Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEXHIBIT 4-2_55A_BRISTOL WIDENING TECHNICAL STUDIESBristol Street Widening Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Technical Studies Air Quality Assessments Noise Studies 006711 r TABLE OF CONTENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------- Section Title page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 -1 1.1 Air Quality Summary 1 -1 1.2 Acoustic Summary ............................ 1 -2 2.O PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............ 2 -1 3.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................ 3 -1 3.1 Existing Ambient Air Quality ................ 3 -1 - Climate and Meteorology - Ambient Air Quality - Effects of Pollutants on Receptors - Air Quality Management Plan 3.2 Air Quality Impact Analysis ................. 3 -6 Short -Term Impacts - Long -Term Pollutant Emissions Long -Term Air Quality Projections Air Quality Management Plan 3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures ............. 3 -14 V-"'4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS .............................. 4 -1 4.1 Existing Acoustic Environment ............... 4 -1 - Fundamentals of Noise -- Harmful Effects of Noise - Community Response to Noise - Land Use Compatibility with Noise - do -Site Noise Measurements - Noise Modeling Results 4.2 Acoustic Impact Analysis .................... 4 -13 - Short -Term Acoustic Impacts - Long -Term Acoustic Impacts - Sensitive Receptor Analysis 4.3 Acoustic Mitigation Measures ................ 4 -25 - Noise Attenuation with Distance - General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts - Specific Recommendations i 006712 �li t r TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 5.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......... 5 -1 APPENDIX Air Quality Appendix - Climate and Meteorology ..................... 1 - Ambient Air Quality Standards and Data ...... 2 - Effects of Pollutants on Receptors .......... 7 -- Emission inventory Assumptions .............. 8 - Caline 3 Assumptions ........................ 9 - SCAQMD Rule 403 ............................. 10 Noise Appendix - Fundamentals of Noise ....................... 11 - Harmful Effects of Noise .................... 13 - Noise Measurement System and Procedures 14 - RD -77 -108 Assumptions ....................... 15 - General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts .. 16 - California Standard Specifications to Reduce Noise Impacts ..................... 17 - Construction Noise Control Strategies 18 - Potential Residential Impacts and Barriers .. 19 ------------ - - ---- ---- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ _ - - -_ -- f ii ILIST OF FIGURES i ~---------- Number ~ ~__ ~--- rTitle - ____------------ ` Following - Page 9 Speech Communications Versus 1 Regional Location . ............................... 2 -1 s (Southerly Segment) ... 4 -6 2 APE1 Vicinity Map (Southerly Segment) ............. 2 -1 3 APEI Vicinity Map (Northerly Segment) ............. 2 -1 4 Existing Land Uses (Southerly Segment) ............ 2 -1 5 Existing Land Uses (Northerly Segment) ............ 2--1 6 Air Pollutant Analysis Locations (Southerly Segment) ..................... 3 -11 T Air Pollutant Analysis Locations (Northerly Segment) ..................... 3 -11 8 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Sources ......... 4--1 9 Speech Communications Versus Background Noise .... 4 -2 10 Noise Measurement Locations (Southerly Segment) ... 4 -6 11 Noise Measurement Locations (Northerly Segment) ... 4 -6 12 --_-------------------------------------------- Construction Noise ............................... ------------- ----- 4 -13 - --- -- u iii LIST of TABLES Number umber __r - r Title Page _ 2-1 2 -1 Bristol Street Roadway Improvements .............. 2--2 2 -2 Average Route Speeds and VMT ..................... 2 -2 3 -1 Health Effects of Air Pollutants .................. 3 -4 3 -2 Construction Equipment Emissions ................. 3 -7 J .3 -3 Project- Related Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Comparison .................... 3 -8 3--4 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ` Adjacent to Nearby Roadways ...................... 3-10 4 -1 Harmful Effects of Noise ......................... 4 -2 4 -2 esign Noise Level/Activity Relationships ........ 4 -5 l 4 -3 Land Use Compatibility with Noise Matrix ......... 4 -6 4 -4 Noise Measurements At Sensitive Receptors ........ 4 -8 4 -5 Current Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent { to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -11 4 -6 Current Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -12 4 -7 Future Exterior CNEL Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -15 4 -8 Future Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Bristol Street . ............................... 4 -16 4 -9 Noise Analysis for Sensitive Receptors ........... 4 -19 iv r 0 a a 0 0 c� a 1 1. ❑ EXECUTIVE SUP4 ARY 1.1 Air Quality Summary Existing Air Quality 1. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a nonattain- ment area because of violations of the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen diox- ide and total suspended particulates. 2. Of all the air pollutants monitored at the Anaheim moni- toring station, sulfur dioxide, sulfate, and lead did not equal or exceed the state or federal ambient air quality standards between 1983 and 1985. 3. Ozone and particulates represent the major ambient air quai- 1 ity problems standards in the project vicinity. 4. Carbon monoxide levels monitored from 1983 to 1985 showed ambient air quality standard exceedances on only one percent of the days monitored and a maximum one -hour value of 19.0 PPM. Air Quality Impacts 1. Implementation of the project will generate exhaust emis- sions from construction equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust during soil movement. Sensitive receptors near the project site will find these air pollutant emissions a temporary nuisance. 2. According to the traffic impact study, the vehicle miles of travel on each link will not change; however, as a result of the project, the average route speeds on Bristol Street will increase with the project. I 3. In the future design year (2006) the increase in average route speeds along Bristol Street will result in a decrease in carbon monoxide emissions (3666 pounds /day) and total hydrocarbon emissions (376 pounds /day) and an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions (5 pounds /day) and no change in SOx and particulate emissions. 4. Caline 3 modelling indicates that the one -hour and eight - hour state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are currently exceeded at 50 feet from the intersections in the project vicinity. 5. Caline 3 modeling indicates that the one -hour State and federal ambient air quality standards will not be exceeded for the future design year (2006) with the "build" alterna- tive. 1 -1 i6. Future background carbon monoxide concentrations are pro- jected to exceed the 8 -Hour state and federal standards. Consequently, regardless of -the alternative, Caline 3 mode- ling indicates that carbon monoxide levels at the intersec- tions analyzed will exceed the 8 -hour standards at the intersections analyzed. 7. The project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Air Quality Mitigation Measures Measures selected for incorporation in the project include: I. SCAQMD Rule 403 ( see page 10 of the Appendix) will be ad- hered to, insuring the clean up of construction -- related dirt on approach routes to the site. 2. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction - generated dust particu- lates. 3. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and ser- viced to minimize exhaust emissions. 4. Consideration will be given to the provision of convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along Bristol Street to en- courage the use of public transportation. Additional mitigation measures offered for consideration and incorporation in the project if found to be feasible: 5. The use of energy efficient lighting along Bristol Street (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the area. (AQMP control measure 911) 6. Traffic signals along Bristol Street should be synchronized if feasible. (AQMP control measure K2) 7.- Construction activities should be halted during Stage One and Stage Two smog alerts. 1.2 Acoustic Summary iExisting Acoustic Environment I. Ambient noise levels in the project area are affected pri- marily by motor vehicle noise emanating from Bristol Street. 2. The project site is far removed from public, military and private airports, railroads, and other significant noise generators. 1 1 -2 3. Ambient peak one -hour equivalent noise levels monitored at typical residential receptors ranged from 54 dBA Leq to 73 dBA Leq. 4. Ambient peak one -hour equivalent noise levels were 71 dBA Leq at a high school athletic area and 70 dBA Leq two ele- mentary school playgrounds. 5. The FHW A noise modeling predicts that noise levels at 75 feet from the Bristol Street centerline are currently 72 dBA Leq or less. 6. The FHWA noise modeling predicts that noise levels at 75 feet from the Bristol Street centerline are currently 72 CNEL or less. Acoustic Impacts 1. Construction activities will generate short -term increases in noise levels adjacent to site access routes and the areas under construction at any given time. 2. Motor vehicle noise resulting from year 2006 traffic volumes on Bristol Street with or without the proposed widening project will constitute a long -term acoustic impact in the immediate vicinity. 3. Roadway widths will change along Bristol Street after proj- ect implementation causing changes in adjacent noise levels ( for future design year conditions. 4. Future noise contour locations (with respect to the center- line) will be identical with all project alternatives, 5. Computer noise modeling shows that future- plus--project noise levels will be 1 dBA Leq or less above future noise levels under the no -build condition. 6. Boise levels with the "build" alternative will range from 69 to 73 dBA Leq within the APEI. 7. Noise level increases with the "build" alternative at sensi- tive receptors (in the absence of mitigation) will be 6 dBA Leq or less above future "no- build" conditions. 8. Maximum one hour Leq values projected for the future design year are detailed in Table 4 -9. Noise levels at sensitive receptor locations will range from 55 to 71 dBA Leq regard- less of the alternative. 9. Future design year noise levels will exceed federal criteria at first line residential receptors with or without any proposed project alternatives. 1 -3 14. Second line receptor exterior noise levels will exceed 67 Leq with each alternative as detailed in the Appendix. 11. Second line receptor exterior *noise levels will approach 67 Leq with each alternative as shown in the Appendix. 12. Noise measurements taken at two school, playgrounds and a high school athletic area exceeded the FHWA design noise levels for current conditions and will exceed the criteria for future conditions with or without any of the proposed f project alternatives. Acoustic Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been recommended for in- corporation in the project to minimize noise impactss 1. Construction activities will take place only on the hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Noise Control Ordinance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings. 5. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance f between noise sources and receptors during construction. b. The noisiest construction operations should be arranged to ■ occur together in the construction program to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. The following mitigation measures are suggested for consideration and implementation if feasible. { 1. Any residential noise barriers that are removed in conjunc- tion with the project should be replaced with barriers at least 6 feet high. 2. For those dwellings on corner lots with access to cross streets which experience exterior impacts, a six --foot block wall could be constructed at the right -of --way to a point 25 feet from the extension of the intersecting perpendicular curb line of the cross street to reduce noise impacts. �CXI] 3. Construction of sound barriers in front of the residences fronting on Bristol Street would restrict pedestrian or vehicular access and consequently are not proposed at these ll.ocatons . 4. The construction of sound barriers adjacent to school play- grounds and athletic fields would meet federal exterior noise criteria for outdoor activity areas. 5._ Future design year noise levels could be reduced to meet federal criteria if a six -foot noise wall is constructed to shield those rear yard areas of units with side yards and rear yards facing Bristol Street as shown in the Appendix. 5. Six -foot block walls should be constructed at second line receptor residential, lots that exceed 67 Leq (see the Appen- dix) to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. e R 1 -5 a2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Bristol Widening Project includes the widening and improve- ment of a 4 mile portion of Bristol Street, between Warner Avenue and Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. The project will be partially funded through the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Program. The project will require CEQA and NEPA clearances as well as review by CalTrans for compliance with their Local Programs Manual. Thus, City, State and Federal requirements must be met. Figure 1 depicts the project location in its regional context. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the Area of Potential Environmental Impact (APEI) with a dashed line. The APEI generally extends one lot depth on either side of Bristol Street. The land uses abut- ting Bristol Street in this area are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Bristol Street presently exists as a 4 -lane or 5 -1ane divided roadway within the project limits. Right -of -way acquisition and roadway widening will be accomplished in conjunction with the ! proposed project. Three alternatives for right -of -way acquisi- tion are under consideration. They include: (1) even acquisition from both sides of the roadway, (2) acquisition only from the east side of the roadway, and (3) acquisition only from the west side of the roadway. Additional land acquisition will occur at the intersections of Bristol Street with Memory Lane, Seventeenth Street, Civic Center Drive, and First Street, to accommodate exclusive right turn lanes. The proposed cross - sections will provide a fully improved divided major highway per City standards with: sidewalks, curbs and gutters, six through lanes, and a raised landscaped median. Additionally, there are planned modifications of traffic signals and relocation of other improvements at existing intersections. The proposed improvements will comply with the provisions of the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan. Along the entire length of the project a 102 -foot curb -to -curb width is proposed within a 120 -foot right --of -way. Table 2 -1 provides the existing and proposed roadway improvements, lane geometrics, and rights -of -way along Bristol Street within the APEI. Table 2 -2 shows the anticipated changes in average route speeds ( i.e. running speeds as opposed to posted speed limits or spot speeds) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) along the 3.75 mile roadway segment under study. As shown therein, future design year (2006) running speeds without the project will be signifi- cantly lower than current and future "build" running speeds because of the increased traffic demands. The proposed widening project will improve running speeds and thereby, reduce conges- tion. ir 2 -1 r l L Y� f,• 7, { 1 L, n FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION W, N In 3 CERRITOS FULLERTON roRUA LINDA* ■ ■ BUENA PARK • ■ pLACENTIA STATE HIGHWAY 91 . ANAHEIM CvPfmS ■ t- ■ ■ STANTON LOS ALAMITOS STATE HIGHWAY 22 GARDEN GROVE ■ • WESTMINSTER 1� q� �s ■ FOUNTAIN VALLEY HUNTINGTON BEACH sl • COSTA MESA, NEWPORT ■ VILLA PARK ORANGE • Site ■ • TUSTIN SANTA ANA SRS r P ■ IRVINE _ STATE HIGHWAY 133 ....... .. . NORTH Endo Engineering = 2.8 Mac. �I � SCA[.E: 1" ■ TABLE 2 -1 BRISTOL STREET ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS rs__--..----------------_-----------------____----------____....___---- ____________ - ^- _ ___ __ _ y^ Scenario Average~Route Roadway Existing Existing Future w /3roject Link Lanes Pavement ROW -Nf0 Warner Av. 18 -N /O Warner Av. 4D 56/102 76/120 --N 10 St. Gertrude Pl. 5D 70/102 90/120 -N 10 First St. 4D 58/102 79/120 -N /o Sixth St. .4D 60/102 80/120 - N /O,Washington Av. 5D 82/102 100/120 -N /O 21st St. 4D 58/102 80/120 -N 10 Santiago Creek 5D 84/102 100 /120 1. Format: Number of Through Lanes and D= Divided, U= Undivided. 2. Pavement width and right -of -way (ROW) distances are in feet. t TABLE 2 -2 AVERAGE ROUTE SPEEDS AND VMTI r______ ________ _______ - """'"'_______- ____________ - ^- _ ___ __ _ y^ Scenario Average~Route Speed VMT2- (mph) (Miles /Day) Existing Condition -1987 -Nf0 Warner Av. 18 69,555 ' -W/O First St. 20 78,670 Future Design Year -2006 No- Project --N /n Warner Av., 10 83,475 --N 10 First St. 9 94,425 Build Condition -N /O Warner Av. 18 83,475 -N /O First St. 31 94,425 r 1. Source: Willdan Associates, May 1987. 