SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 O '13.Page 29 of the BAC report indicates that dw analysis of-truck noise iinpapts will assume Haat.kruck drivels are operating vchreies to the"quletes#manner possible". This analysis does not appear to be:a conservative approach to evaluating noise impacts: 'I his would�sepp tp-jndiepgq that:-theire.has beenx an identified sign.ificant impact,and that Mitigation measures being impiemeated, A.Thb. analysis of sleep. disturbafiec, on paga 31 thr-.o4gh`34 app.cars'to Ile flawwed. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)'lips developoo prKW;ires;for eY-Muating#lxe;.po#CAiI X iOrslce .distet banCc: Tho 1'roocdure: ANSIMSA. S1.2,,1-2008 1 Pact 6 sets the provedur6 fb e-4IUatlxg the pntcnt al for sleep,clistumarice l<t,'ostab lis)tcs si .W.F,:l.-0. or 4:single eye"I for which the A-weighted sound: curs within a room at. .5.0 .413A. The ANSI procedure co;lcul,a-6s• tate probability .of awakening based upon the interior paean SEL atF'd the nunihor of evelits` which occur dut hig the nighttime hours-('QW)0 pain —1-'Off ami) The BAC report indicates that there wou!O a,.nly b'pt a ra%, probability of awulrcnitig. HOW-Ovcr,,the ANSI- liroccdur.ee fol* cafluiating.t166 praliability.. .uf aWikenfi% calculates a 97%,probability..of-aiwakening; base.d1-#pon.un extcrior-Sl L of'79 dBA and 182 truck trips during -the nighttime period, as indicated in the, 13AC report. This-is clearly a mgjor4ifferaneo'ig ft oyoralIknalysis. 15. Rage 30 of the:BAC report..'conducts An-analysis bf--the."Traffic Noise Impacts Relative to Caunly 65 1B Ldix=E#erior.Noise S#artdaril". 'This.analysis does. not correctly address the'C'Minty exterior noise level--standard of 6S'--dB" Ldn, 'l lie Un descriptor is a 24 bpx r average JDf sill traffic noise. This 'analysis only evaluates-the project trgffic-ftoise,lcyol, Although �late3r in�tlw report, ttivre is an evaluation of the overall traffic noise; this-analgsts is=ni sl'sading. A typieal.:nblse analysis for traffic noise irrnpaats woulcl f rst.syaltaate.:thc existing traffic noise levels and co.rttpare them to the standaid,and then cvalttaie alae existing+project noise levels to show the-cornparisan_ The BAC report estimated the project-related truck:trips t6:result in an Ldn'af 63 dB at.a distance of 60 feet. j.c. brennan.& assootges; Inc: utilized the F!ederai 1-Iigbway Administration (F,HWA RD!?-1.0s.) traffic.noise ,prediction rnod.cl to evaluate the project-related truck traf#ze noise levels along;B River Road:. The inputs assumed 248 total true* trips, with 66 of'.those trips occurring during the daytime hours. It assumed a speed of 40 midi (This-is probably underestimaring the actual travel speeds). The F 4W.A traffic noise.predicti'oh:ma&l resulted in an Ldn of 66 ABA. This would result in an exeeedance of the Ban Joaquin County nowise level criterion of 654B Ldn. 16.Page 34 sof the BAC report-conducts an:.analysis of the "Tyraffic Noise Impacts Relative to County. 45 dB Ldn Interior Noise Standard"'. This:analysis does not correctly address the County interior noise:level standard of 45 dB Ldn. The Ldn descriptor is a 24-hour average of all traffic noise. This analysis only evaluates the project traffic noise level. Althoggh,,later in the report, there is an 7 O