SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f The proposed mitigation of "time-sharing" the forest between golfers and hawks is highly questionable and unproven. The proposed mitigation of moving the homes and golf course to the northern section of the property is also not adequate in that there is no way to successfully monitor and prevent human access and use of the woods by adjacent residents of the property. Restricted use of the woods is advised during the critical nesting period, but again, there is no real plan for monitoring and enforcing the advised D7 mitigation, thus jeopardizing the reproduction of an endangered species. Given the Swainson' s Hawk' s known aversion to human presence during nesting, a housing project and 18-hole golf course on this site, which has already lost 13 acres, could well constitute a "take" of this endangered species habitat, an impact not successfully mitigated by any of the proposals in the D. E. I . R. and prohibited by law (DFG Code 2080) . The mitigation for the loss of seasonal wetlands when converted to irrigation water storage ponds, is inadequate for a variety of reasons. Construction of the "weirs" at the eastern end of the lake does not successfully duplicate nor satisfy the requirements of habitat that the original wetlands provided that sustain the many species of waterfowl and other life forms there. According to DFG "the project D8 must be designed so that any impacts to wetlands are avoided" or "mitigation should be provided that is based upon the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreage. " Such is not the case in the proposal of the construction of "weirs" at the east end of the lake. Another "unmitigatible condition" is the possible conflict between mitigations for biological impacts and mitigations for archaeological impacts. The D. E. I . R. recommends that housing be moved away from the immediate lakefront to higher ground, to avoid significant impacts on species near the lake. Yet, during our tour of the site several weeks ago, the developer indicated to our group that D9 the "higher ground" was the site of the richest of the archaeological resources. Is this a conflict of two different mitigations? It doesn' t seem to be addressed anywhere in the D. E. I . R. , and due to the protective lack of definition of the sites in the Archaeological Identification Studies document, it is virtually impossible for the average reviewer to determine if there is indeed conflict. Also of an unmitigatible nature is the fact that the project does not meet the five criteria for cancellation of the state Williamson Act contracts. Hence, to construct a private golf course, not open to the public, is in violation TIO of the act and incompatible with the San Joaquin County General Plan zoning which is to protect agriculture and page two VI-48