2. VMT= Vehicles Miles Travelled IF ■ kaw, W 5 v �= - " 3A�!r W 3AV OuvL10u00 Fh O BAY ll30N103P��� - f a © JL e Z til J Q H 1S iSUIU i a laJ NO�Ia VO is In t4 m IF9 is 3NIa N 1 Id OOMN3l0 I- LSIaNi63HO Ill —1 1_ 16 37LUAW - l ld N30Ni� N3aWVo f� 1 - 1 Id 3NNV SS 1.I l 15 d011SJ0 1 " 1s 1 U3WAVU 3NNV 16 �d_ IS U3AMO1 30DUIU30 f 1 i t i N t 1S�)IOOU6 — f o `f e w 3AV N9a6YA — 1 I� ,3AV U3114 H VMVM a © JL e Z til J Q H Lb 0 1S iSUIU i a i FA— is In t4 m IF9 is 3NIa N 1 y I- LSIaNi63HO Ill —1 1_ 16 37LUAW - l 16 3lIWVp f� 15 d011SJ0 1 " 1s 1 U3WAVU " I-iv ' BAV t :: F aN VI HOIU =i IS U3AMO1 L6 17NVlH01H �1 1S�)IOOU6 — is IJOSaa� 1 e w 3AV N9a6YA I� - t —1 O 1136 SI3ll - N I —1 3AV 3UHISlIM "\ N a c `al w 0 b Lb 0 T 4 a �„ 0 z ... ..... ... Al ll' L77 L DJ71 ...... ...... -I-- .., ... ..... . . LZ X0 '• N a U, (n N D w Qom. LLF m " a 3AV du 4 if O • 1 F N Q J N (n F O Li N m N H ) O F SAY u30N1p] R 7 a I W .ri;.r:ji;i;i m o x ;N is °. 2 Myy S 3A l :• Iti �18�jR _ N _[ b ......... Si Tc c p p m cc E E - - m O m m 7 S 1 c li c m � — _ G N ':td :i�Jl • m � N Oi J - �> 04'Ss 1 H :• �'.:.:.:.:.: F c rc m m 1 ��3AY u3Nuvm _ 1 3AV • 3ulll6'lIM C al w w r� Z �+ Q B Q d y is vM L 3AV kJ3u-I3 LL W ' v 3AV OtJtlHDaOFl O O1S BNId 97 h cc a o — 4 N N is 1nN1S3HD `y m � L 3AV a9DM10B � 7 lS 3 1HAW w� 16 3lIWYD > 4 O is dOH616 � 79 S a3WAVa 3AV id M3HONV 16 OJyY111D 1a — �"�` 16 a3AMOi IjL dl N ld NOI -Iuv0 ¢ ¢ OF O 15 ONV'IHDIH G 4 - U w w &? ¢ ¢ Id OOOMN3 *ID J j ¢ 1S x0Oa9 _z w w O � O 7d N3OWVD F Z N30WtlJ Q N `.E w J w F 16 raollvno z g 7d 3NNV 1S Z �L yyN 3NNV is ❑ O T 3AV 'N30OVd.VV Id 3Onala3D -is o 13ssnH o F F ¢ 4 QI C 0 3AV a9NaVM y O C III w 3AV 3aIH571M O Lu a �V r f 1 1 H J Q ac a 3.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 3.1 Existing Ambient Air Quality Primary pollutants are those emitted directly from a source and include carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (DTO and NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates (TSP), and various hydrocarbons (THC). Secondary pollutants are created with the passage of time, in the air mass, and include ozone (03), photochemical aerosols, peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The area of potential environmental impact (APEI) is located within the South Coast Air Basin [SCA.W. The air quality of the basin is determined by the primary pollutant emissions added daily, and by the primary and secondary pollutants already pres- ent,in the air mass. oxidants (90% of which are ozone) represent the major air quality problem basinwide. Ambient air quality in the vicinity of the proposed project is a function of the primary pollutants emitted locally and the exist- ing regional ambient air quality. It is also determined by the meteorological and topographic factors which influence the intru- sion of pollutants into the area from sources outside the im- mediate vicinity. Climate and Meteorology The study area has a mediterranean climate with warm summers, maid winters and moderate rainfall. The land /sea breeze is the primary factor affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are sea breezes predominantly from the west which flow at relatively low velocities. These sea breezes exhibit velocities below 15 mph approximately 95 percent of the time, and below 4 mph about half of the time, with an average velocity of 5 to 7 mph. During the night, the winds across the basin usually reverse direction. These land breezes flow from the east at 1 to 2 miles per hour. l Average monthly temperatures recorded in the vicinity of the APEI at the Santa Ana Fire station range from 57 degrees Fahrenheit in January to 75.8 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Temperature extremes range from a high of 101 degrees during August to a low of 36 degrees in December. Precipitation averages about 12.49 inches annually in the vicinity, with nearly 90 percent occurring be- tween November and March. 1. Source: SCAQM D, "Air Quality Handbook ", December 1983. Refer to page 1 of the Appendix for additional information related to meteorological conditions affecting the disper- sion and transport of air pollutants. 2. Source: NOAA, "Climatological Data Annual Summary ", 1985. t 3 -1 IAmbient Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) main- tains ambient air quality monitoring stations at numerous loca- tions, the closest of which is in Anaheim. Ambient air quality data from this station is given in terms of state and federal standards which were adopted to protect public health with a margin of safety ( see pages 2 and 3 of the Appendix) . In addi- tion, California has adopted episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and sulfates in combination with ozone. Episode criteria represent short -term exposures at concentrations that threaten public health (see page 4 of the Appendix). The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a nonattainment area because of violations of the national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and total suspended particulates. Air quality trends which have developed at the Anaheim air quality monitoring station between 1983 and 1985 are detailed on page 5 of the Appendix and summarized below. It can be seen that sulfur dioxide, sulfate and lead have not equalled or exceeded the relevant state or federal standards. Oxidant (ozone), particulates, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide have exceeded the ambient air quality standards. 1 Of all the pollutants monitored, ozone equals or exceeds the state and federal standards most often. The California one -hour ozone standard (0.10 ppm) was equalled or exceeded on 19 percent of the days monitored in Anaheim. The less stringent federal one -hour standard (0.12 ppm) was exceeded on 10 percent of the days monitored. The maximum one hour concentration measured was 0.30 ppm. Nineteen Stage One ozone episodes were called at the Anaheim station, 10 in 1983, 5 in 1984, and 4 in 1985. There were no Stage Two episodes declared for ozone. Suspended particulates exceeded the California 24 -hour standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter on 4 percent of the days moni- tored at the Anaheim station during 1983 and 1984. Suspended particulates were not monitored at this station during 1985. The less stringent federal 24 -boor standard of 260 micrograms per cubic meter was not exceeded. The highest 24 -hour concentration measured was 215 micrograms per cubic meter (more than twice the state standard). The state and federal 8 -hour carbon monoxide standard (9 ppm) was equalled or exceeded on 1 percent of the days monitored at the Anaheim station. The l -hour state standard (20 ppm) and federal standard (35 ppm) were not exceeded on the days monitored at this station. The maximum 1 -hour Co concentration measured at the Anaheim station was 19 ppm (compared to the 20 ppm state stan- dard). t 1 3 -2 The state and federal lead standards were not exceeded at the Anaheim station. The one --hour state nitrogen dioxide standard (25 ppm) was exceeded on less than one percent of the days monitorSd at this station. The 24 -hour state sulfate standard (25 ug/m ) was not exceeded at the Anaheim station. Effects of Pollutants on Receptors Demonstrated effects of air contaminants on health and vegetation are detailed on page 7 of the Appendix and summarized in Table 3- 1. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The federal Clean Air Act and the state Lewis Air Quality Act require the preparation of a plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which will demonstrate the attainment of both the federal and state air quality standards. at the earliest date achievable (1987) using all reasonably available control measures. The AQMP, originally adopted in 1979 and revised by the 1982 Draft (adopted in October 1982), is a basin -wide plan which defines the nature and source of air contaminants and quantifies the-reduc- tions neccessary to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. A revision to the AQMP is expected in late 1988. The "Draft AQMP 1982 Revision ", identifies the control treasures available for implementation by 1987 as well as long range stra- tegies to bring the basin into later compliance. These measures will meet the federal standard for'nitrogen dioxide and for lead by 1987 and the state standard by 2000 (for both). There will 'be continuous attainment of federal sulfur dioxide standards, state sulfate standards and state CO standards; however, violations will continue for particulates. and ozone after the 1987 attain- ment deadline. Federal carbon monoxide standards are expected to be met by the year 2000. In conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis- trict (SCAQMD) prepares an annual "Reasonable Further Progress Report" which evaluates the AQMP's progress toward the reduction and control of pollutant emissions to acceptable levels. This report is presented to the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) for review. The,repor� describes basin -wide progress in reducing total hydrocarbons [THC) and carbon monoxide (CO) levels. Pro- gress in reducing nitrogen dioxide levels was required in this report until a plan revision was submitted to the EPA in Septem- ber, 1985. 1. Telephone conversation with the SCAQMD information officer, August 20, 1987. 3 -3 r TABLE 3 -1 HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS 1 Source: SCAOMD, "1983 Annual Summary" 2 Smoke is a British measure of particulate matter concentration. 3 -4 Concentration/ Observed Health Effects Pollutant Exposure Time at Specified Concentrations Ozone 0.25 ppmli hour Increased frequency of asthma attacks. 0.30 ppm11 hour Cough, chest discomfort and headache. 0.37 ppml2 hour Decline in pulmonary functon in healthy individuals. Carbon Monoxide 15 -18 ppm18 hour Can cause decreased exercise capacity in patients with angina pectoris. 50 ppm11 hour Can cause impairment of time interval estimation and visual tunction. Nitrogen Dioxide 0.11 pprrvfew minutes Sensory responses may be elicited or altered. Daily peak exceeds May cause some impairment of pulmonary 0.45 ppm on 10% of function and increased incidence of days for 12 months acute respiratory disease. 1.50 ppm/shorl term Can cause dificulty in breathing in healthy as well as bronchitic groups. Lead Increase in blood lead levels which 3.2 ug/m317 weeks may impair or decrease hemoglobin synthesis. Sulfur Dioxide/ 0.037 ppm SO May cause higher frequencies of Total Suspended annual average acute respiratory symptoms and Particulate association with diminished ventilatory function' (TSP) 100 uglm3smoke 2 in children. 1 Source: SCAOMD, "1983 Annual Summary" 2 Smoke is a British measure of particulate matter concentration. 3 -4 There have been improvements in air quality despite the growth in population, motor vehicles, and fuel consumption in the four - county basin. Stage 3_ ozone episodes have been declining at a rate of four per year since 1976, with an overall reduction of 33$ between 1976 and 1985. The improvements can be directly attributed to the control measures required on both stationary and mobile air pollutant sources. One of the most important and significant control measures, an annual vehicle inspection and maintenance program, was signed into law on September 10, 1982. Of the 33 Transportation, Energy and Land Use Control Measures implemented, the inspection and maintenance program produced the largest cummulative reduction for both THC and CO. This program decreased THC emissions per day and was responsible for 86% of the total THC emission reductions. CO emissions were decreased by 95.6 tons per day with this prog- ram (76% of the reductions attributed to control measures).' After the first year of vehicle, inspection, the CARS estimated that a 17% reduction in total Cd and THC emissions was acheived as a direct result of this program. Based upon the adoption of an annual vehicle inspection and maintenance program, the EPA re- moved constraints affecting federally funded transportation and sewage treatment projects in California. 1.----------------- Source:AirQuality Digest, July- August 1986; page 10. 3 -5 I J 3.2 Air Quality Impact Analysis f Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with re- .! spect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emissions on- site from construction activities as well as emissions at the power plant associated with the electrical requirements of the project. Mobile source considerations include exhaust emissions resulting from short -term construction activities and long -term traffic changes associated with the project. Short- -Terre Impacts Short -term impacts on air quality will occur during the construc- tion activities required to implement the proposed project. These temporary impacts will include: 1) particulate (fugitive dust) emissions from construction activities on -site; 2) exhaust emissions from the construction equip- - meat used on -site as well as the vehicles used to transport the equipment to and from the site; and 3) exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew. On a short -term basis, large dust particles (30 -100 microns in diameter) that settle to earth within a few hundred feet of the construction area could create a temporary localized nuisance problem. Additionally, fine - grained particles (less than 30 microns in size) may be emitted and dispersed over greater dis- tances, occasionally annoying adjacent receptors especially dur- ing Santa Ana wind conditions. An average particulate emission factor for heavy construction activities of 1.2 tons of dust per month of activity per acre disturbed has been cited by the EPA in AP -42. Fugitive dust generation can be reduced by half through dust suppression tech- niques such as regular watering during construction (particularly on unpaved areas used by construction vehicles). Diesel construction equipment constitutes approximately 90 per- cent of the heavy construction machinery in use today. It emits on the average about one -half pound of NOx (and smaller amounts of CO and THC) for each gallon of fuel burned (EPA, AP -42). Con - struction equipment emission rates on very active days may total several hundred pounds of contaminants per hour. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in 1989, although no start -up date has been firmly established. It has been estimated that completion of the project could require an estimated 24 construction vehicles over a 6 month period, with construction activities occurring continuously. 3 -6 Based upon this estimate, Table 3 -2 provides the vehicle emission projections from diesel construction equipment. As shown there- in, over the construction period the following could be emitted: 38 pounds of Co, 15 pounds of HC, 178 pounds of NOx, 13 pounds of SOx, and 11 pounds of particulates, daily. TABLE 3 -2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS1 Primary Pollutant Pounds per Day j Co 38.1 THC 15.0 N0x 178.4 Sox 13.1 d Particulates 10.7 r 1. See page 8 of the Appendix for assumptions and calculations. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities will vary from day to day as construction activity levels change but should be minimal and dispersed without significant impact on sensitive receptors. The construction crew will generate an insignificant amount of air pollutants along the various site access routes. Long -Term Pollutant Emissions Long --term impacts are those associated with the change in usage of Bristol Street that will result from the roadway widening. Emission projections can be made for current conditions (1987) and future design year conditions (2006) by multiplying antici- pated motor vehicle usage rates with and without the project by the appropriate emission factors. The emission factors used (see page 8 of the Appendix) were taken from the ARB EMFAC6D model which adjusts the EPA "Mobile Source Emission Factors" to reflect the more stringent emission requirements of California vehicles. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and average route speeds are typi- cally the basis for estimating the change in air pollutant emis- sions associated with a roadway improvement project. Traffic data provided by Willdan Associates representing current and future conditions indicated changes in average route speeds but no change in design year VMT values with and without the project. The average route speeds for both current and future conditions are detailed in Table 2 -2 on page 2 -2. 3-7 f Table 3 -3 provides the air pollutant emission projections antici- pated for existing conditions and future conditions in the design year (2006) with and without the project. As shown therein, there will be a decrease in future carbon monoxide emissions of 3666 pounds/day with versus without the project in 2006. There will also be a decrease in hydrocarbon emissions with the project (376 pounds/day in 2006). There will be an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions of 5 pounds /day in 2006. There will be no change in the emissions of sulfur dioxides and particulates with versus without the project.. The widening of Bristol Street will relieve congestion which will lead to slightly higher speeds and shorter travel times. The increase in speed will cause a significant reduction of carbon monoxide and total, hydrocarbon pollutant emissions from the vehi- cles using the road. However, higher speeds increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen from each vehicle on the roadway. Thus, on a short and long term basis, the proposed project will have a beneficial impact on ambient air quality in terms of Co, THC and the secondary pollutants formed as a result of these primary pollutants. The project will, however, increase the Localized effects of Nox by accommodating more vehicles at higher speeds within the roadbed and thereby increasing the concentra- tion of this pollutant adjacent to the roadbed. TABLE 3 -3 PROJECT- RELATED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISONI (Pounds/Day) Scenario co THC Nox Sox Parts. 