incorporate its contents herein. We stress that El Charro Spur LLC cannot solve this problem itself or it would. El Charro Spur LLC does not have authority to secure the Zone 7 property nor would it be permitted to install fencing or obstructions in the Arroyo Mocho to stop the public from using Zone 7 property to enter the Arroyo Mocho and by extension the ECS Property and mining areas.
Zone 7, however, could construct a fence on its property south of the proposed trail which could then connect to the proposed fence south of the trail on the SMP-40 property, thereby preventing public access to the Arroyo Mocho.
To be clear, ECS supports the SMP-40 project and the benefits it brings to the City and the community. The Council should approve the project at its March 25 meeting, but we ask the Council to include a condition of approval requiring the project applicant to work with Zone 7 to ensure that a fence is constructed on the Zone 7 property south of the trail connecting to the fence on the SMP-40 property.
Regards,
Margaret R. Akerblom
MRA
Enclosure
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2951
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Margaret R. Akerblom
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 213.955.5623 File Number: 394720.00001/4876-3208-5931.3 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
March 5, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Livermore
1016 S. Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: Public Comment on SMP-39 and SMP-40 Project
Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2024
Planning Commission of the City of Livermore:
We represent El Charro Spur LLC, which owns the approximately 69-acre parcel (“ECS Property”) directly south of and abutting the SMP-40 property, which is the subject of the proposed SMP-39 and SMP-40 project before the Planning Commission on March 5, 2024. On behalf of El Charro Spur LLC, we submit this public comment regarding the SMP-39/SMP-40 project. As explained in more detail below, the SMP-39/SMP-40 project proposes in part to construct a public trail along the Arroyo Mocho that will create a significant health and safety hazard that was not acknowledged or studied in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023010091) (“EIR”) nor addressed in the project’s conditions of approval.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of Exhibit C to the proposed Development Agreement for SMP-40, which we have annotated for illustrative purposes. Exhibit C depicts that the SMP39/SMP-40 project will include construction of a public trail running along the southern and western property lines of the SMP-40 property. This proposed public trail on the SMP-40 property proposes to continue at the southeast corner of the SMP-40 property onto the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) property abutting the SMP-40 property’s eastern property line, proceeding northeasterly, along the course of Zone 7’s present maintenance road, which is not currently accessible to the public. Evidently, the proposal entails opening the Zone 7 maintenance road for the public’s use as a trail. The proposed public trail would follow the course of the Arroyo Mocho, which passes through the Zone 7 property and along the northern edge of the ECS Property.
Exhibit C indicates that a chain link fence will be constructed along the northern and southern edges of the trail segment on the SMP-40 property. When the trail reaches the Zone 7 property, the northerly fence will connect to an existing Zone 7 fence that lies north of the Item 6.3
Public Comment
2952
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
March 5, 2024
maintenance road. However, Exhibit C shows that the southerly fence will simply end at the Zone 7 property. This means that, if the path is constructed as shown in Exhibit C, members of the public using the trail would be able to simply leave the Zone 7 portion of the proposed path and enter the Arroyo Mocho which is immediately adjacent south of the path, without restriction. This in turn would permit members of the public to head west through the Arroyo Mocho onto El Charro Spur’s private property without restriction, and further west, access the active mining operations of Vulcan Materials on the properties north and west of the ECS Property. The public cannot currently access these areas because the Zone 7 property, and maintenance road, are fenced off. The annotations on Exhibit C that we have added are intended to show the locations of the ECS Property, Zone 7 property, and mining properties.
Providing the public unfettered direct access to the Arroyo Mocho, private property and an active mining operation, both in the dry months and in the rainy season when it regularly carries high water volumes, are health and safety hazards that must be considered as part of the SMP39/SMP-40 project. However, the EIR does not address the fact that the proposed trail may be creating this dangerous public safety hazard. The EIR discusses the potential routes for the trail (see, e.g., EIR p. 3-22), but it does not analyze the risk posed by providing public access to the Arroyo Mocho and mining properties to the west nor what safety features the trail would have, such as fencing, to protect members of the public using it. The SMP-40 Development Agreement and the SMP-39/SMP-40 project conditions of approval also do not address how this safety issue will be mitigated. At minimum, the conditions of approval should require the project applicant to work with Zone 7 to ensure that a fence is constructed on the Zone 7 property south of the trail so that the fence south of the path on the SMP-40 property can connect to it. The ECS Property owner and the owner of the mining properties cannot themselves block access to their properties from the proposed public path because they cannot construct obstructions within the Arroyo Mocho. That is why public access must be contained continuously along the path on the Zone 7 property.
We ask that the Planning Commission consider the safety issues raised by this letter when evaluating the SMP-39/SMP-40 project and recommend appropriate conditions and mitigation measures to address them.
Regards,
Margaret R. Akerblom
MRA
Enclosure
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2953
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2954
P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 123 Main Street City Manager City Attorney Economic Development City Clerk (925) 931-5002 (925) 931-5015 (925) 931-5038 (925) 931-5027 Fax: 931-5482 Fax: 931-5482 Fax: 931-5485 Fax: 931-5492 March 22, 2024
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
City of Livermore
1052 S. Livermore Ave
Livermore, CA 94550
Subject: SMP 39 and SMP 40/ Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation Dear Ms. Marysheva:
As you are aware, the City of Livermore is currently processing applications that would include annexation of properties referred to as SMP-39 and SMP-40 into Livermore.
SMP-39 is within the City of Pleasanton’s SOI, and an amendment to the SOI is also proposed to include this property within Livermore’s Sphere. Livermore requested an indication of support for these applications which are to be brought to Alameda County LAFCO for their consideration and approval in the coming months. We have appreciated Livermore’s partnership in providing opportunities for Pleasanton’s review of the development proposal and CEQA document for the project, and your agreement to not include SMP-38, which lies closest to Pleasanton and is also within our SOI, in the amendment and annexation request.
I am pleased to inform you that at its March 19, 2024 meeting, the Pleasanton City Council reviewed the proposed annexation and SOI amendment, and on a 3-2 vote, indicated its support for the proposal, based on the parcels’ location within the Livermore Urban Growth Boundary, contiguous to the City of Livermore and near to available utilities.
In transmitting the City Council’s vote of support, I did want to note that a member of the public spoke at the meeting to raise concerns about preservation of an urban separator between Livermore and Pleasanton; members of the City Council noted this same concern and expressed further concerns about potential for Livermore Airport uses to expand into the newly-annexed area. While we understand no such proposal is currently under consideration by Livermore, as you are aware, airport uses and expansion are of significant concern to the City Council and the Pleasanton community, and as such, the City of Pleasanton would strongly oppose any proposal in that regard.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2955
Ms. Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
March 22, 2024
If you have any questions regarding the City Council’s action or specific discussion on this item, please contact me at [email protected] or Ellen Clark Community Development Director at [email protected]. We look forward to ongoing coordination and cooperation with Livermore around land use planning for East Pleasanton and the Livermore Airport.
