SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM: Planning Commission Hearing, June 21, 1990 1. Concern has been expressed regarding both maximum cut slopes and minimum setbacks. It would not be appropriate to remove these mitigations. The mitigations do not specifically restrict excavation, but require agency review and approval. 2. The levee area that is partially eroded is located on County land and is therefore the responsibility of the County. The mitigation requiring the applicant to repair levee damage has been removed from the EIR. 3. This mitigation has been changed to reflect review authority by the State Reclamation Board. 4. Section 2.6 of the EIR discusses the proposed retention pond. 5. Exact location of the bridge is not specified in the EIR and final mitigation requirements would depend on the exact alignment and resulting impact to biological resources. Salmon spawning gravels exist along the Mokelumne River throughout the project area; however, inspection during site visits for EIR preparation indicate that the amount of gravels for salmon spawning in the vicinity of the proposed bridge crossing are very limited. 6. The emissions estimate for travel on unpaved roads was re-calculated for a travel speed of 25 miles per hour (mph) using the same assumptions as in Section A of Appendix B of the EIR. At 25 mph, there would be an emissions rate of 11 pounds of PM-10 per vehicle mile travelled (lb/VMT), which calculates to 704 lb/day uncontrolled or 225 lb/day controlled (with watering) emissions. The controlled emissions rate for 15 mph is 135 lb/day. This is a 90 lb/day reduction in PM-10 emissions compared to 25 mph. Because San Joaquin County is nonattainment with respect to PM-10, a 25 mph speed limit is not recommended unless approved by the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). This mitigation measure has been revised to require a maximum speed of 15 mph unless a higher speed is approved in writing from the APCD. 7. The intent of this mitigation is to have future drainage contained in the same manner that runoff and process return water is currently being contained, whether these ponds are referred to as stock ponds or given other designations. 8. Although the U.S Army Corps of Engineers may not take jurisdiction over manmade wetlands, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) generally will request a no net loss of wetlands whether the wetlands are natural or manmade. 9. The DFG policy for impact to riparian habitat is no net loss of acreage or habitat value. Because the riparian habitat impacted by the river crossing cannot be replaced, mitigation must be proposed that would offset this loss. Providing a buffer to the riparian corridor would enhance the remaining riparian habitat and provide the offset for lost habitat. 10. See responses to the comment letter from the Law Offices of Rishwain, Hakeem & Ellis.