1987 (Current Year) - No-- Project - Project - Change with Proj. 2006 (Future Yeah') - No- Project -- Project •- Change with Proj. 7792 790 NA NA NA NA 9162 947 5496 571 -3666 -376 583 69 NA NA NA NA 520 90 525 90 - +5 0 Note: NA = Not Available. 1. Values are the same for all three alternatives. Im 108 NA NA 122 122 0 Long -Term Air Quality Projections Microscale analyses were made at four intersections within the project limits where typical sensitive receptors were located. Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated adjacent to these intersections using "worst case" assumptions and the California Department of Transportation Line Source Dispersion Model Caline I 3. This model is approved for use by both the EPA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process, and limitations of know- ledge on dispersion characteristics of other air pollutant spe- cies, carbon monoxide was selected as the indicator of impact. NOx and HC were not considered because they are unstable and undergo changes to become secondary pollutants; therefore, the roadway's contribution to these pollutant concentrations cannot be accurately assessed. Nitric oxide (NO) concentrations can be predicted but there is no ambient air quality standard for NO. Nitrogen dioxide (which is the major constituent of NOx) concentrations cannot be determined from conventional non - reactive models. Similarly, an accurate method to determine a roadway's contribution to local levels of SOx and particulate matter is not yet available. Secondary pollutants are a large -scale phenomenon, and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. j The "worst case" assumptions made in the Caline 3 modeling pro- If cess included: wind speed of 1 meter per second, wind direction parallel to the road, peak hour traffic volumes, and atmospheric stability class of F (most stable) for 1 --hour averages and class D for 8 -hour averages. The Appendix (page 9) provides additional details and Caline 3 assumptions. The results appear in Table 3 -4 and represent "worst case" condi- tions. Actual levels would probably be less. Three scenarios were analyzed based upon traffic volumes for 1987 and for future year 2005 conditions both with and without the project. As shown in Table 3 -4, the future design year carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the intersections most affected by the project will not equal or exceed the 35 ppm 1 -hour federal stan- dard with or without the roadway widening proposed. Addi- tionally, the 20 ppm 1 -hour state standard should not be exceeded after completion of the proposed project. Conversely, state 1- hour standard exceedances may occur in the future design year under the "No- Build" condition at the intersections analyzed. Ambient CO levels in the design year (9.5 ppm) are projected to exceed the 8 -hour state and federal standards (9.0 ppm) in the project vicinity. However, CO contributions at the intersections W r TABLE 3 -4 CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO NEARBY ROADWAYS 1 -Hoar Average (p 3 _-_~-y -------- _--- Na- Projecti�iith ~Projectl- Receptor Distances Nearest 150 200 Nearest 150 200 (Feet) Receptor Receptor 1987 CONDITIONS Bristol Street at - Memory Lane 2.7 - Seventeenth Street 3.0 - First Street 3.4 - Warner Avenue 2.2 Background Concentration 18.0 2006 CONDITIONg Bristol Street at 2.7 1.9 ---_ ___ ___ 1.7 1.0 - -- - -- --- 2.6 1.8 - -- 2.2 1.5 - -- -- -- ---- 18.0 18.0 - -- ----- -- Memory Lane 3.7 3.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.3 -- Seventeenth Street 4.6 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.0 0.6 - First Street 3.9 3.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.4 - Warner Avenue 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 Background 14_6 14.6-- 14..6Yy_- 14.6_F 14.6- -Concentration 8 -Hour Average (ppT) - - - -- Na- Project -- With Projectl' -14.6 Receptor Distances Nearest 150- Nearest- 150 (Feet) Receptor Receptor -200 -200 1987 CONDITION Bristol Street at - Memory Lane 1.2 1.2 0.9 - -- --- - -- - Seventeenth Street 1.1 0.7 0.5 - -- - -- - -- First Street 1.5 1.2 0.9 - -` ---- -- -- 1 1 Warner Avenue 1.0 1.0 0.8 -_ -_- - -- Background Concentration 11.7 11.7 11.7 - -- ---- - -- r 2006 CONDITION Bristol Street at - Memory Lane 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.6 - Seventeenth Street 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 - First Street 1.6 1.4 111 1.0 0.8 0.7 - Warner Avenue 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 Background Concentration 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 I. "With Project" values are identical for all three alternatives. 2. Receptor distances are measured from the roadway centerline. 3. All concentrations include roadway contributions only and do not include the background levels noted (which must be added to determine state and federal standard exceedances). 3 -10 analyzed will be lower with than without the proposed project. Therefore, with the "build" condition, the number of days excee- ding applicable CO standards within the APEI should be reduced. Current CO concentrations without the project exceed the state 1- hour and 8-hour standards and the federal 8 -hour standards. To facilitate comparison between scenarios, Table 3 -4 shows the projected CO concentrations directly attributable to the roadway without adding background (or ambient) CO levels. The ambient CO concentrations shown in Table 3 -4 should be added to the levels generated by the traffic at the intersections analyzed to reflect the expected concentrations at various distances from the inter - 1 sections. The carbon monoxide levels at sensitive receptor locations nearest the intersections analyzed are shown in Table 3 -4. With the "build" alternative, 1 -hour. CO levels will decrease by 0.8 to 2.8 ppm. Under 8 -hour conditions, CO levels will decrease by 0.3 to 1.0 ppm. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the four intersections analyzed, the closest residential lots, and the closest sensitive receptor location. As shown therein, the closest residential land uses to the intersection of Bristol Street and Memory Lane are three single family dwellings(SFD) and a;multifamily apartment complex. The first SFD lies 2fl0 feet east.ok the Bristol Street centerline and the second SFD lies 175 feet west of the Bristol. Street centerline. Both residences -lie adjacent to the Memory Lane right -of -way. The third SVD lies 175 feet south of the Memory Lane centerline, adjacent to the Bristol right --of -way. A multi - family attached complex lies on the northwest corner of this intersection with the closest receptor located 200 feet north of the Memory Lane centerline and 225 feet west of the Bristol .Street centerline. The closest residential receptor to the intersection of Bristol at Seventeenth Street is an SFD which lies 650 feet north of the Seventeenth Street centerline and 20 feet east of the Bristol right -of -way. Rangho Santiago Community College is considered a sensitive recepto't and lies on the southwest corner of this intersection. A computer center in Building "A" lies 100 feet south of the Seventeenth Street centerline and 350 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline. The music building lies 100 feet west of the Bristol; Street centerline and 300 feet south of the Seventeenth Street centerline. The land uses surrounding the intersection of First at Bristol Street are generally commercial. However, a multifamily attached four -plex at 114, 116, 116, and 120 Bristol Street lies at the right -of -way. The nearest unit to the intersection lies 150 feet north of the First Street centerline. West of and adjacent to this lot lies the Johnson Chapel AME Church, 100 feet west of the 3 -11 N � O z f � 133ll 15 l9LLl! - T W y13aut9 119N331N3n3a � � IIr N N N e3uts o oD3s w lu CC N LL 133tl18 IIjrv3 1913 1331115 tllllllt N v � LL5z CL la3ulc Iuua31a1nr � love 133tl]4 �!l1311 1 �" Ovals hauls ouoa9s- xlle�,l a- �_ 1331115 111113A39 3AIV0 tl3D aA1] {a{yy W V LL yW1 z a �'w1 hauls Nu131 AYM NUVVry - ❑ f O 133 V19 Iv,3 133VL9 1LLN3M13Y3 `� 133111111 -9111 3M1 ��` 1x)1!1111119YM - 3NV rN]t —r r rl'o- ONO IILN3al1!]n35 Bristol right -of -way and 50 feet from the First Street right -of- way. The CA140 Headstart State Preschool lies 250 feet north of the First Street centerline with the playground at the Bristol. right -of -way. The closest SFD to this intersection lies 380 feet south of the First Street centerline at 10 feet from the Bristol right -of -way. At the Bristol /Warner intersection, the closest sensitive recep- tors are residential land uses. one SFD lies 200 feet east of the Bristol Street centerline adtjacent to the Warmer Avenue right -of -way. A second SFD lies 500 feet north of the Warner Avenue centerline at 2205 Bristol Street. The Bristol Place multifamily apartment complex lies `200 feet west of the Bristol Street centerline on Warner Avenue. The Caline 3 modelling shows a substantial decrease in the 1 -hour and 8 -hour average Carbon monoxide concentrations at all recep- tors at the intersections analyzed as a result of the roadway widening proposed. The carbon monoxide concentrations with the project are lower than those with the No Project Alternative because the benefits of increased speeds mere than offset the detrimental effects of a wider cross-section. l Currently, the background 1 -hour carbon monoxide concentration (18.0 ppm) is below the state and federal standards. however, the 8 -hour average background concentration [11.7 ppm] presently exceeds both state and federal standards. Year 2006 1 -hour background concentrations (14.6 ppm) are projected to be well below the relevant state and federal standards. Ambient 8-hour CO levels in the year 2006 (9.5 ppm) are expected to exceed both state and federal standards (9.0 ppm; see Appendix for methodolo- gy). At present, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity appear to experience carbon monoxide levels that exceed state and federal standards. -Under future conditions with the project, sensitive I land uses adjacent to the intersections analyzed will be setback ll far enough from the intersectionb to allow dispersion of pollu- tants and significantly reduce the number of receptors exposed to high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Since only "worst case" conditions were considered in Table 3 -4, carbon monoxide concen- trations during conditions which are more likely to occur should be less than those shown. Air Quality Management Plan The 1982 Revision of the Final AQMP includes projections of future carbon monoxide levels in the South Coast Air Basin. The second highest 8 -hour average forecast is 9.5 ppm by the year 2000. Based upon these projections {which assume that the AQMP ----- ---- -- -- - - -- -- I. The higher speeds resulting from more efficient traffic 3 -12 attainment strategies are implemented), future background cony trations should be low enough to reduce the number of days ceeding the 8 -hour standard, in the project vicinity. The AQMP assumes a level of growth in population and employm n. consistent with the SCAG -82 forecast (based on a local jurisa tion's General Plan). The project proposal is consistent w t`i the Circulation Element of the General Plan for Santa Ana; the: e.-- fore, the project appears to be consistent with the AQMP. Mo :r,-- over, the project will not adversely impact regional ambient it quality. It will improve several circulation performance char�c- teristics which are instrumental in determining vehicle emiss -3r, rates and thus air pollutant emissions. On November 3, 1987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued opinion vacating and ordering disapproval of Environmen Protection Agency's (EPAs) previous approval of ozone and cari monoxide (CO) control measures for the South Coast Air BaF (SCAB). The State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone and CO SCAB was disapproved by EPA on January 22, 1988. This project in an area where there is not an approved SIP current containing any enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCM�Z) for ozone and CO. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 C=" 770 do not apply to this project. A SIP revision has be developed for this area by the local air quality a; transportation planning agencies, but that SIP revision has n been approved by EPA. The mobile emission analysis of the area air quality management plan, included in the proposed S revision is based on a Regional Transportation Plan (and Progra that includes this project. Therefore, it is expected that if SIP revision is approved for the project area, that this proje( would conform to it. 3 -13 1 3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures Measures selected for incorporation in the project include: 1. SCA4MD Rule 403 (see page 10 of the Appendix) will be ad- hered to, insuring the clean up of construction - related dirt on approach routes to the site. 2. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction- generated dust particu- lates. 3. Construction equipment will be properly maintained and ser- f viced to minimize exhaust emissions. 4. Consideration will be given to the provision of convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along Bristol Street to encou- rage the use of public transportation. Additional mitigation measures offered for consideration and incorporation in the project if found to be feasible: 5. The use of energy efficient lighting along Bristol Street (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the area. (AQMP control measure Nll) 6. Traffic signals along Bristol Street should be synchronized if feasible. (AQMP control measure K2) 7. Construction activities should be halted during Stage one and Stage Two smog alerts. 3 -14 r r cc 7 1 4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 4.1 Existing Acoustic Environment Various noise fundamentals are introduced below followed by a discussion of (1) the harmful effects of noise, (2) guidelines for achieving land use compatibility with noise, and (3) the current and future noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed Bristol Street Widening Project. Fundamentals of Noise Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24 -hour period to re- flect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed. A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating I_ against the very low and high frequencies of the audible spec- trum.. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies audi- ble to the human ear. I} Examples of the decibel level of various noise sources are shown in Figure 8. They include: the quiet rustle of leaves (10 dBA), I a soft whisper (20 to 30 dBA), the hum of a small electric clock j (40 dBA), ambient noise outdoors or a house kitchen (50 dBA), normal conversation (50 dBA), or a busy street (70 to 80 dBA). [ Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calcu- lated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level. (Le q) is the constant level that, over a given time period, transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time- varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the day -night average sound I level [Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) ] scales. Harmful Effects of Noise Approximately 20 million people in the United States currently have some degree of hearing loss. in many of these cases, expo- sures to very loud, impulsive or sustained noises caused damage to the inner ear which was substantial even before a hearing loss was actually noticed. To prevent the spread of hearing loss, a desirable goal would be to minimize the number of noise sources which expose people to sound levels above 70 decibels. I. - The Appendix provides additional information on the funda- mentals of noise (refer to pages 11 and 12). 4 -1 i i i i r Figure 8 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Sources Physically Painful Extremely Loud Discomforting Very Loud Loud Quiet Threshold of Hearing Endo Engineering dBA Sonic Boom Jet Takeoff at 200' Oxygen Torch Discotheque Motorcycle at IV tUnmuffled) Power Mower at 3' Newspaper Press Freight Train at 59 Food Blender Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock Heavy Truck at 50' Busy Street Traffic at 50' Average Traffic at 100', Vacuum Cleaner at 10' Electric Typewriter at 10' Dishwasher at 10', Air Conditioning Unit at 15' Normal Conversation at 5' Typical Daytime Suburban Background Refrigerator at 10' Bird Calls Library Motion Picture Studio Leaves Rustling But hearing impairment is only one of the harmful effects of noise on people. Table 4 -1 summarizes the potentially harmful effects of noise on sensitive noise receptors. The Appendix provides additional details on physical and psychological re- sponses of humans to noise (see page 13). TABLE 4 -1 IHARMFUL EFFECTS OF NOISE Effect Noise Levels At Which Harmful Effects occur Prevention Or Interruption Of Sleep 35 - Speech Interference 50 - Extra Auditory Physiological Effects 65 - Hearing Loss 75 -- Source: Calif. Dept. of Public Health Report to 45 dB (A) 60 dB (A) 75 dB (A) 65 dB(A) 1971 Legislature Figure 9 illustrates how excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and becomes severe at about 60 decibels. Community Response To Noise Approximately 10 percent of the population has such a low toler- ance for noise that they object to any noise not of their own I making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another 25 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. Despite this, the population as a whole can be expected to ex- hibit the following responses to changes in noise levels: an increase or decrease of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments; a 3.0 dBA increase is considered just noticeable outside of the laboratory; an increase of 5.0 dBA is often necessary before any noticeable 1.