Sincerely,
Gerry Beaudin
City Manager
c: Pleasanton City Council
Paul Spence, Assistant City Manager, City of Livermore
Ellen Clark, Community Development Director, City of Pleasanton Item 6.3
Public Comment
2956
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
board meeting or ribbon
cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Mayor Marchand 3/13/2024 Chamber of Commerce Networking Introductions with new businesses and networking.
Mayor Marchand 3/13/2024 Alameda County Mayors Conference Business meeting Debated nominations and voted to fill a position on
the BAAQMD. Hear the Albany City report and a
report from a Red Cross representative.
Mayor Marchand 3/14/2024 Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance Panel discussion Moderated Panel discussion with the Tri-Valley
mayors
Mayor Marchand 3/14/2024 Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission Meeting Heard the Municipal Service Review on Fire
agencies.
Mayor Marchand 3/14/2024
Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency
Meeting/Closed Session
interviews
Interviewed and selected a candidate for the
General Manager position.
Mayor Marchand 3/16/2024 Livermore Valley Arts Reception Attended the art reception at the Bankhead
featuring prints of the Chagall Windows.
Mayor Marchand 3/17/2024 Young Men's Service League Presentation Gave a presentation on local government and Civic
Responsibility.
Mayor Marchand 3/19/2024 Innovation Tri-Valley Summit
Tri-Valley Energy Summit including presentations
on the National Ignition Facility and hydrogen
power.
Mayor Marchand 3/19/2024 City of Livermore Reception Fairwell reception for Rene Dalusong.
Mayor Marchand 3/20/2024 Chamber of Commerce Chamber mixer Networking among local businesses.
Mayor Marchand 3/21/2024 Chamber of Commerce Ribbon-cutting Welcomed a new business, Innovo Dental and
Implant Studio
Mayor Marchand 3/21/2024 Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan's office Information Forum Policy Discussion on Mental Health and Prop. 1.
Mayor Marchand 3/22/2024 ABCNorcal Graduation
Attended the 26th Graduation Ceremony of
graduates from their apprentice program,
recognizing two Livermore graduates.
Mayor Marchand 3/23/2024
Livermore Rotary International Student
program Presentation
Provided a presentation on the history of Livermore
and local government.
Mayor Marchand 3/23/2024 Livermore Art Association Art Reception Attended the Essential Figure Art Show reception.
Mayor Marchand 3/23/2024 Scout Troop 999 Eagle Scout Court of Honor Presented certificates of Congratulations to two
Eagle Scouts.
Item 8.0
Council Reports
2957
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting)
Vice Mayor Carling 3/13/2024 i-GATE Board meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 3/14/2024 StopWaste Board meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 3/14/2024
Conversation with the Tri-Valley
mayors
Vice Mayor Carling 3/14/2024
Livermore-Amador ValleyWater Management Authority
(LAVWMA) Special meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 3/15/2024 Alameda Landfill Open Space Committee (ALOSC) Board meeting Vice Mayor Carling 3/19/2024 Tr-Valley Energy Summit
Vice Mayor Carling 3/21/2024 Spectrum Meals on Wheels Ride along to deliver meals Item 8.0
Council Reports
2958
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Council Member Barrientos 3/24/2024 City Council
Invitation to attend the Hong Kong
Film Festival
We were shown two films. I did enjoy one of them. Met
the Mayor of Napa and a representative from the Hong
Kong delegation
Council Member Barrientos 3/20/2024 City Council
Ava Community Energy Board of
Directors
We had two closed sessions which took up most of our
time
Item 8.0
Council Reports
2959
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting)
Council Member Branning 3/22/2024 CalCities
Housing and Economic
Development Policy Committee
Council Member Branning 3/19/2024 Livermore Downtown Inc (LDI) Board meeting Council Member Branning 3/25/2024 Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Projects and services meeting Council Member Branning 3/17/2024 Young Men’s Service League Meeting with young men about
the city’s activities
Item 8.0
Council Reports
2960
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.2
DATE: March 25, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Items Received at the Meeting
Prepared by: Helena Graves
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
2961
March 25,2024
To City Council Members
Why don't we have unleaded aviation fuel at Livermore Airport ( LVK) ? What is causing the delays? This is an URGENT public health and safety lssue. The negative impacts of lead in humans, especially children and the elderly, are well-documented. A4 year old who lived near LVK tested positive for lead in his bloodstream. We need to act now.
At least 10 municipal airports in CA and 35 airports nationwide offer UL 94; Hayward,the only other municipal airport in Alameda County, has two FBOs and both offer UL 94. How did all of these airports obtain UL g4 before us? Why are we last??
The City Manger says the BAAQMD stlll requires a 30 day comment period but this can be waived for health issues that exist at LVK.
It is critical for the City Council to directly email Ms.Becky Yu at BAAQMD and ask to have the permit fast-tracked.
Start selling UL 94 in the existing 1,000 gallon fuel tank.
The City can separate the fuel contract with the current Fixed Based Operator (FBO) and require the FBO to sell unleaded av fuel.
Please provide updates concerning GAMI 100, a "drop in" av fuel that can be used in any tank or aircraft.
ln March 2O24, the FAA certified and authorized the sale of unleaded GAMI 100 UL for piston engine aircraft
The City says on Facebook and Next Door that staff is working to get unleaded fuel and is in Contact with GAMI --
but the City does NOT provide the public with any concrete steps Could you please verify if Livermore is in negotiations with GAMI distributors to receive G100UL? The timeline to transition to unleaded aviation fuel must be accelerated. The City Council should complete the following steps:
'l Require the FBO to initiate a contract with G100 UL distributors in CA 2 The City will recoup $200,000 from Elevation LVK cafe ; (5.5 on tonight's consent calendar);consider using this money to buy a 8,500 hundred gallon tank for G'l00UL The benefits of offering unleaded fuel will 1) reduce the lead poisoning of residents and 2) allow piston aircraft to continue to have a future at LVK.
Sincerely,
Donna Cabanne D"ov^'^,t- Col>-nuq40 year resident of Livermore, member of Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Tri-Valley Air Quality Climate Alliance, Lead Free Livermore, Unlead/LVK R€cshrod et tl. Lh/armore CltY councl meEung ot
l'4a tclr. 25, 20 L4
{D
Please agendize updates on getting unleaded fuel at the next City Council meeting.
