APPENDIX D NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Similar documents
DUFFERIN AGGREGATES ACTON QUARRY EXTENSION PROJECT

Noise Impact Assessment

Appendix C Noise and Vibration Worksheets

FLAMBOROUGH QUARRY HAUL ROUTE STUDY HAUL ROUTE VIBRATION REPORT. itrans Consulting Inc 100 York Boulevard Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 1J8

Waste Licence Reg. No W Noise Compliance Annual Report: South Dublin County Council s (SDCC) Ballymount Baling Station

November 14, 2016 Reference No

APPENDIX E. Noise Data and Environmental Noise Assessment

OPERATIONS NOISE STUDY FOR A PROPOSED AUTOMATIC CAR WASH IN THE SHERMAN OAKS DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES

Appendix 6-E: Baseline Sound Study and Environmental Sound Evaluation

Report Addendum. Terry Keller, SDDOT. Noise Study Technical Report I-29 from Tea Interchange to Skunk Creek Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Directivity of the CoRTN road traffic noise model

Traffic Impact Study for the proposed. Town of Allegany, New York. August Project No Prepared For:

Definitions of Acoustical Terms

Environmental Noise Assessment Stonebridge Golf & Country Club Maintenance Facility. Nepean, Ontario

Appendix J. Noise Impact Assessment Report

Heartland Town Square

Noise Emissions At the Chicago Fuller Car Wash

Transportation Land Development Environmental S e r v i c e s

TRANSPORTATION REVIEW

Shadow Flicker Briefing

NOISE ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT for the Duke Perris Boulevard Warehouse Project Perris, California

APPENDIX C1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

RAILYARDS SUPPORT A VARIETY OF OPERATIONS INCLUDING: LOCOMOTIVES, ON-ROAD AND OFF-ROAD TRUCKS, CARGO-HANDLING EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION

Construction Noise Memorandum

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG LIBRARIES. Hong Kong Collection

Silverado Village Project

REVISED NOISE ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT for the Duke Patterson Avenue Warehouse Project Perris, California

Adelaide Wind Power Project Turbine T05 (AD117) IEC Edition 3.0 Measurement Report

Construction Realty Co.

D2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY D-11 D3 BASELINE CONDITIONS D-12 D4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS D-15

8.6 NOISE Environmental Consequences

EMGA Mitchell McLennan Pty Limited (EMM) has been engaged to complete quarterly attended noise

THE CORNERSTONE APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY R&M PROJECT NO

Reduction of Vehicle Noise at Lower Speeds Due to Quieter Pavement. By Paul R Donavan

Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit Preliminary Design Project

Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study

Red Wing US 63 Bridge and Approach Roadways

THE INFLUENCE OF VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN HORIZONTAL ROAD CURVES ON THE EFFICIENCY OF NOISE PROTECTION BARRIERS

DELICETO, LLC PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL

November 29, 2017 BHEC-RES ALBERTA LP

RE: A Traffic Impact Statement for a proposed development on Quinpool Road

Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Methodology

Pace Bus Depot Location Analysis

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Attachment F: Transport assessment report on implications if Capell Avenue never formed

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K.2. PARKING

2.0 Development Driveways. Movin Out June 2017

Proposed Inn at Bellefield Traffic Impact Assessment

SURFACE VEHICLE STANDARD

Noise. Noise Fundamentals. Noise Descriptors. City of Redlands - Redlands Crossing Center

Project Location. I-80 Toll Plaza at I-480/I-80 Interchange, Lorain County, Ohio

Traffic Calming: traffic and vehicle noise

Appendix I Noise Background and Modeling Data

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 3 PROJECT STUDY AREA Figure 1 Vicinity Map Study Area... 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS... 5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS...

11 October 12, 2011 Public Hearing APPLICANT:

Food Truck Consulting Study of Proposed Food Truck Regulations

1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CUBES SELF-STORAGE MILL CREEK TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON

DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY 1627 MAXIME STREET CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW. Prepared for: Subhas Bhargava. July 9, Overview_1.

