SU0005751 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 04 06 09:49a Community Development p;ta Applied here, the County has no.right to expect that the Regional[ Water Board or the Air District will devise'a solution to the groundwater and air quality problems caused by a one 'Iliou'bird poultry farm, In effect, the County has evaded its responsibility to engage in comprehensive environmental review of the impacts associated with this monstrous project. Hence, CEQA is violated. (See, eg., S-undstrom v. County nfMendocino (1988)202 Cai.App.3d 296,308-309.) Second, the existing environmental condition for air quality in San Joaquin County is in significant deterioration,particularly for ozone, a criteria pollutant, characterized as "severe non-at#ainrnent",by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollition. Control District, As such, since the proposed project will emit a considerable volume of Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) (which'are` precursors to Ozone), the project will cause a cumulative and "Unavoidably significant air quality impact. The reason is that notwithstanding the fact that project emissions for ROGs slid not reach the Air District's threshold of significance, the greater the existing air quality problem, the lower the threshold for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant,'TMe proposed Negative Declaration inadequately addresses this air quality impact. Thus, CEQA is violated. (See,e.g_ Communities far a Better Environment v, California Resources Agency (20 02) 103 Cal.App.46 98, 119-121; Icings County Farm Bureau Y. City of Hanford (1990)221 Cal.App3d 692, 718-722.) Conclusion Based on the foregoing Comments and objections, the City concludes that there is a "fair argument" that the proposed. poultry farm project, ultirnately totally one million birds, will cause .significant environmental impacts as identified above.(See, e.g., Quail Botanical Gardens V. City of-Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4'h 1597, 1603;Friends of"B"Street v City of Hayward(1.9.80) 106 Cal.App3d 988, 1002; 14 Cal.Code Regs. Section 15064, subd. (g).) Therefore, the City of Lathrop demands that the San Joaquin County Planning Commission reject the Negative Declaration and deny the poultry farm project, or, iii the alternative, reject the Negative Declaration and require the preparation and circulation of an EIR before proceeding any#urther with the proposed project. Finally, the City of Lathrop continues to request that any and all correspondence and notices relating to this project be forwarded to the Community Development Department, including, but not limited to, the Notice of Determination, if this project is approved. Sincerely, Marilyn Ponton Tnteri-m Community Development Director cc: Mayor and City Councilmeinbers (5) Pam Carder, City Manager Yvonne Quiring,Asst..City.Manager i11+J#ch el;Sp Ya` ity Wt66411 2