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
2962
I
YEARS
I TRr-VALLEY
I NO/VPR OFIT I 7 | nt-t
presents
IANCE
Hecetuod at ha tiwmo6 CltY cojncfl rile€ittg of
Nlarc 2 202
BANKHEAD THEATER
24OO FIRST ST.
LIVERMORE, CA 94550
. Early Bird Pricing (Ilarch 18, 202t - April 12,20241
o S85 for TVNPA members, $105 for non-members
o Use code: TVNPA-uncharitable
. Regular Pricing (April12,2024 - t'lay 15,2024)
. S100 for TVNPA members, Sl20 for members.
. Group Sales 0ffer
o Groups of l0 or more can enjoy a discount of Sl0 off
per ticket.
o Use code: TVNPAgroup
Special Hotel Accommodation Offers for this Event
See details on our website: www.Wnpa.org
Ticket information
www. livermorearts.org
Charity Reimagined:
Dan Pallotta ln-Person at
UmGharfitahle Screeni ng
with o fireside chot after the movie!
WEDN ESDAY I'IAY 15, 2024
5:50 - 8:30 Pl'l
doors open at 5:00 PM
tq
DAJI T
EilTNEPREI{EUR, Afi IIOR.
ANO IIUT.IAil!IARIA]I ACT!VIST
I
0 a
lffi\
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
2963
1 Helena Graves
From: Hind Baki <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:44 PM
To: Ashley Vera; City Clerk; Mitchell Tsai; Grace Holbrook; Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney at Law, P.C.
Subject: Local 713 - SMP 39, 40 Project - Comment Letter for 3/25/2024 City Council meeting Attachments: 20240325_Local713
_CityofLivermore_SMP3940Project_CCCommentLetter_Signed_Combined.pdf Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good afternoon,
Please find attached our Firm's Comment Letter for the SMP 39, 40 Project, Agenda item 6.3 at tonight's City Council meeting. We would appreciate confirmation of receipt of this email.
Thank you very much,
--Hind
Hind Baki
Paralegal
Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm - Environmental & Land Use Litigation 139 South Hudson Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91101
Office: (626) 314-3821
Fax: (626) 389-5414
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.mitchtsailaw.com
**Please note that Hind Baki is out of office on Fridays; for any urgent matters, please contact [email protected]**
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages accompanying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at (626) 314-3821 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2964
P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
March 25, 2024
City of Livermore City Council
Civic Center Meeting Hall
City Council Chambers
1016 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Livermore’s SMP 39 and 40 Project (Agenda Item 6.3) Dear Mayor Marchand, Vice Mayor Carling, and Honorable Councilmembers, On behalf of “Carpenters Local 713”, my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Livermore’s (“City”) March 25, 2024, City Council Meeting regarding Agenda Item 6.3: SMP 39 and 40 Project (“Project”).
According to the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), the Project seeks to develop two parcels, SMP 39 and SMP 40. For SMP 39, the proposed project would include development of a total of up to six light industrial buildings, consisting of up to approximately 755,500 square feet (sf) of new building space, and associated internal roadways and other improvements. For SMP 40, the proposed project would include development of two industrial buildings consisting of up to 759,275 sf of new building space with related internal roadways and other improvements. (FEIR, pg. 3-7).
Carpenters Local 713 is a labor union representing union carpenters in Alameda County that has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Local 713 members live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
Carpenters Local 713 expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2965
City of Livermore, SMP 39 and 40 Project
March 25, 2024
Carpenters Local 713 incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the Environmental Impact Report. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, Carpenters Local 713 requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
The City should require the Project to be built using local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program and make a commitment to hiring a local workforce.
Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.1
1 See March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling, included in previous comment letters submitted by Local 713.
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2966
City of Livermore, SMP 39 and 40 Project
March 25, 2024
Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.2
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.3
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.4
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT 2 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021- May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 4 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2967
City of Livermore, SMP 39 and 40 Project
March 25, 2024
reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.5 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues.
Cervero and Duncan note that:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.
The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
II. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. 5 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2968
City of Livermore, SMP 39 and 40 Project
March 25, 2024
(a)(1).6 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.
B. CEQA Requires Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.)
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative).” (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).) Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” (Id.) An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. (Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental 6 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2969
City of Livermore, SMP 39 and 40 Project
March 25, 2024
agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and governmental agencies to respond to such information.”].) If significant new information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental impact report.
1. The Severity of the Predicted Noise Impact has Increased for On-Site Construction Operations.
The DEIR found that there would be a significant noise impact during the construction phase at the off-site trail location. The March 4, 2024, Updated Noise Study (“Exhibit A”) identified significant on-site noise impacts during the construction phase at the SMP 40 location. This resulted in a substantial change to the findings of the noise impact as sensitive residential users would now be exposed to excessive noise and the noise level would exceed the limits set by the City’s Noise Ordinance and the General Plan Noise Objectives N-1.1 and N-1.5.
2. A New Mitigation Measure was Implemented.
A new mitigation measure was added to the FEIR in response to inadequacies of the original noise study. In the previous iteration of the FEIR, the sensitive users near SMP 40 were not expected to face significant noise impacts during the construction phase.
Mitigation measure 4.6-1(a) was introduced to mitigate the significant noise impact the on-site construction at SMP 40 would have on nearby sensitive users.
3. The DEIR Noise Analysis was Fundamentally Conclusory and Inadequate.
The DEIR was fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in relation to the noise impacts stemming from the Project. Indeed, the DEIR failed to analyze the noise impacts for SMP 39, stating that “[d]ue to the substantial distance between SMP 39 and the sensitive noise receptors, . . . construction noise levels for SMP 39 were not evaluated as part of the Environmental Noise Study prepared for SMP 39.” (DEIR, pg. 4.6-21).
Further, the analysis for SMP 40’s noise impacts was wholly inadequate, as the updated study now shows the construction phase of the Project will produce significant noise impacts on nearby residences and will exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance and the General Plan Noise Objectives.
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2970
City of Livermore, SMP 39 and 40 Project
March 25, 2024
These significant changes to the noise impacts require revision and recirculation of the FEIR.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City should adopt the FEIR until the significant changes are incorporated into a revised and recirculated document. Adopting the FEIR as-is would result in a clear violation of CEQA. If the City has any questions, please feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Grace Holbrook
Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713
Attached:
March 4, 2024 SMP 40 Updated Noise Study (“Exhibit A”).
