Appendix G Noise Impact Analysis
DRAFT NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
POWAY, CALIFORNIA
March 2011
DRAFT NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
POWAY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, California 92074-0789
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614-4731
(949) 553-0666
LSA Project No. PWY0901
March 2011
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................3
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................................................................3
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................3
3.0 SETTING......................................................................................................................................9
3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND....................................................................................9
3.2 MEASUREMENT OF SOUND..........................................................................................9
3.3 PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE.......................................................................10
3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................14
3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE...............................................................................19
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...........................................................................24
4.1 IMPACTS..........................................................................................................................24
4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................................................................48
5.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX
A: FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» ii
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location......................................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................6
Figure 3: Zones Surrounding the Project Site......................................................................................15
Figure 4: Locations of Conducted Noise Measurements......................................................................18
TABLES
Table A: Project Description of Square Footage Changes (in sf)..........................................................5
Table B: Definitions of Acoustical Terms............................................................................................11
Table C: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources.................................................................12
Table D: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Noise and Vibration........................13
Table E: Existing Traffic Noise Levels................................................................................................16
Table F: Ambient Noise Measurement Results....................................................................................19
Table G: Physical Location of Noise Level Measurements.................................................................19
Table H: Sound Level Limits...............................................................................................................20
Table I: Arithmetic Mean Thresholds..................................................................................................21
Table J: Sound Level Corrections for Construction Activity...............................................................22
Table K: Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria...............................................................23
Table L: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels....................................................25
Table M: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................28
Table N: 2012 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................29
Table O: 2012 With Project Traffic Noise Levels................................................................................30
Table P: 2030 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................31
Table Q: 2030 With Project Traffic Noise Levels................................................................................32
Table R: Projected Truck Delivery and Delivery Noise Levels at the Centerline of Midland
Road.............................................................................................................................................35
Table S: Projected Cumulative (Project + Ambient) Noise Levels at the Centerline of
Midland Road..............................................................................................................................37
Table T: Projected Truck Delivery and Delivery Noise Levels at the Centerline of Hilleary
Place.............................................................................................................................................37
Table U: Projected Cumulative (Project + Ambient) Noise Levels at the Centerline of
Hilleary Place...............................................................................................................................39
Table V: Projected Truck Delivery and Delivery Noise Levels at Apartments East of Midland
Road.............................................................................................................................................43
Table W: Projected Cumulative (Project + Ambient) Noise Levels at Apartments along
Midland Road..............................................................................................................................43
Table X: Projected Truck Delivery and Delivery Noise Levels at Apartments at Northwest
Corner of Hilleary Place/Midland Road......................................................................................44
Table Y: Projected Cumulative (Project + Ambient) Noise Levels at Apartments at Northwest
Corner of Hilleary Place/Midland Road......................................................................................44
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Noise Impact Analysis provides a discussion of the proposed expansion of an existing Walmart
store, the physical setting of the project area, and the regulatory framework for acoustics. The
analysis provides data on the existing noise environment, evaluates potential noise impacts associated
with the proposed Walmart store expansion project, and identifies mitigation measures where feasible
to reduce the noise impacts to less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project includes the addition of 36,996 square feet (sf) of
commercial/retail uses to the existing 142,937 sf structure at the existing Walmart retail store located
at 13425 Community Road in the City of Poway, California (City). The expansion will add
approximately 1,919 daily trips to the local roadways. The addition of these vehicle trips would
increase the noise levels along the roadways in the project vicinity by 0.8 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
or less. In addition, project-related traffic noise increases would not expose existing off-site sensitive
receptors to noise levels exceeding the City’s exterior noise standards for noise-sensitive uses.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required to reduce the long-term off-site traffic noise impacts.
A berm/wall combination with an effective height of 8 feet (ft) above the street level along the eastern
project boundary along Midland Road is provided with the proposed project. Similarly, a berm/wall
combination with an effective height of 6 ft above street level along the northeastern project
boundary, extending west at least 10 ft past the edge of the building extension, is provided with the
proposed project. In addition, operational procedures and State law limit truck idling to a maximum
of 5 minutes during loading and unloading operations, in addition to the 3 to 6 minutes it typically
takes for maneuvering, unloading, and loading operations. Incorporation of the berm/wall and idling
restrictions into the proposed project avoids significant noise impacts from delivery activities in the
loading dock area to the nearest multifamily residential receptor locations to the east across Midland
Road and multifamily residential receptor locations to the north across Hilleary Place.
On-site parking lot noise would be similar to the existing condition and would be comparable to
traffic noise from Hilleary Place. No mitigation measures are required.
Construction of the proposed project would result in potentially high short-term intermittent noise
levels reaching 86 dBA maximum noise level (Lmax) at the closest sensitive receptors to the north of
the project site. Construction noise would not exceed the City’s 90 dBA 15-minute Leq; however, it
would potentially exceed the longer-period noise standards, including the 84 dBA 1-hour Leq, the
81 dBA 2-hour Leq, the 78 dBA 4-hour Leq, or the 75 dBA 8-hour Leq noise standards, if this
maximum construction noise level occurs near the project’s northern boundary and lasts for more
than 30 minutes. Therefore, mitigation measures require the use of temporary construction noise
barriers with a height of 8 ft along the project’s northeastern boundary, where the existing tire and
lube center and a vacant commercial structure are located, during construction. Implementation of the
mitigation would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 2
Existing residences to the east of the project site along Midland Road at a distance of approximately
135 ft could potentially be exposed to construction noise reaching 82 dBA Lmax. Although acceptable
under the City’s 15-minute, 30-minute, and 1-hour noise criteria, a potentially significant construction
noise impact would result if “worst-case composite” construction activities occurred uninterrupted for
more than 2 hours near areas not protected by the existing berm/wall. In order to mitigate this impact
to a level of less than significant, the project applicant will be required to erect a temporary
construction barrier with a minimum height of 8 ft at the existing truck entrance opening and the area
not currently protected by the berm/wall along Midland Road during project construction. The
existing berm/wall combination barrier along Midland Road would provide at least a 10 dBA in noise
reduction for most of the area to the east behind the existing berm/wall, thereby reducing the
construction noise to 72 dBA Lmax, which is below the City’s allowed construction noise level. With
the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.2, all of the proposed project’s
potential noise impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. In addition, as specified in
the City’s noise control ordinance, construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m.–
5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No outdoor construction activity with noise concern will be
allowed on Sundays or City holidays.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located within the City of Poway, which itself is located in the central
eastern portion of San Diego County. The project site consists of two adjoining parcels located at
13425 Community Road and 13430 Midland Road. Both properties are located within an existing
developed shopping center. The cross-streets of the project site are Community Road and Hilleary
Place. Figure 1 shows the project location.
The proposed project and the existing Walmart store are located on an approximately 16.47-acre (ac)
parcel that is bound on three sides by roadways (Community Road to the west, Hilleary Place to the
north, and Midland Road to the east).
Adjacent land uses include commercial land uses to the south and the northwest corner of the
developed shopping area. Multifamily residential land uses are located to the north beyond Hilleary
Place, to the east beyond Midland Road, and to the west beyond Community Road. The proposed
project site is developed with an existing Walmart store, associated parking facility, loading docks,
landscaping, building, and parking lot signage.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the expansion and remodeling of the existing Walmart retail store
located at 13425 Community Road in the City. The expansion consists of the addition of 36,996 sf of
commercial/retail uses to the existing 142,937 sf structure, resulting in a 179,933 sf Walmart with a
full-service grocery department. The project would include demolition of the existing tire and lube
center and the adjacent vacant 7,000 sf commercial structure. The tire and lube center would not be
replaced.
The proposed project would include an extensive remodeling to both the exterior and interior of the
store. As shown in Table A, the remodeled and expanded store would include approximately
39,831 sf of food sales area, 11,814 sf of food sales support area (bakery, deli, etc.), 16,648 sf of
stockroom receiving area, 11,194 sf of ancillary area, 89,963 sf of general merchandise area, and
8,346 sf of outdoor garden center area. The project would include a new entrance for the grocery
uses, new lighting, and new landscaping. The existing loading dock will be replaced with two new
loading docks, each with three doors and a compactor. In addition, the existing store signage would
be removed and new signage would be installed according to a sign program submitted with the site
plan. The project’s site plan is shown on Figure 2. The expanded store would operate on a 24-hour
basis, and the existing store will remain operational during the expansion construction process.
ProjectBoundary
PROJECTAREA
N
FIGURE 1
FEET
200010000
I:\PWY0901\G\Location.cdr(1/4/10)
ProjectLocation
PowayWalmartExpansionProject
SOURCE:TheThomasGuide
Escondido
15
8
805
5
67
56
52
54
163
274
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 5
Table A: Project Description of Square Footage Changes (in sf)
Existing Store
Proposed
Store Expansion
General Merchandise Sales 99,079 89,963 (9,116)
Food Sales Area 0 39,831 39,831
Food Tenant Area 1,643 2,137 503
Stockroom/Receiving Area 14,779 16,648 1,869
Ancillary Area 10,002 11,194 1,192
Food Sales Support Area 0 11,814 11,814
Tire and Lube 6,275 0 (6,275)
Total Building 131,769 171,587 39,818
Outdoor Garden Center 11,186 8,346 (2,822)
Total Store 142,937 179,933 36,996
Source: Walmart Stores, Inc.
sf = square feet
SitePlanPowayWalmartExpansionProjectFIGURE2
I:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
G
\
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
c
d
r
(
9
/
1
7
/
1
0
)
SO
U
R
C
E
:
N
a
s
l
a
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
FE
E
T
10
0
50
0N
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 7
Construction Activities
Development of the proposed project will require excavation and grading of the site, delivery of
materials and personnel, demolition of the 7,000 sf vacant commercial structure and existing Walmart
tire and lube center, construction of the store expansion area and parking lot improvements, and
landscaping of the project site. Construction of the project is anticipated to commence in July 2011
and be completed in August 2012 (14 months). The store will remain open during construction.
Construction of the project will require removal of approximately 8,800 cubic yards (cy) of material.
This includes building demolition debris, site pavement demolition debris, and soil export. Trucks for
hauling away material will be staged at the southeastern portion of the site to avoid congestion on the
residential streets adjacent to the site and to avoid parking conflicts and other operational conflicts,
such as noise, during construction.
Delivery and Loading Dock Activities
The proposed project includes the reconfiguration of the existing loading dock and the addition of a
second loading dock. Whereas the current loading dock area faces east toward residences without any
substantial noise barrier, the proposed project would have two loading docks facing toward each other
in a north–south configuration. Although the expansion of the store will move loading docks
approximately 70 feet (ft) closer to the existing residences on Midland Road, in addition to the
reconfiguration of the loading dock bays, the existing rear entrance to the delivery area on Midland
Road will be closed off with an 8 ft wall, and screen walls will be constructed adjacent to each of the
loading dock areas.
It is anticipated that, after the expansion is completed, there would be a total of 16 truck deliveries
over a typical 24-hour period, including existing truck trips, with the following distribution mix:
• Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.): nine nonrefrigerated trucks
• Evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.): one refrigerated truck
• Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next day): one refrigerated and five nonrefrigerated trucks
Noise sources associated with the typical operation of loading docks include maneuvering, loading
and unloading of delivery trucks (large and small), refrigeration equipment, engine idling, and
airbrakes. The Applicant has provided operational information that truck delivery activities last an
average of 3–6 minutes per truck, depending on whether or not the loading bay is empty at the time of
arrival. In the event idling does occur, idling time would be limited to no more than 5 minutes under
California State law (Cal Code Regs. 2485). To this end, Walmart delivery trucks are equipped with
an engine shutdown system that automatically turns off the engine after 5 minutes of idling.
In order to analyze a worst-case scenario for noise impacts related to delivery, it is assumed that there
would be a maximum of three delivery trucks coming to the loading docks and completing delivery
activities within a 1-hour period for both daytime and nighttime hours, including one refrigerated
truck, which would require the maximum average delivery time of 6 minutes per delivery.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 8
Project Features Designed to Reduce Project-Related On-Site Operational Noise
1. The existing truck entrance along the eastern project boundary will be closed with the extension
of a berm/wall combination barrier with 8 ft in height measured from the street level.
