SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RDEIR authors and the developer only, without input from the community development D142. department. We wonder if this is typical or an aberration of proper planning. We are of the opinion that planning documents, identification of impacts, and developed mitigation, especially for this project site, requires that the lead agency participate in the planning process. There seems to be a general assumption that the most significant cultural resources found on the project site occur on the high ground around the lakes --- this maybe. Dave Fisher one of the owners also stated that the significant sites were not in the woods. This D143 understanding seems contrary to the identification of a significant site along the river at the south end of the project site where the reforestation project is occurring. This site is referred to many times as formerly being in the riparian woodland. Doesn't this disprove the absolute determination that all the significant sites are in the upland areas? In our attempts to be informed about the cultural resources at the project site, we have become alarmed with the realization that in the act of cutting down the riparian woodland and removing the stumps to accommodate the golf course fairways, cultural resources were likely disturbed. We feel it is appropriate for the developers, who claim to be acting in good faith, to answer the question, "Were human remains or artifacts discovered when the trees and stumps were removed?" We suggest that CEQA, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, violations, SB 447 (Chapter 404, Statutes of 1987) and Public Resource Code section 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 violations may have occurred in this act of tree removal. These potential offenses shouldn't be treated lightly because they are felony crimes. In regards to the discovery of D144 human remains, CEQA appendix K, Section VIII, states, "In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains." We think the uncertainty in this matter should be responded to by the developers, and it should be addressed by the County planning department, and the EIR consultants, while this effort of risk assessment is underway. We share the greater Native American Community and the Ione Band of Miwok's concerns over past, present, and future desecration of sacred cultural sites at the project site, which are important to their traditional history and culture. With all due respect to the Community Development Department, biotic and cultural resource mitigation monitoring by the County, or supervising of this monitoring by the County, is a pipe-dream. This fact and the inability of the County to properly monitor projects requiring biotic and cultural resource monitoring is proven by the County's prior failures to monitor mitigation measures made a part of project approvals. The Department does not have the staff to engage in the regular monitoring prescribed in the DEIR and the RDEIR. Considering the rare biotic and cultural values at the project site, more rather than less or standard monitoring is required. It appears that this Buckeye Ranch Subdivision proposal is inconsistent with the 1995 County general plan, under which this project application is being considered. In a master plan VI-114