On June 2nd at 9:00am the Board of Supervisors has the opportunity to discuss something called Option 3 on mining regulation. They have already discussed it themselves and decided to send it back for review by the Ag.
Advisory Sub-committee of the Planning Commission and by the Planning Commission itself. We go back to the beginning of a process that began in 2014. They have put this new decision into their Consent Agenda. It can still be pulled out for public discussion, and it should be. This is not business as usual.We need to have Option 2 restored because Option 3 is without merit. Option 2, which this new plan seeks to circumvent, had widespread community support. It calls for CUP above one acre on mining operations. This Option 3 is an insult to that effort and the work of the various public agencies that assessed the mining issue over the past several months. Option 3 content has only appeared after the passage of Option 2. It is important that the public hear the rationale for Option 3 and be able to comment on it. The process for this measure is also a serious concern.
Essentially, those who supported having the Conditional Use Permit be our norm for mining projects over one acre have been blindsided by Option 3. They/we thought the matter resolved in the three:two vote for Option Two. Not so. Kevin Cann has now joined with Merlyn Jones and Marshall Long to create Option 3: mining below twenty acres would be exempt from the Conditional Use Permit or CUP. It says such mining could not be done with chemicals. What does that mean. Why 20 acres? This new majority has not fully explained why Option 3 is necessary or better. They can be made to do that on June 2nd, and they should be. I am asking you to be at the June 2nd BOS meeting or write/call the agencies involved.
Sincerely,
Ralph Mendershausen
Mariposa
