SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Devin Swanson August 16, 2011 Page 5 review by J.C. Brennan and Associates of the"Environmental Noise Analysis"prepared by the applicant's noise consultant. At that time, my clients were incredulous to find that,among other things,the ENA(a) concluded that there was a small (less than 101%) possibility of sleep awakenings during night operations, and (b)there appeared to be only a few weak and largely unenforceable mitigation measures available. Mr. Brennan identified many significant deficiencies in the ENA, which called into serious doubt its adequacy as an informational document. Most notably, Mr. Brennan concluded that by using the proper analytical model for predicting sleep disturbance, there is in fact a 97%probability of awakening during night 1-18 operations. This, not coincidentally, comported more closely with the neighbors' personal and Cont. documented experiences with Munn and Perkins' previously approved occasional night operations. The DEIR's discussion of noise impacts continues to be plagued with the same inadequacies as the previous ENA. In fact, no revisions to the ENA have been made since Mr. Brennan's October 13, 2010 report was issued,and while the DEIR references a response from Bollard Acoustical, it is not appended to the DEIR. I have attached a memorandum from J.C. Brennan and Associates which outlines serious methodological flaws in the EIR's analysis. Moreover, Mr. Brennan notes a complete lack of any meaningful discussion of possible mitigation strategies for the admittedly significant noise impacts of the project. These deficiencies must be addressed in a revised and recirculated Draft EIR. The Proiect Alternatives Discussion is Inade uate. The California Supreme Court has observed that"[tlhe core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections." Citizens for Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564. "One of[an EIR's] major functions ._. is to assure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official." Id., 52 Cal.3d at 565 (citations omitted)_ The lead agency must independently evaluate and establish the basis for any reasonable alternatives that an applicant summarily contends is infeasible. Preservation Action Council v. City ofSan.lose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4'h 1336, 1357. Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1)describes the factors to be taken into account in determining the feasibility of alternative sites to include"whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site." The mature of the proponent, and their ability to gain control,not just whether they have control of alternative sites, is required to be a focus of 1.19 the inquiry of the feasibility of alternative sites. Land exchanges are a recognized mechanism for securing alternative sites that must be considered and evaluated by the lead agency and discussed in an EIR. See, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 751 (EIR that mentioned but failed to discuss land exchange to secure an alternative site found inadequate). The specific circumstances of the site(impacts and the degree to which other sites could serve the project purposes equally or with less adverse impacts), the nature of the proponent(private or private) and the nature of the project(here a regional facility in a community with a number of other regional facilities)must all be considered by decisionmakers to determine if an alternative site is feasible. Citizens far Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 574-75. In this instance, the DEIR admits that the applicant owns and operates other quarries,some of which are equipped with asphalt plants. But the applicant also operates other quarries without