CORRESPONDENCE_2007-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 5 Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] From: Robert McClellon [EH] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:45 AM To: 'Evan Edgar'; Taylor, Kevin; Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] Cc: kswanson@sjgov.org Subject: RE: Noise and On-site circulation issues Evan, I have dealt with a similar issue regarding a transfer processing facility here in SJ County. The problem is that once you have the approval and everything is in and running that really is not the time to determine you have a problem. The noise study you submitted as part of this package indicated that the initial study was completed in 1993. At the item of the noise study the facility was not even in operation. It just evaluated the potential noise. Don't you think at some point the noise actually coming form the facility should be know? It is very slow for waste right now. So even that would be skewed, but I think it is only reasonable to do a noise study before we proceed. In the other situation the noise study revealed that there were noises that exceeded the Development Title @ the property boundary. Site circulation is a CEQA issue. It is also a safety issue. Your client is not asking for 50% increase or even 100% increase. There will be a 300% increase in vehicle traffic and and 2.5 magnitude increase in the waste volume. We have seen the site when it was busy and not near the current limits. We have concerns regarding the proposal. What I want to see is a breakdown of traffic flow into that facility. I want it by hour. In peak years and in slow years. I want someone to extrapolate the amount of peak traffic that the facility can expect at full build out. In that extrapolation want it to include waste process time and load out. It is not only traffic, but waste volume. If the tipping floor is packed with waste how will that effect traffic and quell time. Weather needs to be figured in. How does winter change the operation as it pertains to operations and traffic and waste handling. The facility will have extended hours of operation and that will allow vehicles to use the facility at different times. But I know that most of the traffic is going to come to the facility during normal business hours and the is something that will need to be addressed. The idea is to have a report that looks at the facility as it operates now (through put) and how it will operate in the future. I do not want to see a facility approved for capacity it cannot handle. The capacity report you submit talked about what a tipping floor could handle and how many loaders per tons of waste. It did not take a look at the big picture. I have seen operations that are bottle necks and congested. That not only reduces safety but it causes tempers to flare. If the increase was a fraction of what is being proposed then I would not be so apprehensive. Robert Robert McClellon, Program Coordinator RENS Environmental Health Department 600 E. Main Street Stockton, CA 95202 (209)468-0332 From: Evan Edgar [mailto:Evan@edgarinc.org] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:55 AM To: Robert McClellon [EH]; Taylor, Kevin Cc: kswanson@sjgov.org Subject: Noise and On-site circulation issues Robert: Let's exchange a few emails then to get to the root of the matter on Noise and On -Site circulation. 5/20/2011