^ "Literature Survey for the FHA Contract on Urban Noise ", Report No-1460, BB &N, January, 1967. 4 -2 change in Community response (i.e. complaints) would be ex- pected. l Recent studies have shown that changes in long -term noise levels, measured in units of Ldn or CNEL, are noticeable and that people respond. About 10 percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 50 Ldn will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one Ldn is associated with approximately 2 percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 Ldn or aircraft noise exceeds 55 Ldn, people begin complaining. Group and legal actions to stop the noise should be expected to begin at traffic raise levels near 70 Ldn and air- craft noise levels near 55 Ldn. 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 commercial or industrial I activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity 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. There are two sets of noise criteria that apply to the Bristol Street widening project. These include the federal noise stan- dards (promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration) and the City of Santa Ana noise standards established in the Noise Ele- ment of the General Plan. Each set of criteria uses a different noise metric and a unique methodology to assess noise impacts. Federal Standards: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed a series of design noise levels for various activity categories which are expressed in terms of equivalent sound levels (Leq) or Llp values.3 These design noise levels are commonly used on federally funded projects or projects for which federal review or CalTrans review is anticipated. The FHWA. design noise levels represent maximum values and incor- porate trade -offs between desirable and feasible noise levels (recognizing that in many cases lower noise exposures would I. "Noise Manual ": Caltrans, 1980 and "National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117 ", HRB, 1971. 2. State of California, Department of Health Services, Dr. Jerome Lukas, Memo dated July 11, 1984. 3. LI0 values are noise levels exceeded ten percent of the time. They are commonly used to express peak hour noise levels (since peak hour traffic volumes are typically 10 percent of the daily traffic volume). 4 -3 result in even greater community benefits). The Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual., Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7.7.3) has established design noise•ievels for different activity categories. Residences, schools, and recreation areas are in activity Category 8 which specifies an exterior design noise level of 67 dBA (Leq). Most commercial areas are in activity Category C with a corresponding design noise level of 72 dBA (Leq). The design noise levels for all activity categories appear in Table 4 -2 and are to be applied to: - those undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed and programmed on the date of public knowledge of the highway or other federally funded construction project; - those activities and land uses in existence on the date of public knowledge of the project; and - those areas which have regular human use and in which a lowered noise level would be of benefit. The FHW A noise abatement criteria establish an exterior noise level for residential uses of 67 Leq. An interior level of 52 Leq applies where: (1) no exterior activity area is identified or (2) the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that they will not be significantly affected by the noise (but the interior activities will). The criteria apply to private yard areas and assume that typical wood frame homes provide a 10 dB (outdoor to indoor) noise reduc- tion with windows open and a 20 dB reduction with windows closed. Under federal noise standards, traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when the predicted traffic noise levels substantial- ly exceed the existing noise levels. City Standards: The City of Santa Ana General. Plan Noise Ele- ment, includes a series of goals, implementation policies, and implementation programs related to land use compatibility with noise. Table 4 -3 lists the "desirable maximum" and "acceptable maximum" noise levels for various land uses, as noted in the General Plan. As shown in Table 4--3, the desirable maximum noise level for residential uses ranges from 55 to 65 CNEL depending upon density, and the maximum acceptable noise level ranges from 65 to 70 CNEL. Commercial and office uses have a desirable maximum noise level of 65 CNEL and a maximum acceptable noise level. of 75 CNEL. Industrial land uses have the same maximum acceptable noise level as commercial uses (75 CNEL) but a higher desirable maximum noise level (70 CNEL). In addition to the noise compatibility guidelines specified in the Noise Element, the City has adopted a Noise Control Ordinance (August 21, 1978) which specifies maximum noise levels which can be generated at the property line of residences, churches, 4 -4 r H I d' a m a E r r4 N a m r� z 0 H AC fi E a a Ia V) H N 94 0 I 1t f !1 I II ! U m I - 44 I $4 f0 k •+-1 -r4 fu m ❑ —1 ❑ L: 0 4J - ro .7 ❑ m c C rq fd M � � 0 rn � % I II I II A m a] W 44 � a] 4) +) rn ro rn >1 � � U 0 +} m ro N m F- 0 •� 0 ji4j •r•f 0) •� -H m A -H jr .(a �' �,���4j w't �' m `�° �'To I II 'r 1 0 A W y rn raj rUf ra A •� i s ri ��uf3 ° v r a 4{ ❑ $4 W II 4 0 ❑' ,4p0my E - 09 m � � m� m v 11 r. fa 4' � � X ,, .1 •y' 11 jD4 tAi ++ 1 ri 10 44 '� 4-I DO v � ., l ro *4 to I +) II >1 a ❑ a m 4j 4-) a) .04 ad � •.� •r rl 4J $4 � •� -k ra to - fd ro ca +' r-1 a 41 rC ❑ ii 4) 4j o m rQ 11 U z 0 S' au� to $4 ❑ a - p arrto ❑�:��,fa ma: U -H 0 0,,j ❑ W FO 0 ❑ '-1 � a 4.1 1❑ n p +� m a u C C A m v 4J 1 0 T to F -1�R, �❑�rUn -'q d II rd 3ro❑❑fe�m as �� �A�, aA rnA r- w $4 u -a).r, to r, a❑a >°, fro ❑ t 1 ri .,I A to -, m w >a +� U r-1 m ' m � a as c of a-' n 1 m 8 C 0) .r, mtp a) 0 A U Z W s4 4J rd - m a 0, In 0 I I1 ° ra .r4 a) ,C G] rd 0, V am m V, m } + 0 '3 1" II c +n m� ❑ �' "U r me k I it li14 ,..1 �+ A W 3 �+ f�) �4 � s4 m fd 0 � -"1 a) u IC � J U w (a fn M a) a) �, m r m 4J -4 W � �' 11 I !� fn ro rc 4, U - �+ 41 is r~ 'r I m b > t0 is m ro 4J •^1 +j � *•I .r•1 0 0 r-I t37 f , U .m1 '� 0 r !I to m a) m fa W 4-) a-+ .r4 A ❑ U A m > +I !w R3 m A 1 l! $4 54 a) m qi tC kt (d U� z 04 sz z fl 4) r0 0 z a) U ai h4Jr-00aa0roV rs,m -r4 ❑U 04 PCm I r� II 1 m u k � R ,C !1 AG Im CCI I Im roi �'i �'i a oil 4 1 1 -411 00 00 Ln0 1 >n0 1 ar ,a 11 %D r- •ra n •r-1 to •ri I to ll u �, �4 $4 0 it 4-t 4J � 4J t Z— tr Q x Q x Q x oc c I A 11 94 0) CC C1 W 4) 1 CO -4 1 C: — 11 ra v ra •• q j --- 1 fo -- 1 tm 1 r •*+ as r1 n n H I ry I m .a II in n In I ar u r ❑ n f 11 1 {} I H I >1 > 4 I I I --1 ❑ II -4 Cam) H d Im U In W r 4J +) 11 ra It •� 4-) W ❑ 4J 0) .h '❑ v �4 �4 ❑ a 44 I 0 I T1 n � a� cd m Q1 E fe > 4 a� 0 N 0 4j tn �ro b Q4J 0 r>1 � r� a� A sr+ W f4 b 0 m w 0 0 a 41 >� a; W4J •H r4 ry Ln I Itr schools, and hospitals, as well as the procedure for identifying and resolving noise violations. The amount of exterior noise that can legally be generated is 55 dBA between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, and 50 dBA between 10 PM and 7 AM. TABLE 4 -3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE ----------------------------------------------------------------- Land - Use -_--_- `�-- TT - Desirable- Max_'CNEL Acceptable Max. CNELR Residential - Low Density 55 dBA 65 dBA - Medium Density 60 dBA 65 dBA - High Density 65 dBA 70 dBA Schools 60 dBA 70 dBA Commercial, Office 65 dBA 75 dBA Industrial 70 dBA 75 dBA Source: City of Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element. On -Site Noise Measurements Ambient noise levels in the project area are currently affected primarily by motor vehicle noise emanating from Bristol Street. The project site is far removed from public, military, and pri- vate airports, railroads, and other significant noise generators. However, the project area is subject to the sight and sound of aircraft utilizing the John Wayne/Orange County Airport. IFifteen noise measurements were taken by Endo Engineering (Decem- ber 1986) using the system and procedures discussed on page 14 of the Appendix at thirteen representative locations along Bristol Street within the APEI. The measurement locations are illus- trated in Figures 10 and 11. The measurement sites were selected as being representative of the noise sensitive receptors nearest to the roadway and there- fore most likely to be affected by the proposed project. All of the measurement sites are classified as Category B activity areas in Table 4 -2, where exterior design noise levels of 67 dBA (Leq) apply. The measurement sites include a high school track/field, a commu- nity college auditorium, two elementary school playgrounds, two multifamily attached dwellings and seven single family residen- 4 -6 O N n Z `° 11 r � J �I�l G 15 1SHId w � cc 2 T ` FT 7 — CC IJ, Cl) V, y 1s 1an qna t 3a is — �� 0 w N � c 3nY quYlloaofl a r O C 1g 3NId i- Z N Q N O °' —� a' "— 16 In Nis 3110 N m SN J O i S 3AV a30NIO3 m 1S 3l1HAW LF W 15 BIIWtlD ?� 4 J O 16 dOIi SIB - � 0 �S UBWAVH • r • 0) CO 23 AV ld— M3tltlNV 16 gNY1HOIH �HL 1S 1J9A11101 ld NOlIiIVO 1S ONVlHOM F ld OOOMN3l0 1S NOOHO ld N30vi �.. A- 9NWI N30W V0 15 NOS 9n0 ld 3NN 15 �3Atl N 3Oq VJ�W �d l r � � agnrileao '1s I- N J — o l-lassna o I- � r fI -- m m C d — 3AV NaNtiVM m c W �_ aAY 3H111SlIM by rV b z O A33uig L61NJ u a) N � 133u1g u0�35 W W 7Y ll LL - LU LL (n }=i Qj 133Y19 u11133AI�a CD 1]3LIi6 W z `O 0 � � W 11� FWF [� � 133Y16 luna3l31+ui � vrlr V[uVc Z 71 133tl16 d X36 -A LN3M1 �� 133u�5 f 1n3n39 M -W1 u31r+39 o1n19 IL • N Ylllrs '- -- 0 1331iis v +r� _ —� I`� � 133H19 IiArv3l AYM IlOIbYIY - � TI 133ui9 �3 �3 133u 15 II 3n3'13 Id3V1 -6 1IIlp1 _ — r``I�- 7III�1- 13runf 1y TI.^ ILI 1331115 �� � � olollulsYen el O Otl Ilp UY119 3NYl NIIYd ' tiW�— 111 N)\ �113py Y4y � 6 • 3NYl AUply311 v w 0 b 133V13 1111133`143A35 I ces. Sites 1 through 12 lie adjacent to Bristol Street, whereas site 13 is one lot removed and therefore a second line receptor. All measurements were located with respect to the existing right- - of -way. Single family residences at sites 1, 5, and 6 have front yards facing with direct driveway access onto Bristol Street. Both multifamily residential sites (3 &7) and single family sites 6, 9, 12, & 13 take access from side streets and have front yards facing away from Bristol Street. Traffic on Bristol Street was free flowing during all measure - ments with the exception of sites adjacent to major intersections where vehicle delay was significant. Measurement 7 is considera- bly affected by this situation due to its proximity to the inter- section and location adjacent to the southbound approach lane. Also note that noise levels midblock are significantly greater than levels closer to the intersections since higher travel speeds are prevalent and noise generated from vehicles is highly speed dependent. Figure 3 depicts the existing land uses adjacent to Bristol Street. Table 4--4 provides the ambient noise measurements at each site in decibels on the A- weighted scale, using the Leq noise descriptor. It also includes comments on the type of adjacent land use. Ten minute noise level recordings were used to represent the maximum noise level for a typical weekday evening peak hour period. Traffic counts were made during the noise measurements and the maximum Leq values shown in Table 4-4 include adjustments to reflect the peak hour traffic conditions. Measurement site 1 was located in the front yard of a single family residence. This residence lies midblock on Bristol Street, 200 feet north of Santa Clara Avenue and is affected by changes in noise level due to the signal at this intersection. The measurement was taken 15 feet from the Bristol Street right - of -way and 5 feet from the front entryway of the house. This residence is representative of 10 other houses in the vicinity. Measurement site 2 was located in the playground area of the Santiago Elementary School. The playground lies adjacent to Bristol Street and has full street exposure. There is an exis- ting chain link fence separating the school grounds from the roadway. This fence provides no noise attenuation and is broken at two ends of the property for pedestrian access. The closest classroom to Bristol Street lies 275 feet from the Bristol Street right --of -way. Measurement site 3 was selected at a multifamily detached dwel- ling complex in a common recreational area. The site was adja- cent to a gazebo in an outdoor activity area, between two of the 4 -7 TABLE 4 -4 NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Site ^r - ~__ Legl - w- - -- Time of Day ----- -- Date »---- ---- - - - - -- Comments (dBA) (pM) (1986) = =___.- 1 71 5:40 12/17 Front yard of midblock SFD. 2 70 4:40 12/17 Elementary school playground. 3 66 5:17 12/17 Recreational area MFD. 4 67 5:40 12/17 Community College auditorium. 5 72 6:00 12/30 Front yard of SFD, full street exposure. 6 72 6:07 12/17 Front porch of midblock SFD. 7 73 5:25 12/30 MFA at Bristol ROW S fib 4:48 12/30 Corner SFD 9 64 5:03 12/30 Rear yard of SFD; 5' black wall. 10 71 3:15 12/18 Track field at high school; 3.5' above grade. 11 70 3:57 12/18 Elementary school playground. 12 70 5:40 12/18 Front yard of corner 5FD. 12A 63 4:45 12/18 Rear yard of corner SFD; wooden fence. 13 63 4:57 12/18 Front yard of second line receptor. 13A 54 5:25 12/18 Back yard of second line receptor. 1. Adjusted to reflect maximum one hour Leq values based upon the peak hour traffic volume compared to the traffic volume during the noise measurement period. 4 -8 front residential units and 39 feet west of the Bristol Street right -of -way. A chain link fence, gated for pedestrian access, exists at the right -of -way. This noise measurement is represen- tative of the noise level at 33 residences on Bristol Street between Santa Clara Avenue and Seventeenth Street. Measurement site 4 was taken on the Rancho Santiago Community College Campus adjacent to the auditorium. The site was 70 feet from the Bristol right -of -way. A three foot block wall at the right -of -way provides some noise attenuation but allows complete line of sight exposure to truck exhaust stacks. This block wall is also broken directly in front of the measurement site to allow for pedestrian access. The noise level measured at this site also reflects volumes on Seventeenth Street adjacent to this intersection. Measurement site 5 was taken in the front yard of a midblock SFD at 5 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. This front yard area has full exposure to the roadway. The noise level at this residence is expected to be representative of noise levels at 16 similar residences along Bristol Street in the project vicinity. Measurement site 6 was selected at an SFD that is a "worst case" receptor in this area. The site lies 3 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way at a point 80 feet south of Seventh Street. The measurement was taken adjacent to the front porch. This outdoor activity area has full exposure to Bristol Street. Measurement site 7 was taken adjacent to a 4 -unit multifamily attached dwelling at 114 Bristol Street. The residence lies at the right -of -way and an outdoor activity area is only possible in the side yard area. This area receives full street exposure from Bristol and First Street since it is separated from First Street by a vacant lot. The site was located 60 feet from the First Street right -of -way. The intersection has a phased signal and traffic queues in front of this residence. i Measurement site 8 was selected in the front yard of a single family dwelling on the southeast corner of Bristol Street at Raymar Avenue. The measurement was taken 11 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way adjacent to a front porch. This residence is similar to eleven other houses in the project vici- nity. i Measurement site 9 was taken in the rear yard of a corner house at Richland Avenue and Bristol Street. The site was located at an outdoor activity area on the patio in the rear yard which lies adjacent to Bristol Street. The site was 30 feet from the Bristol Street right --of -way and 5 feet from the rear entrance. The rear yard is separated from the roadway by a 5 -foot high block wall. This noise level measurement was assumed to be repre- sentative of sound levels in the vicinity that are currently attenuated by a 5 -foot block wall. 4 -9 Measurement site 10 was selected at the Mater Dei High School track field which lies adjacent to Bristol Street, just south of Edinger Avenue. The track is raised 3.5 feet above grade and lies seven feet from the right -of -way. The measurement was taken when this field was in use to reflect the greatest noise impact on sensitive receptors. The measurement site was located at the ` edge of the track and separated from the roadway by a chain link fence. A bus stop on Bristol Street, located directly in front of this track/field, will contribute to the ambient noise level at this site. Measurement site 11 was selected at the Jose Andres Sepulveda Elementary School on the west side of Bristol Street, opposite Mater Dei High School. The site was at a playground for younger children, situated between a chain link fence at the right -of -way and the school media center. The measurement was taken 16 feet from the right -of -way. The media center, the closest building to the roadway, is situated 52 feet from the right -of -way. Current plans include the relocation of this playground as a safety 1 precaution (to increase the distance to Bristol Street). Measurement sites 12 and 12A are located at an SFD on the north- east corner of Bristol at St. Gertrude. Site 12 was taken in the front yard, 18 feet from the Bristol Street right -of -way. There is a stop sign on St. Gertrude in front of this site where vehicles queue during the peak hour. Site 12A was situated in the rear yard at an exterior laving area, 30 feet from the right -of -way. The yard is enclosed with a 5.5 foot wooden fence that provides some noise attenuation. Measurement sites 13 and 13A are located at an SFD which is one house removed from the corner of Bristol at St. Gertrude. This residence is considered a second line receptor since the corner house provides shielding which would be eliminated if the house was removed after right --of -way acquisition. Site 13 is located in the front yard at 70 feet from the Bristol Street right -of- way. Site 13A is located in the rear yard at an exterior activi- ty area 89 feet from the Bristol Street right- of--way. A 5.5 foot high wooden fence separates this rear yard from the corner resi- dential lot. From Table 4 -3, it can be seen that noise levels at measurement sites 13 and 13A are significantly lower than levels at the first line receptor. Noise Modeling Results Noise from motor vehicles is generated by the engine vibrations, the interaction between the tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the speed of motor vehicles reduces the noise exposure of listener's inside the vehicle and those located adja- cent to the roadway. The highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (RD --77 --108) and currently being 4 -10 applied throughout the nation was used to evaluate current noise conditions at various points along Bristol Street within the Area of Potential Environmental Impact (APEI). This model accepts various parameters including: the traffic volume; vehicle mix and speed; and roadway geometry in computing equivalent noise levels during typical daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels can then be weighted, summed over 24 hours, and output as the CNEL value. Various CNEL contours are subsequently located through a series of computerized iterations designed to isolate the critical contour locations. Noise contours were developed as a planning tool for local agencies. Tables 4 -5 and 4 -6 provide the predicted current CNEL and Leq levels adjacent to Bristol Street in the APEI. Assuming a noise reduction with distance factor of 3.0 dBA with each doubling, and assuming no adjustment for local attenuation (houses, buildings, noise barriers, etc.) the distance to various noise contours used for land use compatibility purposes have also been determined and shown. TABLE 4 -5 CURRENT EXTERIOR CNEL EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET Roadway Link^ r -- ^~ TCurrent r CNEL a Dist. to Contour -(ft)2 (Speed) A.D.T.1 75 ft. 