Laserfiche WebLink
3 Response to Comments <br /> Response to Comment 1-14: <br /> Commenter states the DF.IR does not consider increased satety risks due to loaded trucks <br /> operating at ni llht. CornrnenLer states that this Nvas a concern during the approval of the sand <br /> quarry northeast of the project site. <br /> 'I tee overall very low volume oftra.ffic('refer to Table 3.2-2) both ',N;itli and W4110ut the project do <br /> not indieatc any potential sat'ety issues. Off-peak operations may in fact be safer than traffic dtrrin�.� <br /> the morning and afternoon a0rxrrn€rle peaks. which is one reason major hiclinvay construction projects <br /> are conducted at night (in addition to convenience for the travelling public by avoiding excessive <br /> traffic.delays). The only area of potential concerti is the driveway itself which will require additional <br /> lighting. The proposed prrject should be differentiated froru an adjacent quarry. which involves <br /> new net trips, potentially during peal: traffic hours. and would require several short turns and <br /> accelerations and decelerations in a very short road segment. The proposed project would involve <br /> more typical trucking patterns, where trucks would Will onto the main road with ade(.luate lines of <br /> sight. <br /> accelerate. and travel to controlled intersections. <br /> Response to Comment 1-15: <br /> Commenter state~ that the DFIR wrongly ass€Ines that the extended Fours would not restrl.t in <br /> additional air duality impacts. Commenter discusses odor and rubberized asphalt. <br /> Please see response to comment 1-5. The existing facility operates under air quality perrrtits that <br /> restrict the maximum production, contrary to the comment. As stated on page 3.3-17, the nearest <br /> receptor is north of the project site. (northwest of the facility entrance)_ at a distance of about <br /> 1,600 feet. As previa€rsly discussed, the permitted levels of air emissions would not be increased <br /> by the proposed project. As the project would occur at night. and because night time highway <br /> Work may include a rubberized asphalt requirement, an analysis of odor vvas done. Tile dispersion <br /> analysis did not show any exceedances of t1,S, the only "odor- pollutant for which quantifiable <br /> standards exist. l lowever, acknowledging that odor is highly subjective, and acknowledging the <br /> distance to the receptors, and previous evidence of odor complaints, the odor impact is found to <br /> be potentially significant. Manufacturers' additives for rubberized asphalt are available that are <br /> designed to reduce odors. Again_ because odor is subjective, the agency determined that even <br /> with this measure, the impact would be significant. it should be noted that this finding is rmtde <br /> - evert though dispersion analysis does not show a significant impact. and even though feasible <br /> mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. <br /> Response to Comment 1-16: <br /> The commenter states that the Draft CIR fails to identify the location of the nearest. receptor Im- <br /> the dispersion modeling; that file project fails to meet required bolter distances; that the Draft C.IR <br /> fails to adequately address rnitigation. <br /> The comment that the plant fails to meet required buffer distances is not entirely correct.. The <br /> "bufl:er distances' are basically screening criteria for the air district to determine if there is a potential <br /> odor impact. They arc not regulatory requirements. With regards to mitigation. there is mitigation <br /> M:.rnn&Perkins Quarry Excavation Permit 3-11 ESA f 211086 <br /> Rn&I Environmental Impact Reporl September 2011 <br />