SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.Response to Comments 1 lie commenter is not correct. The project description is not required to describe the exact nurnber, location. and proximity of offsite rural residences{see CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, which enutnerates the required contents of the project description). Figure 2-2 does not purport to he a sensitive receptor map, rather it is an aerial photograph of the project vicinity, identifying the project site. Figure 3.4-1. which is part of the noise analysis chapter, identities sensitive receptors. Response to Comment 1-8: I lie cormmenter states that the project description is accurate in that excavation no longer takes place onsite and that raw aggregate is trucked in for processing. The coninienter also states that the DEIR should evaluate the additional impacts associated with importing increasin4- aniounts of material for night Operations. The existin- operation is part of the environmental baseline for purposes of analysts. I herefore, the source of the raw materials is not within the scope ofthe F.1R. For ill RVIllational purpose, only, It is noted that while aggregate is not currently beim extracted, there are still permitted aggregate reserves on-site which could be used (without approval of the proposed project},and a s�uld quarry north Of the project site which supplies material to the production facilities via conveyer belt. Response to Comment 1-9: The coninienter states that the projects objectives are impermissibly narrow in an attempt to limit the DF.IR's discussion of mitigation measures and project alternatives. 4lie cOniiiienter does not provide any specifics to support this statement. The project objective,. identified on page 2-4 ofthc Draft FIR., are clearly stated and meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section l 5124(b). The Underlying purpose. as stated on page 2-4 and tln-Ou«hOitt the Draft .I::1 R, is for the facility to produce asphalt during night time hours in order to compete For local. state. and federal higImay projects. Response to Comment 1-10: The commenter states that there is no mitigation measure or proposed condition of approval to ensure that the maximurn permitted air pollution limits on page 2-2 are not exceeded. The San Joaquin Valley Air P011utian Control District issued the permits limiting asphalt plant production and their Compliance Division is responsible Of conducting routine inspections to ensure the requirements of the permits are being complied with, n mitigation measure is neither appropriate nor required to enforce existing regulatory requirements. Response to Comment 1-11: "I'lie coninienter states that pal=e 2-6 of the DEIR mentions that County Public Works has requested additional lighting for nighttime traffic safety however there is no schematic of this lighting,. "[lie commenter then states that this information should be included in the DEIR to ensure there won't he additional environmental effect to neighboring properties. Munn&PerklnS Quarry Excavat.on Permit 3-9 ESA 1 211086 final Em,ironmental impact.Report September 2011