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -NIO Warner Avenue 33,400 70 78 232 729 -N 10 Edinger Avenue 31,900 69 57 161 502 -N10 McFadden Avenue 35,700 69 62 179 562 -N10 Bishop Street 40,000 70 68 201 630 -N /O First Street 35,500 69 62 178 559 -N10 Santa Ana Blvd. 35,500 69 62 178 559 -N/0 Fifth Street 36,700 69 61 183 577 -N10 Civic Center Drive 37,300 69 62 186 587 -NIO Washington Street 39,400 70 68 198 620 -N10 Seventeenth Street 42,800 71 95 296 934 -NIO Santa Clara Avenue 48,600 72 110 336 1060 1. A.D.T. means 1987 average daily two -way traffic volume. 2. All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. The FHWA RD- 707 -108 noise model predicts noise levels based upon average traffic volumes, speeds, roadway width, truck mix, and distance to observers. Noise measurements reflect the actual r Conditions on one particular day at the location monitored. 4 -11 Noise measurements can be strongly affected by weather , P lacement of traffic control devices, design and condition of the roadway= and topography. A comparison of the noise model predictions and the noise measurements can provide additional information about the affect of localized conditions on traffic noise. -------------------------_------------------------------------------------- 1. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. Distance was measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 1 4--12 TABLE 4 -6 CURRENT EXTERIOR LEO EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET -^___ � .__------- __------ Roadway -- - -rLeq Pealk _ ~ at -~^(ft )2 Leq Contour (Speed) VPH 75 ft. 67 dBA 62 dBA Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N10 Warner Avenue 2672 70 136 424 -N10 Edinger Avenue 2552 68 96 293 -N10 McFadden Avenue 2856 69 107 327 -N10 Bishop Street 3200 69 119 367 -N10 First Street 2840 69 106 326 -N10 Santa Ana Blvd. 2840 69 106 326 -N 10 Fifth Street 2935 69 108 336 -N10 Civic Center Drive 2984 69 110 342 -N 10 Washington Street 3152 69 117 361 -N10 Seventeenth Street 3424 71 172 542 -N10 Santa Clara Avenue 3888 72 197 616 -------------------------_------------------------------------------------- 1. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. Distance was measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 1 4--12 4.2 Acoustic Impact Analysis Short -Term Acoustic Impacts IL Short -term acoustic impacts are those associated with construc- tion activities necessary to implement the Bristol Street Widen- ing Project. These noise Levels will be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today but will subside once construction is complete. Construction is expected to begin in the year 1989, with construction activities occurring over a period of 6 months. Two types of noise impact should be considered during the con- struction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site will incrementally increase noise levels along the roadways leading to and from each specific construction site. The increase should not exceed 1.0 dB(A), when averaged over a 24 -hour period, and should therefore be an inaudible increase to noise receptors located along the roadways utilized for this purpose. Second, the noise generated by the actual construction activities at each construction site should be evaluated. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and Consequently its own noise charac- teristics. These various sequential phases will change the char - acter of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in type and size of con- struction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources ! and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by 1] work phase. Figure 12 illustrates typical construction equipment noise ranges at a distance of 50 feet. The earth moving equipment category includes excavating machinery I (backhoes, bulldozers, shovels, trenchers, front loaders, etc.) and highway building equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, pavers, etc.). Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmov -- ing equipment range from 73 to 96 dB(A). The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 to 91 dB(A) at 50 feet. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the erection phase (laying sub -base and paving) tended to be less noisy. Noise levels varied from 79 dB(A) to 89 dB(A) (energy average) at 50 feet during the erection phase of construction. City Standards: The construction noise impact to the adjacent noise sensitive land uses will be a temporary nuisance. The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code requires that construction activities take place only during weekday day- 4-13 i i i i i r i i i i i i i i i r r i • Noise .:A i feet /i 70 :i •i ••,.� F `: 100 110 Front Loader Can :';�' : NEI Backtiller .�].�i✓i:.l� 'Cif Scraper/Grader Elmx Concrete •` ■ Motor Crane f�Z -'fir BEEN Generators MEN • • / ■ / a g e . / ■. • . / i ■ . / / ■ • // 1 • time hours (7 AM to S PM, excluding federal holidays) when noise intrusion is less disruptive. The local noise ordinance speci- fies which hours each day construction activities can occur. Federal Standards: The "Federal Highway Program Manual" (FHPM 7- 7-3 ) requires that sand use activities which may be affected by highway construction noise be identified. In addition, the mea- sures needed in the plans and specifications to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts must be determined. Howe- ver, no specific guidelines are available for assessing the significance of construction noise impacts. The 1981 California Standard Specifications (Section 7- 1.0113, Section 42 -1.02, and Section 42 -2.02 (shown on page 17 of the Appendix) and Standard Caltrans Special Provisions Section 5 -1 (Sound Control Requirements) may be referenced in project plans and specifications when they apply to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts. A diagram illustrating various con- struction noise control strategies developed by Caltrans is in- cluded on page 18 of the Appendix. Long --Term Acoustic Impacts Daily traffic data for future conditions with and without the project was provided by Willdan Associates. The findings of the traffic study indicate that daily traffic volumes would not change with the proposed project versus the no- project alterna- tive. However, traffic congestion along Bristol Street would de- crease, and a consistent set of improvement standards would also improve safety and other operational characteristics. Future noise levels within the APEI were projected by employing the FHWA RD -77 -108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Noise contours were developed as a planning tool for local agencies. Boise emission levels were obtained from National Reference Ener- gy Mean Emission Levels as a Function of Speed (per paragraph 14 of FHPM 7 -7 -3). The posted speed limit was assumed to be repre- sentative of future mid -block conditions with the proposed pro- ject and the no- project scenarios as a "worst case" assumption. A 2.58 percent truck a mix was assumed along Bristol Street as shown on page 15 of the Appendix. Cif Standards: Table 4-7 shows the community noise equivalent levels which can be expected adjacent to each roadway link within the APEI for design year (2006) conditions with the proposed project and the no- project alternative. As shown, future noise levels adjacent to Bristol Street will be higher with the pro- posed project than with the "no- build" alternative because of the wider pavement width. The increase would amount to I dSA or less. The unattenuated 70 CNEL contour will fall between 66 and 130 F. feet from the centerline of Bristol Street in the design year 4-14 without the proposed improvements. With the proposed project, the unattenuated 70 CNEL contour will fall between 70 and 132 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 65 CNEL contour will fall between 192 and 404 feet from the centerline, depending upon the link and scenario under consideration. TABLE 4 -7 FUTURE EXTLRIOR CNEL EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET - --- _ ~- r Roadway Link .. - -r A.D T.1 ~ r CNELa� - Dist. to Contour (ft)2 (mph) 75 ft. 70 dBA 65 dBA dBA - -60 No Project- (Year 2806) Bristol Street (35,40 mph) --N 10 Warner Avenue 40,100 71 91 278 875 �. -N10 Edinger Avenue 38,300 69 66 192 603 -N10 McFadden Avenue 42,800 70 72 214 674 -N10 Bishop Street 48,000 70 80 240 755 --NCO First Street 42,600 70 72 213 671 -N10 Santa Ana Boulevard 42,600 70 72 213 671 -N 10 Fifth Street 44,000 70 72 220 692 -N`O Civic Center Drive 44,800 70 73 223 705 -N10 Washington Street 47,300 70 79 237 744 -N10 Seventeenth Street 51,400 72 114 355 1121 _N10 Santa Clara Avenue 58,300 73 130 403 1272 ' Proposed Project -(Year 2006)3 Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N10 Warner Avenue 40,100 71 95 279 875 -N 10 Edinger Avenue 38,300 70 70 194 603 -N /0 McFadden Avenue 42,800 70 76 216 674 -N10 Bishop Street 48,000 71 84 241 756 -N10 First Street 42,£+00 70 76 215 671 -N 10 Santa Ana Boulevard 42,600 70 76 215 671 -N10 Fifth Street 44,000 70 78 222 693 -N10 Civic Center Drive 44,800 70 79 226 706 -N 10 Washington Street 47,300 71 83 238 745 -N 10 Seventeenth Street 51,400 72 118 356 1122 _N10 Santa Clara Avenue 58,300 73 132 404 1272 ( ___________________..-_--_--_--___---- _-- ___- _-- _-- _- _-- _- ___ -_ - -_ I. A.D.T. means year 2006 average daily two -way traffic volume. 2. All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 3. Proposed project values are identical for all three alterna- tives. 4-15 r f Federal Standards: Table 4 -8 details the future design year maximum hourly equivalent noise levels adjacent to each roadway link with and without the proposed widening. Under Federal noise standards, traffic noise impacts occur when predicted noise le- vels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, or when predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. TABLE 4 -8 FUTURE EXTERIOR LEG EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO BRISTOL STREET -..----------------------------------------- __-_-------- _- --_____ - -__- Roadway (mph) Pea Leq at Leq Contour (ft)2 VPH 75 ft. 2 67 dSA 62 dBA No Project -(Year 2006) Bristol Street (35,40 mph) -N10 Warner Avenue -N10 Edinger Avenue -N10 McFadden Avenue -N10 Bishop Street -N10 First Street -N10 Santa Ana Boulevard -N10 Fifth Street -N10 Civic Center Drive -N10 Washington Street -N10 Seventeenth Street -N10 Santa Clara Avenue Proposed Project -(Year 2006)3 Bristol. Street (35,40 mph) 3208 71 163 508 3064 69 114 351 3424 70 127 392 3840 70 141 440 3408 70 126 390 3408 70 126 390 3520 70 129 403 3584 70 131 410 3784 70 139 433 4112 72 207 651 4664 72 235 739 -9/0 Warner Avenue 3206 71 164 509 -N /O Edinger Avenue 3064 69 116 352 -N10 McFadden Avenue 3424 70 129 393 -N10 Bishop Street 3840 74 143 440 -N10 First Street 3408 70 128 391 -N 10 Santa Ana Boulevard 3408 70 128 391 -N10 Fifth Street 3520 70 132 404 -N10 Civic Center Drive 3584 70 134 411 -N 10 Washington Street 3784 70 141 434 -N10 Seventeenth Street 4112 72 209 652 --N10 Santa Clara Avenue 4664 73 236 739 1. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. Measured from the Bristol Street centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 3. Proposed project values are identical for all three alterna- tives. 4 -16 With the no -build alternative, the unattenuated 67 dBA contours will be located between 114 feet and 235 feet from the center- line. The unattenuated 62 dBA contours will be located between 351 feet and 739 feet from the Bristol Street centerline. With the build alternative, the unattenuated 67 dBA contours will be located between 116 and 236 feet from the centerline. The unattenuated 62 dBA contours will be between 352 and 739 feet from the centerline. The 62 dBA contour locations are provided within Table 4 -8 so that interior noise levels can be determined for comparison to the FHWA design criteria. Since FHWA allows a 10 dBA noise reduction factor for buildings with windows open, the location of the 62 Leq contour provides the point where interior noise levels of 52 dBA will occur when windows are open for those situations where there are no exterior activity areas and interior noise criteria apply. Sensitive Receptor Analysis The fifteen noise measurement locations (on thirteen lots) were analyzed for future noise impacts with three project alternatives and the no- project alternative ( see Figures 10 and 11 following page 4 -6). For each of the project alternatives, exterior noise levels were calculated for the no mitigation condition and with 6 -foot and 8 -foot barriers. In addition, the barrier height for a 5 dB attenuation over the no mitigation condition (minimum 6- foot wall), and the barrier height required to break line -of- sight to a 11.5 -foot high diesel exhaust stack was determined. After the widening of Bristol Street, some of the measurement locations will fall within the right -of -way for some of the project alternatives. Calculations of future noise Levels were not included for alternatives where the noise impacted structure is being removed. Since the front edge of the residential dwel- lings adjacent to measurement site #7 are on the right -of -way for alternative 2, there is no room for a noise barrier, and no barrier attenuation calculations were made. Finally, barrier attenuation calculations were not made for "no- mitigation" noise levels at or below 63 Leq. The noise impact from Bristol Street on residential areas falls into several categories. Many dwellings front onto Bristol Street with access directly onto Bristol Street, or with access to an alley in the back. The front yard noise impacts could be mitigated by constructing a barrier at the right -of -way, however pedestrian or pedestrian and vehicular access may be restricted by construction of a contiguous noise barrier. Dwellings with the side yard facing Bristol Street typically have front yard impacts. However, construction of a 6 -foot block wall protecting the front yard may reduce the visibility of motorists 4 -17 approaching Bristol Street and may also have aesthetic impacts. Several dwellings with side yards facing Bristol Street have rear yards enclosed by chain link fencing. The noise impacts on these rear yard activity areas will be similar to front yard impacts, but access conflicts will not be a consideration. Construction of a perimeter 6 -foot block wall at the right -of -way would reduce noise levels to acceptable Levels at these units. Several alternatives include taking a portion of school activity fields or playgrounds. For alternatives where the noise measure - ment location was within the right --of -way, the measurements were adjusted to reflect conditions ten feet behind the future right - of -way. Construction of a perimeter 6 -foot block wall at the right -of -way would reduce noise impacts to acceptable levels at outdoor activity areas. Second line receptors (ie. receptors impacted when abutting structures are removed) are often of concern adjacent to free- ways, but are generally not severely impacted in local roadway widening projects. Measurements at sites 12, 12A, 13, and 13A were made to assess the front and back yard impacts on a typical worst -case second line receptor. A field review of the sensitive noise receptors located adjacent to Bristol Street within the project area indicates exceedances of federal exterior noise criteria for approximately 167 front yard activity areas. Of these dwellings, 68 front onto Bristol Street with direct vehicular access, and 99 have vehicular access to a rear alley or to a side street. In addition, 7 of these dwellings have noise impacts in rear yard activity areas (six yards surrounded by chain link and one with no fencing). Table 4 -9 summarizes the noise levels at the fifteen typical locations evaluated along Bristol Street. The maximum one -hour equivalent noise levels for a 5.0 -foot receptor are shown for several scenarios including- 1. Existing noise levels at the outdoor activity area (account- ing for local attenuation by existing noise barriers); 2. Future design year noise levels without project implementa- tion (no project alternative); and 3. Future design year noise levels with the 3 proposed alterna- tives, including mitigation in the form of a 6 -foot or 8- foot barrier at the right -of -way. Also included are the barrier heights necessary to provide a 5 dBA attenuation from the "no- -mitigation' condition, and the height to break the line -of -sight between a 5.0 -foot receptor and a 11.5- - foot truck exhaust stack located at the equivalent source to r barrier distance) . 