Laserfiche WebLink
Letter 1 <br /> THOMAS H. TE"STRA <br /> A:-TJRNEY AT LAW <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> tterpstra@thtlaw.com 578 N.WILMA AVENUE 209.599.5003 <br /> SUITE A F209.599.5008 <br /> RIPON,CA 95366 <br /> August 16, 2011 <br /> Mr. Kevin Swanson <br /> San Joaquin County Community Development Department <br /> 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton,California 95205 <br /> Re: Munn&Perkins Quarry Excavation Permit/Draft EIR Comments <br /> Dear Mr. Swanson: <br /> This office represents numerous landowners and residents along River Road in <br /> connection with the above-referenced matter. On behalf of my clients, I hereby submit the <br /> following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the"DEIR") for the Munn& <br /> Perkins Quarry Excavation Permit(the"Project"). Based on the comments and concerns <br /> outlined below,my clients have concluded that the DEIR is deeply flawed, both in terms of its 1-1 <br /> methodology and its conclusions,and must be substantially revised in order to fulfill its <br /> informational objective. Further,the DEIR.utterly fails to identify and evaluate feasible <br /> mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project, leaving my clients and other <br /> residents in the vicinity of the Project to bear the brunt of unmitigated impacts from a project that <br /> could, and should,be located elsewhere. <br /> Since the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")process is an informational <br /> device for the disclosure of all potentially significant impacts from a project, for identification of <br /> all feasible mitigation measures that can lessen a project's impacts, and a vehicle for the <br /> identification of project alternatives that can avoid and lessen significant project impacts,this <br /> letter addresses only the adequacy of the DEIR. Put another way, the policy issue of whether the <br /> County should permit the applicant to operate the asphalt plant and related facilities during night 1-2 <br /> hours is one more properly addressed during the public hearing process. At this juncture, the <br /> EIR serves two basic purposes, "to enable the reviewing agency to snake an informed decision <br /> and to make the decisionmaker's reasoning accessible to the public, thereby protecting informed <br /> self-government." Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents(1.988) 47 Cal.3d 376,392. In <br /> absence of a complete and adequate EIR, it is improper for the lead agency to certify the EIR or <br /> take any action on the project. <br /> As we note herein,the DEIR is incomplete and inadequate. We respectfully request that <br /> the EIR be revised to address the numerous gaps and shortcomings identified in these comments 1-� <br /> and the written comments of our noise expert,J.C. Brennan Associates. We also request that the <br />