SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L. July 5, 2006 Mr. Chandler Martin, Associate Planner Page 3 EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government."'4 The EIR has been described as"an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return."5 Applying this legal standard to the many deficiencies explored in the Air Quality Comment, the County of San Joaquin should come to the conclusion that the DEIR requires major improvement before it will be ready for review by the Planning Commission. Any one of the undisclosed 69 impacts discussed in the Air Quality Comment would be enough to negate County approval of the Project. In combination, they make a strong case for correcting the DEIR prior to consideration by the County. .. The air quality section of the DEIR is flawed in another fundamental way: although the Projects' air quality impacts will remain significant even if all the mitigation measures required by the DEIR are implemented, the DEIR does not require or even analyze numerous mitigation measures that should have been considered or required. CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures.6 The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on A-2 cont. ` the environment and to"identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (Guidelines §15002(a)(2).) If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has"eliminated or t, substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are"acceptable due to overriding concerns" 4" specified in CEQA section 21081. (Guidelines, § 15092, subd. (b)(2)(A)& (B).) r Thus, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage whenever possible by requiring mitigation measures of significant impacts and considering alternatives. As discussed in the DEIR and the Air Quality Comment, this quarry Project will have significant impacts on the environment and to the workers and residents of this community. The Air Quality Comment discusses many mitigation measures that would reduce these r impacts, but the DEIR either discounts these measures with little or no analysis or, in many cases, fails to even cite them. L The air quality section of the Project EIR for the RMC Vernalis Quarry Project fails to fulfill CEQA requirements. Thus, we request that the County correct its deficiencies and re- circulate the DEIR to address the critical issues. v 4 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 564. 6, 5 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm is. (2001)91 Cal.App. 4th 1344, 1354 (`Berkeley Jets"); County ofInyo v.Yorty (1973) 32 Ca1.App.3d 795, 810. 6 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. Appp. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 564; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. L 4