2. The project will construct a berm/wall combination barrier with 6 ft in height measured from the
street level extending along the project’s northern boundary from the project’s northeast corner to
the west, at least 10 ft beyond the edge of the expansion structure.
3. Walmart trucks are equipped with auxiliary power units (APU) to power the refrigeration units
when the engine is shut off.
4. Delivery trucks will be limited to no more than 5 minutes of idling while on the project site in
addition to the 3 to 6 minutes it typically takes for each truck to maneuver, unload, and load.
Walmart will post signs in conspicuous places in the loading dock area indicating that this
restriction is in effect.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 9
3.0 SETTING
3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND
Sound is capable of increasing to such disagreeable levels in the environment that it can threaten
quality of life. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may
produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest,
recreation, and sleep.
To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an
annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations,
or cycles per second, of a wave resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the
strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of
the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves, combined with the
reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes
an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely
measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area
in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses.
3.2 MEASUREMENT OF SOUND
Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency
response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high
frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units,
such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a
sharply rising curve.
For example, 10 decibels (dB) are 10 times more intense than 1 dB, 20 dB are 100 times more
intense, and 30 dB are 1,000 times more intense. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represent 1,000 times as
much acoustic energy as 1 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing
the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB.
The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of
sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by
the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from
30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that
source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single
point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the
source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is
produced by a line source, such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases 3 dB
for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source, noise in a relatively flat
environment with absorptive vegetation, decreases 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 10
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise
affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Leq is the total sound energy of
time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human
communities in the State of California are the Leq and community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or
the day-night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour
period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring
from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without
the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of
each other and are normally exchangeable. The City of Poway uses the CNEL noise scale for long-
term noise impact assessments.
Other noise-rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include Lmax, which is
the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise
environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of
maximum levels denoted by Lmax. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying
aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, or noise standards in
terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10
noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50
noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half
the time it is less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of
the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively
constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same.
Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases
in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of
3.0 dB or greater since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments.
The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB.
This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last
category is changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only
audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.
3.3 PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of
75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the
nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in
permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dB, a tickling sensation occurs in the
human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the
sound reaches 140 dB, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is
called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160–165 dB will result in dizziness or loss of
equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more
concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas.
Table B lists “Definitions of Acoustical Terms,” and Table C shows “Common Sound Levels and
Their Noise Sources.”
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 11
Table B: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit of sound level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are
proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the
base 10) of this ratio.
Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in
one second (i.e., number of cycles per second).
A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter
de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a
manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with
subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless
reported otherwise.
L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound
level 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period.
Equivalent
Continuous Noise
Level, Leq
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has
the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained
after the addition of 5 dB to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dB to sound levels occurring in the night
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Day/Night Noise
Level, Ldn
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained
after the addition of 10 dB to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level
meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.
Ambient Noise
Level
The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time,
usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no
particular sound is dominant.
Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.
The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency,
and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing
ambient noise level.
Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 1991.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 12
Table C: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources
Noise Source
A-Weighted
Sound Level
in Decibels
Noise
Environments
Subjective
Evaluations
Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud
Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud
Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud
Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud
Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud
Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud
Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud
Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud
Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud
Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud
Average Office 60 Quiet ½ times as loud
Suburban Street 55 Quiet
Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet ¼ times as loud
Large Transformer 45 Quiet
Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint ⅛ times as loud
Soft Whisper 30 Faint
Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint
Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing
0 Very Faint
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2002.
Vibration
Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost
exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the
motion may be discernable, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, there is
less of an adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and
rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation
throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as
motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency
rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating
sound waves. Building damage is not a factor for normal development projects, with the occasional
exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs
when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of
magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.
Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and
operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough
roads. Problems with groundborne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to
areas within approximately 100 ft from the vibration source, although there are examples of
groundborne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft (Federal Transit
Administration [FTA] 2006). When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks,
is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 13
that groundborne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however,
construction of the project could result in groundborne vibration that could be perceptible and
annoying, depending on the location and distance of the receptor. Groundborne noise is typically not
a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path usually will be greater than
groundborne noise.
Groundborne vibration has the potential to disturb people as well as to damage buildings. Although it
is very rare for train-induced groundborne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not
uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient
amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA, May 2006). Groundborne vibration is usually
measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (rms) velocity or peak particle
velocity (PPV). The best measurement for characterizing human response to building vibration is rms,
and PPV is used to characterize potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of
numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as:
Lv = 20 log10 [V/Vref]
where Lv is the velocity in decibels (VdB), “V” is the rms velocity amplitude, and “Vref” is the
reference velocity amplitude (1x10-6 inches/second) used in the United States. Table D illustrates
human response to various vibration levels, as described in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006).
Table D: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Noise and Vibration
Noise Level Vibration
Velocity
Level
Low-
Frequency1
Mid-
Frequency2 Human Response
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. Low-
frequency sound usually inaudible; mid-frequency sound
excessive for quiet sleeping areas.
75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this
level unacceptable. Low-frequency noise acceptable for
sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise annoying in most quiet
occupied areas.
85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration acceptable only if there is an infrequent number of
events per day. Low-frequency noise unacceptable for sleeping
areas; mid-frequency noise unacceptable even for infrequent
events at institutional land uses such as schools and churches.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006, and Federal Railroad Administration, 1998.
1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz.
2 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Hz = Hertz
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 14
Factors that influence groundborne vibration and noise include the following:
• Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel type and condition, track/roadway surface, track
support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source
• Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth
• Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption
Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when
the source is underground compared to at ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to
have a strong influence on the levels of groundborne vibration. Among the most important factors are
the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock.
Experience with groundborne vibration is that vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay
soils than in loose sandy soils. Shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the
surface and can result in groundborne vibration problems at a large distance from the source. Factors
such as layering of the soil and depth to the water table can have significant effects on the
propagation of groundborne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy
than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through
sandy soils.
3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity
The project site is zoned Commercial General (CG). Multifamily residential land uses are located to
the north beyond Hilleary Place, to the east beyond Midland Road, and to the west beyond
Community Road. The closest existing residences are those to the north of the project site, along
Hilleary Place, that are approximately 90–100 ft from the project’s northern boundary. The existing
residences to the west of the project site, along Community Road, are approximately 120 ft from the
project’s western boundary and are more than 1,000 ft from the existing and proposed loading area of
the Walmart store. The existing residences to the east of the project site, along Midland Road, are
approximately 135 ft from the project’s eastern boundary.
Most of these residential areas are zoned Residential Apartments (RA) on the east, west, and north of
the project site. A portion of the land to the northwest is zoned Residential Single Family (RS-2) and
is occupied by a church located on the northeastern corner of Community Road and Hilleary Place,
and another portion is zoned Residential Condominiums (RC) and is occupied by condominiums.
These sensitive uses could potentially be affected by the short-term construction noise impacts and
long-term operational noise associated with the project.
The commercial strip on the southeast corner of Hilleary Place and Community Road is located
within the CG zone. The land to the south is zoned Town Center (TC). The land to the northeast is
zoned Commercial Office (CO). The land to the southeast is zoned CG. The land uses within the TC,
CO, and CG zones are not considered noise-sensitive. A map showing the zones surrounding the
project site is provided in Figure 3.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
I
T
E
RS-2 CG
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
RARA
CO
RA
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
RC
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
n
d
o
RR
-
C
-
R
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
RS
-
2
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
-
2
RS
-
7
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
-
7
TC
-
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
LE
G
E
N
D
I:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
G
\
Z
o
n
i
n
g
.
c
d
r
(
4
/
2
2
/
1
1
)
Zo
n
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
S
i
t
e
PowayWalmartExpansionProject
SO
U
R
C
E
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
o
w
a
y
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
G
I
S
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
9
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
N
RARA
FIGURE3
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 16
Existing Traffic Noise
Existing traffic noise levels in the study area are listed in Table E. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to
evaluate highway traffic-related noise conditions along the local roadways in the project vicinity. This
model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway
geometry, to compute typical equivalent noise levels during the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours.
Table E: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to
70 CNEL
(ft)
Centerline
to
65 CNEL
(ft)
Centerline
to
60 CNEL
(ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr. 23,020 76 156 333 70.2
Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr.
and Hilleary Pl. 23,926 77 160 342 70.3
Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 2 24,666 79 163 349 70.5
Community Rd. between Project Driveway
2 and Poway Rd. 26,121 82 170 362 70.7
Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and
Metate Ln. 24,644 79 163 349 70.4
Community Rd. south of Metate Ln. 22,303 74 153 326 70.0
Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl. 10,773 < 50 79 169 66.6
Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 5 11,914 < 50 87 181 66.1
Midland Rd. between Project Driveway 5
and Poway Rd. 11,914 < 50 87 181 66.1
Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd. 3,820 < 50 < 50 88 61.2
Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr. 36,765 101 212 455 72.2
Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and
Community Rd. 35,962 99 209 448 72.1
Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and
Midland Rd. 30,852 90 189 405 71.4
Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and
Garden Rd. 24,630 79 163 349 70.4
Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd. 11,482 < 50 100 210 67.1
Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and
Project Driveway 3 5,333 < 50 < 50 106 63.6
Hilleary Pl. between Project Driveway 3
and Midland Rd. 5,333 < 50 < 50 106 63.6
Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd. 320 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.4
Hilleary Pl. (north) 100 < 50 < 50 < 50 45.6
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010.
Note: For areas within 50 feet of the roadway centerline, traffic noise was evaluated manually.
ADT = average daily traffic CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = feet
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 17
The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the area were taken from the Traffic Study
prepared for the project (LSA Associates, Inc., March 2011). The resultant noise levels are weighted
and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the existing noise condition expressed as CNEL
values. As shown in Table E, traffic noise along these roadway segments is generally moderate along
Midland Road and Hilleary Road and is generally high along Community Road and Poway Road.
Ambient Noise Monitoring
An LSA noise specialist conducted ambient noise measurements on July 15 and 16, 2010, to
document existing noise environment in the project vicinity. Figure 4 provides the locations from
which noise measurements were conducted. Two long-term, 24-hour noise measurements were
conducted at the two nearest residential areas, one to the east along Midland Road and one to the
north along Hilleary Place. A short-term noise measurement was conducted near the existing Walmart
loading area to document the truck noise during delivery and idling activity.
Table F lists the measured hourly Leq averaged over the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), evening
(7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next day) periods. It should be
noted that noise levels measured at M-1 (13432 Midland Road) were adjusted to screen out the air-
conditioning noise from an air-conditioning unit near the sound level meter at 13432 Midland Road.
In addition, at location M-2 (13682 Hilleary Place), because the noise meter was placed inside an
empty apartment by the front window and with the window open, the measured noise levels were
adjusted upwards by 3 dBA to account for any noise reduction by the shielding (provided by the walls
of the apartment building). Finally, for noise levels measures at M-3, measurements of the truck noise
occurred at distances between 125 and 175 ft, with an average distance of 150 ft, due to the
movement/maneuvering of the trucks. The noise measured included both maneuvering and hitching/
unhitching of the trailer from the truck/tractor. When converted from 57.6 dBA Leq at a distance of
150 ft to the nominal distance of 50 ft, the truck noise equals 67 dBA Leq over the measurement
period.
Table G includes descriptions of the measurement location, noise sources observed, and additional
comments. Based on LSA’s past project experience1 with refrigerated trucks, the delivery noise
would be approximately 72 dBA Leq at a distance of 40 ft, or 70 dBA Leq when measured at 50 ft.
This is approximately 3 dBA higher than the non-refrigerated trucks measured at the existing
Walmart delivery area.
1 Acoustical Impact Analysis, South Perris Industrial, August 18, 2009. Prepared by URS Corporation and
LSA Associates, Inc.
