SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E3 any reflection on any adverse impact on the Mokelumne River at the I bridge crossing. One of the mitigation statements in the prior EIR was "to offset adverse impacts the recommendation was no bridge crossing. " The California Department of Fish and Game Swainsons E'4 Hawk Management Plan states that to have a proper consideration of a project and to approve a project, a net benefit to the Swainson Hawk must be shown in a project which will affect Swainson Hawk habitat. The discussion of the adequacy of offsetting the loss of the present foraging habitat area in the document does not state how this is to be accomplished. The statement regarding the benefit of the fairways as a foraging area for Swainsons Hawk may be true but there is an adverse impact of those fairways being created. If the benefit of the fairways is to be factored into the E5 document, the adverse impact of the fairway should also be I considered. Is the fairway construction going to be factored into the consideration of offsetting the loss of foraging habitat. He stated he did not find any off-site mitigation for the Swainson Hawk habitat. There seems to be an internal inconsistency in that E6 the biological resources states that houses should be placed near the Tracy Lakes; whereas, the cultural study states the houses should be kept away from Tracy Lakes as that is the location of the sensitive cultural areas. The proposed project will locate the houses on the high ground around Tracy Lakes which ;gill adversely affect the sensitive cultural areas. IIn the cultural review, Mr. Newbold stated he feels a health and safety code violation did occur when the trees were cut down and E7 the stumps removed. He would like to know if there were any cultural resources discovered in the stump removal creating the fairway woods. He stated that in reading through Jerry Johnson' s comment letter and in the initial cultural resources review, he found there was a recommendation that any further studies should examine the existing collections which have been taken out of Brovelli Woods (collections at U.C. Berkeley Lowie Museum and the Tracy Schools, etc. ) . No where in the present cultural resource study was it mentioned that the study of existing collections had been done. He went on to say that the prior study died not find all the cultural resources and they inadequately determined the characteristics of those that were known in the newly recorded -ES resources. Were there new studies done in other areas other than I those prior areas that were identified as being significant, i.e. , in the golf course area, in the Buckeye oak savannah. He recommended that a qualified professional cultural resources ,E9 monitor should be on-site when the proponents engage in excavation I activities. With regard to the mitigation that was developed for the cultural resources, was the Planning Staff incorporated into the mitigation measures? He stated he would be more comfortable if he knew the staff was involved in developing the mitigation measures. Glenda Hesseltine, 24343 E. Liberty Road, Clements. Her main i concern is mitigating the unmitigable. In Dr. Johnson's letter it I was stated that the "first team" , as well as himself, missed identifying sites of significance, how can we mitigate what we E10 F VII-2