Loading...
Appendices B - Noise Technical Report Espola Road Improvement Project Appendix B Noise Technical Report Prepared for: City of Poway March 2013 Noise Technical Report for the Espola Road Improvement Project Poway, California Prepared For City of Poway Prepared By Charles Terry, Acoustics and Noise Group Manager HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 (619) 462-1515 November 2011 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT LOCATION, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .. 1-1 1.1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Location ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.3. Project Description ................................................................................... 1-1 1.3.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................. 1-1 1.3.2 Alternatives ..................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Noise and Sound Level Descriptors ......................................................... 2-1 2.2 Potential Attenuation ................................................................................. 2-2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Surrounding Roadway Descriptions .......................................................... 3-1 3.3. Applicable Noise Regulations and Standards .......................................... 3-2 3.3.1 State Regulations and Policies ........................................................ 3-2 3.3.2 Local Regulations and Policies ....................................................... 3-2 4.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Methods For Identifying Land Uses And Selecting Noise Measurement And Modeling Receiver Locations ............................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Field Measurement Procedures ....................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Results of Short-term and Long-term Monitoring .......................... 4-2 5.0 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS PREDICTION METHODOLOGY........................... 5-1 5.1 Traffic Noise Modeling Parameters .......................................................... 5-1 5.2 Traffic Volume Segment ........................................................................... 5-2 6.0 IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Construction Noise Impacts (All Build Alternatives) ............................... 6-1 6.2 Operational Noise Impacts ........................................................................ 6-2 6.2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 No Project Alternative ...................................................................... 6-4 6.2.3 Alternatives Evaluated But Rejected ................................................ 6-4 7.0 MITIGATION......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Construction Noise .................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Operational Noise ...................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................... 7-1 7.2.2 No Project Alternative ...................................................................... 7-2 7.2.3 Alternatives Evaluated But Rejected ................................................ 7-2 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Section Title Page 8.0 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 9-1 LIST OF FIGURES On or Follows No. Name Page 1 Regional Location Map ................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Project Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 1-2 3 Noise Measurement, Noise Receiver, and Evaluated Noise Barrier Locations ............... 4-2 4 24-hour Monitoring Data ................................................................................................. 4-5 5 Noise Receivers and Proposed Noise Barrier Locations ................................................. 7-2 LIST OF TABLES No. Name Page 1 City of Poway Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 3-3 2 Summary of Short-term Noise Measurements and Concurrent Traffic Volumes ............... 4-3 3 Summary of Long-term Noise Measurements at Site A ...................................................... 4-4 4 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Sound Levels in the TNM Model ......................... 4-5 5 Espola Road Traffic Breakdown by Roadway Segment and Direction ............................... 5-2 6 Espola Road Horizon Year Traffic Volumes by Roadway Segment and Direction ........... 5-3 7 Construction Equipment Noise ............................................................................................. 6-1 8 City of Poway Criteria Predicted Future Noise and Barrier Effectiveness Analysis ....... 6-3 List of Abbreviated Terms iii GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS A-Weighted Sound Levels Decibels (referenced to 20 micro-Pascals) as measured with an A-weighting network of standard sound level meter; abbreviated dBA ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT average daily traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute Background Noise The measured ambient noise level associated with all existing environmental, transportation, and community noise sources, in the absence of any audible construction activity CAD Computer Aided Design Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Poway CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level: A 24-hour average where sound levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5-dB weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10-dB weighting; this is similar to and often used interchangeably with LDN (see below) Daytime The period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. dB Decibel(s) dBA A-weighted sound pressure level Evening The period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. FHWA Federal Highway Administration HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. HNL Hourly Noise Level Hz Hertz I-15 Interstate 15 List of Abbreviated Terms iv GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS (cont.) Ldn Day-Night Sound Level: A 24-hour average where sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10-dB weighting, but no added weighting on the evening hours Leq The equivalent sound level, or the continuous sound level, that represents the same sound energy as the varying sound levels over a specified monitoring period Leq(h) The equivalent sound level, or the continuous sound level, that represents the same sound energy as the varying sound levels over one hour LMAX maximum sound level LOS level of service Lxx percentile-exceeded sound level mPA micro-Pascal mph miles per hour NAC noise abatement criteria Nighttime The period from 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Noise Any audible sound that has the potential to annoy or disturb humans, or to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect in humans Noise Emission The industry standard format of sound power level, which is the total acoustic power radiated from a given sound source as relates to a reference power level of 10 picowatts. Sound power level differs from sound pressure level, which quantifies the fluctuations in air pressure caused by acoustic energy Noise Level Measurements Unless otherwise indicated, the use of A-weighted and “slow” response of instrument complying with at least Type 2 requirements of latest revision of American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S1.4., Specification for Sound Level Meters NTR Noise Technical Report ROW right-of-way SPL sound pressure level SR 67 State Route 67 TNM Traffic Noise Model Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Noise Technical Report (NTR) has been prepared in accordance with the acoustical requirements of the City of Poway (City). Its purpose is to evaluate potential noise impacts from the proposed Espola Road Improvement Project (Project) to off-site sensitive receptors under existing and future design-year conditions. The analysis quantifies existing traffic noise conditions in the Project area, identifies adjacent noise-sensitive land uses, analyzes potential noise created during Project construction and operations, predicts future traffic noise levels for the proposed Project, and discusses impacts associated with Project alternatives. The Project would address roadway congestion and provide safety enhancements (vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian) on Espola Road, a two-lane collector located within the City in San Diego County. The City is the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because Espola Road is located within City boundaries. Because of partial federal funding, Caltrans is providing oversight for NEPA processing, which will be separately prepared. Espola Road serves as a major link between Poway’s northern, northeastern, and central residential areas, and provides the northernmost link between Poway and Interstate 15 (I-15). Project improvements would occur between approximately 1,000 feet south of the Espola Road/Titan Way intersection and the Rattlesnake Creek crossing south of Twin Peaks Road in the eastern portion of the City. Improvements would consist of widening the existing two-lane collector to a three-lane secondary arterial within the Project alignment. Improvements also would provide necessary traffic safety, drainage, utilities, pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and landscaping improvements for the same portion of the roadway. In addition to the proposed Project, three other build alternatives and a “No Project” alternative were evaluated. The