SU0012814 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Y i of the intersection. The Board finds that reconstruction of this intersection is not ' reasonably feasible due to excessive cost, and the lack of use of this intersection by the quarry operators in the area. Specifically, the Board finds that inasmuch as none of the project traffic will be routed to, or make use of, this intersection,the project itself is not responsible for the identified impact. Therefore, the applicant's "proportional share" of the intersection improvements will be zero. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 9-6: "Although Figure 8-8 (Figure 9-2 in this report) in the Teichert FEIR shows"existing"collector roads at this (State Route 132/15) intersection,they have not yet been constructed...." FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR STATEMENT OF FACT: The Board finds that the Draft EIR, which did not include Impact 9-6, correctly evaluated the impacts of the project on the State Route 132/I5 interchange, finding that the impact was not significant. The Board further finds that the Final EIR's for Teichert Aggregates and DSS Engineering Contractors have concluded that construction of a northbound collector road is not warranted. These Environmental Impact Reports rely upon the data compiled by Omni-Means for the Vernalis Interchange project, and unanimously conclude that, even with the inflated trip generation rates in those EIR's, levels of service and weave speeds at the State Route 132/15 interchange with LOS `B"or better. (Vernalis Interchange FEIR, Table 4.4-2) I� Accordingly, the Board concurs with the finding of the Planning Commission that Mitigation Measure 9-6 (Item 5 in Caitrans' August 1, 1997 letter) is not warranted, and is hereby rejected. Item 7, Caltrans' August 1, 1997 Letter: "Project proponent shall construct the extension of the eastbound acceleration lane recently built by Teichert from the Bird Road intersection to the I5/SR 132 interchange if Bird Road is the approved haul route...' FINDING: The impact alleged by Caltrans is not significant; therefore, no mitigation is necessary. STATEMENT OF FACT: The Board of Supervisors finds and declares that this mitigation measure is not warranted, and that the existing eastbound acceleration lane, approved by Caltrans as part of its approval of Teichert's PSR/PR (previously referenced in these findings) is sufficient to mitigate any impacts associated with right turn movements from Bird Road onto State Route 132. Caltrans has submitted no new evidence of unmitigated impacts associated with this turn movement, particularly in view of the fact that the Final EIR for Teichert Aggregates project (QX-91-5) assumed HIGHER future traffic volumes on State Route 132 and Bird Road than the FEIR for the