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2971
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
Livermore, CA
UPDATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE STUDY
4 March 2024
Prepared for: Michael Johnson Timur Tecimer
Overton Moore Properties
19700 S Vermont Avenue Suite #101
Torrance, CA 90502
[email protected]
Overton Moore Properties
19700 S Vermont Avenue Suite #101
Torrance, CA 90502
[email protected]
Prepared by: Salter
Diego Hernandez – Associate
Ethan Salter – Vice President
[email protected]
[email protected]
Salter Project 21-0471
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2972
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes our study of environmental noise of the proposed project (Livermore Oaks Business Park SMP-40) on nearby land uses. The project site is west of Isabel Avenue (State Highway 84), north of Stanley Boulevard, and south of Discovery Drive in Livermore, California. The purpose of the study was to determine whether estimated activity noise and construction noise from the proposed facility will meet the relevant requirements of the City General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance at adjacent land uses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
● Noise from the project’s loading docks, future intra-project vehicle traffic, and likely HVAC equipment will increase CNEL1 or DNL2 noise levels at noise-sensitive receiver locations at most by 3 dB. An increase of 3 dB or less DNL is not expected to be noticeable and is not considered significant. ● Noise from project-created traffic would not result in a significant increase in noise levels on Isabel Avenue at adjacent properties.
● Temporary construction noise will exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance and will need mitigation measures not to exceed the criteria established by General Plan Noise Objectives N-1.1 and N-1.5.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into the following sections:
● Project Site
● Acoustical Criteria
● Existing Noise Environment
● Noise Impact Assessment
o Construction Noise
o Loading Dock and Intra-Project Traffic Noise (Parking Lot) o Tenant HVAC Equipment Noise
1 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) – A descriptor for the 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. The CNEL concept accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels during the hours from 7 pm to 10 pm are penalized 5 dB; sound levels during the hours from 10 pm to 7 am are penalized 10 dB. A 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived by people to be a doubling of loudness.
2 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) – A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to describe the average day-night level with a penalty applied to noise occurring during the nighttime hours (10 pm - 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity of people during sleeping hours. Also noted as Ldn. The difference between CNEL and DNL is often less than 1 dB.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2973
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
PROJECT SITE
The proposed project will have a total area of approximately 40 acres, west of Isabel Avenue (State Highway 84) and between Stanley Boulevard and Discovery Drive in the City of Livermore. Warehouse Building 1 will be about 470,350 square feet with 68 loading docks, while Building 2 will be 288,750 square feet with 62 loading docks. The site is adjacent to existing industrially zoned warehouse facilities with loading docks to the north. Noise-sensitive residential receivers are located across Isabel Avenue to the east about 1,785-feet away from Building 1, and 600-feet away the northeast corner of the SMP-40 site. Two berms have been incorporated on the project site: a 6-foot by 125-foot landscape berm on the Northeast corner of the project property line, and a 10-foot by 60-foot screening wall east of Building 2’s southern loading docks.
ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA
The following are project criteria and/or guidelines per the City of Livermore and State of California.
City of Livermore 2003-2025 General Plan Noise Element
Policy P4, Objective N-1.1
The Noise Element of the Livermore General Plan (Chapter 9, Policy P4 of Objective N-1.1) contains land use compatibility guidelines for environmental noise in the community. Table 1, below, summarizes these guidelines for residential and industrial land uses3in terms of CNEL or DNL. The definitions of each land use category follow below the table.
Table 1: Summary of Table 9-7 – Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise CNEL or DNL, dB Land Use Category
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential Low-Density4, Singlefamily, Duplex, Mobile Homes ≤60 55-70 70-75 >75 Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agricultural ≤75 70-80 >75 --
3 Table 9-7 of the Noise Element, page 9-27.
4 Per General Plan Noise Ordinance Objective N-1.4, Policy P4, the criterion for single-family residential back yards is 60 dB CNEL/DNL.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2974
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Normally Acceptable: If the noise level is within the “normally acceptable” level, noise exposure would be acceptable for the intended land use. Development may occur without requiring an evaluation of the noise environment unless the use could generate noise impacts on adjacent uses.
Conditionally Acceptable: If the noise level is within the “conditionally acceptable” level, noise exposure would be conditionally acceptable; a specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise environment and the project characteristics to determine whether noise insulation or protection features are required. Such noise insulation features may include measures to protect noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas (e.g., at residences, schools, or parks) or may include building sound insulation treatments such as sound-rated windows to protect interior spaces in sensitive receptors.
Normally Unacceptable: If the noise level is within the “normally unacceptable” level, analysis and mitigation are required. Development should generally not be undertaken unless adequate noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigations incorporated into the project to reduce the exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction should not be undertaken unless all feasible noise mitigation options have been analyzed and appropriate mitigation incorporated into the project to adequately reduce exposure of people to unacceptable noise levels.
Noise Element Objective N-1.5
Objective N-1.5 seeks to reduce the level of noise generated by “stationary mechanical and other noisegenerating equipment”. Policy P1 states that “the City shall require that industrial and commercial uses be designed and operated to avoid the generation of noise effects on surrounding land uses from exceeding the following noise levels for exterior environments, operating longer than half an hour per hour:
● 55 dBA5L506(7:00am to 10:00pm)
● 45 dBA L50 (10:00pm to 7:00am)
Policy P2 allows short-term events to have levels louder than those cited above. For events that occur less than 15 minutes per hour, levels can be increased by 5 dBA; events no more than 5 minutes per hour are allowed an additional 10 dBA, and those taking place one minute or less per hour are allowed an additional 15 dBA.
5 A-Weighted Sound Level – The A-weighted sound pressure level, expressed in decibels (dB). Sometimes the unit of sound level is written as dB(A). A weighting is a standard weighting that accounts for the sensitivity of human hearing to the range of audible frequencies. People perceive a 10 dB increase in sound level to be twice as loud. 6 L50 – The noise level exceeded 50% of the time. For a discussion of environmental acoustics, please refer to Appendix A.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2975
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Policy P4 allows an exemption from Policy P1 for motor vehicles on public streets between the hours of 7:00am and 8:00pm. We understand that Policies P1, P2, and P4 could apply to the noise from backup alarms (aka “beepers” or “squawkers”).
Objective N-1.5 specifically describes “stationary source noises”, so when referring to L50 noise levels we analyzed the noise of trucks that are expected to sit in the loading dock area, estimated to be at least 1,025 feet from the nearest residence.
Policy P3 establishes instantaneous maximum noise levels allowed (Lmax7) of 70 dBA during the day and 60 dBA during the night.
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Construction Vibration Criteria The California Department of Transportation8(DOT) provides vibration guidelines for two scenarios:
human perception and construction damage. These tables are included below as guidelines for potential project vibration levels. “Transient” vibrations are classified as impulsive events that are short in duration (e.g., debris falling, blasting). “Continuous” vibrations are more sustained vibration events over longer periods of time (e.g., jackhammering, drilling). Table 2 describes the human response to different levels of ground-borne vibration for transient and continuous events.