other build alternatives include the Conventional Roadway (Alternative 1), Split Grade Roadway (Alternative 2), and Westerly Roadway Alignment (Alternative 3). Each of these build alternatives would have widened the existing two-lane road to a four-lane secondary arterial and provided additional roadway and drainage upgrades, as well as other improvements. The three four-lane build alternatives differed slightly in their vertical and horizontal alignment, grading, residential removal, and right-of-way acquisition requirements. The No Project Alternative assumes that no major improvements would be made and no major construction would occur on Espola Road and associated intersections within the Project area; the existing maintenance activities, roadway segment and intersection operational failures, and lack of standardized sidewalks/paths would remain. The variable terrain along the subject segment of Espola Road includes relatively level areas and areas with sloping embankments both above and below the road grade. Land uses within the Project area are primarily dominated by single-family residential dwelling units, although commercial, religious, recreational, and educational facilities, as well as a City biological easement area, also are present. Because of the dense residential uses and the resulting number of cross streets and driveway access points within the Project area, the usefulness of Espola Road for through traffic has been reduced and the collector currently operates at level of service (LOS) F (defined as a condition of excessively high delay) from Titan Way to Twin Peaks Road. ExecutiveSummary Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report ES-2 To quantify the noise environment within the Project corridor, short-term noise measurements were made at seven locations for periods of 20 to 60 minutes adjacent to the road. The measured noise levels varied from 54 to 66 dBA Leq (A-weighted decibels, hourly average equivalent) at the nine sites. In addition, two background noise measurements were conducted outside the Project corridor to establish the existing noise environment in the Project area. These nine measurement locations provide the existing conditions information from which existing and future conditions were projected for and sensitive receivers along the Project corridor. Background noise levels generally ranged from approximately 45 to 50 dBA within residential areas located approximately 0.25 mile from the Project site. Long-term monitoring was conducted over a 26-hour period at a site approximately 95 feet from the centerline of Espola Road to determine the hourly average Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The loudest hour Leq during long-term monitoring was 69 dBA, which occurred from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Predicted design-year traffic noise levels for the Project were compared to existing conditions and to design-year No Project conditions for 47 outdoor use locations. Modeling results for the design-year with-Project conditions would exceed the City threshold criteria focused on the backyards of single-family homes. Those criteria state that arterial construction in developed areas where the existing noise level is below 60 dB CNEL will require mitigation to 60 dB CNEL (provided a noise attenuation wall does not exceed eight feet). In areas where the existing noise level exceeds 65 dB CNEL, the noise level will be mitigated to 65 dB CNEL. Finally, where the existing noise level is between 60 and 65 dB CNEL, the City strives to reduce noise levels to 60 dB CNEL. The future loudest hour Leq would generally range from approximately 60 to 69 dBA at yards of residences adjacent to Espola Road without existing sound walls, exceeding City thresholds. Sound walls of 6 to 9 feet in height are proposed under CEQA to address the current and increased noise. Project construction activities also would result in a short-term, temporary increase in the ambient noise level in the immediate vicinity of construction. Construction equipment would be expected to generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which would be reduced over distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance away from the source. In order to reduce potential noise impacts, the Project would comply with City standards for construction activities near residential properties. Implementation of construction noise control measures would further minimize noise disturbances at noise-sensitive locations. Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT LOCATION, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This noise technical report has been prepared in accordance with the acoustical requirements of the City of Poway (City). The purpose of this analysis is to assess noise impacts from the proposed Espola Road Improvement Project (Project) to sensitive receptors under existing and future design-year conditions. Where significant noise impacts may occur, this report identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Project proposes roadway congestion improvements and safety enhancements on Espola Road, located in the eastern portion of the City of Poway, in San Diego County, California. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional location and Project vicinity, respectively. More specifically, improvements to Espola Road are proposed between approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Espola Road and Titan Way and Twin Peaks Road to 200 feet south of the crossing of Espola Road by Rattlesnake Creek. The current two-lane collector serves as a major link between Poway’s northern, northeastern, and central residential areas. It also provides the northernmost link between Poway and Interstate 15 (I-15), and, as such, it provides an important east-west route in the northern portion of Poway. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.3.1 Proposed Project The proposed improvements to Espola Road consist of widening and resurfacing the existing two-lane collector to a three-lane secondary arterial (one through lane each for the northbound and southbound directions and a center two-way-left-turn-lane) between the northern Project terminus south of Titan Way and the intersection of Espola Road and Twin Peaks Road. The Project generally would be superimposed on the existing road right-of-way (ROW), and would follow both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the current road, ranging from 60 to 96 feet in width. Similar to existing conditions, following buildout, the road would have a design speed of 45 mph. The improvements would provide necessary traffic safety (new or upgraded signals), utilities (undergrounding), drainage (replacing current storm drain facilities to increase capacity), pedestrian (Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]-compliant and maintained sidewalks and paths, and separation of pedestrian and vehicular uses), bikeway (designated bicycle lanes), and landscaping (slope and parkway plantings with street trees) upgrades for the same portion of the roadway. These improvements would take place within slightly expanded road ROW; additional ROW would total 18,687 square feet. In addition, a total of approximately 1,850 feet of retaining walls—varying from 3 to 11 feet in height—is proposed as part of the Project. Retaining walls would be provided north of Jerome Drive, with the highest (11-foot) wall located on the east side of Espola Road. Chapter 1: Introduction, Project Location, and Project Description Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 1-2 1.3.2 Alternatives As compared to the Proposed Project which would widen Espola Road to a three-lane secondary arterial, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would widen the two-lane road to a four-lane major facility with two vehicle lanes in each direction between the northern project terminus south of Titan Way to the intersection of Espola Road and Twin Peaks Road. A 14-foot striped or raised median would be included for the entire length of the roadway upgrade to four lanes, with the intent to preclude left turns across the roadway with the exception of signalized intersections. These alternatives, in addition to the No Project Alternative, are described below. Alternative 1 (Conventional Roadway) Alternative 1 consists of widening the two-lane road to a four-lane major facility between the northern Project terminus south of Titan Way to the intersection of Espola and Twin Peaks roads, as well as necessary traffic safety, drainage, pedestrian and landscaping improvements. The widening generally would be “superimposed” along the current right-of-way alignment and generally would follow both horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing roadway. Driveway access to three properties south of High Valley Road would be realigned. Alternative 2 (Split-Grade) Alternative 2, the split-grade alternative, incorporates many elements of Alternative 1. From the vicinity of Golden Sunset Lane southerly, Project elements would be identical to Alternative 1, including all drainage facilities and staging areas. Variations from Alternative 1 occur on the east side of Espola Road just south of High Valley Road and in the area approximately 250 feet south of the water tank. In these areas, the western (southbound) lanes would retain the existing grade and the eastern (northbound) lanes would be implemented at a higher grade, thereby minimizing cuts into slopes on the east side of the roadway. Alternative 3 (Westerly Alignment) Alternative 3, the westerly alternative, also shares many elements with Alternative 1, and from approximately High Valley Road northerly and Golden Sunset Lane southerly is identical. The difference is that Alternative 3 addresses the east side of Espola Road, just south of High Valley Road. In this area, impacts to residential properties in the east side of the roadway are minimized, and ROW take focuses on the west side of the roadway. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes that no major improvements would be made and no major construction would occur on Espola Road and the associated intersections within the Project area; the existing maintenance activities, roadway segment and intersection. A× Poway Oceanside Carlsbad Vista Escondido Otay Chula Vista Santee San Marcos Encinitas El Cajon La Mesa Coronado NationalCity ImperialBeach LemonGrove SolanaBeach Del Mar San Diego Camp Pendleton Lake San Marcos Lake Hodges Lake Wohlford Lake RamonaLake Poway Miramar Reservoir San VicenteReservoir Lake Murray SweetwaterReservoir Lake Jennings Otay Reservoir Pacific Ocean S a n D i e g o B a y Santee Lakes SutherlandReservoir Lake Henshaw El Capitan Reservoir Loveland Reservoir Vail Lake O'Neill Lake Barrett Lake Tijuana U N I T E D S T A T E S M E X I C O Dulzura Julian Ramona Warner Springs RIVERSIDECOUNTY ORANGECOUNTY SAN DIEGOCOUNTY Project Site San Diego AlpineLa Jolla Aª Aª WÛ WÛ WÙ AÒ A© A£ Fallbrook ?z A© ?z A¨ A©!"^$ 56 !"a$ ?z ?h %&s( !"^$AÛ AÀ !"_$Aù !"a$ !"_$ AÀ ?j !"^$ A× ?j %&s(µ 8 0 84 Miles I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\Noise\Fig1_Regional.mxd -JP Figure 1 ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Regional Location Map I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\Noise\Fig2_Vicinity.indd -JP Project Vicinity Map ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Figure 2 Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 2-1 2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS 2.1 NOISE AND SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing receptor, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound. Frequency Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low- frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this huge range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB). The threshold of hearing for young people is about 0 dB, which corresponds to 20 mPa. Addition of Decibels Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source at the same distance. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dB louder than one source. To create an overall 3 dB change in traffic noise, the traffic volume must double while maintaining the same speed. Chapter 2: Noise Fundamentals Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 2-2 All noise-level or sound-level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels with A-weighting, abbreviated “dBA,” to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time- averaged noise levels are expressed as “Leq.” Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. Unless a different time period is specified, “Leq” implies a period of one hour. Some of the data also may be presented as octave-band-filtered and/or A-octave-band-filtered data, which are a series of sound spectra centered about each stated frequency, with half of the bandwidth above and half of the bandwidth below each stated frequency. These data are typically used for machinery noise analysis and barrier-effectiveness calculations. CNEL is a 24-hour average A-weighted hourly sound level for a given day, after addition of 5 dB to sound levels for the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 10 dB to sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. CNEL is used to evaluate transportation noise sources. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on dBA. The result of this weighting is that noise produced during the evening and nighttime hours are factored in more significantly due to potential disruption of an otherwise peaceful time of the day. This is similar to the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn), which is a 24-hour average with 10-dB weighting added onto nighttime hours but no added weighting onto evening hours. These data unit metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal noise ordinances and regulations, for land use guidelines, and enforcement of noise ordinances. Noise emission data are often provided using the industry standard format of Sound Power, which is the total acoustic power radiated from a given sound source as related to a reference power level. Sound Power differs from Sound Pressure, which measures the fluctuations in air pressure caused by the presence of sound waves, and is the format generally used to describe noise levels as heard by the receiver. Sound Pressure is the actual noise experienced by a human or registered by a sound-level instrument. When Sound Pressure is used to describe a noise source, it must specify the distance from the noise source to provide complete information. Sound Power is a specialized analytical method to provide information without the distance requirement, but it may be used to calculate the Sound Pressure at any desired distance. 2.2 POTENTIAL ATTENUATION Noise Barrier Attenuation Effective noise barriers can significantly reduce noise levels. Noise barriers, do, however, have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of a road. Noise barriers do very little good for homes on a hillside overlooking a road or for buildings which rise above the barrier. Where tall enough to break the line of sight, however, a noise barrier can typically achieve a 5 decibel noise level reduction. Chapter 3: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 3-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 SURROUNDING LAND USES The Project study area is dominated by a fairly dense concentration of primarily single-family residential dwelling units (individually designed and built homes as well as housing tracts), although some commercial, religious, recreational, and educational facilities also are present. The variable terrain along this segment of Espola Road includes relatively level areas and areas with sloping embankments both above and below the road. Setbacks, sound/privacy walls, fence treatments, and plantings associated with the developments on either side of Espola Road vary. The Blue Sky Ecological Reserve, located approximately 0.7 mile northeast of the Project alignment, is a 700-acre natural habitat reserve with hiking, horseback riding and interpretive trails. Lake Poway Recreational Area, located just to the south of the Reserve, also offers multiple recreational activities. The Poway Performing Arts Center, an 815-seat professional theater, is located just north of the northern terminus of the Project, adjacent to Poway High School at Titan Way. At the extreme southern end of the Project alignment, immediately south of Twin Peaks Road, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is located east of Espola Road. The Montessori Child Development Center is located on the east side of Espola Road, approximately mid-way through the Project to the west. The Poway Valley Riders Association equestrian center is approximately 0.25 mile west of Espola Road, south of Twin Peaks Road. Although the Project area is highly developed, elements of native habitat still exist within the Project study area. A portion of this area is overlain with a City Biological Easement just south of Del Poniente Road and west of Espola. 3.2 SURROUNDING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS Within the Project study area, Espola Road is currently a two-lane collector extending in a north- south direction with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). Espola Road between Twin Peaks Road and Titan Way is configured as a two-lane roadway with two-way-left-turn lane except the portion of Espola Road between Del Poniente Road and Willow Ranch Road, which is a two-lane roadway without two-way-left-turn lane. Twin Peaks Road is an east-west four-lane major arterial west of Espola Road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Twin Peaks Road east of Espola Road is currently configured as a two- lane collector with the posted speed limit of 25 mph. Golden Sunset and High Valley Road are currently configured as two-lane local collectors east of Espola Road running in the east-west direction with posted speed limits of 25 mph. Durhullen Drive and Titan Road are currently configured as two-lane local collectors west of Espola Road running in the east-west direction with posted speed limits of 25 mph. Del Poniente Road is currently configured as a two-lane local collector west of Espola Road running in the east-west direction with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Eden Grove is currently configured as a two-lane private street running in the east-west direction providing access to a gated community east of Espola Road. Chapter 3: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 3-2 The existing intersections of Espola Road with Twin Peaks Road, Del Poniente Road/High Valley Road, and Titan Way/Eden Grove are currently signalized. The intersection of Espola Road with Durhullen Drive/Golden Sunset is currently two-way stop controlled. 3.3 APPLICABLE NOISE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Both state and City regulations are applicable to this Project. 