HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix J - Noise StudyWest Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Appendices.doc
Appendix J: Noise Study
319 W. School Ave. · Visalia, CA 93291 · (559) 627-4923 · (559) 627-6284 Fax
7996 California Ave., Suite A · Fair Oaks, CA 95628 · (916) 961-5822 · (916) 961-6418 Fax
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CASTLE AND COOKE CALIFORNIA, INC.
PREPARED BY
BROWN-BUNTIN ASSOCIATES, INC.
VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
(Revised August 29, 2006)
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
1.A Purpose....................................................................................................................1
1.B Summary of Project Description.............................................................................1
2. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................1
2.A General Plan Noise Level Standards.......................................................................2
2.B Construction Noise .................................................................................................2
2.C Standards For Project Noise Impacts And Cumulative Noise Impacts
For Mobile Sources.................................................................................................2
Standards For Project Noise Impacts For Mobile Sources............................3
Standards For Cumulative Noise Impacts For Mobile Sources.....................3
2.D Vibration Standards................................................................................................3
3. SETTING...............................................................................................................................4
3.A Background Noise Level Measurements.................................................................4
3.B Existing Traffic Noise Levels..................................................................................4
4. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION..........................................................................9
4.A Traffic Noise Impacts..............................................................................................9
Traffic Noise Impacts Within Project Site (Less Than Significant With
Mitigation)....................................................................................................9
Mitigation...........................................................................................10
Traffic Noise Impacts Outside Project Site (Significant and Unavoidable)...........10
Mitigation.......................................................................................................11
4.B Railroad Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant)....................................................19
Mitigation.......................................................................................................19
4.C Combined Railroad and Traffic Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant)................19
Mitigation.......................................................................................................19
4.D Oil Extraction Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation).................19
Mitigation.......................................................................................................19
4.E Commercial/Light Industry Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant
With Mitigation)......................................................................................................19
Mitigation.......................................................................................................20
4.F Park Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)...............................20
Mitigation.......................................................................................................20
4.G Noise From Construction (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)......................20
Mitigation.......................................................................................................21
4.H Vibration Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)..................................21
Mitigation.......................................................................................................21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 ii
5. CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS (SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE)..................22
Mitigation................................................................................................................22
6. SOURCES CONSULTED.....................................................................................................29
TABLES
TABLE 1 HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS...............................2
TABLE 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS.................................................................7
TABLE 3 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHIN PROJECT SITE.........................................9
TABLE 4 YEAR 2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS.............................................13
TABLE 5 YEAR 2030 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS.............................................16
TABLE 6 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS............................21
TABLE 7 YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS...............................23
TABLE 8 YEAR 2030 CUMULATIVE OFF-SITE NOISE ANALYSIS..............................26
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 REGIONAL MAP...................................................................................................5
FIGURE 2 PROJECT VICINITY & NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATION........................5
FIGURE 3 BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS, 3205 HEDGELAND.....................................6
FIGURE 4 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS............................................................................12
APPENDICES
CD IN POCKET
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.A Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to identify noise exposure, which may impact the project or result in
impacts outside the project. Mitigation measures are described which may be used to minimize the
noise impacts of the project. The findings and recommendations of this study are submitted in
compliance with CEQA to assist in the complete review of all environmental impacts of the
proposed project and their mitigation.
Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise
stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A-weighted sound pressure levels in decibels
(dB). A-weighting de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner
similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A-weighted sound levels, as they
correlate well with public reaction to noise.
1.B Summary of Project Description
The project site as proposed is approximately 2182 acres. Proposed land uses include residential,
commercial, light industrial, parks and lakes, and public facilities. A general plan amendment,
sphere of influence amendment and zone changes are requested. The site lies south of Ming
Avenue, north of the Asphalto Branch Railroad, west of Buena Vista Road, and east of the West
Beltway. The site is in the East Portion of Section 10, the NE corner of Section 15 and all of
Sections 11, 13 &14, T30S, R26E, MDBM. The site is currently used for agriculture with some oil
extraction facilities located in the southern portion of the site.
2. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that significant
noise impacts could occur if a project results in any of the following:
● Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies;
● Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;
● Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project;
● Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing with the Project;
● Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise levels; or
● Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working with the
Project area to excessive noise levels.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 2
2.A General Plan Noise Level Standards
The applicable standards for noise levels that apply to this project are those within Chapter VII of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan adopted in 20021. No federal or state noise standards are
applicable to this project.
For transportation noise sources (e.g., traffic and railway noise), the Noise Element of the General
Plan sets a standard of 65 dB CNEL at the exterior of noise-sensitive uses. Noise-sensitive uses
include residences, schools, hospitals and recreational areas. An interior noise standard of 45 dB
CNEL applies within interior living spaces.
For non-transportation noise sources (e.g., commercial property), the Noise Element applies hourly
noise levels performance standards at residential and other noise-sensitive uses. Table 1 summarizes
the hourly standards.
TABLE 1
HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN
NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
Maximum Acceptable Noise Level, dBA
Min./Hr. (Ln) Day (7a-10p) Night (10p-7a)
30 (L50) 55 50
15 (L25) 60 55
5 (L8.3) 65 60
1 (L1.7) 70 65
0 (Lmax) 75 70
Note: Ln means the percentage of time the noise level is exceeded during an hour. L50 means the level
exceeded 50% of the hour, L25 is the level exceeded 25% of the hour, etc.
2.B Construction Noise
When construction is within 1000 feet of a residence, Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code limits construction to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Certain exceptions to these hours are specified in the code.
2.C Standards For Project Noise Impacts And Cumulative Noise Impacts For
Mobile Sources
The City of Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element sets standards for project noise impacts and
cumulative noise impacts from mobile (transportation-related) noise sources affecting existing noise-
sensitive land uses. These standards are listed below.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 3
Standards For Project Noise Impacts For Mobile Sources
A significant increase of existing ambient noise levels affecting existing noise-sensitive land
uses (receptors), and requiring the adoption of practical and feasible mitigation measures, is
deemed to occur where a project will cause:
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the existing
ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL;
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the existing
ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL;
• An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the existing
ambient level is greater than 65 dB CNEL
Standards For Cumulative Noise Impacts For Mobile Sources
The project’s contribution to noise increase would normally be considered cumulatively
considerable and considered significant when ambient noise levels affect noise sensitive land
uses (receptors) and when the following occurs.
• A project increase the ambient (cumulative without project) noise level by 1 dB or
more;
and
• The cumulative with project noise level cause the following:
o An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, where the
existing ambient level is less than 60 dB CNEL;
o An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dB or more, where the
existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dB CNEL;
o An increase on the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dB or more, where the
existing ambient level is greater than 65 dB CNEL.
2.D Vibration Standards
The City of Bakersfield does not have regulations that define acceptable levels of vibration. One of
the most recent references suggesting vibration standards is the Federal Transit Administration’s
(FTA) publication concerning noise and vibration impact assessment from transit activities.2 The
term “vibration decibel” (VdB) is used by the FTA. To prevent vibration annoyance in residences, a
level of 80 VdB or less is suggested when there are fewer than 70 vibration events per day. A level
of 100 VdB or less is suggested to prevent damage to fragile buildings.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 4
3. SETTING
The project site is mostly vacant and used for agricultural purposes with some oil extraction
facilities in its southern portion. The only important source of existing noise in the project vicinity is
traffic on local roads. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional and vicinity maps for the project.
3.A Background Noise Level Measurements
Background noise level measurements were conducted at an adjoining residential location
immediately north of the project site off White Lane (3205 Hedgeland) for a 24-hour period from
January 22-23, 2004. The measurement site is noted on Figure 3. The measurement site represents
the nearest residential neighborhood that potentially could be impacted by the project.
Noise monitoring equipment used for the study consisted of a Larson-Davis Model 820 sound level
meter equipped with a B&K Type 4176 1/2" microphone. The instrumentation complies with
applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision)
sound level meters, and was calibrated prior to use with a B&K Type 4230 acoustical calibrator to
ensure the accuracy of the measurements.
Figure 3 shows the hourly noise levels measured in the backyard of 3205 Hedgeland from January
22-23, 2004. Hourly noise levels were generally highest in the daytime period and lowest from
midnight to 6:00 a.m. The CNEL for the 24-hour period 5:00 p.m. January 22 through 4:00 p.m.
January 23 was 50.6 dB. This level is well below the City’s 65 dB CNEL compatibility criterion,
and is representative of a residential neighborhood relatively unaffected by noise impacts.