Table 2: Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria9 Human Response
Maximum PPV10 (in/sec)
Transient
Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.00 0.40
7 Lmax (Maximum Sound Level) – The maximum sound level for a specified measurement period of time as defined in ASTM E1686.
8 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual September 2013 (DOT Document). 9 This is Table 20 from the DOT document.
10 (PPV): Peak Particle Velocity.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2976
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Table 3 provides a guideline for vibration criteria to assess the damage potential from ground vibration induced by construction equipment. Thresholds for continuous vibrations are lower than those for transient vibrations and are therefore considered more “conservative”. These are standard significance thresholds used in the industry to determine impacts of ground borne vibrations on structures.
Table 3: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria11 Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient
Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
The immediate adjacent properties are all modern industrial or commercial buildings. Across Isabel Avenue/Highway 84 to the east are existing single-family residences. Based on Table 3, we have applied the more stringent residential criteria of 1.0 PPV for transient events and 0.50 PPV for continuous events.
State of California CEQA Guidelines and Impact Criteria The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines that evaluate the significance of noise attributable to a proposed project. This would include (but is not limited to) added traffic noise, mechanical equipment noise, and construction noise. CEQA asks the following applicable questions.
Would the project result in:
1. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11 This is Table 19 of the DOT document.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2977
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
CEQA does not define the noise level increase that is considered “substantial”. Typically, the local general plan would establish limits with respect to allowable noise and vibration increases. However, the City of Livermore General Plan does not contain numerical standards of significance for noise increases. For the items above, noise level increases of 3 dBA or less are generally considered less-than-significant.
Substantial adverse community response would be expected only for increases of 5 dBA or more.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Project Site Description
To quantify the existing site noise environment, two monitors continuously measured noise levels along the project property lines to the north and east between 2 and 4 November 2021. Table 4 summarizes measured data and Figure 1, attached, shows the approximate measurement locations. Locations were selected based not only on project setbacks but also on what nearby locations were accessible via public rights-of-way.
Table 4: Measured Environmental Noise Levels
Site Location Measured DNL (dBA)
LT-1 Business Park, approximately 10-feet above grade 65 LT-2 Arroyo Bike Trail, approximately 10-feet above grade 67 Site Noise Context
Noise measurements at the project site (see Figure 1), collected data from vehicle pass-bys on nearby roads. Measured on-site noise levels were DNL 65 dB and 67 dB at the project site (see Figure 1). LT-1 was placed near the nearest existing warehouse across from residences, and LT-2 was placed on the closest accessible utility pole across from residences. Adjustments were made, as appropriate, to estimate the change in noise levels from the long-term monitor location to the locations of the nearest residences east of Isabel Avenue.
We have combined cumulative existing and future noise sources that would result from the project’s completion. Future project sources include the proposed loading dock noise, rooftop HVAC equipment, parking areas, and estimated traffic contribution, while the existing noise sources are the existing traffic.
Adding expected noise contribution to the existing noise environment logarithmically would result in a noise level of approximately DNL 67 dB from all contributing noise sources upon the project’s completion.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2978
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
DNL 29
a dB [Future HVAC] + DNL 29b dB [employee lot] + DNL 52 c dB [trucks] = DNL 52 d dB [future noise level at receivers] a = cumulative building rooftop HVAC noise
b = employee parking lot noise
c = truck noise at loading docks
d = cumulative future project sources
DNL 67e dB [existing traffic] + DNL 52
e dB [combined future sources] = DNL 67f dB [future noise level at receivers] e = measured at project site, see Figure 1
e = determined from loading docks + HVAC noise + parking lots f = calculated
See Appendix A for additional information on decibel mathematics.
NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS
We evaluated the following noise sources from the proposed project on the surrounding environment:
● Potential rooftop mechanical equipment noise
● Short-term construction noise and vibration
● Project-related traffic increases
We have drawn the following conclusions from the analysis:
The following summarizes the portion of the CEQA checklist pertaining to noise.
Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? A: Permanent Increase in Noise Levels due to Project-Generated Noise The owner anticipates that tenant office spaces located on the corners of each building will be mechanically ventilated with typical 5-ton package units located above the offices in each corner of each building. No other outdoor mechanical equipment has been specified at this time. Specific equipment will be confirmed during the design phase.
Preliminary sound power level data has been provided for these 5-ton outdoor package fan units indicating that combined noise from these units sums to approximately DNL 29 dB at the nearest property lines. This assumes 24-hour operation of this equipment (in line with the operation hours of the building). The rooftop parapet is assumed to provide acoustical shielding to nearby neighbors because they would break line-of-sight to the nearest receivers.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2979
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Depending on the final equipment placement, as well as any specific parapets, barriers, and shielding provided by buildings (which would reduce noise levels at the property lines), noise levels may vary. We do not expect the noise contribution to be significant in these aspects.
B: Predicted Permanent Increase in Noise Levels due Project Traffic Volumes It has been communicated by the team that the projected truck trips per day will be approximately as shown below in Table 5.
Table 5: SMP-40 Truck Trips
Hour Percent ITE Trips
7 – 9 AM 9.4% 20
9 AM – 4 PM 42.7% 91
4 – 6 PM 12.7% 27
6 – 10 PM 16.4% 35
10 PM – 7 AM 18.8% 40
Total 100 % 213
Overall, the project would result in a net increase in daily trips by 213, amounting to an overall traffic noise DNL increase of approximately 2 dB. Therefore, this would not result in a significant increase in noise levels at existing adjacent properties.
C: Temporary Increase in Noise Levels due to Construction Construction activities will likely include the use of heavy equipment for grading and other activities, through completion of buildings and landscaping. Heavy trucks would travel to, from, and within the site hauling soil, equipment, and building materials. Smaller equipment, such as jackhammers, pneumatic tools, and saws could also be used throughout the demolition and construction phases in various areas.
The noise and vibration associated with these activities would be generated within the entire project area.
