SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rs Chandler Martin October 14, 2010 Page 2 greater than daytime peak hour levels,is nevertheless worthy of study in an Environmental Impact Report. Most important,in terms of environmental effect, is the increased noise impacts of the project. 1 am aware of the County's ongoing efforts to require an adequate noise study for this project, one which recognizes that.noise receptors(residents near the plant and along the initial haul route) will be more affected by noise at night than they are during,the daytime. For more than two years, l have been requesting that if the-applicant's noise consultant were allowed to prepare the noise study, that it be independently peer-reviewed. Having worked on many mining prnjGcts over The past twenty,years,-.and,having.reviewed-couritless noise studies,I know that they are highly technical, and the conclusions can vary widely depending on whether the appropriate methodologies were used: Dere, while staff has used its best efforts to review and critique the"lnvironmental Noise.Analysis"prepared by Munn and Perkins' consultant, and has requested numerous revisions, the unfortunate fact is that a full peer-review was never done. When we reviewed the Environmental Noise Analysis ("ENA"), my clients were incredulous to find that,among other things,the ENA(a) found that there was a small (less than 10%) possibility of sleep awakenings during;night operations,and{b) there appeared to be only a Cow weak and largely unenforceable mitigation measures available. "Phis lack of ineaning;fiil analysis prompted my clients to retain the services of J.C. Brennan and Associates to conduct the rigorous peer-review which was missing from staff's analysis. As you will see from the attached report, Mr. Brennan has identified many significant deficiencies in the ENA, which call into serious doubt its adequacy as air informational document. Most notably,Mr. Brennan concludes that by using Tlic proper analytical model.for predicting sleep disturbance, there is in fact a 97% probability of awakening during night operations. This,not coincidentally, comports more closely with the neighbors' personal and documented experiences with Munn and Perkins' previously approved occasional night operations. Clearly,this is a significant impact which must be mitigated. It also bears upon the Planning,Commission's ability to make the required finding that the Revision would not be"significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity." 'fliere are numerous other flaws in the ENA,as outlined in the Brennan Report. While the neighborhood can,and has,put up with the noise,dust and odors from plant operations and truck traffic during"tlic daytime hours for more than 50 years,this application will allow those same operations to continue unabated, AND allow those same operations to continue into the nighttime hours. With more and more public agencies seeking;to conduct road paving projects at night, there is an entirely new construction market and opportunity for operators like Munn and Perkins. But the fact that these jobs are now available does not mean that every facility previously approved for daytime operations is appropriately situated to operate at night. An operation like Munn and Perkins'River Road site, with its long-history of nuisance complaints and unauthorized cmalruction, as well as its close proximity to long-established residences, is not an appropriate facility to serve Might construclion,lobs. Fortunately, the applicant has a number of other permitted sites in adjacent locations which can provide material for night paving jobs. These sites are much more efficient in that the