Laserfiche WebLink
f.^v�ri& Peri E s Q lar Y Excavatier Pari-W <br /> Response to Comment 2-7: _ <br /> "I ho cornruenter states that the exi tin 'acility generates dust pollution tin €t nail basis. The <br /> connnenter included pictures to illustrate their coninient- <br /> While this comment does not point to a sliccific. inadequacy of the D IR. it Should he noted that <br /> the existing clu<trr operalkni is required to cornpl} %vith San Joaquin Valley Air pollution Control <br /> DistJO dust C011tr01 rc<�uhrti0n,. It S]IOUld also be €loll l that any dust emissions related to the <br /> excakatron, processing. or hauling of aggivgate (sand and gravel) wood M mcrir as a rnuh of <br /> this project. 'I he proposed pre}jest would only involve the pvduction and hauling of asphalt <br /> concrete. <br /> Response to Comment 2-8: <br /> The commenter states that the FIR imentionally ignmyd OWN Resources because the existing <br /> WAY is adjacent to the f115tor'li Bur1wad district. <br /> As discrrmsCd on page FSQ ofthc DEIR, issues identified (including CLOW Resources)during the <br /> sci�pinL, process as not being significant were nN evahiated in the DLIR. The proposed project would <br /> cxtertd the pla.rtt's hours ofoperation Or up to 125 nights. There is no physical alteration of the <br /> Iacilil�- .'.round disturbance, or alteration ofstructures on or adjacent to the site. . Tllerefore. <br /> cultural resource iMpaCtc were "scoped out" of the [:IR. Night time operations (9:00pm to <br /> 5:00arn) would not create barriers to the use of these properties. <br /> Response to Comment 2-9: . <br /> The conurnenter states that it is unKtmunc eriou-Ii that their auriculturallr zoned region is <br /> subjected to the industrial operation and the dangerous and noisy truck traffic during normal <br /> hours without being, subject ua it daring the nig=ht and earl) nlorrtirt.g. The commenter then states <br /> dint a lm.rjority of Munn & Perkins' prodrrctS are tOr counties other than Sari Joaquin County. <br /> Cornmeta mated. The comment doesn't point to a specific inadequacy within the DV'1R. hovNever. <br /> County decision makers wiil consider all eorriments when deciding on the project. <br /> Response to Comment 2-90: <br /> The (xinniQnter makes a closim.) remark: <br /> C'omnient noted, no furtlicr response iequi.red. <br /> PW n Ura yr r ni" i.- 3-18 Esst_i Y <br /> - r- .c;:,rr _.!•-_pa..i k•l;;r. S?n[?mb� 20U <br />