FEET
2001000
M-1
Monitoring Location Site
M-3
M-2
M-#
Walmart Project Boundary
FIGURE 4
I:\PWY0901\G\Noise Monitor Loc.cdr (10/13/10)
Locations of Conducted Noise Measurements
Poway Walmart Expansion Project
SOURCE: Digital Globe, (2008)
N
M-1
M-2
M-3
13432 Midland Road
13682 Hilleary Place
13425 Communtiy Road (Walmart loading dock)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 19
Table F: Ambient Noise Measurement Results
Monitor No. Date Start Time Duration Daytime Leq Evening Leq Night Leq
M-1 7/15/2010 12:34 PM 24 hours 61.2 57.4 51.8
M-2 7/15/2010 3:00 PM 24 hours 56.8 52.7 45.0
M-3 7/15/2010 2:10 PM 22 minutes1 57.6 NA NA
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., July 2010.
Note: Refer to Figure 4 for monitoring locations.
1 Truck maneuvering and hitching/unhitching of the trailer from the truck/tractor took 4 minutes and 5 seconds.
With 5 minutes of idling, total time during which the truck engine was running was 9 minutes and 5 seconds. The
truck engine was turned off during the remaining 12 minutes and 55 seconds.
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level over a specified period of time
Table G: Physical Location of Noise Level Measurements
Monitor No. Location Description Noise Sources Comments
M-1 13432 Midland Road;
2nd floor apartment
front balcony.
Traffic on Midland Road, other
minor residential noises,
apartment air conditioning unit.
The apartment tenant turned
on the air-conditioning unit at
about 4:00 p.m. and left it on
until after the monitoring
period.
M-2 13682 Hilleary Place;
1st floor apartment, at
open front window.
Traffic on Hilleary Place,
occasional upstairs tenant
noises, other minor residential
noises.
No secure location outside,
positioned meter at open
window of vacant apartment.
M-3 In Walmart loading
dock area,
approximately 110 ft
from tractor when it
was maneuvering the
trailer to the area where
it was unloaded.
Delivery truck arrived at
2:10 p.m. idled for
approximately 5 minutes, shut
off for approximately 13
minutes, restarted and
unhitched the trailer that came
with it, picked up another
(empty) trailer, and left.
Tractor unloaded trailer in the
loading area, but not at the
loading dock.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September 2010.
ft = feet/foot
3.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will
substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted
environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located.
Traffic Noise Criteria
Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases
in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of
3.0 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments.
The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 20
This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last
category is changes in noise levels of less than 1.0 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. For
analysis of traffic noise impacts, only audible changes (3.0 dB or greater) in existing ambient or
background noise levels are considered potentially significant. This is an industry-recognized criteria
and is used in this Noise Impact Analysis to assess potential project-related traffic noise impacts on
existing off-site land uses.
Stationary Source Noise Criteria
Noise associated with stationary sources is assessed using the City’s Municipal Code, discussed
below. The City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.08, Noise Abatement and Control, lists sound level
limits in terms of 1-hour average sound level, Leq(1h), when measured at the property line. Table H
lists these noise level limits.
Table H: Sound Level Limits
Zone or Land Use Designation Hours
Applicable Limit 1-Hour
Average Sound Level
(dBA)
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 OS-RM, OS, OS/1du, RR-A, RR-B, RR-C, RS-2, RS-3,
RS-4, RS-7, and Specific Plan PRD and PC regulations
with a density of 11 dwelling units or less per acre.
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
PF, RA, RC, MHP, and Specific Plan, PRD and PC
regulations with a density of 11 or more dwelling units
per acre. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
SPC, MU, CO, CN, CB, CG, TC, A/GC, and HC
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
MRE, SC, LI, LI/S, and IP Anytime 70
Source: City of Poway Municipal Code.
A/GC = automotive/general commercial zone
CB = community business zone
CG = commercial general zone
CN = commercial neighborhood zone
CO = commercial office zone
dBA = A-weighted decibels
HC = hospital campus zone
MHP = mobile home park zone
MU = mixed use zone
OS = open space
PC = planned community zone
PF = public facilities zone
PRD = planned residential development zone
RA = residential apartments zone
RC = residential condominiums zone
RR = residential rural zone
RS = residential single family zone
TC = town center
The project site is bordered by public streets on three sides (Community Road to the west, Hilleary
Place to the north, and Midland Road to the east). Therefore, there is no common property line
separating the two adjacent land use zones between the project site and land uses to the east, north,
and west. According to the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.08.040, the sound level limit at a
location on a boundary between two zoning districts is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for
the two districts. The boundary of the zoning district is the center of the street. Therefore, the
threshold for the evaluation of noise impacts to existing residential uses (i.e., the RA zone to the east
and RA/RC zones to the north) would be the arithmetic mean of the sound level limits of the zones
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 21
(i.e., CG zone and RA or RC zone, as applicable) at the centerline of Midland Road, Hilleary Road,
and Community Road. Refer to Figure 3 for an illustration of the zoning boundaries.
As shown in Figure 3, the RS-2 zone where a church is located to the north is not directly adjacent to
the project site and is not subject to the arithmetic mean noise standards for impact determination.
Therefore, sound level limits for the respective districts zoned RA, RC, and RS-2 surrounding the
project site are used together with the sound level limits for the project site to calculate the arithmetic
mean noise standards used to assess the project’s potential operational (stationary source) noise
impacts. Table I lists the arithmetic mean noise standards for the residential uses to the east and north
of the project site that are zoned RA or RC.
Table I: Arithmetic Mean Thresholds
Adjoining Land Use
Zones Hours
Applicable Limit 1-Hour
Average Sound Level
(dBA)1
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 57.5
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 52.5
RA/RC and CG
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 47.5
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
TC and CG
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Source: City of Poway Municipal Code.
1 City of Poway Noise standards are applied at a location on a boundary between two
zoning Districts, i.e., at the centerline of the street separating two zoning districts.
CG = Commercial General dBA = A-weighted decibels
RA = residential apartments RC = residential condominiums
TC = town center
Construction Noise Criteria
Construction noise level limits are governed by City Municipal Code Chapter 8.08.100, which states
that all construction, maintenance, or demolition activities within the City’s boundary shall be limited
to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and no construction activity with
noise concern shall occur on Sundays or City holidays. No equipment, or combination of equipment,
regardless of age or date of acquisition, shall be operated so as to cause noise at a level in excess of
75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period when measured at or within the property lines
of any property that is developed and used either in part or in whole for residential purposes. These
sound levels shall be corrected for time duration in accordance with Table J. In the event that lower
noise limit standards are established for construction equipment pursuant to State or federal law, said
lower limits shall be used as a basis for revising and amending the noise level limits specified in
Subsection B of Chapter 8.08.100.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 22
Table J: Sound Level Corrections for
Construction Activity
Total Duration
in 24 Hours
Decibel Level
Allowance
Total Decibel
Level
Up to 15 minutes +15 90
Up to 30 minutes +12 87
Up to 1 hour +9 84
Up to 2 hours +6 81
Up to 4 hours +3 78
Up to 8 hours 0 75
Source: City of Poway Municipal Code.
Vibration Impact Criteria
The City does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The FTA and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) provide criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various
buildings that are sensitive to vibration. The criteria for environmental impact from groundborne
vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event.
Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration. Both the FTA in its
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006) and the FRA in its High-Speed
Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FRA, December 1998) included
groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria guidance, as shown in Table K. The criteria presented
in Table K account for variation in project types, as well as the frequency of events, which differ
widely among transit projects. Although the criteria are provided for community response to
groundborne vibration from rail rapid transit systems, they also provide good guidelines for human
response to exposure to vibration in general.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 23
Table K: Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria
Groundborne
Vibration Impact
Levels
(VdB re 1 micro
inch/sec)
Groundborne Noise
Impact Levels
(dB re 20 micro
Pascals)
Land Use Category Frequent
1 Events
Infrequent2
Events
Frequent1
Events
Infrequent2
Events
Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is
essential for interior operations.
65 VdB3 65 VdB3 B4 B4
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally
sleep.
72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use.75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006.
1 Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 events per day.
2 Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 70 events per day.
3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical
microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the
acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the
HVAC systems and stiffened floors.
4 Vibration-sensitive equipment is used in buildings where sufficient noise attenuation is provided; additionally, such
equipment is not sensitive to either airborne or groundborne noise.
dB = decibel
dBA = A-weighted decibel
HVAC = heating, ventilation, air-conditioning
VdB = vibration velocity decibel
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 24
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 IMPACTS
Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts
Short-term noise impacts would be associated with project demolition, excavation, grading, and
construction. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient
noise levels in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is
completed.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. First,
construction crew commute and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for
the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site.
Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum of
87 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from passing trucks, causing possible short-term intermittent annoyances, the
effect of long-term ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over a longer
period of time. As stated in Section 3.5, for analysis of traffic noise impacts, only audible changes
(3.0 dB or greater) in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially
significant. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and
equipment transport to the project site would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive
receptors along the access routes.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition,
excavation, grading, and construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has
its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential
phases would change the character of the noise generated and, therefore, the noise levels along the
project alignment as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction
equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-
related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table L lists typical construction equipment
noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between
the equipment and a noise receptor.
Typical noise levels at 50 ft from an active construction area range up to 91 dBA Lmax during the
noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes demolition, grading, and
paving, tends to generate the highest noise levels, since the noisiest construction equipment is
earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes,
bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers,
and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or
2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 25
Table L: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels
Type of Equipment
Range of
Maximum Sound
Levels Measured
(dBA at 50 ft)
Suggested
Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis
(dBA at 50 ft)
Pile Drivers, 12,000–18,000 ft-lb/blow 81–96 93
Rock Drills 83–99 96
Jack Hammers 75–85 82
Pneumatic Tools 78–88 85
Pumps 74–84 80
Dozers 77–90 85
Scrapers 83–91 87
Haul Trucks 83–94 88
Cranes 79–86 82
Portable Generators 71–87 80
Rollers 75–82 80
Tractors 77–82 80
Front-End Loaders 77–90 86
Hydraulic Backhoe 81–90 86
Hydraulic Excavators 81–90 86
Graders 79–89 86
Air Compressors 76–89 86
Trucks 81–87 86
Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants; Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987.
dBA = A-weighted decibel
ft = feet
ft-lb/blow = foot-pound per blow
Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor
graders, and water and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is
estimated to reach between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction
area for the grading phase. As seen in Table L, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is
assumed to be approximately 87 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer
would also generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The maximum noise level generated by
water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from these vehicles. Each doubling of
the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Each piece of construction
equipment operates as an individual point source. The worst-case composite noise level during this
phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from an active construction area.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 26
Existing residences north of Hilleary Place that are approximately 90 ft or more from the project site
would be exposed to construction noise up to 86 dBA Lmax. Traffic noise along Hilleary Place is
compatible with this range of maximum noise and would mask most of the construction activity noise
during daytime hours.1 If construction activity lasts no more than 30 minutes, this range of
construction noise would be within the permitted noise level of 87 dBA shown in Table J. However,
if construction activities generating maximum noise levels last for more than 1 hour, the City’s noise
limits (Table J) could be potentially exceeded for more than 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, and 8 hours,
respectively, in any 24-hour period. This is a significant impact, and temporary construction noise
barriers along the project’s northern boundary that would reduce on-site construction noise by a
minimum of 8 dBA so the remaining noise is similar to or lower than traffic noise on Hilleary Place
would be required during project construction.
The existing residences to the west of the project site along Community Road are approximately
120 ft from the project’s western boundary. However, since the project’s expansion areas would be
mostly on the eastern portion of the project site and behind the existing building, the only potential
construction activities that would result in noise concerns are those related to demolition of the
existing vestibule and construction of the new front vestibule. The distance from this area to the
residences to the west is approximately 400 ft, and the construction noise levels at these residences
would be 73 dBA Lmax or lower. This range of construction noise would be masked by traffic on
Community Road during the daytime hours when construction activity occurs,2 and it would be below
the City’s 75 dBA maximum noise criterion during daytime hours if construction activity lasts for up
to 8 hours continuously. Therefore, no significant construction noise impacts would occur, and no
mitigation measures are required for residences to the west of the project site.
