SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ry mn&Peron Awry Enavat on Pw r i incorporated. I lowever, duo to tho subjective rla= ofodor, the lead agency has determined that the potential inipac:t has not been reduced below the level ol'significance. See also the response to Connucnt 1-15. Regarding odor and Asphalt pmductton, palHcrdarly rubberized asphalt. the temperature of the process is important. I he lower the temperature. the less odor is produce& The ability to produce asphalt at IoxNer temperatures is a tbria on ofwchnology,. Therebr-e, the lead agency has inodif"sed kliti�,.;ation Measure to 3.3J to Wcorpmate feasible technology to reduce odors as it becomes available (see Chapter 4 fcrr NAinor Revisions to the Draft f.IR}. Again, it cannot be assured that such technology will be available in a thney manner. or feasible to incorporate at the Ndunn & Perkins Who. so the impact rennairrs significain and unavoidable. Response to Comment 1-17: Tho conAricnor rcfcrcncc, an attached photo��raph of the facility. Photograph is included in Chapter of the f=inal I:_:IR. Response to Comment 1-18: I he commenter addresses the environmental noise asscssment(ENA) completed by Bollard Acoustical C'c>ntillhants, Inc. (BAC) on August I& 201 R The ci�mmenter expresses that die, projeCL -DI-IR*s discussion of noise impacts continue; to he plagued with the Same inadeClUaeies ns the previous FNA. I1'ftM no revisions to the ENA have been made since Mr. 13mr ran's Ocloher 13. 201 Q report Nvas issucd.- I h< author of the DEI R's noise section considered all of thc. information contained NN ithin the BA(.' FNA o1'AuguM 18. 2010 and the J.C. Brennan At .Associates peer review/comments of October 13, 201 R In tact, as recommended by, .1C. Brennan & Associates. the prciect DEAR noise Sed iorr appropriately addlVAes project-related awakenings dere to tnwk passb s on East River Road using, the ANSUASA 5120 nwthodolog). All of Mr. Brennan-s comments to date have been thous"htfull� and appropriately considered and addressed within the praiect DIIR. Please s e the responses to cmumems K22 thin 109 belo". Response to Comment 1-19: The courruenor states that the project alternatives discussion is inadequate and then surrtr1rarires the reCll€irerrtc€tt, ofHn alterarmives discussion. Ihe coninienter then describes some of the applicatrts operations and staves that the DI-:IR improperly evaluates their Marysville. Table Mountain, and Clements in terms of the proxirrt j to the N4mn 61 Perkins facility. An alwinatiye requires We torture, to he considered in Me VAR. First. it must be feasible. or potentially feasible. Second, it must clearly reduce or avoid a s"nificant impact of the proposed project. -third, it must meet at least some (although not necessarily all) of the project objectives. r'1 3-12 ----- ,znr°Perk�n�Cx��aa;N i::xcava�-.o,P_rrc E5A;211pBFj 1;7-.F ci Renor; Sywe. a 2W 1