4--18 ON I d' W a E4 W W E H z v7 ►� pC p ON W fa tl] H W H 0 z II II r-K�t II .-i [f1 as ff f !tin f f 3 i f f fin f +d 0 4.4 II 1 c k tat I I I t 1 0 tp 1 I at 1 � a •-- 11 II 11 I I I [ t I I I I I I f I I E I I I I [ 1 I l I I 1 1 11 k 3 I 1 1[ f 1 11 I 11 lE II r$' ri II I l t l! l! 11 I f I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I W �-► II f- I- 1 1 I I I -- 1 !- b *d -'-I +% !k I tiD I tiD I 1 1 I I tD tD I I MO W 4 4 4 3 3 1 4 3 3 N !I 11 b rc •vTO brvFO rob G p v v 0 0 Q7 m w 111 ar a" :> a > > > >> >a m _II • 4J t 3' II 1~ E E E E E E E r~ U! W W 11 T N (1] ❑ 0! 0) W Q) 07 o-4 r-•I 41 Q7 ❑ V +1 a 11 I 'i lA Ix 1p Pi R R+ Ri �- tR tC Ri lx 1!3 c x co !I l I ! 1 I I I I I u u t t t 3 i 3 3 i i v Ir 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 I •�i • •-- Il I 1 l l!! t I I I �4 4J �4 W 0) II I (n I ,-1 I I t t I m I 1 -4 I rd a 11 I ►7 ! I ! I 1 I t0 I I I W tD ►� !1 1 ! I f I S 1 I f I I 1 I f l l l i f 1 I I I 1 1 rl • +J •`- fl I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 41 -,1 t3' ll l l t l 1 l ( m cwt t t tt 'IV ri 0) II I Ot I b I I I I I C 0 1 I r- .-r t I w ID z~ 11 H II II qT II Q) 4 Il -> U 4J (a 0 al 11 - 40r- MNmNC' rr Nrirld 1n G l4 II r- n I'D $v nt -r�D %Cr� nt -kD0en f 4 4J 0 11 ri z 11 �C 11 R 41 � II Q7 11 �+0 r- r-NNi"7 H0Cmm.t tra W 11 rrr- mwr- r- rtoti10 r— fl- t -tDwun ,1 in -- n N 0 ti z 11 1t 41 It W 4J II Q Q C x 11 -- N -T Ln mor,CQG1 0 1-4NNmm to U 11 - 4r4 1-4rrrari ra 0 11 �a u � II s~ � 4-) U (d rd G 41 G N +i Cg U} 'V ra 4-) a 70-, 2 •Q � U l l .,Gi Vl () G Q1 0 } ,a 0 +J�� �4 U) 0 G a y G p -H U 0) 3 W i4 U ro I t4 pq ro (C 0) m ro A 0 �4 a! 0) 0 ri +-3 4� >0r;� UU U 0 ro rC5 m U) $.4 44 4J p; 'U Qi 4. G r4 l7 01 E� .1 G 0 G *{ p rc 0 01 t-r c1 m m A ,G w > st~ 4-3 �-4 +) �L4 c QS i} 4j W L" rC 4-J T -0 G •-I tT ra Rt G Ql Cq .,a 44 .,1 4j 0 N 0] 0 41 -P U 44 +3 r S-+ 0 n U 0 >~ JJ > 4 N 0 5•, 0. ], m Q] . .1 rd W fd Uuld i~ in w 0 0 m G 4J fa ,S4 t3)4 U w,� d k 4-) 0 QrA ,� .� rr Qxj 4-) C) r1 41 41 4, ro fa 44 4.) t4 w 0' -'-+ �-' -s C a, w > c 0) 0 4a .H 44 0 >4 0 G' 0J rt3 � 0 e-4 �0 rl rd rh C Q7 3 1 � a *C >n rt G 0 m tL G - 4 U U: G C 0 •C'i 0 En 0 E- U E, 4 9 ,�,^ U 1 r-. U I a E w a a W U a o-a a E M rz W I!] 1G iz fl W N a� H N k7 H z rN . Cdo44 ' 1: 0 • 4 +i PQ 4J roux Ln �� �+ a ac m �. �� �4 a rn • .- m a a Z— 30LH w -A +J Ln 2:x 4a 0 a CO s4 +J W i4 W W 03 N 41 +) •,.r .4 Z t3' 9c0 ! a-' I � � ey I f4 I � � f 0 I � Ito to CO I 0� r t l l 1 l �I - I 1!7 to I Itn [ I i r- I � t Ln I I I �Dr-r I l I E ! I E E I f I 1 t t I I I 1 l I 1 kD W W I I 1 ro ro ro FO was ra mar 0-i -I a a a > r{,� 00Ln (D 0%D 0+flw 0kc%D.oa0) E 1 11 I ❑❑❑ k t•! I N to I I ri 1 t•7 d' m Z Z ,Z I 1 W to I I %D I %D W %o 1 I I I I rn n'1 I C I CID r+ t l t- I co�Mm� 1 �D I n t I l9 I r r lfl %o ►o N I i tt'1 I Ln i i I I I Ln t I CO 1 D I tD I I f 0 rn I 1 0 1 I f 4 E! 1 I t I I ! I I I I I f I I f I f l 1 1 [ 1%-0 I %D I 10 +J I I tD vO 1 I t9 I 1 i i i rn 1 i b 1 I 1 �4 I 07 1 I 41 +J �4 �-4 '❑ ro ra rA b •ri ro 'o •ri m 0) 0) rr v z m a) z N > r-� > a ❑ > IT .-, r-I > > rf 0, 000110 0110u0a)ko`0 00`oa rx rx r � f� a W ! C7 I Cv 1 e1 s 0 1 I 1 E U I I I [ f [ I [ I I 11 l 4 1 i 1 t 1 i f f I 1 r r I I I 10 I CO 1 -4 p1 1 m 0 1 1 00 C\' 1 ►D I tp I n ID I %D to r- I I kro kro rl N m et Lf" 1 k.0 n co d% O r+ N N m m rl rl r-4 .1 -4 r1 r- t4 ❑ 0 .r., 'd 6 ra U to U .� . 4.1 ra 4-j CO f4 N � .7 r4 H •� O ❑ 0 � aJ W 4J 14 H �� 4 ❑ .� ❑ T @ rn 4-) w •-1 U u1 in 1 ra O $4 7,_ U �, ru ❑ � j 00-4 Q 0 v, $4 4.) •,I a) 3 '+a c v 0rO R o a .-f Q) ,� w > if] '0 4J 0) +J w � •••t �' n3 O7 G rn 44 -H Q] O) Zh 4-J Ow fo Q Q 0 C 0 a) •d3� 3C]� Lf) U 414 CC � O � �� 4-j 1 U C) CO A �+ 4-) wr- Q) � �+3 p �4 -H x 4j 4J 4-J s~ro : �awC� }, 3 +} �, 0 .,1 07 t7) C 'a) as -Q) r~ CJ 4v � U •r•t ttl O rn qy y r 3 'FA 1 +1 E •rl - rl U ul to E, UE4r+aiC Q M O N f Three of the locations monitored (measurement sites 9, 12A, and 13A) were located at rear yard activity areas and do not require additional mitigation. The front of the dwelling at location 7 is on the right -of -way with the front entrance exiting onto the sidewalk. There is no room to construct a wall at this location. The remaining eleven locations that exceed the federal exterior noise criteria with at least one of the alternatives are dis- cussed in further detail below. For all eleven locations, the proposed Bristol Street right -of -way is 120 feet and the noise barrier is located 60 feet from the roadway centerline. All calculations assume level terrain (except at Mater Dei High School), and typically address conditions located 6 feet from the front -or back of the house (to represent activity areas). Measurement site 1 was in the front yard of a single family dwelling located north of Santa Clara Avenue. All three alterna- tives propose to remove this dwelling. Measurement site 2 was located adjacent to an outdoor activity area in an elementary school playground, 23 feet from the right- of-way. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 assume that the existing 23 feet remains between the right -of -way and play area. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot barrier constructed at the right -of -way will be adequate to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Measurement site 3 was at a multi - family dwelling complex and a common recreational area south of Santa Clara Avenue. All three alternatives propose to remove this dwelling. Measurement site 4 was located at the Rancho Santiago Community College Campus near the entrance to the auditorium. An existing 3 --foot wall located near the right --of -way would be removed for alternative 3. The distance between the measurement location and the Bristol Street centerline for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are 127, 129, and 109 feet, respectively. As shown in Table 4 -9, a 6 -foot noise barrier constructed at the right -of --way would reduce the projected noise levels below 67 Leq. However, a 6 -foot wall is not recommended since it may have an adverse aesthetic impact on the campus. Measurement site 5 was located in the front yard of a single family residence located north of Civic Center Drive, near 9th Street. The residence will be removed with alternatives 1 and 2. The measurement location for alternative 3 is located 66 feet from the Bristol Street centerline (6 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 attenuation. However, a contiguous noise barrier is not recom- mended since it would restrict pedestrian and vehicular access. Measurement site 5 was located in the front yard of a single family residence located south of Civic Center Drive. Tine [ 4 -21 l .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 addressed without that fence. In that case, this second line receptor would have future noise impacts and require noise walls as shown in the Appendix. The front yard noise impacts for the first line receptor (site 12) and for the second line receptor (site 13) when the first line house is removed, are typical impacts associated with a house facing a side street. Although a 6 -foot block wall would reduce noise impacts, a wall extending out to the corner would reduce the visibility of motorists on St. Gertrude Place and Bristol Street. Although the noise attenuation from a six -foot barrier placed at the right -of -way (60 feet from the centerline) in front of dwellings fronting on Bristol Street is evaluated in Table 4 -9, construction of a wall may prove infeasible. For most of these dwellings, noise barriers will conflict with existing driveways, pedestrian access, or reduce vehicular sight distances at cor- ners. Construction of a non - contiguous wall would lower noise levels behind the wail but reduce the effectiveness of the noise barrier such that the Caltrans minimum affectiveness criteria x would not be met. A map included as pages 19 through 24 of the Appendix indicates which residences appear to be noise impacted by future traffic volumes projected for Bristol Street with or without each of the proposed project alternatives. The map also indicates whether front yard or rear yard exterior impacts are anticipated, and where first and second line noise barriers may be constructed. The barriers proposed will mitigate noise below the federal criteria in all cases except where frontyard impacts occur on corner lots. City standards require a 25 -toot setback of noise walls from corners to allow for adequate sight distance. The resulting location of barriers along Bristol Street may not fully attenuate noise levels to meet the federal criteria. Second Line Receptors Second line receptors are buildings that are currently acous- tically shielded by a row of buildings located between them and the roadway. Since the proposed project could ultimately result in the removal of 200 existing buildings adjacent to Bristol Street, there is the potential for adverse noise impacts at approximately 200 second line receptors. Barriers should be constructed to shield the second line recep- tors that will exceed the 67 Leq standard (see the Appendix). In addition, barriers could be constructed per current Caltrans practices to shield those second Line recptors where exterior noise levels will approach the 67 Leq standard (i.e. 65 Leq to 67 Leq exposures as illustrated in the Appendix). After construc- tion of the noise walls for the second line receptors, the atten- uated noise levels will range from 59 to 63 Leq. It should be 4 -23 noted that final design may not include barriers at the locations identified as approaching the 67 Leq standard. Attenuation due to shielding is an important mechanism by which highway sound levels are reduced. Shielding occurs when the observers view of a highway is obstructed or partially obstructed by an object or objects which significantly interfere with the propagation of the sound waves. Shielding can be provided by rows of buildings and/or existing barriers. The amount of attenuation provided by rows of buildings is deter- mined by the portion of the row that is occupied by the buil- dings. For example, a 3.0 dBA additional attenuation is provided by the first row of buildings when the structures occupy 40 to 65 percent of the length of the row. A 5.0 dBA attenuation is afforded when the buildings occupy 65 to 90 percent of the length of the row. No attenuation is allowed for rows of houses which occupy less than 40 percent of the length of the row. Each successive row provides 1.5 dBA of additional attenuation until a total attenuation of 10.6 dBA for all rows is obtained. This is the maximum attenuation that this mechanism provides. Any excess attenuation by ground effects (ie. 4.5 dBA/DD versus 3.0 dBA/DD) is assumed to end when the sound waves reach the first row of buildings. Consequently, the shielding provided by rows of buildings is only additive to the attenuation provided by geometric spreading ( 3.0 dBA/DD) . Barriers interrupt sound propagation and create an "acoustic shadow zone" where sound levels are lower than in the respective free field. Crucial features of noise barriers include; - The barriers cannot have any cracks or breaks. - The barriers must be high enough to break the line -of- sight between observer and the noise source, and long enough to prevent noise leaks around the ends. - The shape of the barrier can affect the amount of atten- uation. The mass and stiffness of the barrier must be sufficient to prevent bending or buckling and it must not vibrate easily or leak air. 4 -24 1 4.3 Noise Mitigation Measures Noise Attenuation With Distance In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the noise level resulting from a single "point source" of noise drops by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources such as industries, refrigeration/air conditioning units, and bells or buzzers at schools. It also applies to individual mobile noise sources such as an airplane, train or idling motor vehicle. For. a "line source" of noise, such as a heavily travelled road- way, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance between the noise source and noise �~ receiver. Environmental conditions such as the wind direction and speed, temperature gradients, the characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), the pres- ence of grass, shrubbery and trees combine to increase the actual attenuation achieved outside of laboratory conditions to 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance. However, for a "worst- case" analysis, a 3.0 decibel reductiori with doubling was assumed for arterials throughout this report. General Methods to Reduce Acoustic Impacts There are several basic techniques available to minimize the adverse effects of noise on sensitive noise receivers. Classical engineering principles suggest controlling the noise source when- ever feasible and protecting the noise receptors when noise source control measures are inadequate. Many of the noise source control mechanisms are being applied by State and Federal governments. Acoustic site planning, archi- tectural design, acoustic construction techniques and the erec- tion of noise barriers are all effective methods for reducing noise impacts when sourcl control mechanisms are insufficient to achieve desired results. --------------------- 1. In its "Noise Assessment Guidelines ", the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development uses a 4.5 decibel drop for each doubling of distance in assessing roadway noise. Thus, a noise level of 74.5 decibels at 50 feet from the highway centerline would be attenuated naturally to 70.0 decibels at 100 feet, 65.5 decibels at 200 feet, 61.0 decibels at 400 feet and so forth. 2. A more detailed discussion of available methods to reduce noise impacts is included in the Appendix (refer to page 16). 4 -25 ISpecific Recommendations The following mitigation measures wave been recommended for in- corporation in the project to minimize noise impacts: I Construction activities will take place only on the hours specified in the City of Santa Ana 'Noise Control Ordinance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. 2. All construction equipment, faxed or mobile, operated within 1040 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. - 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings. 5. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and receptors during construction. 6. The noisiest construction operations should be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. The following mitigation measures are suggested for consideration and implementation if feasible. 1. Any residential noise barriers that are removed in conjunc- tion with the project should be replaced with barriers at least 6 feet high. 2. For these dwellings on corner lots with access to cross streets which experience exterior noise impacts, a six- -foot block wall could be constructed at the right -of -way to a point 25 feet from the extension of the intersecting perpen- dicular curb line of the cross street to reduce exterior noise impacts. 3. Construction of sound barriers in front of the residences fronting on Bristol Street would restrict pedestrian or vehicular access and consequently are not proposed. 4. The construction of sound barriers adjacent to school play- grounds and athletic fields would meet federal exterior noise standards for outdoor activity areas. 5. Future design year noise levels could be reduced to meet federal criteria if a six -foot noise wall is constructed to shield those rear yard areas of units with side yards and rear yards facing Bristol Street as shown in the Appendix. 4 -26 6. Six -foot block walls should be constructed at second line receptor residential lots that exceed the 67 Leq federal standard (see the Appendix) to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels. 7. Six -foot 'Mock walls could be constructed at second line receptor residential lots that approach the 67 Leq federal standard, to reduce exterior noise levels. 4 -27 5 .O ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED The following organizations and persons were consulted during the preparation of this report. Caltrans (District 7) ..................... Mr. Satish Chander Mr. Joe Hecker Ms. Sue McCullough Mr. Bill Minter Mr. Doug Stroup City of Santa Ana ......................... Engineering Dept. Willdan Associates ........................ Mr. Ernie Egger Ms. Massoumeh Estiri �. Mr. Robert Miyasaki Mr. Randy Nichols I r AS 0 a a Q CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY Throughout the basin, the vertical dispersion of air pollutants is restricted by the presence of a persistent temperature inver- sion near the surface (when temperature increases with increasing altitude, it reduces the mixing height). Winter inversions frequently weaken and erode by mid - morning, thereby preventing the accumulation of contaminants. On hot summer days, however, the inversion layer often remains, trapping pollutants in a limited mixing area until middle or late afternoon when the inversion layer lifts, erodes, or surface wands are sufficient to disperse the pollutants horizontally. Thus, a combination of low wind speeds and low inversions creates the highest pollutant concentrations. Four key elements are required to specify the meteorological conditions affecting the transport and dispersion of air pollut- ants. These include the wind direction, wind speed, atmospheric stability, and mixing height. Although regional meteorological conditions (such as temperature inversions, Santa Ana wind condi- tions, etc.) will dominate localized conditions for the most part, wind direction, wind speed, and localized turbulence gener- ated by site specific topographical conditions can play a key role in determining site specific ambient air quality. Wind direction and speed (which in turn affect atmospheric sta- bility) are probably the most important climatological, elements affecting the ambient air quality on -site. The on -shore dominant daytime wind pattern occurs between noon and 7:00 pm, following the peak travel period (5 am through 9 am) in the Los Angeles/ Orange County area. Consequently, during periods of low inver- sions and low wind speeds, the photochemical smog formed in these areas is transported downwind into Riverside County and San Bernardino County. During the fall and winter months the APEI is subject to moderate and strong Santa Ana winds. These dry warm northerly and north -- easterly winds typically last for several days and exhibit vel- ocities which exceed 40 mph at times. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND DATA The four pages that follow present: (1) the currently adopted ambient air quality standards, (2) episode criteria, (3) avail- able episode data, and (4) ambient air quality data from the most representative monitoring station for the most recent three years in terms of both state and federal standards. Irregularities caused by changes in the standards are discussed below. The California Air Resources Board (CARE) periodically reviews the state's ambient air quality standards considering new health effect studies and recommendations by the Department of Health Services. On September, 1982, new sea level carbon monoxide standards were adopted by the CARE. The one -hour standard was revised downward from 40 to 20 ppm. The 12 -hour standard of 10 ppm was dropped in favor of an 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. These revised standards were designed to prevent carboxyhemoglobin concentrations from exceeding 2% in the blood and thereby avoid adverse health effects in persons with heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia or pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. The national ambient carbon monoxide standards are also under review by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are currently set at 35 ppm for one -hour averages and 9.0 ppm for an eight -hour average. The state 24 -hour standard for total suspended part Sculates (TSP4 was changed (effective July 1, 1983) from 100 ug /m to 50 uglm for particulate matter with an aerodynamic d, eter equal to or less than 10 microns. In addition, the 60 ug�m annual geometric mean (AGM) standard for TSP was replaced by a 30 ug /m3 standard for total thoracic particulates (TTP). Both of these changes reflect health concerns related to smaller particles that pene- trate deeply into the human respiratory tract and the effect of these particles on visibility. F AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon aadnor•dr ! S++evr 6OSSm NOlth - _ f it mgrm�l � Yn.nd.M 1 aerer.elien %A wSt,c.rrn por,b r li adrC.nq rrGbEf the or Merl.nq n.Gl, Irf ParnClq to leaf Man 30 rr,.Ifr rra thr - - - relanve num.d.rr n Ins eh.n 70, NOTES 1. California standards, usher slats carbon monox rde, Wl fur dioxide it hourl and particulaM master - PM,., are •*S.. Shan are not - be equaled o, —eded Th. carbon moniawde. sul tux dibmda[1 hoof }and parutu4ale me %ter - PMie standards are not td be exceeded. 2 National standards, other than o =one and than based on annual averages or annual geometric meant, are not to be exceeded mare than once a Year. The ozone standard is attrned whim the expected number of days per Glenda Year rw fh me xi mum hourly average concen- tratiom above Aso standard Is equal to a less than me. 3. Corscentratron expressed first in units in which it was Promulgated. Equivalent units given in parmoseses are Wad upon a reference temperature of 25 °C and t reference pressure of 760 mm of Ewcury. All measure• meets of air pual l ty aft t0 be corrected to a refetlef c, temperature of 25 °G ands refeferhn pressure of 750 mm of Hg (1,013 -2 mllllbar.l; pprfl in this table raters to porn try vuJume, W mhtromdel Of slaflutant pen mole of gas. a Any tg+llvalent procedure which can be shown to the saris fa c lion of the A4 Has uurr $ Board to 91 or e0uiv alert relidls at or near the level of the elf qualhly standard may be used 5 National Pr.mary Ssandards- The levels of air oualrlY ��Endo Engineering 9 9 3 necassa ry, wr th on adequatar margin of safety, to pro tttl the publtc health Each stair most axsam the primary sundarda via haler than ihre, Yeaq after that slat,'% implemMlatron plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPAI. 0, NlSrdnal Secondary Standard!, The lereis of air quality necessary W protect the pubes welfare fr om airy known of anetaoated adverse affects of a ppflutant. faeh slate must atearn the secondary standards within a "rexon. able s.m!' after the irtplerr.enotim plan rs aoprwed by the EPA. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA An -eciw vaient meshed of dVasufement may be used but must have a - consistent aelitionshiq to the r,f rrena method" and must be approved by the EPA B- Prevari.ng visitmkty is defined as the greatest wsrbrl.ty which it allairled or slrrpaa%ed aroYn =t least half of the horizon cave, but not necessarily in conunuom %eclarx. 9. A loci twos where the 91al, standards lot oxr clan andler suspended parlieulale mallet are rrdialea National standards S004Y elsewhere 10. hteasurrd as ozone SOURCE. AR8 FACT SHEET (REVISED 1985) UK fermi. 51e.rdards I Macneill suaprd e /atluranf A-Wria, Tien Ca.srrerauenr ua hrolr Priwrr.a -s 1ic+wd. a a uaalnedr p..osm," 1 aWr Q t0 sfo , 5200 ugl.wa I [Tlrawolel slletoranrr 016M s liovr - - Q.12 Pan Some n /rr+lary EMrlerre [135 rg6mst 'S-=d Cs arrml wn.narrernrr irrp Pn me—ide O lgyr 'S 0 PPm eadn•anPrnre 90 op" Senx ar Nan- G:sWrrrw 110-W -311 tnhared py S MDIRi flQrviyhnsl Pri~y strwra tlrtrered fvaeep goon t r 20 pow( 121 maNna I 55 corn ( r0 *rare -Z I Mirise trweirse A—W A.e p - 100r0lrsi2 Gn Pl,ep Ca,ra„lum.- f0A5 tloml Salvia n /Avv ry Ssaaaard (+aril /lwe cNevilvmreoaeenee 1 hour 0.2500- i{ M ugim a 1 - Memo, Sulfur Droede Anatual Average - !0 ulpma - 10.03 slpm) Ii hour 0.05 coin 365 uglMa _ via, rglmal+ uh•anolw io.14 io"l it rvoeerldu.e Fluaextnoe 3 kw, - 1]00 ryma IQ.S coin I I hour 0.95 Pon, - i6S5 uP7M } Sraseandad Afwel $rpw.rtrre - _ /arceur.e. hareem 3Q uglma Mellor IPMfe1 Puler --line - I` 24 .wr s.r Prided Putlrulett Matter A rusOM Gearf.e.r.e Mean - - ]5„grma 50 .91-1 Hryn Vol SYnPI M Ia now 2Ea 1.9 /.vie I ISO rrPfr.,a f - I4 Susnaret I i{nour ZS ugllna 7u.lsd.,e�etr.c - - _ S.-M S rz, Lead 30 day % 5 wlma AT—t- A-494 Atr,-M, n O.W19F e 5 ug1.3 Seine as /.i- Arom.r merY Stallard Aber orlo•r Hrdropen Sv!l:de 1 he,d 007 PPm I{2 rgrma l Wpn,um Hydrd.- tle ST0.at1 w - � - mha.ar.di{a 1 2e } 26 uylma I Tadar fag couar,rwn, G. - - - I Lrro.r..regraPnr od0c ilr 1 I eW{. rar.p� 0.durmq I Parttlfs In 1url,e �rnt amount xe rrduia [vie aM.ltrp mib.l.xya w loth Ihan 10 m,rK wl,rn f.f l - 1II - rrlah.rr nvmgn ,• lava torn tq•, 5 APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon aadnor•dr ! S++evr 6OSSm NOlth - _ f it mgrm�l � Yn.nd.M 1 aerer.elien %A wSt,c.rrn por,b r li adrC.nq rrGbEf the or Merl.nq n.Gl, Irf ParnClq to leaf Man 30 rr,.Ifr rra thr - - - relanve num.d.rr n Ins eh.n 70, NOTES 1. California standards, usher slats carbon monox rde, Wl fur dioxide it hourl and particulaM master - PM,., are •*S.. Shan are not - be equaled o, —eded Th. carbon moniawde. sul tux dibmda[1 hoof }and parutu4ale me %ter - PMie standards are not td be exceeded. 2 National standards, other than o =one and than based on annual averages or annual geometric meant, are not to be exceeded mare than once a Year. The ozone standard is attrned whim the expected number of days per Glenda Year rw fh me xi mum hourly average concen- tratiom above Aso standard Is equal to a less than me. 3. Corscentratron expressed first in units in which it was Promulgated. Equivalent units given in parmoseses are Wad upon a reference temperature of 25 °C and t reference pressure of 760 mm of Ewcury. All measure• meets of air pual l ty aft t0 be corrected to a refetlef c, temperature of 25 °G ands refeferhn pressure of 750 mm of Hg (1,013 -2 mllllbar.l; pprfl in this table raters to porn try vuJume, W mhtromdel Of slaflutant pen mole of gas. a Any tg+llvalent procedure which can be shown to the saris fa c lion of the A4 Has uurr $ Board to 91 or e0uiv alert relidls at or near the level of the elf qualhly standard may be used 5 National Pr.mary Ssandards- The levels of air oualrlY ��Endo Engineering 9 9 3 necassa ry, wr th on adequatar margin of safety, to pro tttl the publtc health Each stair most axsam the primary sundarda via haler than ihre, Yeaq after that slat,'% implemMlatron plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPAI. 0, NlSrdnal Secondary Standard!, The lereis of air quality necessary W protect the pubes welfare fr om airy known of anetaoated adverse affects of a ppflutant. faeh slate must atearn the secondary standards within a "rexon. able s.m!' after the irtplerr.enotim plan rs aoprwed by the EPA. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA An -eciw vaient meshed of dVasufement may be used but must have a - consistent aelitionshiq to the r,f rrena method" and must be approved by the EPA B- Prevari.ng visitmkty is defined as the greatest wsrbrl.ty which it allairled or slrrpaa%ed aroYn =t least half of the horizon cave, but not necessarily in conunuom %eclarx. 9. A loci twos where the 91al, standards lot oxr clan andler suspended parlieulale mallet are rrdialea National standards S004Y elsewhere 10. hteasurrd as ozone SOURCE. AR8 FACT SHEET (REVISED 1985) d Z f x W �r rC f r I a 1f7 II H b M 7 m r 1 U ! 1 x i r k N i 1 a i im # a W d1 .t tiro w N G A J a d a. r t A V I 7 V ! I V 1 x 1xw i q f T eM 1 I I 1 Iff I R 5 - If, 1pq�q 1 m PII f � I S N 1 � C 1 IT � I ►+ F I N � I rw 1 � I y C R H ❑ a a I f3 E E E ' rl ❑ w w dp W N r- 1 m ❑ O 0% ❑ N M W o a tp S 1 •t 14 N s l 1 OI Al N rt a1 I I I n I I do n ❑ IA IA eo ❑ I'1 ❑ N D o ❑ .I N m N I W t Y s 1 0. f N 1 m ❑ n •� 'r4 •� xx 3 m 6 n o ❑ I .-I N n N T. • O .P•1 f q I I I O I i s n 1 ui ❑ a �y n D n Q ❑ a ❑ In LA r❑s W o ❑ D I .. O .+ ❑ I 1 ar t N N 1O N C p D 1 N +•+ N 14 1 t N pE C [ W lei w W 3�.1 i11 b A •eGl C .6 R 16 b r V a 'O w.0 IO I 04 10 911❑ OI117 S ••+ a C Id C VI a+ I R C C C C C C if N C 4 — Y 4 -- V N I +i la b f b y w b 9 1.I ++ A 'O . 6% V m E In .•I 11 10 N 1 V i, p V H rl V x •� I 1 V Vl IR E V v4 Y N 5 A 4 E 1CI x w Q 1 E p F w V W sl F V N CI N w .. cm pI 1..-. S7 a iF7 1 1a f A P1 Q N a x Id r-1 tl a p •-I a If a .- U .� LL x w w G1 0 V LL k k .. 7 1. tl W E z i+ 19 E f W V .- W W H^ •-. Z 11 E r 90 w f741C • w b 6 V V 1 V V f b 6 .-• Y E V V JC V •e4 9. C• ! •a � • .+ 10 D1 a1 W CI I 41 .a tl '9 q a q q 9 0. tl b d M y. 1 L 1O 10 V a x a m a x W 7 I -I xx7•V m0. ❑x y.V 1]. A NY•V W 0 m -.4 x7. G.0. tlq EW 1vAF I C O g b W 97 W 7i a q W L A d W +4 y tl k p k V E b ❑ E a +�In I❑ CEA In ❑ER N OVA d A s<G V OEAwv V fn W%C dC I X; w 0% k m •• W r1 A w CA C V •CI •4 w F l •i w +o +C* r x tv N 1 JC >,. 0 E .. W 1 I ,C Q 1 .. f +• al F p I n R F O 1 A V x A O v .. P 1 0 1 A I O L r W �• .� `•+ L l .i r I W QI t, W IW w r N •-. V Stl ++ p ['I •-' I x — tl 7J M 94% r. 4 to E V to — n ,S .-. -- P4 ..+°I Q I I 16 Q I 0 1 w l l W Q I yl ❑ t '9 O 5 1■ to 5 'T. I +< 1$ 1p ! x 41 -a w •y I "� w l x q 1 x I �+.� q� I IA b ❑. 11 ^ I E V 0. +1 � -1 IL rI F a a Id E a.1 C A a1 N � "aal7 +- A to a1 ❑. " 0% L O EC 'A fA tL r7 f a I ' w w dp m ❑ O 0% CO W o a M a •t s OI Al N rt a1 I i I W t Y 0. a v 4 Ir+ 4 w n .n a � In 1 � v ❑ c I 1d V .-I N n N I N • O .P•1 f q I I O I W a ❑ In LA •t O W o ❑ D I .. O .+ ❑ I 1 ar N N 1O N ❑ N ! p f V N +•+ N 1 V t N [ W I Y I W t• 4CI D C O O N O �D .� I ❑ D t Q n n .+ 1 v 1 as 11U .+ 7 43 t! b 1 Y b W S. C •C I I C 11 16 'G 9 '❑ 1a w -0 -.r- 4 w b C 1p q b 1 TU W rTL plW PA H 10 10 C -' C V 4 1 L- G d A ^.. A 7: q C m A L 11 11 IV 4 N m C f U Q1 1O G A d C •❑ C 0 Y 4 C b q G �•• V N 7n �- V y an x N E d h l y1 W V a1 4l E 07 H .-• W E x V — tl 7J M 94% r. 4 to E V to — n ,S .-. -- P4 ..+°I p1 m V1.1 1 0. •� E x X Oc -- O X x k Y 01 q V E 1 n 91 A 2 7 61 1+ E I Y aW V Y--• -• aw V E b aW V E 0.W ++�. Y E 7 V •1 -,a E a +1 N 1 �+.� q� I IA b ❑. 11 ^ I E V 0. +1 � -1 IL rI F a a Id E a.1 C A a1 N � "aal7 +- A to a1 ❑. " 0% 1 Go ..I ...tlq I!❑1i.—tlb ax - -I!A a19• --0",C Ida trI ai a Hm7 S 4• M 7+ ♦.I iL N a 0 7++1 0.0 }. a1 Q.1.i A 11 L• tl E N b❑ C ,C x q 1 .� C q N X4 H N q IA ••4 b N x 1d a V3 V x N pp m x p 1.I 1A w0 N a. N I a G xO ❑❑ xR ❑Q A W OI i• N '-1 m w .+ xR I!, R S. IN Q xa w ❑++4 .w q a N Win N w❑ 100 q E 9-+ I rt � C 1 ❑ .+ 0 E FN w 1 I I V E1I+F E W F Q I ••(f A 14 0 L E44 a 0 E11+ 1 .0 A N W I > }M %4 vo A 1.I W Q 1 +• L V•r V A C w m •-1 . �+ C W .•I -+ W .• ... L W N .-..+I .-. V F N +- 4' r1 1C .ti --- N l I ❑ �F I ❑ I NF I 1p I ❑ 1 w 1 Q l M I ❑ I I I +1 a ❑! I t 'a v 0 I by 0 1 W N x I x f z x 41If x .+.+z WNx 1114 x r L) 0 z fA a a w 1 .. r � a Q t71 R q � r N d L LA 1 1 L YfrY 1 L .I'. N M y ad T N L-r 1 1 1 N 7 J-1 =5 E LD � E #� o f'7 � 7 � 4 V a d .•Cf g- :5 v .Pr � I. n o 0 1-i + v c— fA Ill 0 W � � ^ L d x ,q fV V N O J V C pl bf O G cl r Y 1 QI Y q L. L V y L K 7 10 V 1p 16 • L L A V ti L A y L r 1 1 N d #1 y L L. r� N N nL ❑ P 3 J 1 � w N 1 1 L {L 1 av d C7 gg E # M � y d � • wd A G L�r d 4 Fr 4 O a V A t L y a Q. DG b C� d r IR 7 3 lad �' tT 1 4 7 p T R r C L O1 R 7 q L LL L' ,C L A 1 a O N L p9ad� L 1� C N C II1 y t, ...• N 1 1 r 3 4 . C fJD E f."7� E C CL d O pl 7 C d N A N �•. o a .ud�a a_ Cl. �Irl w -+ .. •++ In cvr ❑y a w� a L � oT a L u W W ^ C q � C r q V N A f0 • N O d N A N � �t a w� s: ...+dramdt W 1 Lt �'C t a"sc m c o'l ew °M H p �� ••f N fa •C V y Q •�+ dp C W N omur+lN °up N �E n i° ° uv °' +ILCCq V'Y] o o0 o ti�'OSrN °� Wvvi I/1 � O O1 N C +O ad d � A +r L c y w q O nth NC? a � E fe a•�tn�w �V � L n �u fd OI 7 q O Of M 7 7 O v� X R N q C W N R .sr o a+PW DN L d c� Lt v1r J d � L t ,� ate.• Af k ad R d r q 1 N � q L }I N E �iE v v�PL c rO IV '- E; EE n c aJ V b � flo-a C'1 pa E Y U L Ili 11l b fC O p Q ►'- r7 V 4 �d L f. ' 1 R ? a 7 A-- R11 T RY N r •m ❑ r n N R q OI 7 R ..1 L N•^tJT ] N y d q L P L y C N w ¢� L I+ L A q ..V. V 4 � L L 1 N 1 1 f N O .► A 6f W L� IL ,4.1 q d fC p b n L . C L I N 7 N 4� •+ Y N q d d E E R Ly L r C E N A O y +•+ C as K L F E a t 4. Lm .0 Y7 c ,- .w O ++ � y d'� C J 4 d Y N N Q n O C] 7 .-- b C N +l1 N q VI L 3 0 y d b 0 4 67 d �-- d 0 .-. C U as L. d O p N o C] N Z g L u A r N y p N w p r � d � of Y V sc d d W N ,n a x v v c m 1- Ir a 1L d L d b a c o o ❑ .� 6 J O R 4 �E • s+ v W Q X C U N V n d > > d h 7 0 {r El C d OI ❑ L 7 L V L 7 r pl V L � y y q C p C O N ❑� " n aw ^1 > .a fe .v a u q + a wa :2 r n x w ¢� Nt W O) r F I� r a a W 0 N M W Y vt 7 119 cx F C W W u i .1 2 O Y• _ Z- a r F i a a U N w u 0 N aj a s 4 ° a� a m g _ - - za *� P 98a EF3 g` ° :: � _T ai €. gxa - aEd7.o i8a 2$� Gzj -47 �i Y• _ Z- a r F i a a U N w u 0 N r EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS ON RECEPTORS Oxidants at high enough concentrations can cause eye irritation; aggravate respiratory disease; suppress the body's capacity to fight infection; impair athletes' performance and cause growth retardation in sensitive trees. Hydrocarbons in the presence of other primary pollutants (particularly oxides of nitrogen) lead to the formation of oxidants. Hydrocarbons also damage plants by inhibiting growth and causing flowers and leaves to fall. Carbon monoxide is essentially colorless, odorless and toxic to humans. It enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen, thereby depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. At high enough concentrations it can impair visual function, psychomotor performance and time discrimination. Nitrogen dioxide at high enough exposures can cause fibrotic lung changes, bronchostriction, and acute bronchitis among infants and school children. In sensitive plants over several months, it can cause Collapsed Lesions near the leaf margin and moderate injury. Lead at high enough concentrations impairs hemoglobin synthesis by increasing the lead levels in the blood. Whereas sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate exposures cause higher frequen- cies of acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilatory function in children. Sulfur oxides, in combination with mois- ture and oxygen, can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve mar- ble, and erode iron and steel. 