SU0004314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i ;6.) C) Appeal Statement No.9_ Stud on which the Negative Declaration is based is seriously flawed. "The Initial Y 9 "Item#1 under'General conditions' asks the following question: `Does it appear that any environmental feature of the project will general significant public concern or controversy?' "Given the reaction of RMC, Teichert Materials, Gerald Costa, and DSS, and individual landowners in the area, it is clear that there is significant public concern. Given this expressed concern, this question cannot be answered `no'." Response to Appeal Statement No. 9: The Community Development Department received five(5)letters of opposition. Two(2) letters were from private property owners, and three(3) letters were from quarries. The following issues were raised: public controversy, loss of land for mineral extraction, land use conflicts with existing and proposed quarries, poor water quality, and septic tank leakage. Upon review, it was determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the public and existing quarries. The loss of land for potential mineral extraction was also considered less than significant. The conditions of approval will mitigate all other potential impacts to less than significant. Appeal Statement No. 10: "Item 6(b) under'Energy/Natural Resources'asks the following question: 'Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, conservation, or depletion of a natural resource(other than agricultural land)?' "The answer to this question is dictated by the County's General Plan and by the cover sheet of the Initial Study itself. That cover sheet states that a negative declaration cannot be issued unless: 'The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment...' "The underlining is not my underlining—these words were published and underlined on the cover sheet of the Initial Study to emphasize the standard for the issuance of a negative declaration. That is, a negative declaration cannot be issued if there is a reasonable possibility that the proposed romect could have a significant effect on the extraction of a resource of regional significant. "in order to answer'yes'to the question in Section 6(b), the Initial Study does not have to conclude that the Proposed Project definitely will impact the extraction of mineral resources,just that there is a reasonable possibility that is could. "The answers to the questions posed by the Initial Study often are subjective in nature. However, no subjective judgment is required here, as the factual findings made by the State in declaring this to be an area of regional significant and the County's own General Plan provide a very clear and object answer to the question. "Answering 'no' to the question of whether the Proposed Project could have an impact on the extraction of resources that is a direct contradiction of(1) State law, (2)the specific factual findings and regulations of the Board of Mining and Geology, (3)direct statements in the General Plan, and (4)the well-documented history in California of the incompatibility of residential uses and mining San Joaquin County PA-02-3061Towers Community Development Page 9