It was disappointing to read the recent Katherine Evatt opinion piece on the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort (Sept. 2, "Let Gold Rush buyers beware").

Ms. Evatt expresses concern for the number of trees that will be removed without mentioning that the current approved use of the site as an effluent sprayfield for wastewater will likely kill many more trees. She also fails to mention the mitigations that are proposed, which include planting at least as many trees as removed, the dedication of 300 acres of oak woodlands and open space as a permanent conservation area, and the commitment to acquire an additional 200-plus acres of oak woodland in the Sutter Creek area for permanent protection. I have learned that Ms. Evatt made the recommendation that Gold Rush hire the preeminent local biologist Terry Strange to develop the oak mitigation plan, yet this "fact" is not mentioned in her piece, nor that the proposed tree mitigation efforts are substantially greater than that which was provided for the Highway 49 bypass.

Ms. Evatt states that the project will not build new facilities for fire, schools and waste treatment. She ignores the fact that the project is fully paying its way in a manner agreed to by applicable agencies. Gold Rush is also going beyond the minimum and providing land for a school site, and sites for fire and police stations, as stipulated in the public record.

She claims the Gold Rush project won't provide on-site wastewater disposal that the city and Amador Regional Sanitation Authority paid for (the approved tree-killing alternative addressed earlier), totally ignoring the upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant to a tertiary system that is paid for by Gold Rush, which will reduce the need for this sprayfield easement, substantially reducing the impacts on trees.

She claims that saving open space land with slopes has little value. The new hiking trails opening up this land to the local residents for their enjoyment has great value in my estimation. There is not enough space in this column to continue this fact/fiction review.

To read Ms. Evatt's article, one would take away the impression this project has been under wraps, and recently sprung on unwitting residents of a backward Sutter Creek populace that is easily hoodwinked. Her quickness to dismiss the years of hard work by the Gold Rush team to create a project that balances everyone's interests and needs, by seeking input from residents and local agencies through many workshops, meetings and hearings to fine tune the project and ensure a wide array of community amenities that more than offset its impacts, does a disservice to the community and our elected representatives who have put in countless hours to come up with an acceptable project. Dismissing these as a public relations show and as a plan too good to be true is shallow and insulting.

Finally, despite her many false claims and dismissive feelings about community collaboration, Ms. Evatt would criticize Gold Rush because it ONLY pays its way. Ms. Evatt feels it is OK to knock a project that fully pays its obligations and then some, despite a housing market that is in near a depression state, a downtown Sutter Creek in dire need for customers, a city budget that is hard pressed to fulfill its basic functions and a community that wants improved health, safety, recreational and educational benefits. Gold Rush might not be everything to everyone, but it is a whole lot better than what I have seen in my 25-plus years as a resident of Sutter Creek, watching piecemeal developments that provide impacts without mitigation.

Regardless of Gold Rush Ranch, growth will happen. I, for one, prefer planning for that growth.