SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPEAL OF JOHN D. NEWBOLD QUARRY EXCAVATION APPLICATION NO. QX-90-1 OF CLAUDE C. WOOD CO. Mokelumne River and its habitat, dust, noise, project components, the significance of potential environmental impacts, and the appropriateness of identified mitigation measures. After considering all written and oral testimony, the Commission voted 6-0 to approve Quarry Excavation Application No. QX-90-1. On September 17, 1990, John D. Newbold, representing himself, the Mokelumne River Alliance and the Committee to Save the Mokelumne, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the application, based upon inadequate protections given to the Mokelumne River. On September 25, 1990, the appellant submitted an amended appeal statement that clarified issues and comments contained in the original appeal and indicated that the appeal was not submitted on behalf of the Mokelumne River Alliance and the Committee to Save the Mokelumne. It is on the basis of the amended appeal that this Board letter has been prepared. Due to the length of the appeal, the Planning Division has identified the appeal ' s key comments and only responded to them. The entire appeal is attached to this Board letter as Attachment A. 1. Appeal Statement: The appellant states that this is an inappropriate time to take action on a project that has so many undetermined, adverse impacts to the Mokelumne River and its associated habitats. Response: The EIR prepared for this project extensively analyzed potential impacts and developed appropriate mitigations to reduce the significance of those impacts. The conclusion reached in the Final EIR was that all of the project's impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the adoption of the identified mitigations. At its hearing on September 6, 1990, the Planning Commission certified the Final EIR and adopted its Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval. None of the information submitted by the appellant either contradicts the conclusions of the environmental document or substantiates the existence of "undetermined, adverse impacts" associated with the project. 2 . Appeal Statement: The appellant states that the Planning Commissioners did not discuss the adverse effects that this project would have on BOS LETTER PAGE 2 A