3.3.1 State Regulations and Policies Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code relates to the noise effects of a proposed project on public and private elementary and secondary schools. Under this code, a noise impact occurs if, as a result of a proposed f project, noise levels exceed 52 dBA-Leq(h) in the interior of public or private elementary or secondary classrooms, libraries, or multi-purpose rooms or spaces. If a project results in a noise impact under this code, noise abatement must be provided to reduce classroom noise to a level that is at or below 52 dBA-Leq(h). If the noise levels generated from freeway and non-freeway sources exceed 52 dBA-Leq(h) prior to the construction of the proposed project, then noise abatement must be provided to reduce the noise to the level that existed prior to construction of the project. 3.3.2 Local Regulations and Policies City of Poway General Plan To facilitate implementation of noise abatement measures, the City uses the following general noise abatement guidelines for residential areas next to existing arterials for road improvement projects: 1. When improvements to arterials are constructed in developed areas where the existing noise level is below 60 dB CNEL, noise levels will be mitigated to 60 dB CNEL provided a noise attenuation wall does not exceed eight feet. If the proposed noise attenuation wall exceeds eight feet, the City will strive to reduce noise to the best practical level. 2. In areas where the existing noise level exceeds 65 dB CNEL, the noise level will be mitigated to 65 dB CNEL. The City also strives to reduce noise levels to 60 dB CNEL in areas where the existing noise level is between 60 and 65 dB CNEL. The noise abatement criteria for outdoor noise exposure typically are applied at the backyards of single-family homes. Chapter 3: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 3-3 City of Poway Municipal Code Noise-generating sources in the City are regulated under Chapter 8.08, Noise Abatement and Control, of the Municipal Code. Poway Municipal Code Section 8.08.100 restricts the allowable hours of construction activities to 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding legal holidays. This ordinance states that the operation of any single or combined powered construction equipment is prohibited before 7:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays or at any time on a Sunday or holiday, except as permitted by the City Engineer. Further, the noise levels associated with construction activities at residential properties are not to exceed 75 dBA, averaged over an eight-hour period per day. Equipment noise levels must comply with the limits over various durations as shown in Table 1. Table 1 CITY OF POWAY NOISE REQUIREMENTS Total Duration in 24 Hours Total Decibel Level Up to 15 minutes 90 Up to 30 minutes 87 Up to 1 hour 84 Up to 2 hours 81 Up to 4 hours 78 Up to 8 hours 75 Source: City of Poway 2006 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 3-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 4: Existing Noise Environment Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 4-1 4.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The existing noise environment in the Project area is characterized based on both short- and long-term noise monitoring. 4.1 METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING LAND USES AND SELECTING NOISE MEASUREMENT AND MODELING RECEIVER LOCATIONS Noise measurement sites are locations where sound level measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels and to calibrate the noise model used to calculate sound levels at the receiver locations. Sites were selected to represent sensitive land uses in the Project area, as well as the geometry of such uses relative to the roadway. Land uses in the Project area were categorized by land use type and the extent of frequent human use and prioritized where appropriate by the specific residential configuration as human habitable significant impact area (back yards) or lower impact areas (front yards). Although all developed land uses are evaluated in this analysis, the focus is on locations of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, this impact analysis focuses on locations with defined outdoor activity areas, such as residential backyards and open space areas within institutional facilities. The geometry of the Project relative to nearby existing and planned land uses also was identified. Espola Road in the study area curves along the edge of a series of foothills to the east of the roadway. Observations during the field investigation revealed extensive variation in the elevation and setback of residences relative to the roadway. Some of the residential properties are located at grade with the roadway, while others are above or below grade with various amounts of natural topographic noise shielding from roadway noise. Similarly, some residences are located immediately adjacent to the roadway with minimal setbacks, while others are well set back with pools and even private tennis/sports courts located between the residence and the roadway. The residences with minimal setbacks and outdoor land uses immediately adjacent to the roadway would have the greatest potential for impacts due to the roadway widening and associated traffic speed increases from the Project changes. 4.1.1 Field Measurement Procedures A noise monitoring survey was conducted along the Project site to determine the peak hour Leq at each measurement location, as well as to calculate the CNEL. Measurements were made in accordance with the recommended procedures in TeNS. Specifically, noise measurements were conducted using a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 700 (S.N. 2132) integrating sound level meter equipped with a Type 2551 0.5-inch pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre- amplifier. When equipped with this microphone, the sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 (precision) sound level meter. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after each measurement. Measurements were conducted with the microphones positioned five feet above the ground and shielded with a windscreen. Chapter 4: Existing Noise Environment Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 4-2 Short-term Measurements To quantify the noise environment within the Espola Road corridor, noise measurements were made at nine locations as shown in Figure 3, on October 18 and 31, 2002, and November 13, 2002. Short term noise measurements were conducted for periods of 20 to 60 minutes adjacent to the road at seven locations (designated as Sites M1 through M7). Measurements of one hour or less were long enough for a representative traffic volume to occur and the noise level (Leq) to stabilize; 15 minutes is generally sufficient for this purpose. Two background noise measurements were conducted outside the Espola Road corridor (designated as Sites BG1 and BG2). Background noise sources include various residential cross streets in the area (including Twin Peaks Road), and non-traffic noise sources such as aircraft and lawn equipment. The measurement of background noise levels (in addition to the dominant traffic noise levels along Espola Road) was used to establish the overall existing noise environment in the Project area. Long-Term Measurements Site A is located approximately 95 feet from the centerline of Espola Road and 311 feet north of Twin Peaks Road. This site was selected to provide an unobstructed view of the road (i.e., no intervening walls, buildings, vegetation, etc.). The purpose of this noise measurement was to determine the typical peak loudest hour Leq associated with traffic along Espola Road and the corresponding relationship between the loudest hour and CNEL. 4.1.2 Results of Short-term and Long-term Monitoring Short-term Modeling Results As shown on Table 2, the measured noise levels varied from 54 dBA to 66 dBA Leq at the short- term noise measurement sites adjacent to Espola Road. Background noise measurements also were conducted (Site BG1 and BG2) approximately 50 feet from the centerlines of Durhullen Drive (Site BG1) and Twin Peaks Road (Site BG2), approximately 0.25 mile west of the site. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 3. Background noise levels generally ranged from approximately 45 to 50 dBA within residential areas located approximately 0.25 mile from the Project site and other major roadways. The noise level was approximately 50 dBA Leq along Durhullen Drive (a two-lane local residential). This increased substantially, however, along Twin Peaks Road (a four-lane major arterial) where the measured background was approximately 70 dBA Leq. !9 !8 !M7 !34 !33 !32!31 !30 !29 !28 !53 !52 !51 !50 !49 !48 !47 !46 !45 !44 !43 !42 !41 !40 !39 !38 !37 !36 !35 !27 !26 !25 !24 !M1 !23 !22 !21 !20 !19 !18 !17 !16 !15 !14 !13 !12 !11 !10 !M6 !M5 !M3 !M2 !M4 !A !BG1 !BG2 !23A E s p o l a R o a d Twin Peaks Road Mtn Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way Del Poniente Road Huntington Gate Drive Tierra Bonita Road Eden Grove Via Molinero Golden Sunset Lane Derringer Road Carlson Street Kalapana Street Jerome Drive Roberto Rio Road R i d g e v i e w P l a c e Crestview Court Durhullen Drive Rio Court Mesquite Tree Evergreen Lane El Topo Drive Los Nietos Avenue Segundo Court Carnitas StreetEl Dolora Way H i g h V a l l e y R o a d Saddlebrook Court Alando Place Espola Road Willow Ranch Road Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/22/11 µ I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\Noise\Fig3_Noise_Receivers.mxd -JP 500 0 500250Feet Figure 3 ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Noise Measurement and Noise Receiver Locations LEGEND !A !1 Noise Receiver Location Short-term Background Noise Measurement Location Long-term Noise Measurement Location Short-term Noise Measurement Location !BG1 !M1 Chapter 4: Existing Noise Environment Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 