3.B Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Existing traffic noise levels from roads that are near the project site were calculated using the
FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM)3. Version 2.5 of the TNM’s Lookup Tables provides a
reference of pre-calculated TNM results for simple highway geometries that are adequate for the
geographic scope of this EIR. The Lookup Tables assume an infinitely long, straight highway over
flat ground. Where existing noise barriers (walls or structures) are present, the noise barrier routine
of the Lookup Tables was used to calculate typical insertion loss (noise reduction) values for the
noise barriers. For a typical 6-foot wall along most roads, the reduction is about 5 dB. Traffic
volumes were provided by McIntosh and Associates4 , the traffic consultants for the EIR. Other
traffic inputs into the TNM were obtained from field observations or from data collected for the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Appendix B shows traffic data used in the Model. Table 2
shows existing traffic noise levels at typical residential setbacks (approximately 25 feet from right-of
ways).
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 5
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 6
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
5:00 P M6:00 PM
7:0 0 P M8:00 P M9:00 P M1 0:00 P M11:00 P M
1 2:0 0 A M1:00 A M2:00 AM3:00 AM4:0 0 AM5:00 A M6:00 A M7:00 AM8:0 0 AM9:0 0 AM1 0:0 0 A M1 1:0 0 A M1 2:0 0 PM1:00 P M2:0 0 P M3:00 P M4:00 P MA-Weighted Decibels, dBA
LeqLmaxLmin
Figure 3
Background Noise Levels
3205 Hedgeland -- January 22-23, 2004
CNEL = 50.6 dB
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 7
TABLE 2
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment CNEL,
dB Roadway Segment CNEL,
dB
West of Heath -- North of Hageman 48.7
Heath to Renfro -- Hageman to Rosedale 48.7
Renfro to Jenkins 46.7 Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4
Jenkins to Allen 52.3
Heath
Rd.
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.8
Hageman
Rd.
Allen to Calloway 56.3 North of Hageman 50.4
Enos to Nord 61.6 Hageman to Rosedale 53.5
Nord to Heath 62.3 Rosedale to Brimhall 57.1
Heath to Renfro 63.4
Renfro
Rd.
Brimhall to Stockdale 51.7
Renfro to Jenkins 57.4 Hageman to Rosedale 50.4
Jenkins to Allen 58.4
Jenkins
Rd. Rosedale to Brimhall 51.3
Allen to Jewetta 60.5 North of Hageman 49.4
Jewetta to Calloway 61.3 Hageman to Rosedale 55.3
Rosedale
Hwy.
Calloway to Coffee 62.7 Rosedale to Brimhall 55.7
Renfro to Jenkins 55.9 Brimhall to Westside Pwy WB Ramps 55.9
Jenkins to Allen 58.5 WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 55.9
Allen to Jewetta 54.7 WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 55.9
Jewetta to Calloway 57.8 Stockdale to Ming 56.1
Brimhall
Rd.
Calloway to Coffee 59.4 Ming to Chamber --
West of Enos 60.4 Chamber to White --
Enos to Nord 56.1 White to Campus Park --
Nord to Wegis 56.7 Campus Park to Pacheco --
Wegis to Heath 57.7 Pacheco to Harris --
Heath to Renfro 58.0 Harris to Panama --
Renfro to Allen 61.4 Panama to McCutchen --
Allen to Buena Vista 60.9
Allen
Rd.
McCutchen to Taft Hwy --
Buena Vista to Old River 59.1 North of Hageman 53.6
Old River to Gosford 61.0 Hageman to Rosedale 54.7
Gosford to Ashe 62.1 Rosedale to Brimhall 53.7
Ashe to New Stine 62.7
Jewetta
Ave.
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.0
Stockdale
Hwy.
East of New Stine 67.3 Stockdale to Ming 58.3
West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance -- Ming to Chamber 52.4
Ming Project Entrance to Allen -- Chamber to White 52.4
Allen to Buena Vista -- White to Campus Park 52.1
Buena Vista to Old River 57.6 Campus Park to South Proj Entrance 52.1
Old River to Gosford 61.3 South Proj Entrance to Panama Ln 52.1
Gosford to Ashe 62.2 Panama Ln to McCutchen 48.1
Ashe to New Stine 64.1
Buena
Vista Rd.
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 48.1
New Stine to "Old" Stine 63.4 North of Hageman 49.1
"Old" Stine to Real 63.4 Hageman to Rosedale 59.8
Real to Wible 63.4 Rosedale to Brimhall 59.4
Ming
Ave.
East of Wible 61.9 Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 59.5
West Beltway to Allen -- WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 59.5
Allen to East White Project Entrance --
Calloway
Dr.
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 59.5
East White Entrance to Buena Vista -- Stockdale to Ming 58.9
Buena Vista to Old River 57.2 Ming to White 60.7
Old River to Gosford 59.8 White to Pacheco 60.4
Gosford to Ashe 62.0 Pacheco to Panama --
Ashe to Stine 62.0 Panama to McCutchen 40.7
Stine to Wible 63.6 McCutchen to Taft Hwy 40.7
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 62.7
Old River
Rd.
South of Taft Hwy 54.0
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 61.6 North of Rosedale 64.7
White
Ln.
NB 99 Ramps to South "H" 60.1 Coffee Rosedale to Brimhall 61.8
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 8
TABLE 2 (Concluded)
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment CNEL,
dB Roadway Segment CNEL,
dB
West of Buena Vista 57.1 Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 68.6
Buena Vista to Old River 53.5 WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 68.6
Old River to Gosford 54.1
Coffee
(cont.) WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 68.6
Gosford to Ashe 54.1 Stockdale to Ming 62.2
Ashe to Stine 56.5 Ming to White 60.1
Stine to Wible 58.0 White to Pacheco 58.5
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 59.8 Pacheco to Harris 57.3
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 59.7 Harris to Panama 56.0
Panama
Ln.
East of NB 99 Ramps 59.6 Panama to McCutchen 54.2
West of Buena Vista 59.3
Gosford
McCutchen to Taft 54.2
Buena Vista to Old River 59.7 Stockdale to Ming 54.3
Old River to Gosford 61.7 Ming to White 58.7
Taft
Hwy.
Gosford to Ashe 59.1 White to Panama 56.9
North of Rosedale 62.5 Panama to McCutchen 45.7
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.7
Ashe
McCutchen to Taft 45.7
Brimhall to Stockdale 57.7 Stockdale to Ming 61.9
Enos
Ln.
South of Stockdale 57.7 Ming to White 61.0
North of Rosedale 48.7 White to Panama 58.4
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4
New
Stine/Stine
Panama to Taft 54.7 Nord
Rd. Brimhall to Stockdale 56.1
Source: Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 9
4. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
4.A Traffic Noise Impacts
Traffic Noise Impacts Within Project Site (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Proposed noise-sensitive land uses within the project site include single- and multi-family residences
and schools. The year 2030 65 dB CNEL contour will range from approximately 100-230 feet from
road centers. The approximate locations of the year 2030 65 dB CNEL contour are shown in Figure
4. Table 3 shows year 2015 and 2030 traffic noise levels within project site 25 feet from road right
of ways. Appendix B shows all input assumptions, noise levels and contour calculations. As shown
in Figure 4, several locations will be exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. This
is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
TABLE 3
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHIN PROJECT SITE
2015 2030
Roadway Roadway Segment No
Project
With
Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
No
Project
With
Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact?
Ming to Chamber 57.7 59.6 No 60.5 62.5 No
Chamber to White 57.7 60.0 No 60.4 62.8 No
White to Campus Park 59.2 60.8 No 62.0 63.7 No
Allen
Road
Campus Park to
Pacheco 59.2 60.6 No 62.0 63.5 No
West Beltway to Ming
Project Entrance 58.2 59.7 No 61.0 62.5 No Ming
Avenue Ming Project Entrance
to Allen 53.2 57.6 No 56.0 60.5 No
White to Campus Park 58.5 61.1 No 60.8 63.7 No
Campus Park to South
Project Entrance 58.5 59.9 No 60.8 62.3 No Buena
Vista Road
South Project Entrance
to Panama 58.6 59.6 No 60.9 62.0 No
West Beltway to Allen 61.4 62.3 No 64.1 65.1 Yes
Allen to East White
Project Entrance 57.6 58.1 No 60.3 60.8 No White
Lane East White Lane
Entrance to Buena
Vista
57.6 58.1 No 60.3 60.9 No
North of White 70.4¹ 70.2¹ Yes 70.4 70.4 Yes West
Beltway South of White 70.4¹ 70.2¹ Yes 70.4 70.2 Yes
¹Based on 2030 Traffic Data
Note: Noise levels calculated at 25 feet from right of way
Source: Brown-Buntin, Associates, Inc., May 2006.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 10
Mitigation
Mitigation may be accomplished by complying with the City’s 65 dB CNEL exterior and 45 dB
CNEL interior noise standards. Sound walls may be the most practical way to achieve mitigation.
