The press has focused attention on KIRC’s opposition to Trinitas, but many others have registered concerns about the project:
Agencies/Organizations Respond to Trinitas NOPs/DEIR/RDEIR:
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Conservation
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Transportation
“Although there is no way to determine if the construction of the existing golf course degraded any of the waters, an analysis of changes from previously known drainage patterns must be completed with a determination of impacts which may cause problems.” 9.29.08 Comments on RDEIR page 3.7-13 by Robert Pachinger, Deputy Director, Public Works
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
“The project record indicates that the Trinitas golf course developer moved to Calaveras County in 2001 with the express purpose of building the investor-driven golf resort currently proposed. Assisted by delinquent County officials, the usual permits and environmental review weren't required. Neither the applicant nor county should be rewarded for their transgressions.…Trinitas’ circumstances are unprecedented in the nearly 40-year history of CEQA and this RDEIR is as deceptive as the golf course that spawned it. This project in fact violates the very essence of CEQA. Therefore, the only appropriate project altenative is Alternative 1, no project, removal of the existing Trinitas golf course.” Janet S. Cobb, President 8.28.08 letter p.6
The Sierra Club
Public Comments
Notable Quotes
from the Staff Report:
“There are many significant and unavoidable impacts related to this project, as a whole. Most relate to impacts resulting from the construction of the golf course outside of the environ-mental review and normal permitting process. A few, such as land use compatibility, are related to the potential approval of the requested ZA and the land uses associated with that zoning designation (see Appendix 3).
2.9.09 Staff Report, p.25
“…staff agrees…that the existing and proposed land uses associated with this project are not compatible with surrounding uses. Mitigation measures…are intended to reduce the impacts of that incompatibility to the extent feasible.…the only way to avoid that impact is to approve Alternative 1, which would deny the project in its entirety…”
2.9.09 Staff Report, p.7
Masthead photo:
Narrow onsite road to Trinitas residences parallels Ospital Road with minimal separation. At night, headlights from vehicles driving south inside the property could confuse drivers traveling north on the county road.
Copyright 2009 - Keep It Rural Calaveras (KIRC)
Unless otherwise noted, all photographs are the property of KIRC.
Documents were obtained from Calaveras County under the Public Records Act, and from cited news sources.
Citizen letters to the editor and/or the County: COMING SOON
Newspaper Articles: COMING SOON
Notable Quote
from KIRC’s attorney
“The story of Trinitas is one of self inflicted injuries. It’s a story of … an arrogant developer who believed he was above the law…
This developer chose to proceed without environmental approvals, local permits, consultation with Federal or State agencies and in violation of their Williamson Act contracts with the people of California that gave him tax breaks. The developer knowingly risked financial loss by putting the project before the environmental review. This risk has long been recognized since the Laurel Heights case. By putting the…Golf Course before the FEIR, the developer risked another alternative being selected and his project being rejected:
“…the applicant knowingly lied about his proceeding to build a golf course over many years.…His deception demonstrated that he knew he was taking the risk of building a golf course that might never see public play. Having failed to avoid the law and reap the financial windfall by avoiding environmental review, the applicant has entered into a PR campaign to avoid the financial losses the Kings County Farm Bureau foretold.”
9.26.08 RDEIR comment letter from
Mark V. Connolly, p.1-2.
(underlined references to court cases above are not active links.)
“At the time the lead agency engages in the review process, the applicant presumably has not begun construction or development. The applicant must anticipate, in the course of the review process, the lead agency may determine an environmentally superior alternative is more desirable or mitigation measures must be adopted. An applicant who proceeds with the project prior to the completion of the review process in the expectation of certain approval runs the risk of incurring financial loss. Likewise, an applicant’s choice to proceed in the face of pending review and the possibility the environmental review process will be found inadequate cannot render an alternative infeasible. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 Cal3d at p.425, 253 Cal.Rptr. 425, 764 P.2d 278)
Similarly, although applicants may enter into contracts and agreements prior to the completion of the environmental review process, such contracts or agreements cannot be used to avoid the scrutiny envisioned by CEQA. Environmentally superior alternatives must be examined whether or not they would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives. (Guidelines,§ 15126, subd. (d)(3).)”
Kings County Farm Bureau vs. City of Hanford. WP Power Systems Company, Inc. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.