Existing residences to the east of the project site along Midland Road at a distance of approximately
135 ft would be exposed to maximum construction noise reaching 82 dBA Lmax if worst-case
composite activities were to occur along the project’s eastern boundary. The existing berm/wall
combination barrier along Midland Road would provide at least a 10 dBA in noise reduction for most
of the area behind the existing berm/wall to the east, thereby reducing the construction noise to 72
dBA Lmax. This range of construction noise would be masked by traffic on Midland Road during the
daytime hours when construction activity occurs and would also be below the City’s 75 dBA noise
criterion during daytime hours if construction activity lasts for up to 8 hours continuously. However,
a portion of the eastern project boundary by the existing truck entrance and vacant commercial
1 As shown in Table E, existing traffic noise along Hilleary Place extends the 60 dBA CNEL to 106 ft from
the roadway centerline. Given that this CNEL contour is weighted over a 24-hour period, some hours
(especially during daytime, when construction would occur) would have higher traffic noise and others,
lower. In addition, individual vehicles generate peak, instantaneous noise levels much higher than 60 dBA.
For example, truck passby noise at 50 ft ranges from 78 to 87 dBA Lmax. Automobiles generate 64 to 75
dBA Lmax when passing by at 35 to 50 mph. This range of noise levels is higher than most noise levels from
construction on the project site, and would, therefore, mask some construction noise.
2 As shown in Table E, existing traffic noise along Community Road extends the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL
to 79, 163, and 349 ft, respectively, from the roadway centerline. Given that this CNEL contour is weighted
over a 24-hour period, some hours (especially during daytime when the construction would occur) would
have higher traffic noise and others, lower. In addition, individual vehicles generate peak, instantaneous
noise levels much higher than 60 dBA. For example, truck passby noise at 50 ft ranges from 78 to 87 dBA
Lmax. Automobiles generate 64 to 75 dBA Lmax when passing by at 35 to 50 mph. This range of noise levels
is higher than most noise levels from construction on the project site and would therefore mask some
construction noise.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 27
structure has no berm or wall to protect the adjacent residences to the east from on-site construction
activity noise. Areas not protected by the berm/wall would potentially be exposed to construction
noise reaching 82 dBA Lmax. Although acceptable under the City’s 15-minute, 30-minute, and 1-hour
noise criteria, a potentially significant construction noise impact would result if “worst-case
composite” construction activities occurred uninterrupted for more than 2 hours near areas not
protected by the existing berm/wall. In order to mitigate this impact to a level of less than significant,
the project applicant will be required to erect a temporary construction barrier with a minimum height
of 8 ft at the existing truck entrance opening and the area not currently protected by the berm/wall
along Midland Road during project construction.
Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts
The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-
related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The resultant noise levels were weighted
and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the CNEL values. CNEL levels are derived
through a series of computerized iterations to isolate the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contour for traffic
noise levels in the project area. Tables M, N, O, P, and Q list the traffic noise levels for the existing
with project, 2012 without project, 2012 with project, 2030 without project, and 2030 with project
scenarios, respectively.
Tables M, O, and Q show that, with the cumulative traffic projections included, implementation of the
proposed project would result in relatively minor changes in traffic noise levels along roadway
segments in the project vicinity. The total projected increase in traffic noise is 0.8 dBA or less along
all roadway segments analyzed, with the majority of the roadway segments experiencing 0.5 dBA or
less in traffic noise level changes. As stated above, for analysis of traffic noise impacts, based on the
industry-recognized significance threshold, only audible changes (3.0 dB or greater) in existing
ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. The range of traffic noise
level increases resulting from the proposed project would be within the levels that are normally not
perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, no significant noise impacts
would occur, and no mitigation is required for off-site areas.
On-Site Stationary-Source Noise Impacts
As noise spreads from a source it loses energy, so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the
noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound
level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of
distance from a single-point source of noise, such as an idling truck, to the noise-sensitive receptor of
concern. Although individual activity associated with the proposed project may generate relatively
high and intermittent noise, these noise levels would be comparable with noise levels generated by
other noise sources that currently exist in the project area.
The proposed on-site commercial/retail expansion uses would generate noise from truck delivery
activities and maneuvering to the loading areas. These activities are potential point sources of noise
that could affect noise-sensitive receptors, such as existing residential uses to the east, north, and west
of the project site.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 28
Table M: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 CNEL
(ft)
Centerline
to 65 CNEL
(ft)
Centerline
to 60 CNEL
(ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr. 23,289 76 157 336 70.2 0.0
Community Rd. between Olive Grove
Dr. and Hilleary Pl. 24,252 78 162 345 70.4 0.1
Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 2 25,279 80 166 355 70.6 0.1
Community Rd. between Project
Driveway 2 and Poway Rd. 26,984 83 173 370 70.8 0.1
Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and
Metate Ln. 24,951 79 165 352 70.5 0.1
Community Rd. south of Metate Ln. 22,572 75 154 329 70.1 0.1
Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl. 10,946 < 50 80 170 66.7 0.1
Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 5 12,317 < 50 89 185 66.3 0.2
Midland Rd. between Project Driveway 5
and Poway Rd. 12,317 < 50 89 185 66.3 0.2
Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd. 3,820 < 50 < 50 88 61.2 0.0
Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr. 37,053 101 213 457 72.2 0.0
Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and
Community Rd. 36,307 100 210 451 72.1 0.0
Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and
Midland Rd. 30,929 90 189 405 71.4 0.0
Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and
Garden Rd. 24,956 79 165 352 70.5 0.1
Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd. 11,540 < 50 100 211 67.2 0.1
Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and
Project Driveway 3 6,015 < 50 54 115 64.1 0.5
Hilleary Pl. between Project Driveway 3
and Midland Rd. 6,005 < 50 54 115 64.1 0.5
Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd. 320 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.4 0.0
Hilleary Pl. (north) 120 < 50 < 50 < 50 46.4 0.8
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010.
Note: For areas within 50 ft of the roadway centerline, traffic noise was evaluated manually.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = feet/foot
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 29
Table N: 2012 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to
70 CNEL (ft)
Centerline to
65 CNEL (ft)
Centerline to
60 CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Community Rd. north of Olive
Grove Dr. 24,601 79 163 348 70.4
Community Rd. between Olive
Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl. 25,769 81 168 359 70.6
Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl.
and Project Driveway 2 26,813 83 172 369 70.8
Community Rd. between Project
Driveway 2 and Poway Rd. 28,672 86 180 385 71.1
Community Rd. between Poway Rd.
and Metate Ln. 28,130 85 178 381 71.0
Community Rd. south of Metate Ln. 25,761 81 168 359 70.6
Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl. 12,955 < 50 89 191 67.4
Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl.
and Project Driveway 5 13,921 < 50 96 201 66.8
Midland Rd. between Project
Driveway 5 and Poway Rd. 13,921 < 50 96 201 66.8
Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd. 3,845 < 50 < 50 88 61.2
Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr. 39,075 105 221 474 72.4
Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and
Community Rd. 38,505 104 219 469 72.4
Poway Rd. between Community Rd.
and Midland Rd. 35,494 99 207 444 72.0
Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and
Garden Rd. 30,609 90 188 403 71.4
Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd. 13,189 < 50 109 231 67.7
Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd.
and Project Driveway 3 5,653 < 50 52 110 63.8
Hilleary Pl. between Project
Driveway 3 and Midland Rd. 5,756 < 50 53 111 63.9
Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd. 320 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.4
Hilleary Pl. (north) 161 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.7
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010.
Note: For areas within 50 ft of the roadway centerline, traffic noise was evaluated manually.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = feet/foot
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 30
Table O: 2012 With Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase CNEL
(dBA) 50 ft
from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Community Rd. north of Olive Grove
Dr. 24,870 79 164 351 70.5 0.1
Community Rd. between Olive Grove
Dr. and Hilleary Pl. 26,095 81 169 362 70.7 0.1
Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl.
and Project Driveway 2 27,425 84 175 374 70.9 0.1
Community Rd. between Project
Driveway 2 and Poway Rd. 29,535 88 184 393 71.2 0.1
Community Rd. between Poway Rd.
and Metate Ln. 28,437 86 179 383 71.1 0.1
Community Rd. south of Metate Ln. 26,030 81 169 362 70.7 0.1
Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl. 13,127 < 50 90 192 67.5 0.1
Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 5 14,324 < 50 97 204 66.9 0.1
Midland Rd. between Project Driveway
5 and Poway Rd. 14,324 < 50 97 204 66.9 0.1
Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd. 3,845 < 50 < 50 88 61.2 0.0
Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr. 39,362 105 222 476 72.5 0.1
Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and
Community Rd. 38,850 104 220 472 72.4 0.0
Poway Rd. between Community Rd.
and Midland Rd. 35,571 99 208 445 72.0 0.0
Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and
Garden Rd. 30,935 90 189 405 71.4 0.0
Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd. 13,247 < 50 109 231 67.8 0.1
Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd.
and Project Driveway 3 6,335 < 50 56 119 64.3 0.5
Hilleary Pl. between Project Driveway
3 and Midland Rd. 6,428 < 50 57 120 64.4 0.5
Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd. 320 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.4 0.0
Hilleary Pl. (north) 173 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.0 0.3
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010.
Note: For areas within 50 ft of the roadway centerline, traffic noise was evaluated manually.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = feet/foot
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 31
Table P: 2030 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to
70 CNEL (ft)
Centerline to
65 CNEL (ft)
Centerline to
60 CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Community Rd. north of Olive
Grove Dr. 24,601 79 163 348 70.4
Community Rd. between Olive
Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl. 25,769 81 168 359 70.6
Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl.
and Project Driveway 2 26,813 83 172 369 70.8
Community Rd. between Project
Driveway 2 and Poway Rd. 28,672 86 180 385 71.1
Community Rd. between Poway Rd.
and Metate Ln. 28,130 85 178 381 71.0
Community Rd. south of Metate Ln. 25,761 81 168 359 70.6
Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl. 12,955 < 50 89 191 67.4
Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl.
and Project Driveway 5 13,921 < 50 96 201 66.8
Midland Rd. between Project
Driveway 5 and Poway Rd. 13,921 < 50 96 201 66.8
Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd. 3,940 < 50 < 50 89 61.3
Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr. 39,075 105 221 474 72.4
Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and
Community Rd. 38,505 104 219 469 72.4
Poway Rd. between Community Rd.
and Midland Rd. 35,494 99 207 444 72.0
Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and
Garden Rd. 30,609 90 188 403 71.4
Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd. 13,189 < 50 109 231 67.7
Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd.
and Project Driveway 3 5,653 < 50 52 110 63.8
Hilleary Pl. between Project
Driveway 3 and Midland Rd. 5,756 < 50 53 111 63.9
Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd. 330 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.5
Hilleary Pl. (north) 161 < 50 < 50 < 50 47.7
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010.
Note: For areas within 50 ft of the roadway centerline, traffic noise was evaluated manually.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = feet/foot
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 32
Table Q: 2030 With Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 CNEL
(ft)
Centerline
to 60
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr. 24,870 79 164 351 70.5 0.1
Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr.
and Hilleary Pl. 26,095 81 169 362 70.7 0.1
Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 2 27,425 84 175 374 70.9 0.1
Community Rd. between Project
Driveway 2 and Poway Rd. 29,535 88 184 393 71.2 0.1
Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and
Metate Ln. 28,437 86 179 383 71.1 0.1
Community Rd. south of Metate Ln. 26,030 81 169 362 70.7 0.1
Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl. 13,127 < 50 90 192 67.5 0.1
Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and
Project Driveway 5 14,324 < 50 97 204 66.9 0.1
Midland Rd. between Project Driveway 5
and Poway Rd. 14,324 < 50 97 204 66.9 0.1
Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd. 3,940 < 50 < 50 89 61.3 0.0
Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr. 39,362 105 222 476 72.5 0.1
Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and
Community Rd. 38,850 104 220 472 72.4 0.0
Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and
Midland Rd. 35,571 99 208 445 72.0 0.0
Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and
Garden Rd. 30,935 90 189 405 71.4 0.0
Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd. 13,247 < 50 109 231 67.8 0.1
Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and
Project Driveway 3 6,335 < 50 56 119 64.3 0.5
Hilleary Pl. between Project Driveway 3
and Midland Rd. 6,428 < 50 57 120 64.4 0.5
Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd. 330 < 50 < 50 < 50 51.5 0.0
Hilleary Pl. (north) 173 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.0 0.3
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., November 2010.