They should be located along Ming Avenue, the West Beltway, Allen Road, White Lane, and Buena
Vista Road. The exact height of walls will depend on lot design and other site-specific conditions.
However, it may be assumed that walls 6 feet or more in height will probably be necessary to reduce
traffic noise levels to 65 dB CNEL or below, which will result in less-than-significant noise levels.
A 6-foot wall is the minimum wall height that is commonly erected. As described in Section 3B, an
estimated 5 dB can be expected from a 6-foot wall. However, this may vary depending on street and
lot design, and grading requirements. Higher walls may be needed at some locations. As a condition
of approval, a noise analysis should be conducted to verify compliance with the City’s noise
standards and to confirm the required height of sound walls when lot design and site grading are
available.
Traffic Noise Impacts Outside Project Site (less than significant)
Major roadways that potentially may produce significant noise impacts levels were analyzed for year
2015 and 2030 conditions with and without the project. The TNM Model was used for calculating
future traffic noise levels using traffic information provided by McIntosh and Associates. The
existing 6-foot-high block walls that are located at the rear of many residential areas near the project
were assumed to reduce traffic noise levels by approximately 5 dB. The noise levels were calculated
at a distance representing typical setbacks from roadway centers (100 feet). All traffic data and
assumptions used in the model are shown in Appendix B.
Tables 4 and 5 show year 2015 and 2030 traffic noise levels with and without the project at locations
outside the project site, and the change in traffic noise levels attributable to the project. The last
column in the tables indicates if a potentially significant noise impact will occur due to the change in
ambient noise levels attributable to the project or whether the Project will cause traffic noise levels
to exceed 65 dB CNEL. As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, the project will not result in potentially
significant noise impacts outside the project site.
Interior noise levels at existing residences along roadways listed in Tables 4 and 5 can be
roughly estimated by assuming that typical construction will provide a Noise Level Reduction
(NLR) of atleast 20 dB. Potentially significant impacts would not occur because there are no
existing residences at locations where the exterior CNEL would exceed 65 dB CNEL with the
project.
Mitigation
None required.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 11
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06
12
TABLE 4
YEAR 2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
West of Heath 42.7 43.3 0.6 No North of Rosedale 52.1 52.1 0.0 No
Heath to Renfro 49.5 49.8 0.3 No Rosedale to Brimhall 55.0 55.0 0.0 No
Renfro to Jenkins 51.6 51.6 0.0 No
Nord Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 53.8 53.8 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 54.0 54.0 0.0 No
North of Hageman 50.5 50.5 0.0 No
Hageman Rd
Allen to Calloway 58.5 58.5 0.0 No Ha
geman to Rosedale 47.3 47.3 0.0 No Enos to Nord 62.9 62.9 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Nord to Heath 63.9 64.0 0.1 No
Heath Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 58.7 58.8 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
North of Hageman 58.3 58.5 0.2 No Renfro to Jenkins 57.6 57.6 0.0 No Hageman to Rosedale 57.9 57.9 0.0 No Jenkins to Allen 57.8 57.8 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 58.2 58.2 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 60.9 60.9 0.0 No
Renfro Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Jewetta to Calloway 61.8 61.8 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 54.1 54.1 0.0 No
Rosedale Hwy
Calloway to Coffee 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
Jenkins Rd
Rosedale to Brimhall 53.2 53.2 0.0 No
Renfro to Jenkins 58.6 58.6 0.0 No
North of Hageman 51.8 51.9 0.1 No Jenkins to Allen 60.5 60.5 0.0 No Ha
geman to Rosedale 60.2 60.3 0.1 No Allen to Jewetta 54.6 54.7 0.1 No Rosedale to Brimhall 59.7 59.9 0.2 No Jewetta to Calloway 59.2 59.2 0.0 No Brimhall to Westside Pwy WB
Ramps 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
Brimhall Rd
Calloway to Coffee 60.4 60.6 0.2 No WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 60.5 60.9 0.4 No
West of Enos 62.7 62.7 0.0 No WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 60.4 61.3 0.9 No
Enos to Nord 59.0 59.1 0.1 No St
ockdale to Ming 59.0 60.5 1.5 No
Nord to Wegis 59.8 59.9 0.1 No
Ming to Chamber 57.7 59.6 1.9 No Wegis to Heath 60.0 60.1 0.1 No Ch
amber to White 57.7 60.0 2.3 No
Heath to Renfro 55.4 55.4 0.0 No
Pacheco to Harris 60.8 61.5 0.7 No
Renfro to Allen 59.6 59.6 0.0 No
Harris to Panama
59.0 59.5 0.5 No
Allen to Buena Vista 60.4 60.4 0.0 No
Panama to McCutchen 54.0 54.2 0.2 No
Buena Vista to Old River 61.3 62.2 0.9 No
Allen Rd
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 49.7 49.9 0.2 No
Old River to Gosford 61.5 61.8 0.3 No
North of Hageman 56.5 56.5 0.0 No Gosford to Ashe 62.7 62.8 0.1 No Hage
man to Rosedale 56.7 56.8 0.1 No
Ashe to New Stine 63.2 63.3 0.1 No Rosedale to Brimhall 56.3 56.4 0.1 No
Stockdale Hwy
East of New Stine 68.3 68.3 0.0 No
Jewetta Ave
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.4 55.1 0.7 No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06
13
TABLE 4 (Continued)
YEAR 2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
West Beltway to Ming Proj. Entrance 58.2 59.7
1.5 No Stockdale to Ming 61.4 62.3 0.9 No Ming Project Entrance to Allen 53.2 57.6 4.4 No Ming to Chamber 59.8 61.4 1.6 No Allen to Buena Vista 56.2 57.8 1.6 No Chamber to White 59.9 61.2 1.3 No Buena Vista to Old River 60.7 61.6 0.9 No
White to Campus Park 58.5 61.1 2.6 No Old River to Gosford 63.0 63.4 0.4 No Campus Park to South Proj Entrance 58.5 59.9 1.4 No Gosford to Ashe 63.4 63.6 0.2 No South Proj
Entrance to Panama Ln 58.6 59.6 1.0 No
Ashe to New Stine 64.9 65.0 0.1 No Panama Ln to McCutchen 59.4 59.5 0.1 No
New Stine to "Old" Stine 63.9 64.1 0.2 No
Buena
Vista Rd.
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 54.6 54.8 0.2 No
"Old" Stine to Real 64.1 64.1 0.0 No
North of Hageman 59.7 59.7 0.0 No Real to Wible 63.8 63.9 0.1 No Hageman to Rosedale 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
Ming Ave
East of Wible 63.0 63.1 0.1 No Rosedale to Brimhall 62.2 62.3 0.1 No
Allen to East White Project Entrance 57.6 58.1 0.5 No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 62.8 62.9 0.1 No
East White Entrance to Buena Vista 57.6 58.1 0.5 No WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB
Ramps 63.2 63.4 0.2 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.2 60.2 1.0 No
Calloway Dr.
WSP EB Ramps to Stockda
le Hwy 64.0 64.3 0.3 No
Old River to Gosford 61.9 62.4 0.5 No
Stockdale to Ming 62.4 62.4 0.0 No
Gosford to Ashe 63.7 63.8 0.1 No
Ming to White 63.2 63.2 0.0 No
Ashe to Stine 63.3 63.4 0.1 No White to Pacheco 59.8 59.8 0.0 No Stine to Wible 64.3 64.4 0.1 No Pacheco to Panama 56.3 56.3 0.0 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 64.4 64.4 0.0 No
Panama to McCutchen 55.3 55.6 0.3 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 62.1 62.2 0.1 No McCutchen to Taft Hwy 53.4 53.9 0.5 No
White Ln.
NB 99 Ramps to South "H" 61.3 61.3 0.1 No
Old River Rd.
South of Taft Hwy 57.9 58.0 0.1 No
West of Buena Vista 65.3 65.3 0.0 No
North of Rosedale 67.0 67.0 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old River 65.9 65.9 0.0 No Rosedale to Brimhall 63.4 63.5 0.1 No Old River to Gosford 65.9 65.9 0.0 No Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB
Ramps 69.8 69.8 0.0 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.3 62.4 0.1 No WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 70.1 70.1 0.0 No
Ashe to Stine 62.4 62.5 0.1 No
Coffee
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale
Hwy 70.3 70.3 0.0 No
Stine to Wible 63.1 63.1 0.0 No Stockdale to Ming 64.3 64.3 0.0 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 63.4 63.4 0.0 No Ming to White 62.7 62.7 0.0 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 61.9 61.9 0.0
No White to Pacheco 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Panama Ln.