7 IEMISSION INVENTORY ASSUMPTIONS Fugitive Dust on Unpaved Roads -- was estimated using the equatiaDn from AP--42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factorls),, Section 11.2.1. Variables utilized included k - 0.6 and 0.45, s = 24 %, S = 30 mph, W = 25 tons, w = 16 wheels, and p = 40 days /year. Construietion Equipment Emissions -- estimates of the type and numbesEcof construction equipment required, for roadway constnuwtion were provided by Poss Construction. Equipment emissica factors are from AP -42 Section 3.2.7 Table 3.2.7 -1. Vebiclipe Miles Travelled -- the project will result in an increase in VMT *or future design year 2006 based on traffic data provided by Wilbdan Associates in April of 1987 (see Table 2 -2 on page 2-- 2). Emission Factors -- motor vehicle emission were provided by the OCEMA firom 1984 and 1985 runs using the California ARB ENV028 program based upon EMFAC 6D emission rates as shown in the fol- lowing table. CALIFORNIA CORRECTED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS Pollutant 1987 (gm /mil 2006 (gm /mi) 18 mph 20 mph 9 mph 19 mph 31 mph CO 24.88 22.97 30.25 17.31 11.12 THC 2.51 2.34 3.16 1.76 1.19 NOx 1.78 1.79 1.39 1.27 1.40 sox 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 - Particulates 4'- L}�33___ - -_ 033-____ __- a- 31-- ____(]- 3z-- y_-- a 3l - ____ These facctors assume the Orange County vehicle mix (77.6% LDA, 10.6% LDT, 5.3% MDT, 2.0% HDG, 3.6% HDD and 0.9$ MC). They also assume aen ambient temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit and 28% cold start, 19% hot start and 53% hot stabilized. operation. They are utilized for all projects located within Orange County. Average Route Speeds --- along Bristol Street were provided by Willdan Associates as shown in Table 2 -2 on page 2 -2. 0 CALINE 3 ASSUMPTIONS Traffic Data -- was provided by Willdan Associates in April 1987. Current, future, and future + project daily and peak hour volumes were provided. Roadway Speeds -- were provided by Willdan Associates. Along Memory Lane, Seventeenth Street, First Street and Warner Avenue 30 mph was assumed. Along Bristol Street, 18 and 20 mph were assumed for existing conditions, 9 mph for 2006 no project condi- tions, and 18 and 31 mph for 2006 plus project conditions. Meteorological Conditions -- included 1 m.p.h. winds, stability class D with a persistance factor of 0.70 for eight -hour values and stability class F for "worst case" one -hour values and wind directions parallel to the highest traffic volume leg to insure that CO concentrations are maximized (worst case for the nearest receptor). Sighway Widths -- were derived from roadway cross - sections pro- vided by Willdan Associates. The widths included 3 meters per side as specified for the Caline 3 model input. Emission Factors -- were taken from ENV028A EMFAC 6D runs for Orange County by the OCEMA in 1984 and 1985, as shown on page 4 of the Appendix and below. CALIFORNIA CORRECTED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS I _ -- - - -- - -_ 1987'-=-=- - ----- --= +_2006 Background Concentrations -- for carbon monoxide were derived from ambient air quality data for 1985 taken at the Anaheim station and assembled by the GARB. The second highest hourly concentrations were used ( 11.7 ppm for the $ hour average, 18.0 ppm for the I -hour average). The year 2006 8 -hour background l concentration was derived from the 1982 Draft AQMP. The future ` 1 -hour average was determined by the ratio between the 1985 one and eight -hour averages. I� D SCAQMD RULE 403 FUGITIVE DUST Rule 402. Nuisance A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403. Fugitive Dust (a) A person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any transport, handling, construction or storage activity so that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. (Does not apply to emissions emanating from unpaved roadways open to public travel or farm roads. This exclusion shall not apply to industrial or commercial facilities.) (b) A person shall take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, excavation, grading, clearing of land and solid waste disposal operations. (c) A person shall not cause or allow particulate matter to exceed 100 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high volume samplers at the property line for a minimum of five hours. (d) A person shall take every reasonable precaution to prevent visible particulate matter from being deposited upon public roadways as a direct result of their operations. Reasonable precautions shall include, but are not limited to, the removal of particulate matter from equipment prior to movement on paved streets or the prompt removal of any material from paved strc;ets onto which such material has been deposited. (e) Subsections (a) and (c) shall not be applicable when the wind speed instantaneously exceeds 40 kilometers (25 !Hiles) per hour, or when the average wind speed is greater than 24 kilometers (15 miles) per hour. The average wind speed determination shall be on a 15 minute average at the nearest official air- monitoring station or by wind instrument located at the site being checked. (f) The provisions of this mile shall not apply to agricultural operations. FEW Endo Engineering 9 9 10 (Adopted May 7, 1976) FU19DAMMALS OF MOISE Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24 -hour period to re- flect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed such as: equivalent sound levels M, ), day -night average sound levels (Lan) and Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL S) . A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very low and high frequencies of the audible spec- trum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies audi- t` ble to the human ear. The decibel scale has a value of 1.0 dBA at the threshold of hearing and 140 dBA at the threshold of pain. 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. Therefore, a 1.0 decibel increase is just audible whereas a 10 decibel increase means the sound is per - ceived as being twice as loud as before. Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calcu- lated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Le ) is the constant level that, over a given time period, transmit the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time- varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the Ldn and CNEL scales. Day -night average sound levels are a measure of the cumulative noise exposure of the community_ The Ldn value results from a summation of hourly Le 's over a 24 -hour time period with an increased weighting faOtor applied to the nighttime period be- tween 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. This noise rating scheme takes into account those subjectively more annoying noise events which occur during the normal sleeping hours. Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) also carry a weighting penalty for noises that occur during the nighttime hours. In addition, CNEL levels include a penalty for noise events that occur during the evening hours between 7:00 pm and 10 :00 pm. Because of the weighting factors applied, CNEL values at a given location will always be larger than Ld.n values, which in turn will exceed Le values. However, CNEL values are typically within one decibll of the day -night average sound level. For a "line source" of noise such as a heavily travelled roadway, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance between the noise source and noise receiver. Environmental factors such as the wind direction and speed, temperature gradients, the characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), the presence of 11 grass, shrubbery, and trees, combine to increase the actual attenuation achieved outside laboratory conditions to 4.5 deci- bels per doubling of distance. In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the sound level resulting from a single "point source" drops by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each r factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources I and mobile noise sources which are temporarily stationary such as an idling truck or other heavy duty equipment operating within a confined area. The noise levels adjacent to line sources increase by 3.0 daA with each doubling in the traffic volume (provided that the speed and truck mix do not change). From the mathematical expression relating increases in the number of noise sources (motor vehi- cles) to the increase in the adjacent noise level, it can be shown that a 26 percent increase in the traffic volume will cause a 1.0 dSA increase in adjacent noise levels. 12 HARk IOM IWFECTS OF NOISE Exposure to noise can cause temporary physical and psychological responses in humans. The chronic recurrence of these physical reactions has been shown to aggravate headaches, fatigue, diges- tive disorders, heart disease, circulatory and equilibrium dis- orders. Moreover, as a source of stress, noise is a contributory factor in stress - related ailments such as ulcers, high blood pressure and anxiety. Two other harmful effects of noise which are commonly of concern involve speech interference and the prevention or interruption of sleep. Figure 6 illustrates how excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and becomes severe at about 60 decibels. Background noise levels affect performance and learning processes through distraction, reduced accuracy, increased fatigue, annoyance and irritability, and the inability to concentrate (particularly when complex tasks are involved or in schools where younger children exhibit imprecise speech pat- terns and short concentration spans). Several factors determine whether or not a particular noise event will interfere with or prevent sleep. These factors include the noise level and characteristics, the stage of sleep, the individ- ual's age, motivation to waken, and so forth. Ill or elderly people are particularly susceptible to noise- induced sleep inter- ference, which can occur when intruding noise levels exceed the typical 35 -45 decibel background noise level in bedrooms. Sleep prevention can occur when intruding noise levels exceed 50 dBA. 13 NOISE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES I. Sound Level Meter The sound level meter utilized was a Model 800B Precision Sound Level Meter and Analyzer manufactured by Larson & Davis Labora- tories. This meter meets ANSI and IEC Standards (ANS S1.4 -1971 Type I precision) and was calibrated before field measurements were taken. 2. Procedure One integrated noise measurement was taken at each location illustrated on Figures 10 and 11, with the exception of sites 12 and 13 where two measurements were taken. Ten minute noise level recordings were used to represent the average noise level for the maximum 1 -hour period. Any measurements made during off -peak traffic were adjusted to peak traffic as specified in the Cal - trans Noise Manual. 14 NOISE ASSIDC"IONS FOR RD -77 -108 KODU.LING I. Temporal Traffic Distribution Assumed (Percent) Type- vf~Vehi.cle____ -_ -___ Day___- ___.._ -- Evening -- �-- - - - - -- Night ~_ Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.55 0.09 0.19 -Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 ❑.OS. Note: Orange County EMA representing 31 arterial, intersections throughout the County. 11. Road Grade Assumptions -- level terrain and roadway. Ill. Roadway Widths --- for existing and future conditions were provided by Willdan Associates. Typical roadway cross - sections along Bristol Street are shown in Table 2 -1 on page 2 -2. IV. Speeds Assumed -- for a worst case analysis, the posted speed Limits were assumed for the noise modelling. Posted speeds along Bristol Street is 40 mph from Memory Lane to Seventeenth l Street and from Edinger Avenue to earner Avenue. Between Seven - 11 teenth Street and Edinger Avenue the posted speed limit is 35 mph. These speed limits are not expected to change under future conditions with or without the project. f 15 GENERAL METHODS TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACTS Acoustic site planning involves the careful arrangement of land uses, lots and buildings to minimize intrusive noise levels. The placement of noise compatible land uses between the roadway and more sensitive uses is an effective planning technique. The use of buildings as noise barriers, and their orientation away from the source of noise, can shield sensitive activities, entrances and common open space areas. Clustered and planned unit devel- opments can maximize the amount of open space available for landscaped buffers next to heavily travelled roadways and thereby allow aesthetic building setbacks in place of continuous noise barriers. Acoustic architectural design involves the incorporation of noise reducing strategies in the design and lay -out of individual structures. Building heights, room arrangements, window size and placement, balcony and courtyard design, and the provision of air conditioning all play an important role in shielding noise sensi- tive activities from intrusive noise levels. Acoustic construction is the treatment of various parts of a building to reduce interior noise levels. Acoustic wall design, doors, ceilings and floors, as well as dense building materials, the use of acoustic windows (double glazed, double paned, thick, non-- openable, or small with air -tight seals) and the inclusion of maximum air spaces in wails are all available options. Ideally, noise barriers incorporate the placement of berms, wails or a combination of the two in conjunction with appropriate landscaping to effect an aesthetically pleasing environment. Where space is available (clustered developments) a meandering earth berm is both effective and pleasing. Where space is re- stricted, a wall is effective. In either case, however, thick landscaping (without deciduous plants) should be specified to reduce the visual impact of the barrier and retain the rural ambiance. 16 CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICFIONS TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACTS Section 7 -1.01N Sound Control Requirements The Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Each internal combustion engine , used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without said muffler. Section 42 -2.02 Construction The noise level created by the combined grooving operation shall ` not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet at right angles to the l direction of travel. Section 42 -2.02 Construction The noise level created by the combined grinding operation shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet at right angles to the direction of travel. 1. Source: Caltrans, "Standard Specifications "; January, 1981. 17 k : @ � § �9 � �2 < g «\ km m� k M §� o w $ Mn @ Im o k c t 0V/ S '� cn 2 3 S 2 ? 2 a f £ks to a 00 UL) O E Q 2 E k 2 '5 k 7 2 / e a) 2 2 A� § $0 0 � 5 K� ® /2 2� �2 A2 a' �2 Ef c- c m% J na. w co D M Q u y I N (n G] W m �. Q — Ltj 4 "a ye in rJ VM anv aul3 — 3 p � env uuv'iLDuao 0. e 15 3NId 1IIII -- — -- > N I . -_ O N -- J.s lnrJLSH! {p N --- j antl LIE] ONIOH m 7 1S 3 "ISH) vi _ w[ 15 3lIYVVO d 4 _ O � mO F� s u3wnVu m� Q la M113 uONV 1S G C1YJV"l l 101u N V IS N3Al -11C L y ld NOyIHVO = .l.S QNV "I lI�IN V1 ❑ 3 A a m ld OOOMN3lu ¢ z y ❑ a a z c 3 U4YVO W Z N — �� • U 4 U 1S NOdd117 -� -_ w Q � I it is U o o W �� —� •7NNV 15 ¢ � 4 J J N 6 3AV 'I4 3NUVJ W z w w w n tl n .-- .� - -. —_ 70nuivao 'is, s z 0 X N Jo 1135s11u p ..� tll �p JAV 8 3Nu V ai C w b 1r�� y`N! O 4 m Q 133VVfi 16 Vr1 �E N r Yi9 .. 3991xS a Q�C �J� y W N fn -- W � � 1331115 ON0336 p ( Z O G N Q mm W m W « U. • rc ` a'— 3a3uls IIUi33nIV13 ,�„ 133v[s 133V19 rNa9[iNIN � vNV vwvs �N '_ •_ 1- � OD LJJ ,.1 1;�:+ 133[Ile 36vr3•xrrvirn[ _ 9 liitllB Ni0936-31N 3+,.[3 — [33v16 II1N3�36 (y� M • — O dl U c N w �-J N YVVI� r[ • lCJ (O 3NN3nr '• — 4 13• — Q 43 ) N[113[ rv0luvn [a:w_— r y C d N u[6 ,N rs NN33n3 \3 A o � a] uos IuanMi W O 0 N __. '3HNrrl� �3Na W Q �kE c a ¢ e C 1 J y .�' 6 w w w -. -_ -_ z to cn m 2 Z C tq LiL � av rm rrs 07 ���( � • 3 3rIVl 9VYJ m 3NYl aU0W3n .` O3 o W O a 133016 N[N331N3M136 n 67 it aQ T 3a3u1s +sul, � J O {6,.,�� �W,.D N laanu i11n331Nanas _ J��• ��_ N LW Z W C ` — E N m uj ro LL � Q F- W = — U !� a a - �iitllS H1N33111913 Q N E 6 rN C �� —� m > L � w •����' Ia3V1S IAT3 r.... 1 J ;;•:11 I i,f;�i, 13aulB lSUia -A aN3m+ .:�P p�.' 111 Qa 133Y11 OIq�36'Al +331116 II1N3n36 alJ CO • —� 10 U - 3nNa u31 Na�J1nq � — Irk c N � } • 'O YW »Vl.s •� 133u15 N 111W w [C � 11NanV m • T • 133V16 INH3l N Av.v, NOIVr �" v a P.. x o 0 z c A33Y1 v1�3 � H ai a w U Z Z Law O � U a �• N N ~ laNNVn� 13ryryF1 u — - -- O U uc cc c _ = N N N - �y 31+v1 Yllluvn x Z 2 ,� ml J • . c ou Nounls 311x1 qW �l Y 3JYY1Y h • 0 G irvvl AYa1Y311 � a° N3ayx3n36 ` l� Is H I A cc w in ca wcc, '0 cc LU (n EE fn 16 1f1NlVM 3AV HROH301,3 LL LD 0 L § 0 3AV GH H _DUOQ Is 3N[d > F_ InNI03HO Ll L_ B A V H3 0 N: O3 Is . . . . ...... Is 3llvqvo cd d 0 1.1 S I El '0 Rn AV U) cn BAV • -14 A&EUCINY JE; ❑NV'1110111 19 U3All-101 N01 l9 VD L Is (INVIHDIN o 0 : I d G 00 M N 310 1S NOOH9 67 z z 15 0 Z z < Id N90MO • E; a NaclAv 0 is No ukino V) 0, '14 2wi-vis 0' Z. EINNV Is and 'N 300 VA V1 m • WD WE "m F UC]flu.Lu3u -is, 0: 0 0 0 cc 'llnssflu 0 m rn ZJAV :lUllislim rip;* o CL C ul m Z lai Is 41 1 n Ip" _E6 LAL- co w 4-- ID IF cc cc AIM Q 0 'r. Lu w w w 0 0 'COD a-yi O O n ('1 le M 'C —I— - - —'I FN —15 15HId z� mod_ v — I d N 1S 111N1VM 7nV F170 LLI F- O lnV CIUV110HOU AS �Nld a C Q1 O t- � _ � R m y O 1S 1f1N157N0 N 3nV HJDN1a3 m LS S'IyyIIl HAW 15 3lfW V9 � 1 � a O P3 1S hd DYI61g O d H3WAVH •rr„ U FO#,9 n V w F 'i: MBtl ❑NV 16 JI ON VIII OIEf b C SO p 16 ki3nlll0l � ld NO1'1HV0 bbl 1S ONV-IHD1H • ' m 3 EL 'id OOOh1N3lD y N 1S NOOHtl 4 _ { OC V0 = a 7d N30W N30N7yO z y O 2 AS NOH6f10 — 2 U 2 'Id 3NNV 1S • p a j sNNV As :i Ell i r F r DAY 'N3OO tlJ-W ld Lv- 3AV G D A rm t z z Z ,� 'ti. H3NHVM as w ana aa1NS�IM o a �V