SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County Department of Planning July 16, 1990 Page 6 It is our understanding that the Oak Ridge Estates property line is 200 feet from the proposed quarry site. In any event, the noise section evaluates the impacts at both worse case and average levels. Given the findings in Tables 3 . 6-2 and 3 . 6-3 , which document that the worst-case noise levels would be in the "unacceptable" range, it would follow that there would be appropriate mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 10 However, the analysis simply backs out of the responsibility to mitigate the impact by indicating that the average noise levels would be within the "acceptable" range and that, in any event, the noise level shown "may be over estimated" and that the portions that were "unacceptable" would only be for the quarry site activities which were closest to each of the receptor (testing) sites. Obviously, this is objectively inadequate. 7 . Alternatives -- The Alternative Quarry Site Analysis sets forth that the consideration of an alternate site requires recognition of the existing processing facility and an evaluation of the impacts regarding the distance between any proposed site and the processing facility. The Alternative Quarry Site Analysis proposes that any alternative site would need to recognize the economics of transporting within the market area. With these two comments in hand, the Alternative Quarry Site Analysis validates that the alternative project site in Figure 4 . 4-1, which is located adjacent to and west of the proposed project, would not generate any additional economic loss regarding the transportation distance given 11 its parity with the proposed project. This alternative site would also not require the use of any public roads for transportation of raw aggregate from the quarry to the processing facility. Moreover, the Analysis documents that the alternate site would be more distant from the population bulk in the area (the town of Clements) and would therefore impose less visual and noise impacts and presumably, a resolution to all of the above-mentioned land use conflicts. Given the impacts which have been documented for the proposed quarry site, many of which cannot be mitigated, it appears that the alternative quarry site is objectively superior.