Note: For areas within 50 ft of the roadway centerline, traffic noise was evaluated manually.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = feet/foot
Other on-site, noise-producing activities may include parking, slow-moving traffic, and pedestrian
activity within the parking lot. Most noise-producing events are intermittent in nature. Due to the
characteristics of these noise events, it is not feasible to plot a noise contour that can represent a
certain noise level over a specific time period. The combination of the intermittent activities, even
over the course of a day, does not amount to a significant amount of time.
Most of the residential areas to the east, west, and north of the project site are zoned RA. A portion of
the land to the northwest is zoned RS-2 (occupied by a church), and another portion is zoned RC
(occupied by condominiums). These sensitive uses could potentially be affected by the long-term
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 33
operational noise associated with the project. Table I lists the arithmetic mean noise thresholds for the
residential uses to the east and north of the project site that are zoned RA or RC and for uses to the
south zoned TC.
Delivery and Loading Dock Activities
The proposed project includes the reconfiguration of the existing loading dock and the addition of a
second loading dock. Whereas the current loading dock area faces east towards residences without
any substantial noise barrier, the proposed project would have two loading docks facing towards each
other in a north-south configuration. Although the expansion of the store will move loading docks
approximately 70 ft closer to the existing residences on Midland Road, in addition to the
reconfiguration of the loading dock bays, the existing rear entrance to the delivery area on Midland
Road will be closed off with an 8 ft wall, and screen walls will be constructed adjacent to each of the
loading dock areas.
Based on the project description, it is anticipated that, after the expansion is completed, there would
be a total of 16 truck deliveries over a typical 24-hour period, including existing truck trips, with the
following distribution mix:
• Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.): nine nonrefrigerated trucks
• Evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.): one refrigerated truck
• Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next day): one refrigerated and five nonrefrigerated trucks
Noise sources associated with the typical operation of loading docks include maneuvering, loading
and unloading of delivery trucks (large and small), refrigeration equipment, engine idling, and
airbrake. Noise associated with the loading dock activities would be of short-term duration and would
occur only when delivery trucks are at the loading dock areas. The applicant has provided operational
information that truck delivery activities last an average of 3 to 6 minutes per truck, depending on
whether or not the loading bay is empty at the time of arrival. Truck delivery activity at the existing
store observed as part of this study did fall within this time frame, requiring just over 4 minutes for
the truck to complete its delivery and leave the site. In the event idling does occur, idling time would
be limited to no more than 5 minutes under California State law. (Cal Code Regs. 2485) To this end,
Walmart delivery trucks are equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically turns off
the engine after 5 minutes of idling.
In order to analyze a worst-case scenario for noise impacts related to delivery, it is assumed that there
would be a maximum of three delivery trucks coming to the loading docks and completing delivery
activities within a 1-hour period for both daytime and nighttime hours, including one refrigerated
truck, which would require the maximum average delivery time of 6 minutes per delivery.
Walmart delivery trucks would enter the site, maneuver to the loading area, unhitch the trailer, pick
up an empty trailer, and leave the site. In addition to the 3 to 6 minutes it typically takes the truck to
maneuver, unhitch, and hitch,1 Walmart is required by State law to restricting the idling of delivery
trucks on the project site to a maximum of 5 minutes. Because noise level associated with idling is
1 This noise analysis assumes a maximum average delivery time of 6 minutes per delivery.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 34
generally 6 to 8 dBA lower than noise associated with maneuvering and hitching/unhitching, it is
considered reasonable and conservative to assume that 6 minutes of total sound energy, collected
from truck maneuvering, idling, and hitching/unhitching during LSA’s field noise measurement of
truck delivery noise, would represent the total sound energy for the entire truck delivery trip.
Therefore, the Noise Impact Analysis was based on the total sound energy collected during the entire
truck delivery trip on site and assign the total energy to a 6-minute time period for each truck’s onsite
(maneuvering, idling, and hitching/unhitching) operation. The following analysis uses the noise level
measured for the entire truck delivery trip and assumes that noise level would continue and last for 6
minutes.
The proposed expansion project would result in the relocation of the existing loading area on the east
side of the building farther east, thereby reducing the distance from the loading area to the existing
residences to the east. Currently, the loading docks are approximately 335 ft from the existing
residences to the east. After the expansion, the new loading area would be moved to approximately
265 ft from existing residences to the east.
The existing berm/wall combination barrier (11 to 15 ft high from top to bottom measured from the
Walmart property side and 8 ft high from top to bottom measured from the street side) will remain
and will be extended to cover the entire eastern project boundary (i.e., the existing gap
accommodating the driveway will be closed). The wall will also be extended to wrap around the
northeastern corner and extend to the west, at least 10 ft beyond the edge of the expansion structure.
In addition, with the expansion, the loading area would be at an elevation 6 ft below the existing
ground surface. This vertical change would make the barrier height behind the store effectively 17 ft
above the loading area.
Residences to the East along Midland Road. Based on the proposed site plan, the shortest distance
from the project’s loading area on the east side of the building, after the expansion, to the centerline
of Midland Road is approximately 160 ft, which would result in a noise reduction of 10 dBA for the
delivery activities. The distance between the loading dock and the existing residences east of Midland
Road after project implementation would be approximately 265 ft and would result in a 14 dBA noise
attenuation for the delivery activities. In addition, the proposed berm/wall combination barrier would
further reduce the on-site noise by a minimum of 9 dBA at the centerline of Midland Road.
The LSA noise measurements conducted on July 15 and 16 (refer to Table F) showed that a delivery
truck generated a noise level of 57.6 dBA Leq at 150 ft, or 67 dBA Leq at 50 ft. Noise levels from
refrigerated trucks would be 3 dBA higher. Table R provides the projected truck delivery and delivery
noise levels at the centerline of Midland Road. As shown in Table R, at 160 ft (i.e., the centerline of
Midland Road) with the berm/wall, noise levels would be reduced to 48 dBA Leq. Noise levels from
refrigerated trucks would be 3 dBA higher. As shown in Table R, the loading and unloading noise
would be below the City’s arithmetic mean thresholds at the centerline of Midland Road with the
berm/wall. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NO
I
S
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
1
WA
L
M
A
R
T
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
O
W
A
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
P:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
f
o
-
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
N
o
i
s
e
\
N
o
i
s
e
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
1
(
R
L
S
O
)
.
d
o
c
«
0
4
/
2
2
/
1
1
»
35
Ta
b
l
e
R
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
T
r
u
c
k
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
M
i
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Tr
u
c
k
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(W
i
t
h
8
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
a
t
1
6
0
f
t
)
Ar
i
t
h
m
e
t
i
c
M
e
a
n
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
a
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
Mi
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
,
dB
A
L
eq
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
dB
A
(
W
i
t
h
8
f
t
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
Ex
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
?
(W
i
t
h
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
(Y
e
s
/
N
o
)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
8
5
7
.
5
43
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
51
5
2
.
5
41
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
8
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
51
47
.
5
44
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
o
v
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 36
As discussed above, the ambient noise levels were measured at the apartments east of Midland Road.
A 3 dBA adjustment was added to the measured noise levels for the ambient noise levels
representative of the centerline of the road to account for higher traffic noise contribution. Assuming
that the truck maneuvering, idling, and hitching/unhitching noise continues for 6 minutes during each
of the three truck deliveries over a 1-hour period and is added to the ambient noise over the entire
1-hour period, the resulting 1-hour equivalent noise levels at the centerline of Midland Road for the
daytime, evening, and nighttime hours are summarized in Table S. As shown in Table S, with the
berm/wall protection, project noise would not have any measurable increase to the ambient noise
levels during the daytime and evening periods, and would not substantially contribute (defined as 3
dBA or more) to an increase in the existing ambient noise level during the nighttime period.
Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Residences to the North along Hilleary Place. Based on the proposed site plan, the shortest distance
from the project’s main loading area on the east side of the building, after the expansion, to the
centerline of Hilleary Place would be 250 ft. The distance between the loading area and the centerline
of Hilleary Place provides a 14 dBA reduction in noise levels. Residences to the north are more than
300 ft from the project’s loading area. The distance between the loading area and the residences
provides a 16 dBA reduction in noise levels.
In addition to distance attenuation, the centerline of Hilleary Place and residential uses north of
Hilleary Place would be subject to noise attenuation occurring as a result of:
• Shielding from the existing and expanded portion of the Walmart building at the northeast corner;
• The 2 ft vertical grade difference between the loading dock and street level; and
• The proposed wall that would extended 6 ft above street level and be located along the
northeastern project boundary, extending west at least 10 ft past the edge of the building
extension.
The intervening building and vertical difference in elevation between the loading area and the
centerline of Hilleary Place, and the loading area and residences to the north, provides at least 15 dBA
in noise attenuation. The proposed berm/wall combination barrier would further reduce the on-site
noise by a minimum of 6 dBA at the centerline of Hilleary Place. The total noise reduction from
distance attenuation, building shielding, grade differences, and the proposed wall at the centerline of
Hilleary Place would be 35 dBA. The total noise reduction from distance attenuation, building
shielding, grade differences, and the proposed wall at residential uses to the north would be 37 dBA.
Table T provides the projected truck delivery noise levels at the centerline of Hilleary Place given the
noise attenuation effects described above. As shown in Table T, the truck’s delivery (maneuvering,
idling, and hitching/unhitching) noise would be below the City’s arithmetic mean thresholds at the
centerline of Hilleary Place with the berm/wall. Therefore, project impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The LSA noise measurements conducted on July 15 and 16 (refer to Table F) showed that delivery
trucks generated a noise level of 57.6 dBA Leq at 150 ft, or 67 dBA Leq at 50 ft. Assuming that the
truck delivery (maneuvering, idling, hitching/unhitching) noise continues for approximately
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NO
I
S
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
1
WA
L
M
A
R
T
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
O
W
A
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
P:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
f
o
-
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
N
o
i
s
e
\
N
o
i
s
e
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
1
(
R
L
S
O
)
.
d
o
c
«
0
4
/
2
2
/
1
1
»
37
Ta
b
l
e
S
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
(
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
+
A
m
b
i
e
n
t
)
No
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
M
i
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Ti
m
e
Pe
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
No
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
Leq
(W
i
t
h
8
f
t
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
a
t
16
0
f
t
)
Am
b
i
e
n
t
No
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
-
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
dB
A
(
W
i
t
h
8
f
t
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
Ex
c
e
e
d
s
A
m
b
i
e
n
t
?
(W
i
t
h
B
e
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
(Y
e
s
/
N
o
)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
8
6
4
.
2
6
4
.
2
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
51
6
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
8
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
51
54
.
8
5
5
.
1
N
o
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
1
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
b
e
i
n
g
0
.
3
d
B
A
,
i
t
i
s
s
m
a
l
l
e
n
o
u
g
h
t
o
b
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
g
i
n
o
f
e
r
r
o
r
fo
r
t
h
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
A
l
s
o
,
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
l
es
s
t
h
a
n
3
.
0
d
B
A
a
r
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
e
r
n
i
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
h
u
m
a
n
e
a
r
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
o
v
er
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
Ta
b
l
e
T
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
T
r
u
c
k
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
N
o
is
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
H
i
l
l
e
a
r
y
P
l
a
c
e
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(W
i
t
h
6
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
at
2
5
0
f
t
)
Ar
i
t
h
m
e
t
i
c
M
e
a
n
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
a
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
Hi
l
l
e
a
r
y
P
l
a
c
e
,
dB
A
L
eq
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
d
B
A
(W
i
t
h
6
f
t
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
Exceeds City Thresholds?
(W
i
t
h
B
e
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
(Yes/No)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
3
2
5
7
.
5
27
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
35
5
2
.
5
25
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
3
2
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
35
47
.
5
28
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
ov
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 38
6 minutes during each of the three truck deliveries over a 1-hour period and is mixed with ambient
noise the rest of the time without the truck delivery, the resulting 1-hour equivalent noise levels at the
centerline of Hilleary Place for the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours are summarized in Table U.
As shown in Table U, project noise would not contribute to any measurable increase in the existing
ambient noise levels during the daytime and evening periods and would not contribute to any
significant increase (defined as 3 dBA or more) to the ambient noise level during the nighttime
period. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
The remainder of the existing residences to the north of the project site and the church to the
northwest would receive noise attenuation from the existing and expanded Walmart building so that
on-site truck delivery would be reduced to below the ambient noise levels in that area. No noise
impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required for the on-site delivery noise.