Abstract. Executive Summary. Emily Rogers Jean Wang ORF 467 Final Report-Middlesex County

Trafalgar Road & Lower Base Line Transportation Study Ontario Inc.

NOISE ORDINANCE SUMMARY

Mercer Island Center for the Arts Parking Management Plan

GASOLINE SERVICE STATION 1618, 1622 ROGER STEVENS DRIVE OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Prepared for:

Oakbrook Village Plaza City of Laguna Hills

Summary of the Alcoa Highway Redevelopment Project

Traffic, Transportation & Civil Engineering Ali R. Khorasani, P.E. P.O. Box 804, Spencer, MA 01562, Tel: (508)

Appendix D. Noise Calculations

Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT

Attachment D Environmental Justice and Outreach

Effect of road surfaces on road traffic noise on the public roads of Japan. --An investigation based on tyre/road noise measurement--

Acoustics Noise Vibration

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

PORT DOVER WIND PROJECT

Re: 233 Armstrong Street Residential Condominium Traffic Brief

Nation Rise Wind Farm Limited Partnership

Acoustics Noise Vibration

Energy Technical Memorandum

Lower River Floodplain Restoration and Levee/Towne Road Re-Alignment Noise Analysis

PROPOSED HELICOPTER LANDING PAD 85 MILL ROAD LARA

Mr. John Aitken June 6, 2017 Page 2

Access Management Standards

Rate Impact of Net Metering. Jason Keyes & Joseph Wiedman Interstate Renewable Energy Council April 6, 2010

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING FOR INTEL IRELAND LTD OF AMMONIA EMISSIONS

Reduction of vehicle noise at lower speeds due to a porous open-graded asphalt pavement

1. Introduction and Principal Conclusions

Energy Storage Interconnection Initiative

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS APPENDIX C-9: NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT

Costco Gasoline Fuel Station Transportation Characteristics

PARKING OCCUPANCY IN WINDSOR CENTER

Table Existing Traffic Conditions for Arterial Segments along Construction Access Route. Daily

Transverse Pavement Markings for Speed Control and Accident Reduction

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012

Future Solar Developments Inc.

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE KEBRAFIELD ROODEPOORT COLLIERY IN THE PULLEN S HOPE AREA

White Paper Nest Learning Thermostat Efficiency Simulation for the U.K. Nest Labs April 2014

MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

APPENDIX VIII. SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER ASSESSMENT

Railway noise mitigation factsheet 01: Overview of railway noise

MEMO VIA . Ms. Amy Roth DPS Director, City of Three Rivers. To:

105 Toronto Street South, Markdale Transportation Impact Study. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited

Transcription:

APPENDIX D NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS Inc. 745 Warren Drive East Aurora, New York 14052 716-655-2200 info@auroraacoustical.com NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NIGHTTIME PARKING LOT SOURCES VICTOR CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER VICTOR, NEW YORK Prepared for: Benderson Development Company, LLC 570 Delaware Ave Buffalo, NY 14202 Prepared by: Daniel P. Prusinowski May 19 2016

AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS Inc. NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NIGHTTIME PARKING LOT SOURCES VICTOR CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER VICTOR, NEW YORK 1.0 Introduction Benderson Development Company has proposed to extend shopping hours at Victor Crossing Shopping Center in Victor, NY. Comments with respect to potential noise were received from local community residents and from the engineer for the Town of Victor. The engineers noted that community comments focused on possible perception of parking lot sources at night based on daytime perceptions of car alarms, car doors, waste container services, delivery trucks, and snow plowing. Other comments described possible perception of outdoor crowds and music at current restaurants or authorized restaurant properties. The engineers requested additional information on the intermittent sound sources described by the local residents, including information on background traffic noise and whether background noises, effects of buildings and paved surfaces, and weather may contribute to audibility at night. Benderson has stated that waste services, deliveries, and snow plowing are restricted from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. These operations will not change under the proposed shopping hours extension. Furthermore, Benderson restricts the use of outdoor music and loudspeakers at restaurant tenants. Therefore, these sources were not assessed. To determine replies to community comments and the Town engineers, additional noise assessments were performed to evaluate sound levels from defined parking lot sources. The assessments employed the noise model used for the 2013 nighttime plaza noise assessment with the added parking lot sources. The assessed parking lot sources included car alarms and door slams in parking lots in front of the buildings, between the Kohl s and Wal-Mart buildings, and beside the Wal-Mart building. Also assessed AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS INC. 1

