SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Response to Conmients ability to not use those contractors in the future. In addition, a full-tinge monitor has bcctt added to the Mitigations Measure 3.4.1 (see Chapter 4 for Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR). Truck salcty is addressed above, in response to Comment 1-14, The West Only Alternative could be enforced, glut as discussed above, it would not redUCe the noise impacts to all receptors (residences). Response to Comment 2-4: The commenter asks xvliv the existing facility has "been lit up like a Christmas tree for the past many years." including during, August 14-2-01 when lights were supposed to be shielded and it' truck headlights will be shielded. The proposed project would not add lights to the existing facility and the mitigation r7reas111-e is not retroactive to existing lighting. As a condition of approval, the County has determined that extra lighting at the intersection of tlhc facility entrance and E. River Road may be necessary. The shielding requi€'ement. which is contained in Mitigation Mi:asure 3.3.1. '.would require any neve lighting, including entrance lights, to be shielded. Response to Comment 2-5: The comr1henter states that surrounding residences have been subject to fumes and odors from r•ubber-ized asphalt production because Munn & Perkins isn`t mn aufactur.itig it properly. The commenter also provides references to indicate that asphalt funhes are a health hazard. As discussed in the 1-1R.. odor is associated with the production of asphalt, and the prodt.€ctiorh. of €-ubberized asphalt in particular. f=easible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project (measure 3.3.1). I lowever, do to the subject nature of odor, and the variables involved (such as temperature. and atmospheric conditioahs), the ir.hh.pact has been found significant and unavoidable. Response to Comment 2-6: The conunenter states that the f"lR falsely describes the. Munn & Perkins facility as being in compliance with the scenic aspects of the County because the San Joagr.ritr County General Plan identifies Riper Road as a scenic corridor. '1411e. Sail Joaquin County General .Plan. 2010 identities River Road as, a scenic roErte. This is discussed on page 3.1-3 of the Draft EIR. While there are not particular regulations associated with the scenic route designation, the existing fence and berm \{ere required in recognition ofthe scenic route status. The existing fence is required by Condition 10 on CUP QX89-2. Tlhe existi110 berm is required by Condition 1 k on CUP PA-02-370. Hie proposed prqject 'would not alter the physical site or the street frontage, therefore the landscaping and the berm is an existing condition and is not subject to review in the FIR. Mr nn a r'eAfria Ouarry Excavation Perrim 3-1-7 211035 1 wil Environmental Impact Repon Seplember--Di I