Residences to the West along Community Road. Based on the proposed site plan, the shortest
distance from the loading area on the east side of the building to the centerline of Community Road is
950 ft, which would provide 25.6 dBA in noise attenuation. In addition, the existing and expanded
Walmart building would function as a noise barrier between the loading area on the eastern edge of
the building and Community Road and the residential area to the east, providing at least 20 dBA more
noise reduction.
Therefore, a total of 45.6 dBA noise reduction would be provided for noise associated with on-site
delivery activity for Community Road to the west.
Noise associated with truck delivery (maneuvering, idling, and hitching/unhitching) activities would
be reduced to below 29 dBA Lmax, or 24 dBA Leq, at the centerline of Community Road. This is well
below the City’s arithmetic mean threshold as shown in Table I. Project impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Trash Compactor Noise
The project proposes two trash compactors on the east side of the building, located just outside of the
north and south loading docks (one at each loading dock). Based on the site plan provided, the
compactors would be enclosed with a screen wall on the south (for the north trash compactor) and on
the north (for the south trash compactor) and shielded by solid walls on the east side, blocking the
main transmission path to the nearest residences towards the east, approximately 250 ft from these
trash compactors.
Based on noise measurements conducted at a WinCo Foods store in Vancouver, Washington (TW
Environmental, Inc. 2005), noise associated with trash or garbage compactors was measured to be
45.9 dBA Leq at 200 ft, or approximately 58 dBA Leq at 50 ft.
Residences to the East along Midland Road. These compactors would be approximately 150 ft
from the centerline of Midland Road, which would provide approximately 10 dBA in noise
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NO
I
S
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
1
WA
L
M
A
R
T
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
O
W
A
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
P:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
f
o
-
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
N
o
i
s
e
\
N
o
i
s
e
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
1
(
R
L
S
O
)
.
d
o
c
«
0
4
/
2
2
/
1
1
»
39
Ta
b
l
e
U
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
(
P
ro
j
e
c
t
+
A
m
b
i
e
n
t
)
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
H
i
l
l
e
a
r
y
P
l
a
c
e
Ti
m
e
Pe
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
No
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
Leq
(W
i
t
h
6
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
a
t
2
5
0
f
t
)
Am
b
i
e
n
t
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(1
-
h
o
u
r
)
Ar
i
t
h
m
e
t
i
c
Me
a
n
T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
at
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
o
f
Mi
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
,
dB
A
L
eq
(
1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
d
B
A
(W
i
t
h
6
f
t
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
Exceeds Ambient?
(W
i
t
h
B
e
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
(Yes/No)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
32
6
2
.
8
5
7
.
5
6
2
.
8
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
tr
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
35
5
8
.
7
5
2
.
5
5
8
.
7
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
32
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
tr
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
35
51
.
0
4
7
.
5
5
1
.
0
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
ov
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 40
attenuation when compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft. The berm/wall combination along the
project’s eastern boundary would provide 8 to 10 dBA in noise attenuation for the trash compactor
noise. Combined together, the noise attenuation provided by the berm/wall combination (8 to 10
dBA) and the distance attenuation (10 dBA) to the centerline of Midland Road would reduce the
noise associated with the trash/garbage compactor to 40 dBA Leq or lower. This range of noise levels
is lower than the City’s noise standards at the centerline of the road (57.5 dBA Leq1h, 52.5 dBA Leq1h,
and 47.5 dBA Leq1h for the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours, respectively). In addition, the trash
compactor noise would be shielded by the proposed solid wall along the east side of these trash
compactors. No significant noise impacts from the trash/garbage compactor would occur for the
residences located to the east along Midland Road. No mitigation measures are required.
Residences to the North along Hilleary Place. The south compactor would be open to the north and
would be approximately 520 ft from the centerline of Hilleary Place, which would provide
approximately 20 dBA in noise attenuation when compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft. The
berm/wall combination along the project’s north/northeastern boundary would provide 8 dBA in
noise attenuation for the trash compactor noise. Combined together, the noise attenuation provided by
the berm/wall combination (8 dBA) and the distance attenuation (20 dBA) to the centerline of
Hilleary Place, would reduce the noise associated with the trash/garbage compactor to 30 dBA Leq or
lower. This range of noise levels is lower than the City’s noise standards (57.5 dBA Leq1h, 52.5 dBA
Leq1h, and 47.5 dBA Leq1h for the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours, respectively). The north
compactor would be completely shielded from the residences to the north by the proposed solid wall
and building. No significant noise impacts from the trash/garbage compactor would occur for the
residences located to the north along Hilleary Place. No mitigation measures are required.
Residences to the West along Community Road. Both trash/garbage compactors would be
completely shielded by the building itself from the residences to the west. No significant noise
impacts from the trash/garbage compactor would occur for the residences located to the west along
Community Road. No mitigation measures are required.
Bale and Pallet Recycling Area Noise
The project proposes two bale and pallet recycling areas on the east side of the building, located just
east of the proposed driveway near the north and south loading docks (one at each loading dock).
These two recycling areas would be approximately 12 ft wide and 45 ft long, surrounded by solid
walls on the north, east, and south sides, and by solid doors on the west side. Access to these
recycling areas are anticipated to be with a forklift that transports compacted bales and pallets from
the compactors to these recycling areas. Based on LSA’s past noise measurements with forklift
operations, this activity would generate approximately 65 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft, with a
sustained noise level of 58 dBA Leq.
Residences to the East along Midland Road. The proposed Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas are
approximately 125 ft to the centerline of Midland Road, which would provide a noise attenuation of 8
dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft. The berm/wall combination along the project’s
eastern boundary would provide 8 to 10 dBA in noise attenuation for the forklift noise. Combined
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 41
together, the noise attenuation provided by the berm/wall combination (8 to 10 dBA) and the distance
attenuation (8 dBA) to the centerline of Midland Road would reduce the noise associated with the
forklift to 42 dBA Leq or lower. This range of noise levels is lower than the City’s noise standards at
the centerline of the road (57.5 dBA Leq1h, 52.5 dBA Leq1h, and 47.5 dBA Leq1h for the daytime,
evening, and nighttime hours, respectively). In addition, the Recycling Areas would be shielded by
the solid wall along the north, east, and south sides. No significant noise impacts from the Bale and
Pallets Recycling Areas would occur for the residences located to the east along Midland Road. No
mitigation measures are required.
Residences to the North along Hilleary Place. The proposed Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas are
approximately 230 ft and 560 ft, respectively, to the centerline of Hilleary Place, which would
provide a noise attenuation of 13 dBA and 21 dBA, respectively, compared to the noise level
measured at 50 ft. The berm/wall combination along the project’s north/northeastern boundary would
provide 8 dBA in noise attenuation for the forklift noise. Combined together, the noise attenuation
provided by the berm/wall combination (8 dBA) and the distance attenuation (13 and 21 dBA) to the
centerline of Hilleary Place would reduce the combined noise associated with the forklift operations
at both recycling areas to 38 dBA Leq or lower. This range of noise levels is lower than the City’s
noise standards at the centerline of the road (57.5 dBA Leq1h, 52.5 dBA Leq1h, and 47.5 dBA Leq1h for
the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours, respectively). In addition, the Recycling Areas would be
shielded by the solid wall along the north, east, and south sides. No significant noise impacts from the
Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas would occur for the residences located to the north along Hilleary
Place. No mitigation measures are required.
Residences to the West along Community Road. Both Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas would be
completely shielded by the building itself from the residences to the west. No significant noise
impacts from the Recycling Areas would occur for the residences located to the west along
Community Road. No mitigation measures are required.
Supplemental Methodology Analysis
The noise effects of the project were evaluated using a second methodology for information purposes
only. If the sound level limits in Table H are applied to the residentially zoned property, the
applicable limits for the 1-hour average sound for these sensitive uses would be 55 dBA Leq from 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 50 dBA from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the
next day. For the area zoned TC, the 1-hour average noise limits would be 5 dBA higher than those
for the RA- and RC-zoned land uses described above. The 1-hour average noise limits for land zoned
RS-2 would be 40 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next day and 50 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. These sound level limits are not intended to be used as thresholds for the analysis of
potential noise impacts under CEQA, but are provided for information purposes only.
Supplemental Truck Delivery and Delivery Noise Impact Analysis.
Residences to the East along Midland Road. If noise from the proposed project was not
evaluated at the centerline of the street, but rather entirely on the residentially zoned property, the
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 42
applicable limits for the 1-hour average sound for these sensitive uses would be 55 dBA Leq from
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 50 dBA from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. the next day. At a distance of 265 ft (i.e., the residential area to the east of the project
site) with the berm/wall, noise from truck delivery (maneuvering, idling, and hitching/unhitching)
activities occurring on the project site would be attenuated to 45 dBA Leq. Noise levels from
refrigerated trucks would be 3 dBA higher. For information purposes only, the resulting 1-hour
equivalent noise levels at the apartments east of Midland Road are summarized in Table V. As
shown in Table V, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the sound limits
governing the residential uses. As shown in Table W, the proposed project would not result in a
cumulative (project + ambient) impact. The proposed project would not substantially contribute
(defined as 3 dBA or more) to an increase in the existing ambient noise level at the residential
uses.
Residences to the North along Hilleary Place. If noise from the proposed project was not
evaluated at the centerline of the street, but rather entirely on the residentially zoned property, the
applicable limits for the 1-hour average sound for these sensitive uses would be 55 dBA Leq from
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 50 dBA from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. the next day. At a distance of 300 ft (i.e., the residential area to the north of the project
site), with the berm/wall, noise from truck delivery activities occurring on the project site would
be attenuated to 30 dBA Leq. Noise levels from refrigerated trucks would be 3 dBA higher. For
information purposes only, the resulting 1-hour equivalent noise levels at the apartments east of
Midland Road are summarized in Table X. As shown in Table X, the proposed project would not
result in an exceedance of the sound limits governing the residential uses north of Hilleary Place.
As shown in Table Y, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative (project + ambient)
impact. The proposed project would not substantially contribute (defined as 3 dBA or more) to an
increase in the existing ambient noise level at the residential uses north of Hilleary Place.
Residences to the West along Community Road. The loading area on the Walmart project site
would be at least 1,000 ft from the nearest residences to the west (across Community Road). This
distance would provide 26 dBA in noise attenuation. In addition, the existing and expanded
Walmart building would function as a noise barrier between the loading area on the eastern edge
of the building and Community Road and the residential area to the east, providing at least
20 dBA more noise reduction.
Therefore, a 46 dBA noise reduction would be provided for noise associated with on-site truck
delivery (maneuvering, idling, and hitching/unhitching) activity for existing residences to the
west.
The hourly average noise level of 24 dBA Leq would be much lower than the City’s noise
standards for residential uses. Therefore, noise associated with onsite truck delivery activities
would not result in an exceedance of the sound limits governing residential uses.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NO
I
S
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
1
WA
L
M
A
R
T
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
O
W
A
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
P:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
f
o
-
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
N
o
i
s
e
\
N
o
i
s
e
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
1
(
R
L
S
O
)
.
d
o
c
«
0
4
/
2
2
/
1
1
»
43
Ta
b
l
e
V
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
T
r
u
c
k
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
E
a
s
t
o
f
M
i
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Tr
u
c
k
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(W
i
t
h
8
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
a
t
2
6
5
f
t
)
So
u
n
d
L
e
v
e
l
Li
m
i
t
s
a
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
dB
A
(
W
i
t
h
8
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
)
Ex
c
e
e
d
s
So
u
n
d
Le
v
e
l
Li
m
i
t
s
?
(W
i
t
h
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
(Y
e
s
/
N
o
)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
5
5
5
40
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
4
8
5
0
38
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
5
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
4
8
45
41
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
ov
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
00
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
me
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
Ta
b
l
e
W
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
(
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
+
A
m
b
i
e
n
t)
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
M
i
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Tr
u
c
k
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(W
i
t
h
8
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
a
t
2
6
5
f
t
)
Am
b
i
e
n
t
No
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
H
o
u
r
)
So
u
n
d
L
e
v
e
l
Li
m
i
t
s
a
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
dB
A
(
W
i
t
h
8
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
)
Exceeds Ambient? (With Berm/Wall) (Yes/No)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
5
6
1
.
