SU0004097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Background Over the past 30 years, a number of Excavation permits (EP-173, s originally appEP- roved & EP-80-3) have been issued near the project vicinity. Excavation permit EP-80-3 `vas originally approved mi November 8, 1979, to remove 3o million tons of sand and gravel over a five (5) year period. That permit included the been in u 1989, the construction of a processing approved which has since Excavation permed QX-89-1 emotvenl o millionotonrslof sand and Planning Commission app Quarry the north side gravel over a thirteen (13) year period. All excavation up to this point had been cond ctapproved n expansion of of the California Aqueduct. On September 2, 1999, the nQgincllud dsthenremoval of 7 million toof QX-89-1 with Quarry Excavation permit QX-99-1. The expar>sn sand and gravel over a seven (7) year period and excavation of land on the south side of the Caf omia Aqueduct. Conveyor System achment permit rt 1084) from the When QX-99-1 was approved, the applicants obtained an encro Department of Water Resources (DWR) to construct a conveyor system to transport materials from the h side where south systemThe same lwilof the l be used toornia tran transport materials excavated as a result of the expansion. Thety, is uct to the nort educt of material transported across the aqueduct will not be increased n the roof then projeem ct, aannd the Initial study an only handle a s amount of material at one time. The DWR has been notified circulated through the State Clearinghouse. A representative from DWR confirmed that the applicants had an approved encroachment permit. Traffic Project related traffic impacts are considered to be less than significant. All materials will continue to be transported across the California Aqueduct via conveyor to the existing processing facility. As a result, there will be little addibcnal truck traffic on Tracy Boulevard. Deartment of Conservation (Office of Mine Reclamation) ed Reclamation Plan. In the memo dated The Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) reviewed the propos November 18,2002, OMR provided a list of supplemental irdannatiothat needed to be provided in order t State �►9 meet the minimum state requirements of the Surface linand Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the Sta Mining and Geology Board's regulations for surface mg and reclamation practices. The supplemental information is included in the Reclamation Plan. Neighborhood opposition The Community Development Department received two (2) letters in opposition to the project. The following and air quality, issues were addressed in the letters: lack of notifiocirruse 'n increased sVucture of California uck traffic, utAquedud nose, nighttime use of lghts, depletion of water table, comp and property value. Notification- Notification went to all property owners within a 1,400-foot radius, as required by Development Title Section 9-220.8. s result of this protect is not expected to increase because the Traffic: The amount of traffic generated as a PA-02-377\Rose San Joaquin County Page 3 Community Development