SU0002201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There are also a number of issues relating to the Initial Study and CEQA compliance that need to be addressed before this project can be considered. These are as follows: 1. The Initial Study, upon which you are basing your Negative Declaration, uses a number of "rationalizations" as to why the odors that will occur from this use are not objectionable. First, the study is based on the"fact"that this property is currently being used as a chicken ranch,thus any objectionable odors already exist. This is not true. The property has not been used as a chicken ranch for at least 5 years. Second, it says that"odors emanating from agricultural uses in agricultural zones are exempt from regulation." I find nothing in CEQA that provides that exemption. In fact,the creation of objectionable odors is one of the potential significant impacts of a project. Third, it goes on to say that the waste management plan approved by the Department of Health Services will help alleviate any odors that may occur. This is not correct. The plan includes no requirement that odor control be exercised. It says that odor control may be used. 2. The Initial Study defers two important studies. First,by citing the waste manure plan,the need for a nitrate loading study is deferred. This needs to be accomplished before it is known whether the manure can be spread on the property. It is possible that manure will be stored for 120 days and then not be able to be spread on the property. Second, the statement is made that the Department of Public Works has determined that traffic impacts will not be significant however there is no information presented in the staff report or initial study that would lead to that conclusion. How can this finding be made in the absence of information about the amount of truck and automobile traffic associated with the project? Deferral of studies is not permitted under CEQA at a project level of review. 3. The County states that the proponent will have to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Boards conditions and that for that reason,there are no impacts that might otherwise be considered significant impacts. On the other hand, the RWQCB states that they have relied on the County's environmental review. This is a circular reference with nobody actually doing any review. In addition the RWQCB based their action on an initial study for an approval to slaughter 50 animals per day, not 500. 4. Public controversy alone is enough to require an EIR under CEQA. The Initial Study states that there is no known controversy over this project. 5. The Initial Study does not define, as required by State Law,the level of significance standard used to determine whether or not there is a significant impact. Finally, we would like to include by reference the information that was used in approving a previous slaughterhouse on this project(Use Permit 94-14). Since much of the information on this project is being presented as not being much more of an impact than the previous approval,that approval needs to be part of this proceeding. Given the inaccuracies in the staff report and problems with the initial study, coupled with the fact that we have requested that this area be added to our Sphere of Influence, we are requesting that Use Permit 99-22 for Richard Stagno be denied.