SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r tlltplicathiliiy of:rFaisc Orzlinancc f 1 Oil page 7 of the RNA,the E'NA erroneously indicates that because the existing residences ill the ilnrncdiate project vicinity are constntcted ort agriculturally-zoned parcols and riot on residcluisl€y-'rtp[lt tl pal-eels there is a question regarding the applicability of Coutht_v noise level sthl[sdards.'f€le County Noise*Ordinance does apply to the residenccs. The Jast paragraph tmdertlhe subllcading-Right to Fann 0-rdirhancc," it is implied that this project Fulls under the exelnption of the County Right to€arm Ordinance.The Right to s=abot Ordinance docs]tot apply io quarries. . 1.111puds to Residemecs Tile s€udy calculates t€le rause impact from nighttime plant operations to he 35 to 4-5 dil at the neaivm residc.me to Ilse east.The hm-kgsound nokie on page I I is shown to vary frons mi.average L eq ot'12 to 47(11K On page 18 the study states that tate plant Wil I re.-mit it] lloise al the rc,"Wellce of,t-t-or-5 d1i,but rails to add the background or amhicnt noise level of 42 to 47 di3 Leq. Under "Intpacts ofNighttirlho Asphalt Man Operation Relative to County Exterior Noise Standards"on))a,—,c 19,the Study States that that"a�plialt plant noise levels are predicted to beat or holm-the C'ounty's 45(113 F,cq noise..criteria outside the nearest existing residences". Again. th(. study docs not add 1110 ambient n(ptsc,whicli already often exceeds the County's nig,htrime standard ol'45(113 l..eq_Similarly, it does trot add the ambicut nighttime t_uha\which exceeded [lie County nigihttinlc standard of 65 dB latlax nn every night measured oil both reside-li s. Base. line Coadiwills Tjw swdy sultos on paC,c. 1,"In light of-the historic ninllttilm"operation of this facility up Servicing night Lavin aro ecis,the pro tmod u i plicsnion would affect the mcans h %vhieh the a� licant F gf .��' F p lE Y Fp obEa1115 penitission for night operations,but would not represent new nighttime operations." Acta{illy.the Director has told the alpplicam hi crinnc}t liave nt(n•c lligilttil-ne operations witlout t the approval ofa Revisions of Approved Actions application;s(p the base line should lac no nighttime operations. It is not clear Nvilen the plant was operating during the time that the background noise,,ainples wLre taken. it appears that the plaint was operating at night and already exceedin-, the noise requirements ofilre Developmem-Titic.(See chart Table 6,"?.1,m. 10 p.m. (daytime)and 10 p.m. lu 7 a.rn.(nighninlc)- 1•1istoi-,Y/Assump11nns In the conclusion on pag;c 30,the sludy indicates"an average of l l nights per Year of night operations between 1999 and 2005"and a maximum of 2d nights in 3004. "l'herc isan implied asstnnption that nighttime operations will alveragc 1 1 nights per year.T11C C;otnmunity { sem, Development iycparthnenr`s record indicate in Ztfil]nl(plic.,iVlunn and Perkins worked a total cpf 22 ' ni,shts and in 2009 30 nights-Clearly the avaruge number of nihhttime(operations[nay exceed the I �> I I I I