were outdoor crowd noise levels from outdoor patios at a potential out parcel site in the middle of the plaza and at the existing Five Guys tenant location. The noise levels generated by background traffic sources in nighttime periods were evaluated for comparison to the parking lot sources to assess potential noise level increases and noise acceptability. The background assessments were based on traffic counts obtained from current published NYSDOT traffic reports for Route I490, Route 96, Route I90, connected off ramps and on ramps, and High Street. The evaluated weekday background periods included 12:00 a.m to 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m to 3:00 a.m., and 5:00 a.m to 6:00 a.m. The background assessments excluded existing plaza traffic as means to represent existing nighttime operations, and conservatively excluded existing plaza building ventilation systems. The predicted background levels were compared to measured background levels obtained along the facility boundaries that were reported in the 2013 noise assessment. At a location near the boundary behind Kohl s (Location 8), the minimum measured background noise levels in the period from 2:00 a.m to 3:00 a.m. averaged approximately 39 dba from continuous logging over several days. For comparison, the modeled level at the same location was 39.8 dba for the same time period using average weekday traffic counts for the noted nighttime hour. The assessments of the parking lot sources include screening effects of the row of plaza buildings, property fences, and terrain contours, with the same parameters as the previous noise assessments. The assessments also include the contributions of sound reflections from building facades and from parking lot surfaces, which increase the source sound levels. The assessments further include the sound absorption of porous vegetation or snow on terrain between the sources and receivers, which attenuate the propagated sound levels. Assessments of the effects of meteorology were separately investigated. Calculations were performed including wind from the south applied to a car alarm source at a parking lot location in front of Kohl s and Wal-mart. The model applied meteorology calculation procedures of international standard ISO 9613-2. The assessments determined that wind effects produced minor decreases in the received noise levels at each receiver location. The assessments assumed standard meteorological conditions of 10 C and 70% RH. Additional calculations evaluated the levels with sound winds at 0 C and 50% RH to evaluate winter conditions. The assessments determined that the received levels are lower at lower temperature and humidity. AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS INC. 2

2.0 Noise Assessments The noise assessment evaluated noise emissions from potential sound sources other than those restricted by Benderson. The following Table 1 summarizes the reference source levels of the assessed parking lot sources evaluated in the current noise assessment. Each of the measured source levels are maximum levels obtained at reference distances from sources operating at retail facilities and other locations. The evaluated modeled car alarm levels are taken from a published report of International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, which are 3 db higher than those measured for a typical vehicle source. Table 1 Parking Lot Source Maximum Measured Level Modeled Source Level Car alarm/horn, Chev. Blazer 93.6 dba at 7m 97 dba* at 7m Car door, Chev. Blazer 69.3 dba at 7m 69.3 dba at 7m Crowd on outdoor patio (10) 77.2 dba at 7.6m 77.2 dba at 7.6m * International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers: 90% of U.S car alarms measure 97 dba or lower Table 2 shows the calculated maximum sound levels from parking lot sources received at each evaluated receiver location used in the 2013 noise assessment. The data are transposed from the modeled sound level contours shown in the following figures. The received levels are compared to the background noise levels assessed for the 2:00 a.m.-3:00 a.m. minimum traffic period from published traffic counts. The differences between the predicted received levels from parking lot sources and the background levels are also shown in the table. The negative values indicate the predicted received levels are lower than the background levels. The predicted received levels in most instances are substantially lower than the background levels and would not be perceptible. At limited locations and certain source positions the received car alarm levels were predicted to be 0-2 dba more than the background levels in the 2:00 a.m.-3:00 a.m. minimum traffic period. The increases are projected to occur mostly at wooded locations not near any residence, and therefore are not expected to be perceptible or annoying. A small 2 dba relative increase might occur at Location 1. In accord with NYSDEC noise assessment guidelines (DEP-00-1), increases ranging from 0-3 db should have no appreciable effect on receptors. In other nighttime periods, the traffic counts are greater and as result the background levels are higher. The received alarm levels in these times would generate no increase in background levels at each location. AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS INC. 3