2
5
5
61
.
2
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
4
8
5
7
.
4
5
0
57
.
4
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
4
5
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
4
8
51
.
8
4
5
52
.
1
N
o
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
1
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
b
e
i
n
g
0
.
3
d
B
A
,
i
t
i
s
s
m
al
l
e
n
o
u
g
h
t
o
b
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
g
i
n
o
f
e
r
r
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
e
r
n
i
bl
e
t
o
t
h
e
h
u
m
a
n
e
a
r
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
o
v
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NO
I
S
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
MA
R
C
H
2
0
1
1
WA
L
M
A
R
T
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
O
W
A
Y
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
P:
\
P
W
Y
0
9
0
1
\
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
f
o
-
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
N
o
i
s
e
\
N
o
i
s
e
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
1
(
R
L
S
O
)
.
d
o
c
«
0
4
/
2
2
/
1
1
»
44
Ta
b
l
e
X
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
T
r
u
c
k
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
ve
l
s
a
t
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
C
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
H
i
l
l
e
a
r
y
Pl
a
c
e
/
M
i
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(W
i
t
h
6
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
at
3
0
0
f
t
)
So
u
n
d
L
e
v
e
l
Li
m
i
t
s
a
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
d
B
A
(W
i
t
h
6
f
t
Be
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
Ex
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
?
(W
i
t
h
B
e
r
m
/
W
a
l
l
)
(Y
e
s
/
N
o
)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
3
0
5
5
2
5
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
33
5
0
2
3
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
3
0
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
mi
n
u
t
e
s
33
45
2
6
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
ov
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m.
Ta
b
l
e
Y
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
(
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
+
A
m
b
i
e
n
t
)
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
C
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
H
i
l
l
e
a
r
y
P
l
a
c
e
/
Mi
d
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
Ti
m
e
Pe
r
i
o
d
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Tr
u
c
k
N
o
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
d
B
A
L
eq
(w
i
t
h
6
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
a
t
3
0
0
f
t
)
Am
b
i
e
n
t
No
i
s
e
Le
v
e
l
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
-
h
o
u
r
)
So
u
n
d
L
e
v
e
l
Li
m
i
t
s
a
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
,
dB
A
L
eq
(1
h
o
u
r
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
1-
h
o
u
r
L
eq
dB
A
(
W
i
t
h
6
f
t
B
e
r
m
/
Wa
l
l
)
Exceeds Ambient? (With Berm/Wall) (Yes/No)
Da
y
t
i
m
e
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
3
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
3
0
5
9
.
8
5
5
5
9
.
8
N
o
Ev
e
n
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
3
3
5
5
.
7
5
0
5
5
.
7
N
o
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
2
t
i
m
e
s
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
e
a
c
h
3
0
Ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
Tr
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
:
1
r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
,
6
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
3
3
48
.
0
4
5
4
8
.
0
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
.
dB
A
=
A
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
f
t
=
f
e
e
t
/
f
o
o
t
L
eq
=
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
s
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
o
v
e
r
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
Da
y
t
i
m
e
=
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
=
7
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
=
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
t
o
7
:
0
0
a
.
m.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 45
Supplemental Trash/Garbage Compactors Noise Impact Analysis.
Residences to the East along Midland Road. These compactors would be approximately 250 ft
from the nearest residences to the east along Midland Road, which would provide approximately
14 dBA in noise attenuation when compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft. The berm/wall
combination along the project’s eastern boundary would provide 8 to 10 dBA in noise attenuation
for the trash compactor noise. Combined together, the noise attenuation provided by the
berm/wall combination (8 to 10 dBA) and the distance attenuation (14 dBA) to the nearest
residences to the east would reduce the noise associated with the trash/garbage compactor to 36
dBA Leq or lower. This range of noise levels is lower than the City’s noise standards at the
residences (55 dBA Leq1h, 50 dBA Leq1h, and 45 dBA Leq1h for the daytime, evening, and nighttime
hours, respectively). In addition, the trash compactor noise would be shielded by the solid wall
along the east side of the compactors. No significant noise impacts from the trash/garbage
compactor would occur for the residences located to the east along Midland Road. No mitigation
measures are required.
Residences to the North along Hilleary Place. The south compactors would be approximately
570 ft from the nearest residences to the north along Hilleary Place, which would provide
approximately 21 dBA in noise attenuation when compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft.
The berm/wall combination along the project’s north/northeastern boundary would provide 8
dBA in noise attenuation for the trash compactor noise. Combined together, the noise attenuation
provided by the berm/wall combination (8 dBA) and the distance attenuation (21 dBA) to the
nearest residences to the east would reduce the noise associated with the trash/garbage compactor
to 29 dBA Leq or lower. This range of noise levels is lower than the City’s noise standards at the
residences (55 dBA Leq1h, 50 dBA Leq1h, and 45 dBA Leq1h for the daytime, evening, and nighttime
hours, respectively). The north compactor would be completely shielded by the solid wall and
building from the residences to the north. No significant noise impacts from the trash/garbage
compactor would occur for the residences located to the north along Hilleary Place. No mitigation
measures are required.
Residences to the West along Community Road. Both trash/garbage compactors would be
completely shielded by the building itself from the residences to the west. No significant noise
impacts from the trash/garbage compactor would occur for the residences located to the west
along Community Road. No mitigation measures are required.
Supplemental Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas Noise Impact Analysis.
Residences to the East along Midland Road. The proposed Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas
are approximately 230 ft from the residences east of Midland Road, which would provide a noise
attenuation of 13 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft. The berm/wall combination
along the project’s eastern boundary would provide 8 to 10 dBA in noise attenuation for the
forklift noise. Combined together, the noise attenuation provided by the berm/wall combination
(8 to 10 dBA) and the distance attenuation (13 dBA) to the residences east of Midland Road
would reduce the noise associated with the forklift to 37 dBA Leq or lower. This range of noise
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 46
levels is lower than the City’s noise standards for the residences (55 dBA Leq1h, 50 dBA Leq1h, and
45 dBA Leq1h for the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours, respectively). In addition, the
Recycling Areas would be shielded by the solid wall along the north, east, and south sides. No
significant noise impacts from the Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas would occur for the
residences located to the east along Midland Road. No mitigation measures are required.
Residences to the North along Hilleary Place. The proposed Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas
are approximately 280 ft and 610 ft, respectively, from the nearest residences north of Hilleary
Place, which would provide a noise attenuation of 15 dBA and 22 dBA, respectively, compared to
the noise level measured at 50 ft. The berm/wall combination along the project’s north/
northeastern boundary would provide 8 dBA in noise attenuation for the forklift noise. Combined
together, the noise attenuation, provided by the berm/wall combination (8 dBA) and the distance
attenuation (15 and 22 dBA) to the residences to the north along Hilleary Place, would reduce the
combined noise associated with the forklift operations at both recycling areas to 37 dBA Leq or
lower. This range of noise levels is lower than the City’s noise standards for the residences (55
dBA Leq1h, 50 dBA Leq1h, and 45 dBA Leq1h for the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours,
respectively). In addition, the Recycling Areas would be shielded by the solid wall along the
north, east, and south sides. No significant noise impacts from the Bale and Pallets Recycling
Areas would occur for the residences located to the north along Hilleary Place. No mitigation
measures are required.
Residences to the West along Community Road. Both Bale and Pallets Recycling Areas would
be completely shielded by the building itself from the residences to the west. No significant noise
impacts from the recycling areas would occur for the residences located to the west along
Community Road. No mitigation measures are required.
Parking Lot Activity
Representative parking activities (such as doors slamming, engine startup, and slow-moving vehicles)
would generate approximately 60–70 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. This level of noise is lower than that of the
truck delivery activities and would last up to several seconds for each occurrence.
The proposed project would generate a greater number of traffic trips to the project site per day and
during the peak hours than occur under the existing conditions. The project’s traffic generation is
described in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project. The parking area, which is
located on the western portion of the project site and not part of the expansion construction area,
would generally remain the same after construction of the project. Although the frequency of the
customer vehicle trips in the parking lot would increase, the intensity of the noise level generated by
the parking lot activity during each occurrence would remain similar to the existing conditions. The
nearest residences are located approximately 90 ft to the north of the project’s parking area. With the
noise attenuation effect from the distance divergence, noise generated from the parking lot would be
attenuated to below 65 dBA Lmax intermittently. Traffic on Hilleary Place generates comparable or
higher maximum noise levels at these residences and would mask most of the parking lot activity
noise. Parking lot activity noise associated with individual vehicles would remain similar to existing
conditions, even with the potential for 24-hour operations and the additional number of vehicles in the
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 47
parking lot after implementation of the project. With the ambient noise generated by the traffic on
Hilleary Place projected to be between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL in this area, the noise levels from
parking lot activities would be below the traffic noise levels and would not result in a significant
noise impact on residences to the north of the project site. No mitigation is required.
The residences to the west, across Community Road, are located approximately 120 ft from the
project’s western areas for parking use. With the noise attenuation effect from the distance
divergence, noise in the parking lot would be attenuated to below 62 dBA Lmax intermittently. Traffic
on Community Road generates comparable or higher maximum noise levels and would mask most of
the parking lot activity noise, which would remain similar to the existing conditions. With the
ambient noise generated by traffic on Community Road projected to be between 65 and 70 dBA
CNEL in this area, noise from parking lot activities would be below the traffic noise and would not
result in a significant noise impact on residences to the west of the project site. No mitigation is
required.
Noise associated with parking lot activity on the project’s western portion would be reduced by
distance attenuation and by the expanded Walmart building shielding effects to below 45 dBA. No
significant noise impacts to residences to the east of the project site would result.
Construction Vibration
The Geotechnical Investigation, Wal-Mart Poway Expansion prepared for this project (Geocon, Inc.,
August 7, 2007) states that:
“Previously placed fill exists throughout the areas of the proposed Wal-Mart
expansion to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 10 ft below existing grade. The
previously placed fill encountered was likely derived from excavations within older
alluvium during previous site development. The previously placed fill consists of
loose to dense, damp to moist, dark olive brown to dark brown to reddish brown, silty
to clayey sand and firm to stiff, sandy clay.”
“The Quaternary-age older alluvium underlies the previously placed fill and has a
thickness of approximately 30 ft. The older alluvium consists of medium dense to
very dense, moist, reddish brown mottled with grayish brown and brown to dark
brown, clayey sand and firm to hard sandy clay.”
“We encountered Cretaceous-age granite rock in borings B-3 and B-4 at depths of
approximately 36 and 35 ft, respectively. The granite rock is weak, completely
weathered, tan mottled with black and brown, and excavates as s silty, fine to coarse
sand.”
Because rubber tires on trucks isolate vibrations, trucks on nearby roadways would not generate high
vibration levels. However, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment would
generate groundborne vibration. Based on the California Department of Transportation’s
Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibration Technical Advisory (January 23, 2004), the vibration
level at 50 ft is approximately 6 VdB lower than the vibration level at 25 ft. The vibration level at
100 ft from the source is more than 6 VdB lower than the vibration level at 50 ft, or more than
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 48
12 VdB lower than the vibration level at 25 ft. Furthermore, based on the FTA Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006), large bulldozers generate
approximately 87 VdB at a distance of 25 ft, and loaded trucks generate approximately 86 VdB at
25 ft. At a distance of 90 ft from the nearest residences north of Hilleary Place, groundborne vibration
associated with on-site construction activities would be reduced by 11 VdB or more when compared
to the vibration level measured at 25 ft. The vibration level of large bulldozers and loaded trucks
would be reduced to 76 and 75 VdB, respectively, below the 80 VdB vibration impact threshold for
infrequent events suggested by the FTA. Such vibration levels would be lower than the vibration
generated by traffic on Hilleary Place, would not be perceptible to residents living adjacent to the
project site north of Hilleary Place, and would not cause any damage to the residential buildings.
