Laserfiche WebLink
3 Response to conlTrents <br /> Comment noted. No highway-rail crossings vviII be constructed or otherwise modified as a result <br /> ofthe proposed prgject. <br /> Response to Comment F-4: <br /> hhc cor1rr1renter requests a copy of the revised Traffic Impact Study and provides their contact. <br /> information. <br /> As noted above. it was determined during the scoping and Draft EIR preparation process that <br /> there Mould be no net increase in truck AADT can the haul routes. therefore an analysis of at- <br /> Orade crossings has not been prepared. <br /> Letter 1 (Thomas H. Terpstra 1 J.C. Brennan & Associates) <br /> Response to Comment 1-1: <br /> the commenter states that they represent land owners and residents near the project site and that <br /> they have ConCluded that the DEIR is flawed and must be revised. In addition. the commenter <br /> states that the DEIR fails to identify and evaluate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to <br /> the prgjcct. <br /> Comment noted. Specific comments rcoarding the adequacy ofthe EIR are addressed below. <br /> Response to Comment 1-2: <br /> The commenter describes the purpose ofthe California Environmental Qualifi Act (CI=QA) and <br /> an EIR and states that they are only cornnrcrlting on the adequacy of the F.M. <br /> Comment noted; no further response required. <br /> Response to Comment 1-3: <br /> The commenter requcsls responses to comments prepared by J.C. Brennan & Associates <br /> (Comments 1-22 thru 1-29). <br /> Please see the responses to comments 1-22 thru 1-29 below. <br /> Response to Comment 1-4: <br /> The conimenter states that the project description is inadequate and described the legal <br /> requirement for a complete and accurate description. <br /> Specific comments recardino. the accuracy ofthe project description in the EIR are addressed <br /> below. <br /> Munn&Pe"kins Quarry Excavation P.,rni! 3-7 ESA?2'11096 <br /> Final Envnonm.enta;Impact Report SEplogibPr 2011 <br />