Laserfiche WebLink
D Gregg Erickson <br /> 525 York Street <br /> Lodi, CA 95240 <br /> FEB 21993 <br /> January 31, 1993 <br /> C.OMMUNITY UtvE�u DEPT. <br /> Ms. Kerry Sullivan PLANNING DIVISION <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Community Development Department <br /> 1801 E. Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> Ms. Sullivan: <br /> Re: Buckeye Ranch Subdivision DEIR SCH#91012103 <br /> As a concerned citizen and property owner in the County of San <br /> Joaquin, I am providing the county with comments regarding the <br /> proposed "Buckeye Ranch" subdivsion EIR. These comments are given <br /> after careful review of the Draft EIR (2/92) , Supplemental Biotics <br /> Report (10/92) , the San Joaquin County General Plan, and various <br /> documents related to the resources of San Joaquin County. <br /> First, I would like to express my appreciation to planning staff of <br /> the county for their effort to integrate the county's conservation <br /> needs and development directions. This is evident in the general <br /> plan and recent efforts toward rare species habitat conservation D87 <br /> plans. It is therefore particularly distressing to review a <br /> development plan that so clearly violates the general plan as well <br /> as California Environmental Quality Act, the California Endangered <br /> Species Act, and the Federal Endangered Species Act, and California <br /> Department of Fish and Game Code. On the basis of these conflicts <br /> the county must select the "No-Build" alternative. <br /> This project will have significant effects on rare species and the <br /> natural resources of the county. This in turn will also increase <br /> the cost of development for honest business people in the county <br /> who wish to improve our economic base. By making the resources D88 <br /> scarcer, the mitigation for future project will obviously be more <br /> extreme and costly. One development should not profit unduly at <br /> the expense of all the citizens of the county. From this <br /> perspective the project could produce a negative economic as well <br /> as environmental impact. This effect should be thoroughly <br /> explored. <br /> If the project applicant truly paid for all the mitigation required <br /> to compensate for these impacts the project would not be D89 <br /> profitable. Approval of this project would constitute a county <br /> subsidy of this project. <br /> VI-91 <br />