CORRESPONDENCE_2000-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Consolidated Forwa nc. Landfill F 4 (FAA) and Stockton Metropolitan Airport to,:ar_ate lighting impacts that coup caused by the proposed project. B. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3 (B.1) Proposed as Part of the Project: The County has determined that the applicant S*-217 contribute their fair share of the signal installation at the intersection o Austin Road Mariposa $ Road. A previous study(Austin Road Landtil'. E11R. 1999) identities a mitigation measure that included the applicari;'_ .ontribution to the installation of a traffic signal at Austin Roadlfa-posa Road. This is included in existing permit requirements and is -�Ss::med to occur as pan of baseline conditions. 4(B.2) -Identified in This EIR: The project applicant shall contribute 53,76S.S= «yard the signal installation a: Road/Arch Road. The applicant shall contribute 5=.696.67 to the signal installation a: :.e intersection of Austin Road French Camp Road. 5 (B.6) Identified in This EIR: ; The applicant shall contribute a fair share to the required addition of a second east�--o--to- southbound left tutu lane to Austin Road that wo:'.d be required to improve intersec_o- operations to acceptable levels. The improvement:includes the addition of a second ' - eastbound-to-southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Mariposa Road/Austin.Road. With the recommended improvement, the intersection would operate at LOS B with a V,C ratio of 0.686 during the PM peak hour. O NOISE 6(C.3) Identified in This EIR: (a)Heavy equipment operations shall not be conducted within 1500 feet of any occupied residence after 10 p.m.and before 6 a.m.;or (b)Equipment operations within 1500 feet of any residence after 10 p.m.or before 6 a-m. shall be fully shielded from the direct line of sight to the residence by an earthen berm whose crown elevation exceeds the elevation of the top of the exhaust stack. 7 Forward 1993(E3) i The landowner and tenant at RI (residence at 9690.4ustin Road)shall beprovided * the option of requesting a sound wall to reduce noise exposure both in the front yard and:::trin the home. Table IILE.B in the Draft EIR shows the noise reduction provided by a varve'- of different sound wall designs. The footnotes to Table IILE.B describes the alternative cesi�rts in detail). Note that any of these designs will be more than sufficient to reduce projec_ ro_,e impacts below a level of significance. 8 Forward 1993 (EI)