SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Response to Comments As the feasibility for an oil-site alternative includes the ability of the applicant to control the site. the Draft 1=IR looked at three facilities owned by Munn and Perkins. The first site, in Marysville, has the necessary facilities to produce rubberized asphalt to meet the project objectives. However, the distance to Marysville, which is located over 100 miles away. This distance makes the plant infeasible to serve the local (south San Joaquin County) market. 'I lie second site, in Clements, is over 40 utiles away to the north. It could serve projects in central or northern San Joaquin county, but could not feasibly serve the south county. blue: third site, fable Mountain, is approximately 35 miles to the east. This site could serve the eastern portions of-tile cast County, but not the Nvest, including Manteca_ Lahtrop. Stockton and Interstate 5. In addition, both the second and third site would require Facility upgrades which would have potential effects. These sites also have residential uses in the vicinity, \�hich would have the effect of moving potential impacts to other receptors, rather than avoiding them. Response to Comment 1-20: The commenter states that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the alternatives presented (other than the No Project), specifically the noise implications of the West Only and East Only Hatrl ROerte Altcrnativcs. The tvwo alternatives analyzed, in addition to the No Project alternative, were selected to avoid or reduce the significant impact associated with haul truck noise. The other significant and unavoidable impact identified in the FIR. nighttime odor, can realistically only be avoided by not allowing the work (the No Prc7iect alternative), or moving the plant location (the oflsite alternatives discussed but found infeasible on pages 4-2) and 4-3). I,imitirlg tine htl l route would obviously reduce the truck noise for some residents but not otlrcrs. 'The ❑LIR further points out that the receptors on the selected haul route would likely cxperien.ce more noise, even within the limits of the 125 clays. For example, assume the Murt►t & Perkins facility. serves two construction projects in a year. One is located to the west of plant, and vv.ill r-ecluire'10 days of piroduetion. The second construction proiect is located east of the plant. Under the proposed project, both the westerly and easterly receptors (residents) would esperiencc 30 days of night time truck noise. If the haUl route is limited to westerly traffic only, the easteriv receptors (residents) would not eXperience rlil,�ht tiraIc truck noise. lIowever. the westerly residents would now experience 60 days ofnight time truck noise, as all of the east bound trucks would first travel west to Mei lenry Ave. before turning north or-south and ultimately east. Response to Comment 1-21: The commenter states that the D1IR is inadequate and that an accurate and robust environmental review is warranted, The commenter then ina.kes a clositio remark. Comment noted. Sl3ccific comments addressed above. ---- M rin&Perkrns Rua y Excavalaun Perm:[ ESA f 211088 Final Enwronmemai Impact Repon September 201'1