Based on our experience with similar projects’ construction methods and phasing, our preliminary understanding and assumptions of expected equipment is shown in Table 6. Reference levels for construction equipment are listed in Table 7, both at the reference distance of 50-feet and at 600-feet, which is the closest distance between the project and the residences across Isabel Avenue.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2980
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Table 6: List of Typical Construction Equipment and Phasing Phase Equipment
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws, Excavators, RubberTired Dozers, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Site Preparation Graders, Rubber-Tired Dozers,
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Grading/Excavation
Excavators, Drill Rig for Shoring Beams
(Caisson Drilling), Rubber-Tired Dozers,
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Trenching Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, Excavators
Building Exterior Cranes, Forklifts, Generator Sets,
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, Welders
Building Interior/
Architectural Coating Air Compressors, Aerial Lift
Paving/Landscaping/
Site Concrete
Cement and Mortar Mixers, Paving
Equipment, Rollers,
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2981
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Table 7: Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels12 Typical Equipment
Estimated Maximum
Instantaneous Lmax
13 Noise Level (dBA at 50
feet)
Estimated Maximum
Instantaneous Lmax Noise
Level (dBA at 600 feet)
Aerial Lift 83 61
Air Compressors 81 59
Cement and Mortar Mixers 85 63
Concrete/Industrial Saws 76 54
Cranes 83 61
Drill Rig for Shoring Beams (Caisson Drilling) 85 63
Excavators 85 63
Forklifts 83 61
Generator Sets 81 59
Graders 85 63
Paving Equipment 89 67
Rollers 74 52
Rubber-Tired Dozers 85 63
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 62
Welders 73 51
Actual construction noise levels will vary based on distance to each piece of equipment or work area from the receiver and shielding from adjacent buildings and construction elements. It should be noted that construction activities are prohibited during the specific time period outlined in Section 9.36.080 of the City’s Municipal Code. Section 9.36.080 is as follows:
12 Equipment noise levels at 50-feet are from Section 9, Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Construction Noise Handbook (August 2006) and Table 12-2, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. 13 Lmax (Maximum Sound Level) – The maximum sound level for a specified measurement period of time as defined in ASTM E1686.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2982
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Section 9.36.080 Hammers, pile drivers, pneumatic tools and similar equipment The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. Saturday to 7:00 a.m. Monday; 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays; 8:00 p.m. Friday to 9:00 a.m. on Saturday or at all on cityobserved holidays of any pile driver, pneumatic tools, derrick, electric hoist, sandblaster or other equipment used in construction, demolition or other repair work, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise, is prohibited. (Ord. 1672 § 2, 2002; Ord. 1128 § 2, 1983; 1960 code § 13B.3(f)) Construction Equipment Schedule
We received the following equipment schedule that CalEEMod utilized for their model for air quality emissions. Table 8 below summarizes the equipment and associated sound levels at the nearest residential property (approximately 600 feet away).
Table 8: Construction Equipment Schedule
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type
Amount Usage
Hours
Resulting
DNL
Resulting
Lmax
Grading Excavators 2 8 67 66
Grading Graders 1 8 67 63
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 67 63
Grading Scrapers 2 8 67 66
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 67 65
Total Grading Phase All Equipment Running Simultaneously 70 72 Paving Pavers 2 8 69
70 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 69 70
Paving Rollers 2 8 66 55
Total Paving Phase All Equipment Running Simultaneously 70 73 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 67 61
Building Construction Forklift 3 8 67 66
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 67 59
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 68 67 Building Construction Welders 1 8 66 51
Total Building Construction All Equipment Running Simultaneously 69 70 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 67 59
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2983
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
It should be noted that the DNL was calculated using daytime construction noise levels for daytime hours for the listed hours of operation and measured nighttime hours from existing traffic. Despite restrictions of nighttime construction activities, from the noise levels shown above in Table 8, it could be possible to exceed the General Plan Objectives as follows:
Objective N-1.5 P3
● As shown above in Table 8, with all the phases running construction equipment as intended, the resulting Lmax would range between 70 and 73 dBA. Since construction is not permitted during nighttime hours, only the daytime Lmax criterion of 70 dBA would be applicable and would not be met. Therefore, it will be necessary to implement the mitigation measures shown below.
Due to these possibilities, the following is a list of measures that are required to be adopted by the contractor to reduce the impact of construction noise on neighbors:
1. Consistent with the Livermore Municipal Code, construction will be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and Saturdays through Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
2. There are residences located approximately 600 feet from the project site. Thus, to help reduce the impact of noise construction, it will be necessary that a barrier be built prior to the planned permanent 10-foot tall berm on the east side of the project. If this is not feasible, we recommend building the planned permanent 10-foot tall berm before construction activities. This will be necessary to reduce construction noise impacts on the residences. The barrier/berm should be 10 feet tall. This would help reduce the construction noise impacts on the residences by approximately 10 dB.
3. The barrier can be field-built provided they meet the following criteria:
a. Minimum surface density of 4 psf.
Many constructions could meet the surface density requirement. For example, a stud wall with exterior-grade plywood sheathing and a stucco finish (or two layers of 5/8-inch thick plywood) would meet this requirement.
b. The barrier should be free of cracks and drainage holes/slots along the bottom of the barrier be kept to a minimum. Where needed, they should be covered by 1 psf mass-loaded vinyl flaps (e.g., Kinetics KNM-100) so water can flow around the vinyl and still drain. c. Joints between sheathing layers be offset by 16 inches minimum.
4. Contractors shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
5. Internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2984
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
6. Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far away as possible from adjacent property lines.
7. Staging areas and construction material areas shall be located as far away as feasible from adjacent residences.
8. All unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be prohibited.
9. The contractor should designate a "noise disturbance construction superintendent" who will be responsible for tracking and responding to any complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance construction superintendent will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. The telephone number for the noise disturbance construction superintendent will be posted at the construction site and included in any construction notices sent to neighbors.
Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
A: Permanent Increase in Vibration Levels due to Project-Generated Vibration The planned use for the site, as warehouse buildings, is not expected to generate significant amounts of ground-borne noise or vibration.
B: Temporary Increase in Vibration Levels due to Construction The nearest and most sensitive adjacent receivers include residences to the east approximately 500 feet from the closest area of construction on the project site. Industrial-zoned parcels to the north are assumed to be less sensitive.
Project construction may include activities such as the use of concrete saws, excavation and grading, and the use of rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.). Typical construction vibration levels at 50-feet are listed in Table 9, below. Most of the construction will occur set back from the property line. As indicated in the criteria section above, the risk of damage to nearby structures may begin to occur at a limit of 1.0 in/sec PPV for transient vibration events and 0.50 PPV for continuous events.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2985
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Table 9: Example Construction Vibration Levels14
Equipment PPV at 50 ft. (in/sec)15
Vibratory Roller 0.049
Hydraulic Breaker 0.03 to 0.08
Large Bulldozer 0.03
Loaded Trucks 0.03
Excavator 0.03
Caisson/pier drilling 0.03
Jackhammer 0.01
Small Bulldozer 0.001
Crane, Forklift, Bobcat No significant vibration
Based on the vibration levels shown in Table 9, construction equipment is not expected to cause structural damage to adjacent properties because project construction is not expected to exceed the thresholds for new residential buildings or commercial/industrial structures as shown above in Table 3.
