HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix H - Noise and Vibration Memorandum
Appendix H
Noise and Vibration Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
To: Jared Samnet, Development Associate, JPI
From: Mark Storm, INCE Bd. Cert. (Dudek - Acoustic Services Manager); Cole Martin, INCE
Subject: Noise and Vibration Assessment for the JPI Jefferson Fontana Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Date: November 15, 2022
Cc: Kristen Stoner, Dudek
Attachments: Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 3. Aggregate Stationary Sources Operational Noise Level Prediction
Attachment A: Summary of Acoustical Concepts
Attachment B: Photographs of Measurement Locations and Field Notes
Attachment C: Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets
Attachment D: Traffic Noise Model Calculations
Dudek is pleased to submit this noise and vibration technical assessment to assist JPI with Mitigated negative
Declaration (MND) requirements for the proposed Jefferson Fontana Project (project), located in the City of Fontana
(City) as shown in Figure 1.
This technical memorandum presents environmental impact assessment criteria for noise and vibration, and by
way of quantitative predictive analyses evaluates potential impacts from construction and operation of the project
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Attachment A provides the reader a
summary of acoustical fundamentals and glossary of acoustical descriptors that are used to frame the noise and
vibration assessment herein.
The contents and organization of this memorandum are as follows:
• Section 1, Project Description
• Section 2, Existing Noise Conditions
• Section 3, Regulatory Setting
• Section 4, Thresholds of Significance
• Section 5, Analysis Methodologies
• Section 6, Impacts Analysis
• Section 7, References Cited
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 2 NOVEMBER 2022
1 Project Description
The project will be located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN’s) 025-117-119, 025-132-117, -118, -119, -120,
121, -122, -123, -124, -125, -126, -127, and -135, which includes an 11.59-acre parcel of predominantly
undeveloped, relatively flat land bound by asphalt-paved public rights-of-way, commercial and residential
development. Dudek understands that JPI is considering purchase of the property to develop a mixed-use project.
The property on which the project is proposed (project site) is bound by Cypress Avenue to the west, Valley Boulevard
to the north, Interstate 10 to the south, and Juniper Avenue to the east. Exhibit A displays the project site plan used
for the noise and vibration analyses presented herein.
Exhibit A – Project Site Plan
2 Existing Noise Conditions
Noise measurements were conducted at three (3) representative positions in the vicinity of the project site on
November 11, 2022 to characterize the existing outdoor ambient sound levels. The noise measurement locations
are shown in Figure 2. Table 1 provides a summary of the noise measurement results as well as the locations, date,
and times the noise level measurements were performed. As shown in Table 1, short-term (15 minutes duration)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 3 NOVEMBER 2022
noise levels ranged from approximately 65 dBA Leq (at location ST1) to 69 dBA Leq (at location ST2). The
measurements were conducted by an attending Dudek investigator with a SoftdB “Piccolo” model sound level meter
equipped with a windscreen-protected, 0.5-inch diameter pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier.
The sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for a Type 2
(General Use) sound level meter. The accuracy of the sound level meter was verified using a field calibrator before
and after the measurements, and the measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned
approximately 5 feet above the ground.
Table 1. Measured Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels
Survey
Location Location (and noted sounds) Date Time
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
ST1
Northeast corner of the parking lot at
10200 Juniper Ave.
(distant traffic, rustling leaves)
11/11/22 12:04 p.m. –
12:19 p.m. 64.9 74.6 58.8
ST2 Northern side of the project site
(distant traffic, rustling leaves) 11/11/22 12:24 p.m. –
12:39 p.m. 68.9 77.7 53.7
ST3
Eastern side of the project site; across
from 16711 Valley Blvd.
(distant conversations/yelling, distant
industrial, distant traffic, rustling
leaves)
11/11/22 11:47 a.m. –
12:02 p.m. 66.8 78.0 57.2
Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum sound
level during the measurement interval; Lmin = minimum sound level during the measurement interval. See Figure 2 for
measurement locations.
Attachment B provides sample digital photographs of the field noise level survey locations, followed by Dudek
investigator field notes.
3 Regulatory Setting
3.1 Federal
There are no federal noise standards that would directly regulate environmental noise during construction and
operation of the project. The following is provided because guidance summarized herein is used or pertains to the
analysis.
3.1.1 Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Although intended for federally funded mass transit projects, selected impact assessment procedures and criteria
included in the aforementioned FTA guidance manual are routinely used for projects proposed by or under the
jurisdiction of counties or municipalities. For example, a daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq
over an 8-hour period (FTA 2018) is recommended guidance for the exterior of residential land uses when local
noise regulations or other quantified standards are lacking.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 4 NOVEMBER 2022
3.1.2 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Some guidance regarding the determination of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above existing levels is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
(FICON 1992), which assessed the annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft
operations. The FICON recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft and traffic noise levels to the
percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Annoyance is a qualitative measure of the adverse reaction of
people to noise that generates speech interference, sleep disturbance, or interference with the desire for a tranquil
environment.
The rationale for the FICON recommendations is that it is possible to consistently describe the annoyance of people
exposed to transportation noise in terms of Ldn. The changes in noise exposure that are shown below are expected
to result in equal changes in annoyance at sensitive land uses. Although the FICON recommendations were
specifically developed to address aircraft noise impacts, they are used in this analysis to define a substantial
increase in community noise levels related to all transportation noise sources and permanent non-transportation
noise sources.
• Outdoor ambient sound level without the project is less than 60 dBA Ldn, then a project-attributed increase
of 5 dBA or more would be considered significant;
• Outdoor ambient sound level without the project is between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn, project-attributed increase
of 3 dBA or more would be considered significant; and
• Outdoor ambient sound level without the project is greater than 65 dBA Ldn, then project-attributed increase
of 2 dBA or more would be considered significant.
3.2 State
The following state regulations and guidance pertaining to noise and vibration assessment would apply to the
proposed project.
3.2.1 California Noise Control Act of 1973
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act
of 1973, declares that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to
certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also identifies a
continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise
Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens
by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all
Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
3.2.2 California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides guidelines regarding vibration associated with
construction and operation of transportation infrastructure, which can also be applied to construction of non-
transportation projects involving the same equipment and processes. Similar to the aforementioned FTA guidance
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 5 NOVEMBER 2022
summarized in Section 3.1.2, Caltrans recommends 0.3 ips PPV as a building damage risk threshold for “older
residential structures” exposed to “intermittent” sources of groundborne vibration (Caltrans 2020). For occupants
of those types of homes, Caltrans suggests a “severe” annoyance standard of 0.4 ips PPV.