East of NB 99 Ramps 62.2 62.2 0.0 No Pacheco to Harris 61.7 62.1 0.4 No
Gosford
Harris to Panama
60.7 61.1 0.4 No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06
14
TABLE 4 (Concluded)
YEAR 2015 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
West of Buena Vista 63.6 63.6 0.0 No
Gosford
Panama to McCutchen 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
Buena Vista to Old River 64.3 64.3 0.0
No McCutchen to Taft 57.3 57.5 0.2 No Old River to Gosford 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
Stockdale to Ming 55.3 55.3 0.0 No
Taft
Hwy.
Gosford to Ashe 63.9 63.9 0.0 No Ming to White 59.9 59.9 0.0 No North of Rosedale 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
White to Panama 59.6 59.6 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 60.2 60.2 0.0 No
Panama to McCutchen 58.9 58.9 0.0 No
Brimhall to Stockdale 60.2 60.2 0.0 No
Ashe
McCutchen to Taft 56.4 56.4 0.0 No
Enos Ln.
South of Stockdale 61.3 61.3 0.0 No
Stockdale to Ming 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Ming to White 62.3 62.3 0.0 No
White to Panama 60.7 60.7 0.0 No
New
Stine / Stine
Panama to Taft 56.4 56.4 0.0 No
Source: Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06
15
TABLE 5
YEAR 2030 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
West of Heath
45.4
46.1
0.7
No
North of Rosedale
53.8
53.8
0.0
No
Heath to Renfro
52.3
52.6
0.3
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
50.4
50.4
0.0
No
Renfro to Jenkins
53.7
53.6
-0.1
No
Nord Rd.
Brimhall to Stockdale
49.7
49.7
0.0
No
Jenkins to Allen
55.1
55.1
0.0
No
North of Hageman
51.7
51.7
0.0
No
Hageman Rd.
Allen to Calloway
59.8
59.8
0.0
No
Hageman to Rosedale
45.7
45.7
0.0
No
Enos to Nord
63.7
63.8
0.1
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
57.0
56.6
-0.3
No
Nord to Heath
64.9
65.0
0.1
No
Heath Rd.
Brimhall to Stockdale
59.8
60.0
0.2
No
Heath to Renfro
64.2
64.3
0.1
No
North of Hageman
60.7
60.9
0.2
No
Renfro to Jenkins
57.7
57.7
0.0
No
Hageman to Rosedale
59.8
59.8
0.0
No
Jenkins to Allen
57.2
57.2
0.0
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
59.0
59.0
0.0
No
Allen to Jewetta
61.3
61.3
0.0
No
Renfro Rd.
Brimhall to Stockdale
59.3
59.2
-0.1
No
Jewetta to Calloway
62.1
62.1
0.0
No
Hageman to Rosedale
55.9
55.9
0.0
No
Rosedale Hwy.
Calloway to Coffee
64.4
64.4
0.0
No
Jenkins Rd.
Rosedale to Brimhall
54.4
54.4
0.0
No
Renfro to Jenkins
60.1
60.1
0.0
No
North of Hageman
53.2
53.3
0.1
No
Jenkins to Allen
61.8
61.8
0.0
No
Hageman to Rosedale
62.3
62.3
0.0
No
Allen to Jewetta
54.6
54.7
0.1
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
61.6
61.7
0.1
No
Jewetta to Calloway
60.1
60.2
0.1
No
Brimhall to Westside Pwy WB Ramps
62.6
62.7
0.1
No
Brimhall Rd.
Calloway to Coffee
61.2
61.4
0.2
No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps
62.4
63.0
0.6
No
West of Enos
64.0
64.1
0.1
No
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy
62.4
63.5
1.1
No
Enos to Nord
60.6
60.7
0.1
No
Stockdale to Ming
60.5
62.6
2.1
No
Nord to Wegis
61.4
61.5
0.1
No
Ming to Chamber
60.5
62.5
2.0
No
Wegis to Heath
61.4
61.5
0.1
No
Chamber to White
60.4
62.8
2.4
No
Heath to Renfro
50.0
49.1
-0.9
No
Pacheco to Harris
63.5
64.3
0.8
No
Renfro to Allen
57.0
56.9
-0.1
No
Harris to Panama
61.8
62.2
0.4
No
Allen to Buena Vista
59.8
60.0
0.2
No
Panama to McCutchen
56.7
57.0
0.3
No
Buena Vista to Old River
62.6
63.9
1.3
No
Allen Rd.
McCutchen to Taft Hwy
52.4
52.6
0.2
No
Stockdale Hwy.
Old River to Gosford Gosford to Ashe
61.9 63.2
62.4 63.4
0.5 0.2
No No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06
16
TABLE 5 (Continued)
YEAR 2030 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Ashe to New Stine
63.6
63.7
0.1
No
North of Hageman
58.0
58.1
0.1
No
Stockdale Hwy
East of New Stine
69.0
69.0
0.0
No
Hageman to Rosedale
58.0
58.1
0.1
No
West Beltway to Ming Proj. Entrance
61.0
62.5
1.5
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
57.7
58.0
0.3
No
Ming Project Entrance to Allen
56.0
60.5
4.5
No
Jewetta Ave.
Brimhall to Stockdale
54.7
56.0
1.3
No
Allen to Buena Vista
58.9
60.7
1.8
No
Stockdale to Ming
63.0
64.3
1.3
No
Buena Vista to Old River
62.4
63.5
1.1
No
Ming to Chamber
62.1
63.9
1.8
No
Old River to Gosford
64.1
64.6
0.5
No
Chamber to White
62.2
63.8
1.6
No
Gosford to Ashe
64.3
64.6
0.3
No
White to Campus Park
60.8
63.7
2.9
No
Ashe to New Stine
65.5
65.6
0.1
No
Campus Park to South Proj Entrance
60.8
62.3
1.5
No
New Stine to "Old" Stine
64.4
64.6
0.2
No
South Proj Entrance to Panama Ln
60.9
62.0
1.1
No
"Old" Stine to Real
64.5
64.7
0.2
No
Panama Ln to McCutchen
62.0
62.1
0.1
No
Real to Wible
64.1
64.2
0.1
No
Buena
Vista Rd.
McCutchen to Taft Hwy
56.9
57.1
0.2
No
Ming Ave.
East of Wible
63.9
63.9
0.0
No
North of Hageman
62.3
62.2
-0.1
No
Allen to East White Project Entrance
60.3
60.8
0.5
No
Hageman to Rosedale
63.8
63.9
0.1
No
East White Entrance to Buena Vista
60.3
60.9
0.6
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
63.7
63.9
0.2
No
Buena Vista to Old River
60.4
61.9
1.5
No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps
64.5
64.7
0.2
No
Old River to Gosford
63.2
63.9
0.7
No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps
65.0
65.2
0.2
No¹
Gosford to Ashe
64.8
65.0
0.2
No
Calloway Dr.
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy
65.9
66.3
0.4
No
Ashe to Stine
64.1
64.3
0.2
No
Stockdale to Ming
64.1
63.9
-0.2
No
Stine to Wible
64.9
64.9
0.1
No
Ming to White
64.7
64.5
-0.2
No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps
65.4
65.5
0.1
No
White to Pacheco
59.1
59.2
0.1
No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps
62.5
62.6
0.1
No
Pacheco to Panama
59.0
59.1
0.1
No
White Ln.
NB 99 Ramps to South "H"
62.1
62.2
0.1
No
Panama to McCutchen
57.9
58.3
0.4
No
West of Buena Vista
67.8
67.6
-0.2
No
McCutchen to Taft Hwy
56.0
56.5
0.5
No
Buena Vista to Old River
68.5
68.6
0.1
No
Old River Rd.
South of Taft Hwy
59.8
59.9
0.1
No
Old River to Gosford
68.5
68.4
-0.1
No
North of Rosedale
68.4
68.4
0.0
No
Gosford to Ashe
64.7
64.9
0.2
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
64.5
64.6
0.2
No
Ashe to Stine
64.6
64.7
0.1
No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps
70.6
70.7
0.1
No
Panama Ln.
Stine to Wible
65.1
65.2
0.1
No
Coffee
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps
71.1
71.1
0.0
No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06
17
TABLE 5 (Concluded)
YEAR 2030 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Roadway Segment
No
Proj.
With Proj.
Chg.
Pot.
Sign.
Noise
Impact?
Wible to SB 99 Ramps
65.1
65.2
0.1
No
Coffee
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy
71.3
71.3
0.0
No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps
63.1
63.2
0.1
No
Stockdale to Ming
65.5
65.5
0.0
No
Panama Ln.
