SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SIERRA DELT -SIERRA GROUP 1lTA MOTHER LODE CHAP ET R i� 7 ' SIERRA CLUB March 11-1992. ._ Kery Sullivan, Senior Planner 5.J. Cvunty Developmental Services. Division (g 10 E. Hazelton Ave. SE06.1,011, Cd. '9'5205 .31992 Subject: Review of D.E.I.R. No. ER-91 -2 Buckeye Ranch Subdivision, ,, �; If this project purported to be "just another g-oir course with subdivision" we would probably not comment at this point in the process. but to claim chat there will be 720 "undeveloped' acres within the project is a gross exageration. It is also very misleading to refer to this acreage as a "nature ,,- preserve". It appears that both a vineyard and an irrigated pasture have been classified as nature preserve. This inflates the acreage in that C20 classification. The whole property is shown as developed on the site plan (2-6). It appears that there are few. if anv areas which are not within 1.000 feet of some form of development including barn and stable. horse trail, golf green or home site. How much of the golf course is being claimed as undeveloped acreage within the nature preserve? It appears that only the greens are being claimed as golf course and the others areas cleared of trees and understory vegetation are being claimed as part of the "nature area This is a gross misuse of the term "nature preserve". Is this an attempt to receive a special designation for tax purposes, or is it simply a misunder- C21 standing of the concept? 'The cutting of fairways through Brovelli Woods. the proposed deepening of Tracy Lakes, the locating or a golf course green in a vernal pool all appear to illustrate the folly of describing the area as a nature preserve. The following statement is made on page 4.1-5: "Although the Recreation Section of the 2010 Plan clearly shows the Mokelumne River and Brovelli Woods as recreation resources, the implementation policies of the 2010 Plan C22 do not provide for acquisition of the Mokelumne River frontage or Brovelli Woods." In as much as the State Wildlife Conservation Board made an offer to purchase the land from the previous owner this statement appears to be misleading since it implies that there has been no attempt at public purchase of the property. We are pleased to see certain suggesting made which would somewhat mitigate some of the developmental impacts. These include 4.1 -1, 4.7-Ia. 4.7-lc and 4.7-1 d all of which would remove impacts from the woods and C23 other sensitive area. In our initial meeting with Mr. Zuckerman soon after the purchase of the land by Catwill Corporation was announced, we proposed similar alternatives to reduce impa �1 ur suggestions were dismissed.