Appendix J
Noise Report
Noise Technical Report
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Project
AUGUST 2024
Prepared for:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Contact: Arturo Ortuno
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Cole Martin, INCE
Jim Cowan, INCE Bd. Cert.
DUDEK
DUDEK.COM
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
14541 i
AUGUST 2024
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Report Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Regional and Local Setting .................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 3
1.4.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics .................................................................................................... 3
1.4.2 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels ...................................................................................... 3
1.4.3 A-Weighted Sound Level ........................................................................................................... 4
1.4.4 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels ....................................................................... 9
1.4.5 Noise Descriptors...................................................................................................................... 9
1.4.6 Sound Propagation ................................................................................................................... 9
1.4.7 Ground-borne Vibration Fundamentals ................................................................................ 10 2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.1 Federal Transit Administration .............................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise ............................................................................ 11
2.2 State ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 California Code of Regulations, Title 24 ............................................................................... 11
2.2.2 California Department of Health Services Guidelines ......................................................... 12
2.2.3 California Department of Transportation ............................................................................. 12
2.3 Local ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 City of Chula Vista Noise Level Compatibility Standards ..................................................... 12
2.3.2 Transportation-Related Noise Standards ............................................................................. 13 3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Noise Measurements .......................................................................................................................... 15 4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................................................... 19 5 Impact Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 21 6 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 35 7 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 37 DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 ii
AUGUST 2024
TABLES
1 Proposed Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2 Proposed Land Uses for Planning Areas ............................................................................................................ 3 3 Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry ..................................................................................... 4 4 City of Chula Vista Exterior Property-Line Noise Limits ................................................................................... 13 5 Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 16 6 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels ............................................................................... 21 7 Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-sensitive Receptors ........... 22 8 Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase ................................................................................ 23 9 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................................................................... 26 10 Modeled Sound Power Levels (PWL) for Stationary Sources (HVAC) ............................................................. 27
FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 3 Project Site and Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................. 17 4 Predicted Daytime Onsite Operation Noise Contours ..................................................................................... 29 5 Predicted Nighttime Onsite Operation Noise Contours .................................................................................. 31
APPENDICES
A Baseline Noise Measurement Field Data
B Construction Noise Modeling Input and Output
C Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output
D Project Sound Source Calculation Data
DUDEK
14541 iii
AUGUST 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
ACC Air-cooled condensers
ADT Average Daily Traffic
BPF Business Park Flex
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Chula Vista
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Commercial Office
County San Diego County
CV Commercial Visitor
CVMC Chula Vista Municipal Code
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOT Department of Transportation
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ips inches per second
ISO International Organization of Standardization
LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Ldn day–night average noise level
Leq equivalent noise level
LI Light Industrial
Lmax maximum sound level
Lmin minimum sound level
LT Long-term
OBCF Octave-band center frequency
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan proposed project
PPV peak particle velocity
PWL Sound power level
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RTP Regional Technology Park
SLM Sound level meter
SPL Sound pressure level
ST Short-term
VdB Velocity Decibel
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 iv
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
14541 1
AUGUST 2024
1 Introduction
1.1 Report Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this technical report is to assess the potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Rohr Wohl Specific Plan project (project). This analysis uses the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).
1.2 Regional and Local Setting
The project site is 44.78 acres located in the City of Chula Vista, California (City). The site is in the northwest portion of the City, directly adjacent to the City of San Diego. More specifically, the project site is located west of Interstate (I) 5, north of H Street, south of G Street, and east of Marina Parkway (Figure 1, Project Location). The site Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 571-330-35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.
1.3 Project Description
The proposed project involves the preparation of a Specific Plan that would govern future development within the three Planning Areas (A, B-1, and B-2) at the project site (see Figure 2). Specific plans are a mechanism to ensure that projects develop in an organized and a cohesive manner. Specific plans incorporate a development framework for detailed land use, circulation, infrastructure including drainage, sewer, and water facilities, a nd urban design and landscape plans. A comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations are included to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character within the Specific Plan area ensuring that excellence in design is achieved during project development. The Rohr Wohl Specific Pla n establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Specific Plan area.
A General Plan and Land Use Plan Amendment is proposed to be processed concurrently with Specific Plan adoption, which would change the existing I -G (General Industrial) zoning designation to three new zoning designations: PA-1 (for Planning Area A), PA-2 (for Planning Area B-1), and PA-3 (for Planning Area B-2). These new designations would provide for permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses within six land use categories: Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Visitor (CV), Commercial Office (CO), Light Industrial (LI), Regional Technology Park (RTP), and Business Park Flex (BPF). The existing zoning designation of I-G would be amended to complement the Collins Aerospace Campus to allow a flexible combination of light industrial, office, commer cial and visitor-oriented uses to complement both the overall Chula Vista Bayfront area and the western part of Chula Vista. California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section s 65450–65457) permits adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for the local general plan. Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines, and programs with the goals and policies set forth in the general plan. The Rohr Wohl Specific Plan would be prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Chula Vista General Plan as amended, in providing a commercial/light Industrial use on an underutilized property, creating new employment opportunities, and providing regulations that support the success of an employment area of the City.
The project site is divided into three separate planning areas. The eastern portion of the project site, closest to I-5 (between G Street and H Street), is designated as Planning Area A and is 9.29 acres. The largest planning area is DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 2
AUGUST 2024
Planning Area B-1, which is 26.13 acres. The last planning area is Planning Area B-2, which is located south of B-1 and is 9.36 acres (Figure 2, Site Plan).
Planning Areas A, B-1, and B-2 of the project site are located within the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program and currently lie within the General Industrial (I) Zoning and Industrial (I) General Plan land use designations. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include vacant properties, Collins Aerospace, and Seven Mile Casino to the north; Marina, Chula Vista Harbor, and future development as part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan to the south; Bay Boulevard and I -5 to the east; and C hula Vista RV Resort and future development site for the Gaylord Pacific Resort Hotel and Convention Center to the west.
The land uses shown in Table 1 represent proposed land uses for each of the three Planning Areas.
Table 1. Proposed Land Uses
Land Use Category Allowed Services
Commercial Retail (CR) Designates areas for general commercial activities and services of a more intensive nature, including but not limited to shopping facilities, major service-oriented uses, food uses, and other retail uses that are designed to serve the city or the region as a whole and are typically located primarily along major transportation routes.
Commercial Visitor (CV) Designates areas for large-scale commercial development that serves both local and regional needs. The regulations of this zone are designed to encourage the provision of lodging, restaurants, service stations, and other activities providing for the convenience, welfare, or entertainment of the traveler. Sites are easily accessible from freeways and may contain a variety of goods and services, such as eating and drinking establishments, hotels, and motels.
Commercial Office (CO) Designates areas for activities that cater to business support and personal services. Uses typically include medical and health care clinics, travel agencies, insurance agencies, copy centers, and other similar land uses.
Light Industrial (LI) Designates areas for industrial firms seeking an attractive and pleasant working environment and a location which has prestige value. The district allows light industrial uses, office and administration facilities, research and development laboratories, and limited types of warehousing, as well as support businesses and commercial service uses.
Regional Technology Park (RTP) Designates areas reserved for manufacturing, processing, warehousing and storage, e-commerce distribution, light industrial research parks, retail uses to complement the primary use; supportive amenities and services; and convenient transit access, and a broad range of similar clean industrial practices and processes that typically generate less truck traffic and noise.
Business Park Flex (BPF) Designates areas to support a complementary mix of uses such as research and development, e-commerce, light and custom
manufacturing, engineering and design services, breweries, and maker spaces, as well as accessory office, retail uses to compliment the primary use; supportive amenities and services; and convenient transit access. This zoning district encourages light industrial activities with low environmental impacts and supports the growth of creative industries, incubator businesses, and innovative design and DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 3
AUGUST 2024
Table 1. Proposed Land Uses
Land Use Category Allowed Services
manufacturing. The zoning district can allow for small scale, context sensitive warehousing, distribution, and manufacturing to support small business development.
The purpose and intent of the land uses proposed is to provide for commercial/light industrial uses on the underutilized project site, creating new employment opportunities and successfully restoring what was a major job center for the City. The Planning Areas would each include the land uses shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Proposed Land Uses for Planning Areas
Planning Area Specific Plan Land Use Acreage
A Industrial/Business Park Flex 9.29
B-1 Regional Technology Park/Light Industrial/Commercial Office 26.13 B-2 Resort Hotel/Quality Restaurant 9.36
1.4 Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration
The following is a brief discussion of fundamental noise concepts and terminology.
1.4.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound is actually a process that consists of three components: the sound source, sound path, and sound receptor.
All three components must be present for sound to exist. Without a source to produce sound, there is no sound.
Similarly, without a medium to transmit sound pressure waves, there is no sound. Finally, sound must be received; a hearing organ, sensor, or object must be present to perceive, register, or be affected by sound or noise. In most situations, there are many different sound sources, paths, and receptors rather than just one of each. Acoustics is the field of science that deals with the production, propagation, reception, effects, and control of sound. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired.
1.4.2 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound wave determines its loudness. Loudness of sound increases with increasing amplitude.
Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micronewtons per square meter, also called micropascals. One micropascal is approximately one-hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. The pressure of a very loud sound may be 200 million micropascals, or 10 million times the pressure of the weakest audible sound.
Because expressing sound levels in terms of micropascals would be very cumbersome and the sensitivity of human hearing to changes in micropascals is rather coarse (e.g., a doubling of micropascals is just audible to most people), sound pressure level in logarithmic units is used instead to describe the ratio of actual sound pressure to a reference pressure squared. These units are called Bels. To provide a finer resolution, a Bel is subdivided into 10 decibels (dB).
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 4
AUGUST 2024
1.4.3 A-Weighted Sound Level
Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency, or pitch, of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness, or human response, is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.
Human hearing is limited not only in the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 and 5,000 hertz, and it perceives a sound within th at range as more intense than a sound of higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adj ustments (referred to as a weighting network) are frequency-dependent.