East of NB 99 Ramps
63.6
63.6
0.0
No
Ming to White
64.2
64.1
-0.1
No
Taft Hwy
West of Buena Vista
65.5
65.4
-0.1
No
White to Pacheco
65.1
65.0
-0.1
No
Buena Vista to Old River
66.3
66.3
0.0
No
Pacheco to Harris
63.7
64.1
0.4
No
Old River to Gosford
64.9
64.8
-0.1
No
Harris to Panama
62.7
63.2
0.5
No
Gosford to Ashe
65.9
65.9
0.0
No
Panama to McCutchen
62.9
63.0
0.1
No
Enos Ln
North of Rosedale
64.8
64.8
0.0
No
Gosford
McCutchen to Taft
58.9
59.1
0.2
No
Rosedale to Brimhall
61.6
61.6
0.0
No
Stockdale to Ming
56.0
56.0
0.0
No
Brimhall to Stockdale
61.6
61.6
0.0
No
Ming to White
60.7
60.7
0.0
No
South of Stockdale
63.0
63.1
0.1
No
White to Panama
61.1
61.2
0.1
No
Panama to McCutchen
61.5
61.5
0.0
No
Ashe
McCutchen to Taft
59.0
59.0
0.0
No
Stockdale to Ming
63.9
63.9
0.0
No
Ming to White
63.1
63.1
0.0
No
White to Panama
62.0
62.0
0.0
No
New
Stine / Stine
Panama to Taft
57.5
57.5
0.0
No
¹Sensitive land uses are not located between the ramps. Therefore significant noise impacts will not occur.
Source: Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 18
4.B Railroad Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant)
The San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVRR) Buttonwillow Branch line is located along the south boundary of the
project site. According to SJVRR, two train operations (1 outbound trip & 1 inbound trip) currently operate on
the Buttonwillow Branch.4 The trains usually pass by the project site from 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., but times can
be highly variable. The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) of a slow moving freight train is typically 98-101 dBA at
50 feet, based on Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. file data. Based on this range of typical SEL’s and the number
of operations, the CNEL of the trains at 50 feet would be 52-55 dB. The distance to the 65 dB CNEL City
compatibility criterion would be approximately 7-11 feet from the tracks. The 65 dB CNEL contour will be
within the railroad right-of-way and therefore will not cause significant noise impacts.
Mitigation
None Required.
4.C Combined Railroad and Traffic Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant)
The railroad branch line parallels Pacheco Road. The year 2030 traffic noise level from Pacheco Road is 64 dB
CNEL at 100 feet. The railroad CNEL could range from 48-51 dB at 100 feet. The combined noise level
would be 64-65 dB CNEL at 100 feet. These noise levels would not exceed the 65 dB CNEL compatibility
criterion and would not cause significant noise impacts.
Mitigation
None required.
4.D Oil Extraction Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Oil extraction facilities are located in the central and southern portion of the project site. Noise levels from oil
wells powered by internal combustion engines can range from 73-74 dBA at 25 feet (BBA file data). These
noise levels can exceed the City’s noise performance standard and therefore be significant.
Mitigation
Mitigation can be accomplished by complying with the City’s noise performance standards. The common
practice is to convert to electric motors for power when urban development encroaches on oil extraction
equipment. City design standards also require enclosure of oil extraction wells and setbacks; both will reduce
noise (B.M.C. §15.66.080). With a 50 h.p., 1200 rpm electric motor the noise level will be about 63 dBA at 25
feet.5 An enclosure will reduce the noise level to about 48 dBA at 25 feet. These measures will reduce noise to
levels below the City’s performance standards.
4.E Commercial/Light Industry Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Commercial uses, mixed residential/commercial uses and light industry (with Special Use District) have the
potential to cause significant noise impacts. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with commercial
and industrial uses. Noise levels can also range widely. Typical examples of noise sources are:
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 19
• Fans and blowers
• Truck deliveries
• Loading Docks
• Compactors
• Saws, routers, grinders
• Machine shop equipment
Noise levels from the proposed commercial/industry land uses cannot be predicted with certainty at this time
since no specific uses has been proposed. However, under some circumstances there is potential to exceed the
City’s noise standards and therefore be significant.
Mitigation
When specific commercial uses are proposed that have potential to cause significant noise impacts because of
their nature or because of the mechanical equipment associated with the business, an acoustical analysis shall
be required that shows compliance with the City’s noise performance standards.
4.F Park Noise Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Public and private parks and recreation facilities are proposed in the Specific Plan. Locations will be
developed when subdivision maps are presented. Parks that are passive in nature, that is those where active,
organized sports are not a central element of the park, are usually not considered to be an important noise
source. Passive parks are proposed in Villages A, C, D, E and F.
A 15-acre active park is proposed in Village B. Organized sports are permitted in the Village B Park. Noise
levels from organized sport activities, like softball or soccer, could be significant depending on the distance
from the activity to sensitive areas. Measurements conducted at a Little League baseball game in Ripon7
indicated that noise levels at 150-300 feet from home plate ranged from L50 54-58 dBA and Lmax values from
66-72 dBA. If sensitive uses are within these distances, noise levels would exceed the City’s performance
standards and therefore be significant.
Mitigation
Mitigation can be accomplished by satisfying the City’s noise performance standards. Prior to tentative tract
approval for the proposed active park and related park facilities adjacent to sensitive uses, the applicant shall
conduct a noise study to determine appropriate ways to satisfy the City’s noise performance standards.
4.G Noise From Construction (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Construction noise could occur at various locations within the project through the build-out period. During
the construction of the project, noise from construction activities would potentially impact noise-sensitive
land uses in the immediate area. Activities involved in construction would generate noise levels at 50 feet
as indicated by Table 6. Most of the heavy equipment that produces the highest noise levels will be in use
during road and utility construction, before new homes are occupied in the development. No one home or
group of homes will be continuously subject to construction noise through the build-out period. As
construction moves from phase to phase, construction noise will also move. Construction noise is usually
not considered to be significant if construction is limited to the daytime hours, if extraordinary noise-
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 20
producing activities (e.g., pile driving) are not anticipated, and if construction equipment is adequately
maintained and muffled.
TABLE 6
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB (50 Ft.)
Backhoe 78
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 81
Excavator 81
Front End Loader 79
Jackhammer 89
Paver 77
Pneumatic Tools 85
Dozer 82
Source: FHWA (Reference 10)
Mitigation
Mitigation of construction noise may be accomplished by complying with the City’s construction noise
ordinance, which limits construction hours to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on
weekends, where construction occurs within 1000 feet of a residence. In addition, all construction equipment
should be equipped with adequate mufflers and be properly maintained.
4.H Vibration Impacts (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
The important sources of man-made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking,
demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail-car coupling. None of these sources are anticipated from the project
site. The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project could be large bulldozers and loaded
trucks. Typical bulldozer or loaded truck activities generate an approximate vibration level of 86-87 VdB at a
distance of 25 feet (Reference 2). Typically, vibration levels must exceed 80 VdB before annoyance occurs or
100 VdB before building damage occurs. Like construction noise, construction vibration, if it is detected at all,
will be temporary. No one residence or group of residences will be subject to vibration through the full build-
out of the project. Construction vibration is usually not considered to be significant for the same reasons as
construction noise.
Mitigation
● Comply with City’s construction noise ordinance which limits construction to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends, where construction occurs less than 1000 feet
from residences.
● Construction equipment shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and be properly maintained.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 21
5. CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS (SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE)
Table 7 shows Year 2004 (no project) compared to 2015 (with project) noise levels and 2015 (no project)
compared to 2015 (with project) noise levels, and the change associated with each comparison. Table 8 shows
year 2004 (no project) compared to 2030 (with project) noise levels and 2030 (no project) compared to 2030
(with project) noise levels, and the change associated with each comparison. The City’s criteria for
determining cumulative noise impacts for mobile sources indicate than cumulative noise levels will be
cumulatively considerable at the following locations:
• Year 2015
- Buena Vista Road
Ming to Chamber
Chamber to White
White to Campus Park
Campus Park to South Project Entrance
South Project Entrance to Panama Lane
• Year 2030
- Allen Road
WSP* EB Ramps to Stockdale Highway
Stockdale to Ming
- Buena Vista Road
Stockdale to Ming
Ming to Chamber
Chamber to White
White to Campus Park
Campus Park to South Project Entrance
South Project Entrance to Panama Lane
*WSP = West Side Parkway
Mitigation
Mitigation of off-site traffic noise is usually not feasible. Impacts are therefore significant and unavoidable.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 22
TABLE 7
YEAR 2015
CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No Proj.
