SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED:
Safer Project Alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (return to previous page: Moss Subdivision) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Moss Mountain Meadows Subdivision Project's Approval Challenged in Superior Court | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A lawsuit filed in Siskiyou County Superior Court by Dale La Forest on September 13, 2007 challenges the City of Mt. Shasta's recent approval of the Moss Mountain Meadows Subdivision Project to be built by Redding developers. This challenge seeks to protect the residents and environment of the Mt. Shasta area from this Project's significant and unresolved problems. Those include potential stormwater pollution, recreational impacts of a subdivision without a neighborhood park, global warming and air quality impacts, costly sewer and water supply impacts, and street access problems. Redding developers applied to build a 42-home subdivision next to the KOA Kampground but refused to comply with our local requirements. The City then violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by accepting and certifying a defective EIR from its contractor Pacific Municipal Consultants, a company that was paid over $81,000 for this EIR but apparently did not follow California environmental laws. The City also violated its own General Plan when it approved this subdivision.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Air Pollution Impact | 7. Inadequate Water Supply | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Stormwater Pollution (below) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. No Neighborhood Park | 5. New Road Omitted | 8. Sewer System Overloaded | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9. Failed to Pay DFG Review Fee | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Global Warming Impact | 6. EIR Failed to Evaluate Safer Project Alternatives |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Stormwater Pollution: This Project was approved without any permanent conditions to protect Cold Creek and downstream aquatic habit from the Project's polluted stormwater runoff. Such runoff typically contains oils, grease, hydrocarbons, pet feces, sediments, and lawn chemicals that are harmful to wildlife habitat. Increased stormwater results from new impervious roofs, driveways and streets. The EIR originally stated this subdivision would retain all its stormwater runoff onsite, rather than discharge it. But the City weakened that mitigation and allowed the developers to discharge without protection such unfiltered pollutants into stormdrains and Cold Creek in violation of CEQA. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (Of possible concern here in Mt. Shasta too, these developers caused significant stormwater pollution when building the Big Leagues Dreams Sports Park in Redding in 2002-2003. Then over 6 million gallons of muddy water and silt that gushed from that construction site. That incident resulted in a $450,000 fine by the State for polluting Clover Creek and Stillwater Creek. The developers failed to take appropriate erosion control measures in spite of a contract condition requiring erosion control and Redding's grading ordinance that prohibits sedimentation and damage to off-site property.) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Storm sewer discharge to Cold Creek | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (next:) Neighborhood Park Impact | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For more information on that $450,000 pollution fine, click here | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reducing stormwater pollution | Driveway car washing can kill fish | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||