3.3 City of Fontana
The following local regulations and guidance pertaining to noise and vibration assessment would apply to the
proposed project.
3.3.1 General Plan Update
The City’s General Plan Update 2015-2035 (City of Fontana 2018) adopted on November 18, 2018 provides goals
and policies pertaining to noise and vibration concerns that include the following reproduced from its Noise and
Safety element (Chapter 11):
• Goal 11.8: the City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning though
2035.
o Policy 11.8.1 New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
o Policy 11.8.2 Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land
uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
o Policy 11.8.3 Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall
be provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
o Policy 11.8.4 Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land
uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
• Goal 11.9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation system,
that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035.
o Policy 11.9.1 All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
• Goal 11.10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
o Policy 11.10.1 Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from
excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential
activities and equipment.
3.3.2 Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code Chapters 18 and 30 regulate noise on the basis of noise increment to the pre-existing
ambient attributed to a source of concern. Per Chapter 18, Nuisances, Article II – Noise, Sec. 18-63(b)(4), (6), (7),
and (10), a variety of sound source types can violate the municipal code if they create loud, excessive, impulsive or
intrusive noise that annoys or disturbs people from a distance of 50 feet or more from the edge of the property,
structure or unit in which the source is located. Such sources include un-muffled engine exhausts, loading or
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 6 NOVEMBER 2022
unloading of vehicles, building construction and repair outside of allowable hours, and the operation of heavy
construction equipment or processes such as pile-driving.
Chapter 30, Article V, Division 6, Sec. 30-469-Noise prohibits the creation or cause of any sound that exceeds an
exterior limit of 65 dBA. Should project construction activities take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. on weekdays and 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, this 65 dBA limit would apply. Additionally, the City relies
on the 24-hour CNEL descriptor to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
Although the City does not specify a quantified threshold with respect to allowable vibration exposure, Chapter 30,
Article V, Division 6, Sec. 30-470-Vibration of the Municipal Code prohibits the creation or cause of any vibration
that can be perceived beyond the property line with or without the aid of an instrument. For purposes of assessing
project-attributed impact, the analysis herein adopts the FTA’s maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold
of 0.2 in/sec PPV.
4 Thresholds of Significance
The State of California has developed guidelines to address the significance of noise impacts based on Appendix G
of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), which provides guidance that a project would have a significant
environmental impact if it would:
1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies.
2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
3. Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or a public use airport.
Quantitative thresholds of significance have been established for the purposes of this impact assessment, based
on relevant federal guidance, State requirements, and local polices and regulations described in Section 3, and are
listed below.
• Should construction activities occur outside of the City’s allowable daytime construction hours, the exterior
noise limit of 65 dBA would apply;
• Because the City lacks a quantified construction noise level limit, the FTA guidance-based construction
noise threshold of 80 dBA eight-hour Leq at nearest offsite residences is adopted herein;
• A change to the existing outdoor ambient sound environment of more than 3 dBA CNEL due to project-
attributed added construction traffic to traffic flows on existing roadways (i.e., Valley Boulevard); and
• Guidance from Caltrans indicates that groundborne vibration velocity of 0.3 ips PPV received at an older
residential structure typical of the project surroundings would be considered a potential building damage
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 7 NOVEMBER 2022
risk; and occupants within would likely be annoyed (and thus impacted) if perceived vibration levels were
greater than 0.4 ips PPV.
5 Analysis Methodologies
5.1 Construction Noise
Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities
exceed the allowable hours of operation as permitted by the FTA’s advisory threshold of 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour
daytime period at a residential land use. Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project include residences
to the south, east, and north of the project site. Although additional residences and other noise-sensitive receivers
are further afield, the construction noise assessment focused on project-attributed noise exposure levels predicted
to occur at these nearest existing residences. Construction noise levels at more distant receivers would be
substantially lower, consistent with established acoustical principles of attenuation with geometric divergence and
other factors.
Project-generated construction noise will vary depending on the construction process, the type of equipment
involved, the location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the schedule proposed to carry
out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week), and the duration of the construction work. Using information
provided by the project applicant as well as typical equipment identified by CalEEMod for this type and size of
development, project construction noise per each of six distinct phases was calculated using a spreadsheet-based
model emulating the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2008).
Table 2 presents the equipment list used for the construction noise analysis.
Table 2. Construction Equipment Assumptions by Phase
Potential
Construction
Phase Start Date Finish Date
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Workers
Average
Daily
Vendor
Trucks
Total
Haul
Trucks Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Site
Preparation
1/02/2023 1/13/2023 18 6 Rubber Tired
Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 4 8
Grading 1/14/2023 2/24/2024 20 6 Excavators 2 8
Graders/Blades 1 8
Rubber Tired
Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 2 8
Building 2/25/2023 4/19/2023 430 92 0 Cranes 1 8
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 8 NOVEMBER 2022
Using the provided construction information, prediction results are summarized at the nearest noise-sensitive
receptor (the residence to the south of the Project site) for two calculation scenarios as follows:
• Usage of the shortest activity-to-receptor distance for the loudest equipment type and quantity associated
with the studied construction phase, with less noisy equipment types at successive distance increments
of 50 feet; and
• An “acoustic centroid” approach, akin to the FTA general assessment technique for estimating
construction noise, whereby all listed equipment for a construction phases is represented by a common
location at the geographic center of the studied construction zone or area.
The first of these methods is considered a conservative approach to assess what might be characterized as a peak
exposure level, applicable to not more than approximately 10%–15% of the total construction period and when the
studied construction activity is taking place with loudest equipment along the property boundary closest to these
nearest off-site receivers. This “nearest” method also assumes that only one piece of equipment per type within a
studied activity phase would be at these nearest distances; otherwise, most of the equipment would unrealistically
“stack” near the boundary line and not be working other areas of the construction site. The second approach utilizes
the acoustic centroid technique to represent a time-averaged location for the phase equipment and activity, thereby
yielding average noise levels to represent overall noise exposure as experienced for adjacent receivers over the
duration of each construction phase. Attachment C displays the construction noise model worksheets, and their
input parameters, for each of these analysis approaches.