2015
W/Proj Chg. 2015
No Proj.
2015
W/Proj. Chg.
Cumulatively
Considerable?
West of Heath -- 43.3 -- 42.7 43.3 0.6 No
Heath to Renfro -- 49.8 -- 49.5 49.8 0.3 No
Renfro to Jenkins 46.7 51.6 4.9 51.6 51.6 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 52.3 54.0 1.7 54.0 54.0 0.0 No
Hageman
Rd
Allen to Calloway 56.3 58.5 2.2 58.5 58.5 0.0 No
Enos to Nord 61.6 62.9 1.3 62.9 62.9 0.0 No
Nord to Heath 62.3 64.0 1.7 63.9 64.0 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 63.4 63.9 0.5 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
Renfro to Jenkins 57.4 57.6 0.2 57.6 57.6 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.4 57.8 -0.6 57.8 57.8 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 60.5 60.9 0.4 60.9 60.9 0.0 No
Jewetta to Calloway 61.3 61.8 0.5 61.8 61.8 0.0 No
Rosedale
Hwy
Calloway to Coffee 62.7 63.7 1.0 63.7 63.7 0.0 No
Renfro to Jenkins 55.9 58.6 2.7 58.6 58.6 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.5 60.5 2.0 60.5 60.5 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 54.7 54.7 0.0 54.6 54.7 0.1 No
Jewetta to Calloway 57.8 59.2 1.4 59.2 59.2 0.0 No
Brimhall
Rd
Calloway to Coffee 59.4 60.6 1.2 60.4 60.6 0.2 No
West of Enos 60.4 62.7 2.3 62.7 62.7 0.0 No
Enos to Nord 56.1 59.1 3.0 59.0 59.1 0.1 No
Nord to Wegis 56.7 59.9 3.2 59.8 59.9 0.1 No
Wegis to Heath 57.7 60.1 2.4 60.0 60.1 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 58.0 55.4 -2.6 55.4 55.4 0.0 No
Renfro to Allen 61.4 59.6 -1.8 59.6 59.6 0.0 No
Allen to Buena Vista 60.9 60.4 -0.5 60.4 60.4 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.1 62.2 3.1 61.3 62.2 0.9 No
Old River to Gosford 61.0 61.8 0.8 61.5 61.8 0.3 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.1 62.8 0.7 62.7 62.8 0.1 No
Ashe to New Stine 62.7 63.3 0.6 63.2 63.3 0.1 No
Stockdale
Hwy
East of New Stine 67.3 68.3 1.0 68.3 68.3 0.0 No
West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance -- 59.7 -- 58.2 59.7 1.5 No
Ming Project Entrance to Allen -- 57.6 -- 53.2 57.6 4.4 No
Allen to Buena Vista -- 57.8 -- 56.2 57.8 1.6 No
Buena Vista to Old River 57.6 61.6 4.0 60.7 61.6 0.9 No
Old River to Gosford 61.3 63.4 2.1 63.0 63.4 0.4 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.2 63.6 1.4 63.4 63.6 0.2 No
Ashe to New Stine 64.1 65.0 0.9 64.9 65.0 0.1 No
New Stine to "Old" Stine 63.4 64.1 0.7 63.9 64.1 0.2 No
"Old" Stine to Real 63.4 64.1 0.7 64.1 64.1 0.1 No
Real to Wible 63.4 63.9 0.5 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
Ming
Ave
East of Wible 61.9 63.1 1.2 63.0 63.1 0.1 No
West Beltway to Allen -- 62.3 -- 61.4 62.3 0.9 No
Allen to East White Project Entrance -- 58.1 -- 57.6 58.1 0.5 No
East White Entrance to Buena Vista -- 58.1 -- 57.6 58.1 0.5 No
Buena Vista to Old River 57.2 60.2 3.0 59.2 60.2 1.0 No
White Ln
Old River to Gosford 59.8 62.4 2.6 61.9 62.4 0.5 No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 23
TABLE 7 (Continued)
YEAR 2015
CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No Proj.
2015
W/Proj. Chg. 2015
No Proj.
2015
W/Proj. Chg.
Cumulatively
Considerable?
Gosford to Ashe 62.0 63.8 1.8 63.7 63.8 0.1 No
Ashe to Stine 62.0 63.4 1.4 63.3 63.4 0.1 No
Stine to Wible 63.6 64.4 0.8 64.3 64.4 0.1 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 62.7 64.4 1.7 64.4 64.4 0.0 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 61.6 62.2 0.6 62.1 62.2 0.1 No
White
Ln.
(Concl.)
NB 99 Ramps to South "H" 60.1 61.3 1.2 61.3 61.3 0.1 No
West of Buena Vista 57.1 65.3 8.2 65.3 65.3 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old River 53.5 65.9 12.4 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
Old River to Gosford 54.1 65.9 11.8 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
Gosford to Ashe 54.1 62.4 8.3 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
Ashe to Stine 56.5 62.5 6.0 62.4 62.5 0.1 No
Stine to Wible 58.0 63.1 5.1 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 59.8 63.4 3.6 63.4 63.4 0.0 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 59.7 61.9 2.2 61.9 61.9 0.0 No
Panama
Ln
East of NB 99 Ramps 59.6 62.2 2.6 62.2 62.2 0.0 No
West of Buena Vista 59.3 63.6 4.3 63.6 63.6 0.0 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.7 64.3 4.6 64.3 64.3 0.0 No
Old River to Gosford 61.7 63.7 2.0 63.7 63.7 0.0 No Taft Hwy
Gosford to Ashe 59.1 63.9 4.8 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
North of Rosedale 62.5 63.9 1.4 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.7 60.2 2.5 60.2 60.2 0.0 No
Brimhall to Stockdale 57.7 60.2 2.5 60.2 60.2 0.0 No Enos Ln
South of Stockdale 57.7 61.3 3.6 61.3 61.3 0.0 No
North of Rosedale 48.7 52.1 3.4 52.1 52.1 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4 55.0 -2.4 55.0 55.0 0.0 No Nord Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.1 53.8 -2.3 53.8 53.8 0.0 No
North of Hageman 48.7 50.5 1.8 50.5 50.5 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 48.7 47.3 -1.4 47.3 47.3 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4 57.2 -0.2 57.2 57.2 0.0 No Heath Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.8 58.8 2.0 58.7 58.8 0.1 No
North of Hageman 50.4 58.5 8.1 58.3 58.5 0.2 No
Hageman to Rosedale 53.5 57.9 4.4 57.9 57.9 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.1 58.2 1.1 58.2 58.2 0.0 No
Renfro
Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 51.7 57.2 5.5 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 50.4 54.1 3.7 54.1 54.1 0.0 No Jenkins
Rd Rosedale to Brimhall 51.3 53.2 1.9 53.2 53.2 0.0 No
North of Hageman 49.4 51.9 2.5 51.8 51.9 0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 55.3 60.3 5.0 60.2 60.3 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 55.7 59.9 4.2 59.7 59.9 0.2 No
Brimhall to Westside Pwy WB Ramps 55.9 60.7 4.8 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 55.9 60.9 5.0 60.5 60.9 0.4 No
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 55.9 61.3 5.4 60.4 61.3 0.9 No
Stockdale to Ming 56.1 60.5 4.4 59.0 60.5 1.5 No
Ming to Chamber -- 59.6 -- 57.7 59.6 1.9 No
Chamber to White -- 60.0 -- 57.7 60.0 2.3 No
White to Campus Park -- 60.8 -- 59.2 60.8 1.6 No
Campus Park to Pacheco -- 60.6 -- 59.2 60.6 1.4 No
Allen Rd
Pacheco to Harris -- 61.5 -- 60.8 61.5 0.7 No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 24
TABLE 7 (Concluded)
YEAR 2015
CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No Proj.
2015
W/Proj. Chg. 2015
No Proj.
2015
W/Proj. Chg.
Cumulatively
Considerable?
