Laserfiche WebLink
windows closed; residences with no air conditioning units will be evaluated with windows open <br /> if that is the normal operating condition. <br /> In those cases where interior noise levels exceed 45 dBA DNL, the Applicant will identify and <br /> implement building treatments or sound insulating features to reduce interior noise to 45 dBA <br /> DNL or less. Sound insulating features may include treatments such as installation of air <br /> conditioning,upgrading windows and doors (including seals), and eliminating noise flanking <br /> paths. Sound insulation would ensure that interior noise level standards contained in the San <br /> Joaquin County Development Title are met, except where affected property owners do no want <br /> sound insulation. <br /> The construction of 6-to 8-foot solid fences or sound walls may be feasible (especially for some <br /> residences along Haul Route 3) and may be able to substantially reduce noise from haul trucks at <br /> some of the residences along the haul route. hi such cases, the mine should compensate <br /> homeowners for the fences or sound walls. However, for the residences on Segment 5 (residence <br /> R9) and Segment 8 (residence R10), fences or sound walls would probably not be practical or <br /> feasible. In these locations the homes are set back a considerable distance from the road and in <br /> order to reduce traffic noise to a less-than-significant level, sound walls would need to be too <br /> massive to be practical. Residence R10 on Segment 8 is also subjected to considerable existing <br /> noise from traffic on I-5, so any sound wall on Blewett Road would be ineffective in reducing <br /> noise from I-5. <br /> Furthermore, given the effect they would have on the rural character and aesthetic value of the <br /> area, fences and sound walls may not be desired or feasible for all the residences potentially <br /> affected by noise from project haul trucks. In addition to the issue of feasibility, the height,mass, <br /> and linear extent of fences and walls needed to effectively reduce noise impacts from the haul <br /> route options on sensitive receptors raises the possibility that such barriers would result in <br /> impacts on the visual character of the existing landscape and on scenic views of the Coastal <br /> Range Mountains and the San Joaquin Valley. The fences and walls would be large-scale <br /> features with simplified linear forms that could appear visually obtrusive as well as obstructing <br /> long-range views. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-21 to 4.5-22.) <br /> Findings: <br /> Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.3 would reduce noise levels at residences located <br /> along nearby roadways used to access the mine. This mitigation measure, however, would not <br /> reduce all impacts related to increased ambient noise levels to a less-than-significant level. <br /> Based on the whole record, the Board finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation <br /> measures or alternatives that would reduce impacts from increased noise levels along nearby <br /> roadways used to access the mine to a less than significant level. <br /> D.3.2. Air Ouality <br /> Impact 4.6.2 <br /> Project Operational-Phase Emissions Impact. The proposed surface mining of topsoil, sand and <br /> gravel would take place on approximately 659 acres within the Project Site. The proposed <br /> mining operation would consist of the extraction of 1.7 to 4.0 million tons per year of aggregate <br /> 34 <br />