SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM: Law Offices of Rishwain, Hakeem & Ellis 1. Section 3.8.1 of the EIR under "Proposed Quarry Site" has been changed to reflect the current application for the Oak Ridge Estates subdivision. The environmental analysis for the EIR assumed that development would occur in this area and mitigations were designed to mitigate impacts to potential residents in this area. Revisions have been made to the EIR to further mitigate impacts to this and other areas (see responses below and responses to other comment letters). The summary has been changed to correctly reflect the findings of the environmental analysis. 2. The mitigation measures proposed for impacts associated with the project's noise and visual characteristics have been revised in the EIR (Sections 3.6.3 and 3.9.3, respectively). These mitigations reduce the level of impacts in these areas to less than significant. The document has been revised to correct the inconsistencies cited. Responses to your comments on visual and noise (below) address the specifics of the revised mitigations. 3. The applicant originally proposed to complete each phase of excavation before providing final site reclamation of areas disturbed during that phase. This would result in significant visual impacts for the 5-year period of each phase, until reclamation of that phase was complete. However, during the Planning Commission hearing on the Draft EIR, the applicant indicated that as aggregate extraction was complete for each strip (a maximum of 1/10 the area of each phase), that strip would be regraded with overburden material from the next phase and revegetated. Mitigation I has been added to Section 3.9.3 of the EIR to require that each strip of excavation be temporarily resoiled and revegetated immediately following aggregate extraction. The mitigation also limits the area that may be open to excavation at any one time. This would significantly reduce the visual impact from topographic alteration, and vegetation removal. Mitigation 2 has been added to Section 3.9.3 of the EIR which provides for vegetative screening of the haul route from the excavation area to the bridge crossing of the Mokelumne River. Vegetation would be installed prior to project operation to allow maximum opportunity for the plants to mature. The vegetation plan would be subject to County review and approval. This mitigation would further reduce visual impacts from trucks hauling material to the processing facility. Mitigation 3 has been added to Section 3.9.3 of the EIR which requires that excavation equipment be removed from the excavation area (to areas screened from the Clements viewshed) during weekends, holidays, and other periods of extended non-operation (greater than one day). This mitigation would further reduce visual impacts from excavation equipment. Mitigation 1 of Section 3.9.3 of the Draft EIR, requiring planting of evergreen trees on the bluff area, has been deleted. Similarly, that portion of Mitigation 3 of Section 3.6.3, recommending noise barriers at the top of bluff, has been deleted. 4. This mitigation (Section 3.5.3) has been revised to require compliance with the proposed regulation once adopted by the APCD.