It seemed like a moment to celebrate. A problematic but beautiful 180-acre ranch that we declined to annex as a subdivision in 1992 before it was purchased as a mine tailings disposal site was being offered as permanently undeveloped open space. A piece of the foothills would remain hilltop house free forever.
But five years later the wisdom of the agreement was challenged by a former councilman, a current councilman (who both supported the subdivision annexation) and some concerned taxpayers. A common thread in the opposition was that Sutter Creek was slickly hoodwinked into shouldering the responsibilities and costs of Caltrans mitigation. The $50,000 endowment was deemed insufficient, almost laughingly so. And the mitigation project itself was criticized as an ill conceived and poorly designed waste of public funds.
Seldom is any public decision without some opposition. That's generally expected and good for the system. The orchestrated opposition to this one was the type that keeps government interesting - kind of late and kind of unexpected. Councilman Pat Crosby opposed the Motherlode Land Trust's designation as the monitoring agent in the conservation agreement years ago. The council out-voted him at that time when it appeared the contract could unravel. The restrictions on the property were clear. Sutter Creek would have liked more public access but in the end felt fortunate that the Department of Fish and Game had conceded a perimeter trail and a couple of picnic spots. The design and scope of the tree and wetlands project is a vulnerable target but it was an approved plan between two other agencies to satisfy environmental law.
The property will cost Sutter Creek some money. City Manager Rob Duke estimates $4,000 to $5,000 per year in addition to the initial expense of a graveled 1.5 mile trail, fencing, and a couple of picnic tables. But in exchange Sutter Creek gained a secure natural preserve and the largest road project this rural region will see for years. I'd sign it again.