Table 2 Comparison of Predicted Parking Lot Sources to Modeled Existing Traffic Background Noise Levels Predicted avg. background sound level, Leq (dba) Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4 Loc 5 Loc 6 Loc 7 Loc 8 Loc 9 Background traffic 12:00am-1:00 am 43.2 41.8 44.0 50.6 47.3 46.7 44.5 41.1 43.0 Background traffic 2:00am-3:00 am 41.6 40.5 42.9 50.6 46.5 45.9 43.5 39.8 41.5 Background traffic 5:00am-6:00 am 48.2 46.0 47.2 59.6 50.8 50.3 48.2 45.2 47.8 Predicted maximum recv d sound levels, Lmax, dba Difference: recv d levels & background 2-3 am, dba Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4 Loc 5 Loc 6 Loc 7 Loc 8 Loc 9 Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4 Loc 5 Loc 6 Loc 7 Loc 8 Loc 9 Car alarm by Wal-Mart 41.5 32.0 20.0 41.4 44.0 47.6 45.8 35.6 34.5-0.1-8.5-22.9-9.2-2.5 1.7 2.3-4.2-7.0 Car alarm betw. front of Kohl's and Wal-Mart 43.6 41.3 11.8 44.9 13.3 22.9 41.1 40.9 42.0 2.0 0.8-31.1-5.7-33.2-23.0-2.4 1.1 0.5 Car alarm betw. front of Kohl's and Wal-Mart 41.3 41.2 11.2 39.8 12.3 22.0 40.9 40.8 40.0-0.3 0.7-31.7-10.8-34.2-23.9-2.6 1.0-1.5 with south winds Car alarm betw. front of Kohl's and Wal-Mart 39.7 40.4 9.3 37.9 10.7 20.9 40.0 40.3 38.7-1.9-0.1-33.6-12.7-35.8-25.0-3.5 0.5-2.8 with south winds, 0 C and 50% RH Car alarm betw. Kohl's and Wal-Mart 24.7 41.5 12.7 37.0 14.0 17.8 25.8 40.1 26.7-16.9 1.0-30.2-13.6-32.5-28.1-17.7 0.3-14.8 Car alarm betw. front of Kohl's and Home Goods 42.2 33.0 10.3 39.5 23.1 33.0 34.9 35.8 42.0 0.6-7.5-32.6-11.1-23.4-12.9-8.6-4.0 0.5 Car alarm by Petsmart 37.7 33.3 13.5 47.2 26.5 36.3 40.8 34.6 40.4-3.9-7.2-29.4-3.4-20.0-9.6-2.7-5.2-1.1 Car alarm by Dollar Tree 35.0 35.3 16.1 52.1 31.2 37.1 41.1 35.5 40.8-6.6-5.2-26.8 1.5-15.3-8.8-2.4-4.3-0.7 Car door by Wal-Mart 15.7 10.8 3.5 14.9 14.5 22.1 20.7 12.6 12.2-25.9-29.7-39.4-35.7-32.0-23.8-22.8-27.2-29.3 Car door betw. front of Kohl's and Wal-Mart 18.2 16.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 6.6 19.1 17.4 18.9-23.4-23.7-42.9-33.9-46.5-39.3-24.4-22.4-22.6 Car door betw. Kohl's and Wal-Mart 2.5 11.7 0.0 7.0 1.3 6.1 18.3 16.1 4.3-39.1-28.8-42.9-43.6-45.2-39.8-25.2-23.7-37.2 Car door betw. front of Kohl's and Home Goods 18.7 15.1 0.0 14.9 3.8 10.9 13.6 15.1 19.7-22.9-25.4-42.9-35.7-42.7-35.0-29.9-24.7-21.8 Car door by Petsmart 15.9 13.4 0.0 18.4 7.2 12.5 16.0 14.2 18.7-25.7-27.1-42.9-32.2-39.3-33.4-27.5-25.6-22.8 Car door by Dollar Tree 15.6 13.3 0.0 22.3 9.3 12.7 15.4 14.0 18.4-26.0-27.2-42.9-28.3-37.2-33.2-28.1-25.8-23.1 Outdoor dining crowd at out parcel 20.8 31.0 7.4 28.5 23.5 27.9 37.2 28.0 22.8-20.8-9.5-35.5-27.1-18.6-8.7-15.5-17.0-41.5 Outdoor dining crowd at Five Guys 25.1 14.7 1.5 36.0 9.4 12.4 14.3 15.1 27.4-16.5-25.8-41.4-14.6-37.1-33.5-29.2-24.7-14.1 AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS INC. 5

