SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page IV.A-21 Forward Inc. Landfill 2014 Expansion Project hazard impacts to a less than significant level. If the project is approved, continuation of the gull control program would be required by Mitigation Measure A.1, and thus would reduce the increased attraction of birds and potential inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan and General Plan aviation policies from a potentially significant impact to a less than significant impact. With the exception of the Airport Land Use Plan and General Plan aviation policies(discussed above) and policies regarding agricultural land (discussed in Impact A.2 below), the impact of _ plan and policy compliance would be less than significant. Impact A.2 (Revises 2013 EIR Impact A.2): The proposed project could convert agricultural land to industrial use. The 11-acre expansion area in the south consists of the existing channel of the South Fork of South Littlejohns Creek;therefore, it is not considered agricultural land. The 10-acre expansion area in the northeast of the site is small in terms of agricultural land, isolated from other agricultural land, and, as discussed in Setting, Agricultural Land, above, is classified as Urban on the Prime Agricultural Land and Important Farmland Map. For these reasons, 10-acre expansion area in the northeast is not considered to be viable agricultural land. Because both expansion areas would be within the currently permitted Forward Landfill, the proposed project would not constitute "leap-frog" expansion of isolated,non-contiguous industrial uses into an area of agricultural preserve. Therefore, the 2014 Expansion Project would not conflict with the County's goals of preserving agricultural land, or contribute to the cumulative loss of agricultural land in San Joaquin County and the Central Valley. The impact on agricultural land would less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impact A.3: The proposed project could exceed FAA height limits for structures near airports. (Revises 2013 EIR Impact A.3) As discussed above, the nearest runway of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport is approximately one mile west of the existing Forward Landfill. For purposes of aircraft safety, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Part 77) establish height limits for structures near airports. The regulations include airport imaginary surfaces, which are three-dimensional boundaries that extend outward and upward from airport runways. An analysis of the proposed expansion's conformity with FAR height limitations was conducted by an independent consultant retained by the applicant. (Dershowitz,2011). The proposed 2014 Expansion Project, at its maximum height, would come close to,but not exceed, the FAR Part 77 height limitations for(a) the localizer approach to Stockton V Metropolitan Airport,FAR 77.17(a)(3), and (b) certain horizontal and conical imaginary surfaces defined in the FAA regulations,FAR 77.19(a)-(b). The localizer approach is a component of the airport's Instrument Landing System (ILS),which provides horizontal guidance to incoming aircraft, to align them with the runway centerline. The localizer operates within a wedge-shaped area extending outward from the end of airport runways. The south portion of the 2014 Expansion Project is located under the localizer approach area of Runway 29R of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. The primary area of the localizer has a Required Obstacle Clearance(ROC) of 250 feet. The current Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) for the Runway 29R approach is 320 feet above Mean Sea Level (msl);thus, the maximum elevation in the primary area is 70 feet msl (320 feet minus 250 feet). An object would be classified as an obstruction to air navigation if it is at or above 70 feet msl. Using a three-dimensional computer model for the previously proposed project, the consultant concluded that all of the previously proposed expansion would comply with the Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC). The configuration, slopes, and maximum height of the south portion of the 2014 Expansion Project are the same as the corresponding portion of the previously ... proposed expansion. Therefore, the consultant's conclusion that the previously proposed