Error
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 62
Thursday, 10 April 2008 03:45

ACPA Approves Moke Bluffs EIR

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

slide7.jpgDespite some strong public comment opposing the project, the Amador County Planning Commission, or ACPC, approved the Environmental Impact Report for the Mokelumne Bluffs Subdivision. The EIR was first submitted to the agency in 2003 and has since gone through numerous changes in response to opposing forces who believe the project will have a detrimental environmental impact. Commission members were also doubtful about specific aspects of the document at Tuesday night’s meeting and asked for clarification from Charlie Simpson, the consultant who drafted the EIR. “What we’re doing in the EIR is responding to all elements and requirements of the (California Environmental Quality Act),” said Simpson.

slide8.jpgSimpson also took the moment to respond to earlier public comment asking for more research on environmental impact. “We identified, as guidelines required, comparative environmental alternatives. It’s a no brainer, 50 lots instead of 100 would obviously be less of an impact. I think we gave a reasonable range of alternatives,” said Simpson. He went on to say that the current project, as opposed to the project reviewed in the draft EIR in 2005, is substantially more refined now, including a wildlife and oak tree mitigation plan. “If you run down the list of changes and think to your self ‘is this a plus or a minus?’ in terms of the environment, these are all pluses,” said Simpson.

Earlier in the evening, Pine Grove citizens who will be living near the project voiced their opinions. John Carlson of Pine Grove believes the project will add to global warming because of its location and its future residents perceived commute. Indeed, much of Tuesday night’s debate wavered off track into discussions about global warming in general. The commissioners expressed their concerns over some of the vague language in the EIR, but were happy overall with the document. The document was approved in a vote of 4-1, on a condition that any further changes will need to be introduced later as findings. Chair Andy Byrne voted to oppose the approval, stating that he believed the document still needed some revision.

Read 597 times Last modified on Friday, 28 August 2009 02:07