SU0013675_STAFF REPORT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Giuseppe Sanfilippo San Joaquin County Planning Commission Re. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Use Permit No.PA-1800316 of Ahmed Hussein(c/o Shack&Company) August 6,2020 Page 2 from 3,000 to 1,500,the plan to store chicken manure in a shed(with a top and sides)"on an elevated pad above the flood zone,"and the elimination of discing of manure should help reduce the potential for water quality degradation,including in Tom Paine Slough. Although inconsistences between the Project as described in the Revised IS/ND and the proposed Manure Management Plan(MMP)remain,the District understands the Revised IS/ND to require the MMP to be revised consistent with the revised Project description in the Revised IS/ND if the Project is approved. Despite these improvements,the Revised IS/ND did not correct or address a number of problems identified in the District's February 21,2020 comments on the IS/MND,and to the extent changes were not made to address the defects in the IS/MND,those comments remain applicable to the Revised ISIND. 1. The Revised IS/ND Identifies the Need for Conditions of Approval that Function as Mitigation Measures;Fails to Identify or Incorporate any Mitigation Measures The Revised ISMD contains multiple references to conditions of approval that will be imposed on the Project,that clearly function as mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts(such as conditions related to water quality impacts)and further identifies the need for mitigation measures related to cultural resources(to address potentially significant impacts),but corresponding mitigation measures are not included 2 Because the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts,and measures have been identified as necessary to reduce impacts,a negative declaration is improper. At a minimum,San Joaquin County (County)must prepare a legally adequate initial study and mitigated negative declaration, which clearly identifies all applicable mitigation measures,as required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). (See CEQA Guidelines,§ 15074,subd.(d).) Without specific mitigation measures identified,it is not possible for the District to evaluate whether District is not providing detailed comments,including,but not limited to,the lack of analysis of impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions,noise impacts,groundwater sustainability,and lack of mitigation for potentially significant cultural resource impacts. For example,the discussion and conclusions regarding operational noise impacts is unclear and inconsistent. The Revised IS/ND(p.22)states that agricultural uses are exempt from the County's Development Title standards,but in the subsequent paragraph states that the Project would be subject to these same standards and cites required compliance with the noise standards as the basis for the conclusion noise impacts would be less than significant. It is entirely unclear whether the Project will be subject to the Development Title standards,and no information is provided to indicate whether it would comply with such standards or otherwise have a potentially significant impact on noise sensitive land uses,including the single family residence located approximately 835 feet north of the site,which the Revised ISIND identifies as anoise sensitive land use. Also,even though the Project will rely on well water,the Revised IS/ND contains no information about the estimated water use,availability,or sustainability,and contains only a bare conclusion that impacts to groundwater supplies will not be significant. z Despite the title of Negative Declaration,the checklist on page 3 identifies that a"Mitigated Negative Declaration"will be prepared. Planning Commission Staff Report, PA-1800316(UP) 81 Response Letters