SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 Lvaluation.of Existing-NoseAftvirniiffi'#* in the Project._Vicinity 4. -The�evaluatian of the eitisting noise: enAronment indicates th-4t the r�$denees located along Bgrwood.Road are.not.srgnf eantly affected:;by tmok traffic.noise along-,River Road O.n.Mardli.23, 201'0,j b. bcennan & associates, Inc conducted noise level .measurements in the :front yard:of.2220i ,our.ood Road (Adt ,an residence), Tile nvisge eov ronritent ;in the-from-yard was:dominated lzy truck 14fiQ on-fiver Toad: Thoi-hotlrly,tafts red.Leq was.5.1 MA.and the;:mear►`SEL. values from true lcs:passbys-were as;'high.gs 71 '-Qk The BAC report indicates that this residence rs affected prirtiarrly.by on=site plant dpeitrai�s, ,5. The BAC reliort eonduoted,continuous:hourly arnbiVnt noise rrteasurdmehts artwo locations.-along-B3 r.wi)gd.RoAd.,wliicll.arejdentifiui as Sites A and B.. The noise measurcinents,were"�bnducted::At the property.lines of the-proj.ect site. .In-each Case file noYSc rneasr7i Ment. sites WerQ located in %A depression. The.residence located at 2 �;Q Burwoo.d road is ole' ated consiftrAbly ttbpve. them noise measurement><Site A, Mitring 4he site visit,the plarit•nbise levels af-the back:yard property lule:o£the x sidencv Nvere"audibly higher.than the plant UQ1W Ievels at the Site A location lower,throughout the report, Site A Was used to evaluate the plant noise lever'at .th s residence: The San Joaquin County General Plan noise level standards clearly state t a the:noise level criteria are applied at�tl e resider ial ,outdoor aetivi6y:Area Therefore; we do. not be.licve that the noise, measurement:data ccllecied in fhe BAC:report accurately:reilcct the noise levels asso�catei3vi�thGht;'platat:operatiox5s: G. On Pages I I through. 14, aad.'Rige 1:9.of the BAC report they utilize the.noise rneasurement_•d"ata.collected-ii Sfte's A and B to isolate the asphalt plant .noise levels. This Pmwss was used to determine the potential noise levels during nighttime operations The i-epart coricIudes that the asphaltplant:noise levels will be h0tween' 5 and 45.d$ L-Oq. One�.:ago.n, the.noise rrieasrirement lac tipns do' not aGc.uratoly represent�potenfidi.noise:le^vels at-the Elevated residences. This is due to the fact:thaf the noise in.easureinent`location:used for evai.uating the--asphalt plant operattons was located in .a depression. In addition, since the noise measurenicni :, ata.used .ta, emr4po'1.4te the asphalt plant uperadwis were due.'to daytirne aohali.plant operation's., aril were Olieeted i t�a distance0. .`of ovet`2, 0'0 feet from the plant,, the expected rnghttime noise levels, due to atmoW.hAdb conditions could. noreme'hy as rnuah.as.5.dtA to 10 dBA. Therefore,wo do riot believe.that the-asphalt b4tab plant noise levels have accurately beery.identified. An-accurate,method bt evaluating asphalt plant noise leve'Is.is to 'rite the plant during the nighttime ho=', `and w1loct noise level data during�the. operations. This would provide an:accumte representation of potential noise impacts: At the very least, -reference noise level-measurements of the asphalt plant should have been conducted on the Mucin Perkins site, These reference rneasurernehts could have been used to generate noise contours associated with the operations. The noise level data can'be used as direct inputs into a model which can account for 5