EXHIBIT 4-2_55A_BRISTOL WIDENING TECHNICAL STUDIES

Home Browse Search

.I residence will be removed under alternatives I and 3. The measurement Location for alternative 2 is located 64 feet from the Bristol Street centerline (3 feet from the right -of -way). Table 4 -9 shows that a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed in front of the residential complex would provide adequate noise attenua- tion. However, a contiguous noise barrier is not recommended since it would restrict pedestrian and vehicular access. Measurement site 8 was located in the front yard of a single family dwelling located at the corner of Raymar Street. Alterna- tive 3 has the measurement location 72 feet from the Bristol. Street centerline, with the receptor 12 feet from the noise barrier analyzed. The other two alternatives propose to remove this dwelling. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 --foot noise barrier could be constructed around the front of the house to provide I adequate noise attenuation. A 6 -foot barrier is recommended in l this location, however it must stop 25 feet from the corner to provide adequate sight distance for motorists on Raymar Street. Measurement site 10 was located adjacent to the Mater Dei High School athletic track, 8 feet from the right -of -way and elevated 3.5 feet. The barrier analysis assumed that the sensitive recep- tor was located 10 feet behind a wall constructed at the right- of-way. The 6 and 8-foot barriers were assumed to be constructed on the 3.5-foot elevated ground. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 --foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to achieve acceptable noise levels. Measurement site 11 was located adjacent to an elementary school outdoor activity area 8 feet from the right --of -way. The barrier analysis assumed that the sensitive receptor was located 10 feet { behind a wall constructed at the right -of -way. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to achieve acceptable noise levels. Measurement sites 12, 12A, 13, and 13A were located north of St. Gertrude Place. Sites 12 and 12A represent front and back yard front line receptor locations respectively. Similarly, sites 13 and 13A represent front and back yard second line receptor loca- tions. For alternatives I and 2, the house adjacent to sites 12 and 12A will be removed, increasing noise levels at site 13 (located 108 or 85 feet from the Bristol Street centerline for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively) and site 13A (located 127 or 104 feet from the centerline). Both first and second line rear yard receptors were sheltered by a wooden fence with visible gaps. The noise attenuation of the wooden fences was calculated to be 4 dBA. As shown in Table 4--9, the noise impacts at the rear yard activity areas do not warrant additional mitigation. �T As shown in Table 4--9, the second line rear yard receptor ( site 13A) would not require additional mitigation with any of the alternatives with the existing fence. However, because of the uncertain nature of the fence, future noise impacts should be 4 4--22