Laserfiche WebLink
It was explained that a track mounted back; hoe that actually does <br /> the excavation is eNtremely hard to move . The -Planning <br /> Commission , with limited discussion , voted to delete the entire <br /> condition . This was not even asked for by CCW. Since there was <br /> considerable mention of the unsightliness of the project by <br /> affected property owners , I think this condition was appropriate <br /> mitigation . To completely delete the condition was in error an•d <br /> a total disregard £or affected property owners and their <br /> comments . I feel this condition needs to be reconsidered , <br /> reinstated and amended to appease both the property owners and <br /> CCW. <br /> 4 . At the September 6 hearing , Stan Harris and Robert Hoffman <br /> both spoke and attempted to refute the nation, of a wetland being <br /> impacted by this quarry project . They suggested this fresh water <br /> wetland was actually created by gold dredging tailings some time <br /> ago. That may be the case , but it in no way changes its being <br /> categorized and considered as a wetland . The same mitigation <br /> consideration is required , regardless of their statements in an <br /> attempt to reduce its significance . The Department of Fish and <br /> Game correctly identified this fresh water area as a wetland and <br /> it should be treated as such . unfortunately, the general <br /> sentiment of It not being a wetland seemed to prevail atter it. <br /> was addressed by the CCW spokesmen. It would have been <br /> appropriate for the representatives from Harding and Lawson , the <br /> company engaged to do the EIR, to make a statement, since the <br /> CDFG was not present . They made no comment . From this point <br /> forward , the Planning Commission seemed bent on finding ways to <br /> water down the mitigation . It should be noted that mitigation is <br /> a compromise already. <br /> S . I would like to call attention to what appears to be an <br /> oversight in the FEIR project description . In CCW' s application <br /> they make mention of their desire to extract "2 . 9 million tons of <br /> rock , sand , and gravel over a ten year period . ' It is common <br /> knowledge that the aggregate business makes a significant amount <br /> of money in recovering, gold . Wi•,y is this not mentioned in the <br /> application or in the FEIR? I am not familiar with aggregate <br /> excavation applications , but it seems that reference should be <br /> made to gold recovery, which I presume is one of their principal <br /> motivations . In talking to citizens in the Clements area, they <br /> all affirm that there is lots of gold in those gravels . They <br /> suggest, it is good part of CCW' s motivation in pursuing this <br /> project. This application seems deficient without any address to <br /> the issue of gold . <br /> The following are other disturbing actions , disregarded <br /> information , confused logic and questionable results of the <br /> Planning Commissions decision to approve the quarry project <br /> application: <br /> 1 . At the September 6 hearing , I witnessed questionable attempts <br /> by the Planning Commission to gut mitigation out of the project <br /> after already approving the FEIR. I am very confused and <br /> -8- <br />