Ledger-Dispatch

By Jerry Budrick (jbudrick@ledger-dispatch.com= )=20

Members of the Sutter Creek City = Council and=20 Planning Commission gathered for another joint meeting on the = proposed=20 Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort development Monday night, this = time to=20 discuss a possible contractual agreement.

Photo by: Jerry = Budrick

Sutter Creek City Manager Rob Duke, = left, and=20 consultant Rob Williams spoke Tuesday.

Photo by: Jerry=20 Budrick
What could become a contractual = agreement=20 between the city of Sutter Creek and Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort was = presented to the joint meeting of the city council and planning = commission on=20 Tuesday night.

"Development agreements are not regulations," said = City=20 Attorney Dennis Crabb, although California Government Code 65867.5(a), = referred=20 to in paragraph 1.3.1 of the draft agreement, states, "A development = agreement=20 is a legislative act that shall be approved by ordinance and is subject = to=20 referendum."

The first draft is a 31-page document, which seeks = to=20 outline the rights and responsibilities of both the project applicants = and the=20 city. It was prepared by the attorney for Gold Rush Golf LLC, using = suggestions=20 developed during conferences between the city's negotiating team and the = project=20 principals.

Members of Sutter Creek's team are Councilman Tim = Murphy,=20 Crabb, City Manager Rob Duke, Assistant City Manager Sean Rabe and their = consultants. The project principals are Bill Bunce and John = Telischak.

In=20 subsequent discussion, Duke described the process leading up to creation = of the=20 draft development agreement. "The team," Duke said, "made a list of = things that=20 are important to the town." Included on the list are the Knight Foundry, = parks,=20 community college, road improvements, wastewater treatment, school, = fire, police=20 and taxes. Each of these is or is supposed to be dealt with in the = development=20 agreement. The basic concept of the agreement is that it provides = assurances to=20 all parties involved. As written in California Government Code 65864, = its intent=20 is to eliminate the lack of certainty in the approval of development = projects,=20 to provide assurance to applicants that they can proceed with a project = in=20 accordance with existing policies and to aid communities in financing of = public=20 facilities.

Initial introduction of the development agreement = marks the=20 beginning of what Crabb calls "a sorting process." There will be three = levels,=20 he said, at which the contract will be refined: staff (team), planning=20 commission and, finally, city council.

An objection to the "team" = concept=20 was raised by Councilman Pat Crosby. "Negotiations should include the = full=20 council - we've had 18 months of committee working on this agreement," = he said.=20 "We should hammer out the development agreement in the next two weeks = and=20 everything else can follow from that."

Discussion of these = suggestions=20 ultimately resulted in retention of the present negotiating=20 arrangement.

In the draft, funding for acquisition, debt service, = due=20 diligence and title to Knight Foundry is to be provided in the amount of = $35,000=20 annually. The city team requested 100 acres for a park close to = downtown. The=20 draft offers to commit $1 million, in cash, for "acquisition of open = space=20 resources."

Amador County Recreation Agency Director Tracey = Towner-Yep=20 expressed concern that this $1 million might be in lieu of the $14 = million that=20 the project could contribute to county recreation funds, if full = build-out is=20 reached. Duke later said that this wasn't the case. Towner-Yep also = stated her=20 opinion that the 300 proposed vacation rental units should pay = recreation=20 mitigation fees.

During public comment, local contractor Ray = Brusatori=20 asked, "What about parks? If we are adding 1,500 houses, we're going to = need=20 ball parks and soccer fields."

Advocates of a community college = have been=20 at work in Amador County for some years, and the draft includes an offer = to=20 donate $60,000 per year for up to five years to support this effort. = Although=20 the draft does not specify a college, Duke pointed to Sec. 2.20: = Developer-City=20 Cooperation on Additional Public Land Acquisition as referring to this=20 undertaking.

Another $1 million is offered for = non-project-oriented=20 traffic improvements. The stated intent is to use this sum as matching = funds for=20 downtown road maintenance.

Planning Commissioner Mike Kirkley = questioned=20 the propriety and fairness of tying road work far from Gold Rush to the = project.=20 Crabb responded, "There is no nexus element with a development=20 agreement."

Wastewater, upgrading or relocating of the city's = sewage=20 treatment plant, the city's involvement with the Amador Regional = Sanitation=20 Authority and the Amador Water Agency, and the easement held by the city = and=20 ARSA for effluent disposal on the Gold Rush property are among the = unresolved=20 issues.

Negotiations regarding schools or school sites are being=20 conducted independently between Gold Rush and the Amador County Unified = School=20 District.

Language in the draft regarding emergency services is=20 relatively vague, stating, "Developer has the option to dedicate up to = ten acres=20 of land within the city limits ... suitable for a fire/police station." = A site=20 had been shown within the project, but further thoughts have brought = this topic=20 back into the discussion stage.

Property taxes on houses in new=20 subdivisions have been shown to be inadequate to pay for the essential = services=20 they require, creating a potential revenue shortfall. Based on this = premise, a=20 community facilities district is proposed in the draft. This CFD is = projected to=20 yield $308 annually per dwelling unit, over and above the standard = property=20 tax.

An affordable housing strategy in the draft agreement = promises=20 creation of 42 units of housing "affordable to individuals and families = earning=20 80-120% of median income." These units may be onsite or offsite. =

Traffic=20 issues, which are a major focus of project opponents, have been thrown = back into=20 negotiations with the Amador County Transportation Commission. The draft = agreement does offer to provide a secondary access to Highway=20 88.

Paragraphs dealing with matters not on the city's wish list = can be=20 found in the draft. The developer offers to "make reasonable efforts" to = have=20 sales and use taxes associated with purchases by contractors and major=20 sub-contractors shifted to the city. Details of this commitment will = require=20 further refinement.

Another such voluntary offer concerns = employment of=20 local residents in the way of "reasonable efforts to encourage economic = and job=20 opportunities for local residents, including soliciting local = contractors to=20 participate in the bid process and utilizing local = labor."

Numerous=20 residents commented on aspects of the draft agreement.

"We = should be=20 finishing the EIR before all the rest of this," said Bart Weatherly, who = went=20 through the draft agreement in detail, pointing out many purported=20 flaws.

Mayor Gary Wooten later said that the city was = "Bart-ering" with=20 Gold Rush.

Foothill Conservancy attorney Tom Infusino warned of = possible=20 danger from elements of the agreement that might rely on people or = entities=20 other than those directly involved, such as the county or transit = officials.=20 Infusino also called the tax transfer "problematical."

Amador = Citizens=20 for Smart Growth representative Kathy Allen wanted to know more about = the=20 definitions of "local" and "fair share."

Jerry = Budrick