I have been attending city meetings and paying close attention to the Gold Rush project for several years, and have studied the EIR with the help of a legal mind. I am fiercely against the project and believe it may be the downfall of our city. Still, the financial report presented at the January 26th meeting was shocking. With the issue of horrific traffic impacts not even approached, it appears that a quite hefty Mello Roos fee must be attached to each property in the development. I believe the Mello Roos fee amount thrown out at the meeting, a few hundred dollars, is quite unrealistic. The average Mello Roos fee in California is between $1500 and $1600. As the evening progressed, councilmen and citizens continued to bring up the city's financial needs that would develop from this project, and the financial advisors continued to increase the possible amount of the Mello Roos fees, but a complete list of the financial impacts to the city brought on by this project was not fully addressed.

This is not a time for any city, especially one that is understaffed and barely hanging on as it is, to take a high risk like the one proposed by Gold Rush. This of course is only one aspect of the Gold Rush project that is troublesome.

Encouraging bad environmental practices at this time is unethical, irresponsible and unhealthy (paving over the rolling hills and expanding highways and a lack of progressive environmentally sound building practices). The traffic impacts that GR does not want to pay any part of up front are ugly (they'll leave it for the developers to whom they sell their approved plan to deal with - good for Gold Rush, bad for the city). Destroying 13,374 oaks and other trees cannot be treated off-handedly. Building residences that must be sold and commercial buildings that must be filled in order for the city to reap the necessary tax benefits to stay above water is a dangerous and unnecessary risk. Presenting the financially troubled school district with a piece of land that is likely not buildable anyway because of mine tailings is of no value. The $1 million offered to the district in lieu of the land not being buildable is a spit in the bucket compared to the shortages our district now suffers and the enormous cost (many millions) to build even a small elementary school. Offering the fire department a piece of land which the three firemen I've spoken with say is not usable even if they could afford to build a fire house and staff it, which they cannot, is without value. A lack of plans for the active parks that our city and county are in such great need of is unacceptable. The report by Bill Condrashoff which clearly stated that this project will overtax our water supply beyond mitigation and present a lack of wastewater disposal area cannot be ignored. There are other serious issues that concern me but I will stop here.

Myself and other Sutter Creek residents against this project are all for progress, which is defined as an advancement toward a more desirable form. Giving up the uniqueness and integrity of our little city is not progress.