In a unanimous vote Tuesday, the Amador County Board of Supervisors denied Ken Berry's appeal of the county planning commission's approval of the Wicklow Way subdivision's final environmental impact report.

To begin the public hearing, county planner Heather Anderson provided the supervisors with a timeline of the steps along the way to the appeal, informing them that the Wicklow Way project began in 2004 and received county planning commission approval of its final EIR on Oct. 28. Berry, who has successfully stopped development projects in the past, filed his appeal on Nov. 8, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Jackson.

"Staff opinion was that the EIR fully addressed all of the environmental impacts," Anderson said.

Berry, who lives in an unincorporated area wedged between the city of Jackson and the Wicklow Way project property, contended in his appeal that the EIR failed to disclose traffic impacts from the project and did not adequately assess the planned subdivision's water supply. Much of the traffic problem, Berry stated in his appeal, stems from the insufficiency of the fees that will be paid by the project. The final EIR stipulates that the applicant will pay only a portion of the cost of certain traffic mitigation measures.

"For example, the Sutter Street connector," Berry asserted, "is only necessary because of this project. Without the project, there is no need for the change."

On water supply, Berry's appeal stated that the Amador Water Agency is mistaken in its assurance that it has adequate supplies of water to serve the project. A 30 cubic foot per second limitation on flow rate contained in the agency's water rights will force the creation of additional storage, a provision for which is not in the FEIR.

"Unfortunately," Berry told the supervisors, "the plan must show how that will be done, not just that it can be done."

"It's my impression that the EIR provides full disclosure," said Amador County Transportation Commission Executive Director Charles Field, who provided the supervisors with what proved to be convincing information regarding the Wicklow Way project and its place in the grand scheme of county transportation issues.

In his letter responding to the Berry appeal, Field states, "The FEIR does analyze the full impact of the project on each of the potentially significantly impacted 14 intersections and 15 roadway segments. It (the FEIR) indicates that the project shall pay its fair share toward each improvement consistent with Regional Transportation Plan policy as well as California Environmental Quality Act requirements."

Levels of service on road segments may fall below C and D, Field admitted, both in writing and in person. In his letter, Field writes that "the County Board of Supervisors can approve a project that will contribute to worse than LOS C or D conditions if it adopts appropriate statements of overriding consideration." In person, Field repeated that contention.

Field, in his letter, also quotes from the FEIR, which states, "the County is considering 'Criteria for Approving Statements of Overriding Considerations' where a project contributes traffic to worse than LOS C and D conditions. These criteria include pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and other methods to reduce automobile traffic."

The part of Berry's appeal that questioned the water assessment was reinforced during the public hearing by spokesmen for local groups.

Kathy Allen of Amador Citizens for Smart Growth noted the absence of exactitude in the FEIR. "Where's the water storage going to be?" she asked. "Where's the reclamation plant?"

Details of water storage, conservation and reclamation were found to be missing by Foothill Conservancy attorney Tom Infusino as well. In his presentation to the supervisors, Infusino pointed to a "need for the water supply analysis to include a description of these storage, conservation and reclamation projects; a disclosure of their likely impacts, and an indication of any mitigation measures to reduce these impacts."

The water supply concerns raised by Berry and others seemed to fall on deaf ears, as the supervisors expressed their opinions prior to making their decision.

"I think the water supply is there," said District 5 Supervisor Brian Oneto.

"This is more about the monthly average (flow rate in the water rights)," said board Chairman Richard Forster.

No one spoke at the public hearing in favor of the challenged water supply assessment, but letters from AWA engineering and planning manager Gene Mancebo and AWA supervising engineer John Griffin had been submitted to the county planning department and forwarded to the supervisors.

Letters from the water agency were reinforced by a memorandum from Tully & Young Inc., water planning consultants that agreed with the agency position on water rights and supply.

Susan Larson, representing applicant Lemke Construction, said her company was on solid footing with its plans.

"All of the questions that are raised have been answered," she told supervisors. "The EIR provides full disclosure. We've never shirked any of the mitigation measures."

Input at the public hearing did lead the supervisors to place some new requirements on the applicant. Contained within the motion for denial, by District 4 Supervisor Louis Boitano, was a call for production of a fiscal analysis of the project, as well as an analysis of the carbon emissions that will result from the project.

The motion also stated that the applicant should meet with neighboring property owner John Kirkpatrick to hammer out their differences, and suggested some level of encouragement to the applicant that local contractors and vendors be employed to whatever extent possible.