Ground-borne noise would also not be expected to be significant at these vibration levels.
FUTURE LOADING DOCK AND INTRA-PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE
Future Loading Dock Calculation Methodology
Operational noise from the proposed facility is expected to consist primarily of tractor-trailers accessing loading dock areas. To estimate truck noise at the proposed facility, we referenced recently measured noise levels at a local distribution facility which involved semi-trucks similar in size to those that are expected to access the proposed project’s facility.
Calculations for resulting noise levels due to on-site truck and car trip generation durations and activities were based on the measurements at this local distribution facility with ancillary information provided to us for that project on 15 February 2018 and 20 December 2023.
Based on the assumptions described below, estimated noise levels were then compared to applicable criteria to determine if noise from the proposed facility would exceed the City’s noise goals (described above) at adjacent residences.
14 Table 12-2, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. 15 Using a value of n = 1.5 per FTA recommendation, where n is the attenuation rate through the ground EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2986
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Traffic volumes produced by the proposed project were provided by TJKM in December 2023. Their study estimated that a total of 213 truck trips
16 would occur at the facilities throughout the 24 hours of operation. Overton Moore Properties provided further details about the potentially likely distribution of those trucks each hour throughout the 24-hour operation period.
Intra-Project Traffic Analysis Methodology
Intra-project traffic noise will consist of traffic noise associated with future warehouse employee vehicles within the designated parking lots. To estimate vehicle noise at the employee parking lots, we referenced the TJKM provided traffic volumes for the proposed project.
Noise Source Analysis and Assumptions
Future Loading Docks
Our analysis estimated future noise from the facility based on the following assumptions discussed with the client via email, and per the overall site plan:
1. Trucks will enter and exit the site from Atlantis Court and Challenger Street, from the north (via Discovery Drive).
2. Non-truck noises associated with loading/unloading activity (i.e., forklifts, rolling doors, carts, pallet crushing, items dropping), are assumed to be located near the dock doors and are included in our analysis.
3. An average truck trip (not including unloading/loading) is estimated to last for a cumulative period of about 2 minutes and be at least 1025 feet from the nearest residential property line.
4. Trucks occupy the loading dock in their loading area that is nearest to noise-sensitive receiver (Residents across Isabel Avenue, to the east of the building).
5. Total number of loading docks: 130 (68 in Building 1 and 62 in Building 2)
6. Number and distribution of truck trips is based on TJKM’s traffic study estimate, with approximately 213 total truck trips per 24-hour period (continuous 24/7 operation) distributed as follows:
● AM Peak is 7-9 AM – 9.4%
● 9-4 PM – 42.7%
● PM Peak is 4 PM - 6 PM – 12.7%
● 6 PM - 10 PM – 16.4%
● 10 PM - 7 AM – 18.8%
16 Email correspondence provided on 12/20/23 confirmed the 213 daily truck trips as 20% of total vehicle trips based in ITE data (TJKM Study)
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2987
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
7. Building 2 provides substantial acoustical shielding for most of Building 1 and its operations to the eastern residents. Because of this, Building 1 is not expected to have a meaningful impact on the residential receivers’ sound environment to the east.
8. Loading docks in Building 2 are located on the north and south facades, configured to maintain the maximum possible distance away from the residential area to the east.
9. North-facing docks of Building 2 will have a direct line-of-sight to the warehouse to the north. We assume that some shielding is provided by the perpendicular orientation of the docks of Building 1, which would slightly reduce our overall calculated noise contribution of the loading docks to the northern warehouse receivers because of the partial line-of-sight.
10. 24-hour operation assumed.
11. Loading docks not in use on each building have closed doors.
12. A typical truck “trip” consists of the following events (estimated sound levels based on aforementioned measurements at similar facilities):
a. Truck passby (arrival, departure at slow speed): 69 dBA at 30 feet b. Truck airbrakes: 72 dBA at 25 feet
c. Truck backup alarm: 79 dBA at 30 feet
d. Brief idle before engine shutoff: 70 dBA at 25 feet
e. Truck engine ignition and airbrakes: 71 dBA at 25 feet f. Truck accelerating from stop: 74 dBA at 25 feet
g. Truck noise source reference heights17 (above grade) i. Passby, brief idle, acceleration, and ignition: 8 feet ii. Back-up beeper and airbrake: 2.5 feet
iii. Topographical site analysis included in Section C3.1 of the Grading and Drainage Plan show potential terrain shielding of about three feet between the dock elevation and receivers to the east of Isabel Avenue
Intra-Project Traffic Noise
Our analysis estimated future noise from the facility parking lots is based on the following assumptions:
1. Employees will enter and exit the site from Atlantis Court and Challenger Street, from the north (via Discovery Drive).
2. Once on site, vehicles will move at 15 miles per hour or less.
3. Vehicles will be spread out evenly amongst the seven parking areas. 17 Truck source heights excerpted from Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement document (TeNS) document dated October 1998.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2988
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
4. An average vehicle trip is estimated to last for a cumulative period of about 2 minutes and be at least 550 feet from the nearest residential property line.
5. Similar proportional percentages were assumed for vehicle trips in the project parking lots as were the truck trips, as shown in the distribution below.
● AM Peak is 7 AM - 9 AM- 9.4%
● 9 AM – 4 PM -42.7%
● PM Peak is 4 PM -6 PM -12.7%
● 7 PM - 10 PM 16.4%
● 10 PM - 7 AM 18.8%
Estimated Future Noise Levels
Future Average Noise Levels (CNEL/DNL)
We estimated noise levels at local receptors from the sources described in the previous section. To account for future increases in local traffic noise levels (growth in traffic on Isabel Avenue and other local roadways), we added 1 dB DNL to the measured levels18 (see Table 4 above).
We calculated the acoustical impact of project traffic increase due to both projects SMP-39 and SMP-40 with the provided peak hour traffic volumes for the cumulative without project and cumulative with project scenarios. The analysis used the FHWA-RD-77-108 traffic noise calculation model. The figures below show the various calculations for the intersections of interest (i.e., 5, 9, 10, and 11) as provided to us via the traffic volume study developed for both SMP-39 and SMP-40.
Figure A: Intersection Map Legend
18 The California Department of Transportation assumes a traffic volume increase of three-percent per year, which corresponds to a 1 dBA increase in DNL over a ten-year period.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2989
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Figure B: Traffic Volume Analysis for Intersection 5
Figure C: Traffic Volume Analysis for Intersection 9
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2990
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Figure D: Traffic Volume Analysis for Intersection 10
Figure E: Traffic Volume Analysis for Intersection 11
As shown above, the increase in traffic due to the project would be approximately 1 to 2 dBA to the DNL when combined.