Based on the FTA (May 2006) construction vibration criteria for nonengineered timber and masonry
buildings (94 VdB), engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) buildings (98 VdB), and reinforced
concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) buildings (102 VdB), building damage would occur when the
vibration level exceeds 90 VdB. The level of vibration that would be experienced at the adjacent
commercial or residential buildings would be below this vibration level and would not cause any
architectural or structural damages. No mitigation measures would be required.
Long-Term Traffic Vibration Impacts
Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of trucks and other on-road vehicles provide
vibration isolation, it is unusual for on-road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration
problems. When on-road vehicles cause effects such as rattling of windows, the source is almost
always airborne noise. Most problems with on-road vehicle-related vibration can be directly related to
a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or
filling the pothole will usually solve the problem.
Due to the distance to the nearest residences, groundborne vibration associated with on-site vehicle
movement would be reduced to much lower than the 72 VdB vibration impact threshold for frequent
events and the 80 VdB vibration impact threshold for infrequent events suggested by the FTA. Such
vibration levels would not be perceptible to residents living adjacent to the project site and would not
cause any damage to the residential buildings. No mitigation measures would be required.
4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would potentially result in noise levels exceeding the maximum
noise level allowed at the closest residences. The following measures would reduce short-term
construction-related noise impacts associated with the proposed project:
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of Poway Director of Development Services, or
designee, shall verify that the following appear as notes on all construction documents:
1. The project contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly
operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 49
2. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors to the north and east of the site.
3. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest
distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the
project site during all project construction.
4. All construction, maintenance, or demolition activities within the City’s boundary shall be limited
to the hours of 7:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and no construction activity with
noise concern should occur on Sundays and City holidays.
5. A temporary construction barrier with a minimum height of 8 ft shall be implemented along the
northeast corner of the project site, where the existing tire and lube center and a vacant
commercial structure are located, during demolition and construction phases.
6. A temporary construction barrier with a minimum height of 8 ft shall be implemented to close the
truck entrance opening along Midland Road during construction phases.
Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts
No mitigation measures are required for traffic noise impacts.
Long-Term Operational Noise Impacts
No mitigation measures are required for operational noise impacts.
Level of Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, potential short-term construction noise
impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11» 50
5.0 REFERENCES
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987.
City of Poway, Municipal Code.
City of Poway, Noise Element of the General Plan.
Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA RD-77-108,
1977.
Federal Highway Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, December 1998.
LSA Associates, Inc., Traffic Impact Analysis, Poway Walmart Expansion, March 2011.
TW Environmental, Inc., WinCo (Vancouver, Washington) Compactor Noise Measurement Data,
2005.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11».doc «04/11/11»
APPENDIX A
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
MARCH 2011 WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
P:\PWY0901\Technical Info-Reports\Noise\Noise-March2011 (RLSO).doc «04/22/11».doc «04/11/11»
APPENDIX A
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS
POWAY WAL-MART SUPERCENTER
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS
EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS
TABLE Existing-01
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 23020 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.15
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
75.5 156.2 333.2 716.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-02
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 23926 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.32
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
77.3 160.1 341.9 735.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-03
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 2
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24666 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.45
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
78.8 163.3 348.8 750.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-04
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 2 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26121 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.70
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
81.5 169.6 362.4 779.2
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-05
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24644 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.45
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
78.7 163.2 348.6 749.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-06
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. south of Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 22303 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.01
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
74.1 153.0 326.3 701.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-07
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10773 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.63
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 79.0 168.6 362.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-08
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 5
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11914 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.14
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 86.8 181.2 387.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-09
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 5 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11914 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.14
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 86.8 181.2 387.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-10
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3820 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.20
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 87.5 182.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-11
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 36765 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.19
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
100.8 212.2 454.7 978.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-12
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and Community Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 35962 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.09
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
99.4 209.1 448.1 964.2
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-13
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 30852 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.42
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
90.3 189.1 404.7 870.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-14
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24630 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.45
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
78.7 163.2 348.5 749.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-15
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11482 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.13
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 100.0 210.5 451.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-16
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and Proj. Dwy. 3
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5333 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 63.57
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 105.9 227.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-17
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Proj. Dwy. 3 and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5333 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 63.57
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 105.9 227.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-18
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 320 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.36
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing-19
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Park Dr. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 100 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 45.61
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
POWAY WAL-MART SUPERCENTER
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TABLE Existing with Project-01
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 23289 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.20
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
76.1 157.3 335.8 721.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-02
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24252 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.38
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
78.0 161.5 345.0 741.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-03
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 2
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 25279 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.56
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
79.9 166.0 354.6 762.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-04
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 2 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26984 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.84
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
83.2 173.2 370.3 796.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-05
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24951 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.50
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
79.3 164.6 351.5 755.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-06
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. south of Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 22572 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.07
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
74.7 154.2 328.9 707.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-07
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10946 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.70
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 79.8 170.4 366.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-08
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 5
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12317 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.29
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 88.6 185.2 396.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-09
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 5 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12317 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.29
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 88.6 185.2 396.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-10
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3820 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.20
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 87.5 182.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-11
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 37053 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.22
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
101.3 213.3 457.1 983.5
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-12
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and Community Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 36307 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.13
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
100.0 210.4 451.0 970.3
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-13
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 30929 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.43
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
90.5 189.4 405.4 872.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-14
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24956 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.50
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
79.3 164.6 351.6 755.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-15
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11540 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.15
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 100.3 211.2 452.5
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-16
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and Proj. Dwy. 3
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6015 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.10
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 54.3 114.6 245.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-17
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Proj. Dwy. 3 and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6005 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.09
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 54.2 114.5 245.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-18
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 320 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.36
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE Existing with Project-19
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Park Dr. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - Existing with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 120 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 46.41
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
POWAY WAL-MART SUPERCENTER
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS
OPENING YEAR (2011) WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-01
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24601 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.44
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
78.6 163.1 348.2 748.7
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-02
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 25769 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.64
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
80.9 168.1 359.1 772.2
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-03
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 2
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26813 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.81
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
82.9 172.5 368.7 792.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-04
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 2 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28672 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.11
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
86.3 180.2 385.5 829.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-05
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28130 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.02
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
85.3 178.0 380.6 818.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-06
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. south of Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 25761 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.64
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
80.9 168.0 359.0 772.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-07
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12955 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.43
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 89.1 190.5 409.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-08
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 5
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13921 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.82
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 95.6 200.7 429.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-09
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 5 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13921 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.82
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 95.6 200.7 429.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-10
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3845 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.23
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 87.9 183.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-11
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39075 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.45
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
104.7 220.9 473.5 1019.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-12
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and Community Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 38505 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.39
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
103.8 218.7 468.9 1009.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-13
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 35494 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.03
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
98.6 207.3 444.2 955.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-14
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 30609 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.39
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
89.9 188.1 402.6 866.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-15
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13189 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.73
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 109.1 230.6 494.5
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-16
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and Proj. Dwy. 3
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5653 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 63.83
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 52.2 110.0 235.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-17
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Proj. Dwy. 3 and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5756 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 63.90
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 52.8 111.4 238.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-18
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 320 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.36
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative w/o Project-19
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Park Dr. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 161 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.68
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
POWAY WAL-MART SUPERCENTER
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS
OPENING YEAR (2011) WITH PROJECT SCENARIO
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-01
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24870 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.49
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
79.1 164.2 350.8 754.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-02
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26095 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.70
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
81.5 169.5 362.1 778.7
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-03
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 2
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 27425 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.91
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
84.0 175.1 374.3 804.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-04
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 2 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 29535 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.23
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
87.9 183.8 393.2 845.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-05
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28437 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.07
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
85.9 179.3 383.4 824.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-06
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. south of Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26030 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.69
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
81.4 169.2 361.5 777.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-07
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13127 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.49
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 89.9 192.2 413.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-08
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 5
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14324 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.94
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 97.3 204.5 438.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-09
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 5 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14324 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.94
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 97.3 204.5 438.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-10
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3845 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.23
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 87.9 183.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-11
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39362 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.48
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
105.2 221.9 475.9 1024.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-12
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and Community Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 38850 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.42
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
104.3 220.0 471.7 1015.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-13
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 35571 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.04
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
98.7 207.6 444.9 957.2
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-14
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 30935 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.44
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
90.5 189.4 405.4 872.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-15
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13247 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.75
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 109.4 231.2 496.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-16
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and Proj. Dwy. 3
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6335 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.32
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 56.1 118.6 254.5
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-17
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Proj. Dwy. 3 and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6428 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.38
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 56.6 119.8 257.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-18
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 320 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.36
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2011 Cumulative with Project-19
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Park Dr. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2011 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 173 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.99
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
POWAY WAL-MART SUPERCENTER
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS
FUTURE YEAR (2030) WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-01
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24601 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.44
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
78.6 163.1 348.2 748.7
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-02
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 25769 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.64
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
80.9 168.1 359.1 772.2
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-03
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 2
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26813 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.81
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
82.9 172.5 368.7 792.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-04
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 2 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28672 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.11
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
86.3 180.2 385.5 829.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-05
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28130 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.02
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
85.3 178.0 380.6 818.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-06
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. south of Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 25761 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.64
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
80.9 168.0 359.0 772.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-07
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12955 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.43
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 89.1 190.5 409.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-08
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 5
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13921 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.82
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 95.6 200.7 429.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-09
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 5 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13921 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.82
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 95.6 200.7 429.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-10
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3940 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.34
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 89.2 186.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-11
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39075 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.45
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
104.7 220.9 473.5 1019.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-12
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and Community Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 38505 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.39
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
103.8 218.7 468.9 1009.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-13
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 35494 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.03
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
98.6 207.3 444.2 955.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-14
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 30609 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.39
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
89.9 188.1 402.6 866.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-15
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13189 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.73
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 109.1 230.6 494.5
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-16
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and Proj. Dwy. 3
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5653 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 63.83
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 52.2 110.0 235.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-17
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Proj. Dwy. 3 and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5756 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 63.90
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 52.8 111.4 238.8
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-18
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 330 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.49
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative w/o Project-19
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Park Dr. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative w/o Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 161 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.68
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
POWAY WAL-MART SUPERCENTER
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
CONTOUR6 MODEL PRINTOUTS
FUTURE YEAR (2030) WITH PROJECT SCENARIO
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-01
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. north of Olive Grove Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 24870 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.49
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
79.1 164.2 350.8 754.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-02
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Olive Grove Dr. and Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26095 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.70
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
81.5 169.5 362.1 778.7
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-03
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 2
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 27425 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.91
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
84.0 175.1 374.3 804.9
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-04
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 2 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 29535 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.23
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
87.9 183.8 393.2 845.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-05
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. between Poway Rd. and Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 28437 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.07
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
85.9 179.3 383.4 824.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-06
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Community Rd. south of Metate Ln.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26030 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.69
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
81.4 169.2 361.5 777.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-07
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13127 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.49
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 89.9 192.2 413.4
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-08
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Hilleary Pl. and Proj. Dwy. 5
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14324 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.94
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 97.3 204.5 438.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-09
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. between Proj. Dwy. 5 and Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14324 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.94
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 97.3 204.5 438.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-10
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Midland Rd. south of Poway Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3940 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 61.34
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 89.2 186.6
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-11
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. west of Tarascan Dr.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39362 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.48
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
105.2 221.9 475.9 1024.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-12
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Tarascan Dr. and Community Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 38850 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.42
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
104.3 220.0 471.7 1015.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-13
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Community Rd. and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 35571 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.04
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
98.7 207.6 444.9 957.2
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-14
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. between Midland Rd. and Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 30935 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.44
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
90.5 189.4 405.4 872.1
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-15
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Poway Rd. east of Garden Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13247 SPEED (MPH): 50 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.75
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 109.4 231.2 496.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-16
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Community Rd. and Proj. Dwy. 3
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6335 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.32
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 56.1 118.6 254.5
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-17
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. between Proj. Dwy. 3 and Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 6428 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.38
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 56.6 119.8 257.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-18
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Pl. east of Midland Rd.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 330 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 12 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 51.49
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2030 Cumulative with Project-19
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 08/13/2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hilleary Park Dr. north of Hilleary Pl.
NOTES: Poway Wal-mart Expansion - 2030 Cumulative with Project
______________________________________________________________________
* * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 173 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT
______________________________________________________________________
* * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 47.99
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________