3.0 Conclusions The assessments of potential nighttime parking lot sources determined that sound levels received from car alarms, car door slams, and voices at restaurant outdoor patios will not be significant compared to the nighttime background noise levels. In most instances the levels received from parking lot sources will be significantly lower than the background levels and as result will not be perceptible. In limited circumstances a car alarm sounding during the quietest nighttime background period that may be from 2:00-3:00 a.m. might produce maximum levels 1 or 2 dba more than the background levels at limited receiver locations. The increases should not be perceptible and should have no appreciable effect on receivers in accord with NYSDEC noise policy. In other nighttime periods with additional background traffic the background levels will be higher. As result, sound levels received from parking lot sources are not expected to exceed the background levels or be perceptible in those nighttime periods. The assessments determined that meteorological factors will not significantly influence sound levels received at the boundaries or neighboring properties. Wind will attenuate rather than increase the propagation of sound levels, and will typically increase the background levels. Winter conditions with colder temperatures and lower humidity will be less conducive to sound propagation, and will produce lower sound levels than under standard weather conditions. Based on the assessments it is concluded that nighttime shopping activities will not generate perceptible noise or cause unreasonable noise impacts compared to the nighttime background noise levels. AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS Inc. Daniel P. Prusinowski Principal Consultant AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS INC. 6

AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS Inc. 745 Warren Drive East Aurora, New York 14052 716-655-2200 info@auroraacoustical.com Appendix A Modeled Sound Level Contours of Nighttime Plaza Sources AURORA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS INC. A-1

Background traffic levels 12:00-1:00a.m. weekdays A-2

Background traffic levels 2:00-3:00a.m. weekdays A-3

Background traffic levels 5:00-6:00a.m. weekdays A-4

Car alarm by Wal-Mart A-5

Car alarm between front of Kohl s and Wal-Mart A-6

Car alarm between Kohl s and Wal-Mart A-7

Car alarm between front of Kohl s and Home Goods A-8

Car alarm by Petsmart A-9

Car alarm by Dollar Tree A-10

Car door by Wal-Mart A-11

Car door between front of Kohl s and Wal-Mart A-12

Car door between Kohl s and Wal-Mart A-13

Car door between front of Kohl s and Home Goods A-14

Car door by Petsmart A-15

Car door by Dollar Tree A-16

Outdoor dining crowd at out parcel A-17

Outdoor dining crowd at Five Guys A-18

Car alarm between front of Kohl s and Wal-Mart with south winds A-19

Car alarm between front of Kohl s and Wal-Mart with south winds, 0 C and 50% RH A-20