SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San JULILluua CoUnty C'ornrrittwiY llrvrin.nnrni Tk7snrtm tt Nowwber 1,201$ Pattie A of 6 O7 I decd terMrestriction)that it will not stack to develop the palet, it should he assumed that the Broochini Tutee! (cont.) will ha ome part cil the ovII ptMjW, and it should he evaluated as such in the USl:lkt, The USEIR's Iraflic analvtiis is inadcatu❑re. 'rhe DSEIR's traffic analysis is deficient and truncated, undevslitnating trip genesatitan, saalt y and ' operational impacts and necessary mitigation treasures. rite result is a project which is,quite literally.an Uriuriligriltd tlisrslCA Gil Ntc surrriunding arca, iur*xd,the signifirant atit icipaled traffic voltnncs,coupled with imdequaie or no feasible means of mitigation at key intersections (see Pate IV,B-30) reinfdree SJFB's point that the site is no longer appropriate for a project of this type and size. Among other Odeftciencin.. SJFB nutrS 11tc following: 8 a. Tlie DSEIR acknowleelges the dislurbiug accidetit hititury aking Austin Road between.Arch.Road and Last French Canip Rcxtd Yet,amazingly, the reprm dismisses this bistoay based on the relatively low trntfic v olumcs alorig Austin Road. Even amming the traffic aocotints are accurate, the amidmi hisimy is significant noudhclrss,and atitigation nrcasurm autsl be rvahiatcd. Among other solutions.Newcastle Road remains a viable nomm option for the project,but is dismissed without serious ' analysts. Most egegaous is the DSEIR's claim that the Newcastle Road access Is infeasible because it would i cqurrc a new bridge cro"i»g. Yet the Project itself already feutures a siuriiar bridge crossingl b The DSFiR attempts to tdbitirsaie a rtwjur sourer of cantulalive Iniffic by z%%crting that the approved Mariposa Lakts Project is unlilwly to develop during the life span of the O9 lsr*ct. This massive Project was approved in 2008. and there is net evidence that any of the entitlements have 11=9 rUWint.tod. Ac orduigly, it is%,Iorrg IQ siiriply Icu►ove trots of Ibuti fids of vc hidt-hips flim ilia cumulative traffic analysis. ' F'ensil,le rnitigatient Gu nni.t inrpuct> i> null 101'inrrl- ecalunted in the USEIR. The WEIR's analysis of noise impacts and its discussion of feasibic inilrgauon is airnilarly laekinlr Fust, the Hnalysis indicators that impacts associated widt the project generated IrafTrc twist would he 10 significant. However, miliption in the form of a sound wall or noise bamer is offered to only one ttsidcrit, leaving at (east 25 residents witbrnil any fimtn of nutigaticn. The I)SEUl tails to disc-.iso any I 6orms of:dtamative "litigation for these affected residenis. such as additional insulation, installation or dual pane windows, noise cascmcrils and other proven nimsurcm. Tlie DSFIR relies on infeasible miti-gatit+n liar groundwutt:r iinpucis. Ds pate carlici a:ssurrnecs that the contamirutcd groundwater plume was controlled both laimnilly and vertically, it is now acknowledged that tate full extenu of groundwater contamination is not known. 'There are 35 known domestic, industrial and agricultural wells within a 35 mile radius of the.landlill. It appears chat the only witigation availahle fni-some, !fill o all of theNt wells is for Forward to supply 1),41 it:cl wioer io the residents. The absurdity of this"initiptiori'was recognized by the Sri'District Court of Appeals in 11 fircy r. Madera Runch Quarry(2008) 167 Cal App 44'J(V9. 1116.- "Laic f1b:..Lair is not required to abandon commotr Sense. Nero, our ir►tnt►lon se►rse ttr)in-ms as that the mitigati[m meas ers n4lt not g1lectively replace the mire that cYiuld he Invt by the neighboring latrdownem...We agree v+lth the RT QCB thar providing= rViacemenr ' skmer ibrougb hoirlod m*iwr 0 not a Wable, or c ecirve niitigauon nreasura It defies