SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County C'ointnunityDevelopmrul Deparituct i Nowniber I,2019 Page i of 8 cunuaun senxe /or die Cuur n, to vorich►tle that Ixoved ip hottied uvire), is rtn effec►hit lnifigntion Measure. 11 For the same reasons, the County should rcjccr the notion ghat a private company, as prat of tnittgatmg (cont.) groundumici impacts,can and will provide W111cd %witcr tu.a growing list of4oining property owners, and will do so is r gWquity, The Project's inconsistency with the(.crierm flan rill lard Io sirnitic.ant criironrnentnf iMccts. The San Jonquin Conray GOnrrul Plait includes numerous policies and eihlcanvca dcsi ned to protect sigrieultutal land fui futu)-c�cneriniuns_ The DSEIR dutifully recites these policies, but fails to apply the policies to the cur•,ty projc:.t. ror example, Resource Elcinent Objcetivc 1 calls for the Couniy to "Proteet agliculmolul NFOIA rrectied fiv. the enntintrutioir ujculnlrrtrriul rrgriretrturetl entrr7.a�r��, selluN- 12 srttlefalming n rwions anti the pi-ewnw ion ojo,etr sp ioe." (DSEIR Pago IV.A-4)t,atta•. the DSLIR rachcs policies in the General Pian Public Health mid Safety Element,including Gual PHS-7-2- F`113-7,2 ,fiylpt (nn►nrtrinotit►tt p� Retuurts. The Cvrintt• .r1ru1J .rr„rit" Its r►rxurr Ihut hrrrindaers mrtte Ahs nod tiletlt 4 ren not rxlntunirnrrrc carr ,tsrtcr_o+-se.rl_rti.aartrm-. ruuilly, the DSLIK cites Goal Tho-8.5 of the Public FaeilitieN and Sertices Etkanent or the General Plan, w1lich reads as Fnilowx ruin.-S (-ongxtfthlr Land t+.;c.r. The C ounn,shall rrguirg that!2nty rnrnnotit4c a.cc.c Ire nermittrd rrr_nr aitnulys tri isovordancf troth the AhMr•t Land Lyse Plan. Clearly,anal by any objective rucasurcincni, Clic Project is incunsistrurt with these.and odic-,Geritnl Flan 13 goals, policies and objective. The Project has been in operation for decades. and has a long histciry of ' rxlcir contl1laints,Unca tttolled litter rndHagtxitig adjncrtn :agricultural oprxittions,and a sigmifwant lustory of vehicle oodisions. Yet with no analysis or supporting evidence, the DSELR summarily concludes that the Project i&cousistent with ALL General Plait policirs. The evidence, including numerous tmauncsrts from neighboring properties (who hear the brunt of- the impacts), confirm that the Project is NOT consistent with III= mtindatory C:rencral Plan pnlii-ics The bottom line is this: If the County applies their General Plan policies and denies this application. the environmental effects of this project can be ravoidctt, C-anclusinn. From ra land use policy peaspcetive, S1F14 crmtinurs to struggle with the wisdom of allnwing furlhcx expansitm of an operation which continues to pose signniGcara envirarunental consequences to the Stockton Air'pir't, ns well as or+going degradation at the sitrrounding a-ttvirnni-new with litto and Febris; and sittnificam threats to grtutndwaier. Even if the facility were handling material predominant:y from San Joaquin County, and if there was a lack of other approvi:4 facilities in The Covoty, the expAnsion of 14 this facility makes no se:nKe. But given the fact that up to 70% of the matcrial entering this facility continues In origrna(c cmtside of-can Jnaquin Crunty, any"henetitc" of the ptr?lect are negmird At the wine tune:, the future of the Stockton Airrictrt, a powerful yet fraptle econamic engine, is undeniably pronustng. Through the hard work and lcadrrship of the Board of Supervisors, the Airport lAnd Use Cornmission and dedicated staff, the Airport is almost certain to enjoy increased air traffic and physical expansion. Any such expansion. howe mm ever, will he mach ore dil"ficalt it this Prcgcci is approved