Harris to Panama -- 59.5 -- 59.0 59.5 0.5 No
Panama to McCutchen -- 54.2 -- 54.0 54.2 0.2 No Allen Rd
(Concl.) McCutchen to Taft Hwy -- 49.9 -- 49.7 49.9 0.2 No
North of Hageman 53.6 56.5 2.9 56.5 56.5 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 54.7 56.8 2.1 56.7 56.8 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 53.7 56.4 2.7 56.3 56.4 0.1 No
Jewetta
Ave
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.0 55.1 1.1 54.4 55.1 0.7 No
Stockdale to Ming 58.3 62.3 4.0 61.4 62.3 1.0 No
Ming to Chamber 52.4 61.4 9.0 59.8 61.4 1.6 Yes
Chamber to White 52.4 61.2 8.8 59.9 61.2 1.4 Yes
White to Campus Park 52.1 61.1 9.0 58.5 61.1 2.6 Yes
Campus Park to South Proj Entrance 52.1 59.9 7.8 58.5 59.9 1.4 Yes
South Proj Entrance to Panama Ln 52.1 59.6 7.5 58.6 59.6 1.0 Yes
Panama Ln to McCutchen 48.1 59.5 11.4 59.4 59.5 0.1 No
Buena
Vista Rd
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 48.1 54.8 6.7 54.6 54.8 0.2 No
North of Hageman 49.1 59.7 10.6 59.7 59.7 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 59.8 62.4 2.6 62.3 62.4 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 59.4 62.3 2.9 62.2 62.3 0.1 No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 59.5 62.9 3.4 62.8 62.9 0.1 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 59.5 63.4 3.9 63.2 63.4 0.2 No
Calloway
Dr
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 59.5 64.3 4.8 64.0 64.3 0.3 No
Stockdale to Ming 58.9 62.4 3.5 62.4 62.4 0.0 No
Ming to White 60.7 63.2 2.5 63.2 63.2 0.0 No
White to Pacheco 60.4 59.8 -0.6 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Pacheco to Panama -- 56.3 -- 56.3 56.3 0.0 No
Panama to McCutchen 40.7 55.6 14.9 55.3 55.6 0.3 No
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 40.7 53.9 13.2 53.4 53.9 0.5 No
Old
River Rd
South of Taft Hwy 54.0 58.0 4.0 57.9 58.0 0.1 No
North of Rosedale 64.7 67.0 2.3 67.0 67.0 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 61.8 63.5 1.7 63.4 63.5 0.1 No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 68.6 69.8 1.2 69.8 69.8 0.0 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 68.6 70.1 1.5 70.1 70.1 0.0 No
Coffee
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 68.6 70.3 1.7 70.3 70.3 0.0 No
Stockdale to Ming 62.2 64.3 2.1 64.3 64.3 0.0 No
Ming to White 60.1 62.7 2.6 62.7 62.7 0.0 No
White to Pacheco 58.5 63.1 4.6 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Pacheco to Harris 57.3 62.1 4.8 61.7 62.1 0.4 No
Harris to Panama 56.0 61.1 5.1 60.7 61.1 0.4 No
Panama to McCutchen 54.2 60.7 6.5 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
Gosford
McCutchen to Taft 54.2 57.5 3.3 57.3 57.5 0.1 No
Stockdale to Ming 54.3 55.3 1.0 55.3 55.3 0.0 No
Ming to White 58.7 59.9 1.2 59.9 59.9 0.0 No
White to Panama 56.9 59.6 2.7 59.6 59.6 0.0 No
Panama to McCutchen 45.7 58.9 13.2 58.9 58.9 0.0 No
Ashe
McCutchen to Taft 45.7 56.4 10.7 57.3 57.5 0.2 No
Stockdale to Ming 61.9 63.1 1.2 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
Ming to White 61.0 62.3 1.3 62.3 62.3 0.0 No
White to Panama 58.4 60.7 2.3 60.7 60.7 0.0 No
New
Stine /
Stine Panama to Taft 54.7 56.4 1.7 56.4 56.4 0.0 No
Source: Brown-Buntin & Associates, Inc.
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 25
TABLE 8
YEAR 2030
CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No Proj.
2030
W/Proj. Chg. 2030
No Proj.
2030
W/Proj. Chg.
Cumulatively
Considerable?
West of Heath -- 46.1 -- 45.4 46.1 0.7 No
Heath to Renfro -- 52.6 -- 52.3 52.6 0.3 No
Renfro to Jenkins 46.7 53.6 6.9 53.7 53.6 -0.1 No
Jenkins to Allen 52.3 55.1 2.8 55.1 55.1 0.0 No
Hageman
Rd
Allen to Calloway 56.3 59.8 3.5 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Enos to Nord 61.6 63.8 2.2 63.7 63.8 0.1 No
Nord to Heath 62.3 65.0 2.7 64.9 65.0 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 63.4 64.3 0.9 64.2 64.3 0.1 No
Renfro to Jenkins 57.4 57.7 0.3 57.7 57.7 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.4 57.2 -1.2 57.2 57.2 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 60.5 61.3 0.8 61.3 61.3 0.0 No
Jewetta to Calloway 61.3 62.1 0.8 62.1 62.1 0.0 No
Rosedale
Hwy
Calloway to Coffee 62.7 64.4 1.7 64.4 64.4 0.0 No
Renfro to Jenkins 55.9 60.1 4.2 60.1 60.1 0.0 No
Jenkins to Allen 58.5 61.8 3.3 61.8 61.8 0.0 No
Allen to Jewetta 54.7 54.7 0.0 54.6 54.7 0.1 No
Jewetta to Calloway 57.8 60.2 2.4 60.1 60.2 0.1 No
Brimhall
Rd
Calloway to Coffee 59.4 61.4 2.0 61.2 61.4 0.2 No
West of Enos 60.4 64.1 3.7 64.0 64.1 0.1 No
Enos to Nord 56.1 60.7 4.6 60.6 60.7 0.1 No
Nord to Wegis 56.7 61.5 4.8 61.4 61.5 0.1 No
Wegis to Heath 57.7 61.5 3.8 61.4 61.5 0.1 No
Heath to Renfro 58.0 49.1 -8.9 50.0 49.1 -0.9 No
Renfro to Allen 61.4 56.9 -4.5 57.0 56.9 -0.1 No
Allen to Buena Vista 60.9 60.0 0.9 59.8 60.0 0.2 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.1 63.9 4.8 62.6 63.9 1.3 No
Old River to Gosford 61.0 62.4 1.4 61.9 62.4 0.5 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.1 63.4 1.3 63.2 63.4 0.2 No
Ashe to New Stine 62.7 63.7 1.0 63.6 63.7 0.1 No
Stockdale
Hwy
East of New Stine 67.3 69.0 1.7 69.0 69.0 0.0 No
West Beltway to Ming Project Entrance -- 62.5 -- 61.0 62.5 1.5 No
Ming Project Entrance to Allen -- 60.5 -- 56.0 60.5 4.5 No
Allen to Buena Vista -- 60.7 -- 58.9 60.7 1.8 No
Buena Vista to Old River 57.6 63.5 5.9 62.4 63.5 1.1 No
Old River to Gosford 61.3 64.6 3.3 64.1 64.6 0.5 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.2 64.6 2.4 64.3 64.6 0.3 No
Ashe to New Stine 64.1 65.6 1.5 65.5 65.6 0.1 No
New Stine to "Old" Stine 63.4 64.6 1.2 64.4 64.6 0.2 No
"Old" Stine to Real 63.4 64.7 1.3 64.5 64.7 0.2 No
Real to Wible 63.4 64.2 0.8 64.1 64.2 0.1 No
Ming
Ave
East of Wible 61.9 63.9 2.0 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
West Beltway to Allen -- 65.1 -- 64.1 65.1 1.0 No
Allen to East White Project Entrance -- 60.8 -- 60.3 60.8 0.5 No
East White Entrance to Buena Vista -- 60.9 -- 60.3 60.9 0.6 No
Buena Vista to Old River 57.2 61.9 4.7 60.4 61.9 1.5 No
Old River to Gosford 59.8 63.9 4.1 63.2 63.9 0.7 No
Gosford to Ashe 62.0 65.0 3.0 64.8 65.0 0.2 No
Ashe to Stine 62.0 64.3 2.3 64.1 64.3 0.2 No
White Ln
Stine to Wible 63.6 64.9 1.3 64.9 64.9 0.1 No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 26
TABLE 8 (Continued)
YEAR 2030
CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No Proj.
2030
W/Proj. Chg. 2030
No Proj.
2030
W/Proj. Chg.
Cumulatively
Considerable?