The A-scale weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to ordinary sounds. When people make judgments about the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A -scale so und levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special situations (e.g., B-scale, C-scale, and D-scale), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with most environmental noise evaluations. Noise levels are typically reported in terms of A-weighted sound levels. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted decibels (dBA). Examples of typical noise levels for common indoor and outdoor activities are depicted in Table 3.
Table 3. Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities — 110 Rock band
Jet fly over at 300 meters
(1,000 feet)
100 —
Gas lawn mower at 1 meter (3 feet) 90 —
Diesel truck at 15 meters (50 feet),
at 80 kilometers per hour
(50 miles per hour)
80 Food blender at 1 meter (3 feet); garbage
disposal at 1 meter (3 feet)
Noisy urban area, daytime; gas lawn
mower at 30 meters (100 feet)
70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters (10 feet)
Commercial area; heavy traffic at 90
meters (300 feet)
60 Normal speech at 1 meter (3 feet)
Quiet urban, daytime 50 Large business office; dishwasher next room Quiet urban, nighttime 40 Theater; large conference room (background) Quiet suburban, nighttime 30 Library
Quiet rural, nighttime 20 Bedroom at night; concert hall (background) — 10 Broadcast/Recording studio
Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans 2020.
DUDEK
54 75
5 W 32ND ST
04TH AVE
GRAND CARIBE CSWY
02ND AVE
GU NPOWDER POINT DR
05TH AVE
FLOWER ST
I ST
BEECHAVE
DAVIDSON ST
E ST
SMITH
AVE
PARK WAY
GLOVERAVE
JAMES ST
MARDIGRASRD
C ST
MCINTOSH ST
MARINA PKY
SHASTA ST
J ST
HALSEY ST
SIERRA WAY
03RD AVE
01ST
AVE
MOSS ST
KEARNEY ST
G ST
05TH AVE
F ST
CORONADO
CAY S BLVD
DELMAR
AVE
GUAVA AVE
ALLEY
MADRONA ST
W
OODLAW
N
AVE CEDAR AVE
CORONADO BAYRD
SANDPIPE
R WAY ELDER AVE
SEA VALE ST
FIG
AVE
D ST
BAYSIDE WAY
FIG AVE
BRIGHTWOOD AVE
MADISON AVE
BROADWAY
CHURCH AVE
WOODLAWN AVE
G ST
GARRETT AVE
LANDIS AVE
EAST PARK LN
SEA VALE ST
TWIN OAKS AVE
GARRETTAVE
ALLEY
CASSELMAN ST
COLORADO AVE
LAGOON DR
H ST
L ST
ALVARADO ST
ARIZONA ST
GREEN TURTLE RD
RIVERLAWNAVE
DATE AVE
ASH AVE
GUAVA AVE
THE POINT
W 35TH ST
K ST
MINOTAVE
MAR INA WAY
ROOSEVELT ST
WESTBY ST
OAKLAWN AVE
BAY BLVD
BAYBLVD
SILVER
STRAND
BLVD
SOURCE: SANGIS 2023
Date: 6/29/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1454101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure4-1_ProjectLocatoin.mxd 02 ,0001,000
Feet
Project Boundary
Chula Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
Riverside
County
Mexico
905
209
75 52
54 94
241
98 73
125
274
195
56 78
86 111
67 74
74 76 79
805
215
15 5
8 Project Site
FIGURE 1
Project Location
Rohr Wohl Specific PlanDUDEK A
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 6
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEV EVEVEVEVEV EVEV EVEV EV
H ST
PRIVATE
LAGOON DR
MARINA PKWY
G ST
BAY BLVD
RIDA
INTERSTATE 5
SDG&E
NOT A
PART
MARINA
PKWY
G ST
SHEET OF 1
COLLINS WOHL BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNING AREAS
JULY 29, 2022
1 PLANNING AREA B-1
PLANNING AREA B-2
COLLINS - "PARCEL C"
NOT A PART
NOT A PART
Z:\Projects\j1453001\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Visual
SOURCE: COLLINS WOHL BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, 2022
FIGURE 2
Site Plan
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan
PLANNING AREA A
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY ~
44.78 ACRES
PA A 9.29 AC.
PA B-1 26.13 AC.
PA B-2 9.36 AC.
* * * CLOSING ESCROW FROM
COLLINS TO PW WOHL 10/31/22
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 8
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
14541 9
AUGUST 2024
1.4.4 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound pressure levels of 1 dBA when exposed to steady, single -frequency signals in the mid -frequency range.
Outside such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dBA in normal environmental noise. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dBA. A change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as twice (if a gain) or half (if a loss) as loud. A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.
1.4.5 Noise Descriptors
Additional units of measure have been developed to evaluate the long -term characteristics of sound. The energy- equivalent sound level (Leq) is also referred to as the time-average sound level. It is the equivalent steady-state or constant sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. For instance, the 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level, Leq(h), is the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 1 -hour period, and is the basis for most of the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance standards.
People are generally more sensitive to and thus potentially more annoyed by noise occurring during the evening and nighttime hours. Hence, another noise descriptor used in community noise assessments—the community noise equivalent level (CNEL)—represents a time-weighted, 24-hour average noise level based on the A -weighted sound level. However, unlike an unmodified 24-hour Leq value, the CNEL descriptor accounts for increased noise sensitivity during the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by adding 5 dBA and 10 dBA, respectively, to the average sound levels occurring during these defined hours within a 24-hour period. Whereas CNEL is used mostly in California, the L dn descriptor (day-night average noise level, which is the same as CNEL with the only exception of not including the 5 dBA evening correction) is used more often for environmental noise evaluations for federal projects.
1.4.6 Sound Propagation
Sound propagation (i.e., the traverse of sound from a noise emission source position to a receptor location) is influenced by multiple factors that include geometric spreading, ground absorption, atmospheric effects, and occlusion by natural terrain and/or features of the built environment.
Sound levels attenuate (or diminish) geometrically at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from an outdoor stationary point-type source due to the spherical spreading of sound energy with increasing distance travelled. The effects of a tmospheric conditions such as humidity, temperature, and wind gradients are typically distance-dependent and can also temporarily either increase or decrease sound levels measured or perceived at a receptor location. In general, the greater the distance the receptor is from the source of sound emission, the greater the potential for variation in sound levels at the receptor due to these atmospheric effects. Additional attenuation can result from sound path occlusion and diffraction due to intervention of natural (ridgelines, dense forests, etc.) and built features (such as solid walls, buildings, and other structures).
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 10
AUGUST 2024
1.4.7 Ground-borne Vibration Fundamentals
Ground-borne vibration is fluctuating or oscillatory motion transmitted through the ground mass (i.e., soils, clays, and rock strata). The strength of ground-borne vibration attenuates rapidly over distance. Some soil types transmit vibration quite efficiently; other types (primarily sandy soils) do not. Several basic measurement units are commonly used to describe the intensity of ground vibration. The descriptors used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are peak particle velocity (PPV), in units of inches per second (ips), and velocity decibel (VdB) that is based on a root-mean square (RMS) of the vibration signal magnitude. The calculation to determine PPV at a given distance is as follows:
PPVdistance = PPVref*(25/D)1.5
Where:
PPVdistance = the peak particle velocity in inches per second of the equipment adjusted for distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in inches per second at 25 feet D = the distance from the equipment to the receptor
DUDEK
14541 11
AUGUST 2024
2 Regulatory Setting
2.1 Federal
2.1.1 Federal Transit Administration
In its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, the FTA recommends a daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period (FTA 2018) when detailed construction noise assessments are performed to evaluate potential impacts to community residences surrounding a project. Although this FTA guidance is not a regulation, it can serve as a quantified standard in the absence of such noise limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.
2.1.2 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Some guidance regarding the determination of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON 1992), which assessed the annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The FICON recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft and traffic noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Annoyance is a qualitative measure of the adverse reaction of people to noise that generates speech interference, sleep disturbance, or interference with the desire for a tranquil environment.
The rationale for the FICON recommendations is that it is possible to consistently describe the annoyance of people exposed to transportation noise in terms of Ldn. The changes in noise exposure that are shown below are expected to result in equal changes in annoyance at sensitive land uses. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to address aircraft noise impacts, they are used in this analys is to define a substantial increase in community noise levels related to all transportation n oise sources and permanent non-transportation noise sources.
▪ Outdoor ambient sound level without the project is less than 60 dBA Ldn, then a project-attributed increase of 5 dBA or more would be considered significant;
▪ Outdoor ambient sound level without the project is between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn, project-attributed increase of 3 dBA or more would be considered significant; and
▪ Outdoor ambient sound level without the project is greater than 65 dBA Ldn, then project-attributed increase of 2 dBA or more would be considered significant.
2.2 State
2.2.1 California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets standards that new development s in California must meet.
According to Title 24, interior noise levels are not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room (ICC 2019).
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 12
AUGUST 2024
2.2.2 California Department of Health Services Guidelines The California Department of Health Services has developed guidelines of community noise acceptability for use by local agencies (OPR 2017). Selected relevant levels are listed here:
▪ Below 60 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for low-density residential use ▪ 50 to 70 dBA CNEL: conditionally acceptable for low-density residential use ▪ Below 65 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for high-density residential use and transient lodging ▪ 60 to 70 dBA CNEL: conditionally acceptable for high -density residential, transient lodging, churches, educational, and medical facilities
The normally acceptable exterior noise level for high-density residential use is up to 65 dBA CNEL. Additionally, this exterior noise level limit is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan Noise Element, which considers multi- family units to be noise-sensitive land uses.
