SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pdlwn&Perksr}s QuwW Ex a,Wn Pow the sama: location, )vhiela is also reasonable. Noise insulation provided by ty}deal residential corrstIAIC6 nr is generaln assumed ter be 25 dB textLrior-to-interior noise level reduction NLR]} fOr transportation noise sources Q. Wfic. trains. air'crafty Ilk asswraption is generally applied to heavy trucks and automobiles alike. ha this arse, single-event noise exposure from typical autoltruck passb3 s on fast Rk-er load could be 50 dB (SEL) or higher within the closest rc:sicLmces (75 d13 SEL --_5 d13 WT = >U dB SEL}. Again, this is a conservative assessment. (Avon this sAgle-event Use expomw forautomobile passb;s and the provided nunher ofexisting WIN open- dons. the probability cafe€«akeNng under e:xisdrig. no project conditions "as calculated using the AN'SFASA S 119 nwtfaodologr to be approxirnately 92f,'/o. Again, this is a conservative assess€ncrat consisterat "Ili all ether-analy es presented in the project DEIR noise section. Response to Comment 9-29: Ile commemn rmakcs a closhg statemanl. (`onnaicnt noted: no further response rcguircd. Letter Z (Ralph & Judith Dorward) Response to Comment 2-9: The con€mcntcr states that the) operate a cutth and horse ranch bordering the protect site and that , Me applicant is trying to expand industrial operations in an agricultwwHy�zoned region. C'orrrnient noted; no further resporlse recluircdl ,.. Response to Comment 2-2: The commenter states that the ESIR considers sir€ne of the issues regarding extended hours but that the full environmental effects of dw Why have never been quantified as incremental amendments have been allowd. I he commenter also states that surrounding residents have put up with noise:., dust and odors and th;.€.t these conditions )vould continue into nighttime hours. Pleas,. see .klaster Response 01 existinLl.ol-m-ations and the scope of ana"A'. Response to Comment 2-3: Com[Ile lite r states tl.r.at the existing faciIiry exceeds County standards: that the truck controls would not work_ and that night time truck operations would be dangerous. Commenter also state~ that the -"Ist Routc" %would not v)ork. as trucks will travel in the direction of the job. I he noise study prepared b) BAC indicates that typical daytime operations are within County noise. standard; (see page 13 of the stud) W Appendix E of the Draft F.IR). l lovvever. regardless of existing conditions. tate Drall FIR analt i.es the chunge from exkdnfg condithms to conditions with the project. The mitigation measures IN truer: operations are considered feasible. While independent trucks are used, the operator rmrkwins same control over the trucks, through their €,4om&Pe;MS.]Wq r-w J_...nn Foe r.it L S A 1,- 1UB15 Frei Grr�.ro�xn��'lal Irrrr�c•R_F:-or; - 55pWrn L•H-`2W 1