Laserfiche WebLink
M,wi&Perk;;-is a-iry Exc_ cOi)n P,rwi: <br /> As described on page -b of the Draft I_.lR, the operator(applicant) mint provide evidence to the <br /> (_'4,Unty (€n the f01111 0l C0111ract". SpeclilCatrmm or olller written pr ol)that the night tinle operations <br /> are rLclnrrCd tel CWC a partrcular protvo. prior to conductAg any Nov tine operations. The operator <br /> must track all nigh three operadons, and thctie rccords nwo be provided to the County upon reilueA" <br /> "Che current Quarry Kcavntion Permit clues not plaee a lnlit on the tons ofaggregate extracted or <br /> sold at the project -site. I log Never, production ofagTah concrete is WOW to 5200 tonsiday and <br /> 890.350 tonSo ear by permits ismwd hy the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District. Clle propose(] <br /> project would not alter these permits. 11w exiling limitations on asphalt product01 Mould remain. <br /> in place:- and all asphalt prodriced (luring eytemled howl "vuld be m ithin the existin- permit limits. <br /> Ile physical site and the production linlits would not be ahead by the proposed project. Therel-ore_ <br /> the ,cope of analysis(once sm1ecl on the effects of producing and haulingasphalt at night. verSUS <br /> those Same operations during the da}. <br /> -flee ('I (1A goidolines and casela%% aN very clear that the scope ofanalysis compare the existing <br /> c ondhinns (the erwironrllental "baseline'"} to cond4i ms w kh the proposed project (see Rivcvlvatch <br /> v_ C_'r, m(v Di­g(l_ 1999, 91 Cal,Ror_2d 321 and Kviuwtil 1'". lin r. ('uimg,of S'r'zcratr unk). <br /> 2002. 97 Cal.App.Ith 1270. The UraA LIR clues not address how the existing conditions came <br /> into being- What previous approvals occurred, or even ifthe exisAng operations are in fall compliance <br /> will €111 regulations. 'Hie Count), els the local agency ��ith land use jurisdiction oTthe project is <br /> naturally concerned "4h We platters of existing operations and compliance. However, it is a <br /> recluirenlent ol'CE031, that the potential effect-S of the proposed project be analyzed separately <br /> frcenl the ongoing effects of We exi lig operation. <br /> Letter A (Caltrans) <br /> Response to Comment A-1: <br /> I lie c:orunncutcr makes an introduction and identifies the proposed prqiect" <br /> (20111111ent noted: ne> further response required. <br /> Response to Comment A-2: <br /> As described (in pay( 122 orthe Daft 1HR. the l<.l wkm of the construction needing the facility's <br /> asphalt material (in the Modesto Area. Escalon Area. or Riverbank Area) %vould vara as would <br /> the uurrtber ol-vehicle trips generated to haul Me material. rherefor-e.gjven the road network serving <br /> €he Project Site- the analysis assunned that trucks could travel (1) north along NI FIerlry Avenue, <br /> Own tarn right: (ea.stbound) onto Fast River Road to the Project site; (2) South Wllenr� <br /> Avenue, then turn le.ht (ea tboupd) onto East River Road to the Project she; or(3) north along <br /> Santa Ise Road. then turn OR (westbound) otlto .E ast River Roar] to the Project site. <br /> I rip dktribtrtion percentages ammng the above-described three haul routes were not incorporated <br /> into the anahysi,� because trucks could utilize aneof Hulse routes. and because the number of <br /> trucks utilizing, each route would vary- depending on scheduled activitieS. The[-cforc. to ensure <br /> h3i P Pa^n,n=p.a"Y Er;a.as Pem: r -� ESA 12 i 1Q8.3 <br /> F ;s'.Eos r)nr„e:gu:.Ittryre_Re>;,o-, SnwmM 2M I <br />