to pay the entire cost of this project," Swift said.

City Manager Rob Duke, who has been responding to Swift's claims in e-mail and at meetings in recent weeks, reminded the public that the city accepted the land from Caltrans years ago and can't renegotiate the terms of the agreement or give the land back. The public hearing Tuesday night was to decide whether the city should annex the property to set use ordinances for the hours of operation, he said. The city will also avoid paying a small property tax by annexing the park site.

"In any case, the terms were reasonable and the city gained a beautiful piece of land for open space and walking trails," Duke said.

Residents who spoke during public comment were assured that concerns regarding the annexation would be addressed and that the endowment would more than cover the upkeep.

Al Bozzo urged all Sutter Creek residents to oppose the city spending "one dime" in pursuing Swift's concerns, saying he felt the city "got off lightly" in the deal. "There is a saying about picking one's battles," said Bozzo, "and this is one we can't win."

In other city council business, the council adopted a negative declaration tied to any environmental impacts of its housing element. Councilman Pat Crosby was opposed to any agreement due to a concern that residents would experience a 200 percent increase in sewer costs.

"If we make any steps toward what you are asking for, the sewer system will go upside down," he said.

Duke acknowledged an increase in sewer rates was one way the city could choose to go, but that "there are other options out there."