Laserfiche WebLink
h <br /> Ms Kerry Sullivan SEB i 1993 <br /> San Joaquin County COMMUNITY L,_--- <br /> Community Development Department WING G1Y1�;,;N <br /> 1801 E. Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> January 29, 1993 <br /> Re: Buckeye Ranch Subdivision DEIR SCH# 91012103 <br /> I have reviewed the DEIR (2/92), Supplemental Biotics Study <br /> (10/92), and the Archaeological Identification Studies (11/92) <br /> regarding the proposed Buckeye Ranch Subdivision. After careful <br /> review of these documents, I strongly believe that there are <br /> significant impacts associated with the project that would not be <br /> adequately mitigated by any of the build alternatives proposed. The <br /> only viable option is to select the no build alternative and then <br /> continue to work with the owner, public agencies, and concerned <br /> citizens to insure the longterm protection of this property containing <br /> unique natural and cultural resources. <br /> The cultural resources on the project site are uniquely significant for <br /> this region. The proposed project has already had direct impact on D1o2 <br /> these resources. Additional impacts, both direct and indirect, would <br /> also occur if there was further development. The significance of these <br /> unique sites demands protection so as to remain a sacred area to <br /> Native Americans and as a research opportunity so as to better <br /> understand and preserve the culture and heritage of the land's first <br /> inhabitants. My specific comments concerning, first the <br /> archaeological, and second the biotic portion of the DEIR follow. <br /> There is historical and current concern that cultural resources are so <br /> intense and scattered throughout the project site that they can be <br /> characterized as without boundaries. Mr. Jerald Johnson's comments <br /> concerning the 2/92 document addressed this problem in terms of <br /> development, asking that supplemental work establish those D103 <br /> boundaries. The resulting Archaeological Identification Studies, <br /> 11/92, rerecords and documents only the nine prehistoric sites <br /> described in the original document and does not pursue further <br /> identification. This is a serious gap of knowledge, investigation and <br /> thorough interpretation in the present documents. <br /> VI-95 <br />