4-3 Table 2 SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND CONCURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Description Date/Time Leq1 Cars MT2 HT3 M1 South of Twin Peaks Road, approximately 50 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/31/02 1:40 - 2:00 p.m. 66 dBA253 3 2 M2 West of Mountain Road, approximately 45 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/18/02 10:20 - 10:40 a.m. 66 dBA213 7 2 M3 South of Del Poniente Road, approximately 45 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/31/02 4:00 - 5:00 p.m.4 66 dBA1834 36 3 M4 South of North Crest Lane, approximately 75 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/18/02 11:20 - 11:40 a.m. 54 dBA229 5 0 M5 North of Twin Peaks Road, approximately 70 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/18/02 10:45 - 11:05 a.m. 63 dBA262 8 2 M6 Montessori Child Development Center, approximately 150 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/18/02 9:40 - 10:00 a.m. 56 dBA250 7 2 M7 South of Eden Grove, approximately 95 feet to center line of Espola Road 10/31/02 2:55 - 3:15 p.m. 64 dBA541 7 1 BG1 Approximately 50 feet to center line of Durhullen Drive and 0.5-mile west of site 10/31/02 3:30 - 3:50 p.m. 51 dBA28 0 0 BG2 Approximately 50 feet to center line of Twin Peaks Road and 0.5-mile west of site 11/13/02 7:05 - 7:35 a.m. 70 dBA808 18 5 Notes: 1 Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level 2 Medium trucks 3 Heavy trucks 4 Measurement made during the entirety of the peak hour for this location. Source: Pacific Noise Control 2004 Long-term Monitoring Results Site A, selected to provide an unobstructed view of the road (i.e., no intervening walls, buildings, vegetation etc.), was monitored over a 14-hour period. The location of Site A is shown on Figure 3. The hourly average Leq measurements at Site A are summarized in Table 3 and depicted in Figure 4. The loudest hour Leq was 69 dBA. This noise level occurred from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., and from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. Based on the long-term noise measurement, the resulting CNEL is equivalent to the loudest hour Leq. Chapter 4: Existing Noise Environment Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 4-4 Table 3 SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT SITE A* Date Conducted Start Time Hourly Average Leq (dBA) Difference from Loudest Hour (dBA) November 6, 2002 10:00 a.m. 66 -3 11:00 a.m. 66 -3 12:00 Noon 66 -3 1:00 p.m. 67 -2 2:00 p.m. 68 -1 3:00 p.m. 69 --- 4:00 p.m. 69 --- 5:00 p.m. 68 -1 6:00 p.m. 67 -2 7:00 p.m. 65 -4 8:00 p.m. 65 -4 9:00 p.m. 62 -7 10:00 p.m. 59 -10 11:00 p.m. 57 -12 November 7, 2002 12:00 Midnight 52 -17 1:00 a.m. 50 -19 2:00 a.m. 52 -17 3:00 a.m. 50 -19 4:00 a.m. 56 -13 5:00 a.m. 64 -5 6:00 a.m. 68 -1 7:00 a.m. 68 -1 8:00 a.m. 67 -2 9:00 a.m. 66 -3 10:00 a.m. 67 -2 11:00 a.m. 67 -2 12:00 Noon 67 -2 1:00 p.m. 67 -2 CNEL 69 dBA Notes: * Site A is approximately 95 feet from the centerline of Espola Road. Shaded columns = worst case readings Source: Pacific Noise Control 2004 Chapter 4: Existing Noise Environment Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 4-5 24-Hour Monitoring Data Figure 4 Table 4 compares measured and modeled noise levels at each measurement location shown on Figure 3. The predicted sound levels are within 2 dBA of the measured sound levels and are, therefore, considered to be in reasonable agreement with the measured sound levels. As such, no calibration of the model was necessary. Table 4 COMPARISON OF MEASURED TO PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS IN THE TNM MODEL Measurement Position Measured Sound Level (dBA) Predicted Sound Level (dBA) Measured minus Predicted (dBA) Site A 69 68.0 1.0 M1 68 68.1 -0.1 M2 69 70.8 -1.8 M3 68 68.0 0.0 M4 59 60.7 -1.7 M5 67 67.8 -0.8 M6 60 60.2 -0.2 M7 66 64.5 1.5 Source: Pacific Noise Control 2004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 dB A Time Site A (November 6 and 7, 2002) Chapter 4: Existing Noise Environment Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 4-6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 5-1 5.0 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS PREDICTION METHODOLOGY Traffic noise level impact planning in this report is based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) software Version 2.5. The TNM models used in this analysis were developed from the Project planning Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, which input variables including road alignment, elevation, lane configuration, area topography, existing and planned noise control features, projected traffic volumes, estimated truck composition percentages, and vehicle speeds. Traffic counts for the corresponding roadway segment(s) were made concurrently with the short- term noise measurements, classifying vehicles as three types: automobiles, medium trucks (double-tires/two axles), and heavy trucks (three or more axles), with vehicle counts were then converted to one-hour equivalent volumes. 5.1 TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING PARAMETERS Loudest-hour (peak) traffic volumes, vehicle classification percentages, and traffic speeds under existing and design-year (2030) conditions were provided by KOA Corporation (formerly Katz, Okitsu & Associates; 2006). The loudest hour is generally characterized by free-flowing traffic at the roadway design speed (i.e., LOS C or better). For this noise study, the analysis is based on the 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. peak traffic volumes at the maximum design speed of 45 mph. The truck percentage used in the noise model for the loudest hour average sound level was 1.9 percent medium trucks and 0.2 percent heavy trucks (observed delivery trucks to local businesses, the high school, and construction related vehicles). Espola Road is restricted to vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less, which restricts the amount of truck traffic. Estimated truck composition percentages used in the noise model are based on the traffic mix counted during on-site noise measurements; the truck mix is assumed to remain the same in the future. TNM 2.5 was used to compare measured traffic noise levels to modeled noise levels at noise measurement locations in order to validate the accuracy of the model. For each receiver, traffic volumes counted during the short-term measurement periods were normalized to one-hour volumes. These normalized volumes were assigned to simulate the noise source strength during the actual measurement period. Modeled and measured sound levels were then compared to determine the accuracy of the model and whether additional calibration of the model was necessary. To determine future noise levels, year 2030 traffic volumes were used for Espola Road. Using the traffic information and the physical improvements shown on the preliminary designs for the road, calculations were performed to determine the noise level increase. The future worst-case scenario included the built traffic volumes, as well as the Project road improvements and grading. Chapter 5: Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methodology Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 5-2 5.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY SEGMENT The Project traffic study (KOA Corporation 2006) breaks Espola Road into five south-to-north segments with different traffic volumes for each segment. Project modeling does not include Segment 5 as all road modifications end 1,000 feet south of the Segment 5 begin point. In addition to the traffic study, specific hourly roadway volume information for this analysis was provided by KOA Corporation. Existing 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. directional traffic volume counts were used to determine the directional percentage of the future 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. hourly traffic, with design-year traffic assumed to maintain the same hourly directional percentages. Table 5 presents the breakdown of traffic on the four segments of Espola Road by segment and direction. Table 5 ESPOLA ROAD TRAFFIC BREAKDOWN BY ROADWAY SEGMENT AND DIRECTION Se g m e n t I D Roadway Segment Name Existing Horizon Year (2030) 5: 0 0 t o 6 : 0 0 p . m . NB SB 5: 0 0 t o 6 : 0 0 p . m . NB SB Tr a f f i c Vo l u m e C o u n t Ca l c u l a t e d % Tr a f f i c Vo l u m e C o u n t Ca l c u l a t e d % Pr o j e c t e d Vo l u m e Ca l c u l a t e d % Pr o j e c t e d Vo l u m e Ca l c u l a t e d % 1 Espola Road: Ezra Lane to Twin Peaks Road 1,237 65753.1158046.891,368727 53.11 641 46.89 2 Espola Road: Twin Peaks Road to Golden Sunset 1,613 61938.3899461.621,784685 38.38 1,09961.62 3 Espola Road: Golden Sunset to High Valley Road 1,608 93257.9667642.041,7791,031 57.96 748 42.04 4 Espola Road: High Valley Road to Titan Way 1,493 84256.4065143.601,651931 56.40 720 43.60 Source: KOA Corporation 2006 The traffic presented in Table 5 for the northbound and southbound lanes for each segment were further differentiated by vehicle type to improve the accuracy of the computer model (traffic composition is assumed to be the same in the future as it is today). This breakdown is presented in Table 6 below, and comprises the input data for the computer noise model. Chapter 5: Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methodology Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 5-3 Notes: 1 Percentages are based on observed volumes during field measurement 2 Medium trucks 3 Heavy trucks Source: KOA Corporation 2006 Table 6 ESPOLA ROAD HORIZON YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY ROADWAY SEGMENT AND DIRECTION Segment ID Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Peak Hour Segment Volume (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) NB Volume SB Volume Cars1 MT2 HT3 Cars1 MT2 HT3 97.9%1.9%0.2%97.9% 1.9%0.2% 1 Espola Road: Ezra Lane to Twin Peaks Road 16,200 1,368 712 14 2 628 13 2 2 Espola Road: Twin Peaks Road to Golden Sunset 23,100 1,784 671 14 2 1,076 21 3 3 Espola Road: Golden Sunset to High Valley Road 23,400 1,779 1,009 20 3 733 15 2 4 Espola Road: High Valley Road to Titan Way 21,400 1,651 911 18 2 704 14 2 Chapter 5: Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methodology Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 5-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 6: Impacts Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 6-1 6.0 IMPACTS This section discusses potential Project impacts occurring during Project construction or operations. For operational effects, the analysis addresses the Proposed Project in detail and summarizes anticipated alternative impacts. 