5.2 Construction Vibration
The main concern associated with ground-borne vibration is annoyance; however, in extreme cases, vibration can
cause damage to buildings, particularly those that are old or otherwise fragile. Some common sources of ground-
Table 2. Construction Equipment Assumptions by Phase
Potential
Construction
Phase Start Date Finish Date
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Workers
Average
Daily
Vendor
Trucks
Total
Haul
Trucks Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Construction Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 3 8
Welders 1 8
Paving 4/20/2023 5/17/2024 16 6 0 Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural
Coating
5/18/2024 6/14/2024 86 0 0
Air Compressors 1 8
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 9 NOVEMBER 2022
borne vibration are trains, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and heavy earth-moving
equipment. The primary source of ground-borne vibration occurring as part of the project is construction activity.
Ground-borne vibration information related to construction/heavy equipment activities has been collected by
Caltrans. Information from Caltrans indicates that transient vibrations (such as from construction activity) with
approximately 0.035 ips PPV may be characterized as barely perceptible, and vibration levels of 0.24 inches per
second PPV may be characterized as distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2020).
The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and
rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in FTA and Caltrans guidance. By way of example, for a large
bulldozer (having a reference vibration velocity of 0.089 ips PPV [FTA 2018]) operating on site and as close as
the project boundary (i.e., approximately 20 feet from the nearest receiving sensitive land use) the estimated
vibration velocity level would be less than 0.12 ips PPV per the equation as follows:
PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.12 = 0.089 * (25/20)^1.5
In the above equation, PPVrcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receiver position, PPVref is the reference
value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the roller), and D is the actual horizontal distance (in feet) to the
receiver.
5.3 Operation Noise
5.3.1 Offsite Roadway Traffic
The project is expected to generate a total of 2,170 trips to the roadway system. As shown in Table 1 of the project’s
Transportation Technical Memorandum, during the PM peak-hour, approximately 184 vehicles are estimated to
enter or exit the project site. Utilizing this information, as well as additional traffic data shown in Attachment D, an
emulator based on the FHWA’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model RD-77-108 was used to estimate potential
noise impacts at adjacent noise-sensitive uses. Consistent with Caltrans guidance (Caltrans, 2013), this analysis
assumes 80% of the ADT occurs during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), 5% during the evening (7:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m.), and 15% during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The truck percentages used in the noise
model for existing arterials were 2.0% medium trucks and 1.0% heavy trucks, generally consistent with similar
studies where such arterial roadways accept truck traffic.
The change in roadway noise levels was predicted for two conditions: existing and existing plus project. Traffic noise
level predictions presented in Table 3 are calculated for the Valley Boulevard – Cypress Avenue to Juniper Avenue
roadway segment bounded by intersections within the project area.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 10 NOVEMBER 2022
Table 3. Predicted Roadway Noise Change – Existing plus Project
Modeled Roadway Segment
Existing (2022) Noise
Level (dBA CNEL)
Existing (2022)
Plus Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL)
Project-Related
Noise Level
Increase (dBA)
Valley Blvd: Cypress Ave – Juniper Ave. 69.2 69.6 0.4
Source: Attachment D.
In the context of community noise (i.e., outside of a controlled environment) a change in noise levels of less than 3
dBA is not perceptible to the average human listener. Additionally, based upon the FICON thresholds presented in
Section 3.1.2, an increase of less than 5 dBA when the ambient sound level is less than 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL, less
than 3 dBA when the ambient sound level is less than between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL, or less than 2 dBA when
the ambient sound level is greater than 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL would not be substantial.
5.3.2 Onsite Stationary Sources
Implementation of the project would result in changes to existing noise levels on and around the project site by
developing new stationary sources of noise, including introduction of additional outdoor HVAC equipment. These
sources may affect noise-sensitive vicinity land uses off the project site.
Rooftop HVAC
Based on the available architectural and mechanical roof plans and other design information for the proposed
project, there are a number of residential HVAC units on each of the residential and commercial project buildings,
with a total of 441 units. Rooftop HVAC reference sound levels were available from the design plans and “product
data” information submittals.
Sound Propagation Prediction
The aggregate noise emission from these outdoor-exposed HVAC sound sources has been predicted with the
Datakustik CadnaA sound propagation program. CadnaA is a commercially available software program for the
calculation, presentation, assessment, and prediction of environmental noise based on algorithms and reference
data per International Organization of Standardization (ISO) Standard 9613-2, “Attenuation of Sound During
Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation” (ISO 1996). The CadnaA computer software allows
one to position sources of sound emission in a simulated three-dimensional (3-D) space atop rendered “blocks” of
project building masses having heights and footprints consistent with project architectural plans and elevations. In
addition to the above-mentioned sound source inputs and building-block structures that define the three-
dimensional sound propagation model space, the following assumptions and parameters are included in this
CadnaA-supported stationary noise source assessment:
• Ground effect acoustical absorption coefficient equal to 0.2, which intends to represent an average or
blending of ground covers that are characterized largely by hard reflective pavements and existing
building surfaces across the Project site and the surroundings;
• Reflection order of 1, which allows for a single reflection of sound paths on encountered structural
surfaces such as the modeled building masses;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 11 NOVEMBER 2022
• Off-site residential structures and the commercial buildings have not been rendered in the model;
• Calm meteorological conditions (i.e., no wind) with 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 50% relative humidity; and
• All of the modeled HVAC equipment is operating concurrently and continuously for a minimum period of 1
hour.
Table 4 presents the predicted aggregate noise level exposures from these operating HVAC systems at each of five
(5) nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., existing residences). Predicted levels shown in Table 4 range
between 32 to 36 dBA hourly Leq, which is below the City’s noise standard of 45 dBA Leq for single-family residential
properties. Figure 3 displays the location of the studied noise-sensitive receptors and noise contours.
Table 4. Stationary Operations Noise Modeling Results
Studied Noise-Sensitive Receptor
(approximate address)
Predicted Project-Attributed Noise
Exposure Level at Nearby Noise-
Sensitive Receptors
Project HVAC (dBA hourly Leq)
R1 (10050 Juniper Ave) 35
R2 (10050 Juniper Ave) 36
R3 (10050 Juniper Ave) 36
R4 (10050 Juniper Ave) 34
R5 (16592 Washington Dr) 32
Note: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); dBA = A-weighted decibels; HVAC = heating, ventilating,
and air-conditioning. See Figure 3 for locations of studied noise-sensitive receptors.
Parking Lot Activity
A comprehensive study of noise levels associated with surface parking lots was published in the Journal of
Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management (Baltrënas et al. 2004). The study found that average
noise levels during the peak period of use of the parking lot (generally in the morning with arrival of commuters,
and in the evening with the departure of commuters), was 47 dBA at 1 meter (3.3 feet) from the outside boundary
of the parking lot. The project parking spaces are located throughout the project area, including directly adjacent
to noise sensitive receptor property lines.
6 Impact Assessment
6.1 Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels?
On-site noise-generating activities associated with the project would include short-term construction. The project
would also generate off-site traffic noise increases along various roadways in the area. These potential effects are
analyzed in the following subsections.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 12 NOVEMBER 2022
6.1.1 On-Site Construction (Short-Term) Noise
Construction of the project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors (i.e., residences) to momentary
elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine outdoor activities. The magnitude of the impact
would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between
the noise source and receiver, and intervening structures. Using the RCNM-emulating model, the predicted noise
level exposures from the proposed construction activities at the nearest studied residential receptors are
summarized in Table 5. Details of the modeling input and output are provided in Attachment C.
Table 5. Construction Noise Model Results Summary
Construction Phase
Construction Noise at Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Distances (dBA 8-hour Leq)
Nearest Distance
(20 feet)
Acoustic Center
(450 feet)
Site Preparation
(dozer, tractor) 86 64
Grading
(excavator, grader, dozer, scraper, backhoe) 87 64
Building Construction
(crane, man-lift, generator, backhoe, welder/torch) 86 62
Architectural Coating
(air compressor) 84 59
Paving
(concrete mixer truck, paver, backhoe, roller) 80 50
Notes: See Attachment C for complete results.
As previously discussed, the City’s Noise Ordinance does not establish quantitative construction noise standards;
however, Section 430.469-Noise of the City’s Municipal Code restricts noise-generating construction activities to
the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The construction contractor would thus be required to comply with these
noise regulations prescribing the hours allowed for construction activity. Were the FTA guidance limit of 80 dBA Leq
to be applied as a standard, Table 6 informs that the predicted noise level exposure at the offsite noise sensitive
receptor closest to the construction boundary (i.e., a distance of only 20 feet) is 87 dBA and exceeds this standard
by 7 dB. Hence, despite construction activity hours complying with City regulations, project construction noise
impacts could be less than significant with mitigation such as the following measure:
MM-NOI-1 The applicant and/or project contractor shall implement the following measures:
• All construction equipment must have appropriate sound muffling devices, which shall be
properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation.
• The project contractor shall place stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize
the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the Project site during the construction period.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 13 NOVEMBER 2022
• All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and
any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m.
• An eight (8) foot tall temporary noise barrier shall be erected along the southern Project site
property line where the property line is adjacent to the nearest noise sensitive receptor.
With the needed noise reduction quantity being 7 dB (i.e., the arithmetic difference of 87 dBA and 80 dBA), MM-
NOI-1 offers the project Applicant (or its construction contractors) flexible and practical options to implement it
successfully and yield compliant noise exposure levels. For example, independent of any barrier-based sound path
occlusion, reducing operation time of a piece of steady noise-producing equipment by 50% would also yield a 3 dB
reduction. With the mitigation measures outlined above applied to the project, construction noise would be
considered a less than significant impact.
6.1.3 Operation Noise
6.1.3.1 Offsite Roadway Traffic
Project-attributed traffic would cause increases in roadway volumes or trips on Valley Boulevard and Juniper
Avenue, but not at levels expected to yield significant impacts. Using the information from Section 5.3.1, the
predicted change in roadway traffic noise from Valley Boulevard will be less than 0.4 dB, which would be considered
an imperceptible difference and thus a less than significant impact—especially in such an urban environment with
existing noise levels expected to already exceed 65 dBA.
6.1.3.2 Onsite Stationary Sources
Aggregate noise emission from continuously operating outdoor-exposed rooftop air-conditioning units is expected
to be below the City of Fontana (City) exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA Leq. Please see accompanying Figure 3
depicting the prediction results of the sound emission model, with the color-coded bands of sound level displayed
as a horizontal plane five feet above grade.
Noise associated with the project parking spaces was also analyzed. Since parking lot noise is considered transient,
the hourly Leq would not exceed the City’s noise standard of 45 dBA at the nearest noise sensitive property line.
Therefore, noise associated with onsite sources would be considered a less than significant impact.
6.2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
The closest distance between anticipated vibration-producing construction equipment (e.g., a roller) and offsite
residential structures appears to be at least 20 feet, which according to FTA prediction methodology would be
adequate for attenuating ground-borne vibration to levels that, per FTA or California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) guidance with respect to building damage risk and occupant annoyance, would not
exceed relevant criteria and thus be a less than significant impact. In detail, the groundborne vibration
propagation expression appearing in Section 5.2 can be used with FTA reference data for a roller (0.21 ips PPV
at 25 feet) as follows:
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 14 NOVEMBER 2022
PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.29 = 0.21 * (25/20)^1.5
The predicted 0.29 ips PPV for the on-site roller is less than the 0.3 ips threshold for building damage risk and
less than 0.4 ips PPV with respect to occupant annoyance.
6.3 Expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive aviation noise levels?
The nearest public airport is well over 5 miles away, and there are no apparent private airfield. Hence, project
worker or future residence exposure to aviation traffic noise is expected to be “no impact.”
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 15 NOVEMBER 2022
7 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, as amended.
Baltrënas, P., D. Kazlauskas, & E. Petraitis. 2004. Testing on noise level prevailing at motor vehicle parking lots
and numeral simulation of its dispersion, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape
Management, 12:2, 63-70
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Accessed at
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-
apr2020-a11y.pdf.
Carrier. 2012. Product Data Sheet: Catalog No. CA16NA-06PD.
City of Fontana. 2018. General Plan Update Chapter 11 Noise and Safety, November 13. Accessed at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter-11---Noise-and-Safety.
City of Fontana. 2014. Traffic Count Map. Accessed at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36781/Fontana-Traffic-Count-Map-Updated?bidId=
Dudek. 2022. JPI Jefferson Fontana – Transportation Due Diligence – Preliminary Findings. July 1.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report
No. 0123. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September. Accessed at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division.
FICON. 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Federal Interagency Committee on
Noise. August 1992.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA PROJECT - NOISE AND VIBRATION DUE DILIGENCE
14386.05 16 NOVEMBER 2022
Figures
Project Location
JPI Fontana Project
SOURCE: Open Street Map; Bing Maps
Date
:
7
/
6
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
a
g
r
e
i
s
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
3
8
6
0
3
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
B
i
o
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
02,0001,000 Feet
Project Boundary
Study Area (100-Foot)
FIGURE 1
Loma
Linda Yucaipa
Yucca Valley
Twentynine
Palms
Victorville
NeedlesBarstow
Apple Valley
Inyo County
Kern
County
Riverside
County
Imperial County
Nevada
Arizona
395
95
243
18
74
91
39 206 330
178
173
86
177
76
60
78
79
58
2 38
247
14
111
190
138
127
5
15
605
215 10
15
210
40
405
Project Site
0
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
#RE
F
!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
SOURCE:Google 2022; Dudek 2022
JPI Jefferson Fontana Project
FIGURE 2
0 123.5 247 Feet Noise Measurement Locations
Project Site
ST1
ST3
ST2
0 144 288 432 576 720 864
100
8
115
2
129
6
144
0
158
4
172
8
187
2
201
6
216
0
230
4
244
8
259
2
273
6
288
0
302
4
316
8
331
2
345
6
360
0
374
4
388
8
403
2
417
6
432
0
446
4
460
8
475
2
489
6
504
0
518
4
532
8
547
2
561
6
576
0
590
4
604
8
619
2
633
6
648
0
662
4
676
8
691
2
705
6
720
0
734
4
748
8
763
2
777
6
792
0
806
4
820
8
835
2
849
6
864
0
878
4
892
8
907
2
921
6
936
0
950
4
964
8
979
2
993
6
1008
0
1022
4
1036
8
1051
2
1065
6
1080
0
1094
4
1108
8
1123
2
1137
6
1152
0
1166
4
1180
8
1195
2
1209
6
1224
0
1238
4
1252
8
1267
2
1281
6
1296
0
1310
4
1324
8
1339
2
1353
6
1368
0
1382
4
1396
8
1411
2
1425
6
1440
0
1454
4
1468
8
1483
2
1497
6
1512
0
1526
4
1540
8
1555
2
1569
6
1584
0
1598
4
1612
8
1627
2
1641
6
1656
0
1670
4
1684
8
1699
2
1713
6
1728
0
1742
4
1756
8
1771
2
1785
6
1800
0
1814
4
1828
8
1843
2
1857
6
1872
0
1886
4
1900
8
1915
2
1929
6
1944
0
1958
4
1972
8
1987
2
2001
6
2016
0
2030
4
2044
8
2059
2
2073
6
2088
0
2102
4
2116
8
2131
2
2145
6
2160
0
2174
4
2188
8
2203
2
2217
6
2232
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
SOURCE:Google 2022; Dudek 2022
JPI Jefferson Fontana Project
FIGURE 3
0 70 140 Feet Aggregate Stationary Sources Operational Noise Level Prediction
Legend
Receiver Location
A-weighted Project
Operations Sound
Pressure Level
(SPL)
35 dBA
35 dBA
N
R1R2R4R3
R5
Project Building
HVAC Unit
Typ. 441
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 17 NOVEMBER 2022
Attachments
NOISE AND VIBRATION DUE DILIGENCE A-1 14386.03
JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA PROJECT JULY 2022
Summary of Acoustical Concepts
Fundamentals of Sound
Vibrations, traveling as waves through air from a source, exert a force perceived by the human ear as
sound. Sound pressure level (SPL, referred to as sound level) is measured on a logarithmic scale in
decibels (dB) that represent the fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure.
Frequency, or pitch, is a physical characteristic of sound and is expressed in units of cycles per second or
hertz (Hz). The normal frequency range of hearing for most people extends from about 20 to 20,000 Hz.
The human ear is more sensitive to middle and high frequencies, especially when the noise levels are
quieter. As noise levels get louder, the human ear starts to hear the frequency spectrum more evenly. To
accommodate for this phenomenon, a weighting system to evaluate how loud a noise level is to a human
was developed. The frequency weighting called “A” weighting is typically used for quieter noise levels
which de-emphasizes the low frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of
a human ear. This A-weighted sound level is called the “noise level” and is referenced in units of dBA.
Since sound is measured on a logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in
the noise level. Changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dBA are not typically noticed by the
human ear. Changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to
changes in noise. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable1. The human ear perceives a 10 dBA increase in
sound level as a doubling of the sound level (e.g., 65 dBA sounds twice as loud as 55 dBA to a human
ear).
An individual’s noise exposure occurs over a period of time; however, noise level is a measure of noise at
a given instant in time. Community noise sources vary continuously, being the product of many noise
sources at various distances, all of which constitute a relatively stable background or ambient noise
environment. The background, or ambient, noise level gradually changes throughout a typical day,
corresponding to distant noise sources, such as traffic volume, as well as changes in atmospheric
conditions
Noise levels are generally higher during the daytime and early evening hours when traffic (including
airplanes), commercial, and industrial activity is the greatest. However, noise sources experienced during
nighttime hours when background levels are generally lower can be potentially more conspicuous and
irritating to the receiver. In order to evaluate noise in a way that considers periodic fluctuations
experienced throughout the day and night, a concept termed “community noise equivalent level” (CNEL)
was developed, wherein noise measurements are weighted, added, and averaged over a 24-hour period
to reflect magnitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. A complete definition of CNEL and
other terminology used to describe noise is provided in the following list.
1 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-
a11y.pdf
NOISE AND VIBRATION DUE DILIGENCE A-2 14386.03
JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA PROJECT JULY 2022
Glossary of Common Acoustical Terms
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The
normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given
location.
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) The sound pressure level (SPL) in decibels as measured on a
sound level meter (SLM) using the A-weighted filter network,
which de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency
components of the measured sound in a manner similar to the
frequency response of the average healthy human ear.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level over a 24-
hour period with a 5 dB adjustment added to sound levels
occurring during the evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and 10
dB adjustment added to sound levels occurring during the
nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).
Day-night Sound Level (Ldn) The A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level over a 24-
hour period with a 10 dB adjustment added to sound levels
occurring during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).
Decibel (dB) The unit for expressing SPL and is equal to 10 times the
logarithm (to the base 10) of the ratio of the measured sound
pressure squared to a reference pressure, which is 20
micropascals.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq[xh]) The value corresponding to a steady-state sound level
containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a
given sample period. The Leq may feature notation in its
subscript indicating the time period (e.g., eight hours as “8h” to
populate “[Xh]”) of energy averaging.
Maximum (Minimum) Sound Level (Lmax, Lmin) The highest (lowest) value measured by an SLM over a given
sample period, based on a time-weighted sound level in dB
using a “fast” or “slow” time constant.
Statistical Sound Level (LXX) The SPL exceeded a cumulative XX percent (%) of the measured
time period. By way of example, L50 is also referred to as a
“median” sound level. The L90 value is often considered akin to
a “background” sound level of indistinct contribution to the
outdoor sound environment or an approximation of continuous
or steady-state sources of noise such as mechanical
equipment.
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) The maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a
vibration wave. (In this document, a PPV descriptor with units of
mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction-generated
vibration for building damage risk and human annoyance.
Vibration Velocity Decibel (VdB) Ten times the common logarithm of the ratio of the square of
the amplitude of the RMS vibration velocity to the square of the
amplitude of the reference RMS vibration velocity. The
reference velocity in the United States is one micro-inch per
second.
NOISE AND VIBRATION DUE DILIGENCE A-3 14386.03
JPI JEFFERSON FONTANA PROJECT JULY 2022
Exterior Noise Distance Attenuation
Noise sources are typically classified in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or a
group of construction vehicles and equipment working within a spatially limited area at a given time, and
(2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of pass-by sources (motor vehicles). Sound
generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dBA for each doubling of
distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and at a rate of 7.5 dBA for each
doubling of distance from source to receptor at acoustically “soft” sites. Sound generated by a line source
(i.e., a roadway) typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling distance, for hard and
soft sites, respectively. Sound levels can also be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers. For the
purpose of sound attenuation discussion, a “hard” or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-
effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt or concrete ground surfaces, as well as very hard-
packed soils. An acoustically “soft” or absorptive site is characteristic of unpaved loose soil or vegetated
ground.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration.
The response of humans to vibration is very complex. However, it is generally accepted that human
response is best approximated by the vibration velocity level associated with the vibration occurrence.
Heavy equipment operation, including stationary equipment that produces substantial oscillation or
construction equipment that causes percussive action against the ground surface, may be perceived by
building occupants as perceptible vibration. It is also common for ground-borne vibration to cause windows,
pictures on walls, or items on shelves to rattle. Although the perceived vibration from such equipment
operation can be intrusive to building occupants, the vibration is seldom of sufficient magnitude to cause
even minor cosmetic damage to buildings.
When evaluating human response, ground-borne vibration is usually expressed in terms of root mean
square (RMS) vibration velocity. RMS is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the vibration
signal. As for sound, it is common to express vibration amplitudes in terms of decibels defined as: Lv =
20*LOG(vrms/vref) where vrms is the RMS vibration velocity amplitude in inches/second and vref is the decibel
reference of 1x10-6 inches/second (0.000001 ips).
To avoid confusion with sound decibels, the abbreviation VdB is used for vibration decibels. The vibration
threshold of perception for most people is around 65 VdB (which is equivalent to 0.0018 in/sec RMS).
Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) that describes
particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass, expressed as inches/second or
in/sec). Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving,
rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile driving and
soil compacting, grading activity has the greatest potential for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large
trucks, or other heavy equipment are used.
Field Noise Measurement Data
Record: 1525
Project Name JPI Fontana
Project #14386.05
Observer(s)
Date 2022-11-11
Meteorological Conditions
Temp (F)65
Humidity % (R.H.)22.6
Wind Gusty
Wind Speed (MPH)8
Wind Direction North
Sky Partly Cloudy
Instrument and Calibrator Information
Instrument Name List Piccolo #1897
Instrument Name Piccolo #1897
Instrument Name Lookup Key Piccolo #1897
Manufacturer Soft dB inc.
Model Piccolo
Serial Number P0222050202
Calibration Date 05/02/2022
Calibrator Name (SB) LD CAL200
Calibrator Name (SB) LD CAL200
Calibrator Name Lookup Key (SB) LD CAL200
Calibrator Manufacturer Larson Davis
Calibrator Model LD CAL200
Calibrator Serial #4496
GPS Assistance Used No
Pre-Test (dBA SPL)94.6
Post-Test (dBA SPL)94
Windscreen Yes
Weighting?A-WTD
Slow/Fast?Slow
ANSI?Yes
Monitoring
Record #1
Site ID ST3
Site Location Lat/Long 34.069224, -117.440082
Begin (Time)11:47:00
End (Time)12:02:00
Other Lx (Specify Metric)L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background)Distant Conversations / Yelling, Distant Industrial, Distant Traffic, Rustling Leaves
Other Noise Sources Additional Description Music from auto shop, Sirens
Is the same instrument and calibrator being used
as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Page 1/8
Description / Photos
Terrain Mixed
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST3 North
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST3 South
Page 2/8
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST3 East
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST3 West
Page 3/8
Monitoring
Record #2
Site ID ST1
Site Location Lat/Long 34.068447, -117.441870
Begin (Time)12:08:00
End (Time)12:23:00
Other Lx (Specify Metric)L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background)Distant Traffic, Rustling Leaves
Is the same instrument and calibrator being used
as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Terrain Mixed
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST1 North
Site Photos
Page 4/8
Photo
Comments / Description ST1 South
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST1 East
Page 5/8
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST1 West
Monitoring
Record #3
Site ID ST2
Site Location Lat/Long 34.070203, -117.441936
Begin (Time)12:28:00
End (Time)12:43:00
Other Lx (Specify Metric)L
Primary Noise Source Traffic
Other Noise Sources (Background)Distant Traffic, Rustling Leaves
Is the same instrument and calibrator being used
as previously noted?
Yes
Are the meteorological conditions the same as
previously noted?
Yes
Description / Photos
Terrain Hard
Site Photos
Page 6/8
Photo
Comments / Description ST2 North
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST2 South
Page 7/8
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST2 East
Site Photos
Photo
Comments / Description ST2 West
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 8/8
JPI Jefferson Fontana Project Attachment C -- Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets
To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae 80
allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8 = temporary barrier (TB) of input height inserted between source and receptor
Construction Activity Equipment
Total Equipment Qty AUF % (from FHWA RCNM)
Reference Lmax @ 50 ft. from FHWA RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or Notes Source to NSR Distance (ft.)Temporary Barrier Insertion Loss (dB)Additional Noise Reduction Distance-Adjusted Lmax
Allowable Operation Time (hours)
Allowable Operation Time (minutes)
Predicted 8-hour Leq Source Elevation (ft)Receiver Elevation (ft)Barrier Height (ft)
Source to Barr. ("A") Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to Barr. ("B") Horiz. (ft)
Source to Rcvr. ("C") Horiz. (ft)"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft)
Path Length Diff. "P" (ft)Abarr (dB)Heff (with barrier)Heff (wout barrier)G (with barrier)G (without barrier)ILbarr (dB) Notes
Site Preparation dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 75 0.1 77.6 8 480 74 5 5 0 5 70 75 7.1 70.2 75.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
tractor 1 40 84 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 25 0.1 89.9 8 480 86 5 5 0 5 20 25 7.1 20.6 25.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Site Preparation Phase:86.2
Grading excavator 1 40 81 Excavators 225 0.1 63.8 8 480 60 5 5 0 5 220 225 7.1 220.1 225.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
grader 1 40 85 Graders/Blades 25 0.1 90.9 8 480 87 5 5 0 5 20 25 7.1 20.6 25.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 175 0.1 67.4 8 480 63 5 5 0 5 170 175 7.1 170.1 175.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
scraper 1 40 84 Scrapers 75 0.1 79.6 8 480 76 5 5 0 5 70 75 7.1 70.2 75.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
tractor 1 40 84 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 125 0.1 73.0 8 480 69 5 5 0 5 120 125 7.1 120.1 125.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Grading Phase:87.3
Building Construction crane 1 16 81 Cranes 75 0.1 76.6 8 480 69 5 5 0 5 70 75 7.1 70.2 75.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
man lift 1 20 75 Forklifts 125 0.1 64.0 8 480 57 5 5 0 5 120 125 7.1 120.1 125.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
generator 1 50 72 Generator Sets 225 0.1 54.8 8 480 52 5 5 0 5 220 225 7.1 220.1 225.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
tractor 1 40 84 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 25 0.1 89.9 8 480 86 5 5 0 5 20 25 7.1 20.6 25.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
flat bed truck 1 40 74 Welders 175 0.1 59.4 8 480 55 5 5 0 5 170 175 7.1 170.1 175.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Building Construction Phase:86.0
Paving paver 1 50 77 Pavers 125 0.1 66.0 8 480 63 5 5 0 5 120 125 7.1 120.1 125.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
pavement scarafier 1 20 85 Paving Equipment 25 0.1 90.9 8 480 84 5 5 0 5 20 25 7.1 20.6 25.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
roller 1 20 80 Rollers 75 0.1 75.6 8 480 69 5 5 0 5 70 75 7.1 70.2 75.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Paving Phase:84.1
Architectural Coating compressor (air)1 40 78 Air Compressors 25 0.1 83.9 8 480 80 5 5 0 5 20 25 7.1 20.6 25.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Architectural Coating Phase:80.0
noise level limit for construction phase at residential land use, per FTA guidance =
JPI-Fontana_RCNM-emulator_mcs111522.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14386.05 RCNM_defaults-near
JPI Jefferson Fontana Project Attachment C -- Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets
To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae 80
allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8 = temporary barrier (TB) of input height inserted between source and receptor
Construction Activity Equipment
Total Equipment Qty AUF % (from FHWA RCNM)
Reference Lmax @ 50 ft. from FHWA RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or Notes Source to NSR Distance (ft.)Temporary Barrier Insertion Loss (dB)Additional Noise Reduction Distance-Adjusted Lmax
Allowable Operation Time (hours)
Allowable Operation Time (minutes)
Predicted 8-hour Leq Source Elevation (ft)Receiver Elevation (ft)Barrier Height (ft)
Source to Barr. ("A") Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to Barr. ("B") Horiz. (ft)
Source to Rcvr. ("C") Horiz. (ft)"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft)
Path Length Diff. "P" (ft)Abarr (dB)Heff (with barrier)Heff (wout barrier)G (with barrier)G (without barrier)ILbarr (dB) Notes
Site Preparation dozer 3 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 455 0.1 57.9 8 480 59 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
tractor 4 40 84 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 455 0.1 59.9 8 480 62 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Site Preparation Phase:63.6
Grading excavator 2 40 81 Excavators 455 0.1 56.9 8 480 56 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
grader 1 40 85 Graders/Blades 455 0.1 60.9 8 480 57 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 455 0.1 57.9 8 480 54 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
scraper 2 40 84 Scrapers 455 0.1 59.9 8 480 59 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
tractor 2 40 84 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 455 0.1 59.9 8 480 59 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Grading Phase:64.3
Building Construction crane 1 16 81 Cranes 455 0.1 56.9 8 480 49 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
man lift 3 20 75 Forklifts 455 0.1 50.9 8 480 49 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
generator 1 50 72 Generator Sets 455 0.1 47.9 8 480 45 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
tractor 3 40 84 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 455 0.1 59.9 8 480 61 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
flat bed truck 1 40 74 Welders 455 0.1 49.9 8 480 46 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Building Construction Phase:61.5
Paving paver 2 50 77 Pavers 455 0.1 52.9 8 480 53 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
pavement scarafier 2 20 85 Paving Equipment 455 0.1 60.9 8 480 57 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
roller 2 20 80 Rollers 455 0.1 55.9 8 480 52 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Paving Phase:59.3
Architectural Coating compressor (air)1 40 78 Air Compressors 455 0.1 53.9 8 480 50 5 5 0 5 450 455 7.1 450.0 455.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Architectural Coating Phase:49.9
noise level limit for construction phase at residential land use, per FTA guidance =
JPI-Fontana_RCNM-emulator_mcs111522.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14386.05 RCNM_defaults-centroid
JPI Jefferson Fontana Project Attachment C -- Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets
To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae 80
allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged = 8 = temporary barrier (TB) of input height inserted between source and receptor
Construction Activity Equipment
Total Equipment Qty AUF % (from FHWA RCNM)
Reference Lmax @ 50 ft. from FHWA RCNM
Client Equipment Description, Data Source and/or Notes Source to NSR Distance (ft.)Temporary Barrier Insertion Loss (dB)Additional Noise Reduction Distance-Adjusted Lmax
Allowable Operation Time (hours)
Allowable Operation Time (minutes)
Predicted 8-hour Leq Source Elevation (ft)Receiver Elevation (ft)Barrier Height (ft)
Source to Barr. ("A") Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to Barr. ("B") Horiz. (ft)
Source to Rcvr. ("C") Horiz. (ft)"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft)
Path Length Diff. "P" (ft)Abarr (dB)Heff (with barrier)Heff (wout barrier)G (with barrier)G (without barrier)ILbarr (dB) Notes
Site Preparation dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 75 12.3 65.4 8 480 61 5 5 8 5 70 75 5.8 70.1 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3
tractor 1 40 84 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 25 13.7 76.3 8 480 72 5 5 8 5 20 25 5.8 20.2 25.0 1.05 13.2 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 13.7
Total for Site Preparation Phase:72.7
Grading excavator 1 40 81 Excavators 225 11.4 52.5 8 480 49 5 5 8 5 220 225 5.8 220.0 225.0 0.85 12.3 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.4
grader 1 40 85 Graders/Blades 25 13.7 77.3 8 480 73 5 5 8 5 20 25 5.8 20.2 25.0 1.05 13.2 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 13.7
dozer 1 40 82 Rubber Tired Dozers 175 11.6 55.9 8 480 52 5 5 8 5 170 175 5.8 170.0 175.0 0.86 12.3 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.6
scraper 1 40 84 Scrapers 75 12.3 67.4 8 480 63 5 5 8 5 70 75 5.8 70.1 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3
tractor 1 40 84 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 125 11.8 61.3 8 480 57 5 5 8 5 120 125 5.8 120.0 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8
Total for Grading Phase:73.9
Building Construction crane 1 16 81 Cranes 75 12.3 64.4 8 480 56 5 5 8 5 70 75 5.8 70.1 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3
man lift 1 20 75 Forklifts 125 11.8 52.3 8 480 45 5 5 8 5 120 125 5.8 120.0 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8
generator 1 50 72 Generator Sets 225 11.4 43.5 8 480 40 5 5 8 5 220 225 5.8 220.0 225.0 0.85 12.3 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.4
tractor 1 40 84 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 25 13.7 76.3 8 480 72 5 5 8 5 20 25 5.8 20.2 25.0 1.05 13.2 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 13.7
flat bed truck 1 40 74 Welders 175 11.6 47.9 8 480 44 5 5 8 5 170 175 5.8 170.0 175.0 0.86 12.3 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.6
Total for Building Construction Phase:72.5
Paving paver 1 50 77 Pavers 125 11.8 54.3 8 480 51 5 5 8 5 120 125 5.8 120.0 125.0 0.87 12.4 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 11.8
pavement scarafier 1 20 85 Paving Equipment 25 13.7 77.3 8 480 70 5 5 8 5 20 25 5.8 20.2 25.0 1.05 13.2 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 13.7
roller 1 20 80 Rollers 75 12.3 63.4 8 480 56 5 5 8 5 70 75 5.8 70.1 75.0 0.90 12.5 13.0 5.0 0.5 0.7 12.3
Total for Paving Phase:70.6
Architectural Coating compressor (air)1 40 78 Air Compressors 25 0.1 83.9 8 480 80 5 5 0 5 20 25 7.1 20.6 25.0 0.00 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.1
Total for Architectural Coating Phase:80.0
noise level limit for construction phase at residential land use, per FTA guidance =
JPI-Fontana_RCNM-emulator_mcs111522.xlsx Dudek Project No. 14386.05 RCNM_defaults-near+barrier
Attachment D
Traffic Noise Modeling Calculations - Summary
Project: 14386.05JPI Jefferson Fontana
Number Name From To
Summary of Net Changes
1 Valley Boulevard Cypress Avenue Juniper Avenue 69.2 69.6 0.4
*All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise
levels.
Segment Description and Location
Existing
Existing +
Project
Δ Existing –
Existing +
Project
Attachment D - 1
Traffic Noise Model Calculations
Project: 14386.05JPI Jefferson Fontana
Noise Level Descriptor:CNEL
Site Conditions:Hard
Traffic Input:ADT
Traffic K-Factor:10
CNEL,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Existing Conditions
1 Valley Boulevard Cypress Avenue Juniper Avenue 23,392 45 65 110 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.2
*All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.
Input
Speed Traffic Distribution Characteristics
Output
Distance to Contour, (feet)3
Distance to
Directional
Centerline,
(feet)4Segment Description and Location
71 711
ADT
225 2248
Attachment D - 2
Traffic Noise Model Calculations
Project: 14386.05JPI Jefferson Fontana
Noise Level Descriptor:CNEL
Site Conditions:Hard
Traffic Input:ADT
Traffic K-Factor:10
CNEL,
Number Name From To (mph) Near Far % Auto % Med % Hvy % Day % Eve % Night (dBA)5,6,7 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Existing + Project Conditions
1 Valley Boulevard Cypress Avenue Juniper Avenue 25,562 45 65 110 97.0% 2.0% 1.0% 80.0% 15.0% 5.0% 69.6
*All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels.
Input Output
ADT
Speed
Distance to
Directional
Centerline,
(feet)4 Traffic Distribution CharacteristicsSegment Description and Location Distance to Contour, (feet)3
78 246 777 2456