2.2.3 California Department of Transportation
In its Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 20 20), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends 0.5 ips PPV as a threshold for the avoidance of structural damage to typical newer residential buildings exposed to continuous or frequent intermittent sources of ground-borne vibration. For transient vibration events, such as blasting, the damage risk threshold would be 1.0 ips PPV (Caltrans 2020) at the same type of newer residential structures. For older structures, these guidance thresholds would be more stringent:
0.3 ips PPV for continuous/intermittent vibration sources, and 0.5 ips PPV for transient vibration events. With respect to human annoyance, Caltrans guidance indicates that building occupants exposed to continuous ground- borne vibration in the range of 0.2-0.6 ips PPV would find it “unpleasant or “annoying” and thus a likely significant impact. Although these Caltrans guidance thresholds are not regulations, they can serve as quantified standards in the absence of such limits at the local jurisdictional level.
2.3 Local
2.3.1 City of Chula Vista Noise Level Compatibility Standards The City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance (Chula Vista Municipal Code [CVMC] Section 19.68) (City of Chula Vista 2022) contains regulations restricting land use related noise -generating activities and operations, so as to avoid noise nuisance in the community. Section 19.68.030 of the CVMC establishes the maximum allowable exterior noise limits, based upon the classification of the receiving land use. These standards typically apply to stationary sources such as noise from mechanical equipment (including mechanical ventilation and air condition ing noise, pool pump noise, etc.) or event noise, as opposed to traffic noise. For instance, a school, commercial enterprise, or industrial operation must not generate noise that exceeds a certain specified noise level at any property boundary where an adjacent residential use exists. The property-line noise standards are presented in Table 4.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 13
AUGUST 2024
Table 4. City of Chula Vista Exterior Property-Line Noise Limits Receiving Land Use Category
Noise Level (dB(A))
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
(Weekdays)
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
(Weekdays)
10 p.m. to 8 a.m.
(Weekends)
8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
(Weekends)
All residential (except multiple dwelling) 45 55
Multiple-dwelling residential 50 60
Commercial 60 65
Light industry – I-R and I-L zone 70 70
Heavy industry – I zone 80 80
Source: City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.68.030, Table III (2022) Note: dBA = A-weighted decibels
Title 17 of the CVMC (Environmental Quality), Chapter 24, addresses managing noisy and disorderly conduct.
Section 17.24.040.C.8 specifically addresses restrictions against generation of construction noise in overnight periods. The use of any tools, power machinery, or equipment, or the conduct of construction and building work in residential zones so as to cause noises disturbing to the peace, comfort, and quiet enjoyment of property of any person residing or working in the vicinity, shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday–Friday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday, except when the work is necessary for emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member of the community (City of Chula Vista 2022).
Although the City does not set specific numerical limits for noise associated with temporary construction activities, it can be perceived as a nuisance; thus the City restricts the times of day when construction may occur (7:00 a.m.– 10:00 p.m., Monday–Friday, and 8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday).
2.3.2 Transportation-Related Noise Standards
The City’s Noise Element establishes a policy for exterior sensitive areas to be protected from high traffic noise levels. The Noise Element sets 65 dBA CNEL for exterior noise levels and 45 dBA CNEL for interior noise levels as the “normally acceptable” level.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 14
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
14541 15
AUGUST 2024
3 Existing Conditions
3.1 Sensitive Receptors
Noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses are typically considered locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, and hospitals are usual examples, with others depending on what the local jurisdiction may have defined or established. Based on context from the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan Noise Element, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, hotels and motels, places of worship, and open spa ce/recreation uses. Future planned hotel land uses currently under construction approximately 130 feet to the west are the nearest noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site. Other sensitive receptors exist further afield and east of highway I -5, where they are dominated by traffic noise from the highway. These existing sensitive receptors represent the nearest land uses with the potential to be impacted by construction and operation of the Project, including noise levels associated with the addition of Project-related traffic on the local roadway network.
3.2 Noise Measurements
A sound pressure level (SPL) measurement survey was conducted at five (5) representative positions in the vicinity of the Project site on September 6, 2023, and September 7, 2023, to characterize the existing outdoor ambient noise levels. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 3.
Table 5 provides a summary of the noise measurement results as well as the location, date, and time that an individual noise level measurement was performed. As shown in Table 5, the short-term (1 5-minute duration) measured Leq noise leve ls ranged from 65.6 dBA at ST 1 to 75.2 dBA at ST 3, while long -term (over 24 hours) measured noise levels averaged to 73.5 dBA.
The short-term measurements were conducted by an attending Dudek investigator with a SoftdB “Piccolo” model sound level meter equipped with a windscreen -protected, 0.5-inch diameter pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier. The sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for a Type 2 (General Use) sound level meter.
The unattended long-term SPL monitor deployed and retrieved by the Dudek investigator was a SoftdB “Piccolo” model sound level meter equipped with a windscreen -protected, 0.5 -inch diameter pre -polarized condenser microphone with pre -amplifier. The sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for a Type 2 (General Use) sound level meter.
The accuracy of both sound level meters was verified using a field calibrator before and after the measurements, and the measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned approximately five feet above the ground.
Appendix A provides sample digital photographs of the field noise level survey locations, followed by Dudek investigator field notes.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 16
AUGUST 2024
Table 5. Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels Site
Location (and investigator
observed/perceived sounds) Date Time
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
ST1 Southwest corner of Sandpiper Bkwy. And
Marina Pkwy.
(construction at nearby hotel, distant
aircraft, conversations, yelling, distant traffic,
military helicopter flyovers, construction
traffic)
9/6/23 1: 21 PM to
1:36 PM
65.6 78.3 55.8
ST2 Northwest corner of the I-5 Southbound
offramp to H St.
(traffic, distant aircraft, distant industrial,
nearby construction)
9/6/23 1:54 PM to
2:09 PM
68.6 78.2 63.8
ST3 West of Bay Blvd., between G St. and H St.
(traffic, distant aircraft, distant construction)
9/6/23 2:15 PM to
2:30 PM
75.2 83.3 70.9
ST4 Northwest corner of G St. and Bay Blvd.
(traffic, construction traffic)
9/6/23 2:33 PM to
2:48 PM
73.7 83.3 69.2
LT1 West of Bay Blvd., between G St. and H St.
(traffic, distant aircraft, distant construction)
9/6/23
to
9/7/23
1:05 PM to
1:05 PM
73.5 101.9 52.0
Source: Appendix A.
Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum sound level during the measurement interval; L min = minimum sound level during the measurement interval . ST = short -term measurement location. LT = long-term measurement location. See Figure 3 for measurement locations.
DUDEK
0 #REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
SOURCE: Google 2023; Dudek 2023
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Project
FIGURE 3
0 225 450 Feet Project Site and Noise Measurement Locations ST1
ST2
ST3/LT1
ST4
Project Site
DUDEK 6
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 18
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
14541 19
AUGUST 2024
4 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and will be used to determine the significance of potential noise and vibration impacts.
Impacts associated with noise and vibration would be significant if the proposed project would result in:
▪ Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
▪ Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. ▪ Exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport).
In light of these above significance criteria, this analysis uses the following standards to evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts.
▪ Construction noise –The proximity of planned hotel land uses to the west of the project suggests that source-to-receptor distances are a minimum of approximately 130 feet. Additionally, most construction equipment and vehicles on a project site do not operate continuously. Therefore, consistent with the FTA guidance mentioned in Section 2 (Regulatory Setting ), this analysis will use 8 0 dBA Leq over an 8 - hour period as the construction noise impact criterion during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). ▪ Off-site project -attributed transportation noise – For purposes of this analysis, a direct roadway noise impact would be considered significant if increases in roadway traffic noise levels attributed to the proposed project were greater than 3 dBA CNEL at an existing noise-sensitive land use. ▪ Off-site project -attributed stationary noise – For purposes of this analysis, a noise impact would be considered significant if noise from typical operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), other electro-mechanical systems, and loading dock s associated with the proposed project exceeded 50 dBA Leq at the property line of the nearby hotel during nighttime hours . Note that these are the City’s thresholds for the multi-family residential land uses that characterize the sensitive receptors adjacent to the proposed project site. Although the nearby future hotel land uses 130 feet to the west of the project site are not considered to be multi-family land uses, the multi -family land use threshold was used in absence of a City-provided threshold.
▪ Construction vibration – Guidance from Caltrans indicates that a vibration velocity level of 0.2 ips PPV received at a structure would be considered annoying by occupants within (Caltrans 2013). As for the receiving structure itself, aforementioned Caltrans guidance from Section 2 recommends that a vibration level of 0.3 ips PPV would represent the threshold for building damage risk.
For purposes of disclosure, since the current CEQA noise criteria listed above do not consider it, this analysis also evaluates compatibility of on -site noise exposure levels (e.g., from roadway traffic) with the City of Chula Vista exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 20
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
14541 21
AUGUST 2024
5 Impact Discussion
Potential noise and vibration impacts attributed to project construction and operation are studied in the following subsections that are categorized by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G significance for noise. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Short -Term Construction
Less Than Significant. Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena , with emission levels varying from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Equipment that would be in use during construction would include, in part, graders, backhoes, rubber-tired dozers, loaders, cranes, forklifts, pavers, rollers, and air compressors. The typical maximum noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from various pieces of construction equipment and activities anticipated for use on the proposed project site are presented in Table 6. Note that the equipment noise levels presented in Table 6 are maximum noise levels. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time.
Table 6. Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Type Typical Equipment ( Lmax , dBA at 50 Feet) All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85
Backhoe 78
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 81
Dozer 82
Excavator 81
Flat Bed Truck 74
Front End Loader 79
Generator 72
Grader 85
Man Lift 75
Paver 77
Roller 80
Scraper 84
Welder / Torch 73
Source: DOT 2006.
Note: Lmax = maximum sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.
Aggregate noise emission from proposed project construction activities, broken down by sequential phase, was predicted at the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptor boundary (the hotel under construction to the west of the DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 22
AUGUST 2024
project site) to the nearest position of the construction site boundary for each planning area . In this studied scenario, because of the equipment location uncertainty, all the equipment for a construction phase is assumed to operate at the planning area construction site boundary and would therefore be considered a worst -case construction noise scenario. Table 7 summarizes these distances to the apparent closest noise-sensitive receptor (the future hotel land use approximately 130 feet to the west of the p roject site) for each of the four sequential construction phases at the nearest planning area site boundary. At each planning area site boundary, this analysis assumes that all equipment of each listed type per phase will be involved in the construction activity for up to the full 8-hour period.
Table 7. Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-sensitive Receptors
Construction Phase
(and Equipment
Types Involved)
Distance from
Nearest Receptor
Boundary to PA-A
Site Boundary
(Feet)
Distance from
Nearest Receptor
Boundary to PA-B1
Site Boundary
(Feet)
Distance from
Nearest Receptor
Boundary to PA-B2
Site Boundary (Feet)
Grading
(excavator, grader, dozer, backhoe)
1,400 130 130
Building construction
(crane, man-lift, generator, backhoe,
welder)
1,400 130 130
Paving
(paver, roller, other equipment)
1,400 130 130
Architectural Coating
(air compressor)
1,400 130 130
Source: Google Earth 2023
A Microsoft Excel –based noise prediction model emulating and using reference data from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest occupied noise -sensitive land use. Although the RCNM was funded and promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, it is often used for non-roadway projects, because the same types of construction equipment used for roadway projects are often used for other types of const ruction. Input variables for the predictive modeling consist of the equipment type and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage of time within a specific time period, such as an hour, when the equipment is expected to operate at full power or capacity and thus make noise at a level comparable to what is presented in Table 6), and the distance from the noise -sensitive receptor. The predictive model also considers how many hours that equipment may be on -site and operating (or idling) within an established work shift.
Conservatively, no topographical or structural shielding was assumed in the modeling. The RCNM has default duty- cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty-cycle values were used for this noise analysis, which is detailed in Appendix B, and produced the predicted results displayed in Tables 8 through 11.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 23
AUGUST 2024
Table 8. Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase Construction Phase
(and Equipment Types
Involved)
8-Hour L eq at
Nearest Receptor
Boundary to PA-A
Site Boundary ( dBA )
8-Hour L eq at
Nearest Receptor
Boundary to PA-B1
Site Boundary ( dBA )
8-Hour L eq at Nearest
Receptor Boundary to PA-B2
Site Boundary ( dBA )
Site Preparation (dozer,
backhoe)
49.6 73.3 73.3
Grading1 (excavator,
grader, dozer, backhoe)
52.6 76.0 76.0
Building construction
(crane, man-lift,
generator, backhoe,
welder)
45.7 69.4 69.4
Paving (paver, roller,
other equipment)
49.6 73.7 73.7
Architectural Coating (air
compressor)
37.8 61.4 61.4
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: Leq = equivalent noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibels. 1 Noise levels presented in Table 8 are from the Initial Site Development Phase. See Appendix B for predicted Grading levels during Planning Area construction, which are predicted to be lower than the presented levels in Table 8 and were thus omitted.
As presented in Table 8, the highest estimated construction noise levels are predicted to stay at or below 76 dBA Leq over an 8 -hour period at the nearest exi sting noise-sensitive land use (the hotel under construction approximately 130 feet to the west of the project site) when grading activities take place near the project site boundary. As a result, short-term construction noise is predicted to be well below the FTA guidance of 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period, and therefore is less than significant.
Best Practices for Limiting Construction Noise
Despite the construction noise analysis above showing that the impact to noise -sensitive receptors would be less than significant, the following is a list of best practices for limiting construction noise that could be implemented by the contractor:
▪ The project contractor will, to the extent feasible, schedule construction activities to avoid concurrent operation of several pieces of construction equipment proximate to an offsite noise-sensitive receptor. ▪ All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. ▪ Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, will be used where feasible. ▪ Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions will be implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting party.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 24
AUGUST 2024
Off -Site Construction Activities
The project would result in local, short-term increases in roadway noise as a result of construction traffic. Based on information developed as part of the project’s air quality analysis, project -related traffic would include workers commuting to and from the project site as well as vendor and haul trucks bringing or removing materials. The highest number of average daily worker trips would be 292 one-way trips, occurring during the building construction phase of Planning Area B-2 The highest number of aver age daily vendor truck trips would be 150 one-way trips, also occurring during the building construction phase of Planning Area B-2. The highest number of daily haul truck trips is yet to be determined.
Based upon available data from the project’s Transportation Technical Memorandum, H Street in the project vicinity carries approximately 12,070 daily trips (peak hour multiplied by a k-factor of 10) in the project vicinity. Comparing the maximum number of daily construction-related trips (292 worker trips, 150 vendor trips and to-be-determined haul truck trips) to the average daily traffic volume, the additional vehicle trips would amount to an increase of approximately 4%1. Based upon the fundamentals of acoustics, a doubling (i.e., a 100% increase) would be needed to result in a 3 -dB increase in noise levels, which is the level corresponding to an audible change to the typical human listener. Additionally, although the number of daily haul trucks is yet to be determined, it is unlikely that the number of haul trucks would double the number of trips on nearby roadways. Therefore, traffic related to construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts from project-related construction traffic noise would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Long -Term Operational
Off-Site Traffic Noise Exposure
The project is expected to generate a subtotal of 7,520 average daily trips to the roadway system, as shown in Table 1 of the project’s Transportation Technical Memorandum. During the afternoon (PM) peak-hour (the highest of the AM and PM peak hours) , approximately 903 passenger car equivalent vehicles for the project-level analysis and 767 passenger car equivalent vehicles for the programmatic-level analysis are estimated to enter or exit the project site. Utilizing this information as well as additional t raffic data provided in Appendix C of this technical report, the FHWA’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model RD -77-108 was used to estimate potential noise impacts at adjacent noise-sensitive uses. Information used in the model included Average Daily Traffic (ADT), posted traffic speeds, truck mix percentage, and day/evening/night mix percentage. Consistent with Caltrans guidance (Caltrans 2013), this analysis assumes 80% of the ADT occurs during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), 5% during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and 15% during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
The future modeled traffic speed was assumed to be the anticipated speed limit for the studied future roads, which is 35 miles per hour (mph) for Bay Boulevard, F Street, G Street, H Street, and Marina Parkway . The truck percentages used in the noise model were 2.0% medium trucks and 1.0% heavy trucks. This truck mix is based on vehicle surveys conducted for a number of similar roads in San Diego County that allow truck traffic.
1 It is noted that the estimated percentage of trucks in the project’s construction traffic mix is greater than a typical urban arterial, which may result in a greater temporary change than the 4% increase would represent; however, the project site is located in an industrial/commercial area with high percentages of trucks as well. Thus, the estimated temporary increase would be less than 3 dB as stated, and less than significant.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 25
AUGUST 2024
The change in roadway noise levels was predicted for opening year 2026 and opening year 2026 plus project.
Traffic noise levels were calculated for roadway segments bounded by intersections within the project area and are listed as follows:
▪ Bay Boulevard – From F Street to G Street;
▪ Bay Boulevard – From G Street to H Street;
▪ Bay Boulevard – From H Street to J Street;
▪ F Street – From Bay Boulevard to Woodlawn Avenue;
▪ G Street – From Marina Parkway to Bay Boulevard;
▪ H Street – From Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard;
▪ H Street – From Bay Boulevard to I-5 Southbound Ramps; ▪ H Street – From I-5 Southbound Ramps to I-5 Northbound Ramps; ▪ H Street – From I-5 Northbound Ramps to Woodlawn Avenue; ▪ Marina Parkway – From G Street to H Street;
▪ Marina Parkway – From H Street to Street C;
▪ Marina Parkway – From Street C to Marina Way;
▪ Marina Parkway – From Marina Way to Street A; and
▪ Marina Parkway – From Street A to Bay Boulevard.
Based upon the FICON thresholds presented in Section 2.1.2 above, an increase of less than 5 dBA when the ambient sound level is less than 60 dBA L dn/CNEL, less than 3 dBA when the ambient sound level is between 60 and 65 dBA L dn/CNEL, or less than 2 dBA when the ambient sound level is greater than 65 dBA L dn/CNEL would not be substantial. Table 9 shows that the highest predicted change in traffic noise level (G Street – From Marina Parkway to Bay Boulevard ) combined with the roadways surrounding the immediate project site are predicted to experience a traffic noise level of 64.7 dBA at 50 feet for the opening year 2026 with project condition and a predicted increase of approximately 4.8 dBA due to the project contribution which is less than 5 dBA over the predicted “without project” noise level of 59.9 dBA. Therefore, potential impacts at existing off-site noise-sensitive land uses along roadway segments identified in Table 9 and with respect to project-generated changes to future traffic noise would be less than significant.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 26
AUGUST 2024
Table 9. Predicted Traffic Noise Levels
Modeled Roadway Segment From To
Opening Year 2026
(dBA CNEL)
Opening Year 2026
Plus Project (dBA
CNEL) Delta (dBA)
Bay Boulevard F Street G Street 64.1 64.6 0.5
Bay Boulevard G Street H Street 64.3 66.3 2.0
Bay Boulevard H Street J Street 61.5 64.0 2.5
F Street Bay Boulevard Woodlawn Avenue 63.0 63.4 0.3
G Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 59.9 64.7 4.8
H Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 65.7 66.2 0.5
H Street Bay Boulevard I-5SB Ramps 66.8 68.0 1.2
H Street I-58SB Ramps I-5NB Ramps 66.8 67.6 0.9
H Street I-58NB Ramps Woodlawn Avenue 67.9 68.2 0.3
Marina Parkway G Street H Street 63.0 63.3 0.3
Marina Parkway H Street Street C 62.2 62.8 0.7
Marina Parkway Street C Marina Way 64.5 64.5 0.0
Marina Parkway Marina Way Street A 64.8 65.2 0.4
Marina Parkway Street A Bay Boulevard 66.4 66.7 0.3
Source: Appendix C.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 27
AUGUST 2024
Project Sound Sources
On-site Outdoor Mechanical Equipment
The completion of the Planning Area B -1 project buildings will add a variety of noise -producing mechanical equipment that include those presented and discussed in the following paragraphs. Most of these noise-producing equipment or sound sources would be considered stationary or limited in mobility to a defined area.
Prediction Method and Parameters
The aggregate noise emission from outdoor-exposed sound sources has been predicted with the Datakustik CadnaA sound propagation program. CadnaA is a commercially available software program for the calculation, presentation, assessment, and prediction of environmental noise based on algorithms and reference data per International Organization of Standardization (ISO) Standard 9613-2, “Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation” (ISO 1996). The CadnaA computer software allows one to position sources of sound emission in a simulated three-dimensional (3-D) space having heights and footprints consistent with project architectural plans and elevations. In addition to the above -mentioned sound source inputs and building -block structures that define the three -dimensional sound propagation model space, the following assumptions and parameters are included in this CadnaA-supported stationary noise source assessment:
▪ Ground effect acoustical absorption coefficient equal to 0. 5, which intends to represent an average or blending of ground covers that are characterized largely by hard reflective pavements and existing building surfaces across the project site and the surroundings;
▪ Reflection order of 1, which allows for a single reflection of sound paths on encountered structural surfaces such as the modeled building masses;
▪ Off-site residential structures and buildings have not been rendered in the model; ▪ Calm meteorological conditions (i.e., no wind) with 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 50% relative humidity; and ▪ All of the modeled noise sources are operating concurrently and continuously for a minimum period of 1 hour.
Based on the available plans and other design information, the Planning Area B-1 project buildings would be served by roof-mounted air-conditioning equipment that includes outdoor -exposed packaged air -handling units and air - cooled condensers (ACC) that provide the expected cooling demand (expressed as refrigeration “tonnage”) for a building. The following are descriptions of modeled sound sources, with Table 10 exhibiting modeled sound power level (PWL) data at octave -band center frequency (OBCF) resolution . Detailed information supporting these summary descriptions and quantities appear in Appendix D.
Table 10. Modeled Sound Power Levels (PWL) for Stationary Sources (HVAC) Building
Sound
Source
Overall
Leq
(dBA)
A-Weighted dB at Octave Band Center Frequency (OBCF, Hz)
32.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
1 Air Handling 86 67.5 67.5 79.5 80.5 81.5 78.5 71.5 65.5 60.5 Air
Conditioning
96 68.0 68.0 81.0 85.0 92.0 89.0 87.0 85.0 78.0
2 Air Handling 88 68.6 68.6 80.6 81.6 82.6 79.6 72.6 66.6 61.6 DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 28
AUGUST 2024
Table 10. Modeled Sound Power Levels (PWL) for Stationary Sources (HVAC) Building
Sound
Source
Overall
Leq
(dBA)
A-Weighted dB at Octave Band Center Frequency (OBCF, Hz)
32.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
Air
Conditioning
96 68.0 68.0 81.0 85.0 92.0 89.0 87.0 85.0 78.0
3 Air Handling 88 68.8 68.8 80.8 81.8 82.8 79.8 72.8 66.8 61.8 Air
Conditioning
96 68.0 68.0 81.0 85.0 92.0 89.0 87.0 85.0 78.0
4 Air Handling 90 70.8 70.8 82.8 83.8 84.8 81.8 74.8 68.8 63.8 Air
Conditioning
98 74.0 74.0 81.0 88.0 92.0 91.0 91.0 89.0 80.0
Source: Appendix D.
Note: Building number and layout can be viewed in Figures 4 and 5.
The HVAC reference sound levels were calculated from a combination of inputs that include square footage values for the proposed project’s proposed office spaces, project applicant response to data requests, and manufacturer sound power level data. For the analysis of noise from HVAC equipment operation, eight air conditioning units were modeled on the rooves of each project building.
Other Stationary Noise Sources
The proposed project buildings may feature other noise emitters, but their contributions would tend to be sporadic or otherwise occur infrequently and thus be expected to have no greater acoustic contribution to an hourly Leq than the continuous-type HVAC noise studied herein.
Loading Dock Noise Sources
The proposed project buildings also feature loading dock areas for the loading and unloading of heavy trucks. On- site loading dock noise was calculated for a single heavy truck pass by (Salter 2014) and extrapolated based upon the number of heavy trucks entering or exiting the facility during the peak hour. Loading dock data were subsequently entered into the CadnaA model for the prediction of stationary operations noise levels . Detailed information supporting the calculation of peak hour heavy truck trips for the loading dock calculations can be found in Appendix D.
Prediction Results
An operational scenario of the proposed project was modeled that assumes all the HVAC equipment is operating simultaneously for a minimum period of one hour along with peak hour truck movements in the loading dock areas.
Figure 4, Predicted Daytime Onsite Operations Noise Contours, displays the predicted noise contours associated with aggregate sound propagation from operating HVAC and peak daytime loading dock sound sources. An additional operational scenario of the proposed project was modeled to predict a hypothetical nighttime scenario, where all the HVAC equipment is operating simultaneously for a minimum period of one hour, but the peak hour truck movement is reduced to a single truck for each docking area. Figure 5, Predicted Nighttime Onsite Operations Noise Contours, displays the predicted noise contours associated with aggregate sound propagation from operating HVAC and nighttime loading dock sound sources.
DUDEK
0 #REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
SOURCE: Microsoft 2023; Dudek 2023 FIGURE 4
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Project
0 119 238 Feet Predicted Daytime Onsite Operations Noise Contours A-weighted Project
Operations Sound
Pressure Level (SPL)
N
30.0 dB
Building 4
Building 1
Building 2
Building 3
Truck Route DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 30
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
0 #REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
SOURCE: Microsoft 2023; Dudek 2023
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Project
FIGURE 5
0 119 238 Feet Predicted Nighttime Onsite Operations Noise Contours A-weighted Project
Operations Sound
Pressure Level (SPL)
N
30.0 dB
Building 4
Building 1
Building 2
Building 3
Truck Route DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 32
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 33
AUGUST 2024
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate predicted aggregate SPL propagation solely from operation of the proposed project sound sources as described above. The color-coded annular bands of SPL are calculated across a field parallel with and five (5) feet above local grade.
Based on the noise level contours appearing in Figures 4 and 5, the proposed project Planning Area B-1 is predicted to be up to 45 dBA Leq in the daytime and 42 dBA Leq in the nighttime for a calculated Ldn of 49 dBA at the nearby future hotel land use and is therefore expected to be lower than and thus comply with the City’s 60 dBA Leq daytime threshold and 50 dBA Leq nighttime threshold for multi-family residential land uses.
Planning Area B-2 is programmed for future portions of the project site. Planning Area A contains warehouse uses, which has similar loading dock and HVAC noise as the analyzed portion for Planning Area B-1. However, land uses adjacent to Planning Areas A and B-2 appear to be industrial land uses or vacant at the present time. Because the expected uses for Planning Area B-2 are similar to the Planning Area B-1 uses or are expected to be uses that are generally less noisy than a warehouse use with active load ing docks (e.g. residential or commercial uses), and because the surrounding land uses are industrial land uses, it is assumed that the noise levels and contours predicted for Planning Area B-1 would be applicable to the programmed Planning Area B-2. Thus, noise generated by the Planning Area B-2 are expected to be below the City’s 70 dBA Leq threshold for industrial land uses.
Planning Area B-2 is expected to contain a hotel and restaurant, which may have exterior areas subject to lower City thresholds. Further analysis may be necessary to determine on-site impacts from loading dock and HVAC noise sources associated with other areas of the project. However, and as shown in Figure 4, impacts from Planning Area B-1 are likely due to project building orientation. With additional consideration for building orientation, warehouse and loading dock noise may be reduced at future hotel u ses associated with Planning Area B -2. Thus, noise generated by the Planning Areas A, B-1, and B-2 are expected to be below the City’s 50 dBA Leq nighttime threshold for multi-family residential land uses. Note that the multi -family residential land use threshold is applied to this analysis due to an absence of City thresholds for hotel land uses.
Therefore, impacts associated with stationary operations noise would be less than significant.
On-site Parking Lot Activity
Less Than Significant Impact . A comprehensive study of noise levels associated with surface parking lots was published in the Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management (Baltrënas et al. 2004). The study found that average noise levels for parking lots of similar size during the peak period of use of the parking lot (generally in the morning with arrival of commuters, and in the evening with the departure of commuters), was 47 dBA Leq at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the outside boundary of th e parking lot. The parking area s would function as point sources for noise, which means that noise would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA with each doubling of distance.
Employee parking lots are proposed to be distributed throughout the project site adjacent to the warehouse/office buildings, no closer than 180 feet from the edge of the parking lot to the future hotel to the west. At a distance of 180 feet, parking lot noise levels would not be audible to the human ear at the future hotel receptor locations. The combination of the parking lot noise ( ~12 dBA Leq) and the loading dock equipment level (45 dBA Leq during the daytime and 42 dBA Leq during the nighttime at the nearest receptor) would be 45 dBA Leq2, during the daytime and 42 dBA Leq during the nighttime which is below the applicable limits (i.e. 60 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 50 dBA Leq during nighttime hours for multi-family residential land uses). Note that the multi-family residential land use
2 Because noise levels are summed in the energy (that is, the logarithmic) domain, a noise level that is 10 decibels or more lower than another noise level becomes negligible, because the sound energy from the higher noise source is completely dominant.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 34
AUGUST 2024
threshold is applied to this analysis due to an absence of City thresholds for hotel land uses . Therefore, impacts associated with parking lot noise would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities may expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise, causing a potentially significant impact. Caltrans has collected ground -borne vibration information related to construction activities (Caltrans 2020). Information from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.2 ips is considered annoying. For context, heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected on the project site , have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.089 ips or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (DOT 2006).
Ground-borne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of ground-borne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in FTA and Caltrans guidance. By way of example, for a bulldozer operating on -site and as close as the northern project boundary (i.e., ~70 feet from the nearest occupied property), the estimated vibration velocity would be 0.018 ips per the equation as follows (FTA 2018):
PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)1.5 = 0.018 = 0.089 * (25/70)1.5 In the above equation, PPV rcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receptor position, PPVref is the reference value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the actual horizontal distance to the receptor.
Therefore, at this predicted PPV, the impact of vibration-induced annoyance to occupants of nearby existing homes would be less than significant.
Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, anticipated construction vibration associated with the proposed project would yield a maximum amplitude of 0.018 ips, which does not surpass the guidance limit of 0.2 to 0.3 ips PPV for preventing damage to residential structures (Caltrans 2020). Because the predicted vibration level at 70 feet is less than this guidance limit and because there are no residential structures adjacent to the project, the risk of vibration damage to nearby structures is considered less than significant.
Once operational, the proposed project would not be expected to feature major producers of ground-borne vibration.
Anticipated mechanical systems like heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning units are designed and manufactured to feature rotating (fans, motors) and reciprocating (compressors) components that are well-balanced with isolated vibration within or external to the equipment casings . On this basis, potential vibration impacts due to proposed project operation would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. The closest airport to the proposed project site is the Imperial Beach Airport approximately 4 miles south of the project boundary . Therefore, airport noise impacts would be less than significant .
DUDEK
14541 35
AUGUST 2024
6 Summary of Findings
This noise report was conducted for the proposed project. The results indicate that potential impacts during construction would be less than significant ; nevertheless, best practices that incorporate construction noise reduction techniques would be incorporated into the project construction process. Noise impacts due to operation of the proposed project (including traffic noise) would be less than significant. No noise and vibration mitigation measures are anticipated at this time.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 36
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
14541 37
AUGUST 2024
7 References Cited
Baltrënas, P., D. Kazlauskas, & E. Petraitis. 2004. Testing on noise level prevailing at motor vehicle parking lots and numeral simulation of its dispersion. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 12:2, 63-70
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September.
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California. April.
City of Chula Vista. 2022. Municipal Code. https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/19.68.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. “Noise Element.” Chapter 9 in City of Chula Vista General Plan. December 13, 2005. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9339.
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User’s Guide. Final Report. FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Final Report. August.
FHWA. December 8, 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. Washington, D.C.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. September.
FICON. 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. August 1992.
International Organization of Standardization (ISO). 1996. Standard 9613-2 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation). Geneva.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2017 State of California General Plan Guidelines. July 2017.
Salter, Charles. March 2014. Midpoint at 237: Loading Dock Noise Study. San Jose, California.
DUDEK
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT / NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
14541 38
AUGUST 2024
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK
Appendix A
Baseline Noise Measurement Field Data
Record: 1713
Meteorological Conditions
Upload NOAA Forecast
12:52 .il5Ge0
Additional Headlines
En Espahol
Current conditions at
EW9983 Chula Vista (E9983)
Lat: 32 64“N Lon: 117.08583°W Elev: 68ft.
NA
76°F
24°C
Humidity 65%
Wind Speed WSW 9 MPH
Barometer 29.88 in (1011.85 mb)
Dewpoint 63°F (17°C)
Visibility NA
Heat Index 78’F(26°C)
Last update 06 Sep 12:31 PM PDT
More Local Wx 3 Day History Hourly Weather Forecast
Extended Forecast for
Chula Vista CA
This Tonight Thursday
Afternoon
Mostly Sunny Increasing Gradual
Clouds Clearing
High: 73 °F Low: 63 “F High: 76 °F
Detailed Forecast
View in Desktop Mode
forecast.weather.gov
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Temp (F) 76
Humidity % (R.H.) 65
Wind Gusty
Wind Speed (MPH) 9
Wind Direction West
Sky Clear
Instrument and Calibrator Information
Instrument Name List (ENC) Piccolo #7046
Instrument Name (ENC) Piccolo #7046
Instrument Name Lookup Key (ENC) Piccolo #7046
Manufacturer Soft dB
Model Piccolo
Serial Number PN0223020805
Calibration Date 09/06/2023
Calibrator Name (SAC) Rion NC-74
Calibrator Name (SAC) Rion NC-74
Calibrator Name Lookup Key (SAC) Rion NC-74
Calibrator Manufacturer Rion
Calibrator Model NC-74
Calibrator Serial # 34167529
Pre-Test (dBA SPL) 93.8
Post-Test (dBA SPL) 94
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Windscreen Yes
Weighting? A-WTD
Slow/Fast? Slow
ANSI? Yes
Monitoring
Record # 1
Site ID ST1
Site Location Lat/Long 32.626510, -117.101655
Begin (Time) 13:21:00
End (Time) 13:36:00
Leq 65.6
Lmax 78.3
Lmin 55.8
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 58.1
L50 61.9
L10 68.9
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Construction of nearby hotel
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft, Distant Conversations / Yelling, Distant Traffic Other Noise Sources Additional Description Military helicopter flyovers, lots of construction traffic
FRMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
Photo
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Site Photos
Site Photos
Photo
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Monitoring
Record # 2
Site ID ST2
Site Location Lat/Long 32.629285, -117.096485
Begin (Time) 13:54:00
F RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
End (Time) 14:09:00
Leq 68.6
Lmax 78.2
Lmin 63.8
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 65.5
L50 67.6
L10 70.6
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft, Distant Industrial Other Noise Sources Additional Description Nearby construction Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Source Info and Traffic Counts
F" RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
Distance Measured to Centerline or Edge of
Pavement?
Edge of Pavement
Roadway Type Highway
Estimated Vehicle Speed (MPH) 65
Posted Speed Limit Sign (MPH) 65
Traffic Counts
Vehicle Count Summary A 1206, MT 29, HT 11, B 7, MC 13
Select Method for Recording Count Duration Enter Manually Counting Both Directions? No
Count Duration (minutes) 15
Direction NB
Vehicle Count Tally
Select Method for Vehicle Counts Enter Manually
Number of Vehicles - Autos 1206
Number of Vehicles - Medium Trucks 29
Number of Vehicles - Heavy Trucks 11
Number of Vehicles - Buses 7
Number of Vehicles - Motorcyles 13
F RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
Traffic Counts
Vehicle Count Summary A 1343, MT 42, HT 10, B 2, MC 17
Select Method for Recording Count Duration Enter Manually Counting Both Directions? No
Count Duration (minutes) 15
Direction SB
Vehicle Count Tally
Select Method for Vehicle Counts Enter Manually
Number of Vehicles - Autos 1343
Number of Vehicles - Medium Trucks 42
Number of Vehicles - Heavy Trucks 10
Number of Vehicles - Buses 2
Number of Vehicles - Motorcyles 17
Description / Photos
Site Photos
FRMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Site Photos
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Monitoring
Record # 3
Site ID ST3
Site Location Lat/Long 32.631185, -117.097286
F RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
Begin (Time) 14:15:00
End (Time) 14:30:00
Leq 75.2
Lmax 83.3
Lmin 70.9
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 72.7
L50 74.2
L10 77.3
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background) Distant Aircraft
Other Noise Sources Additional Description Distant construction, 1-5 main noise source, motorcycle drive by Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description Blocked view of 1-5
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Site Photos
FRMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Photo
Comments / Description LT1 hidden in tree in background Monitoring
F RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
Begin (Time) 14:33:00
End (Time) 14:48:00
Leq 73.7
Lmax 83.3
Lmin 69.2
Other Lx? L90, L50, L10
L90 71.2
L50 72.7
L10 75.8
Other Lx (Specify Metric) L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources Additional Description Construction traffic, motorcycle drive by on 1-5 Is the same instrument and calibrator being
used as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Source Info and Traffic Counts
F" RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
Distance Measured to Centerline or Edge of
Pavement?
Edge of Pavement
Roadway Type Highway
Estimated Vehicle Speed (MPH) 65
Posted Speed Limit Sign (MPH) 65
Traffic Counts
Vehicle Count Summary A 1510, MT 24, HT 11, B 5, MC 20
Select Method for Recording Count Duration Enter Manually Counting Both Directions? No
Count Duration (minutes) 15
Direction NB
Vehicle Count Tally
Select Method for Vehicle Counts Enter Manually
Number of Vehicles - Autos 1510
Number of Vehicles - Medium Trucks 24
Number of Vehicles - Heavy Trucks 11
Number of Vehicles - Buses 5
Number of Vehicles - Motorcyles 20
F RMS fiELD DATA REPORT
Traffic Counts
Vehicle Count Summary A 1867, MT 36, HT 14, B 1, MC 43
Select Method for Recording Count Duration Enter Manually Counting Both Directions? No
Count Duration (minutes) 15
Direction SB
Vehicle Count Tally
Select Method for Vehicle Counts Enter Manually
Number of Vehicles - Autos 1867
Number of Vehicles - Medium Trucks 36
Number of Vehicles - Heavy Trucks 14
Number of Vehicles - Buses 1
Number of Vehicles - Motorcyles 43
Description / Photos
Site Photos
Photo
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Site Photos
F RMS FIELD DATA REPORT
Photo
Appendix B
Construction Noise Modeling Input and Output
Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Appendix B -- Construction Noise Model Input and Output To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8
Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or
Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation Time
(hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) ILbarr (dB) Notes
Site Preparation dozer 3 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 130 0.0 70.7 8 480 71 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 4 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 130 0.0 66.7 8 480 69 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Site Preparation Phase: 73.3
Grading excavator 2 40 81 Excavators 130 0.0 69.7 8 480 69 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 grader 1 40 85 Graders 130 0.0 73.7 8 480 70 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 130 0.0 70.7 8 480 67 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 scraper 2 40 84 Scrapers 130 0.0 72.7 8 480 72 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 2 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 130 0.0 66.7 8 480 66 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Grading Phase: 76.0
RCNM-emulator-with-barriers_091123.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 Initial Site Dev - B1 and B2 Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Appendix B -- Construction Noise Model Input and Output To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8
Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or
Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation Time
(hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) ILbarr (dB) Notes
Site Preparation dozer 3 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 1400 0.0 47.0 8 480 48 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 4 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1400 0.0 43.0 8 480 45 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Site Preparation Phase: 49.6
Grading excavator 2 40 81 Excavators 1400 0.0 46.0 8 480 45 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 grader 1 40 85 Graders 1400 0.0 50.0 8 480 46 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 1400 0.0 47.0 8 480 43 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 scraper 2 40 84 Scrapers 1400 0.0 49.0 8 480 48 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 2 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1400 0.0 43.0 8 480 42 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Grading Phase: 52.3
RCNM-emulator-with-barriers_091123.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 Initial Site Dev - A Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Appendix B -- Construction Noise Model Input and Output To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8
Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or
Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation Time
(hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) ILbarr (dB) Notes
Grading excavator 1 40 81 Excavators 1400 0.0 46.0 8 480 42 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 grader 1 40 85 Graders 1400 0.0 50.0 8 480 46 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 1400 0.0 47.0 8 480 43 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 3 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1400 0.0 43.0 8 480 44 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Grading Phase: 50.0
Building Construction Crane 1 16 81 Cranes 1400 0.0 46.0 7 420 37 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Man lift 3 20 75 Forklifts 1400 0.0 40.0 8 480 38 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Generator 1 50 72 Generator Sets 1400 0.0 37.0 8 480 34 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 3 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1400 0.0 43.0 7 420 43 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Welder / Torch 1 40 73 Welders 1400 0.0 38.0 8 480 34 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Building Construction Phase: 45.7
Paving paver 1 50 77 Pavers 1400 0.0 42.0 8 480 39 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 All Other Equipment > 5 HP 2 50 85 Paving Equipment 1400 0.0 50.0 6 360 49 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 roller 2 20 80 Rollers 1400 0.0 45.0 6 360 40 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Paving Phase: 49.6
Architectural Coating compressor (air) 1 40 78 Air compressor 1400 0.0 43.0 6 360 38 5 5 0 5 1395 1400 7.1 1395.0 1400.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Architectural Coating Phase: 37.8
RCNM-emulator-with-barriers_091123.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 PA-A Construction Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Appendix B -- Construction Noise Model Input and Output To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8
Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or
Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation Time
(hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) ILbarr (dB) Notes
Grading excavator 2 40 81 Excavators 130 0.0 69.7 8 480 69 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 grader 1 40 85 Graders 130 0.0 73.7 8 480 70 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 130 0.0 70.7 8 480 67 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 scraper 2 40 84 Scrapers 130 0.0 72.7 8 480 72 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 2 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 130 0.0 66.7 8 480 66 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Grading Phase: 76.0
Building Construction Crane 1 16 81 Cranes 130 0.0 69.7 7 420 61 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Man lift 3 20 75 Forklifts 130 0.0 63.7 8 480 61 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Generator 1 50 72 Generator Sets 130 0.0 60.7 8 480 58 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 3 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 130 0.0 66.7 7 420 67 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Welder / Torch 1 40 73 Welders 130 0.0 61.7 8 480 58 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Building Construction Phase: 69.4
Paving paver 2 50 77 Pavers 130 0.0 65.7 8 480 66 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 All Other Equipment > 5 HP 2 50 85 Paving Equipment 130 0.0 73.7 6 360 72 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 roller 2 20 80 Rollers 130 0.0 68.7 6 360 63 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Paving Phase: 73.7
Architectural Coating compressor (air) 1 40 78 Air compressor 130 0.0 66.7 6 360 61 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Architectural Coating Phase: 61.4
RCNM-emulator-with-barriers_091123.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 PA-B1 Construction Rohr Wohl Specific Plan Appendix B -- Construction Noise Model Input and Output To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae noise level limit for construction phase at occupied building, per FTA guidance = 80 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8
Construction Activity Equipment Total
Equipment Qty
AUF % (from
FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or
Notes
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation Time
(hours)
Allowable
Operation Time
(minutes)
Predicted 8-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft) Abarr (dB) ILbarr (dB) Notes
Grading excavator 1 40 81 Excavators 130 0.0 69.7 8 480 66 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 grader 1 40 85 Graders 130 0.0 73.7 8 480 70 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 130 0.0 70.7 8 480 67 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 3 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 130 0.0 66.7 8 480 67 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Grading Phase: 73.7
Building Construction Crane 1 16 81 Cranes 130 0.0 69.7 7 420 61 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Man lift 3 20 75 Forklifts 130 0.0 63.7 8 480 61 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Generator 1 50 72 Generator Sets 130 0.0 60.7 8 480 58 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 backhoe 3 40 78 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 130 0.0 66.7 7 420 67 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Welder / Torch 1 40 73 Welders 130 0.0 61.7 8 480 58 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Building Construction Phase: 69.4
Paving paver 2 50 77 Pavers 130 0.0 65.7 8 480 66 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 All Other Equipment > 5 HP 2 50 85 Paving Equipment 130 0.0 73.7 6 360 72 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 roller 2 20 80 Rollers 130 0.0 68.7 6 360 63 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Paving Phase: 73.7
Architectural Coating compressor (air) 1 40 78 Air compressor 130 0.0 66.7 6 360 61 5 5 0 5 125 130 7.1 125.1 130.0 0.00 0.1 0.0 Total for Architectural Coating Phase: 61.4
RCNM-emulator-with-barriers_091123.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 PA-B2 Construction
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Modeling Calculations - Summary
Project: 14541 Rohr Wohl Specific Plan
Number Name From To
Summary of Net Changes
1 Bay Boulevard F Street G Street 64.1 64.6 0.5
2 Bay Boulevard G Street H Street 64.3 66.3 2.0
3 Bay Boulevard H Street J Street 61.5 64.0 2.5
4 F Street Bay Boulevard Woodlawn Avenue 63.0 63.4 0.3
5 G Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 59.9 64.7 4.8
6 H Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 65.7 66.2 0.5
7 H Street Bay Boulevard I-5SB Ramps 66.8 68.0 1.2
8 H Street I-5SB Ramps I-5NB Ramps 66.8 67.6 0.9
9 H Street I-5NB Ramps Woodlawn Avenue 67.9 68.2 0.3
10 Marina Parkway G Street H Street 63.0 63.3 0.3
11 Marina Parkway H Street Street C 62.2 62.8 0.7
12 Marina Parkway Street C Marina Way 64.5 64.5 0.0
13 Marina Parkway Marina Way Street A 64.8 65.2 0.4
14 Marina Parkway Street A Bay Boulevard 66.4 66.7 0.3
*All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.
Segment Description and Location Opening
Year 2026
Opening
Year 2026
with Project
Δ Opening
Year 2026 –
Opening Year
2026 with
Project
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Model Calculations
Project: 14541 Rohr Wohl Specific Plan
Noise Level Descriptor: CNEL
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: Peak
Traffic K-Factor: 10
CNEL,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Opening Year 2026 Conditions
1 Bay Boulevard F Street G Street 831 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.1 2 Bay Boulevard G Street H Street 880 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.3 3 Bay Boulevard H Street J Street 462 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 61.5 4 F Street Bay Boulevard Woodlawn Avenue 650 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 63.0 5 G Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 317 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 59.9 6 H Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 1,207 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 65.7 7 H Street Bay Boulevard I-5SB Ramps 1,552 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 66.8 8 H Street I-5SB Ramps I-5NB Ramps 1,544 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 66.8 9 H Street I-5NB Ramps Woodlawn Avenue 2,007 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 67.9 10 Marina Parkway G Street H Street 644 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 63.0 11 Marina Parkway H Street Street C 534 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 62.2 12 Marina Parkway Street C Marina Way 912 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.5 13 Marina Parkway Marina Way Street A 985 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.8 14 Marina Parkway Street A Bay Boulevard 1,408 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 66.4 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 305
36 78 169 363
21 14
17 11
202
210
136
171
106
259
17 37
23 29 62
37 23
56 Input
Speed Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Output
Distance to
Directional
Centerline,
(feet)4
Distance to Contour, (feet)3
26 15
45 21
32 31 66
31 46
150
215
66 142
120
Segment Description and Location
20 94
Peak Hour
Volume
43 29
226
287
97 63
80 49
70 100
79 170
142 306
133
10549
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Model Calculations
Project: 14541 Rohr Wohl Specific Plan
Noise Level Descriptor: CNEL
Site Conditions: Soft
Traffic Input: Peak
Traffic K-Factor: 10
CNEL,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Opening Year 2026 with Project Conditions
1 Bay Boulevard F Street G Street 939 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.6 2 Bay Boulevard G Street H Street 1,395 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 66.3 3 Bay Boulevard H Street J Street 814 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.0 4 F Street Bay Boulevard Woodlawn Avenue 704 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 63.4 5 G Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 950 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.7 6 H Street Marina Parkway Bay Boulevard 1,342 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 66.2 7 H Street Bay Boulevard I-5SB Ramps 2,048 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 68.0 8 H Street I-5SB Ramps I-5NB Ramps 1,885 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 67.6 9 H Street I-5NB Ramps Woodlawn Avenue 2,133 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 68.2 10 Marina Parkway G Street H Street 689 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 63.3 11 Marina Parkway H Street Street C 624 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 62.8 12 Marina Parkway Street C Marina Way 912 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 64.5 13 Marina Parkway Marina Way Street A 1,075 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 65.2 14 Marina Parkway Street A Bay Boulevard 1,498 35 50 50 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% 66.7 *All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. 24 52 111 240
30 64 139 299
17 36 77 167
21 46 100 215
37 79 171 368
35 75 162 349
38 82 176 378
18 38 83 178
20 43 92 199
18 39 84 181
22 48 102 221
28 60 129 278
29 61 132 285
Segment Description and Location
Distance to Contour, (feet)3
22 47 102 219
Input Output
Peak Hour
Volume
Speed
Distance to
Directional
Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Appendix D
Project Sound Source Calculation Data
ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Appendix D - Project HVAC Noise Prediction AHUs (plenum-type return fan only, no condenser units [see separate worksheet]): A-weighting adjustments 26 13 9 3 0 -1 -1 1 Building Minimum Ventilation
average of values for the two fan diameter ranges, per Guyer (Table 12) plug 40 40 38 34 29 23 19 16 average of values for the two fan diameter ranges, per Guyer (Table 12) tube 47 44 46 47 44 45 38 35 per Guyer (Table 12, presumed based on Bies & Hansen ENC) prop 46 48 55 53 52 48 43 38 percent GSF actually occupied (and need ventilation): 95 Tag Building GSF Avail. SF Height (ft)
Avg. minutes to
change air* Volume (ft3) CFM m2
comparable facility
function
Pressure
(iwg)
Pressure
(Pa) Q (m 3/s) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 OA dB return air fans in building rooftop AHUs:
Bldg1 Industrial 79820 75829 32 20 2426528 121326.4 7048 office space 2.5 625 57 plug 67.5 79.5 80.5 81.5 78.5 71.5 65.5 60.5 86 Bldg2 Industrial 102730 97594 32 20 3122992 156149.6 9071 office space 2.5 625 74 plug 68.6 80.6 81.6 82.6 79.6 72.6 66.6 61.6 88 Bldg3 Industrial 108400 102980 32 20 3295360 164768 9572 office space 2.5 625 78 plug 68.8 80.8 81.8 82.8 79.8 72.8 66.8 61.8 88 Bldg4 Industrial 172800 164160 32 20 5253120 262656 15259 office space 2.5 625 124 plug 70.8 82.8 83.8 84.8 81.8 74.8 68.8 63.8 90 fan or AHU cabinet liner/interior attenuation (excludes inlet/outlet PWL split, already in calcs above: 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 10 fantype = plug,
tube, or prop
A-weighted PWL (for CadnaA inputs)
stat-ops-noise-source-CadnaA-inputs_wohl091023.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 bldg_AHU ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Appendix D - Project HVAC Noise Prediction with or without sound insulation? (enter Y/N): y
ACCs (air-cooled chillers on rooftops): tons LWA 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 LWA 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 LWA 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Building Interior Comfort Bryant BH16-018 (no sound blanket) 1.5 67 66.2 66.2 63.9 63.8 62.3 58.4 56.4 50.3 68 66.2 66.2 63.8 64.1 64.6 59.9 57.7 53.6 67 66.2 66.2 63.9 63.8 62.3 58.4 56.4 50.3 Bryant BH16-024 (no sound blanket) 2 71 65 65 63.7 63.4 68.5 64.7 58.7 52.8 72 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 70.4 64.5 59.3 55.5 71 65 65 63.7 63.4 68.5 64.7 58.7 52.8 Bryant BH16-036 (no sound blanket) 3 71 68.2 68.2 66.4 67.5 68.4 59.6 58.2 52.4 72 67.7 67.7 66.8 68.1 69.9 62.8 60.3 55.2 71 68.2 68.2 66.4 67.5 68.4 59.6 58.2 52.4 Bryant BH16-048 (no sound blanket) 4 71 68.4 68.4 67.7 69.7 67.6 59.4 56.4 50 73 67.5 67.5 67.8 70.1 70.6 63.1 58.5 53.3 71 68.4 68.4 67.7 69.7 67.6 59.4 56.4 50 Bryant BH16-060 (no sound blanket) 5 69 63.7 63.7 65.4 67.3 64.9 58.3 56.2 51.9 70 61.7 61.7 65.6 68.1 65.8 59.8 58.4 56.1 69 63.7 63.7 65.4 67.3 64.9 58.3 56.2 51.9 Daikin AGZ-E 30 (w/out sound insulation) 30 85 84 84 83 84 77 75 74 70 88 92 91 88 87 83 78 73 68 85 84 84 83 84 77 75 74 70 Daikin AGZ-E 40 (w/out sound insulation) 40 85 84 84 83 84 77 75 74 70 89 92 91 90 88 84 79 74 69 85 84 84 83 84 77 75 74 70 Daikin AGZ-E 50 (w/out sound insulation) 50 87 85 85 85 86 80 77 75 70 90 93 93 91 89 85 79 74 69 87 85 85 85 86 80 77 75 70 Daikin AGZ-E 60 (w/out sound insulation) 60 87 85 85 85 86 80 77 75 70 91 94 93 94 89 86 81 76 71 87 85 85 85 86 80 77 75 70 Daikin AGZ-E 70 (w/out sound insulation) 70 87 85 85 85 86 80 77 75 70 92 95 95 94 89 87 81 76 71 87 85 85 85 86 80 77 75 70 Daikin AGZ-E 80 (w/out sound insulation) 80 88 88 85 87 86 81 81 77 71 92 95 95 95 89 87 81 76 71 88 88 85 87 86 81 81 77 71 Daikin AGZ-E 90 (w/out sound insulation) 90 88 88 87 87 86 83 80 77 71 93 94 95 92 91 89 83 81 81 88 88 87 87 86 83 80 77 71 Daikin AGZ-E 120 (w/out sound insulation) 120 89 91 85 88 86 82 81 79 72 95 93 96 92 92 90 84 84 82 89 91 85 88 86 82 81 79 72 Daikin AGZ-E 240 (w/out sound insulation) 241 94 94 88 91 90 91 84 82 75 100 98 98 98 95 96 90 90 86 94 94 88 91 90 91 84 82 75 actual percent of GSF occupied: 95
Phase Building Tag GSF Avail. SF comparable facility function Avg. GSF per
ton* tons of refrig.
Approx. Qty. of
ACCs
tons per
ACC
Approx. Total
PWL (dBA)
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
Bldg1 Industrial 79820 75829 Factories, assembly areas - avg of low and high 165 459.6 8 57 96 94 94 94 95 89 86 84 79 Bldg2 Industrial 102730 97594 Factories, assembly areas - avg of low and high 165 591.5 8 74 96 94 94 94 95 89 86 84 79 Bldg3 Industrial 108400 102980 Factories, assembly areas - avg of low and high 165 624.1 8 78 96 94 94 94 95 89 86 84 79 Bldg4 Industrial 172800 164160 Factories, assembly areas - avg of low and high 165 994.9 8 124 98 100 94 97 95 91 90 88 81 *based upon "lo" value per Loren Cook's "Engineering Cookbook", 1999 edition, pp. 59-60 a weighting adj 26 13 9 3 0 -1 -1 1
96 68.0 81.0 85.0 92.0 89.0 87.0 85.0 78.0
96 68.0 81.0 85.0 92.0 89.0 87.0 85.0 78.0
96 68.0 81.0 85.0 92.0 89.0 87.0 85.0 78.0
98 74.0 81.0 88.0 92.0 91.0 91.0 89.0 80.0
data for models "with sound insulation" or "sound blankets"unweighted PWL (dB) per OCBF (Hz) at full load (100%) unweighted PWL (dB) per OCBF (Hz) at full load (100%)
data for models "without sound insulation" or no "sound blankets" stat-ops-noise-source-CadnaA-inputs_wohl091023.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 bldg_AC ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Appendix D - Project Loading Dock Noise Prediction from CMS "Midpoint at 237" March 27, 2014 noise study Dudek time estimate dBA dist (feet) at 50' minutes per hour hourly Leq source PWL truck passby 68 30 63.6 2 48.8 traveling on lot 83.5
truck airbrakes 72 25 66.0 0.05 35.2 at dock 69.8
truck backup alarm 79 30 74.6 0.05 43.8 at dock 78.4
idle before shutoff 70 25 64.0 1 46.2 at dock 80.9
truck engine ignition + airbrakes 71 25 65.0 0.05 34.2 at dock 68.8 truck accelerating from stop 74 25 68.0 0.05 37.2 at dock 71.8 total at dock 83.5
dock door quantities from siteplan peak hour trips* split** log add*** Building 1 docks 1
8 NA 0.0
Building 2 docks 2
23 NA 3.0
Building 3 docks 2
14 NA 3.0
Building 4 docks 4
32 NA 6.0
*(3 and 4-axle trucks)
**(based on dock ratio for the building)
***(to single truck noise levels)
assume this is the daytime operations scenario, when peak-hour truck trips would occur.
For this project, I assumed that the peak hour trips would be approximately 12% of the total; this was derived by taking the total daily trips and dividing it by the peak hour trips onsite-dock-and-truck-trip-calcs-cm091323.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 rohrwohl-day ROHR WOHL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Appendix D - Project Loading Dock Noise Prediction from CMS "Midpoint at 237" March 27, 2014 noise study Dudek time estimate dBA dist (feet) at 50' minutes per hour hourly Leq source PWL truck passby 68 30 63.6 2 48.8 traveling on lot 83.5
truck airbrakes 72 25 66.0 0.05 35.2 at dock 69.8
truck backup alarm 79 30 74.6 0.05 43.8 at dock 78.4
idle before shutoff 70 25 64.0 1 46.2 at dock 80.9
truck engine ignition + airbrakes 71 25 65.0 0.05 34.2 at dock 68.8 truck accelerating from stop 74 25 68.0 0.05 37.2 at dock 71.8 total at dock 83.5
dock door quantities from siteplan peak hour trips* split** log add*** Building 1 docks 0.25
8 NA 0.0
Building 2 docks 0.5
23 NA 0.0
Building 3 docks 0.5
14 NA 0.0
Building 4 docks 1.00
32 NA 0.0
*(3 and 4-axle trucks)
**(based on dock ratio for the building)
***(to single truck noise levels)
assume this is the nighttime operations scenario, when only up to 25% peak-hour truck trips would occur. onsite-dock-and-truck-trip-calcs-cm091323.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14541 rohrwohl-night