6.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS (ALL BUILD ALTERNATIVES) Noise from Project construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. The City of Poway’s construction noise regulation specifies that the noise levels associated with construction activities at residential properties should not exceed 75 dBA, averaged over 8 hours during any 24-hour period (City Municipal Code Section 8.08.100). With implementation of standard noise abatement features such as mufflers, the grading and paving construction activities are anticipated to generate noise levels that comply with the City’s noise criteria. Construction is expected to be completed in a single stage over an estimated period of 12 months. Project construction typically would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, although construction during other times may occur. Project construction activities would result in a short-term, temporary increase in the ambient noise level in the immediate area of construction. The magnitude of the impact would be dependent upon the type of construction activity and equipment generating the noise, the duration of the construction stage, and the distance between the noise source and the receptor. Table 7 summarizes noise levels produced by construction equipment that could be used during construction of the Proposed Project. Construction equipment would be expected to generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, and noise generated by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance away from the source (Harris 1998). Table 7 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA at 50 feet) Scrapers 89 Bulldozers 85 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 Concrete Pump 82 Source: Federal Transit Administration 1995 Chapter 6: Impacts Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 6-2 Heavy equipment is expected to include at least two large earthmovers, two graders, two large dump trucks, two concrete trucks/mixers, and two large loaders. Tractors, backhoes, skid steers, paver/rollers, and water trucks also would be utilized. The heavy equipment has been estimated conservatively to be in operation eight hours per day and six days per week. Maximum noise levels at 50 feet would range from approximately 75 to 90 dBA for the type of equipment normally used for this type of Project. There is a relatively small potential that blasting would be required in areas of shallow bedrock, and some large rocks are present in the vicinity of Northcrest Lane on the east side of Espola Road. (It is possible that the rocks may be broken rather than blasted apart.) If blasting is necessary, these operations would precede other roadway grading activities and would be completed in a relatively short time period. Any rock produced during blasting activities would be hauled off site or buried in on-site fills. No crushing would occur on site. Construction blasting can generate maximum noise levels of approximately 94 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (Bolt Beranek and Newman 1989). The specific blasting hole sites are not known. Because of the infrequent nature of blasting (i.e., approximately one or two blasts per day), however, this noise level would be less than significant at residences located more than approximately 50 feet from the blast area with proper pre-blast notices to the residents. Blasting from construction projects generates a velocity level of approximately 100 dBA or a peak particle velocity of approximately 0.80 inch per second (Federal Transit Administration 2006). At a distance of 65 feet from the blast, the peak particle velocity would be approximately 0.20 inch per second. This vibration level is the limit that is typically considered acceptable for all building structures along the Project site. Thus, if blasts are proposed to be conducted within 65 feet of residences, the blasting contractor may be required to implement additional blasting control measures. With required adherence to the City’s Municipal Code regulations governing the acceptable hours of construction activities temporary construction noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, a number of construction equipment maintenance or operations measures would be implemented, as addressed in Section 7.0. 6.2 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS 6.2.1 Proposed Project Typically, the peak hour Leq noise level along surface streets is approximately equal to the CNEL value where the peak hour is between 8 and 12 percent of the ADT. This assumption was confirmed during a 24-hour noise measurement for the Project. Future traffic noise levels have been projected under existing and design year conditions (with and without the proposed Project). Table 8 illustrates the difference between existing conditions and the future conditions without Project improvements to set baseline data. The table also identifies what the decibel change would be with proposed improvements to the three-lane width for each of the receptor locations Chapter 6: Impacts Es p o l a R o a d I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t N o i s e S t u d y R e p o r t 6-3 Ta b l e 8 Pr e d i c t e d F u t u r e N o i s e a n d B a rr i e r E f f e c t i v e n e s s A n a l y s i s Segment Receiver AP N A d d r e s s Me a s u r e d Co n d i t i o n s No P r o j e c t Fu t u r e Ci t y o f Po w a y Cr i t e r i a No B a r r i e r s 3-Lane Future Pl a n n e d Ba r r i e r s 1 6' B a r r i e r 6 1 / 2 ' Ba r r i e r 7' B a r r i e r 7 1/2' Barrier8' Barrier 8 1/2' Barrier 9' Barrier Notes dB A d B A C h a n g e d B A C h a n g e I D d B A d B A d B A d B A d B A d B A d B A 1 53 3 2 1 2 4 3 0 1 0 0 1 4 2 1 1 T w i n P e a k s R o a d 6 2 . 4 6 2 . 9 0 . 5 6 0 6 3 . 4 1 . 0 – No PUA, Existing Barrier 2 8 3 2 1 3 0 3 2 9 0 0 1 4 1 4 9 R i o C o u r t 6 3 . 3 2 6 3 . 7 0 . 4 6 0 6 4 . 2 2 0. 9 B 1 - S 6 0 . 7 5 9 . 9 E x i s t i n g Barrier 9 3 2 1 3 0 3 2 7 0 0 1 4 1 5 4 R i o C o u r t 6 7 . 7 2 6 8 . 1 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 3 3 0. 6 B 1 - S 6 7 . 8 6 7 . 2 6 5 . 8 6 4 . 9 E x i s t i n g Barrier 10 3 2 1 3 0 3 0 8 0 0 1 4 1 5 8 S e gun d o C o u r t 6 7 . 9 6 8 . 3 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 6 0 . 7 B 1 - S 6 6 . 4 6 5 . 0 11 3 2 1 2 9 3 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 5 3 L o s N i e t o s A v e n u e 6 7 . 8 6 8 . 2 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 4 0 . 6 B 1 - N 68 . 4 6 8 . 4 6 7 . 0 6 6 . 7 6 5 . 9 6 5 . 4 6 4 . 4 12 3 2 1 2 9 1 3 2 0 0 1 4 7 3 5 A l on d o P l a c e 6 7 . 3 6 7 . 7 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 0 0 . 7 B 2 6 6 . 7 6 6 . 3 6 5 . 8 6 4 . 7 13 3 2 1 2 9 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 7 5 1 A l o nd o P l a c e 6 8 . 1 6 8 . 6 0 . 5 6 5 6 8 . 7 0. 6 B 2 6 8 . 7 6 8 . 3 6 7 . 1 6 6 . 6 6 6 . 3 6 4 . 9 14 3 2 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 1 4 8 0 2 E s p o l a R o a d 6 8 . 8 6 9 . 3 0 . 5 6 5 6 9 . 4 0 . 6 B 3 6 6 . 1 6 5 . 8 6 5 . 2 6 4 . 0 15 3 2 1 0 2 0 5 5 0 0 1 4 8 3 6 E s p o l a R o a d 6 6 . 1 6 6 . 6 0 . 5 6 5 6 7 . 0 0 . 9 – Shielded PUA 16 3 2 1 0 2 0 6 4 0 0 1 4 8 5 6 E s p o l a R o a d 6 6 . 6 6 7 . 0 0 . 4 6 5 6 7 . 4 0 . 8 – Shielded PUA 17 3 2 1 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 9 0 6 E s p o l a R o a d 6 7 . 9 6 8 . 3 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 5 0 . 6 – Shielded PUA 18 3 2 1 3 3 0 0 7 0 0 1 4 1 4 5 D u r h u l l e n D r i v e 6 7 . 8 6 8 . 2 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 4 0 . 6 B 4 6 2 . 9 43 3 2 1 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 1 4 9 3 7 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 6 6 4 . 0 0 . 4 6 0 6 4 . 2 0 . 6 – Protected Outdoor Use Area available 44 3 2 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 4 8 4 5 E s p o l a R o a d 6 5 . 3 6 5 . 7 0 . 4 6 5 6 6 . 0 0 . 7 B 1 4 6 4 . 9 45 3 2 1 2 1 0 4 5 0 0 1 4 8 3 9 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 9 6 4 . 3 0 . 4 6 0 6 4 . 4 0 . 5 – Shielded PUA 46 3 2 1 2 1 0 3 6 0 0 1 4 8 3 1 E s p o l a R o a d 6 2 . 4 6 2 . 8 0 . 4 6 0 6 2 . 7 0 . 3 – Shielded PUA 47 3 2 1 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 4 8 1 5 E s p o l a R o a d 6 8 . 1 6 8 . 6 0 . 5 6 5 6 8 . 4 0 . 3 - S h i e l d e d P U A 48 3 2 1 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 7 2 9 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 3 6 3 . 7 0 . 4 6 0 6 3 . 7 0 . 4 – Shielded PUA 49 3 2 1 2 4 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 7 1 1 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 4 6 3 . 