Table 10 below summarizes the estimated DNL levels at the closest property plane to the east of the building, under the assumption that the facility would receive its trucking and commuting employee activities during the 24 hours of operation.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2991
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Table 10: Calculated 24-Hour Future Facility Noise at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Land Uses: CNEL/DNL, dBA Nearby Receiving
Locations
Existing Noise
at Receiver
(Residences)
Loading
Docks at
Receiver
Intra-Project
Traffic Noise
Levels at
Receiver
Combined
Existing
plus
Project
Change
(dBA)
East Property Line
(Residences
across Isabel)
67 60 32 69 +2
North Property
Line (Neighboring
Warehouse)
65 65 36 68 +3
The calculated increase in DNL at the residential property line with the project and future traffic noise levels (near term 2025) will be approximately 2 dB. At the northern industrial uses, a DNL 3 dB change is predicted. A change of 3 dB or less is not expected to be noticeable and is not considered significant.
Our calculations of maximum noise levels assume that the trucks operating at the closest docks to the residences will be active at the same proportion as stated above. The noise analysis also assessed the increase in traffic noise levels resulting from project traffic in combination with future traffic noise level increases on the surrounding roadway network resulting from other anticipated development in the region. The resultant cumulative increase is 3 dB. This would not be considered a significant increase to the predicted project operation noise environment.
Future L50Noise Levels
The following assumptions were made about the 24-hour operation of the project in our estimated L50 calculations:
● The volume of expected truck trips is consistent with the truck trip distribution established in item 6 of the Noise Source Analysis and Assumptions section (i.e., a maximum of 5 trucks per hour at nighttime, or 18.8% of trucks between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am). ● The 6- and 10-foot berms will be incorporated into the project. ● Backup alarms are expected to be at a height of approximately 2.5 feet. ● Trucks do not move great distances when their backup alarm is engaged.
Table 11 summarizes the estimated daytime and nighttime L50 for the proposed project. Since backup alarms for nighttime are predicted to occur less than 15 minutes per hour, the criterion can increase by 5 dBA per Policy P2. However, since back up alarms would be more than 15 minutes per hour during the daytime, no additional increases are accounted for in our analysis.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2992
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Table 11: Calculated 24-Hour Future Facility L50 Value: L50, dBA Time of Day Estimated L50 Value Criterion L50 Value
Daytime (7am-10pm) 50 dBA 55 dBA
Nighttime (10pm-7am) 45 dBA 50 dBA
Although our calculations of overall operational L50 noise levels do not exceed the allowable values stated by the City (i.e., Policy P1, Objective N-1.5), backup alarm noise may be audible at residences to the east during quieter nighttime hours. It is our understanding that other current similar projects in the vicinity have caused local neighbor complaints due to trucks’ back-up alarms at those locations in the past.
Back-up alarms were assumed to be 79 dB at a reference distance of 30 feet. The distance attenuation between the loading dock to the façade of the nearest residence provides a 31 dB reduction. Although backup alarms would be audible from the residences, the L50 threshold of 50 dBA will not be exceeded due to the limited number of trips during this timeframe (estimated at 40 trips in 9-hour time frame).
Calculations assumed the source height of these backup alarms to be approximately 2.5 feet from grade.
The incorporation of the proposed 6- and 10-foot-tall berms would adequately obstruct the direct line-ofsight of these backup alarms to the residential receivers. The dimensions of the proposed berms are calculated to reduce intermittent noise levels (such as those produced by backup alarms) by up to 6 dB at the closest residents.
Quieter backup alarms (aka “squawkers”), which are becoming more prevalent in delivery vehicles for various large e-commerce websites, and other vendors, may be used by trucking operators visiting this site in the future, therefore beeper noise has the potential to be reduced. A best practice for consideration would be to implement these alternative devices in other truck populations in the future.
CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS
1. Future cumulative project site noise from rooftop HVAC equipment, loading dock-generated noise, stationary trucks, and employee vehicles, is not expected to significantly impact receivers to the east or to the north. The calculated increase in CNEL/DNL for the warehouse receivers to the north will be 3 dB, while the closest residential receivers across Isabel Avenue will have a 2dB increase from the existing environment under the expected 24-hour operations.
A change of 3 dB or less is not considered significant for residents to the east or the commercial neighbors to the north of the project site. A cumulative DNL of 69 dB for the receivers does not exceed the industrial 75 dB DNL threshold defined in Table 9-7 of the Livermore Noise Element as well as the L50 level from Objective N-1.5 of the General Plan.
Considering the 1,025-foot distance between the nearest loading dock and the closest residents, and the trucks being a stationary source rather than a moving vehicle once the leaving the loading dock area of the project site, the city's L50 criterion is not applicable once a truck begins moving closer to the residential area. Given the minority of expected project truck trips conducted in the nighttime EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2993
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
hours (less than 5 trips per hour on average from 10 PM to 7 AM), noise from stationary trucks at the nearest loading dock are expected to comply with the City’s L50 nighttime requirement assuming backup alarms are not continuously operating for more than 30 minutes per hour.
2. Temporary construction noise will impact the residences, and thus, it will be necessary to incorporate mitigation measures such as a 10-foot-tall berm or barrier on the east side of the project to reduce the noise by 10 dB.
3. It is our understanding that there are no State or Federal requirements for noise levels of backup alarms except for OSHA, which only requires them to be “significantly louder” than the surrounding environment. Because the background noise levels around most facilities are not known, manufacturers typically increase the alarm volume to compensate.
Best practices to reduce alarm audibility at the facility to be evaluated would be to require users to limit alarm volume levels, employ signal personnel, lights, and other means to notify people about ongoing truck activities within the facility.
* * *
Cc: Jennifer Freedman ([email protected])
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2994
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
APPENDIX A: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report.
Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are:
● The intensity or level of the sound
● The frequency spectrum of the sound
● The time-varying character of the sound
Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dBA), with 0 dBA corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing.
The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds, which we hear in the environment, do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments.
Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra.
Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range.
The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "Aweighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dBA." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A-1.
Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2995
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle passbys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise.
As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "Leq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation.
In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24- hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24- hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dBA penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels.
For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn.
The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories:
● Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction ● Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning ● Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss
The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2996
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged.
With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dBA in sound level cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response.
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2997
Oaks Business Park SMP-40
4 March 2024
Update to Environmental Noise Study
A1
A1
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3 Public Comment Received
2998
EXHIBIT E Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
2999