Amador County – Amador County received three appeals on the Planning Commission approval of a permit for the Buena Vista Biomass Power plant two weeks ago, and the Board of Supervisors has set an appeal hearing for January 4th.

Amador County Planning Department planner Cara Augostin said the department received three appeals by the close of the appeal period, which ended 5 p.m. Monday. The letters included one from four appellants, Donna Ogelvie, Frank Costa, William May and Jerry Cassesi.

In their letter, dated December 9th, the four said they submitted the appeal fee check for $361, and noted that they “wish to appeal the permitting process, the approval of the Subsequent (Environmental Impact Report), the adoption of overriding considerations and the approval of the project.”

Another appeal was filed December 3rd via Federal Express by Kevin P. Bundy, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Bundy in the letter said the “SEIR fails to meet the minimum requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,” and alleged the “Commission’s certification of the SEIR and its approval of the project are not supported by substantial evidence, represent a failure to proceed according to law, and constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion.”

His appeal was “based on the Center’s comment letters regarding the project,” which included seven submissions made between February 8th and November 30th.

One submission, study from Mary S. Booth for the Center for Biological Diversity, was critical of the biomass power industry’s generators and emissions. An attorney for Buena Vista Biomass Power answered the letter in a submittal to the planning commission, and criticized the study, pointing out that on her “Linked In” web page, Booth describes herself as an opponent of biomass energy plants. The site, in part, said: “Currently, my work focuses on opposing the large-scale biomass energy plants that are being proposed all over the country.”

The Center responded with a letter that said the attorney’s comments were out of line, and asked the Planning Commission to ignore the comments.

The third appeal, filed December 9th by Thomas Strout of Ione, also alleged a failure to comply with CEQA, and asked supervisors to “decline to certify” the Final Subsequent EIR.

Strout wrote that his “appeal is also based on the failure to adequately respond to comments” he made, which alleged deficiencies in the description of the project, inappropriate use of a Subsequent EIR, and inadequate analysis of emissions.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.