8 0 . 4 6 0 6 3 . 8 0 . 4 – Shielded PUA 50 3 2 1 2 4 1 0 4 0 0 1 4 6 7 9 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 9 6 4 . 3 0 . 4 6 0 6 4 . 5 0 . 6 – Shielded PUA 51 3 2 1 2 4 1 0 6 0 0 1 4 6 4 3 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 5 6 3 . 9 0 . 4 6 0 6 4 . 2 0 . 7 – Shielded PUA 52 3 2 1 2 4 1 0 8 0 0 1 4 6 1 1 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 5 6 4 . 0 0 . 5 6 0 6 4 . 2 0 . 7 – Shielded PUA 3 1 9 3 2 1 3 3 0 0 6 0 0 1 4 1 4 4 D u r h u l l e n D r i v e 6 6 . 7 6 7 . 1 0 . 4 6 5 6 6 . 8 0 . 1 B 5 - S 5 9 . 7 20 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 4 E s p o l a R o a d 6 7 . 0 6 7 . 4 0 . 4 6 5 6 7 . 2 0 . 2 B 5 - N 64 . 1 21 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 8 0 0 1 5 0 1 6 E s p o l a R o a d 6 8 . 1 6 8 . 5 0 . 4 6 5 6 8 . 1 0 . 0 - S h i e l d e d P U A 22 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 1 5 0 4 0 E s p o l a R o a d 6 6 . 4 6 6 . 8 0 . 4 6 5 6 6 . 7 0 . 3 – Shielded PUA 23 3 2 1 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 5 0 6 0 E s p o l a R o a d 6 5 . 7 6 6 . 2 0 . 5 6 5 6 6 . 4 0 . 7 – Shielded PUA 23 A 3 2 1 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 1 5 1 6 1 H u n t i n gto n C o u r t 5 7 . 9 5 8 . 3 0 . 4 6 0 5 8 . 4 0 . 5 – Shielded PUA 37 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 5 1 3 1 E s p o l a R o a d 6 5 . 3 6 5 . 7 0 . 4 6 5 6 5 . 9 0 . 6 – Protected Outdoor Use Area Available 38 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 5 1 2 1 E s p o l a R o a d 6 7 . 3 6 7 . 8 0 . 5 6 5 6 7 . 6 0 . 3 B 1 1 6 1 . 9 39 3 2 1 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 1 5 1 0 9 E s p o l a R o a d 6 7 . 0 6 7 . 4 0 . 4 6 5 6 7 . 5 0 . 5 B 1 2 6 4 . 3 40 3 2 1 0 4 0 1 9 0 0 1 4 2 0 8 J e r o m e D r i v e 6 4 . 7 6 5 . 1 0 . 4 6 5 6 5 . 6 0 . 9 – Shielded PUA 41 3 2 1 0 4 0 1 8 0 0 1 4 2 1 1 J e r o m e D r i v e 6 6 . 2 6 6 . 6 0 . 4 6 5 6 7 . 1 0 . 9 – Shielded PUA 42 3 2 1 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 4 9 4 9 E s p o l a R o a d 6 6 . 9 6 7 . 3 0 . 4 6 5 6 7 . 8 0 . 9 B 1 3 5 7 . 5 Chapter 6: Impacts Es p o l a R o a d I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t N o i s e S t u d y R e p o r t 6-4 Ta b l e 8 ( c o n t . ) Pr e d i c t e d F u t u r e N o i s e a n d B a rr i e r E f f e c t i v e n e s s A n a l y s i s Segment Receiver AP N A d d r e s s Me a s u r e d Co n d i t i o n s No P r o j e c t Fu t u r e Ci t y o f Po w a y Cr i t e r i a No B a r r i e r s 3-Lane Future Pl a n n e d Ba r r i e r s 1 6' Ba r r i e r 6 1 / 2 ' Ba r r i e r 7' B a r r i e r 7 1/2' Barrier 8' Barrier 8 1/2' Barrier 9' Barrier Notes dB A d B A C h a n g e d B A C h a n g e I D d B A d B A d B A d B A d B A d B A d B A 4 24 3 2 1 0 1 2 4 8 0 0 1 5 2 4 4 E s p o l a R o a d 6 4 . 3 6 4 . 8 0 . 5 6 0 6 5 . 0 0 . 7 B 6 6 2 . 3 6 1 . 6 6 1 . 0 6 0 . 5 5 9 . 8 25 3 2 1 0 1 2 4 9 0 0 1 5 3 1 8 E s p o l a R o a d 6 2 . 8 6 3 . 3 0 . 5 6 0 6 3 . 5 0 . 7 B 7 6 0 . 7 6 0 . 4 6 0 . 1 5 9 . 6 5 8 . 8 26 3 2 1 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 1 5 3 6 0 E s p o l a R o a d 6 1 . 2 6 1 . 6 0 . 4 6 0 6 1 . 5 0 . 3 B 8 5 8 . 9 27 2 7 8 4 5 0 2 4 0 0 1 5 4 0 8 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 5 6 3 . 9 0 . 4 6 0 6 3 . 8 0 . 3 B 9 5 8 . 9 28 2 7 8 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 5 W i l l o w R a n c h R o a d 5 8 . 8 5 9 . 2 0 . 4 6 0 5 4 . 9 - 3 . 9 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 29 2 7 8 4 5 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 4 5 7 M e s q u i t e T r e e T r a i l 5 9 . 8 6 0 . 2 0 . 4 6 0 6 0 . 4 0 . 6 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 30 2 7 8 4 5 0 1 3 0 0 1 5 4 7 7 M e s q u i t e T r e e T r a i l 5 9 . 7 6 0 . 2 0 . 5 6 0 6 0 . 3 0 . 6 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 31 2 7 8 4 5 0 1 5 0 0 1 5 4 9 7 M e s q u i t e T r e e T r a i l 5 9 . 4 5 9 . 8 0 . 4 6 0 5 9 . 7 0 . 3 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 32 2 7 8 4 6 2 3 9 0 0 1 5 4 9 0 H a r r o w L a n e 5 7 . 7 5 8 . 2 0 . 5 6 0 5 8 . 2 0 . 5 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 33 2 7 8 4 6 2 3 7 0 0 1 5 4 7 8 H a r r o w L a n e 5 8 . 2 5 8 . 6 0 . 4 6 0 5 8 . 6 0 . 4 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 34 2 7 8 4 6 2 3 5 0 0 1 5 4 6 4 H a r r o w L a n e 5 8 . 2 5 8 . 6 0 . 4 6 0 5 9 . 0 0 . 8 – I n C o m p l i a n c e 35 3 2 1 0 1 2 5 2 0 0 1 5 3 6 1 E s p o l a R o a d 6 3 . 8 6 4 . 2 0 . 4 6 0 6 4 . 6 0 . 8 B 1 0 6 2 . 8 6 2 . 2 6 1 . 5 6 0 . 7 5 9 . 9 36 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 5 0 0 1 5 1 5 9 E s p o l a R o a d 5 4 . 9 5 5 . 3 0 . 4 6 0 5 6 . 2 0 . 9 – I n C o m p l i a n c e I. L . = B a r r i e r N o i s e R e d u c t i o n ( I n s e r t i o n / L o s s ) N/ L = N o B a r r i e r N o i s e R e d u c t i o n ( N o / L o s s ) PU A = P r o t e c t e d U s e A r e a . S h i e l d e d p r o t e c t e d u s e a r e a s r e c e i v e s h i e l d i n g f r o m r o a d n o i s e t h r o u g h i n t e r v e n i n g s t r u c t u r e s a n d / o r t o p o g r a p h y . 1 T h e u l t i m a t e h e i g h t a n d l o c a t i o n o f n o i s e b a r r i e r s w i l l b e d e t e r m i n e d d u r i n g f i n a l d e s i g n a n d a f t e r t h e f i n a l r e a s o n a b l e / f e a s i bl e a n a l y s i s i s c o m p l e t e d . 2 A s i x - f o o t w a l l c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s a t t h i s l o c a t i o n . D u e t o t h e p r o j e c t s o u n d w a l l h e i g h t i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h e e x i s t i n g w a l l w o ul d b e r e m o v e d a n d a n e w w a l l , w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e f o o t i n g s , w o u l d b e c o n s t r u c t e d . 3 T h i s r e c e i v e r h a s a n e x i s t i n g n o i s e - r e d u c i n g b a r r i e r w h o s e at t e n u a t i o n i s f a c t o r e d i n t o t h e e x i s t i n g n o i s e l e v e l . Chapter 6: Impacts Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 6-5 mapped on Figures 3 and 4. Following that, Table 8 identifies whether the sensitive receptors contain a protected use area, and if so, the height of wall recommended to provide appropriate attenuation of roadway noise under City criteria. Where residences have existing sound walls (Barriers B1-S and B1-N) along Espola Road, computer modeling for the future Project-related noise impacts take them into account to determine whether the as-is walls would provide sufficient noise control. Due to the roadway traffic volumes and speeds, the traffic noise impacts do not extend to any residents beyond the single-family residences directly along Espola Road. The future loudest hour Leq would generally range from approximately 55 to 69 dBA at the usable outdoor space (generally backyards) of residences without existing sound walls located adjacent to Espola Road. The future noise level would exceed City thresholds at a number of identified receivers (i.e., Sites 8-14, 18-20, 24-27, 35, 38-39, 42, and 44 on Figure 2.3-1) along Espola Road. Potentially significant impacts are identified to each of these receptors. As shown on Table 8, sound barriers of various heights are proposed based on which of the criteria the receiver falls within (currently under 60 dBA, between 60 and 65 dBA, or over 65 dBA), as described in Section 3.3.2 of this report. Some homes have front yards bordering Espola Road, but also have usable outdoor space shielded from Espola Road traffic noise by the intervening home. These include Sites 15-17, 21-23, 41, and 45-52. No significant impacts are identified to the front yards in these cases. Two homes (Sites 37 and 43) are located on large lots. These homes have apparent use areas in the front or side yards. Substantial lot area exists around these homes that would allow for exterior use areas shielded by the homes. No significant impacts are identified. The Montessori Child Development Center (Site M6) would be subject to a future loudest hour Leq of approximately 64 dBA. This noise level would comply with the City noise significance threshold. Section 216 of the Streets and Highways Code also requires abatement for noise that intrudes into specified areas of elementary or secondary schools when the levels within these areas exceed a one-hour average sound level of 52 dBA. The classrooms at the school adjacent to Espola Road have air conditioning; this condition allows the classrooms to shut their windows, operate the air conditioners and reduce roadway noise in the classrooms. Assuming a minimum noise reduction of 20 dBA with closed windows, the interior future loudest hour Leq would be approximately 44 dBA at the closest classrooms. This noise level would comply with the noise significance threshold and no operational noise impacts from the Proposed Project would occur. A church and commercial area are located south of Twin Peaks Road (Sites M1 and 53). Only construction activities primarily associated with an existing storm drain system are proposed south of Twin Peaks Road. There are no road widening improvements proposed for this area with associated Project changes in traffic proximity, and this area is not further addressed. No significant impacts would occur. The reader should note that because the Project is anticipated to receive partial federal funding, if the Project is approved by the City for construction, technical report requirements in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also would be required in order for federal Chapter 6: Impacts Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 6-6 monies to be released. Noise modeling in accordance with standards current to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would be completed at that time as part of a separate effort (see further discussion in Section 7.0 of this report). 