SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

€v win&Perki;,s{quarry Exc'aveilcn Parra€ It is likely that additional hylting %ill be required at the project site entrance on E, River Road. Ise purpose ofthis Iighting is For the sate ingress and egress of tract: traffic at the project site. F:xisdng vegetation and topography retakes it unlikely that this lighting would he directly visible front an on-site residence. Jim%ever. tai ensure there is no spillover lightitg and associated visual illlpacts. mitig,16 11 1.1 .Sure 7.1.1 on page 3.l-5 of be IEWIR requires all outdoor lighting to be required in be #irllt"hicldcd_ Ile tapproArnate kwation is known (tile intersection of the plant raid and 1-:. River lZoad). I he design must con(-orru to the Mitigation McaStrl'e and Section 9- W216 of the County's Uev eloptnns Code, so the exact design and product t}pe of the lighting is not to anah"c the potential impact and identi( feasibic nh6gadon. Response to Comment 1-12: The cons ncMer states that if etre (Aunty Ah"s both daytime and nQ ttirne production, the cumulative traffic mould increase dranmdcally. See relmnse to comment 1-5. The asphalt plant can reach its parnrtt4'd maxtmtun dnrill`_', the currently permitted operating hour, In addition to the permit Bruitn as a practically matter, h is tudikely that a construction site could acc:cpt material continuously I"or 24 hours. from the perspective of the traf#ic: analysis. the limitin- factor for roadway and street segment capacity i5 the Itclurly lea el of seri ice (dckrl ). In that respect, day and ni"ht time operations are not crmlrtlative, meaning Wt traffic during night hours does not linlit the capacity ora road"ay during daylight hours. Response to Comment 1-13: C onlnlentcl-cluest ions the trip tiuvricratiotl on pagc 31-8 and (a) whether they are maximum hot[rly trills. (b) how they were dorived, and (c) if they are maxini un hourly trips, how is tale maximum limit cnllrced. .]...Ile trip gennalion is a inaxin.ltnn per hourly trip rate. As discussed in response to Comment A-2.- it assumed that tale maximum truck trips Ctlt.dd five any Of the three potential haul rOWS, depending cm the locabon of the, paying lob. As described. in Section 21, 25-ton haul trtlC)s are used to transport � We asphalt. As the plant has a lata.yrlllttrll capacity of 325 tons per hour, that would egUalc to 13 round trips (325 divided by 25 apals 13L Rescue: the empty trucks Must return to the plant., that would ... equal 26 one-May trips. In addition. the plant earl store up to 500 tons of asphalt in silos (see page 26 of Appendix fit Ira of this capacity- %%as used. in addhion to the 325 tons produced, the Furst hour of operations could result in 33 Imuhng trills (823 divided by 25 equals 33), or 66 Dile-way _. truck trills. This coulcf only occur in the first houk as the 500 ton silos Could not he replenished it' the plant continued to load trucks at We maArlium rate. As a practical matter, the number of (nicks IOr the rnaxtnlnrll hot][- aLOnld not exceed 16 round traps, as the: applicants constrUCti011 crews can only palace tip to 400 torts of asphalt per hour (Welch 201 1). Nevertheless, the nurnber of GG orae-way trips ryas used fur purposes of the traffic analysis, which an extremely conservative (worst-case) assumption. Ile limits do not need to be entbrced. as they care a theoretical maxinnrrn Wed on the capacity ofthe facility. For the rmsolls stated above. the proposed project could not cxeced 66 one \N ay trips in any �'JVCIl ht-lltr'. M'Irm&Perk?ns Quarry Exc,avamn p>�,^,.'.t 3-�C7 ESA!2110?.G FYI menmdimps::!Repan SawmmrM!1