SU0005751 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fax:2098585259 May 2 2006 12:32 P. 03 t 'x Applied here, the County has no right to expect that the Regional Water Board or the Air'Distriet will ' devise a solution'to the grouip►dwates and air uali Ixx:e q ty problems caused by a one million bird poultry:arm. e fire Couuty,has evaded its responsibility to engage in colmprelxexlsive enviroxame�atal.revie�v of the �rnpapts assocxaterl°vrttii;thx3 ntoi�sitous PrOj"t Hence, CF-QA is violated; See, e ` om Cou�ary of Mendocrno'(1988)202 Cil App.3d 296;308-309,) g Sundstr y Second, rile er,sting environmental condition. .for. air quality in San--jo urn County is.iia.significant. drlocaiaion,:Partxcrilarly for;ozoxxe; cx7iteiriaollutaiat, characterized as "Severe hon-atEainntyettt"by the San Joaquin Valley Aar Polltttion Coxatrol District As such, since the proposed .project will emit a considerable voltme of Reactive C3rganic Gases (RoGs) (which are precursors will cause a cumulative and.unavoidably significant air uali P ursors to Ozone), the hat a project. the�fact that project emissions for RgGs did riot reach the Air!District's threshold The reasonis tO cmce the greater the.existing air quality problem, the' Iower the tlxreshold for tree ' > cwaxula ive lira acts ass � a PrClect s contribution to p significant. The proposed Negative Declaration this air inadequately addresses quality impact. Thus, CPQA is violated. (See,e.g, Communities!for a Better Environment v. Cat ornia Aesources.Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppA* 98, 118-121; Kings C�'ounty Form Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)221 Ca1.App_3d 692, 718-722.) Conclusion Based on the foregoing comments and argument,,objections, the City aoazcludes that there is a "f-fair fire proposed poultry farm project, ultuxaately totally one 'Million birds, will cause signWc=t environmental impacts as identified above.{See, e.g., Quail Botanical Gardens a City Qf Enciaaitas(1994} 29 Cal.App.4� 1597, 1603; Friends o,f•,.8"Street v. City of.i„'ayrvm�d{1980) 106 Ca1.App.3d 988, 1002; 14 Cal.Code Regs. Section 15054, subd.(g) Therefore, the City of Lathrop demands that the Sara Joaquin Cautery Planning Comrxuission :reject the Negative Declaration and deny the poultry farm project, or, in the alternative, reject the Negative Declaration and require the preparation and circulation of an EIR before Proceeding any further with the Proposed project. Finally,the City of Lathrop continues to request that any and al I'correspondence and notices relating to this project be forwarded to the Community Development Deparimeut, including, but not limited to, the Notice of Detertnination, if this project is approved. Sincerely, Marilyn Ponton luteri=Community Development Director cc: Mayor and City Councilxnembexs(S) Pam Carder,City Manager Yvonne Quiring,Asst,City Manager Michael Spata,City Attorney 2