6.2.2. No Project Alternative With the No Project Alternative, the future year 2030 traffic volume along Espola Road would increase by the same amount as anticipated for the build alternatives (KOA Corporation 2006). The future additional traffic volume would result in a less than one dBA CNEL increase as compared to the existing conditions. The areas that currently exceed the City’s noise criteria would continue to exceed these noise level thresholds in the future. 6.2.3. Alternatives Evaluated But Rejected Noise effects for the evaluated but rejected build alternatives would be similar to those assessed under the Project with the exception of small variations (less than 1.0 dBA) due to change in proximity of the roadway and the amount of noise shielding provided by the grade cuts where the roadway is shifted to the east. The same receivers that would experience noise levels exceeding City thresholds with the Project also would exceed thresholds under each of the build alternatives. Chapter 7: Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 7-1 7.0 MITIGATION 7.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE No mitigation is required for the less-than-significant short-term construction-period impacts. The City is recommending the following construction noise control measures, however, to further minimize noise effects at noise-sensitive locations during Project construction.  Each internal combustion engine, used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the Project without said muffler.  The noise level requirement shall apply to the equipment on the job or related to the job; including but not limited to trucks, transit mixer or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the contractor.  The use of loud signals shall be avoided in favor of light warnings except those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel.  Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences should be strictly prohibited.  Avoid staging of construction equipment within 200 feet of residences and locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far practical from noise sensitive residences. The contractor will place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors (residences).  As directed by the City, the contractor will implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. 7.2 OPERATIONAL NOISE 7.2.1 Proposed Project In accordance with the City General Plan Public Safety Element, noise reduction strategies are considered where Project impacts would expose existing residences to higher noise levels exceeding General Plan standards. State and City guidelines specify that noise abatement must be provided to impacted residents where feasible. Factors that affect feasibility include topography, access requirements for driveways and ramps, presence of local cross streets, utility conflicts, other noise sources in the area, and safety considerations. The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by considering factors such as predicted future increase in noise levels, expected noise abatement benefits, environmental impacts of abatement Chapter 7: Mitigation Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 7-2 construction, opinions of affected residents, etc. Because of the configuration and location of the Project, abatement in the form of noise barriers is the only noise reduction strategy that is considered feasible, since Espola Road is already regulated to low speeds (45 mph), and is immediately abutted by residential (and other) uses which would preclude the use of a buffer zone between the roadway and noise-sensitive receivers. Each of the walls proposed as mitigation meet initial feasibility and reasonableness criteria. Preliminary information on the physical location, length, and height of recommended noise barriers is provided in Table 8. The walls recommended in Table 8 provide information regarding the magnitude of potential wall heights and extents that may be constructed as part of the Project. In general, sound walls of 6 to 10 feet in height are proposed to address the current and increased noise along Espola Road. Figure 5 schematically indicates the proposed wall locations. Final design and placement of noise walls would require additional engineering input, including consideration of site-specific conditions and further noise modeling. Future modeling required as part of the NEPA compliance and funding effort for the Project, as well as input from property owners (who may not wish walls) also could result to changes to wall parameters.1 If pertinent engineering parameters change substantially during the final Project design, or if property owners reject proposed walls located on their private property, preliminary noise barrier designs may be modified (in height or extent) or eliminated from the final Project. If and when federal and final modeling is required and completed, a consistency analysis would be completed to confirm that sound barrier requirements do not vary substantially from those anticipated requirements specified herein. If walls do vary substantially (e.g., substantially longer or higher walls), subsequent CEQA clearance may be required. 7.2.2. No Project Alternative Noise abatement walls would not be provided with the No Project Alternative. Thus, the areas that currently exceed the City’s noise criteria would continue to exceed these noise level thresholds in the future. 7.2.3. Alternatives Evaluated But Rejected The same receivers that would experience noise levels in excess of City standards with the Project also would exceed standards under each of the evaluated but rejected build alternatives. As the impacts would be very similar, sound walls roughly equivalent to the Proposed Project also would be required. 1 Federal funding would not be provided for any sound wall where future noise levels would drop below 66 dBA. Differences between City and federal thresholds may occur with regard to wall height. Based on current federal modeling standards, it is considered likely that the proposed height of a number of walls could by one-half foot to two feet. One 10-foot wall (at receiver 44) could be proposed. !9 !8 !34 !33 !32!31 !30 !29 !28 !53 !52 !51 !50 !49 !48 !47 !46 !45 !44 !43 !42 !41 !40 !39 !38 !37 !36 !35 !27 !26 !25 !24 !23 !22 !21 !20 !19 !18 !17 !16 !15 !14 !13 !12 !11 !10 !23A E s p o l a R o a d Twin Peaks Road Mtn Road Northcrest Lane Titan Way Del Poniente Road Huntington Gate Drive Tierra Bonita Road Eden Grove Via Molinero Golden Sunset Lane Derringer Road Carlson Street Kalapana Street Jerome Drive Roberto Rio Road R i d g e v i e w P l a c e Crestview Court Durhullen Drive Rio Court Mesquite Tree Evergreen Lane El Topo Drive Los Nietos Avenue Segundo Court Carnitas StreetEl Dolora Way H i g h V a l l e y R o a d Saddlebrook Court Alando Place Espola Road Willow Ranch Road B2 B1-S B5-S B8 B6 B4 B6 B3 B14 B11 B9 B10B7 B1-N B5-N B12 B13 Job No: BAH-01 Date: 12/22/11 µ I:\Gis\B\BAH-01Espola Rd\Map\Noise\Fig5_Noise_Receivers_Barriers.mxd -EV 500 0 500250Feet Figure 5 ESPOLA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Noise Receivers and Proposed Noise Barrier Locations LEGEND !1 Noise Receiver Location Proposed Noise BarrierB1 Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 8-1 8.0 CERTIFICATION The findings and recommendations of this acoustical analysis report are based on the information available and are a true and factual analysis of the potential acoustical issues associated with the Espola Road Improvement Project located in the City of Poway, California. This report was prepared by Charles Terry. ___________________________ November 23, 2011 Charles Terry Date Group Manager Noise, Acoustics, & Vibration Chapter 8: Certification Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 8-2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 9-1 9.0 REFERENCES Bolt Beranek and Newman. 1989. Noise Control for Building and Manufacturing Plants. City of Poway. 1991. City of Poway Comprehensive Plan, Volume One – The General Plan. Noise Element. November 19, 1991 (amended 1994, 1996, 2000 and 2008). 2006. City of Poway Municipal Code, Chapter 8.08 – Noise Abatement and Control. Section 8.08.100. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1982. 23 CFR Part 772: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise – Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 47, Number 131. July. Washington, DC. 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.4. February. FHWA-PD-96-010. Washington D.C. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model. February, 15. Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/ rcnm/rcnm.pdf>. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. April. Washington, DC. Office of Planning. Federal Transit Administration. 1995. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. (DOT-T- 95-16.) Office of Planning, Washington, DC. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Burlington, MA. Harris, Cyril M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd Edition. Acoustical Society of America. KOA Corporation. 2006. Espola Road Widening Traffic Analysis. August. Pacific Noise Control. 2004. Espola Road Improvement Project Acoustical Assessment Report. April. Vista, CA. Chapter 9: References Espola Road Improvement Project Noise Study Report 9-2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK