The recommended minimum dimensions of the bioretention area are 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) long, where the minimum width allows enough space for a dense, randomly-distributed area of trees and shrubs to become established. Thus replicating a natural forest and creating a microclimate, thereby enabling the bioretention area to tolerate the effects of heat stress, acid rain, runoff pollutants, and insect and disease infestations which landscaped areas in urban settings typically are unable to tolerate. The preferred width is 25 feet (7.6 meters), with a length of twice the width. Essentially, any facilities Wder than 20 feet (6.1 meters) should be ^ce as long as they are wide, which promotes the distribution of flow and decreases the chances of concentrated flow.
Ẹ
In order to proidde adequate storage and prevent water from standing for excessive periods of time the ponding depth of the bioretention area should not exceed 6 inches (15 centimeters).
Water should not be left to stand for more than 72 hours. A restriction on the type of plants that can be used may be necessaty due to some plants’ water intolerance. Furthermore, if water is left standing for longer tlian 72 hours mosquitoes and other insects may stait to bi'eed.
The appropriate planting soil should be backfilled into the excavated bioretention area. Planting soils should be sandy loam, loamy sand, 01' loam texture with a clay content ranging from 10 to 25 percent.
Generally the soil should have infiltration rates greater than 0.5 inches (1.25 centimeters) per hour, which is tuleai of sandy loams, loamy sands, or loams. The pH of the soil should range between 5٠5 and 6.5, where pollutants such as organic nitrogen and pliosphorus can be adsorbed by the soil and microbial actityty can flourish. Additional requirements for the planting soil include a 1.5 to 3 percent organic content and a maximum 500 ppm concentration of soluble salts.
4 of 8 Ca!iforn!a stormwater BMP Handbook
New Deve!opment and Redeve!opment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
lanua^ 2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3140 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Bì.retentì.n ТС-32
Soil tests should be performed for evei^ 500 cubic yards (382 cubic meters) of planting soil, Wth the exception of pH and organic content tests, which are required only once per bioretention area (EPA, 1999). Planting soil should be 4 inches (10.1 centimeters) deeper than the bottom of the largest root ball and 4 feet (1.2 meters) altogether. This depth ฬ1 proWde adequate soil for the plants' root systems to become established, prevent plant damage due to severe Wnd, and proWde adequate moisture capacity. Most sites will require excavation in order to obtain the recommended depth.
Planting soil depths of greater than 4 feet (1.2 meters) may require additional construction practices such as shoring measures (EPA, 1999). Planting soil should be placed in 18 inches or greater lifts and lightly compacted until the desired depth is reached. Since high canopy trees maybe destroyed during maintenance the bioretention area should be vegetated to resemble a terrestrial forest community.ecosystem that is dominated by understoi-y trees. Three species each of both trees and shrubs are recommended to be planted at a rate of 2500 trees and shrubs per hectare (1000 per acre). Foi- instance, a 15 foot (4.6 meter) by 40 foot (12.2 meter) bioretention area (600 square feet or 55.75 square meters) would require 14 trees and slirubs.
The shrub-to-tree ratio should be 2:1 to 3:1.
Trees and shrubs should be planted wlien conditions are favorable. Vegetation should be watered at the end of each day for fourteen days folloWng its planting. Plant species tolerant of pollutant loads and va^dng wet and dry conditions should be used in the bioretention area.
The designer should assess aesthetics, site layout, and maintenance requirements when selecting plant species. Adjacent non-native invasive species should be identified and the designer should take measures, such as providing a soil breach to eliminate the threat of these species invading the bioretention area. Regional landscaping manuals should be consulted to ensure that the planting of the bioretention area meets the landscaping requirements established by the local authorities. The designers should evaluate the best placement of vegetation within the bioretention area. Plants should be placed at irregular inteiwals to replicate a natural forest. Trees should be placed on the perimeter of the area to prortde shade and shelter from the wind. Trees and shrubs can be sheltered from damaging flows if they are placed away from the path of the incoming runoff. In cold climates, species that are more tolerant to cold Éds, such as evergreens, should be placed in vdndier areas of the site.
FolloWng placement of the trees and shrubs, the ground cover and/or mulch should be established. Ground cover such as grasses or legumes can be planted at the beginning of the growing season. Mulch should be placed immediately after trees and shrubs are planted. Two to 3 inches (5 to 7.6 cm) of commercially-available fine shredded hardwood mulch or shredded hardwood chips should be applied to the bioretention area to protect from erosion.
Ma؛ntenance
The primary maintenance requirement for bioretention areas is that of inspection and repair or replacement of the treatment area's components. Generally, this involves nothing more than the routine periodic maintenance that is required of any landscaped area. Plants that are appropriate for the site, climatic, and watering conditions should be selected for use in the bioretention cell. Appropriately selected plants will aide in reducing fertilizer, pesticide, water, and overall maintenance requirements. Bioretention system components should blend over time through plant and root gro^h, organic decomposition, and the development of a natural ة
January 2003 Ca!ifornia stormwater BMP Handbook
New Deveاopment and Redeve!opment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
5 of 8
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3141 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ТС-32 B!٠retent!٠n
soil horizon. These biologic and physical processes over time will lengthen the facility's life span and reduce the need for extensive maintenance.
Routine maintenance should Include a biannual health evaluation of the trees and shrubs and subsequent removal of any dead or diseased vegetation (EPA, 1999). Diseased vegetation should be treated as needed using preventative and low-toxic measures to the extent possible.
BMPs have the potential to create veity attractive habitats for mosquitoes and other vectors because of highly organic, often heavily vegetated areas mixed with shallow water. Routine inspections for areas of standing water Wthin the BMP and corrective measures to restore proper infiltration rates are necessary to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitat. In addition, bioretention BMPs are susceptible to invasion by aggressive plant species such as cattails, which increase tire chances of water standing and sulisequent vector production if not routinely maintained.
In 01’der to maintain the treatment area’s appearance it may be necessary to prune and weed.
Furthermore, mulch replacement is suggested when erosion is etydent or when the site begins to look unattractive. Specifically, the entire area may require mulch r’eplacement evei^ two to three years, although spot mulching may be sufficient when there are random void areas. Mulch replacement should be done prior to the start of the wet season.
New Jersey's Department of Entyronmental Protection states in their bioretention systems standards that accumulated sediment and debris removal (especially at the inflow point) Wll normally be the primary maintenance firnction. Other potential tasks include replacement of dead vegetation, soil pH regulation, erosion repair at inflow points, mulch replenishment, unclogging the underdrain, and repairing overflow structirres. There is also the possibility that the cation exchange capacity of the soils in the cell will be significantly reduced over time.
Depending on pollutant loads, soils may need to be replaced within 5-10 years of construction (LID, 2000).
Cost
Consừuction Cost
Construction cost estimates for a liioretention area are slightly greater than those for the required landscaping for a new development (EPA, 1999). A general rule of thumb (Coftaan, 1999) is that residential bioretention areas average about $3 to $4 per square foot, depending on soil conditions and the density and types of plants used. Commercial, industrial and institutional site costs can range betiveen $10 to $40 per square foot, based on the need for control stnictures, curbing, storm drains and underdrains.
Retrofitting a site typically costs more, averaging $6,500 per bioretention area. The higher costs are attributed to the demolition of existing conci'ete, asphalt, and existing structiires and the replacement of fill material wth planting soil. The costs of retrofitting a commercial site in Matyland, Kettering Development, Wth 15 bioretention areas were estimated at $111,600.
In any bioretention area design, the cost of plants varies substantially and can account foi- a significant portion of the expenditures. While these cost estimates are sliglitly greater than those of typical landscaping treatment (due to the increased number of plantings, additional soil excavation, backfill material, use of underdrains etc.), those landscaping expenses that would be required regardless of the bioretention installation should be subtracted when determining tlie net cost.
6 of 8 Ca!ifom!a stormwater BMP Handbook
New Deve!opment and Redeve!opment
www.cabmpliandbooks.com
January 2003 ٠
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3142 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Bl٠٣etent!٠n ТС-32
؛؛
Perhaps of most importance, however, the cost saWngs compared to the use of traditional structural stormwater conveyance systems makes bioretention ai'eas quite attractive financially.
For example, the use of bioretention can decrease the cost required foi' constructing stormwater conveyance systems at a site.- A medical office building in Mainland was able to reduce the amount of storm drain pipe that was needed from 800 to 230 feet - a cost savings of $24,000 (PGDER, 1993). And a irew residential development spent a total of approximately $100,000 using bioretention cells on each lot instead of nearly $400,000 for the traditional stormwater ponds that were originally planned (Rappahanock, ). Also, in residential areas, stormwater management controls become a part of each property owner's landscape, reducing tlie public burden to maintain large centralized facilities.
Mamterimice Cost
The operation and maintenance costs for a bioretention facility will lie comparable to those of typical landscaping required for a site. Costs beyond the normal landscaping fees will include the cost for testing the soils and may include costs for a sand bed and planting soil.
References and Sources of Additional Information
Coffman, L.S., R. Goo and R. Frederick, 1999: Low impact development: an innovative alternative approach to stormwater management. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference ASCE, June 6-9, Tempe, Arizona.
Davis, Α.Ρ., shokouhian, M., sharma, H. and Minami, c., "Laboratoty Study of Biological Retention (Bioretention) for Urban Stormwater Management," Water Environ. Res., 73(1), 5-14 (2001).
Davis, Α.Ρ., Shokouhian, M.j'Sharma, H., Minami, c., andwinogradoff, D. "Water Quality Improvement through Bioretention: Lead, Copper, and Zinc," Water Environ. Res., accepted for publication, August 2002.
Kim, H., Seagren, Ε.Α., and Davis, Α.Ρ., "Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate from Stormwater Runoff," WEFTEC 2000 Conference Proceedings on CDROM Research Symposium, Ntogen Removal, Session 19, Anaheim CA, October 2000.
Hsieh, c.-h. and Davis, Α.Ρ. "Engineering Bioretention for Treatment of Urban Stormwater Runoff," Watersheds 2002, Proceedings on CDROM Research Symposium, Session 15, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, Feb. 2002.
Prince George's County Department of Emdronmental Resources (PGDER), 1993. Design Manual for Use of Rioretenffon in Stormwater Management. Division of Emdronmental Management, Watershed Protection Branch. Landover, MD.
U.S. EPA Office of Water, 1999. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention. EPA 832-F99-012.
Weinstein, N. Davis, Α.Ρ. and Veeramachaneni, R. "Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Management Approach for the Control of Difftise Pollution from Urban Roadways," 5th Intentional Conjerence D٠se/Nonpolnt Pohutton andWatershed Manaqement Proceedings, C.S. Melching and Emre Alp, Eds. 2001 International Water Association ت
January 20٥3 Caااfornia Stormwater BMP Handbook
New Deveاopment and Redeve!opment
www.ca’bmphandbooks.com
. 7 of 8
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3143 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) TC-32 Bioretention ＝一
も●
1 PARK1NGLOTSHEETFLOW
~l↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ …産室蔀司庵室函…＝零司 『毒毒蕊司
０，１心。Ⅱ
１０も邑凸“●ず■４
CURBSTOPS－
謬宝y鯵宝鶏;宝鶏;貿鶏;実寓急ぎ諸；室塞;貿劣;賓塞;安宰;宝霧ﾏｰ零ﾏｰ零言~… STONEDlAPHRAGM 可雫智『蝿縞畏凶固柄唖韓堀旬観鷺剰急剣晶異趙晁込
GRASSFlLTER
STRIP
OPTlONAL
SANDLAYER
GRAVELCURTAIN
DRAlNOVERFLOW
ｑ－４
』０６吋。巳
1 ~
L－UNDERDRAINCOLLECTlONSYSTEM
PLANVIEW
ﾛや
~~ 灘蕊蕊 GRAVEL
CURTAlN
DRAIN
CURBSTOPS
戸 一Ⅲ
…｜”
｜｜｜、
＝
蕊
、
騨躍
…
乱謨Ｐ毛診
…
和和知やら‐胃や雫謁呼鴛詞飼渭酒翻や福葛玉名娯品晶屯・砦一二必・＃。・や李マキ
些而~ 鑿帝髻些
｜
6',PONDlNG
2''-3wMULCH
＝
ｍ
山一一一
寺、
山一一
~~~》
Ｉｌｌ｜｜
ｍ
4,PLAN~｢lNGSOlL
←FlLTERFABRlC
驚蕊
堂
灘
6J1PERFORATED
PlPEiN8』,GRAVEL
JACKET
TYPlCALSECT10N
PROFILE
SchematicofaBioretentionFacility(MDE,2000)
哺『⑤、旬句
~ １０４ａ今も叩￥『ロ淘珂孔‐。必やＴ『迅壗暑損視倶昌鴨黒黒嬰桑祷粍壼塁二二・言唾
8of8 CaliforniaStormwaterBMPHandbook
NewDevelopmentandRedevelopment
.www.cabmphandbooks.com
]anuary2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3144 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ؛ :ل
٠utd٠٠r L٠ad؛ ng/Un١٠ad؛ng SC-3٠
T Objectives إ
Cover ا |v |للآ،.,،ه
لمثحهساج
■ Conta!n
- ح
-'ب t ■ Educate
.
٥ ■ Reduce/M!n!m!ze
ị;4 I" • Product Substttut!on
I
ن-
Description
The loading/unloading of materials usually takes place outside on docks or terminals; therefore, materials spilled, leaked, or lost during loading/unloading may collect in the soil or oir otlrer surfaces and have the potential to be carried away by stormwater runoff or when the area is cleaned. Additionally, rainfall may wash pollutants from machinery used to unload or move
materials. Implementation of the folloWng protocol.s Wll prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from outdoor loading/unloading of materials.
Approach
Reduce potential for pollutant discharge through source control pollution prevention and BMP implementation. Successftil implementation depends on effective training of employees on applicable BMPs and genei'al pollution prevention strategies and objectives.
Pollution Prevention
" Keep accurate maintenance logs to evaluate mateidals
removed and improvements made.
٠ Park tank trucks or delivery vehicles in designated areas so that spills or leaks can be contained.
" Limit exposure of material to rainfall whenever possible. " Prevent stormwater run-on.
Targeted Constituents
Sediment
Nutdents
Trash
Meta!s
Bacteha
0!ا and Grease
Organics
i
؛:
;ł
Cầiaầ
■ Check equipment regularly for leaks. ؛California
เ Stormwater
I Qual¡^
H' Association
ا
January 2003 Ca!ifornia stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria؛ and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
lof 4
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3145 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) f
١. (
SC-30 Outdoor L.adlng/Unloadlng
1 1
Suggested Protocols
Loading and Un^0ad؛ng - General Guidelừies
■ Develop an
■ Conduct loading and unloading in dry٠w؟a؛her-if possible. ■ Cover designated loading/unloading aregsjto reduce exposure of materials to rain. ■ Consider placing a seal or door skirt beL٩^ẹfen delive^^ vehicles and building to prevent exposure to rain.
ا
ا؛؛ ا
■ Design loading/unloading area to prevent stormwater run-on, which would include grading or berming the area, and position roof downspouts so they direct stormwater away from the loading/unloading areas.
■ Have employees load and unload ah materials and eguipment in covered areas such as building overhangs at loading docks if feasible.
٠ Load/unload only at designated loading areas.
■ Use drip pans underneath hose and pipe connections and other leak-prone spots during liguid transfer operations, and when making and breaking connections. Several drip pans should be stored in a covered location near the liquid transfer area so that they are always available, yet protected from precipitation when not in use. Drip pans can be made specifically for railroad tracks. Drip pans must be cleaned periodically, and drip collected materials must be disposed of properly.
■ Pave loading areas Wth concrete instead of asphalt.
■ Avoid placing storm drains in the area.
" Grade and/or berm the loading/unloading area to a drain that is connected to a deadend.
Inspection
■ Check loading and unloading equipment regularly for leaks, including valves, pumps, flanges and connections.
■ Look for dust or firmes during loading or unloading operations.
Training
■ Train employees (e.g., fork lift operator's) and contractors on proper spill contairrment and cleanup.
" Have employees trained in spill containment and cleanup present during loading/unloading. " Train employees in proper handling techniques during liquid transfers to avoid spills. " Make sure forklift operators are properly trained on loading and unloading procedrtres. 2 of 4 Ca!iforn!a stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
January 2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3146 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Outdoor Loadlng/Un.oadlng SC-3٠
Spill Response and Prevention
• Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. ■ Contain leaks during transfer.
■ Store and maintain appropriate ؛spill cleanup materials in a location that is readily accessible and kno^ to all and ensure that employees are familiar with the site’s spill control plan and proper spill cleanup procedures.
■ Have an emergency spill cleanup plan readily available. ■ Use drip pans 01' comparable devices when transferring oils, solvents, and paints.
Other Considerations (Limitations and Regulations)
• Space and time limitations may preclude all transfers from being performed indoors or under cover.
Ş
■ It may not be possible to conduct transfers only during dry weather.
Requirements
Costs
Costs should be low except when covering a large loading/unloading area.
Maintenance
I Conduct regular inspections and make repairs as necessary. The frequency of repairs will depend on the age of the facility.
٠ Check loading and unloading equipment regularly for leaks. ■ Conduct regular broom dry-sweeping of area.
Supp١ementa. Information
Further Detail ofthe BMP
Loading or unloading of liquids should occur in the manufacturing building so that any spills that are not completely retained can be discharged to the sanitary sewer, treatment plant, or treated in a manner consistent Wth local sewer authorities and permit requirements. ■ For loading and unloading tank ti'ucks to above and below ground storage tanks, the folloWng procedures should be used:
- The area where the transfer takes place should be paved. If the liquid is reactive with the asphalt, Portland cement should be used to pave the area.
The transfer area should be designed to prevent run-on of stormwater from adjacent areas. Sloping the pad and using a curb, like a speed bump, around the uphill side of the transfer area should reduce run-on.
Ş
January 2003 Caااf0rnاa stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
3of4
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3147 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) SC-3٠ ٠utd٠٠r Loading/Unloading
The transfer area should be designed to prevent runoff of spilled liquids from the area.
Sloping the area to a drain should prevent runoff. The drain should be connected to a dead-end sump or to the sanitaiy sewer. A positive control valve should be installed on the drain.
■ For transfer from rail cars to storage tan١s that must occur outside, use the following procedures:
- Drip pans should be placed at locations where spillage may occur, such as hose connections, hose reels, and filler nozzles. Use drip pans when making and breaking connections.
Drip pan systems should be installed betiveen the rails to collect spillage from tank cars.
References and Resources
California’s Nonpoint Source Program Plan httn://www.swrcb.ca.TOv/nos/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual
http://www.co.clark.wa.us/oubworks/bmpman.ndf
King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Progi-am http: //www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http: //^v.stormwatercenter.net/ 4 of 4 California stormwater BMP Handbook
Industrial and Commercial
www.cabmpliandbooks.com
January 2003
ق
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3148 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) i
Parklng/st.rage Area Maintenance SC-43
ầ objectives
• Cover
■ Con؛a!n
Í ■ Educate
■ Reduce/M!nim!ze
111ril Ẹ
■ Product Substìudon ا؛
■؛!ไโ
د
^ii
أ
Targeted Constituents
Description
Parking lots and storage areas can contribute a number of substances, such as trash, suspended solids, hjrdrocarbons, oil and grease, and hea^ metals that can enter receiving waters through stormwater runoff or non-stormwater discharges. The protocols in this fact sheet are intended to prevent 01. reduce the discharge of pollutants from parking/storage areas and include using good housekeeping practices, follovdng appropriate cleaning BMPs, and training employees.
Approach
The goal of this program is to ensure stormwater pollution prevention practices are considered when conducting actiWties on or around parking areas and storage areas to reduce potential for pollutant discharge to receiidng waters. Successful implementation depends on 'effective training o'f employees on applicable BMPs and general pollution prevention strategies and objectives.
Pollution Prevention
" Encourage alternative designs and maiiitenance strategies for impervious parking lots. (See New Development and
Redevelopment BMP Handbook)
" Keep accural:e maintenance logs to evaluate BMP
implementation.
Nu٢؛!ents
Trash
Meta!s
Bacteha
Oil and Grease
Organics
,^r„!٠ầ .^solation
January 2003 Calاforπia stormwater BMP Handbook
Industrial and Commercial
www.cabmphandbooks.com
lot 4
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3149 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ؛
■ỉ
SC-43 Pa٣klng/st٠,٠ge Area, Maintenance
ا
Suggested Protocols
٠ Keep the parking and storage areas clean :؛|nd orderly. Reme ve debris in a timely fashion. ■ Allow sheet runoff to flow into biofilters, (؛؛getated strip and, swale) and/or infiltration devices.
" Utilize sand filters or oleophilic collectorS^^r oily waste in low quantities. .' ١١
■ Ariange rooftop drains to prevent drąinag؛ directly onto pavCd surfaces. " Design lot to include semi-permeable hardscape.
■ Discharge soapy water remaining in mop 01. wash buckets to the sanitaiy sewer through a sink, toilet, clean-out, or wash area with drain.
Contolling Litter
٠ Post “No Littering” signs and enforce anti-litter laws. ٠ Prorfde an adequate number of litter receptacles.
" Clean out and cover litter receptacles frequently to prevent spillage. ٠ Prorfde trash receptacles in parking lots to discourage litter. ■ Routinely sweep, shovel, and dispose of littei- in the trash.
Surface Cleaning
■ Use di^ cleaning methods (e.g., sweeping, vacuuming) to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system if possible.
٠ Establish frequency of public parking lot sweeping based on usage and field observations of waste accumulation.
■ Sweep all parking lots at least once befoi'e tlie onset of the wet season. ٠ Follow the procedures below if water is used to clean surfaces:
Block the storm drain or contain runoff.
Collect and pump wash water to the sanitaiy sewei- or discharge to a perrfous surface.
Do not allow wash water to enter storm drains.
Dispose of parking lot sweeping debris and dirt at a landfill. " Follow the procedures below when cleaning heavy oily deposits:
Clean oily spots with absorbent materials.
- Use a screen or filter fabric over inlet, then wash surfaces. 2 of 4 California stormwater BMP Handbook
Industrial and Commercial
www.cabmphandbooks.com
January 2003
Ị
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3150 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ي
^ạrklng/st.rage Area Maintenance SC-43
Do not allow discharges to the storm drain.
- Vacuum/pump discharges to a tank or discharge to sanitaiy sewer.
Appropriately dispose of spilled materials and absorbents.
Surface Repair
" Preheat, transfer or load hot bituminous material away from storm drain inlets. ■ Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat during dry weather to prevent contamination from contacting stormwater runoff.
■ Cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets where applicable (with waterproof material 01- mesh) and manholes before applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. Leave covers in place until job is complete and all water from emulsified oil sealants has di'ained 01- evaporated. Clean any debris from these covered manholes and drains for proper disposal. ■ Use only as much water as necessary for dust control, to avoid runoff. ■ Catch drips from paving equipment that is not in use with pans or absorbent material placed under the machines. Dispose of collected material and absorbents properly.
Inspection
conveyance systems associated with parking facilities on a regular basis. ■ Inspect cleaning equipment/sweepers for leaks on a regular basis.
Training
m ProWde regulai- training to field employees and/or contractors regarding cleaning of paved areas and proper operation of equipment.
■ Train employees and contractors in proper techniques foi' spill containment and cleanup.
Spill Response and Prevention
٠ Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. ٠ Place a stockpile of spill cleanup materials where it vhll be readily accessible or at a central location.
■ Clean up fluid spills immediately Wth absorbent 1-ags or material. ٠ Dispose of spilled material and absorbents properly.
Other Considerations
Limitations related to sweeping actiWties at large parking facilities may include high equipment costs, the need for sweeper operator training, and the inability of current sweeper technology to remove oil and grease.
؛
January 2003 Caااfornia stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
3of4
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3151 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) SC-43 Parklng/st.rage Area Maintenance
Requirements
Costs
Cleaning/sweeping costs can be quite large. Construction and maintenance of stormwater structural controls can be quite expensive as well.
Maintenance
• Sweep parking lot regularly to minimize cleaning vdth water. ■ Clean out oil/water/sand separators regularly, especially after heavy storms. ٠ Clean parking facilities regularly to prevent accumulated wastes and pollutants from being discharged into conveyance systenas during rainy conditions.
Supplemental Information
Further Detail ofthe BMP
Surface Repair
Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat duriirg di-y weather to prevent contamination from contacting stormwater runoff. Where applicable, cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets (with waterproof material or mesh) and manholes before applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. Leave covers in place until job is complete and all water from emulsified oil sealants has drained or evaporated. Clean any debris from these covered manholes and drains for proper disposal.
Only use only as much water as is necessaty for dust control to avoid runoff.
References and Resources
California’s Nonpoint Source Program Plan htto: //www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual
http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf
King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual httD://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Pollution from Sui'face Cleaning Folder. 1996. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). http://vww.basmaa.org/
Oregon Association of clean Water Agencies. Oregon Municipal Stormwater Toolbox for Maintenance Practices. June 1998.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://wvw.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://^w.stormwatercenter.net/ 4 of 4 California stormwater BMP Handbook
Industrial and Commercial
www.cabmphandbooks.com
January 2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3152 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Drainage System Maintenance SC-44
objectives
■Ι٠ ٠ ·ί·|? ■ Cover
■ Contaاท
เ-ท■. '٠■ ■ Educate
Щ ,R ■ Reduce/Mln!m!ze
Í
l
دب t.
Iيل :ا;ت٠تا إ.٠؟:
i
Description
As a consequence of its ftinction, the stormwater conveyance system collects and transports urban runoff and stormwater that may contain certain pollutants. The protocols in this fact sheet are intended to reduce pollutants reaching receiving waters through proper conveyance system operation and maintenance.
Approach
Pollution Prevention
Maintain catch basins, stormwater inlets, and other stormwater conveyance structures on a regular basis to remove pollutants, reduce high pollutant concentrations during the first flush of storms, prevent clogging of the dovmstream conveyance system, restore catch basins’ sediment trapping capacity, and ensure the system flmctions properly hydraulicafly to avoid flooding.
Suggested Protocols
Catch Basins/Inlet Srtucrtrres
■ Staff should regularly inspect facilities to ensure compliance with the following:
Immediate repair of any deterioration threatening
structural integrity.
- Cleaning before the sump is 40% flrll. Catch basins
should be cleaned as frequently as needed to meet this
standard.
Targeted Constituents
Sedاmeทا
Nutdents
Irash
Meta!s
Bacteria
Oil and Grease
Organics
i
5 ؛؛
¡ữấ Stenciling of catch basins and inlets (see SC34 Waste Handling and Disposal).
،California
ا Stormwater
I, Quality
» Association
E
January 2003 Caااfornاa Stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
WWW.cabmphandbooks.com
lofe ؛
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3153 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) إ
ا;\؛
ا
SC-44 Drainagé System Maintenance
Clean catch basins, storm drain inlets, other conveyance structures before the wet season to remove sediments and debri)¿c؛umulated during .the summer.
Conduct inspections more frequently durt؛g the wet season for problem areas where sediment or trash accumulates more 0غ6اه Clean and repair as needed.
Keep accurate logs of the number of catGh )asins cleaned. , Store wastes collected from cleaning act۴ :ies of the drainage.System in appropriate containers drain.
or temporary storage sitesi؛لم؛:
؛; . ١ ٠ ؛nanner that preveflts discharge to the storm
■ Dewater the wastes if necessaty wth outflow into the sanitary sewer if permitted. Water should be treated with an appropriate filtering device prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer-. If discharge to the sanitary sewer is not allowed, water should be pumped or vacuumed to a tank and properly disposed. Do not dewater near a storm drain or stream.
Storm Drain Conveyance System
• Locate reaches of storm drain with deposit problems and develop a flushing schedule that keeps the pipe clear of excessive buildup.
■ Collect and pump flushed effluent to the sanita^^ sewer for treatment Vřhenever possible.
Pu.mp Stations
■ Clean all storm drain purrrp stations prior to the wet season to remove silt and trash. ■ Do not allow discharge to reach the storm drain system when cleaning a storm drain pump station or other facility.
٠ Conduct routine maintenance at each pump station.
٠ Inspect, clean, and repair as necessaiy all outlet structures prior to the wet season.
Open Channel
• Modify storm channel characteristics to improve channel hydraulics, increase pollutant removals, and enhance channel/creek aesthetic and habitat value. ■ Conduct channel modification/improvement in accordance with existing laws. Any person, government agency, or public utility proposing an activity that ฝ1 change the natural (emphasis added) state of any 1'iver, stream, or lake in Califoi-nia, must enter into a Steam or Lake Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. The developer-applicant should also contact local governments (city, county, special districts), othei- state agencies (SWRCB, RWQCB, Department of Forestiy, Department of Water Resoui’ces), and Federal Corps of Engineers and USFWS.
Ilhctt Coiections and Dtscharqes
■ I^ook for ertdence of illegal discharges or illicit connections during routine maintenance of conveyance system and drainage structures:
Is there ertdence of spills such as paints, discoloring, etc? Ễ
2 of 6 Ca!lfomla stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
January 2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3154 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Drainage System Maintenance SC-44
Are there any odors associated with the drainage system? Record locations of apparent illegal discharges/illicit connections? - Track flows back to potential dischargers and conduct aboveground inspections. This can be done through visual inspection of upgradient manholes or alternate techniques including zinc chloride smoke testing, fluoi'ometric dye testing, physical inspection testing, or teleWsion camera inspection.
Eliminate the dischai-ge once the origin of flow is established. ■ Stencil or demarcate storm drains, where applicable, to prevent illegal disposal of pollutants.
Storm di-ain inlets should have messages such as. “Dump No Waste Drains to Stream" stenciled next to them to warn against ignorant or intentional dumping of pollutants into the storm drainage system.
٠ Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges.
Illegal Dumping
٠ Inspect and clean up hot spots and other storm drainage areas regularly where illegal dumping and disposal occurs.
■ Establish a system for tracking incidents. The system should be designed to identify the follondng:
- Illegal dumping hot spots
Types and quantities (in some cases) of wastes
Patterns in time of occurrence (time of day/night, month, or year) - Mode of dumping (abandoned container's, "midnight dumping” from moving vehicles, direct dumping of mater'ials, accidents/spills)
Responsible parties
" Post “No Dumping” signs in problem areas with a phone number for reporting dumping and disposal. Signs should also indicate fines and penalties for illegal dumping. ■ Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges.
Training
» Train crews in proper maintenance actirtties, including record keeping and disposal. " Allow only properly trained indirtduals to handle hazardous materials/wastes. ا Have staff involved in detection and removal of illicit connections trained in the follovdng:
- OSHA-required Health and Safety Training (29 CFR 1910.120) plus annual refreslier training (as needed).
January 2003 Caااførnاa Stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
3of6
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3155 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) SC-44 Drainage System Maintenance
OSHA Confined Space Entry training (Cal-OSHA Confined Space, Title 8 and Federal OSHA 29 CER 1910.146).
Procedural training (field screening, sampling, smoke/dye testing, TV inspection).
Spill Response and Prevention
I Investigate all i-eports of spills, leaks, and/or illegal dumping promptly. ٠ Clean up all spills and leaks using "dry” methods (with absorbent materials and/or rags) or dig up, remove, and properly dispose of contaminated soil. ■ Refer to fact slieet SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control, and Cleanup.
Other Consideraäons (Limitations and Regulations)
■ Clean-up actiidties may create a 'slight disturbance for local aquatic species. Access to items and material on private property may be limited. Trade-offs may exist between channel hydraulics and water quahty/riparian habitat. If storm channels or basins are recognized as wetlands, many actiidties, including maintenance, maybe subject to regulation and permitting.
■ Storm drain flushing is most effective in small diameter pipes (36-inch diameter pipe or less, depending on water supply and sediment collection capacity). Other considerations associated with storm drain flushing may include the availability of a water source, finding a downstream area to collect sediments, liquid/sediment disposal, and prohibition against disposal of flushed effluent to sanitaty sewer in some areas. ■ Regulations may include adoption of substantial penalties for illegal dumping and disposal. ■ Local municipal codes may include sections prohibiting discliarge of soil, debris, refirse, hazardous wastes, and other pollutants into the storm drain system.
Requ؛rements
Costs
■ An aggressive catch basin cleaning program could require a significant capital and 0&Μ budget.
٠ The elimination of illegal dumping is dependent on the availability, convenience, and cost of alternative means of disposal. The primaty cost is for staff time. Cost depends on how aggressively a program is implemented. Other cost considerations for an illegal dumping program include:
Purchase and installation of signs.
Rental of vehicle(s) to haul illegally-disposed items and material to landfills. - Rental of heavy equipment to remove larger items (e.g., car bodies) from channels.
Purchase of landfill space to dispose of illegally-dumped items and material. 4 of 6 Ca!lforn!a stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmpfiandbooks.com
January 2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3156 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Drainage System Maintenance SC-44 ị
٩ a
■ Methods used for illicit connection detection (smoke testing, dye testing, ^sual inspection, and flow monitoring) can be costly and time-consuming. Site-specific factors, such as the level of impervious area, the density and ages of buildings, and ^e of land use wifl determine the level of investigation necessaiy.
Maintenance
» Two-person teams may be required to clean catch basins Wth vactor trucks. ■ Teams of at least two people plus administrative personnel are required to identify illicit discharges, depending on the complexity of the storm sewer system. ■ Arrangements must be made for proper disposal of collected wastes. ٠ Technical staff are required to detect and investigate illegal dumping tyolations.
Supplemental Information
Further Detail ofthe BMP
Storm Drain Flushing
Flushing is a common maintenance actityty used to impiOve pipe hydraulics and to remove pollutants in storm drainage systems. Flushing may be designed to hydraulically convey accumulated material to strategic locations, such as an open channel, another point where flushing Wll be initiated, or the sanitary sewer and the treatment facilities, thus preventing resuspension and overflow of a portion of the solids during storm events. Flushing prevents "plug flow” discharges of concentrated pollutant loadings and sediments. Deposits can hinder the designed conveyance capacity of the storm drain system and potentially cause backwater conditions in severe cases of clogging.
Storm drain flushing usually takes place along segments of pipe with grades that are too flat to maintain adequate velocity to keep particles in suspension. An upstream manhole is selected to place an inflatable detyce that temporarily plugs the pipe. Further upstream, water is pumped into the line to create a flushing wave, tyhen the upstream reach of pipe is sufficiently filll'to cause a flusliing wave, the inflated detyce is rapidly deflated with the assistance of a vacuum pump, thereby releasing the backed up water and resulting in the cleaning of the storm drain segment.
To fiirther reduce impacts of stormwater pollution, a second inflatable device placed well downstream may be used to recollect the water after the force of the flushing wave has dissipated. A pump may then be used to transfei- the water and accumulated material to the sanftary sewer for treatment. In some cases, an interceptor structure may be more practical 01' required to recollect the flushed waters.
It has been found that cleansing efficiency of periodic flush waves is dependent upon flush volume, flush discharge rate, sewer slope, sewer length, sewer flow rate, sewer diameter, and population density. As a rule of thumb, the length of line to be flushed should not exceed 7٥0 feet. At this maximum recommended length, the percent removal efficiency ranges betiveen 65- 75% for organics and 55-65% for dry weather grit/inorganic material. The percent removal efficiency drops rapidly beyond that. Water is commonly supplied by a water truck, but fire hydrants can also supply water. To make the best use of water, it is recommended that reclaimed water be used or that fire hydrant line flushing coincide vdth storm sewer flushing.
Í
и
Ş
January 2003 Caااf0rnاa stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
5 of 6
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3157 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) SC-44 Drainage System Maintenance
References and Resources
California’s Nonpnint Source Program Plan http: //www.swrcb.ca.gov/nos/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual
http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf
Ferguson, Β.Κ. 1991. Urban Stream Reclamation, p. 324-322, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
ة
King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. Oregon Municipal Stormwater Toolbox foi.
Maintenance Practices. June 1998.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http.7/www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net United States Entyronmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2٥02. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Storm Drain System Cleaning. On line:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofomps/poll i6.htm
6 of 6 Ca!؛fom!a stormwater BMP Handbook
Industria! and Commercia!
www.cabmphandbooks.com
January 2003
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 3158 Attachment: Appendix I1-PWQMP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
PREPARED BY:
Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148
Sama Shami
[email protected]
(949) 945-4407
NOVEMBER 6, 2020
13661-05 Noise Study
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3159 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
ii
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3160 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................III APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF EXHIBITS.............................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS........................................................................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Noise Descriptors.......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Sound Propagation........................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation........................................................................................................... 10
2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10
2.7 Community Response to Noise................................................................................................... 11
2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................................15
3.1 State of California Noise Requirements...................................................................................... 15
3.2 State of California Green Building Standards Code .................................................................... 15
3.3 City of Moreno Valley General Plan Noise Element ................................................................... 16
3.4 Operational Noise Standards...................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Construction Noise Standards .................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 20
3.6 March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility ........................................ 20 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA...........................................................................................................23
4.1 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed...................................................................................... 23
4.2 Noise-Sensitive Receivers ........................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Non-Noise-Sensitive Receivers ................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 25 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS..................................................................................27
5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria........................................................................................ 27
5.2 Noise Measurement Locations................................................................................................... 27
5.3 Noise Measurement Results....................................................................................................... 28 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................31
6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 31
6.2 Off-Site Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs........................................................................... 31 7 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS ...........................................................................35
7.1 Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................................................ 35
7.2 Existing Project Traffic Noise Level Increases............................................................................. 37
7.3 Existing plus Ambient Growth Project Traffic Noise Level Increases.......................................... 37 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3161 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
iv
8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS..............................................................................................39 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................41
9.1 Operational Noise Sources.......................................................................................................... 41
9.2 Reference Noise Levels............................................................................................................... 41
9.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 45
9.4 Project Operational Noise Levels................................................................................................ 45
9.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance.............................................................................. 46
9.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 47 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS........................................................................................................51
10.1 Construction Noise Levels........................................................................................................... 51
10.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 51
10.3 Typical Construction Noise Analysis............................................................................................ 53
10.4 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance ............................................................................ 54
10.5 Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Analysis.................................................................................... 54
10.6 Typical Construction Vibration Impacts...................................................................................... 55 11 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................58 12 CERTIFICATION........................................................................................................................61
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
APPENDIX 9.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP.............................................................................................................4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN......................................................................................................................5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................11 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION..........................................................13 EXHIBIT 3-A: LAND USE NOISE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA..................................................................17 EXHIBIT 3-B: FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ..................................................................21 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS..............................................................................29 EXHIBIT 8-A: SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS..................................................................................40 EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ...................................................................42 EXHIBIT 10-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS .................................................52
LIST OF TABLES
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3162 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
v
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................................................. 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS AT 200 FEET FROM THE SOURCE ................................19 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS FROM THE SOURCE LAND USE ................................. 20 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ................................................................................25 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .........................................................28 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS .................................................................................32 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................32 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS..........................................................................................33 TABLE 6-4: WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE MIX ....................................................................................33 TABLE 6-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX............................................................................33 TABLE 6-6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX.....................................33 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS .............................................................35 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS....................................................................36 TABLE 7-3: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ......................36 TABLE 7-4: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS .............................36 TABLE 7-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES..............................................38 TABLE 7-6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ................38 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS......................................................................43 TABLE 9-2: ENTRY GATE & TRUCK MOVEMENTS BY LOCATION ..........................................................44 TABLE 9-3: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS..............................................................46 TABLE 9-4: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ..........................................................46 TABLE 9-5: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE.......................................................................47 TABLE 9-6: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .............................................48 TABLE 9-7: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES........................................................49 TABLE 10-1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ......................................................53 TABLE 10-2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY .....................................54 TABLE 10-3: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE .....................................................54 TABLE 10-4: UNMITIGATED NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE .......................55 TABLE 10-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ......................................57 TABLE 10-6: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS .............................................57 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3163 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
MARB/IPA March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port Airport
mph Miles per hour
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Compass Danbe Centerpointe
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3164 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the potential noise impacts and the necessary noise mitigation measures, if any, for the proposed Compass Danbe Centerpointe development (“Project”). The Project site is located south of Alessandro Boulevard on either side of Chagall Court in the City of Moreno Valley. The Project is proposed to consist of up to 396,488 square feet (sf) of warehouse use. The site is currently designated as Commercial in the City’s General Plan, which would require a land use and zoning change to Light Industrial use.
The results of this Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (1). Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA. All impacts are considered less than significant without mitigation.
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Off-Site Traffic Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
Operational Noise 9 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
Nighttime Concrete Pour Less Than Significant -
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3165 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
2 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3166 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Compass Danbe Centerpointe (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for transportation related CNEL traffic noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related long-term stationary-source operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.
1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed project is located south of Alessandro Boulevard on either side of Chagall Court in the City of Moreno Valley as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport (MARB/IPA) is located approximately 0.9 miles south of the Project site. The Project site is bordered to the west by vacant land, to the east by vacant land, to the north by commercial and residential uses, and to the south are existing industrial buildings.
This proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone Change (ZC). The site is currently designated as Commercial in the City’s General Plan, which would require a land use and zoning change to Light Industrial use. The proposed changes are consistent with the zones to the west, south and east of the subject site and adjacent properties. The amendment is in keeping with the uses surrounding the project site.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit 1-B illustrates a preliminary site plan for the Project. The Project is anticipated to be developed within a single phase with an anticipated opening year of 2022. The proposed Project consists of the following uses:
• Building 1: 206,665 square feet (sf) of warehousing (70% of total building sf) and 88,571 sf of highcube cold storage warehouse use (30% of total building sf) for a total of 295,236 sf for Building 1 • Building 2: 70,876 sf of warehousing (70% of total building sf) and 30,376 sf of high-cube cold storage warehouse use (30% of total building sf) for a total of 101,252 sf for Building 2 The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, entry gate & truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity. This noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical operational activities at the Project site. This report assumes the Project will operate 24-hours daily for seven days per week. At the time this noise analysis was prepared, the future tenants of the proposed Project were unknown however any tenant would operate consistent with a high-cube warehouse.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3167 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3168 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3169 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
6 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3170 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.
Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.
EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.
2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud (2). The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3171 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
8 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort (3). Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.
2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period (typically one hour) and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the City of Moreno Valley relies on the L25, L17, L8 and Lmax, percentile noise levels to describe the stationary source noise level limits. The percentile noise descriptors are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 25 percent, 17 percent, and 8 percent of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the L8 typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the L25 describe the base or typical noise conditions. The City of Moreno Valley relies on the percentile noise levels to describe the stationary source noise level limits. While the L25 describes the noise levels occurring 25 percent of the time, the Leq accounts for the total energy (average) observed for the entire hour.
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment, however. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Moreno Valley relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. Based on guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, the way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.
2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3172 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
9 of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source (2).
2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.
Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source (4).
2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects (2).
2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearest residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure (4).
2.3.5 REFLECTION
Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and buildings does not substantially increase noise levels (4). If all the noise striking a structure was reflected back to a given receiving point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA. Further, not F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3173 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
10 all the acoustical energy is reflected back to same point. Some of the energy would go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the given receiving point, some is scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked by intervening structures and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some of the reflected energy is lost due to the longer path that the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to quantify reflective increases in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1-2 dBA; an increase that is not perceptible to the average human ear.
2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.
2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by up to 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source (4).
2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, recreation areas or buildings where people normally sleep. Although the West Valley Detention Center is a temporary holding facility, there are beds at this facility for temporary stays. Therefore as a conservative measure, the individuals held at the West Valley Detention Center are considered sensitive receptors for the purposes of this analysis.
As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized (5).
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3174 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
11 2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise varies depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
• Fear associated with noise producing activities;
• Socio-economic status and educational level;
• Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated; • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity; • Belief that the noise source can be controlled.
Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment (6). Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain (6).
Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA are considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (7), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3175 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
12 There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.
Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3176 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
13 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3177 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
14 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3178 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
15 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.
3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (8) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.
3.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The State of California’s Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for nonresidential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. (9) These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, and other areas where noise contours are not readily available. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the combined sound transmission class (STC) rating of the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies must be at least 50. For those developments in areas where noise contours are not readily available and the noise level exceeds 65 dBA Leq for any hour of operation, a wall and roof-ceiling combined STC rating of 45, and exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 40 are required (Section 5.507.4.1).
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3179 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
16 3.3 CITY OF MORENO VALLEYGENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Moreno Valley Noise Element typically provides the standards for land use compatibility for community noise exposure. However, the City of Moreno Valley General Plan does not include a noise element or specific transportation-related noise standards. Rather, noise is considered in the Environmental Safety section of the General Plan Safety Element. (10) While the General Plan provides background and noise fundamentals, it does not identify criteria to assess the impacts associated with off-site transportation-related noise impacts. Therefore, for this analysis, the transportation noise criteria are derived from standards contained in the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines. (8) The OPR land use/noise compatibility standards are used by many California cities and counties and specify the maximum noise levels allowable for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources. The OPR land use/noise compatibility criteria, found in Figure 2 of the General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, identify the criteria for industrial land uses such as the Project, as shown on Exhibit 3-A. When the unmitigated exterior noise levels approach 70 dBA CNEL industrial land use is considered normally acceptable. With exterior noise levels ranging from 70 to 80 dBA CNEL, industrial land uses are considered conditionally acceptable, and with exterior noise levels greater than 80 dBA CNEL, they are considered normally unacceptable. For normally unacceptable land use, new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. (8) For the purposes of this analysis, industrial land use such as the Project does not contain outdoor living areas requiring exterior noise mitigation as outlined in the OPR General Plan Guidelines, and therefore, only the interior noise levels experienced by employees at the Project site are evaluated against the appropriate noise level standards.
The purpose of the transportation noise criteria is to protect, create, and maintain an environment free from noise and vibration that may jeopardize the health or welfare of sensitive receptors, or degrade quality of life. City General Policies (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, pp.9-31, 9-32) act to ensure that when exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL at sensitive receivers, mitigation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL are maintained. General Plan Policies in this regard are consistent with, and support, the California Building Code interior noise standards.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3180 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
17 EXHIBIT 3-A: LAND USE NOISE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
Source: OPR General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, Figure 2.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3181 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
18 3.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Compass Danbe Centerpointe Project, stationary-source (operational) noise such as the expected loading dock activity, entry gate & truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity are typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code.
The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation, provides performance standards and noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating nontransportation or stationary-source noise impacts from operations at private properties. The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code defines Maximum Sound Levels (in dB(A)) for Source Land Uses in Table 11.80.030-2 for Residential and Commercial land uses. As defined by the Municipal Code, Section 11.80.020 Definitions, Commercial land use means all uses of land not otherwise classified as residential, and Residential land use means all uses of land primarily for dwelling units, as well as hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, and places of religious assembly. (11) For the purpose of this analysis, the Compass Danbe Centerpointe Project is considered Commercial land use since it is not classified as residential. Based on this standard, the operational noise level limits for commercial land use, from Table 11.80.030-2, of 65 dBA Leq during the daytime (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.) hours shall apply to the operational noise source activities from the Project.
Further, Section 11.80.030 (C) Prohibited Acts, Nonimpulsive Sound Decibel Limits, states: No person shall maintain, create, operate or cause to be operated on private property any source of sound in such a manner as to create any nonimpulsive sound which exceeds the limits set forth for the source land use category (as defined in Section 11.80.020) in Table 11.80.030-2 when measured at a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from the real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on a privately owned property… (11) Therefore, at a distance of 200 feet from the property line, the Project’s operational noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dBA Leq daytime and 60 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards for commercial land uses, as shown on Table 3-1.
The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code also identifies continuous sound level limits in Table
11.80.030-1 based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) noise exposure guidelines. A division of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The City of Moreno Valley noise level threshold starts at 90 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every increase, the exposure time is reduced. The City of Moreno Valley identifies noise level thresholds of 92 dBA for more than 6 hours per day, 95 dBA for more than 4 hour per day, 97 dBA for more than 3 hours per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 2 hours per day. However, this noise study uses the more restrictive City of Moreno Valley commercial noise level limits identified on Table 11.80.030-2 for source land uses in the Municipal Code, shown on Table 3-1 of this report, to evaluate the potential operational noise levels due to the operation of the Project.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3182 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
19 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS AT 200 FEET FROM THE SOURCE City Source
Land use
Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)1
Daytime Nighttime
Moreno Valley Commercial 65 60
1 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation, Table 11.80.030-2 Maximum Sound Levels (in dB(A)) for Source Land Uses when measured at a distance of 200 feet from the property line of the source land use (Appendix 3.1). Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given period. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.
3.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of the Compass Danbe Centerpointe site, noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of Moreno Valley to determine the potential noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations. The construction-related noise standards are shown on Table 3-2.
The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of Moreno Valley to determine the potential noise impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. As a subset of its stationary-source noise regulations, the City Municipal Code establishes permitted hours of construction activity. More specifically, Municipal Code Section 11.80.030 (D)(7), Construction and Demolition, provides the following:
No person shall operate, or cause operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. the following day such that the sound there from creates a noise disturbance, except for emergency work by public service utilities or for other work approved by the city manager or designee.
Therefore, based on the Section 11.80.030 (D)(7) construction regulations, a construction-related noise disturbance occurs if Project construction activity occurs outside of the permitted hours.
However, for this analysis, the stationary-source noise level limits of 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours are used as appropriate thresholds for the nearest sensitive land uses (e.g. residential homes) in the Project study area. In addition, grading operations shall be limited to the hours identified in Section 8.21.050 (O) of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays or as approved by the City Engineer. The City of Moreno Valley construction noise standards are shown on Table 3-2 and included in Appendix 3.1. As previously discussed in Section 3.4, the construction noise level threshold used in this noise study represents a conservative approach, since it is more restrictive than the continuous sound level limits of Table 11.80.030-1 of the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3183 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
20 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS FROM THE SOURCE LAND USE City Permitted Hours of
Construction Activity
Construction Noise Level
Standard (dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
Moreno Valley1
General Activity: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on any day.
Grading is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to
Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. 65 603
1 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Section 11.80.030 (D)(7) and Section 8.21.050 (O) (Appendix 3.1). 2 Acceptable threshold for determining the relative significance of short-term Project construction noise levels, based on the City of Moreno Valley stationary noise standards shown on Table 3-1. 3 Any nighttime construction activity requires an exemption from the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code as indicated in Section 11.80.030 (E)(8) for a special event permit (Section 11.80.040). The special event permit application shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department for approval and meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 11.80.040. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.
3.5 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (7) To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the Compass Danbe Centerpointe, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Moreno Valley does not identify specific vibration level limits and instead relies on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology provides guidelines for the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines allow 90 VdB for industrial (workshop) use, 84 VdB for office use and 78 VdB for daytime residential uses and 72 VdB for nighttime uses in buildings where people normally sleep. (7)
3.6 MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE/INLAND PORT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport (MARB/IPA) is located approximately 0.9-miles south of the Project site. The March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (MARB/IPA LUCP) includes the policies for determining the land use compatibility of the Project. The MARB/IPA, Map MA-1, indicates that the Project site is located within Compatibility Zone D and Zone E, which Table MA-1 Compatibility Zone Factors indicates is considered to have a moderate to low noise impact. Further, the Project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contour boundary. Moreover, the Basic Compatibility Criteria, listed in Table MA-2 of the MARB/IPA LUCP identifies no prohibited uses for either zones. (12) The MARB/IPA LUCP does not identify industrial-use specific noise compatibility standards, and therefore, the City of Moreno Valley Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure matrix, previously discussed in Section 3.3, is used to assess potential aircraft-related noise levels at the Project site.
The City of Moreno Valley guidelines indicate that industrial uses, such as the Project, are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL. (13) The noise F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3184 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
21 contour boundaries of MARB/IPA are presented on Exhibit 3-B of this report and show that the Project is considered normally acceptable land use since it is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour boundary. Further, Table MA-2 indicates that no uses are prohibited in this area.
EXHIBIT 3-B: FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3185 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
22 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3186 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
23 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (14) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:
A. 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?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? 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? While the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applies to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project’s land use compatibility.
4.1 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED
In Section 3.6, the noise contour boundaries of MARB/IPA are presented on Exhibit 3-B of this report and show that the Project is considered normally acceptable land use since it is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour. Moreover, Table MA-2 of the MARB/IPA LUCP indicates that no uses are prohibited in this area, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is provided under Guideline C.
4.2 NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (15) Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (16) developed guidance to be used for the assessment F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3187 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
24 of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).
As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (15) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.
The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (4 p. 9) and Caltrans (17 p. 2_48).
4.3 NON-NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Since the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Safety Element does not identify criteria to assess the impacts associated with off-site transportation-related noise impacts, the OPR land use/noise compatibility criteria, found in Figure 2 of the General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines is used to determine potential impacts at adjacent land uses. As previously shown on Exhibit 3-A, the normally acceptable exterior noise level for non-noise-sensitive land use, such as industrial use, is 70 dBA CNEL. Noise levels greater than 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable according to the Land Use Compatibility Criteria. (8) To determine if Project-related traffic noise level increases are significant at off-site non-noisesensitive land uses, a barely perceptible 3 dBA criteria is used. When the without Project noise levels are greater than the normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria, a barely perceptible 3 dBA or greater noise level increase is considered a significant impact since the noise level criteria is already exceeded. The noise level increases used to determine significant impacts for non-noise-sensitive land uses is generally consistent with the FICON noise F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3188 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
25 level increase thresholds for noise-sensitive land uses but instead rely on the OPR land use/noise compatibility criteria, found in Figure 2 of the General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL exterior noise level criteria.
4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix.
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
NoiseSensitive1
if ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non-NoiseSensitive2 if ambient is > 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational NoiseSensitive1
At 200' from the property
line of the source3 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Vibration Level Threshold4 78 VdB 72 VdB
Construction NoiseSensitive
At 200' from the property
line of the source3 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold4 78 VdB n/a
1 FICON, 1992.
2 OPR General Plan Guidelines, Figure 2 Land Use Compatibility Criteria. 3 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation (Appendix 3.1). 4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. - 7:59 a.m.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3189 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
26 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3190 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
27 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Wednesday, September 16th, 2020. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.
5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)
5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (7)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (7) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearest sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3191 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
28 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.
5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq).
The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.
Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.
The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with surface streets. This includes the auto and heavy truck activities on study area roadway segments near the noise level measurement locations.
TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 CNEL
Daytime Nighttime
L1
Located north of the Project site on Alessandro
Boulevard near existing single-family residential
home at 13994 Chagall Court.
68.7 67.3 73.8
L2 Located east of the Project site by existing Motel
6 at 23581 Alessandro Boulevard. 61.1 56.3 64.1
L3
Located southwest of the Project site by the
Moreno Valley City Hall at 14177 Frederick
Street.
57.3 55.9 62.4
L4
Located northwest of the Project site on Fredrick
Street near existing single-family residential
home at 13979 Frederick Street.
66.0 63.5 70.6
L5
Located north of the Project site on Alessandro
Boulevard near existing multi-family residential
homes at 13933 Chagall Court.
71.0 67.9 74.8
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3192 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
29 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3193 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
30 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3194 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
31 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with the Land Use Compatibility Criteria, all transportation related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24-hour CNEL’s.
6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (19) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (20) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (21)
6.2 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off-site dBA CNEL transportation noise impacts. Table 6-1 identifies the 4 study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element, and the posted vehicle speeds.
The ADT volumes used in this study area presented on Table 6-2 are based on the Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for the following traffic scenarios under both Without and With Project alternatives: Existing (2020), and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP). (22)
The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. This analysis relies on a comparative evaluation of the off-site traffic noise impacts, without and with project ADT traffic volumes from the Project traffic study.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3195 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
32 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
Distance from
Centerline to
Receiving Land
Use (Feet)2
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)3
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 44' 40
2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 55' 45
3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 55' 45
4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 55' 45
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances. 3 Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing
2020
Existing Plus
Ambient Growth
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. 11,231 11,765 11,684 12,219 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. 38,736 38,794 40,171 40,227 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. 38,944 39,592 40,517 41,163 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. 41,770 41,799 43,458 43,484 1 Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
To quantify the off-site noise levels, the Project related truck trips were added to the heavy truck category in the FHWA noise prediction model. The addition of the Project related truck trips increases the percentage of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix. This approach recognizes that the FHWA noise prediction model is significantly influenced by the number of heavy trucks in the vehicle mix.
Table 6-3 provides the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits. The daily Project truck trip-ends were assigned to the individual off-site study area roadway segments based on the Project truck trip distribution percentages documented in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Using the Project truck trips in combination with the Project trip distribution, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the number of additional Project truck trips and vehicle mix percentages for each of the study area roadway segments. Table 6-4 shows the traffic flow by vehicle type (vehicle mix) used for all without Project traffic scenarios, and Tables 6-5 and 6-6 show the vehicle mixes used for the with Project traffic scenarios.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3196 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
33 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type Time of Day Splits1 Total of Time of
Daytime Evening Nighttime Day Splits
Autos 77.50% 12.90% 9.60% 100.00%
Medium Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30% 100.00%
Heavy Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 100.00%
1 County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene. Values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
TABLE 6-4: WITHOUT PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
Classification
Total % Traffic Flow
Total
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
All Segments 98.89% 0.70% 0.42% 100.00%
Based on an existing vehicle count taken at Frederick Street and Alessandro Boulevard (Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.). Vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth.
Due to the added Project truck trips, the increase in Project traffic volumes and the distributions of trucks on the study area road segments, the percentage of autos, medium trucks and heavy trucks will vary for each of the traffic scenarios. This explains why the existing and future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes vary between seemingly identical study area roadway segments.
TABLE 6-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX
ID Roadway Segment
With Project1
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total2
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. 97.03% 1.12% 1.84% 100.00% 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. 99.00% 0.70% 0.30% 100.00% 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. 98.57% 0.82% 0.60% 100.00% 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. 99.00% 0.70% 0.30% 100.00% 1 Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Total of vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth.
TABLE 6-6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROJECT VEHICLE MIX ID Roadway Segment
With Project1
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total2
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. 97.10% 1.11% 1.79% 100.00% 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. 99.00% 0.70% 0.30% 100.00% 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. 98.59% 0.82% 0.59% 100.00% 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. 99.00% 0.70% 0.30% 100.00% 1 Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Total of vehicle mix percentage values rounded to the nearest one-hundredth.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3197 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
34 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3198 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
35 7 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS
To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis. (22) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.
7.1 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels.
In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.
Tables 7-1 through 7-4 present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise levels without barrier attenuation. Roadway segments are analyzed from the without Project to the with Project conditions in each of the following timeframes: Existing (2020), and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP). Appendix 7.1 includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios.
TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour
from Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 66.9 RW 59 127 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 72.7 84 180 388 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 72.8 84 181 390 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 73.1 88 190 408 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3199 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
36 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour
from Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 68.9 RW 80 173 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 72.7 84 181 389 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 73.3 92 197 425 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 73.1 88 190 409 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.
TABLE 7-3: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour
from Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 67.1 RW 61 131 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 72.9 86 185 398 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 72.9 86 186 400 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 73.2 90 195 419 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.
TABLE 7-4: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour
from Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 69.0 RW 82 176 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 72.9 86 185 398 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 73.5 94 202 435 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 73.2 90 195 420 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3200 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
37 7.2 EXISTING PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis. This condition is provided solely for informational purposes and will not occur, since the Project will not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions. Table 7-1 shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels.
The Existing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 66.9 to 73.1 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing with Project conditions will range from 68.9 to 73.3 dBA CNEL. Table 7-5 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 2.0 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4- 1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic.
7.3 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Table 7-3 presents the Existing plus Ambient Growth without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing plus Ambient Growth without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 67.1 to 73.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 shows the Existing plus Ambient Growth with Project conditions will range from 69.0 to 73.5 dBA CNEL. Table 7-6 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 1.9 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3201 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
38 TABLE 7-5: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 66.9 68.9 2.0 n/a No 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 72.7 72.7 0.0 1.5 No 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 72.8 73.3 0.6 1.5 No 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 73.1 73.1 0.0 3.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? TABLE 7-6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ID Road Segment
Receiving
Existing
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Graham St. s/o Alessandro Bl. Non-Sensitive 67.1 69.0 1.9 n/a No 2 Alessandro Bl. w/o Frederick St. Sensitive 72.9 72.9 0.0 1.5 No 3 Alessandro Bl. w/o Graham St. Sensitive 72.9 73.5 0.5 1.5 No 4 Alessandro Bl. e/o Graham St. Non-Sensitive 73.2 73.2 0.0 3.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3202 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
39 8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 8-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noisesensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.
To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, five receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2.
Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.
R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 13994 Chagall Court, approximately 152 feet north of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R1 is placed at the residential building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R2: Location R2 represents the Motel 6 at 23581 Alessandro Blvd, approximately 1,023 feet east of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R3: Location R3 represents the Moreno Valley City Hall at 14177 Frederick Street, approximately 744 feet west of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L3, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 13979 Frederick Street, approximately 784 feet northwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 is placed at the residential building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L4, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3203 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
40 R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residences at 13933 Chagall Court, approximately 217 feet north of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R5 is placed at the residential building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L5, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
EXHIBIT 8-A: SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3204 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
41 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations, identified in Section 8, resulting from the operation of the proposed Compass Danbe Centerpointe Project. Exhibit 9-A identifies the representative noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels.
9.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
At the time this noise analysis was prepared the future tenants of the proposed Project were unknown. Therefore, this operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar warehouse uses, the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, entry gate & truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity.
9.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 9-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worstcase noise environment with the loading dock activity, entry gate & truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity all operating continuously. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3205 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
42 EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3206 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
43 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour2 Reference
Noise
Level (dBA
Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 3
Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Entry Gate & Truck Movements 8' -
4 -4 58.0 89.7
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 5 5 57.3 89.0
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. - 7:59 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources.
4 Entry Gate & Truck Movements are calculate based on the number of events by time of day (See Table 9-2).
9.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precisions sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)
9.2.2 LOADING DOCK ACTIVITY
To describe the loading dock activities, a reference noise level measurement was collected to represent the truck activities. The reference noise level measurement was taken in the center of the loading dock activity area and represents multiple concurrent noise sources resulting in a combined noise level of 65.7 dBA Leq at a uniform distance of 50 feet. Specifically, the reference noise level measurement represents one truck located approximately 30 feet from the noise level meter with another truck passing by to park roughly 20 feet away, both with their engines idling.
Throughout the reference noise level measurement, a separate docked and running reefer truck was located approximately 50 feet east of the measurement location. Additional background noise sources included truck pass-by noise, truck drivers talking to each other next to docked trucks, and air brake release noise when trucks parked.
9.2.3 ENTRY GATE & TRUCK MOVEMENTS
An entry gate and truck movements reference noise level measurement were taken over a 15- minute period and represents multiple noise sources producing a reference noise level of 58.0 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The noise sources included at this measurement location account for the F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3207 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
44 rattling and squeaking during normal opening and closing operations, the gate closure equipment, truck engines idling outside the entry gate, truck movements through the entry gate, and background truck court activities and forklift backup alarm noise.
Consistent with the Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis, the Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 742 trip-ends per day (actual vehicles) and includes 224 truck trip-ends per day. (22) This noise study relies on the actual Project trips (as opposed to the passenger car equivalents) to accurately account for the effect of individual truck trips on the study area roadway network. Using the estimated number of truck trips in combination with time of day vehicle splits, the number of entry gate and truck movements by driveway location were calculated. As shown on Table 9-2, this information is then used to calculate the entry gate and truck movements operational noise source activity based on the number of events by time of day.
TABLE 9-2: ENTRY GATE & TRUCK MOVEMENTS BY LOCATION
Entry Gate
&
Truck
Movement
Location1
Total
Project
Truck
Trips2
Trip Dist.3
Truck
Trips by
Location4
Time of Day Vehicle Splits5 Truck Movements6
In Out Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Driveway 1 22490% 10% 112 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 97 3 12
Driveway 3 10% 90% 112 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 97 3 12
1 Driveway locations as shown on Exhibit 9-A. 2 Total Project truck trips according to Table 4-2 of the Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis. 3 Project truck trip distribution according to Exhibit 4-2 of the Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis. 4 Calculated trip trucks per location represents the product of the total (inbound and outbound) project truck trips by and the trip distribution.
5 Heavy truck time of day vehicle splits as shown on Table 6-3. 6 Calculated time of day entry gate and truck movements by location.
9.2.4 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
The noise level measurements describe a single mechanical roof-top air conditioning unit. The reference noise level represents a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise levels are 57.2 dBA Leq.
Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for and average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. These operating conditions reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the Project buildings.
9.2.5 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 57.3 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The trash enclosure activity noise levels include two metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, trash dropping into the metal dumpster, and background parking lot vehicle movements.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3208 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
45 Noise associated with trash enclosure activities is conservatively expected to occur for 5 minutes per hour.
9.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.
Using the ISO 9613 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g. Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish as a result of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment.
The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix 9.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.
9.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include loading dock activity, entry gate & truck movements, roof-top air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source. Tables 9-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 35.1 to 55.6 dBA Leq.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3209 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
46 TABLE 9-3: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 at 200'
Loading Dock Activity 34.9 43.3 48.8 31.5 32.7 55.4
Entry Gate & Truck Movements 25.6 30.4 33.3 31.0 30.4 41.0 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 37.4 25.9 26.5 27.6 36.6 29.1 Trash Enclosure Activity 1.0 14.3 18.2 2.7 1.3 25.2
Total (All Noise Sources) 39.5 43.6 48.9 35.1 38.8 55.6 1 See Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1.
Table 9-4 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 32.8 to 55.4 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels is largely related to the duration of noise activity (Table 9-1).
TABLE 9-4: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 at 200'
Loading Dock Activity 34.9 43.3 48.8 31.5 32.7 55.4
Entry Gate & Truck Movements 16.5 21.3 24.2 21.9 21.3 32.0 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 35.0 23.5 24.1 25.2 34.2 26.7 Trash Enclosure Activity 0.0 13.3 17.2 1.8 0.4 24.3
Total (All Noise Sources) 38.0 43.4 48.8 32.8 36.7 55.4 1 See Exhibit 9-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1.
9.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Moreno Valley exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 9-5 shows the operational noise levels associated with Compass Danbe Centerpointe Project will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley 65 dBA Leq daytime and 60 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all the nearest receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3210 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
47 TABLE 9-5: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 39.5 38.0 65 60 No No
R2 43.6 43.4 65 60 No No
R3 48.9 48.8 65 60 No No
R4 35.1 32.8 65 60 No No
R5 38.8 36.7 65 60 No No
at 200' 55.6 55.4 65 60 No No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 9-3 and 9-4. 3 Exterior noise level standards for source (commercial) land use, as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. - 7:59 a.m.
9.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:
SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describe the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Tables 9-6 and 9-7, the Project is not expected to generate a measurable daytime and nighttime operational noise level increase dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 4-1. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3211 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
48 TABLE 9-6: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 39.5 L1 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No
R2 43.6 L2 61.1 61.2 0.1 3.0 No
R3 48.9 L3 57.3 57.9 0.6 5.0 No
R4 35.1 L4 66.0 66.0 0.0 1.5 No
R5 38.8 L5 71.0 71.0 0.0 1.5 No
at 200' 55.6 L1 68.7 68.9 0.2 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3212 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
49 TABLE 9-7: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 38.0 L1 67.3 67.3 0.0 1.5 No
R2 43.4 L2 56.3 56.5 0.2 5.0 No
R3 48.8 L3 55.9 56.7 0.8 5.0 No
R4 32.8 L4 63.5 63.5 0.0 3.0 No
R5 36.7 L5 67.9 67.9 0.0 1.5 No
at 200' 55.4 L1 67.3 67.6 0.3 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-4. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3213 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
50 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3214 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
51 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 10-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 8.
To prevent high levels of construction noise from impacting noise-sensitive land uses, City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 11.80.030 (D)(7) limits general construction activities within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. In addition, grading operations shall be limited to the hours identified in Section 8.21.050 (O) of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays or as approved by the City Engineer.
10.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels.
10.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe the Project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 10-1 provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements. Since the reference noise levels were collected at varying distances of 30 feet and 50 feet, all construction noise level measurements presented on Table 10-1 have been adjusted for consistency to describe a uniform reference distance of 50 feet.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3215 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
52 EXHIBIT 10-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3216 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
53 TABLE 10-1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS Construction
Stage Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Scraper Turnaround & Pass-by 4 with Blades 72.6
Backhoe 64.2 72.6
Water Truck Pass-By & Backup Alarm 71.9
Grading
Rough Grading Activities 73.5
Water Truck Pass-By & Backup Alarm 71.9 73.5
Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 67.5
Building
Construction
Foundation Trenching 68.2
Framing 62.3 71.6
Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes 71.6
Paving
Concrete Mixer Truck Movements 71.2
Concrete Paver Activities 65.6 71.2
Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 65.9
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 65.2
Generator 64.9 65.2
Crane 62.3
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
10.3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location. As shown on Table 10-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 56.3 to 63.7 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source. Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3217 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
54 TABLE 10-2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 61.0 61.9 60.0 56.5 53.6 61.9
R2 55.4 56.3 54.4 50.9 48.0 56.3
R3 57.0 57.9 56.0 52.5 49.6 57.9
R4 56.4 57.3 55.4 52.3 49.0 57.3
R5 59.0 59.9 58.0 54.7 51.6 59.9
at 200' 62.8 63.7 61.8 57.6 55.4 63.7
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1.
10.4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley daytime 65 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table 10-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise is considered less than significant at all receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source.
TABLE 10-3: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 ThresholdExceeded?4
R1 61.9 65 No
R2 56.3 65 No
R3 57.9 65 No
R4 57.3 65 No
R5 59.9 65 No
at 200' 63.7 65 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 10-2. 3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?
10.5 NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE ANALYSIS
Nighttime concrete pouring activities may occur as a part of Project construction activities.
Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally limited to the actual buildings area as shown on Exhibit 10-B. Since the nighttime concrete pours may take place outside the permitted City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Section 11.80.030 (D)(7) F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3218 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
55 hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on any day and grading is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, the Project Applicant will be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Moreno Valley. Table 10-4 shows the concrete pour activities (paving) noise will range from 50.9 to 57.6 dBA Leq. at the nearest sensitive receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source.
Therefore, the unmitigated nighttime concrete pour noise level impacts are considered less than significant at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line.
TABLE 10-4: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Paving
Construction2
Nighttime
Construction
Standard3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 56.5 60 No
R2 50.9 60 No
R3 52.5 60 No
R4 52.3 60 No
R5 54.7 60 No
at 200' 57.6 60 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-B. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project building area to the property line of adjacent uses as shown on Table 10-4. 3 Construction noise level standards as shown on Table 3-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?
10.6 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (7) However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 10-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: LVdB(D) = LVdB(25 ft) – 30log(D/25)
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3219 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
56 EXHIBIT 10-B: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3220 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
57 TABLE 10-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Vibration Decibels (VdB)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
Large bulldozer 87
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
Table 10-6 presents the expected typical construction equipment vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 152 feet to 1,023 feet from typical Project construction activities (at the Project site boundary), construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 38.6 to 63.5 VdB and will remain below the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses, and 84 VdB for daytime office use at all receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.
TABLE 10-6: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)
Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)2
Threshold
VdB3
Threshold
Exceeded? Small 4
Bulldozer
Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Levels
R1 152' 34.5 55.5 62.5 63.5 63.5 78 No
R2 1,023' 9.6 30.6 37.6 38.6 38.6 78 No
R3 744' 13.8 34.8 41.8 42.8 42.8 84 No
R4 784' 13.1 34.1 41.1 42.1 42.1 78 No
R5 217' 29.8 50.8 57.8 58.8 58.8 78 No
at 200' 200' 30.9 51.9 58.9 59.9 59.9 78 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 10-5. 3 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment maximum acceptable vibration criteria as shown in Section 3.5. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating simultaneously adjacent to the Project site perimeter.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3221 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
58 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3222 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
59 11 REFERENCES
1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.
2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.
3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.
5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).
EPA 550/9/82/106.
7. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
8. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.
9. State of California. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. January 2017.
10. City of Moreno Valley. General Plan Safety Element. July 2006.
11. —. Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation.
12. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November 2014.
13. City of Moreno Valley. General Plan. July, 2006.
14. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines. October 2017.
15. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.
16. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.
17. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.
18. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.
19. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.
20. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.
21. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.
22. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Alessandro Warehouse. September 2020.
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3223 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
60 This page intentionally left blank
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3224 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
61 12 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Compass Danbe Centerpointe Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5979.
Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
260 E. Baker Street, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949) 336-5979
[email protected]
EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3225 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
62 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3226 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
APPENDIX 3.1:
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
63 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3227 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
64 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3228 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Moreno Valley Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
Title 11 PEACE, MORALS AND SAFETY
Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
11.80.010 Legislative findings.
It is found and declared that:
A. Excessive sound within the limits of the city is a condition which has existed for some time, and the amount and intensity of such sound is increasing.
B. Such excessive sound is a detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare and quality of life of the residents of the city.
C. The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted is declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the city and its inhabitants. (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)
11.80.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows:
“A-weighted sound level” means the sound pressure level in decibels as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The unit of measurement is the dB(A). “Commercial” means all uses of land not otherwise classified as residential, as defined in this section. “Construction” means any site preparation, and/or any assembly, erection, repair, or alteration, excluding demolition, of any structure, or improvements to real property.
“Continuous airborne sound” means sound that is measured by the slow-response setting of a meter manufactured to the specifications of ANSI Section 1.4-1983 (R2006) “Specification for Sound Level Meters,” or its successor. “Daytime” means eight a.m. to ten p.m. the same day.
“Decibel” (dB) means a unit for measuring the amplitude of sound, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is twenty (20) microPascals (twenty (20) microNewtons per square meter.)
“Demolition” means any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of structures or other improvements to real property.
“Disturb” means to interrupt, interfere with, or hinder the enjoyment of peace or quiet or the normal listening activities or the sleep, rest or mental concentration of the hearer. “Emergency” means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or imminent physical trauma or significant property damage which necessitates immediate action. Economic loss alone shall not constitute an emergency.
It shall be the burden of an alleged violator to prove an “emergency.” “Emergency work” means any work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following an emergency, or to protect persons or property threatened by an imminent emergency, to the extent such work is, in fact, necessary to protect persons or property from exposure to imminent danger or damage. “Frequency” means the number of complete oscillation cycles per unit of time. “Impulsive sound” means sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
Examples of sources of impulsive sound include explosions, drop forge impacts, and discharge of firearms. “Nighttime” means 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. the following day. “Noise disturbance” means any sound which:
1. Disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities; 65 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3229 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe)
2. Exceeds the sound level limits set forth in this chapter; or
3. Is plainly audible as defined in this section. Where no specific distance is set forth for the determination of audibility, references to noise disturbance shall be deemed to mean plainly audible at a distance of two hundred (200) feet from the real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on privately owned property, or from the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. “Person” means any person, person’s firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity public or private in nature.
“Plainly audible” means that the sound or noise produced or reproduced by any particular source, can be clearly distinguished from ambient noise by a person using his/her normal hearing faculties. “Public right-of-way” means any street, avenue, boulevard, sidewalk, bike path or alley, or similar place normally accessible to the public which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. “Public space” means any park, recreational or community facility, or lot which contains at least one building that is open to the general public during its hours of operation. “Residential” means all uses of land primarily for dwelling units, as well as hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, and places of religious assembly.
“Sound” means an oscillation in pressure, particle displacement, particle velocity or other physical parameter, in a medium with internal forces that causes compression and rarefaction of that medium capable of producing an auditory impression. The description of sound may include any characteristic of such sound, including duration, intensity and frequency.
“Sound level” means the weighted sound pressure level as measured in dB(A) by a sound level meter and as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound-level meters (ANSI Section 1.4-1971 (R1976)).
If the frequency weighting employed is not indicated, the A-weighting shall apply. “Sound level meter” means an instrument, demonstrably capable of accurately measuring sound levels as defined above.
All technical definitions not defined above shall be in accordance with applicable publications and standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)
11.80.030 Prohibited acts.
A. General Prohibition. It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter to maintain, make, cause, or allow the making of any sound that causes a noise disturbance, as defined in Section 11.80.020.
B. Sound causing permanent hearing loss.
1. Sound level limits. Based on statistics from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Table 1 and Table 1-A specify sound level limits which, if exceeded, will have a high probability of producing permanent hearing loss in anyone in the area where the sound levels are being exceeded. No sound shall be permitted within the city which exceeds the parameters set forth in Tables 11.80.030-1 and
11.80.030-1-A of this chapter:
Table 11.80.030-1
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS SOUND LEVELS*
Duration per Day
Continuous Hours Sound level [db(A)]
8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
66 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3230 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 2 100
1.5 102
1 105
0.5 110
0.25 115
* When the daily sound exposure is composed of two or more periods of sound exposure at different levels, the combined effect of all such periods shall constitute a violation of this section if the sum of the percent of allowed period of sound exposure at each level exceeds 100 percent Table 11.80.030-1A
MAXIMUM IMPULSIVE SOUND
LEVELS
Number of Repetitions per
24-Hour Period
Sound level
[dB(A)]
1 145
10 135
100 125
2. Exemptions. No violation shall exist if the only persons exposed to sound levels in excess of those listed in Tables
11.80.030-1 and 11.80.030-1A are exposed as a result of:
a. Trespass;
b. Invitation upon private property by the person causing or permitting the sound; or c. Employment by the person or a contractor of the person causing or permitting the sound.
C. Nonimpulsive Sound Decibel Limits. No person shall maintain, create, operate or cause to be operated on private property any source of sound in such a manner as to create any nonimplusive sound which exceeds the limits set forth for the source land use category (as defined in Section 11.80.020) in Table 11.80.030-2 when measured at a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from the real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on privately owned property, or from the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. Any source of sound in violation of this subsection shall be deemed prima facie to be a noise disturbance.
Table 11.80.030-2
MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS (IN dB(A)) FOR SOURCE LAND USES
Residential Commercial
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
60 55 65 60
D. Specific Prohibitions. In addition to the general prohibitions set out in subsection A of this section, and unless otherwise exempted by this chapter, the following specific acts, or the causing or permitting thereof, are regulated as follows:
1. Motor Vehicles. No person shall operate or cause to be operated a public or private motor vehicle, or combination of vehicles towed by a motor vehicle, that creates a sound exceeding the sound level limits in Table 11.80.030-2 when the vehicle(s) are not otherwise subject to noise regulations provided for by the California Vehicle Code. 67 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3231 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe)
2. Radios, Televisions, Electronic Audio Equipment, Musical Instruments or Similar Devices from a Stationary Source. No person shall operate, play or permit the operation or playing of any radio, tape player, television, electronic audio equipment, musical instrument, sound amplifier or other mechanical or electronic sound making device that produces, reproduces or amplifies sound in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. However, this subsection shall not apply to any use or activity exempted in subsection E of this section and any use or activity for which a special permit has been issued pursuant to Section 11.80.040.
3. Radios, Electronic Audio Equipment, or Similar Devices from a Mobile Source Such as a Motor Vehicle. Sound amplification or reproduction equipment on or in a motor vehicle is subject to regulation in accordance with the California Vehicle Code when upon the public right-of-way. When upon public space or publicly owned property other than the public right-of-way or upon private property open to the public, sound amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such a manner that it is plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet in any direction from the vehicle.
4. Portable, Hand-Held Music or Sound Amplification or Reproduction Equipment. Such equipment shall not be operated on a public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet in any direction from the operator.
5. Loudspeakers and Public Address Systems.
a. Except as permitted by Section 11.80.040, no person shall operate, or permit the operation of, any loudspeaker, public address system or similar device, for any commercial purpose:
1. Which produces, reproduces or amplifies sound in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance; or
2. During nighttime hours on a public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. b. No person shall operate, or permit the operation of, any loudspeaker, public address system or similar device, for any noncommercial purpose, during nighttime hours in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance.
6. Animals. No person shall own, possess or harbor an animal or bird that howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other sounds that:
a. Create a noise disturbance;
b. Are of frequent or continued duration for ten (10) or more consecutive minutes and are plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the real property line of the source of the sound; or c. Are intermittent for a period of thirty (30) or more minutes and are plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the real property line of the source of the sound.
7. Construction and Demolition. No person shall operate or cause the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. the following day such that the sound there from creates a noise disturbance, except for emergency work by public service utilities or for other work approved by the city manager or designee. This section shall not apply to the use of power tools as provided in subsection (D)(9) of this section.
8. Emergency Signaling Devices. No person shall intentionally sound or permit the sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar or civil defense alarm, siren or whistle, or similar stationary emergency signaling device, except for emergency purposes or for testing as follows:
a. Testing of a stationary emergency signaling device shall not occur between seven p.m. and seven a.m. the following day;
b. Testing of a stationary emergency signaling device shall use only the minimum cycle test time, in no case to exceed sixty (60) seconds;
c. Testing of a complete emergency signaling system, including the functioning of the signaling device and the personnel response to the signaling device, shall not occur more than once in each calendar month. Such testing shall only occur only on weekdays between seven a.m. and seven p.m. and shall be exempt from the time limit specified in subsection (D)(8)(2) of this section.
9. Power Tools. No person shall operate or permit the operation of any mechanically, electrically or gasoline motordriven tool during nighttime hours so as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary.
10. Pumps, Air Conditioners, Air-Handling Equipment and Other Continuously Operating Equipment. Notwithstanding the general prohibitions of subsection a of this section, no person shall operate or permit the operation of any pump, air 68 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3232 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) conditioning, air-handling or other continuously operating motorized equipment in a state of disrepair or in a manner which otherwise creates a noise disturbance distinguishable from normal operating sounds.
E. Exemptions. The following uses and activities shall be exempt from the sound level regulations except the maximum sound levels provided in Tables 11.80.030-1 and 11.80.030-1A:
1. Sounds resulting from any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call or acting in time of an emergency.
2. Sounds resulting from emergency work as defined in Section 11.80.020
3. Any aircraft operated in conformity with, or pursuant to, federal law, federal air regulations and air traffic control instruction used pursuant to and within the duly adopted federal air regulations; and any aircraft operating under technical difficulties in any kind of distress, under emergency orders of air traffic control, or being operated pursuant to and subsequent to the declaration of an emergency under federal air regulations.
4. All sounds coming from the normal operations of interstate motor and rail carriers, to the extent that local regulation of sound levels of such vehicles has been preempted by the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.) or other applicable federal laws or regulations
5. Sounds from the operation of motor vehicles, to the extent they are regulated by the California Vehicle Code.
6. Any constitutionally protected noncommercial speech or expression conducted within or upon a any public rightof-way, public space or other publicly owned property constituting an open or a designated public forum in compliance with any applicable reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on such speech or expression or otherwise pursuant to legal authority.
7. Sounds produced at otherwise lawful and permitted city-sponsored events, organized sporting events, school assemblies, school playground activities, by permitted fireworks, and by permitted parades on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property.
8. An event for which a temporary use permit or special event permit has been issued under other provisions of this code, where the provisions of Section 11.80.040 are met, the permit granted expressly grants an exemption from specific standards contained in this chapter, and the permittee and all persons under the permittee’s reasonable control actually comply with all conditions of such permit. Violation of any condition of such a permit related to sound or sound equipment shall be a violation of this chapter and punishable as such.
F. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, modify or repeal any other regulation elsewhere in this code relating to the regulation of noise sources, nor shall any such other regulation be read to permit the emission of noise in violation of any provision of this chapter. (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)
11.80.040 Special provisions for temporary use and special event permits.
The exemption by permit set forth in Section 11.80.030(E)(8) shall be subject to the following requirements and conditions:
A. The permit application shall include the name, address and telephone number of the permit applicant; the date, hours and location for which the permit is requested; and the nature of the event or activity. It shall also specify the types of sounds and/or sound equipment to be permitted, the proposed duration of such sound, the specific standards from which the sound is to be exempted, and the reasons for each requested exemption.
B. The permit shall be issued provided the proposed activity meets the requirements of this section and the issuing official determines that the sound to be emitted at the event as proposed would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, that the event cannot reasonably achieve its legitimate aims and purposes without the exemption and that the sound levels proposed will not unreasonably damage the peace and quiet enjoyment of the lawful users of surrounding properties, nor constitute a public nuisance.
C. The official issuing the permit may prescribe any reasonable conditions or requirements he/she deems necessary to minimize noise disturbances upon the community or the surrounding neighborhood, and/or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public, including participants in the permitted event, including use of mufflers, screens or other soundattenuating devices.
D. Any permit granted must be in writing and shall contain all conditions upon which the permit shall be effective. 69 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3233 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) E. No more than six events requiring a sound limit exemption may be held at any particular location upon privately owned or controlled property per calendar year, provided further that the number of events shall not exceed the number permitted under the regulations for the type of permit issued. For purposes of this subsection, “location” means a legal parcel of real property or a complete shopping or commercial center or mall sharing common parking and access even if comprised of multiple legal parcels.
F. The exemption from sound limits under such permit shall not exceed maximum period of four hours in one twentyfour (24) hour day.
G. The permit will only be granted for hours between nine a.m. and ten p.m. on all days other than Friday and Saturday; and, on Friday and Saturday, between the hours of nine a.m. and one a.m. of the following day, except in the following circumstances:
1. A permit may be granted for hours between nine a.m. on New Year’s Eve and one a.m. the following day (New Year’s Day).
2. A permit may be granted for hours between nine a.m. and two a.m. the following day if there are no residences, hospitals, or nursing homes within a 0.5 mile radius of the property where the function is taking place.
H. Functions for which the permits are issued shall be limited to a continuous airborne sound level not to exceed seventy (70) dB(A), as measured two hundred (200) feet from the real property boundary of the source property if on private property, or from the source if on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. (Ord. 740 §
1.2, 2007)
11.80.050 Measurement or assessment of sound.
A. Measurement With Sound Meter.
1. The measurement of sound shall be made with a sound level meter meeting the standards prescribed by ANSI Section 1.4-1983 (R2006). The instruments shall be maintained in calibration and good working order. A calibration check shall be made of the system at the time of any sound level measurement. Measurements recorded shall be taken so as to provide a proper representation of the source of the sound. The microphone during measurement shall be positioned so as not to create any unnatural enhancement or diminution of the measured sound. A windscreen for the microphone shall be used at all times. However, a violation of this chapter may occur without the occasion of the measurements being made as otherwise provided.
2. The slow meter response of the sound level meter shall be used in order to best determine the average amplitude.
3. The measurement shall be made at any point on the property into which the sound is being transmitted and shall be made at least three feet away from any ground, wall, floor, ceiling, roof and other plane surface.
4. In case of multiple occupancy of a property, the measurement may be made at any point inside the premises to which any complainant has right of legal private occupancy; provided that the measurement shall not be made within three feet of any ground, wall, floor, ceiling, roof or other plane surface.
5. All measurements of sound provided for in this chapter will be made by qualified officials of the city who are designated by the city manager or designee to operate the apparatus used to make the measurements.
B. Assessment Without Sound Level Meter. Any police officer, code enforcement officer, or other official designated by the city manager or designee who hears a noise or sound that is plainly audible, as defined in Section 11.80.020, in violation of this chapter, may enforce this chapter and shall assess the noise or sound according to the following standards:
1. The primary means of detection shall be by means of the official’s normal hearing faculties, not artificially enhanced.
2. The official shall first attempt to have a direct line of sight and hearing to the vehicle or real property from which the sound or noise emanates so that the official can readily identify the offending source of the sound or noise and the distance involved. If the official is unable to have a direct line of sight and hearing to the vehicle or real property from which the sound or noise emanates, then the official shall confirm the source of the sound or noise by approaching the suspected vehicle or real property until the official is able to obtain a direct line of sight and hearing, and confirm the source of the sound or noise that was heard at the place of the original assessment of the sound or noise. 70 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3234 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe)
3. The official need not be required to identify song titles, artists, or lyrics in order to establish a violation. (Ord. 740 §
1.2, 2007)
11.80.060 Violation.
A. Violation of Sound Level Limits. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and/or six months in the county jail, or both. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any violation of the provisions of this chapter may, in the discretion of the citing officer or the city attorney, be cited and/or prosecuted as an infraction or be subject to civil citation pursuant to Chapter 1.10.
B. Joint and Several Responsibility. In addition to the person causing the offending sound, the owner, tenant or lessee of property, or a manager, overseer or agent, or any other person lawfully entitled to possess the property from which the offending sound is emitted at the time the offending sound is emitted, shall be responsible for compliance with this chapter if the additionally responsible party knows or should have known of the offending noise disturbance. It shall not be a lawful defense to assert that some other person caused the sound. The lawful possessor or operator of the premises shall be responsible for operating or maintaining the premises in compliance with this chapter and may be cited regardless of whether or not the person actually causing the sound is also cited.
C. Violation May be Declared a Public Nuisance. The operation or maintenance of any device, equipment, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provisions of this chapter which endangers the public health, safety and quality of life of residents in the area is declared to be a public nuisance, and may be subject to abatement summarily or by a restraining order or injunction issued
by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 824 § 1.2, 2011; Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007) View the mobile version.
71 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3235 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-04 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
72 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3236 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
APPENDIX 5.1:
STUDY AREA PHOTOS
73 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3237 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
74 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3238 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) JN: 13661 Study Area Photos
L1_E
33, 55' 2.670000", 117, 15' 23.370000"
L1_N
33, 55' 2.670000", 117, 15' 23.370000"
L1_S
33, 55' 2.670000", 117, 15' 23.370000"
L1_W
33, 55' 2.680000", 117, 15' 23.400000"
L2_E
33, 55' 0.510000", 117, 15' 4.860000"
L2_N
33, 55' 0.530000", 117, 15' 4.860000"
75 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3239 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) JN: 13661 Study Area Photos
L2_S
33, 55' 0.500000", 117, 15' 4.860000"
L2_W
33, 55' 0.500000", 117, 15' 4.860000"
L3_E
33, 54' 55.230000", 117, 15' 40.840000"
L3_N
33, 54' 55.400000", 117, 15' 40.460000"
L3_S
33, 54' 55.230000", 117, 15' 40.840000"
L3_W
33, 54' 55.240000", 117, 15' 40.900000"
76 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3240 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) JN: 13661 Study Area Photos
L4_E
33, 55' 3.930000", 117, 15' 40.540000"
L4_N
33, 55' 3.930000", 117, 15' 40.540000"
L4_S
33, 55' 4.040000", 117, 15' 40.680000"
L4_W
33, 55' 3.960000", 117, 15' 40.620000"
L5_E
33, 55' 2.500000", 117, 15' 28.810000"
L5_N
33, 55' 4.070000", 117, 15' 27.910000"
77 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3241 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) JN: 13661 Study Area Photos
L5_S
33, 55' 2.520000", 117, 15' 28.840000"
L5_W
33, 55' 2.520000", 117, 15' 28.870000"
78 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3242 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
APPENDIX 5.2:
NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
79 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3243 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
80 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3244 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13661
Project: Compass Danbe Centerpointe Analyst: P. Mara
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 63.8 76.0 48.5 75.4 74.4 71.5 69.1 60.9 54.7 49.5 49.1 48.6 63.8 10.0 73.81 61.8 73.8 48.5 73.3 72.4 69.4 67.1 58.9 53.7 49.3 48.9 48.6 61.8 10.0 71.82 62.0 74.3 49.8 73.8 72.9 69.5 67.2 58.6 53.5 50.4 50.2 49.9 62.0 10.0 72.03 65.1 76.7 50.8 76.3 75.3 72.7 70.7 63.0 56.0 51.5 51.2 50.9 65.1 10.0 75.14 68.2 78.8 54.3 78.3 77.4 75.1 73.6 67.9 61.6 55.6 55.0 54.5 68.2 10.0 78.25 69.7 79.2 56.3 78.8 78.0 76.3 75.2 70.5 63.9 57.4 56.8 56.4 69.7 10.0 79.76 70.8 81.5 56.9 80.9 79.9 77.1 75.5 71.1 65.7 58.5 57.6 57.0 70.8 10.0 80.87 70.2 79.1 56.9 78.6 77.9 76.1 74.9 71.4 66.3 58.3 57.5 57.0 70.2 0.0 70.2 Day 8 69.4 78.5 54.6 78.0 77.2 75.3 74.4 70.6 65.1 56.3 55.4 54.7 69.4 0.0 69.4 9 69.4 78.4 52.8 77.9 77.2 75.4 74.2 70.6 65.2 55.4 54.0 53.0 69.4 0.0 69.4 10 69.9 80.9 49.3 80.3 79.1 76.1 74.3 70.4 65.3 52.7 51.1 49.5 69.9 0.0 69.911 68.8 78.0 47.9 77.6 76.8 74.8 73.7 70.0 65.2 51.0 49.7 48.2 68.8 0.0 68.812 68.7 77.8 50.4 77.3 76.6 74.8 73.7 69.9 64.4 53.3 51.6 50.6 68.7 0.0 68.713 68.6 78.0 50.7 77.6 76.6 74.5 73.4 70.0 64.8 53.9 52.4 50.9 68.6 0.0 68.614 68.2 77.1 51.9 76.7 75.9 74.1 72.9 69.5 64.8 55.2 53.4 52.2 68.2 0.0 68.215 68.4 90.2 52.3 89.3 87.9 83.2 80.4 69.7 65.4 55.5 54.0 52.6 68.4 0.0 68.416 69.1 78.8 53.1 78.3 77.4 75.0 73.8 69.7 65.9 55.9 54.5 53.4 69.1 0.0 69.117 69.0 80.7 54.0 80.1 79.2 76.0 73.9 69.9 65.8 56.9 55.4 54.2 69.0 0.0 69.018 68.9 79.1 53.6 78.6 77.7 75.0 73.6 69.3 64.9 56.0 54.8 53.8 68.9 0.0 68.919 68.7 80.7 51.3 80.1 79.0 75.4 73.1 67.9 61.4 53.4 52.2 51.5 68.7 5.0 73.720 66.9 77.9 50.3 77.2 76.3 73.9 72.4 66.7 59.6 51.9 51.0 50.4 66.9 5.0 71.921 66.3 77.6 50.6 76.9 75.8 73.4 71.6 65.6 59.3 52.2 51.3 50.7 66.3 5.0 71.322 65.7 85.6 48.6 84.8 83.5 78.3 74.7 65.6 58.6 50.8 49.6 48.8 65.7 10.0 75.723 64.3 76.0 49.0 75.5 74.5 71.6 69.8 62.4 56.3 50.3 49.6 49.1 64.3 10.0 74.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 68.2 77.1 47.9 76.7 75.9 74.1 72.9 69.3 64.4 51.0 49.7 48.2 Max 69.9 90.2 54.6 89.3 87.9 83.2 80.4 70.6 65.9 56.9 55.4 54.7
69.0 79.2 78.3 75.8 74.4 70.0 65.2 54.7 53.3 52.1
Min 66.3 77.6 50.3 76.9 75.8 73.4 71.6 65.6 59.3 51.9 51.0 50.4 Max 68.7 80.7 51.3 80.1 79.0 75.4 73.1 67.9 61.4 53.4 52.2 51.5
67.4 78.1 77.1 74.2 72.4 66.7 60.1 52.5 51.5 50.9
Min 61.8 73.8 48.5 73.3 72.4 69.4 67.1 58.6 53.5 49.3 48.9 48.6 Max 70.8 85.6 56.9 84.8 83.5 78.3 75.5 71.4 66.3 58.5 57.6 57.0
67.3 77.4 76.5 73.5 71.4 64.3 58.2 52.6 52.0 51.5
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)
73.8 EveningEvening
Energy Average
Night
Day
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:
Average:Average:
68.2 68.7 67.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
L1 - Located north of the Project site on Alessandro Boulevard near existing single-family residential home at 13994 Chagall Court.
Night
63.8 61.8
62.0 65.1
68.2 69.7
70.8 70.2
69.4 69.4
69.9 68.8
68.7 68.6
68.2 68.4
69.1 69.0
68.9 68.7
66.9 66.3
65.7 64.3
35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13600\13661\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\SS\13661_L1_S 81 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3245
Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13661
Project: Compass Danbe Centerpointe Analyst: P. Mara
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 54.1 62.8 48.5 62.5 62.1 60.8 59.1 53.3 50.8 49.0 48.8 48.6 54.1 10.0 64.11 53.4 63.5 48.5 63.1 62.2 58.9 56.7 52.6 50.5 49.0 48.8 48.6 53.4 10.0 63.42 52.9 61.5 48.4 60.9 60.4 58.3 56.9 52.6 50.3 48.9 48.7 48.5 52.9 10.0 62.93 54.0 63.9 48.7 63.0 62.0 60.4 58.8 52.5 50.7 49.3 49.0 48.8 54.0 10.0 64.04 57.2 66.5 51.2 66.2 65.8 64.2 62.2 55.6 53.3 51.7 51.5 51.3 57.2 10.0 67.25 59.0 68.7 52.5 68.4 67.9 66.0 63.2 57.7 55.4 53.2 53.0 52.6 59.0 10.0 69.06 57.3 65.5 52.5 65.0 64.5 62.6 61.3 57.4 55.0 53.1 52.8 52.6 57.3 10.0 67.37 57.5 65.2 53.0 64.8 64.3 62.5 61.1 57.8 55.7 53.7 53.4 53.1 57.5 0.0 57.5 Day 8 57.9 65.6 52.4 65.3 64.9 63.6 62.4 57.7 55.6 53.0 52.7 52.5 57.9 0.0 57.9 9 60.0 68.5 53.4 68.1 67.4 66.0 64.8 59.9 57.0 54.2 53.9 53.5 60.0 0.0 60.0 10 59.8 70.8 52.9 69.9 68.7 66.0 64.2 58.6 56.2 53.8 53.4 53.0 59.8 0.0 59.811 59.7 66.7 54.4 66.3 65.9 64.7 63.7 60.0 58.0 55.6 55.1 54.6 59.7 0.0 59.712 61.8 69.9 56.5 69.4 68.7 67.0 65.6 62.1 59.9 57.3 56.9 56.6 61.8 0.0 61.813 61.2 70.1 54.5 69.7 69.0 66.9 65.9 61.1 58.5 55.5 55.1 54.6 61.2 0.0 61.214 60.5 69.4 54.2 68.5 67.6 65.5 64.3 60.7 58.4 55.2 54.7 54.3 60.5 0.0 60.515 62.4 72.4 54.8 71.8 70.9 68.9 66.8 61.5 59.2 56.1 55.5 55.0 62.4 0.0 62.416 61.5 68.7 56.2 68.2 67.7 66.3 65.1 61.8 59.9 57.4 56.9 56.4 61.5 0.0 61.517 63.9 74.7 56.5 74.0 73.2 70.2 67.8 62.7 60.7 57.8 57.2 56.6 63.9 0.0 63.918 62.2 70.9 54.9 70.4 69.8 67.9 66.5 62.6 59.7 56.1 55.6 55.0 62.2 0.0 62.219 61.9 71.4 54.5 70.6 69.7 67.6 66.0 62.3 59.1 55.6 55.1 54.7 61.9 5.0 66.920 59.5 69.1 52.0 68.5 67.9 66.3 64.6 58.9 55.7 52.9 52.6 52.2 59.5 5.0 64.521 58.4 66.8 51.9 66.5 66.1 64.5 63.2 58.0 55.6 52.7 52.3 52.0 58.4 5.0 63.422 56.3 66.2 50.8 65.8 65.1 62.9 60.5 55.2 53.1 51.3 51.1 50.9 56.3 10.0 66.323 56.5 66.6 50.1 66.4 66.0 63.3 61.1 54.7 52.2 50.5 50.3 50.2 56.5 10.0 66.5 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 57.9 65.6 52.4 65.3 64.9 63.6 62.4 57.7 55.6 53.0 52.7 52.5 Max 63.9 74.7 56.5 74.0 73.2 70.2 67.8 62.7 60.7 57.8 57.2 56.6
61.3 69.2 68.5 66.6 65.2 60.8 58.5 55.6 55.2 54.7
Min 58.4 66.8 51.9 66.5 66.1 64.5 63.2 58.0 55.6 52.7 52.3 52.0 Max 61.9 71.4 54.5 70.6 69.7 67.6 66.0 62.3 59.1 55.6 55.1 54.7
60.2 68.5 67.9 66.1 64.6 59.7 56.8 53.7 53.3 52.9
Min 52.9 61.5 48.4 60.9 60.4 58.3 56.7 52.5 50.3 48.9 48.7 48.5 Max 59.0 68.7 53.0 68.4 67.9 66.0 63.2 57.8 55.7 53.7 53.4 53.1
56.3 64.6 64.0 61.9 60.0 54.6 52.4 50.7 50.4 50.2
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)
64.1 EveningEvening
Energy Average
Night
Day
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:
Average:Average:
59.6 61.1 56.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
L2 - Located east of the Project site by existing Motel 6 at 23581 Alessandro Boulevard.
Night
54.1 53.4
52.9 54.0
57.2 59.0
57.3 57.5
57.9 60.0
59.8 59.7
61.8 61.2
60.5 62.4
61.5 63.9
62.2 61.9
59.5 58.4
56.3 56.5
35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13600\13661\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\SS\13661_L2_A 82 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3246
Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13661
Project: Compass Danbe Centerpointe Analyst: P. Mara
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 55.7 62.3 53.0 61.9 61.2 59.4 58.4 56.1 54.6 53.3 53.2 53.1 55.7 10.0 65.71 53.1 61.8 49.4 61.3 60.5 57.8 56.3 52.8 50.9 49.9 49.7 49.5 53.1 10.0 63.12 52.5 60.9 48.7 60.6 60.0 58.0 56.5 51.5 50.1 49.2 49.0 48.8 52.5 10.0 62.53 54.6 64.0 50.9 63.6 63.1 59.9 57.7 53.8 52.2 51.3 51.1 51.0 54.6 10.0 64.64 55.5 63.7 51.6 63.4 62.8 60.8 59.4 55.1 53.2 52.1 51.9 51.7 55.5 10.0 65.55 57.5 65.3 53.1 64.9 64.3 62.6 61.4 57.8 55.3 53.6 53.4 53.2 57.5 10.0 67.56 58.0 66.0 53.5 65.7 65.2 63.3 62.0 58.1 55.7 54.0 53.8 53.6 58.0 10.0 68.07 59.5 69.4 53.9 69.0 68.2 65.2 63.0 58.9 56.7 54.5 54.3 54.0 59.5 0.0 59.5 Day 8 58.1 66.8 52.6 66.4 65.8 63.7 62.2 57.8 55.3 53.2 52.9 52.7 58.1 0.0 58.1 9 58.1 66.6 49.9 66.2 65.6 63.8 62.4 58.7 55.6 51.2 50.8 50.1 58.1 0.0 58.1 10 56.8 66.1 47.5 65.7 65.1 62.9 61.4 57.1 53.3 49.0 48.4 47.8 56.8 0.0 56.811 56.1 64.6 48.3 64.2 63.7 61.7 60.2 56.6 53.6 49.4 48.9 48.4 56.1 0.0 56.112 56.9 66.6 49.3 66.2 65.4 62.7 61.1 56.6 53.7 50.3 49.8 49.4 56.9 0.0 56.913 57.4 65.2 50.2 64.8 64.2 62.5 61.4 58.1 55.2 51.4 50.9 50.4 57.4 0.0 57.414 57.2 65.8 48.7 65.3 64.7 63.0 61.7 57.9 54.2 50.0 49.4 48.9 57.2 0.0 57.215 57.1 65.7 47.5 65.4 64.7 62.9 61.6 57.5 53.7 49.0 48.3 47.7 57.1 0.0 57.116 57.4 66.5 48.4 66.1 65.5 63.4 62.0 57.8 54.0 49.6 49.1 48.6 57.4 0.0 57.417 57.0 65.3 49.5 64.9 64.3 62.4 61.1 57.5 54.6 50.6 50.0 49.6 57.0 0.0 57.018 57.3 66.2 49.8 65.7 64.8 62.7 61.6 57.7 54.4 50.8 50.3 49.9 57.3 0.0 57.319 60.0 73.6 50.2 72.9 71.2 66.5 63.2 56.5 53.6 50.9 50.6 50.3 60.0 5.0 65.020 56.3 65.3 51.0 64.9 64.3 61.7 60.1 55.9 53.5 51.6 51.3 51.1 56.3 5.0 61.321 55.5 64.8 49.3 64.2 63.5 60.8 59.0 55.5 53.0 50.2 49.8 49.4 55.5 5.0 60.522 53.5 63.2 46.9 62.8 62.2 60.0 57.9 52.9 49.8 47.6 47.3 47.0 53.5 10.0 63.523 51.6 59.9 47.2 59.1 58.3 56.6 55.5 51.8 49.3 47.7 47.5 47.3 51.6 10.0 61.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 56.1 64.6 47.5 64.2 63.7 61.7 60.2 56.6 53.3 49.0 48.3 47.7 Max 58.1 66.8 52.6 66.4 65.8 63.8 62.4 58.7 55.6 53.2 52.9 52.7
57.2 65.5 64.9 62.9 61.5 57.6 54.3 50.4 49.9 49.4
Min 55.5 64.8 49.3 64.2 63.5 60.8 59.0 55.5 53.0 50.2 49.8 49.4 Max 60.0 73.6 51.0 72.9 71.2 66.5 63.2 56.5 53.6 51.6 51.3 51.1
57.7 67.3 66.3 63.0 60.8 56.0 53.3 50.9 50.6 50.3
Min 51.6 59.9 46.9 59.1 58.3 56.6 55.5 51.5 49.3 47.6 47.3 47.0 Max 59.5 69.4 53.9 69.0 68.2 65.2 63.0 58.9 56.7 54.5 54.3 54.0
55.9 62.6 62.0 59.8 58.3 54.4 52.4 51.0 50.8 50.6
55.9 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
L3 - Located southwest of the Project site by the Moreno Valley City Hall at 14177 Frederick Street.
Night
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)
62.4 EveningEvening
Energy Average
Night
Day
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:
Average:Average:
56.8 57.3
55.7 53.1
52.5 54.6
55.5 57.5
58.0 59.5
58.1 58.1
56.8 56.1
56.9 57.4
57.2 57.1
57.4 57.0
57.3 60.0
56.3 55.5
53.5 51.6
35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13600\13661\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\SS\13661_L3_R 83 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3247
Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13661
Project: Compass Danbe Centerpointe Analyst: P. Mara
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 60.9 72.8 48.3 72.3 71.2 69.1 66.2 57.9 53.5 49.6 48.9 48.4 60.9 10.0 70.91 64.0 73.4 60.5 72.8 72.2 68.2 66.3 62.7 62.1 61.0 60.8 60.5 64.0 10.0 74.02 57.4 67.9 50.1 67.2 66.3 63.6 62.0 56.4 53.3 50.7 50.4 50.2 57.4 10.0 67.43 57.1 66.2 49.4 65.9 65.3 63.2 61.7 57.1 53.5 50.1 49.9 49.5 57.1 10.0 67.14 60.8 69.4 51.6 69.1 68.6 67.1 66.1 61.1 57.2 52.8 52.2 51.7 60.8 10.0 70.85 63.2 71.9 53.7 71.6 71.0 69.4 67.9 63.6 60.0 54.8 54.3 53.9 63.2 10.0 73.26 68.9 76.6 54.7 76.2 75.8 74.7 74.0 70.7 64.9 56.0 55.4 54.8 68.9 10.0 78.97 64.4 72.3 55.6 71.8 71.2 69.9 68.8 65.2 62.1 57.0 56.3 55.8 64.4 0.0 64.4 Day 8 65.9 76.1 54.1 75.6 75.0 72.8 71.2 65.3 61.7 56.0 55.1 54.3 65.9 0.0 65.9 9 65.6 73.9 58.0 73.5 73.0 71.3 70.0 65.8 63.4 59.4 58.7 58.2 65.6 0.0 65.6 10 67.0 78.2 54.5 77.9 77.1 74.0 71.8 65.3 62.1 56.9 55.7 54.7 67.0 0.0 67.011 65.0 74.0 53.9 73.5 73.0 71.5 70.3 64.8 61.5 56.3 55.1 54.1 65.0 0.0 65.012 65.4 75.3 55.1 74.5 73.6 72.0 70.3 65.0 62.2 57.3 56.4 55.3 65.4 0.0 65.413 64.9 73.9 55.6 73.5 72.8 70.8 69.1 65.3 62.2 57.7 56.8 55.8 64.9 0.0 64.914 65.8 76.1 54.1 75.6 74.8 72.2 70.4 65.5 62.3 56.6 55.3 54.4 65.8 0.0 65.815 66.1 76.1 54.9 75.5 74.8 72.5 70.6 65.9 62.5 57.5 56.3 55.1 66.1 0.0 66.116 65.8 74.8 55.6 74.4 73.7 71.8 70.1 66.1 63.1 58.0 56.9 55.9 65.8 0.0 65.817 68.4 80.0 55.6 79.4 78.2 75.7 73.4 67.2 63.3 58.0 56.9 55.9 68.4 0.0 68.418 66.2 75.5 55.3 75.0 74.4 72.8 70.5 66.2 63.1 57.6 56.4 55.5 66.2 0.0 66.219 65.9 77.1 54.1 76.5 76.0 72.9 70.4 64.6 61.5 56.1 55.1 54.2 65.9 5.0 70.920 63.7 73.6 52.7 72.9 72.2 70.4 68.8 63.7 59.5 54.4 53.6 52.9 63.7 5.0 68.721 66.3 79.9 50.8 79.1 77.6 73.8 71.0 61.9 58.3 52.9 51.7 51.0 66.3 5.0 71.322 62.3 73.2 50.5 72.6 71.9 69.4 67.4 61.0 57.0 52.0 51.3 50.7 62.3 10.0 72.323 63.1 79.3 47.5 76.1 74.1 69.3 66.9 58.5 54.3 49.1 48.3 47.7 63.1 10.0 73.1 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 64.9 73.9 53.9 73.5 72.8 70.8 69.1 64.8 61.5 56.0 55.1 54.1 Max 68.4 80.0 58.0 79.4 78.2 75.7 73.4 67.2 63.4 59.4 58.7 58.2
66.1 75.3 74.6 72.5 70.7 65.7 62.5 57.4 56.3 55.4
Min 63.7 73.6 50.8 72.9 72.2 70.4 68.8 61.9 58.3 52.9 51.7 51.0 Max 66.3 79.9 54.1 79.1 77.6 73.8 71.0 64.6 61.5 56.1 55.1 54.2
65.5 76.2 75.3 72.4 70.1 63.4 59.8 54.5 53.5 52.7
Min 57.1 66.2 47.5 65.9 65.3 63.2 61.7 56.4 53.3 49.1 48.3 47.7 Max 68.9 79.3 60.5 76.2 75.8 74.7 74.0 70.7 64.9 61.0 60.8 60.5
63.5 71.5 70.7 68.2 66.5 61.0 57.3 52.9 52.4 52.0
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)
70.6 EveningEvening
Energy Average
Night
Day
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:
Average:Average:
65.1 66.0 63.5
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
L4 - Located northwest of the Project site on Fredrick Street near existing single-family residential home at 13979 Frederick Street.
Night
60.9 64.0
57.4 57.1
60.8 63.2
68.9 64.4
65.9 65.6
67.0 65.0
65.4 64.9
65.8 66.1
65.8 68.4
66.2 65.9
63.7 66.3
62.3 63.1
35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13600\13661\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\SS\13661_L4_C 84 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3248
Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 13661
Project: Compass Danbe Centerpointe Analyst: P. Mara
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 64.4 75.8 50.6 75.4 74.7 71.9 69.6 62.8 56.9 51.4 51.1 50.7 64.4 10.0 74.41 62.6 73.9 50.6 73.5 72.8 70.2 67.7 60.9 55.7 51.5 51.0 50.7 62.6 10.0 72.62 62.2 73.3 52.3 72.9 72.1 69.7 67.8 59.9 55.5 52.8 52.5 52.3 62.2 10.0 72.23 65.1 75.7 52.0 75.3 74.6 72.3 70.6 64.5 58.3 52.8 52.4 52.1 65.1 10.0 75.14 68.5 78.7 55.5 78.2 77.5 75.2 73.7 68.5 63.0 56.5 56.0 55.6 68.5 10.0 78.55 70.5 79.4 57.8 79.0 78.4 76.7 75.5 71.5 66.0 58.9 58.3 57.9 70.5 10.0 80.56 70.9 79.9 58.5 79.6 78.9 76.8 75.6 71.7 67.2 60.0 59.1 58.6 70.9 10.0 80.97 71.0 78.5 59.3 78.2 77.7 76.4 75.7 72.5 68.2 60.7 59.9 59.4 71.0 0.0 71.08 71.9 80.2 60.5 79.7 78.9 77.2 76.3 73.3 68.9 62.3 61.5 60.7 71.9 0.0 71.99 72.1 80.4 57.7 80.0 79.3 77.7 76.7 73.3 69.3 60.8 59.4 58.0 72.1 0.0 72.1 10 72.1 80.8 57.8 80.3 79.4 77.5 76.2 73.4 69.8 60.8 59.4 58.1 72.1 0.0 72.111 71.5 79.7 56.2 79.3 78.6 76.6 75.8 72.9 69.1 58.7 57.5 56.5 71.5 0.0 71.512 71.3 79.9 56.3 79.5 78.7 76.8 75.6 72.8 68.7 59.1 57.6 56.5 71.3 0.0 71.313 71.1 79.0 57.8 78.5 78.0 76.4 75.4 72.6 68.9 60.6 59.3 58.0 71.1 0.0 71.114 70.6 77.8 56.5 77.5 77.0 75.9 75.0 72.1 68.4 59.8 58.2 56.7 70.6 0.0 70.615 70.8 79.2 58.2 78.8 78.0 75.9 74.8 72.1 68.8 60.9 59.5 58.3 70.8 0.0 70.816 71.7 82.0 58.7 81.5 80.4 77.1 75.2 72.2 69.0 61.6 59.9 58.8 71.7 0.0 71.717 71.6 81.0 58.7 80.5 79.8 77.6 75.8 72.2 68.9 61.6 60.1 58.9 71.6 0.0 71.618 70.4 78.9 58.1 78.6 77.9 75.8 74.5 71.6 68.1 60.4 59.4 58.3 70.4 0.0 70.419 69.8 79.1 56.6 78.6 77.9 75.8 74.5 70.6 66.0 58.9 57.9 56.8 69.8 5.0 74.820 69.0 78.6 55.8 78.3 77.7 75.4 73.9 69.2 64.6 57.6 56.7 56.0 69.0 5.0 74.021 67.2 76.2 54.9 75.8 75.1 73.4 72.3 67.8 62.9 56.4 55.6 55.1 67.2 5.0 72.222 68.0 79.6 51.5 79.3 78.7 75.2 72.6 66.5 60.9 53.6 52.7 51.7 68.0 10.0 78.023 64.6 74.9 51.5 74.4 73.7 71.7 70.2 63.8 58.3 52.6 52.1 51.6 64.6 10.0 74.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 70.4 77.8 56.2 77.5 77.0 75.8 74.5 71.6 68.1 58.7 57.5 56.5 Max 72.1 82.0 60.5 81.5 80.4 77.7 76.7 73.4 69.8 62.3 61.5 60.7
71.4 79.5 78.7 76.8 75.6 72.6 68.9 60.6 59.2 58.1
Min 67.2 76.2 54.9 75.8 75.1 73.4 72.3 67.8 62.9 56.4 55.6 55.1 Max 69.8 79.1 56.6 78.6 77.9 75.8 74.5 70.6 66.0 58.9 57.9 56.8
68.8 77.5 76.9 74.9 73.6 69.2 64.5 57.6 56.7 55.9
Min 62.2 73.3 50.6 72.9 72.1 69.7 67.7 59.9 55.5 51.4 51.0 50.7 Max 71.0 79.9 59.3 79.6 78.9 76.8 75.7 72.5 68.2 60.7 59.9 59.4
67.9 76.4 75.7 73.3 71.5 65.6 60.2 54.4 53.9 53.5
67.9 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
L5 - Located north of the Project site on Alessandro Boulevard near existing multi-family residential homes at 13933 Chagall Court.
Day
Night
24-Hour CNEL (dBA)
74.8 EveningEvening
Energy Average
Night
Day
Night
Energy AverageEnergy Average Average:
Average:Average:
69.9 71.0
64.4 62.6
62.2 65.1
68.5 70.5
70.9 71.0
71.9 72.1
72.1 71.5
71.3 71.1
70.6 70.8
71.7 71.6
70.4 69.8
69.0 67.2
68.0 64.6
35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_13600-14000\_13600\13661\05_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\SS\13661_L5_T 85 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3249
Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-04 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
86 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3250 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
APPENDIX 7.1:
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
87 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3251 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
88 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3252 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Bl.
Road Name: Graham St.
Scenario: Existing (2020)
11,231
6.98%
44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 784 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 44.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.43
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.94 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
77.72 -23.95 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
82.99 -26.17 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
36.551
36.308
36.332
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
64.8 64.5 62.7 56.7 65.3 65.9
54.5 57.6
54.6 48.2 46.7 55.2 55.4
57.7 48.7 50.0 58.3 58.4
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 65.7 63.0 57.8 66.4 66.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
25 55 118 254
27 59 127 274
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Frederick St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: Existing (2020)
38,736
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,704 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.43 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
58.3% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -19.09 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -21.31 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
70.8 70.5 68.7 62.7 71.3 71.9
60.3 62.9
60.4 54.0 52.5 60.9 61.2
61.3 54.0 55.2 62.9 63.1
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 71.3 69.0 63.7 72.2 72.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
77 166 358 772
84 180 388 837
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: Existing (2020)
38,944
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,718 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.46 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
58.3% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -19.07 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -21.28 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
70.8 70.5 68.7 62.7 71.3 71.9
60.3 62.9
60.4 54.0 52.5 60.9 61.2
61.3 54.0 55.3 63.0 63.1
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 71.4 69.0 63.7 72.2 72.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
77 167 359 774
84 181 390 840
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: e/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: Existing (2020)
41,770
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,916 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.76 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
58.3% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.76 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -20.98 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.1 70.8 69.0 63.0 71.6 72.2
60.6 63.2
60.7 54.3 52.8 61.2 61.5
61.6 54.3 55.6 63.3 63.4
Vehicle Noise: 72.1 71.7 69.3 64.0 72.5 73.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
81 175 377 811
88 190 408 880
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
89 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3253 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Bl.
Road Name: Graham St.
Scenario: Existing + Project
11,765
6.98%
44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 821 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 44.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.31
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.03%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.12%
86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 1.84%
1.94 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
77.72 -21.67 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
82.99 -19.52 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
36.551
36.308
36.332
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
64.9 64.6 62.8 56.8 65.4 66.0
56.8 64.2
56.9 50.5 49.0 57.4 57.7
64.4 55.4 56.6 65.0 65.1
Vehicle Noise: 68.0 67.9 63.8 60.1 68.5 68.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
35 76 163 352
37 80 173 373
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Frederick St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: Existing + Project
38,794
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,708 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.45 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 99.00%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
81.2% 3.8% 15.0% 0.30%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -19.09 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -22.75 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
70.8 70.5 68.7 62.7 71.3 71.9
60.3 61.5
60.4 54.0 52.5 60.9 61.2
61.3 54.0 55.2 62.9 63.1
Vehicle Noise: 71.6 71.3 69.0 63.7 72.2 72.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
77 166 359 773
84 181 389 838
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: Existing + Project
39,592
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,764 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.57%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.82%
81.2% 3.8% 15.0% 0.60%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.28 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.62 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
70.9 70.6 68.8 62.7 71.4 72.0
61.1 64.6
61.2 54.8 53.3 61.7 62.0
64.5 57.1 58.4 66.1 66.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.2 71.9 69.2 64.4 72.8 73.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
85 183 394 850
92 197 425 915
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: e/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: Existing + Project
41,799
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,918 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.77 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 99.00%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
81.2% 3.8% 15.0% 0.30%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.76 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -22.42 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.1 70.8 69.0 63.0 71.6 72.2
60.6 61.8
60.7 54.3 52.8 61.2 61.5
61.6 54.3 55.6 63.3 63.4
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 71.7 69.3 64.1 72.5 73.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
81 175 377 812
88 190 409 881
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
90 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3254 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Bl.
Road Name: Graham St.
Scenario: EA Without Project
11,684
6.98%
44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 816 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 44.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.26
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.94 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
77.72 -23.78 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
82.99 -26.00 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
36.551
36.308
36.332
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
65.0 64.7 62.9 56.8 65.5 66.1
54.7 57.8
54.8 48.4 46.9 55.3 55.6
57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 65.8 63.2 58.0 66.6 67.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
26 56 121 260
28 61 131 282
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Frederick St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: EA Without Project
40,171
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,804 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.59 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
58.3% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.93 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -21.15 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.0 70.6 68.9 62.8 71.4 72.0
60.5 63.1
60.5 54.2 52.6 61.1 61.3
61.5 54.2 55.4 63.1 63.2
Vehicle Noise: 71.9 71.5 69.2 63.9 72.4 72.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
79 170 367 791
86 185 398 857
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: EA Without Project
40,517
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,828 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
58.3% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.89 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -21.11 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.0 70.7 68.9 62.9 71.5 72.1
60.5 63.1
60.6 54.2 52.7 61.1 61.3
61.5 54.2 55.4 63.1 63.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 71.5 69.2 63.9 72.4 72.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
80 171 369 795
86 186 400 862
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: e/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: EA Without Project
43,458
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 3,033 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.93 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.89%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
58.3% 2.7% 10.8% 0.42%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.59 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -20.81 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.3 71.0 69.2 63.2 71.8 72.4
60.8 63.4
60.9 54.5 53.0 61.4 61.7
61.8 54.5 55.7 63.4 63.6
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 71.8 69.5 64.2 72.7 73.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
83 180 387 833
90 195 419 903
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
91 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3255 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Bl.
Road Name: Graham St.
Scenario: EA With Project
12,219
6.98%
44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 853 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 44.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 50 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.14
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.10%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.11%
86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 1.79%
1.94 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
77.72 -21.57 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
82.99 -19.49 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
36.551
36.308
36.332
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
65.1 64.8 63.0 56.9 65.6 66.2
56.9 64.3
57.0 50.6 49.1 57.5 57.8
64.4 55.4 56.6 65.0 65.1
Vehicle Noise: 68.1 68.0 63.9 60.2 68.6 69.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
36 77 166 358
38 82 176 379
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Frederick St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: EA With Project
40,227
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,808 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.60 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 99.00%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
81.2% 3.8% 15.0% 0.30%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.93 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -22.59 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.0 70.6 68.9 62.8 71.4 72.1
60.5 61.6
60.5 54.2 52.6 61.1 61.3
61.5 54.2 55.4 63.1 63.2
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 71.5 69.2 63.9 72.4 72.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
79 171 367 792
86 185 398 858
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: w/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: EA With Project
41,163
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 2,873 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.68 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 98.59%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.82%
81.2% 3.8% 15.0% 0.59%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.13 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.53 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.1 70.7 69.0 62.9 71.5 72.1
61.3 64.7
61.3 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1
64.5 57.2 58.5 66.1 66.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 72.0 69.4 64.6 73.0 73.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
87 187 404 869
94 202 435 937
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Compass Danbe Centerpo
Job Number: 13661
Road Segment: e/o Graham St.
Road Name: Alessandro Bl.
Scenario: EA With Project
43,484
6.98%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume: 3,035 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 73 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.94 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 99.00%
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 0.70%
81.2% 3.8% 15.0% 0.30%
1.12 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
79.45 -18.59 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -22.25 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos: 0.000
2.297
8.004
41.446
41.232
41.253
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
71.3 71.0 69.2 63.2 71.8 72.4
60.8 62.0
60.9 54.5 53.0 61.4 61.7
61.8 54.5 55.7 63.4 63.6
Vehicle Noise: 72.1 71.8 69.5 64.2 72.7 73.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
83 180 387 834
90 195 420 904
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
92 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3256 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
APPENDIX 9.1:
CADNAAOPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
93 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3257 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
94 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3258 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 13661 -Compass Danbe Centerpointe
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 13661.cna
Date: 03.11.20
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Country (user defined)
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (RLS-90)
Strictly acc. to RLS-90
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 39.5 38.0 44.7 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6256312.79 2278949.58 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 43.6 43.4 50.0 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6257887.44 2278566.77 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 48.9 48.8 55.5 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6254819.51 2278120.58 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 35.1 32.8 39.7 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6254829.93 2279082.21 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 38.8 36.6 43.4 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6255752.80 2279018.15 5.00 RECEIVERS @ 200 55.5 55.4 62.1 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6257067.66 2278236.19 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (dB) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE TRASH03 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 75.00 0.00 45.00 0.0 5.00 a 6255782.68 2278218.71 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH02 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 75.00 0.00 45.00 0.0 5.00 a 6256273.56 2278214.72 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH01 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 75.00 0.00 45.00 0.0 5.00 a 6256682.17 2278244.65 5.00 POINTSOURCE AC01 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6255642.95 2278707.03 50.00 POINTSOURCE AC02 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6256420.94 2278702.03 50.00 POINTSOURCE AC03 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6256787.64 2278696.43 50.00 Line Source(s)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
95 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3259 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) LINESOURCE DWY01 92.9 77.8 83.8 69.6 54.5 60.5 PWL-Pt 89.7 97.0 3.0 12.0 6.2 8 LINESOURCE DWY03 92.6 77.5 83.5 69.6 54.5 60.5 PWL-Pt 89.7 97.0 3.0 12.0 6.2 8 LINESOURCE DWY1&3 91.2 76.1 82.1 72.6 57.5 63.5 PWL-Pt 89.7 194.0 6.0 24.0 6.2 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6255770.89 2278288.20 8.00 0.00
6255586.95 2278291.38 8.00 0.00
6255585.68 2278722.08 8.00 0.00
6255613.67 2278746.25 8.00 0.00
6255616.85 2278800.33 8.00 0.00
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6256695.05 2278275.81 8.00 0.00
6256834.86 2278281.92 8.00 0.00
6256833.64 2278704.02 8.00 0.00
6256816.56 2278733.30 8.00 0.00
6256812.94 2278793.79 8.00 0.00
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6256285.49 2278285.21 8.00 0.00
6256524.87 2278283.25 8.00 0.00
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) AREASOURCE DOCK01 111.5 111.5 111.5 72.0 72.0 72.0 Lw 111.5 8 AREASOURCE DOCK02 111.5 111.5 111.5 76.8 76.8 76.8 Lw 111.5 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6255771.27 2278400.50 8.00 0.00
6256285.56 2278396.31 8.00 0.00
6256285.43 2278208.79 8.00 0.00
6255770.64 2278212.94 8.00 0.00
AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6256525.91 2278394.45 8.00 0.00
6256694.80 2278393.11 8.00 0.00
6256695.20 2278205.05 8.00 0.00
6256524.15 2278206.72 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BARRIEREXISTING 0 6.00 a 6255572.68 2278951.74 6.00 0.00 6255611.75 2278933.51 6.00 0.00
6256126.07 2278933.51 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING 0 5.00 a 6256248.99 2278952.24 5.00 0.00 6256281.89 2278922.97 5.00 0.00
6256870.71 2278924.11 5.00 0.00
6257366.73 2278920.70 5.00 0.00
6257486.99 2278920.70 5.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING BUILDING00001 x 0 45.00 a 6255623.77 2278719.79 45.00 0.00 6255664.95 2278719.93 45.00 0.00
6255664.95 2278723.08 45.00 0.00
6255715.31 2278723.08 45.00 0.00
6255715.45 2278725.42 45.00 0.00
6255742.49 2278725.69 45.00 0.00
6255742.63 2278722.67 45.00 0.00
6255792.72 2278721.99 45.00 0.00
6255792.72 2278724.59 45.00 0.00
6255819.48 2278724.87 45.00 0.00
6255819.76 2278722.40 45.00 0.00
6255900.59 2278721.44 45.00 0.00
6255900.59 2278724.18 45.00 0.00
6255928.18 2278724.18 45.00 0.00
6255928.04 2278720.89 45.00 0.00
6255977.72 2278720.75 45.00 0.00
6255977.72 2278723.77 45.00 0.00
6256005.31 2278723.63 45.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
96 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3260 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Name M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Beginxyz Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6256005.17 2278720.61 45.00 0.00
6256054.86 2278720.06 45.00 0.00
6256054.72 2278723.22 45.00 0.00
6256082.44 2278723.08 45.00 0.00
6256082.58 2278719.79 45.00 0.00
6256131.99 2278719.65 45.00 0.00
6256131.85 2278722.40 45.00 0.00
6256159.57 2278722.40 45.00 0.00
6256159.57 2278719.65 45.00 0.00
6256240.27 2278718.69 45.00 0.00
6256240.41 2278721.85 45.00 0.00
6256267.45 2278721.44 45.00 0.00
6256267.58 2278718.56 45.00 0.00
6256317.40 2278718.28 45.00 0.00
6256317.26 2278721.30 45.00 0.00
6256344.44 2278721.16 45.00 0.00
6256344.58 2278718.28 45.00 0.00
6256395.22 2278717.73 45.00 0.00
6256395.22 2278716.36 45.00 0.00
6256438.73 2278716.36 45.00 0.00
6256438.59 2278687.54 45.00 0.00
6256439.55 2278687.26 45.00 0.00
6256439.41 2278634.70 45.00 0.00
6256442.29 2278634.42 45.00 0.00
6256442.43 2278606.02 45.00 0.00
6256439.41 2278606.02 45.00 0.00
6256439.14 2278538.63 45.00 0.00
6256442.43 2278538.77 45.00 0.00
6256442.16 2278510.49 45.00 0.00
6256439.00 2278510.63 45.00 0.00
6256438.59 2278421.70 45.00 0.00
6256441.61 2278421.56 45.00 0.00
6256441.74 2278393.70 45.00 0.00
6256438.86 2278393.43 45.00 0.00
6256438.73 2278340.45 45.00 0.00
6256437.63 2278340.45 45.00 0.00
6256437.63 2278311.77 45.00 0.00
6256407.57 2278312.04 45.00 0.00
6256407.71 2278310.94 45.00 0.00
6256357.34 2278310.80 45.00 0.00
6256357.20 2278308.61 45.00 0.00
6256329.89 2278308.61 45.00 0.00
6256329.75 2278311.49 45.00 0.00
6256285.29 2278311.77 45.00 0.00
6256285.56 2278396.31 45.00 0.00
6255771.27 2278400.50 45.00 0.00
6255771.07 2278315.45 45.00 0.00
6255741.49 2278315.64 45.00 0.00
6255741.58 2278312.96 45.00 0.00
6255714.19 2278312.87 45.00 0.00
6255714.19 2278316.11 45.00 0.00
6255663.60 2278316.40 45.00 0.00
6255663.60 2278320.89 45.00 0.00
6255623.23 2278320.98 45.00 0.00
6255623.23 2278347.71 45.00 0.00
6255619.22 2278347.71 45.00 0.00
6255619.22 2278400.58 45.00 0.00
6255616.16 2278400.77 45.00 0.00
6255616.26 2278428.93 45.00 0.00
6255619.51 2278428.93 45.00 0.00
6255619.51 2278506.34 45.00 0.00
6255616.74 2278506.62 45.00 0.00
6255616.93 2278534.78 45.00 0.00
6255619.60 2278534.78 45.00 0.00
6255619.89 2278612.38 45.00 0.00
6255617.02 2278612.28 45.00 0.00
6255617.02 2278640.54 45.00 0.00
6255620.27 2278640.44 45.00 0.00
6255620.46 2278693.41 45.00 0.00
6255623.42 2278693.41 45.00 0.00
6255623.51 2278707.92 45.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00002x0 45.00a 6256527.92 2278715.46 45.00 0.00 6256561.48 2278715.33 45.00 0.00
6256561.75 2278716.67 45.00 0.00
6256611.83 2278716.00 45.00 0.00
6256612.10 2278718.95 45.00 0.00
6256639.22 2278718.82 45.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
97 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3261 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Name M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Beginxyz Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6256639.09 2278716.13 45.00 0.00
6256690.77 2278715.46 45.00 0.00
6256691.04 2278718.41 45.00 0.00
6256718.30 2278718.15 45.00 0.00
6256718.70 2278715.73 45.00 0.00
6256769.05 2278714.79 45.00 0.00
6256769.18 2278711.70 45.00 0.00
6256800.19 2278711.43 45.00 0.00
6256800.19 2278684.72 45.00 0.00
6256803.55 2278684.58 45.00 0.00
6256803.28 2278631.95 45.00 0.00
6256805.97 2278631.68 45.00 0.00
6256806.24 2278603.49 45.00 0.00
6256803.28 2278603.36 45.00 0.00
6256802.88 2278525.75 45.00 0.00
6256806.10 2278525.49 45.00 0.00
6256805.83 2278497.56 45.00 0.00
6256803.01 2278497.56 45.00 0.00
6256802.61 2278420.09 45.00 0.00
6256805.70 2278419.96 45.00 0.00
6256805.83 2278391.76 45.00 0.00
6256802.48 2278391.76 45.00 0.00
6256802.61 2278338.87 45.00 0.00
6256797.11 2278338.87 45.00 0.00
6256797.24 2278313.09 45.00 0.00
6256773.48 2278312.82 45.00 0.00
6256773.61 2278308.26 45.00 0.00
6256694.40 2278308.93 45.00 0.00
6256694.80 2278393.11 45.00 0.00
6256525.91 2278394.45 45.00 0.00
6256526.04 2278408.28 45.00 0.00
6256523.09 2278408.28 45.00 0.00
6256523.09 2278436.47 45.00 0.00
6256526.31 2278436.47 45.00 0.00
6256526.31 2278510.05 45.00 0.00
6256523.62 2278509.91 45.00 0.00
6256523.35 2278538.37 45.00 0.00
6256526.17 2278538.37 45.00 0.00
6256526.55 2278605.63 45.00 0.00
6256523.57 2278605.86 45.00 0.00
6256523.57 2278634.03 45.00 0.00
6256526.55 2278633.80 45.00 0.00
6256526.78 2278686.70 45.00 0.00
6256527.92 2278686.93 45.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
98 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3262 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
APPENDIX 10.1:
CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
99 F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3263 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Noise Impact Analysis
13661-05 Noise Study_Clean
This page intentionally left blank
100
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3264 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 13661 -Compass Danbe Centerpointe
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 13661_Construction.cna
Date: 03.11.20
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Country (user defined)
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (RLS-90)
Strictly acc. to RLS-90
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 61.9 61.9 68.6 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6256312.79 2278949.58 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 56.3 56.3 63.0 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6257887.44 2278566.77 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 57.9 57.9 64.5 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6254819.51 2278120.58 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 57.3 57.3 64.0 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6254829.93 2279082.21 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 59.9 59.9 66.6 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6255752.80 2279018.15 5.00 RECEIVERS @ 200 63.7 63.7 70.4 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6257067.66 2278236.19 5.00 Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) SITEBOUNDARY SITEBOUNDARY00001 122.1 122.1 122.1 73.5 73.5 73.5 Lw" 73.5 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY 8.00 a 6256864.04 2278199.25 8.00 0.00
6255558.59 2278209.31 8.00 0.00
6255562.07 2278802.36 8.00 0.00
6256865.47 2278793.43 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
101
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3265 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Barrier(s)
Name M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin Endxyz Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BARRIEREXISTING0 6.00a 6255572.68 2278951.74 6.00 0.00
6255611.75 2278933.51 6.00 0.00
6256126.07 2278933.51 6.00 0.00
BARRIEREXISTING0 5.00a 6256248.99 2278952.24 5.00 0.00
6256281.89 2278922.97 5.00 0.00
6256870.71 2278924.11 5.00 0.00
6257366.73 2278920.70 5.00 0.00
6257486.99 2278920.70 5.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
102
F.1.q
Packet Pg. 3266 Attachment: Appendix J-Noise Study (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe)
ALESSANDRO
WAREHOUSE
TRAFFICANALYSIS
CITY OFMORENOVALLEY
PREPARED BY:
Aric Evatt, PTP
[email protected]
Charlene So, PE
[email protected]
Connor Paquin
[email protected] JUNE 15, 2021
13276‐03 TA Report
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3267 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3268 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................V LIST OF EXHIBITS..................................................................................................................................V LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................VII 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Analysis Scenarios......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Study Area..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Analysis Findings........................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Recommended Improvements ..................................................................................................... 6
1.7 Truck Access and Circulation......................................................................................................... 9 2 METHODOLOGIES .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 13
2.4 Minimum Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................................. 13
2.5 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................... 14 3 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Existing Circulation Network....................................................................................................... 17
3.2 City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element........................................................... 17
3.3 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Transit Service............................................................................................................................. 22
3.5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities..................................................................................................... 22
3.6 Existing (2020) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 22
3.7 Intersection Operations Analysis................................................................................................ 25
3.8 Recommended Improvements ................................................................................................... 25 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC.................................................................................................... 29
4.1 Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Project Trip Distribution.............................................................................................................. 31
4.3 Modal Split.................................................................................................................................. 31
4.4 Project Trip Assignment.............................................................................................................. 37
4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 37
4.6 Near‐Term Traffic Forecasts ....................................................................................................... 37 5 EAP (2022) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 39
5.1 Roadway Improvements............................................................................................................. 39
5.2 EAP Traffic Volume Forecasts ..................................................................................................... 39
5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis................................................................................................ 39
5.4 Queueing Analysis....................................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Recommended Improvements ................................................................................................... 43 6 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS....................................................................... 45
6.1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program.......................................................... 45 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3269 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
iv
6.2 City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program ................................................ 45 7 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 47
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3270 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
v
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2022) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1‐1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 2 EXHIBIT 1‐2: LOCATION MAP................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 1‐3: SUMMARY OF LOS ........................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 1‐4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS................................. 8 EXHIBIT 1‐5: TRUCK ACCESS ............................................................................................................... 10 EXHIBIT 2‐1: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS..................................... 15 EXHIBIT 3‐1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS....................... 18 EXHIBIT 3‐2: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ................................ 19 EXHIBIT 3‐3: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS‐SECTIONS ......................... 20 EXHIBIT 3‐4: EXISTING TRUCK ROUTES ............................................................................................... 21 EXHIBIT 3‐5: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES ............................................................................................ 23 EXHIBIT 3‐6: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES................................................................................... 24 EXHIBIT 3‐7: EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE).................................................................. 26 EXHIBIT 3‐8: EXISTING (2020) SUMMARY OF LOS ............................................................................... 27 EXHIBIT 4‐1: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION............................................................. 35 EXHIBIT 4‐2: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION............................................................................ 36 EXHIBIT 4‐3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE).................................................................... 38 EXHIBIT 5‐1: EAP (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE).......................................................................... 40 EXHIBIT 5‐2: EAP (2022) SUMMARY OF LOS........................................................................................ 41
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS................................................................... 12 TABLE 2‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS.............................................................. 13 TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS ............................................ 28 TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................................................................................... 30 TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES)............................................. 32 TABLE 4‐3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (PCE)................................................................... 33 TABLE 4‐4: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON ..................................................................................... 34 TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2022) CONDITIONS .................................................... 42
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3271 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3272 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CMP Congestion Management Program
DIF Development Impact Fee
EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
N/A Not Applicable
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Alessandro Warehouse
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RTA Riverside Transit Authority
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
sf Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
V/C Volume to Capacity
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3273 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3274 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
1 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Alessandro Warehouse development (“Project”) located south of Alessandro Boulevard on either side of Chagall Court in the City of Moreno Valley as shown on Exhibit 1‐1.
The purpose of thistraffic analysisisto evaluate the potential circulation system deficienciesthat may result from the development of the proposed Project, to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions, and determine conformance with the General Plan goals and policies. This traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Moreno Valley Transportation Engineering Division’s Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide (June 2020) and consultation with City of Moreno Valley staff during the scoping process. (1) The approved Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.
1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project is proposing to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with development of the site:
Project to construct Alessandro Boulevard at its ultimate half‐section width as a divided major arterial (134‐foot right‐of‐way) between the Project’s western and eastern boundaries in compliance with applicable City of Moreno Valley standards. Project to construct Driveway 1, Driveway 2, and Driveway 3 with stop controls for the northbound traffic in order to facilitate site access. All driveways will be restricted to right‐ in/right‐out access only. If receiving lanes are available to the west and east, the third eastbound through lane should also be striped per the ultimate roadway cross‐section. The Project should modify the existing eastbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Graham Street and Alessandro Boulevard to accommodate a 250‐foot left turn lane.
Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommended Improvements of this report.
1.2 PROJECTOVERVIEW
In an effort to calculate and evaluate a conservative trip generation for the proposed Project, the following mix of uses have been evaluated for the Project:
Building 1: 206,665 square feet (sf) of warehousing (70% of total building sf) and 88,571 sf of high‐ cube cold storage warehouse use (30% of total building sf) for a total of 295,236 sf for Building 1 Building 2: 70,876 sf of warehousing (70% of total building sf) and 30,376 sf of high‐cube cold storage warehouse use (30% of total building sf) for a total of 101,252 sf for Building 2 The Project will be developed in a single phase and has a projected Opening Year of 2022.
Vehicular access will be provided via 3 driveways along Alessandro Boulevard (see Exhibit 1‐1).
All driveways are proposed to be restricted to right‐in/right‐out access only. 1 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3275 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
(RIRO)
(P)
(PT)
(PT)
(RIRO) 721' 604' 600' 713'
CHAGALL CT.
(RIRO) N13276 - siteplan.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN = FULL ACCESS LEGEND: = PASSENGER CARS ONLY FULL P = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS RIRO = PASSENGER CARS AND TRUCKS PT 2 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3276 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
3 Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. (2) The Project is estimated to generate a net total of 742 trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with approximately 59 AM peak hour trips and 64 PM peak hour trips (actual vehicles). The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.
1.2.1 SITE PLAN DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS
As shown on Exhibit 1‐1 and based on the City of Moreno Valley General Plan classification as a Divided Major Arterial, all driveways are anticipated to meet the minimum required driveway spacing of 250‐feet between driveways per the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code (9.11.080‐ 14). However, access at these driveways will be restricted to right‐in/right‐out access only due to the existing raised median between Frederick Street and Graham Street.
1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
Existing (2020)
Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP)
1.3.1 EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2020) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. Due to the currently ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic,schools and businesses within the study area were closed or operating at lessthan full capacity at the time this study was prepared. As such, historic traffic counts from 2018 were utilized in conjunction with a 4.04% growth factor to reflect 2020 conditions (2% per year, compounded annually).
1.3.2 EAP (2022) CONDITIONS
To account for growth in traffic between Existing (2020) and EAP (2022) traffic conditions, a compounded annual traffic growth rate of 2.0 percent per year compounded annually was assumed (4.04 percent total aggregate growth in background traffic for the period from 2020 through 2022). The 2.0 percent annual growth rate is intended to capture non‐specific ambient traffic growth. The purpose of this analysis scenario is to determine if the addition of Project traffic is anticipated to result in any new deficiencies. 3 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3277 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
4 1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Moreno Valley’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a project traffic study scoping package for review by City of Moreno Valley staff prior to the preparation of this report.
The 5 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1‐2 and listed in Table 1‐1 were selected for this TA based on the City of Moreno Valley’s Traffic Study Guidelines and in consultation with City of Moreno Valley staff. Pursuant to the Traffic Study Guidelines, the City requires analysis of intersections where the Project would contribute 50 or more peak hour trips.1 In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the trip generation for the proposed Project has been utilized to determine if the 50 peak hour trip criteria has been met at the study area intersections.
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction CMP?
1 Frederick St. & Alessandro Bl. City of Moreno Valley No 2 Driveway 1 & Alessandro Bl. – Future Intersection City of Moreno Valley No 3 Driveway 2 & Alessandro Bl. – Future Intersection City of Moreno Valley No 4 Driveway 3 & Alessandro Bl. – Future Intersection City of Moreno Valley No 5 Graham St. & Alessandro Bl. City of Moreno Valley No
The intent of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related deficiencies, and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. The County of Riverside CMP became effective with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 and updated most recently in 2011. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) adopted the 2011 CMP for the County of Riverside in December 2011. (3) There are no CMP intersections in this study area.
1 The “50 or more peak hour trips” intersection analytic protocol stipulated in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines is consistent with standard industry practice. It is noted further that the 50 peak hour trip threshold is employed by other agencies throughout Southern California including the County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, and the County of Orange.
4 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3278 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
CHAGALL CT. N13276 - locmap.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-2: LOCATION MAP = EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION = FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION LEGEND: 00 1 5 2 4 3 5 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3279 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
6 1.5 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of analysis findings. Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 5 EAP (2022) Traffic Analysis includes the detailed analysis. A summary of LOS results for all analysis scenarios is presented on Exhibit 1‐3. Based on a comparison of Existing to EAP (2022) traffic conditions, the addition of Project traffic is not anticipated result in any deficiencies at the study area intersections. All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable levels and no improvements are necessary for EAP (2022) traffic conditions.
1.6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended site‐adjacent roadway improvements for the Project are described below.
Exhibit 1‐4 illustrates the site‐adjacent roadway improvement recommendations.
Alessandro Boulevard – Alessandro Boulevard is an east‐west oriented roadway located along the Project’s northern boundary. Construct Alessandro Boulevard at its ultimate half‐section width as a Divided Major Arterial (134‐foot right‐of‐way) between the Project’s western boundary and the Project’s eastern boundary in compliance with applicable City of Moreno Valley standards.
On‐site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Moreno Valley sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
6 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3280 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 1 # Intersection
2 Existing (2020)
EAP (2022)
Frederick St. & Alessandro Bl.
2 Dwy. 1 & Alessandro Bl.
3 Dwy. 2 & Alessandro Bl.
4 Dwy. 3 & Alessandro Bl.
5 Graham St. & Alessandro Bl.
13276 - sdias.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
EXHIBIT 1-3: SUMMARY OF LOS
LEGEND:
= LOS E
= AM PEAK HOUR
= PM PEAK HOUR
= LOS A-D
= LOS F
NA
NA
NA
NA = NOT AN ANALYSIS LOCATION FOR THIS SCENARIO
7 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3281 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST.
CHAGALL CT.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3 N13276 - recs.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS = STOP SIGN IMPROVEMENT =EXISTING LANE = LANE IMPROVEMENT LEGEND: ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAILED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE. SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH PROJECT ACCESS POINT SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CALTRANS AND CITY OF MORENO VALLEY SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD IS AN EAST-WEST ORIENTED ROADWAY LOCATED ALONG THE PROJECT'S NORTHERN BOUNDARY. CONSTRUCT ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD AT ITS ULTIMATE HALF-SECTION WIDTH AS A DIVIDED MAJOR ARTERIAL (134-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY) BETWEEN THE PROJECT'S WESTERN BOUNDARY AND THE PROJECT'S EASTERN BOUNDARY. 8 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3282 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
9 1.6.2 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended site access driveway improvements for the Project are described below.
Exhibit 1‐4 also illustrates the site access improvements. Construction of on‐site and site adjacent improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.
Driveway 1, Driveway 2, and Driveway 3 on Alessandro Boulevard – Install a stop control on the northbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
Northbound Approach: One right turn lane.
Southbound Approach: Not Applicable (N/A)
Eastbound Approach: Two through lanes and one shared through‐right turn lane. 3rd shared through‐right turn lane should be accommodated if the receiving lanes are in place on either side of the project between Frederick Street and Graham Street. Westbound Approach: Three through lanes.
Graham Street at Alessandro Boulevard – A queueing analysis has been evaluated during the morning and evening peak hours at the intersection of Graham Street and Alessandro Boulevard to determine if there is sufficient stacking in the northbound and eastbound left turn pockets to accommodate Project traffic. The northbound left turn lane on Graham Street provides 185‐feet of stacking while the eastbound left turn lane on Alessandro Boulevard provides 150‐feet of stacking. Based on the queueing analysis, the existing northbound left turn pocket is anticipated to accommodate the 95th percentile peak hour queues under EAP (2022) traffic conditions with at most 105‐feet of stacking required during the PM peak hour. The Project should modify the existing eastbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Graham Street and Alessandro Boulevard to accommodate a 250‐foot left turn lane.
Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the Project, site access points and site‐adjacent intersections will be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross‐sections in the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element.
1.7 TRUCK ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at each applicable Project driveway and site adjacent intersection anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers (see Exhibit 1‐5). As shown, Driveway 1 and Driveway 3 on Alessandro Boulevard are anticipated to accommodate the wide turning radius of heavy trucks as currently designed.
9 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3283 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
Dwy. 1 55' R40' R25'
ALESSANDRO BL.
45'
Dwy. 3 R25' R40'
N
13276 - aturn-c.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
LEGEND:
EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS
10 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3284 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
11 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Moreno Valley’s traffic study guidelines for LOS‐based traffic operations analysis. (1)
2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free‐flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop‐and‐go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.
2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control.
The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (4) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Moreno Valley requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. (4) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move‐up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections, LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 2‐1. Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version 10) analysis software package.
Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.
11 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3285 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
12 TABLE 2‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
> 1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/orlonger cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths
80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM 6th Edition
The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15‐ minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15‐minute rate of flow.
However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15‐minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g. PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15‐minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15‐minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows, while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (4)
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Moreno Valley requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (4) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2‐2). 12 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3286 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
13 TABLE 2‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Level of
Service, V/C
≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
> 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F Source: HCM 6th Edition
At two‐way or side‐street stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all‐way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole.
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. The existing intersections are currently signalized and with the proposed access restrictions, the driveway locations would not be suitable for the implementation of a traffic signal. As such, no traffic signal warrant analysis has been prepared for this TA.
2.4 MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
The definition of an intersection deficiency in the City of Moreno Valley is based on the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element. The City of Moreno Valley General Plan states that target LOS C or LOS D be maintained along City roads (including intersections) wherever possible. Exhibit 2‐1 depicts the level of service standards within the City. LOS D is applicable to intersections and roadway segments that are adjacent to freeway on/off ramps and/or adjacent to employment generating land uses. LOS C is applicable to all other intersections and roadway segments. Boundary intersections are assumed to be LOS D. 13 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3287 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
14 2.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies.
2.5.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Per the City of Moreno Valley TA Guidelines, the following LOS will be utilized for signalized study area intersections:
Any signalized study intersection operating at acceptable LOS without project traffic in which the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to degrade to unacceptable LOS shall identify improvements to provide acceptable LOS.
Any signalized study intersection that is operating at unacceptable LOS without project traffic where the project increases delay by 5.0 or more seconds shall identify improvements to offset the increase in delay.
2.5.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Per the City of Moreno Valley TA Guidelines, the following LOS will be utilized for unsignalized study area intersections:
a) The addition of project related traffic causes the intersection to degrade from an acceptable LOS to unacceptable LOS.
OR
b) The project adds 5.0 seconds or more of delay to an intersection that is already projected to operate without project traffic at unacceptable LOS,
AND
c) The intersection meets the peak hour traffic signal warrant after the addition of project traffic.
The proposed significance thresholds will be applied at study area intersections for the purposes of determining project‐related impacts. If the conditions above are satisfied, improvements should be identified that achieve LOS D or better for a) above or to pre‐project LOS and delay for case b) above.
14 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3288 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) N13276 - mv-los.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 2-1: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS LOS D is applicable to intersections and roadway segments that are adjacent to freeway on/off ramps and/or adjacent to employment generating land uses. LOS C is applicable to all other intersections and roadway segments. Boundary intersections are assumed to be LOS D. LEGEND: SITE ALESSANDRO 15 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3289 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
16 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank
16 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3290 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
17 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations analysis.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the scoping agreement with City of Moreno Valley staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 5 existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1‐2.
Exhibit 3‐1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
3.2 CITY OF MORENO VALLEYGENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross‐sections of the major roadways within the study area, as identified on the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element, are described subsequently. Exhibit 3‐2 shows the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 3‐3 illustrates the City of Moreno Valley General Plan roadway cross‐sections.
Divided Major Arterials can accommodate six travel lanes. These facilities typically provide access between the regional highway system and minor arterials. An example of a Divided Arterial within the study area includes:
Alessandro Boulevard
Arterials can accommodate four travel lanes (with a 20‐foot outer lane in each direction of travel). These facilities typically provide access between divided arterials and collector streets.
An example of an Arterial within the study area includes:
Frederick Street, north of Alessandro Boulevard
Minor Arterials can accommodate four travel lanes. These facilities typically provide access between divided arterials and collector streets. Examples of Minor Arterials within the study area includes:
Frederick Street, south of Alessandro Boulevard
Graham Street
3.3 TRUCK ROUTES
The City of Moreno Valley designated truck route map is shown on Exhibit 3‐4. As shown on Exhibit 3‐4, Alessandro Boulevard, Frederick Street, and Graham Street (between Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus Avenue only) are designated truck routes within the study area in City of Moreno Valley. The designated truck route map has been utilized to route truck traffic for Project trips throughout the study area.
17 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3291 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST. GRAHAM ST. Dwy. 1 Dwy. 2 Dwy. 3 CHAGALL CT.
SITE
1 2 3 4 5
N
13276 - icon.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS 6D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D
5D
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= NUMBER OF LANES
= DIVIDED
= UNDIVIDED
D
U
4 LEGEND:
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN
1237 = SPEED LIMIT (MPH)
1 Frederick St. &
Alessandro Bl. 2 Dwy. 1 & 3 4 5
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 2 &
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 3 &
Alessandro Bl.
Graham St. &
Alessandro Bl.
Future
Intersection
Future
Intersection
Future
S Intersection S
DEF DEF
123:
123;
18 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3292 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) N
13276 - mv-gpce.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT SITE
19 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3293 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 13276 - mv-x-sec.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 20 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3294 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) N13276 - mv-trucks.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY TRUCK ROUTES LEGEND: TRUCKS ROUTES SITE 21 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3295 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
22 3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA), a public transit agency serving the unincorporated Riverside County region. As shown on Exhibit 3‐5, RTA Route 20 serves Alessandro Boulevard within the study area and would likely serve the Project site. There are existing bus stops on south side at Frederick Street, Chagall Court, and Graham Street along Alessandro Boulevard. RTA Route 11 also serves the study area and runs along Frederick Street.
Transit service is reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demands. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
3.5 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Exhibit 3‐6 illustrates the existing pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and crosswalk locations. Bus stop locations are also identified, which are on both the north and south sides of Alessandro Boulevard at Frederick Street, Chagall Court, and Graham Street. Both intersections on Alessandro Boulevard at Frederick Street and Graham Street have crosswalks on all approaches. Alessandro Boulevard is currently striped with Class II (on‐street) bike lanes.
Sidewalks are in place along most of the study area roadways and intersections, with most of the southern side of Alessandro Boulevard between Frederick Street and Graham Street and also along the west side of Graham Street south of Alessandro Boulevard.
3.6 EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in April and May of 2018. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) Due to the currently ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic, schools and businesses within the study area were closed or operating at less than full capacity at the time this study was prepared. As such, historic (2018) traffic counts were utilized in conjunction with a 4.04% growth factor to reflect 2020 conditions (2% per year, compounded annually). The 2018 weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and near‐by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1. 22 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3296 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
SITE GRAHAM ST.
1 3 5 CHAGALL CT.
N
13276 - transit.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST.
1 2 3 4 5
EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
= RTA ROUTE 20
= RTA ROUTE 11
LEGEND:
23 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3297 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3 SITE ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST. 5 1 3
CHAGALL CT. N13276 - peds.dwg ALESSANDRO BL. URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis 2 4 3 EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES LEGEND: B = SIDEWALK = BIKE LANE = BUS STOP = FUTURE INTERSECTION 0 = CROSSWALK ON FOUR APPROACHES 0 5 1 B B B B B B B B B 24 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3298 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
25 The traffic counts collected in April and May of 2018 include the following vehicle classifications:
Passenger Cars, 2‐Axle Trucks, 3‐Axle Trucks, and 4 or More Axle Trucks. To represent the effects large trucks, buses and recreational vehicles have on traffic flow; all trucks were converted into passenger car equivalent (PCE). By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate and slow‐down is much longer than for passenger cars and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. For the purpose of this analysis, a PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to 2‐axle trucks, 2.0 for 3‐axle trucks, and 3.0 for 4+‐axle trucks to estimate each turning movement. These factors are consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines.
Existing weekday ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3‐7. Consistent with other projects in the area, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 14.32 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak‐to‐daily relationship is approximately 6.98 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 10.08 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 6.98 percent (i.e., 1/0.0698 = 14.32) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning‐level analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes (in PCE) are also shown on Exhibit 3‐7.
3.7 INTERSECTIONOPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3‐1 which indicates that the existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. Consistent with Table 3‐1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Existing conditions is shown on Exhibit 3‐8. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.
3.8 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Allstudy area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS for Existing (2020) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended. 25 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3299 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 1 5 Dwy. 1 Dwy. 2 Dwy. 3
SITE
3 ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST. GRAHAM ST.1 2 3 4 5 CHAGALL CT.
N
13276 - vols.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
38.7 39.0 41.8 20.0 13.6 11.6 11.2
38.9 1 Frederick St. &
Alessandro Bl. 2 Dwy. 1 & 3 4 5
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 2 &
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 3 &
Alessandro Bl.
Graham St. &
Alessandro Bl.
Future
Intersection
Future
Intersection
Future
Intersection
EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE)
92(74)
271(326)
22(58)
199(119)268(300)99(265)
119(224)
508(1303)
76(126)
77(69)
1539(860)
163(165)
66(78)
162(186)
16(74)
89(53)182(161)95(146)
41(104)
524(1405)
65(116)
94(170)
1624(964)
119(158)
= VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
LEGEND:
10.0 10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
26 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3300 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
SITE
ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST. GRAHAM ST. CHAGALL CT.
N
13276 - los.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
EXHIBIT 3-8: EXISTING (2020) SUMMARY OF LOS
NA = NOT AN ANALYSIS LOCATION
LEGEND:
= LOS E
= AM PEAK HOUR
= PM PEAK HOUR
= LOS A-D
= LOS F
FOR THIS SCENARIO
NA NA NA
27 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3301 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 3‐1
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
# Intersection L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Frederick St. & Alessandro Bl. TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 d 22.4 30.7 C C 2 Driveway 1 & Alessandro Bl.
3 Driveway 2 & Alessandro Bl.
4 Driveway 3 & Alessandro Bl.
5 Graham St. & Alessandro Bl. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 d 20.4 32.6 C C 1 2 3 TS = Traffic Signal
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Future Intersection
Intersection Analysis for Existing (2020) Conditions
Level of
Traffic Service
Control3
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay
(secs.)2
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
28 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3302 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
29 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. In an effort to calculate and evaluate a conservative trip generation for the proposed Project, the following mix of uses have been evaluated for the Project:
Building 1: 206,665 sf of warehousing (70% of total building sf) and 88,571 sf of high‐cube cold storage warehouse use (30% of total building sf) for a total of 295,236 sf for Building 1 Building 2: 70,876 sf of warehousing (70% of total building sf) and 30,376 sf of high‐cube cold storage warehouse use (30% of total building sf) for a total of 101,252 sf for Building 2 The Project will be developed in a single phase and has a projected Opening Year of 2022.
Vehicular access will be provided via 3 driveways along Alessandro Boulevard. All driveways are proposed to be restricted to right‐in/right‐out access only. Regional access to the Project site is available from the I‐215 Freeway via Alessandro Boulevard and Cactus Avenue interchanges.
Frederick Street to the north also provides access to the SR‐60 Freeway.
4.1 PROJECT TRIPGENERATION
Trip generation representsthe amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development and is based upon the specific land uses planned for a given project. Trip generation rates (in actual vehicles and PCE) for the Project are shown in Table 4‐1. The Project’s trip generation has been calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017, for the following land uses. (2)
ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 277,541 sf (70% of Buildings 1 and 2). The vehicle mix has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual Supplement (dated February 2020). (5) This study provides the following vehicle mix: AM Peak Hour: 87.0% passenger cars and 13.0% trucks; PM Peak Hour:
85.0% passenger cars and 15.0% trucks; Weekday Daily: 73.0% passenger cars and 27.0% trucks.
The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix: 2‐Axle = 16.7%; 3‐Axle = 20.7%; 4+‐Axle = 62.6%. (6)
ITE land use code 157 (High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 118,947 sf (30% of Buildings 1 and 2). High‐cube cold storage warehouses include warehouses characterized by the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High‐cube cold storage warehouses are facilities typified by temperature‐controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products. The High‐ Cube Cold Storage Warehouse vehicle mix (passenger cars versus trucks) has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual Supplement (dated February 2020). (5) This study provides the following vehicle mix: AM Peak Hour: 73.0% passenger cars and 27.0% trucks; PM Peak Hour:
77.0% passenger cars and 23.0% trucks; Weekday Daily: 65.0% passenger cars and 35.0% trucks.
The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2‐Axle = 34.7%; 3‐Axle = 11.0%; 4+‐Axle = 54.3%. (6) 29 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3303 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 4‐1
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing
3 TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740
0.114 0.034 0.148 0.044 0.118 0.162 1.270
0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.078
0.004 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.097
0.011 0.003 0.014 0.005 0.013 0.018 0.294
High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120
0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.067 0.092 1.378
0.008 0.002 0.010 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.257
0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.082
0.012 0.004 0.016 0.004 0.011 0.015 0.403
Warehousing
3 TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740
0.114 0.034 0.148 0.044 0.118 0.162 1.270
0.004 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.118
0.007 0.002 0.009 0.003 0.009 0.012 0.194
0.032 0.010 0.042 0.014 0.039 0.054 0.882
High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120
0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.067 0.092 1.378
0.012 0.004 0.016 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.386
0.005 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.163
0.037 0.011 0.048 0.012 0.033 0.045 1.209
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle Mix Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook Supplement (2020), Appendix C.
Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.
Normalized % ‐ Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2‐Axle trucks, 20.7% 3‐Axle trucks, 62.6% 4‐Axle trucks.
Normalized % ‐ With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2‐Axle trucks, 11.0% 3‐Axle trucks, 54.3% 4‐Axle trucks. 4 PCE factors per City of Moreno Valley's TIA Guidelines: 2‐axle = 1.5; 3‐axle = 2.0; 4+‐axle = 3.0. 3‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)
4+‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0)
Passenger Cars
2‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5)
3‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)
4+‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0)
Passenger Cars
2‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5)
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trip Generation Rates4
Project Trip Generation Rates
Daily
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Passenger Cars (AM‐87.0%; PM‐85.0%; Daily‐73.0%)
2‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.17%; PM‐2.51%; Daily‐4.51%)
3‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.69%; PM‐3.11%; Daily‐5.59%)
4‐Axle+ Trucks (AM‐8.14%; PM‐9.39%; Daily‐16.90%)
Passenger Cars (AM‐73.0%; PM‐77.0%; Daily‐65.0%)
2‐Axle Trucks (AM‐9.37%; PM‐7.98%; Daily‐12.15%)
3‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.97%; PM‐2.53%; Daily‐3.85%)
4‐Axle+ Trucks (AM‐14.66%; PM‐12.49%; Daily‐19.01%)
30 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3304 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
31 PCE factors were applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2‐axles, 3‐axles, 4+‐ axles). PCEs allow the typical “real‐world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. The PCE factors are consistent with the recommended PCE factors in the City’s traffic study guidelines.
The trip generation summary illustrating daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project in actual vehicles and PCE are shown in Table 4‐2 and Table 4‐3, respectively.
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 742 vehicle trip‐ends per day with 59 AM peak hour trips and 64 PM peak hour trips (of which 224 trip‐ends per day are associated with trucks with 8 AM peak hour truck trips and 9 PM peak hour truck trips) (see Table 4‐2). The operations analyses utilize the PCE trip generation consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines.
The site is currently zoned for commercial retail use (0.25 floor to area ratio which would allow 192,426 square feet of commercial retail use on 17.67 acres). As shown on Table 4‐4, the proposed Project General Plan Amendment (light industrial) is anticipated to result in a reduction in trips as compared to the currently adopted General Plan Land Use (commercial).
4.2 PROJECT TRIPDISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute.
The Project trip distribution was developed based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the Projectsite for both passenger cars and truck traffic and are consistent with othersimilar projects that have been reviewed and approved by City of Moreno Valley staff. The Project trip distribution patterns for both passenger cars and trucks were developed based on an understanding of existing travel patterns in the area, the geographical location of the site, and the site’s proximity to the regional arterial and state highway system.
The Project passenger car trip distribution pattern is graphically depicted on Exhibit 4‐1, while the Project truck trip distribution pattern is graphically depicted on Exhibit 4‐2. Each of these distribution patterns was reviewed by the City of Moreno Valley as part of the traffic study scoping process (see Appendix 1.1).
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The traffic reducing potential of public transit, walking, or bicycling have not been considered in this TA. Essentially, the traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel modes might be able to reduce the forecasted traffic volumes (employee trips only). 31 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3305 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 4‐2
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Warehousing (70%) 206.665 TSF
Passenger Cars: 24 7 31 9 24 33 264
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 16
3‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 20
4+‐axle: 2 1 3 1 3 4 62
‐ Truck Trips 4 1 5 1 5 6 98
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 88.571 TSF
Passenger Cars: 5 2 7 2 6 8 122
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 24
3‐axle: 000000 8
4+‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 36
‐ Truck Trips 2 0 2 0 2 2 68
29 9 38 11 30 41 386
6 1 7 1 7 8 166
35 10 45 12 37 49 552
Warehousing (70%) 70.876 TSF
Passenger Cars: 8 2 10 3 8 11 90
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 000000 6
3‐axle: 000000 8
4+‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 22
‐ Truck Trips 1 0 1 0 1 1 36
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 30.376 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 1 3 1 2 3 42
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 000000 8
3‐axle: 000000 2
4+‐axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
‐ Truck Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
10 3 13 4 10 14 132
1 0 1 0 1 1 58
11 3 14 4 11 15 190
39 12 51 15 40 55 518
7 1 8 1 8 9 224
46 13 59 16 48 64 742 1
TSF = thousand square feet
Total Trucks (Building 1 + Building 2)
TOTAL TRIPS (Building 1 + Building 2)
BUILDING 1 TOTAL TRIPS (Actual Vehicles)
Building 2:
Total Passenger Cars (Building 2)
Total Trucks (Building 2)
BUILDING 2 TOTAL TRIPS (Actual Vehicles)
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1 + Building 2)
Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Building 1:
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1)
Total Trucks (Building 1)
32 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3306 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 4‐3
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Warehousing (70%) 206.665 TSF
Passenger Cars: 24 7 31 9 24 33 264
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 24
3‐axle: 1 0 1 1 2 3 40
4+‐axle: 7 2 9 3 8 11 182
‐ Truck Trips 9 2 11 4 11 15 246
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 88.571 TSF
Passenger Cars: 5 2 7 2 6 8 122
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 34
3‐axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
4+‐axle: 3 1 4 1 3 4 108
‐ Truck Trips 4 1 5 1 4 5 156
29 9 38 11 30 41 386
13 3 16 5 15 20 402
42 12 54 16 45 61 788
Warehousing (70%) 70.876 TSF
Passenger Cars: 8 2 10 3 8 11 90
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 000000 8
3‐axle: 0 0 0 0 1 1 14
4+‐axle: 2 1 3 1 3 4 64
‐ Truck Trips 2 1 3 1 4 5 86
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 30.376 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 1 3 1 2 3 42
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
3‐axle: 000000 6
4+‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 38
‐ Truck Trips 1 0 1 0 1 1 56
10 3 13 4 10 14 132
3 1 4 1 5 6 142
13 4 17 5 15 20 274
39 12 51 15 40 55 518
16 4 20 6 20 26 544
55 16 71 21 60 81 1,062 1
TSF = thousand square feet
Total Trucks (Building 1 + Building 2)
TOTAL TRIPS (Building 1 + Building 2) (PCE)
BUILDING 1 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE)
Building 2:
Total Passenger Cars (Building 2)
Total Trucks (Building 2)
BUILDING 2 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE)
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1 + Building 2)
Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Building 1:
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1)
Total Trucks (Building 1)
33 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3307 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 4‐4
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Shopping Center TSF 820 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Commercial (Shopping Center)2 192.426 TSF 112 69 181 352 381 733 7,264 Alessandro Warehouse (PCE) 295.236 TSF 55 16 71 21 60 81 1,062 ‐57 ‐53 ‐110 ‐331 ‐321 ‐652 ‐6,202 1
TSF = thousand square feet
2 Current General Plan land use and zoning is Commercial. Shopping Center (ITE 820) land use used to calculate trip generation.
The square footage was calculated assuming a 0.25 floor‐to‐area ratio (FAR): 17.67 acres x 43,560 square feet/acre x 0.25 FAR Proposed Project (see Table 3):
Net Reduction in Trip Generation:
Trip Generation Comparison
Daily
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing General Plan Land Use:
34 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3308 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST.
CHAGALL CT.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3 N13276 - trip-1.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = OUTBOUND = INBOUND 20 60 60 5 15
20 20 100
20 60
20 50
30 100 15 5 20 80 20
35 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3309 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST.
CHAGALL CT.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3 LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = OUTBOUND = INBOUND 100
90 10
90 N13276 - trip-1.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 100
36 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3310 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
37 4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movements volumes in PCE are shown on Exhibit 4‐3.
4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
To account for growth in traffic between Existing (2020) and EAP (2022) traffic conditions, an annual traffic growth rate of 2.0 percent per year, compounded annually, was assumed (4.04 percent total aggregate growth in background traffic for the period between 2020 and 2022).
The 2.0 percent annual growth rate is intended to capture non‐specific ambient traffic growth.
4.6 NEAR‐TERM TRAFFIC FORECASTS
To provide a comprehensive assessment of potential transportation network deficiencies, a “buildup” analysis was performed in support of this work effort. The “buildup” method was used to approximate the EAP traffic forecasts and is intended to identify the deficiencies on both the existing and planned near‐term circulation system. The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast the near‐term 2022 traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of 4.04% (2022) accounts for background (area‐wide) traffic increases that occur over time, up to the year 2020 from the year 2020 (compounded two percent per year growth over a 2‐year period). Traffic volumes generated by the Project are then added to assess the EAP (2022) traffic conditions. The 2022 roadway network is similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future roadways and intersections proposed to be developed by the Project.
37 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3311 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 1 5 Dwy. 1 Dwy. 2 Dwy. 3
3 ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST. GRAHAM ST.1 2 3 4 5 CHAGALL CT. = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
LEGEND:
10.0 10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 3(15) 10(33)
9(3)
10(11)
7(24)
11(12)
23(9)
10(11)
3(9)
32(12)
14(4)
10(11)
N
13276 - vols.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
0.5 1 Frederick St. &
Alessandro Bl. 2 Dwy. 1 & 3 4 5
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 2 &
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 3 &
Alessandro Bl.
Graham St. &
Alessandro Bl.
EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE)
0(0)0(0)
12(5)
0(0)0(0)0(0)
0(0)
27(9)
0(0)
8(3)
2(8)
0(0)
0(0)0(0)0(0)
2(1)0(0)0(0)
3(10)
2(6)
8(32)
0(0)
6(2)
0(0) 0.2 0.3 0.2
0.6 0.4 0.4
38 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3312 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
39 5 EAP (2022) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions and the resulting intersection operations analysis.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3‐1, with the exception of the following:
Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
5.2 EAP TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes and ambient growth factor of 4.04% (2022) which accounts for background (area‐wide) traffic plus Project traffic. Exhibit 5‐1 shows the ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes in PCE, which can be expected for EAP (2022) traffic conditions.
5.3 INTERSECTIONOPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5‐1, which indicates all of the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic, consistent with Existing (2020) traffic conditions. Exhibit 5‐2 summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour study area intersection LOS under EAP (2022) traffic conditions, consistent with the results provided in Table 5‐1. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.
5.4 QUEUEING ANALYSIS
A queueing analysis has been evaluated during the morning and evening peak hours at the intersection of Graham Street and Alessandro Boulevard to determine if there is sufficient stacking in the northbound and eastbound left turn pocketsto accommodate Project traffic. The northbound left turn lane on Graham Street provides 185‐feet of stacking while the eastbound left turn lane on Alessandro Boulevard provides 150‐feet of stacking. Based on the queueing analysis, the existing northbound left turn pocket is anticipated to accommodate the 95th percentile peak hour queues under EAP (2022) traffic conditions with at most 105‐feet during the PM peak hour, however, the eastbound left turn lane should be modified to accommodate a minimum of 250‐feet of storage (see Appendix 5.2).
39 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3313 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 1 5 Dwy. 1 Dwy. 2 Dwy. 3
3 ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST. GRAHAM ST.1 2 3 4 5 CHAGALL CT. = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
LEGEND:
10.0 10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 3(15) 665(1725)
9(3)
1861(1150)
7(24)
666(1704)
23(9)
1861(1150)
3(9)
687(1704)
14(4)
1861(1150)
EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE)
95(77)
282(339)
35(66)
207(123)279(312)103(275)
124(233)
556(1365)
79(131)
88(74)
1603(903)
170(172)
69(81)
169(193)
16(77)
95(56)189(168)99(152)
46(118)
547(1468)
75(153)
97(176)
1696(1005)
123(165) 0.2 0.3 0.2
40.9 40.9
N
13276 - vols.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
40.6 41.0 43.5 20.8 14.3 12.1 12.0
41.0 1 Frederick St. &
Alessandro Bl. 2 Dwy. 1 & 3 4 5
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 2 &
Alessandro Bl.
Dwy. 3 &
Alessandro Bl.
Graham St. &
Alessandro Bl.
40 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3314 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
ALESSANDRO BL. FREDERICK ST. GRAHAM ST. CHAGALL CT.
EXHIBIT 5-2: EAP (2022) SUMMARY OF LOS
LEGEND:
= LOS E
= AM PEAK HOUR
= PM PEAK HOUR
= LOS A-D
= LOS F
NA NA NA
N
13276 - los.dwg
Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
URBAN
41 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3315 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 5‐1
Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
(secs.) Service (secs.) Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Frederick St. & Alessandro Bl. TS 22.4 30.7 C C 23.4 33.8 C C 2 Driveway 1 & Alessandro Bl. CSS 11.8 21.0 B C
3 Driveway 2 & Alessandro Bl. CSS 11.8 22.3 B C
4 Driveway 3 & Alessandro Bl. CSS 11.7 21.8 B C
5 Graham St. & Alessandro Bl. TS 20.4 32.6 C C 22.0 34.0 C C 1 2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement # Intersection
Traffic
Control2
Existing (2020)
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Intersection Analysis for EAP (2022) Conditions
EAP (2022)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
42 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3316 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
43 5.5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS under EAP (2022) traffic conditions. As such, no intersection improvements have been recommended. 43 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3317 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
44 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3318 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
45 6 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements throughout the City of Moreno Valley are funded through a combination of project mitigation, fair share contributions or development impact fee programs, such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program or the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program.
6.1 TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is responsible for establishing and updating TUMF rates. The County may grant to developers a credit against the specific components of fees for the dedication of land or the construction of facilities identified in the list of improvements funded by each of these fee programs. Fees are based upon projected land uses and a related transportation need to address growth based upon a 2016 Nexus study.
TUMF is an ambitious regional program created to address cumulative impacts of growth throughout western Riverside County. Program guidelines are being handled on an iterative basis. Exemptions, credits, reimbursements and local administration are being deferred to primary agencies. The County of Riverside serves this function for the proposed Project. Fees submitted to the County are passed on to the WRCOG as the ultimate program administrator.
TUMF guidelines empower a local zone committee to prioritize and arbitrate certain projects.
The Project is located in the Central Zone. The zone has developed a 5‐year capital improvement program to prioritize public construction of certain roads. TUMF is focused on improvements necessitated by regional growth.
6.2 CITY OF MORENO VALLEYDEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) PROGRAM The City of Moreno Valley has created its own local DIF program to impose and collect fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development for the purpose of funding roadways and intersections necessary to accommodate City growth as identified in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. The City’s DIF program includes facilities that are not part of, or which may exceed improvements identified and covered by the TUMF program. As a result, the pairing of the regional and local fee programs provides a more comprehensive funding and implementation plan to ensure an adequate and interconnected transportation system. Under the City’s DIF program, the City may grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF program.
The timing to use the DIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs which are overseen by the City’s Public Works Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents, and a review of traffic trends throughout the City are also periodically performed by City staff and consultants. The City uses this data to determine the timing of implementing the improvements listed in its facilities list. The Project Applicant would pay requisite DIF pursuant to incumbent City ordinance requirements. 45 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3319 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
46 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
46 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3320 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
47 7 REFERENCES
1. City of Moreno Valley Transportation Engineering Division. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide.
Moreno Valley : s.n., June 2020.
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 10th Edition. 2017.
3. Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program. County of Riverside : RCTC, December 14, 2011.
4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.
5. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual Supplement. February 2020.
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage. June 2014.
47 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3321 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276‐03 TA Report REV
48 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
48 F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3322 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 1.1:
APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3323 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3324 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe)
1.1-1
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3325 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) City of Moreno Valley
Traffic Impact Preparation Guide
June 2020
35 Current General Plan Land Use:
Proposed General Plan Land Use:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Existing Trip Generation Proposed Trip Generation
In Out Total In Out Total
AM Trips
PM Trips
Trip Internalization: Yes No ( % Trip Discount)
Pass-By Allowance: Yes No ( % Trip Discount)
Potential Screening Checks
Is your project screened from specific analyses (see Page 3 of the guidelines related to LOS assessment and Pages 22-23 for VMT screening criteria).
Is the project screened from LOS assessment? Yes No
LOS screening justification (see Page 3 of the guidelines):
Commercial Business Park/Light Industrial
Community Commercial (CC) Light Industrial
(PCE)
55 16 71
21 60 81
1.1-2
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3326 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) City of Moreno Valley
Traffic Impact Preparation Guide
June 2020
36 Is the project screened from VMT assessment? Yes No
VMT screening justification (see Pages 22-23 of the guidelines):
Level of Service Scoping
• Proposed Trip Distribution (Attach Graphic for Detailed Distribution):
North South East West
% % % %
Link level of service and data collection:
____ will be required
____ will not be required
• Attach list of study intersections (and roadway segments if applicable) • Attach site plan
• Other specific items to be addressed:
o Site access
o On-site circulation
o Parking
o Consistency with Plans supporting Bikes/Peds/Transit
o Other
• Date of Traffic Counts
• Attach proposed analysis scenarios (years plus proposed forecasting approach) • Attach proposed phasing approach (if the project is phased) See graphics
Varies Varies Varies Varies
X Due to COVID-19, if there are no historic daily counts then we will estimate the ADT for the study area segments
See Exhibit 2
See Exhibit 1
Truck Turns at the Driveways
We will obtain pre-COVID traffic counts and adjust using 2% per year No Phasing
1.1-3
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3327 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) City of Moreno Valley
Traffic Impact Preparation Guide
June 2020
37 VMT Scoping
For projects that are not screened, identify the following:
• Travel Demand Forecasting Model Used
• Attach WRCOG Screening VMT Assessment output or describe why it is not appropriate for use
• Attach proposed Model Land Use Inputs and Assumed Conversion Factors (attach)
RivTAM
Analysis Scenario
A. Existing (2020)
B. Existing plus Project (E+P)
C. Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project
(existing to Opening Year, assuming a growth rate of 2% per year and includes the traffic from other cumulative development projects in the vicinity) D. Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project
VMT
Although TAZ 3712 is a low VMT generating zone based on home-based work VMT per worker, the existing RivTAM socioeconomic data indicate that the existing employment within the zone consists of non-industrial employment. As such, the Project is not screened out.
Assumed Conversion Factors
1,030 sf per employee (source: County of Riverside General Plan Appendix E Socioeconomic BuildOut Assumptions and Methodology Model Land Use Inputs
396,488 total sf / 1,030 sf per employee = 385 total employees (193 warehouse employees / 192 transportation employees)
1.1-4
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3328 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) ALESSANDRO BL.
GRAHAM ST.
FREDERICK ST.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
(RIRO)
(P)
(PT)
(PT)
(RIRO) 721' 604' 600' 713'
CHAGALL CT.
(RIRO)
N13276 - siteplan.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN = FULL ACCESS LEGEND: = PASSENGER CARS ONLY FULL P RIRO = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS PT = PASSENGER CARS AND TRUCKS
1.1-5
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3329
Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 ALESSANDRO BL.
FREDERICK ST.
GRAHAM ST.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
CHAGALL CT.
N13276 - locmap.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 2: LOCATION
MAP = FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION = EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION LEGEND: 0 0 1
2 3 4 5
1.1-6
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3330
Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 ALESSANDRO BL.
FREDERICK ST.
GRAHAM ST.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
CHAGALL CT.
N13276 - trip-1.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT
3: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = OUTBOUND = INBOUND 20 60 60
5 15
20 20 100
20 60
20 50
30 100 15
5 20 80 20
1.1-7
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3331
Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 ALESSANDRO BL.
FREDERICK ST.
GRAHAM ST.
Dwy. 1
Dwy. 2
Dwy. 3
CHAGALL CT. LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT = OUTBOUND = INBOUND 100
90 90
10 N13276 - trip-1.dwg URBAN Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT
4: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
10 100
1.1-8
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3332
Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124
1.1-9
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3333 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Table 1
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing3 TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740
0.114 0.034 0.148 0.044 0.118 0.162 1.270
0.003 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.078
0.004 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.097
0.011 0.003 0.014 0.005 0.013 0.018 0.294
High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120
0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.067 0.092 1.378
0.008 0.002 0.010 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.257
0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.082
0.012 0.004 0.016 0.004 0.011 0.015 0.403
Warehousing3 TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.051 0.139 0.190 1.740
0.114 0.034 0.148 0.044 0.118 0.162 1.270
0.004 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.118
0.007 0.002 0.009 0.003 0.009 0.012 0.194
0.032 0.010 0.042 0.014 0.039 0.054 0.882
High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.032 0.088 0.120 2.120
0.062 0.018 0.080 0.025 0.067 0.092 1.378
0.012 0.004 0.016 0.004 0.010 0.014 0.386
0.005 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.163
0.037 0.011 0.048 0.012 0.033 0.045 1.209
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle Mix Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook Supplement (2020), Appendix C.
Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.
Normalized % ‐ Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2‐Axle trucks, 20.7% 3‐Axle trucks, 62.6% 4‐Axle trucks.
Normalized % ‐ With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2‐Axle trucks, 11.0% 3‐Axle trucks, 54.3% 4‐Axle trucks. 4 PCE factors per SBCTA CMP: 2‐axle = 1.5; 3‐axle = 2.0; 4+‐axle = 3.0.
Passenger Cars (AM‐87.0%; PM‐85.0%; Daily‐73.0%)
Project Trip Generation Rates
Daily
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Passenger Cars (AM‐73.0%; PM‐77.0%; Daily‐65.0%)
2‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.17%; PM‐2.51%; Daily‐4.51%)
3‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.69%; PM‐3.11%; Daily‐5.59%)
4‐Axle+ Trucks (AM‐8.14%; PM‐9.39%; Daily‐16.90%)
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trip Generation Rates4
2‐Axle Trucks (AM‐9.37%; PM‐7.98%; Daily‐12.15%)
3‐Axle Trucks (AM‐2.97%; PM‐2.53%; Daily‐3.85%)
4‐Axle+ Trucks (AM‐14.66%; PM‐12.49%; Daily‐19.01%)
4+‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0)
Passenger Cars
2‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5)
3‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)
4+‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0)
Passenger Cars
2‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5)
3‐Axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0)
1.1-10
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3334 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 2
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Warehousing (70%) 206.665 TSF
Passenger Cars: 24 7 31 9 24 33 264
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 16
3‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 20
4+‐axle: 2 1 3 1 3 4 62
‐ Truck Trips 4 1 5 1 5 6 98
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 88.571 TSF
Passenger Cars: 5 2 7 2 6 8 122
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 24
3‐axle: 000000 8
4+‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 36
‐ Truck Trips 2 0 2 0 2 2 68
29 9 38 11 30 41 386
6 1 7 1 7 8 166
35 10 45 12 37 49 552
Warehousing (70%) 70.876 TSF
Passenger Cars: 8 2 10 3 8 11 90
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 000000 6
3‐axle: 000000 8
4+‐axle: 101011 22
‐ Truck Trips 1 0 1 0 1 1 36
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 30.376 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 1 3 1 2 3 42
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 000000 8
3‐axle: 000000 2
4+‐axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
‐ Truck Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
10 3 13 4 10 14 132
1 0 1 0 1 1 58
11 3 14 4 11 15 190
39 12 51 15 40 55 518
7 1 8 1 8 9 224
46 13 59 16 48 64 742
1 TSF = thousand square feet
Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Building 1:
Building 2:
BUILDING 2 TOTAL TRIPS (Actual Vehicles)
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1 + Building 2)
Total Trucks (Building 1 + Building 2)
TOTAL TRIPS (Building 1 + Building 2)
BUILDING 1 TOTAL TRIPS (Actual Vehicles)
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1)
Total Trucks (Building 1)
Total Passenger Cars (Building 2)
Total Trucks (Building 2)
1.1-11
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3335 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 3
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Warehousing (70%) 206.665 TSF
Passenger Cars: 24 7 31 9 24 33 264
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 24
3‐axle: 1 0 1 1 2 3 40
4+‐axle: 7 2 9 3 8 11 182
‐ Truck Trips 9 2 11 4 11 15 246
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 88.571 TSF
Passenger Cars: 5 2 7 2 6 8 122
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 34
3‐axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
4+‐axle: 3 1 4 1 3 4 108
‐ Truck Trips 4 1 5 1 4 5 156
29 9 38 11 30 41 386
13 3 16 5 15 20 402
42 12 54 16 45 61 788
Warehousing (70%) 70.876 TSF
Passenger Cars: 8 2 10 3 8 11 90
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 000000 8
3‐axle: 000011 14
4+‐axle: 2 1 3 1 3 4 64
‐ Truck Trips 2 1 3 1 4 5 86
High‐Cube Cold Storage (30%) 30.376 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 1 3 1 2 3 42
Truck Trips:
2‐axle: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
3‐axle: 000000 6
4+‐axle: 1 0 1 0 1 1 38
‐ Truck Trips 1 0 1 0 1 1 56
10 3 13 4 10 14 132
3 1 4 1 5 6 142
13 4 17 5 15 20 274
39 12 51 15 40 55 518
16 4 20 6 20 26 544
55 16 71 21 60 81 1,062
1 TSF = thousand square feet
Total Trucks (Building 1 + Building 2)
TOTAL TRIPS (Building 1 + Building 2) (PCE)
BUILDING 1 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE)
Building 2:
Total Passenger Cars (Building 2)
Total Trucks (Building 2)
BUILDING 2 TOTAL TRIPS (PCE)
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1 + Building 2)
Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Building 1:
Total Passenger Cars (Building 1)
Total Trucks (Building 1)
1.1-12
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3336 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 4
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Shopping Center TSF 820 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Commercial (Shopping Center)2 192.426 TSF 112 69 181 352 381 733 7,264 Alessandro Warehouse (PCE) 295.236 TSF 55 16 71 21 60 81 1,062 ‐57 ‐53 ‐110 ‐331 ‐321 ‐652 ‐6,202
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Current General Plan land use and zoning is Commercial. Shopping Center (ITE 820) land use used to calculate trip generation.
The square footage was calculated assuming a 0.25 floor‐to‐area ratio (FAR): 17.67 acres x 43,560 square feet/acre x 0.25 FAR Net Reduction in Trip Generation:
Daily
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Proposed Project (see Table 3):
Trip Generation Comparison
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing General Plan Land Use:
1.1-13
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3337 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Table 5
ID Project Name Land Use1 Quantity Units2
MV1 Kincaid Development (Tract 33626) SFDR 25 DU
MV2 Oak Park Partners (Tract 35414) Multifamily 266 DU
MV3 Apollo III Development Group (PEN16‐0064) Multifamily 18 DU MV4 Scottish Village Multifamily 194 DU
Warehouse 36.950 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive Thru 7.900 TSF
Gas Station w/ Car Wash 28 VFP
Hotel 110 Rooms
Fast Food w/ Drive Thru 8.000 TSF
Commercial 42.400 TSF
MV7 Residence Inn Hotel 112 RM
MV8 The Quarter Commercial Shopping Center 420.485 TSF
MV9 Holiday Inn Express Hotel 104 RM
MV10 Fairfield Inn & Suites Hotel 106 RM
MV11 TownGate Square Office / Medical 170.000 TSF
SFDR 293 DU
Hotel 260 Rooms
Sit‐Down Restaurant 14.000 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive Thru 11.500 TSF
Gas Station w/ Car Wash 12 VFP
MV13 Old 215 General Light Industrial 130 EMP
Medical Offices 190.000 TSF
Commercial Retail 210.000 TSF
Research & Education 200.000 TSF
Hospital 50 Beds
Institutional Residential 660 Beds
MV15 PEN16‐0039 Multifamily 272 DU
MV16 TM 33607 Multifamily 52 DU
MV17 TM 36708 SFDR 122 DU
MV18 TM 32556 SFDR 32 DU
MV19 TM 34748 SFDR 135 DU
RC1 PP 25422 Warehouse 814.000 TSF
R1 P15‐1035/P16‐0556/P16‐0567 Warehouse 176.149 TSF
Warehouse 73.200 TSF
Commercial Retail 15.000 TSF
R3 Sycamore Hills Distribution Center Warehouse 603.100 TSF R4 P14‐0294/P14‐0295/P14‐0297/P16‐0497 Medical 524 Beds R5 P19‐0332 Car Wash 4.333 TSF
MJPA1 K4 Parcel Warehouse 718.000 TSF
MJPA2 Meridian Business Park (West Campus) Industrial Park 2,278.852 TSF MJPA3 Freeway Business Center Warehouse 709.083 TSF 1
SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions; EMP = Employees March Joint Powers Authority (MJPA)
MV14 March Lifecare Campus Specific Plan
Cumulative Development Land Use Summary
City of Riverside
R2 P14‐0841 to P14‐0848/P16‐0472/P16‐0474
City of Moreno Valley
MV5 Moreno Valley Cactus Center (PEN16‐0131)
MV6 PA 08‐0047‐0052 (Komar Cactus Plaza)
MV12 Towngate Highlands
County of Riverside
1.1-14
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3338 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 3.1:
EXISTING
TRAFFIC COUNTS
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3339 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro Warehouse Traffic Analysis
13276-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
F.1.r
Packet Pg. 3340 Attachment: Appendix K1-Traffic Impact Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe)