SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Devin Swanson August 1&, 2011 Page 2 DEIR be re-circulated to allow a more complete disclosure of the potential environmental 1-3 consequences of this project, for the public,the;applicant,and the decisionmakers that must Cont. render judgment on the suitability of this project at this site. Our specific continents are as follows: The Project Description is Inadequate. A complete and accurate project description is a necessary element of an adequate DEIR. "The project description must contain sufficient specific information abort the project to allow the public and reviewing agencies to evaluate and review its environmental impacts." Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4'1'20, 26. "An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Iriyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 1-4 Ca1.App.3d 185,193. "A curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input." td., 71 Cal.App.3d at 198. CEQA Guidelines § 15124 directs that an E1R should include information "needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact." A project description that omits any "integral part of the project" is inadequate. Dry Creek, supra, citing Santiago County Dater District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829_ Against this backdrop, we note that the Project Description section of the DEIR is inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete in the following areas: a) The Project Description is sparse, vague and ambiguous. Clearly,the proposal for Might time operations is not merely an extension of hours, but rather, a significant expansion of the proposed use. With no limit on overall permitted gross tonnage from this facility, it is not as if the same amount of material will be processed and 1-5 exported from the site, only at different hours; rather,the allowance of night time operations opens up an entirely new (and rapidly expanding)market to Munn and Perkins. This expansion into a new market deserves close scrutiny, not only as to noise impacts, but also in the areas of traffic and air quality. The Project Description fails to discuss this. b) Throughout the DEIR, but especially in Chapter 2, the author states"The number of extended nights will not exceed 125 nights per year provided there are no unexpected delays in construction". The italicized text renders the 125 night "limitation" meaningless_ Construction delays are the norm, not the exception, as past history has demonstrated. Over the past number of years, the applicant has repeatedly obtained special permission to operate at night, and has notified neighbors of the specific 1-6 schedule. More times than not, "unforeseen circumstances"have arisen,resulting,in the need to modify or extend the permitted night operations. The Project Description should be modified to remove the uncertain and intentionally vague non-limitation. Moreover, history has shown that Munn and Perkins will utilize any available loophole to impermissibly expand its operation. Unless there is a specific, binding and enforceable cap on the annual number of nights on which extended operations can occur, the practical effect will be that night operations will be unlimited, and it is that scenario which must be evaluated in the DEIR.