SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

concerned about what appears to be irregularities in the process of this application approval . I question whether California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ), violations have occurred . in discussion among the Commission , there were comments such as : -All this mitigation seems unfair to CCW; - -They do such a good job at their present quarry site ; " "This 100 ft . setback from the river seems too much . " They seemed oblivious of why the mitigation was necessary. They disregarded any adverse affects to the environment . It was pointed out by Chet Davisson , Planning Director , that they could not delete mitigation out of a FEIR that they had already-voted on to approve . The discussion went on with the Commission set • on finding a way to mitigate the ]Mitigation . The very dubious result was the recommendation by the Commission that CCW and CDFG get together and work out a compromise . I have talked with several CDFG officials and they were appalled with this decision . CDFG and U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service assured me that CDFG is not obligated by the Planning Commission to meet with CCW or to compromise on what is already a compromise of the river and its riparian corridor . I fear the worst . If you consider CDFG' s track record , regarding the Nokelumne , you will not feel very comfortable about them meeting with CCW to "cut a deal . - CDFG is overburdened , understaffed and underfunded . I , velemently , oppose any compromise on mitigation . Even the notion of a compromise at this point seems to disqualify the approval of the permit and the approval of the much labored over FEIR . It is an insult to the credibility of all those agencies and individuals that have provided input on the project through their comments . I feel a review by County Counsel or , more preferably, independent counsel is required to determine if possible CEQA violations have been perpetrated . The process that I observed seems to be an aberration of commonly accepted procedure that demands attention. 2 . A requirement of CEQA is that the EIR address '•Cumulative Impacts . " To my knowledge and in reading the FEIR, the Planning Division did not sufficiently review Claude C. Wood Company' s current and past operations on the Nokelumne . I third: it is reasonable to assume that CCW' s prior operations have had a cumulative adverse affect on the Nokelumne and its riparian corridor . To not consider this impact limits understanding of the consequences of this currently proposed project. I suggest , that without these studies of cumulative impacts , this project , as approved , is in violation of CEQA requirements. To my knowledge CCW has not had to mitigate for any prior history of adverse affects as a result their operations . This project will be a 10 year perpetuation of CCW ' s very lucrative aggregate business at the expense of the environment. It has been stated that aggregate operations will accrue a value to San Joaquin County, but at what price. The only clearly demonstrated benefit is to Claude C. Wood Company. A proposed reason for this projects approval is the extra cost entailed in transporting gravels from other sites . This is a small price to pay when considering the irrevocable and unmitigable consequences to fisheries , wildlife and plant life . It is stated in a general -9-