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 62.7 65.5 2.8 65.4 65.5 0.1 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 61.6 62.6 1.0 62.5 62.6 0.1 No White Ln
(Concl.) NB 99 Ramps to South "H" 60.1 62.2 2.1 62.1 62.2 0.1 No
West of Buena Vista 57.1 67.6 10.5 67.8 67.6 -0.2 No
Buena Vista to Old River 53.5 68.6 15.1 68.5 68.6 0.1 No
Old River to Gosford 54.1 68.4 14.3 68.5 68.4 -0.1 No
Gosford to Ashe 54.1 64.9 10.8 64.7 64.9 0.2 No
Ashe to Stine 56.5 64.7 8.2 64.6 64.7 0.1 No
Stine to Wible 58.0 65.2 7.2 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
Wible to SB 99 Ramps 59.8 65.2 5.4 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
SB 99 Ramps to NB 99 Ramps 59.7 63.2 3.5 63.1 63.2 0.1 No
Panama
Ln
East of NB 99 Ramps 59.6 63.6 4.0 63.6 63.6 0.0 No
West of Buena Vista 59.3 65.4 6.1 65.5 65.4 -0.1 No
Buena Vista to Old River 59.7 66.3 6.6 66.3 66.3 0.0 No
Old River to Gosford 61.7 64.8 3.1 64.9 64.8 -0.1 No Taft Hwy
Gosford to Ashe 59.1 65.9 6.8 65.9 65.9 0.0 No
North of Rosedale 62.5 64.8 2.3 64.8 64.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.7 61.6 3.9 61.6 61.6 0.0 No
Brimhall to Stockdale 57.7 61.6 3.9 61.6 61.6 0.0 No Enos Ln
South of Stockdale 57.7 63.1 5.4 63.0 63.1 0.1 No
North of Rosedale 48.7 53.8 5.1 53.8 53.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4 50.4 -7.0 50.4 50.4 0.0 No Nord Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.1 49.7 -6.4 49.7 49.7 0.0 No
North of Hageman 48.7 51.7 3.0 51.7 51.7 0.0 No
Hageman to Rosedale 48.7 45.7 -3.0 45.7 45.7 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.4 56.6 -0.8 57.0 56.6 -0.3 No Heath Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 56.8 60.0 3.2 59.8 60.0 0.2 No
North of Hageman 50.4 60.9 10.5 60.7 60.9 0.2 No
Hageman to Rosedale 53.5 59.8 6.3 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 57.1 59.0 1.9 59.0 59.0 0.0 No
Renfro
Rd
Brimhall to Stockdale 51.7 59.2 7.5 59.3 59.2 -0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 50.4 55.9 5.5 55.9 55.9 0.0 No Jenkins
Rd Rosedale to Brimhall 51.3 54.4 3.1 54.4 54.4 0.0 No
North of Hageman 49.4 53.3 3.9 53.2 53.3 0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 55.3 62.3 7.0 62.3 62.3 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 55.7 61.7 6.0 61.6 61.7 0.2 No
Brimhall to Westside Pwy WB Ramps 55.9 62.7 6.8 62.6 62.7 0.2 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 55.9 63.0 7.1 62.4 63.0 0.6 No
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 55.9 63.5 7.6 62.4 63.5 1.1 Yes
Stockdale to Ming 56.1 62.6 6.5 60.5 62.6 2.1 Yes
Ming to Chamber -- 62.5 -- 60.5 62.5 2.0 No
Chamber to White -- 62.8 -- 60.4 62.8 2.4 No
White to Campus Park -- 63.7 -- 62.0 63.7 1.7 No
Campus Park to Pacheco -- 63.5 -- 62.0 63.5 1.5 No
Pacheco to Harris -- 64.3 -- 63.5 64.3 0.8 No
Harris to Panama -- 62.2 -- 61.8 62.2 0.4 No
Panama to McCutchen -- 57.0 -- 56.7 57.0 0.3 No
Allen Rd
McCutchen to Taft Hwy -- 52.6 -- 52.4 52.6 0.2 No
03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 27
TABLE 8 (Concluded)
YEAR 2030
CUMULATIVE OFF SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
CNEL, dB
Roadway Segment 2004
No Proj.
2030
W/Proj. Chg. 2030
No Proj.
2030
W/Proj. Chg.
Cumulatively
Considerable?
North of Hageman 53.6 58.1 4.5 58.0 58.1 0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 54.7 58.1 3.4 58.0 58.1 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 53.7 58.0 4.3 57.7 58.0 0.3 No
Jewetta
Ave
Brimhall to Stockdale 54.0 56.0 2.0 54.7 56.0 1.3 No
Stockdale to Ming 58.3 64.3 6.0 63.0 64.3 1.3 Yes
Ming to Chamber 52.4 63.9 11.5 62.1 63.9 1.8 Yes
Chamber to White 52.4 63.8 11.4 62.2 63.8 1.6 Yes
White to Campus Park 52.1 63.7 11.6 60.8 63.7 2.9 Yes
Campus Park to South Proj Entrance 52.1 62.3 10.2 60.8 62.3 1.5 Yes
South Proj Entrance to Panama Ln 52.1 62.0 9.9 60.9 62.0 1.1 Yes
Panama Ln to McCutchen 48.1 62.1 14.0 62.0 62.1 0.1 No
Buena
Vista Rd
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 48.1 57.1 9.0 56.9 57.1 0.2 No
North of Hageman 49.1 62.2 13.1 62.3 62.2 -0.1 No
Hageman to Rosedale 59.8 63.9 4.1 63.8 63.9 0.1 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 59.4 63.9 4.5 63.7 63.9 0.2 No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 59.5 64.7 5.2 64.5 64.7 0.2 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 59.5 65.2 5.7 65.0 65.2 0.2 No
Calloway
Dr
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 59.5 66.3 6.8 65.9 66.3 0.4 No
Stockdale to Ming 58.9 63.9 5.0 64.1 63.9 -0.2 No
Ming to White 60.7 64.5 3.8 64.7 64.5 -0.2 No
White to Pacheco 60.4 59.2 -1.2 59.1 59.2 0.1 No
Pacheco to Panama -- 59.1 -- 59.0 59.1 0.1 No
Panama to McCutchen 40.7 58.3 17.6 57.9 58.3 0.4 No
McCutchen to Taft Hwy 40.7 56.5 15.8 56.0 56.5 0.5 No
Old
River Rd
South of Taft Hwy 54.0 59.9 5.9 59.8 59.9 0.1 No
North of Rosedale 64.7 68.4 3.7 68.4 68.4 0.0 No
Rosedale to Brimhall 61.8 64.6 2.8 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Brimhall to Westside Pkwy WB Ramps 68.6 70.7 2.1 70.6 70.7 0.1 No
WSP WB Ramps to WSP EB Ramps 68.6 71.1 2.5 71.1 71.1 0.0 No
Coffee
WSP EB Ramps to Stockdale Hwy 68.6 71.3 2.7 71.3 71.3 0.0 No
Stockdale to Ming 62.2 65.5 3.3 65.5 65.5 0.0 No
Ming to White 60.1 64.1 4.0 64.2 64.1 0.1 No
White to Pacheco 58.5 65.0 6.5 65.1 65.0 -0.1 No
Pacheco to Harris 57.3 64.1 6.8 63.7 64.1 0.4 No
Harris to Panama 56.0 63.2 7.2 62.7 63.2 0.5 No
Panama to McCutchen 54.2 63.0 8.8 62.9 63.0 0.1 No
Gosford
McCutchen to Taft 54.2 59.1 4.9 58.9 59.1 0.2 No
Stockdale to Ming 54.3 56.0 1.7 56.0 56.0 0.0 No
Ming to White 58.7 60.7 2.0 60.7 60.7 0.0 No
White to Panama 56.9 61.2 4.3 61.1 61.2 0.1 No
Panama to McCutchen 45.7 61.5 15.8 61.5 61.5 0.0 No
Ashe
McCutchen to Taft 45.7 59.0 13.3 59.0 59.0 0.0 No
Stockdale to Ming 61.9 63.9 2.0 63.9 63.9 0.0 No
Ming to White 61.0 63.1 2.1 63.1 63.1 0.0 No
White to Panama 58.4 62.0 3.6 62.0 62.0 0.0 No
New
Stine /
Stine Panama to Taft 54.7 57.5 2.8 57.5 57.5 0.0 No
Source: Brown-Buntin & Associates, Inc.
G:\BBA Projects\2003\03-089B West Ming Specific Plan 2-3-04 Rev.8-29-06 28
6. SOURCES CONSULTED
1. City of Bakersfield, Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, December 2002.
2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995.
3. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5, April 14, 2004.
4. Telephone conversation with Richard McGowan, San Joaquin Valley Railroad, December
14, 2004.
5. Bolt, Beranek Newman, Noise Control for Building and Manufacturing Plants, 1981.
6. Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Analysis Center Parkway Business
Center, City of Sacramento, California, April 25, 2005.
7. Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., Acoustical Analysis Little League Baseball Facility in
Ripon, 1986.
8. Wieland Associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Study for the El Camino Real Park
Renovation in the City of Orange, September 13, 2004.
9. Wieland Associates, Inc., Acoustical Evaluation for Xavier College Preparatory High
School, Riverside County, May 20, 2004.
10. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide,
January 2006.