APPENDIX J. J1 Noise Study J2 Acoustical Evaluation

Transcription

1 APPENDIX J J1 Noise Study J2 Acoustical Evaluation

2 WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC Richter Avenue, Suite 114 Irvine, CA Tel: Fax: Draft Existing Conditions Noise Study for the Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan Project File Prepared for: RGP Planning & Development Services 8921 Research Drive Irvine, CA Prepared by: David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant

3 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS KERN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ISSUES GOALS POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES OTHER REGULATORY STANDARDS KERN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE KERN COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (ALUC) PLAN FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE CEQA AND OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC RAILROAD MOVEMENTS AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS CEMENT PLANT TEHACHAPI SANITARY LANDFILL WIND ENERGY FARM GROUND VIBRATION SIGNIFICANCE STATUS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES/MITIGATION MEASURES FOR GTASP REFERENCES i

4 List of Tables Table 3-1. ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria... 8 Table 3-2. FTA Land Use Categories for Transit Vibration Impact Criteria... 9 Table 3-3. FTA Vibration Velocity Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects...10 Table 3-4. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria...10 Table 5-1. Distance to Roadway Noise Contour Lines...11 Table 5-2. Distance to Railroad Noise Contour Lines...13 Table 5-3. Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Cement Plants...19 Table 5-4. Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Landfills...20 Table 5-5. PPV at Various Estimated Distances from Vibration Sources...21 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan Boundary... 2 Figure 5-1. Location of Major Noise Sources Relative to the Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan.12 Figure 5-2. Noise Contours for Tehachapi Municipal Airport...14 Figure 5-3. Noise Contours for Mountain Valley Airport...16 Figure 5-4. Portion of GTASP Area Located Within the Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex ii

5 1 Introduction/Summary 1.1 Background The Greater Tehachapi area is located in eastern Kern County along California Highway 58 between the San Joaquin Valley and the Mojave Desert. The Greater Tehachapi area is known for its four seasons, rural communities, Tehachapi Loop, electricity generating wind turbines, proximity to Edwards Air Force Base, and gliding. The Greater Tehachapi area generally refers to the City of Tehachapi and the surrounding rural communities of Alpine Forest, Golden Hills, Stallion Springs, Bear Valley, Cummings Valley, and Brite Valley. Since 2000, the area s population has grown from approximately 28,400 to approximately 35,000, an increase of about 23 percent. In response to this growth, the County of Kern is updating planning and environmental information in this unincorporated Greater Tehachapi area and will prepare a new program-level Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) that will rescind and consolidate the existing specific and other community plans in the area. This new Specific Plan will allow the County to identify and coordinate implementation strategies and policies for future land uses by balancing the competing social, economic, resource and environmental factors for future growth in the Greater Tehachapi area. For purposes of the GTASP, the boundary encompasses approximately 275 square miles, as shown on Figure 1-1. The eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area is Tehachapi Willow Spring Road just west of the Oak Creek Pass. The western boundary is near Hart Flat Road just east of Highway 223. The northern boundary of the Specific Plan area is Orejano Ridge on the west to Emerald Mountain on the east. The southern boundary is generally defined by Cummings Mountain, Double Mountain and Tehachapi Mountain, each of which has peaks at elevations above 7,700 feet in the Tehachapi Mountain range. The County s 2004 General Plan outlines the growth opportunities and challenges facing all of Kern County. These opportunities and challenges that are particularly relevant to the GTASP area include but are not limited to: Promoting managed economic growth Providing for continued agricultural use and resource conservation Promoting smart growth concepts to effectively manage the County s future development Enhancing the linkage between land use and water supply planning Air quality s role in land use planning Kern County s importance in energy development The GTASP will become the future development guidance for this 275-square mile Greater Tehachapi area working in tandem with the County s 2004 General Plan and Kern County Zoning Ordinance. Consistent with State and County requirements, the Specific Plan will set forth a definitive land use development plan, development regulations, and implementation plans and 1

6 Figure 1-1. Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan Boundary 2

7 programs designed to ensure a successful future development consistent with the goals and policies of the County s 2004 General Plan. The purposes of the proposed GTASP are to more specifically identify and build upon these growth opportunities and challenges for the Greater Tehachapi Area. This planning process is three-fold: Identify existing conditions in the Specific Plan area; Establish a uniform set of planning assumptions (land use constraints and opportunities); and Implement 2004 General Plan goals and/or policies by coordinating and identifying implementation strategies and policies for future land use in the Greater Tehachapi area. The Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) planning effort will include three basic tasks: 1) the accumulation and consolidation of known information on existing conditions, particularly water availability; 2) the preparation of the Specific Plan document, and; 3) preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR). The GTASP process is expected to take about two years with completion in late The public and public agencies will be included in this planning process at all stages of the planning effort. 1.2 Summary of Existing Conditions Twenty documents were reviewed in this study to identify the existing acoustical environment in the Greater Tehachapi Area. Based on these reviews, as well as surveys of aerial photographs, the following noise and vibration sources were identified: traffic on the major highways and roadways; train movements on the UP & BNSF rail line; flight operations at private, public and military air fields; activities at a cement plant; activities at the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill; and equipment at a wind farm near the southeastern portion of the Greater Tehachapi Area. Of these sources, information regarding existing noise levels was available only for traffic, the rail line, and the air fields. No information was available regarding groundborne vibration levels induced by train movements on the UP & BNSF rail line or by blasting at the cement plant. For the noise and vibration sources considered in this study, the following summarizes the significance status of existing conditions in the Greater Tehachapi Area: A potentially significant impact exists at noise-sensitive locations adjacent to SR-58, SR-202, Comanche Point Road, Highline Road, Tehachapi Road, Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, the UP & BNSF rail line, the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill, and the wind energy farm. At these locations people may be exposed to noise levels in excess of the Kern County General Plan standards. A potentially significant impact exists at sensitive receptors adjacent to the UP & BNSF rail line and the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company. At these locations people may be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration levels. A potentially significant impact exists at residences, churches, auditoriums, concert halls, offices, retail trade, and livestock breeding areas in the near vicinity of Mountain Valley Airport. At these 3

8 locations people may be exposed to marginally acceptable noise levels per the Kern County ALUC guidelines. A potentially significant impact exists at schools, libraries, hospitals and amphitheaters in the near vicinity of Mountain Valley Airport. At these locations people may be exposed to normally unacceptable noise levels per the Kern County ALUC guidelines. A potentially significant impact exists at noise-sensitive land uses under or near the flight patterns for Tehachapi Municipal Airport and Mountain Valley Airport, and within the Joint Powers Restricted R-2508 Complex 1. At these locations there is increased potential for annoyance due to single events resulting from aircraft overflights, sonic booms, etc. To mitigate these potentially significant impacts, the following measures should be considered in the design of any new developments within the Greater Tehachapi Area: 1. Require acoustical analyses for new noise-sensitive land uses in noise-impacted areas. The acoustical analyses should also address single-event aircraft noise levels if the uses are under or near the flight tracks from Tehachapi Municipal Airport or Mountain Valley Airport, or within the military s Joint Powers Restricted R-2508 Complex. 2. Require acoustical analyses for new noise-sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant, the landfill, the wind energy farm, or other existing noisegenerating land uses. The acoustical analyses should also address single-event equipment noise levels and tonal noise as potential sources of annoyance. 3. Require acoustical analyses for new noise-generating land use projects to verify that the project has been properly designed or arranged so that they will not subject residential or other noisesensitive land uses to exterior noise levels in excess of the County s standards. 4. Require acoustical analyses for new auditoriums, concert halls, offices, and retail trade buildings within the 60 db L dn noise contour of Mountain Valley Airport. 5. Prohibit new schools, libraries, hospitals and amphitheaters within the 60 db L dn noise contour of Mountain Valley Airport. 6. Require vibration analyses for new uses that may be highly sensitive to groundborne vibration if they are located within 600 feet of the UP & BNSF rail line or the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant. 7. Require vibration analyses for new residential uses if they are located within 200 feet of the UP & BNSF rail line or the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant. 8. Require vibration analyses for new institutional uses if they are located within 120 feet of the UP & BNSF rail line or the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant. 1 In order to minimize flight hazards to non-military aircraft, the military aircraft from Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Naval Air Weapon Station fly within restricted airspace known as the Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex. This complex is considered an extension of the airspace for these military aviation installations and their flying missions. 4

9 It should be noted that the assessment of the existing noise and vibration environments, as well as the mitigation measures, are based solely on a review of available documents, and are not based on field measurements, analyses, or on-site observations. 2 Kern County General Plan 2.1 Issues The Noise Element of the Kern County General Plan identifies and discusses the following issues: Highways and freeways. Primary arterial and major local streets. Railroad operations. Aircraft and airport operations. Local industrial facilities. Other stationary sources. 2.2 Goals The goals identified in the County s Noise Element of the General Plan are: Ensure that residents of Kern County are protected from excessive noise and that moderate levels of noise are maintained. Protect the economic base of Kern County by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing roadways, industries, railroads, airports, oil and gas extraction, and other sources. 2.3 Policies The policies identified in the County s Noise Element of the General Plan are: 1. Review discretionary industrial, commercial, or other noise-generating land use projects for compatibility with nearby noise-sensitive land uses. 2. Require noise level criteria applied to all categories of land uses to be consistent with the recommendations of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). 3. Encourage vegetation and landscaping along roadways and adjacent to other noise sources in order to increase absorption of noise. 4. Utilize good land use planning principles to reduce conflicts related to noise emissions. 5

10 5. Prohibit new noise-sensitive land uses in noise-impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design. Such mitigation shall be designed to reduce noise to the following levels: a. 65 db day-night sound level 2 (L dn ) or less in outdoor activity areas; b. 45 db L dn or less within interior living spaces or other sensitive interior spaces. 6. Ensure that new development in the vicinity of airports will be compatible with existing and projected airport noise levels as set forth in the ALUCP (Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan). 7. Employ the best available methods of noise control. 8. Enforce the State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code concerning the construction of new multipleoccupancy dwellings such as hotels, apartments, and condominiums. 2.4 Implementation Measures The following are programs to be carried by Kern County to implement the goals and policies of the Noise Element: 1. Utilize zoning regulations to assist in achieving noise-compatible land use patterns. 2. Require proper acoustical treatment of transportation facilities, including highways, airports, and railroads. 3. Review discretionary development plans, programs and proposals, including those initiated by both the public and private sectors, to ascertain and ensure their conformance to the policies outlined in this element. 4. Review discretionary development plans for proposed residential or other noise sensitive land uses in noise-impacted areas to ensure their conformance with the noise standards of 65 db L dn or less in outdoor activity areas and 45 db L dn or less within interior living spaces. 5. Review discretionary developments to ensure compatibility with adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. 6. Require proposed commercial and industrial uses or operations to be designed or arranged so that they will not subject residential or other noise sensitive land uses to exterior noise levels in excess of 65 db L dn and interior noise levels in excess of 45 db L dn. 7. At the time of any discretionary approval, such as a request for a General Plan Amendment, zone change or subdivision, the developer may be required to submit an acoustical report indicating the means by which the developer proposes to comply with the noise standards. The acoustical report shall: 2 The day-night sound level (L dn ) is a measure of the cumulative 24-hour noise exposure that considers not only the variation of the A-weighted noise level but also the duration and the time of day of the disturbance. The L dn is derived from the twenty-four A-weighted hourly noise levels that occur in a day, with a penalty of 10 db applied to the hourly noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for increased noise sensitivity during these hours. 6

11 a. Be the responsibility of the applicant. b. Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. c. Be subject to the review and approval of the Kern County Planning Department and the Environmental Health Services Department. All recommendations therein shall be complied with prior to final approval of the project. 8. Encourage cooperation between the County and the incorporated cities within the County to control noise. 9. Noise analyses shall include recommended mitigation, if required, and shall: a. Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions. b. Include estimated noise levels for existing and projected future (10-20 years hence) conditions, with a comparison made to the adopted policies of the Noise Element. c. Include recommendations for appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element. d. Included estimates of noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented. If compliance with the adopted standards and policies of the Noise Element will not be achieved, a rationale for acceptance of the project must be provided. 10. Develop implementation procedures to ensure that requirements imposed pursuant to the findings of an acoustical analysis are conducted as part of the project permitting process. 3 Other Regulatory Standards 3.1 Kern County Municipal Code The Kern County Municipal Code does not provide quantitative standards for noise intrusion from one property onto another. 3.2 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility (ALUC) Plan The County s ALUC Plan states that the maximum CNEL 3 considered normally acceptable for residential uses outside the influence area of the airports covered by the Plan is 65 db. For other types of land uses in an airport s vicinity, the Plan identifies the following examples of acceptable noise levels: 3 Community noise equivalent level (CNEL), like L dn, is a measure of the cumulative 24-hour noise exposure that considers not only the variation of the A-weighted noise level but also the duration and the time of day of the disturbance. CNEL differs from L dn in that it also applies a penalty of 5 db to the hourly average noise levels that occur during the evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.). For many common noise sources, the levels measured in CNEL are very similar to those measured in L dn. 7

12 Table 3-1. ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria CNEL, db Land Use Category Residential CA NA MA NU CU Schools, libraries, hospitals, amphitheaters NA MA NU CU CU Churches, auditoriums, concert halls NA MA MA NU CU Transportation, parking, cemeteries CA CA CA NA MA Offices, retail trade, livestock breeding CA NA MA MA NU Service commercial, wholesale trade, warehousing, light CA CA NA MA MA industrial, golf courses, riding stables, water General manufacturing, utilities, extractive industry CA CA CA NA NA Nursing homes CA CA NA NU NU Cropland CA CA CA CA NA Parks, playgrounds, zoos, outdoor spectator sports CA NA NA MA NU CA: Clearly acceptable. The activities associated with the specified land use can be carried out with essentially no interference from the noise exposure. NA: Normally acceptable. Noise is a factor to be considered in that slight interference with outdoor activities may occur. Conventional construction methods will eliminate most noise intrusions upon indoor activities. MA: Marginally acceptable. The indicated noise exposure will cause moderate interference with outdoor activities and with indoor activities when windows are open. The land use is acceptable on the conditions that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used. Under other circumstances, the land use should be discouraged. NU: Normally unacceptable. Noise will create substantial interference with both outdoor and indoor activities. Noise intrusion upon indoor activities can be mitigated by requiring special noise insulation construction. Land uses which have conventionally constructed structures and/or involve outdoor activities which would be disrupted by noise should generally be avoided. CU: Clearly unacceptable. Unacceptable noise intrusion upon land use activities will occur. Adequate structural noise insulation is not practical under most circumstances. The indicated land use should be avoided unless strong overriding factors prevail and it should be prohibited if outdoor activities are involved. In addition, the Plan recommends that single-event noise levels be considered when evaluating the compatibility of highly noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, libraries, and outdoor theaters. Flight patterns for each airport should be considered in the review process. Acoustical studies or onsite noise measurements may be required to assist in determining the compatibility of sensitive uses. 3.3 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) The FTA provides comprehensive guidelines for an environmental assessment of proposed transit projects in a guidance manual entitled Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Reference 8). The FTA criteria for environmental impact from groundborne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event (i.e., one train pass-by). The criteria also assume that, for any given vibration velocity level, the potential for annoyance increases as the number of events increases. To account for this the criteria distinguish between projects with frequent, occasional and infrequent events, where frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day, occasional events are defined as 30 to 70 events per day, and infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events per day. The vibration criteria depend on land use. The three land use categories considered in this study are described in Table 3-2, and the associated criteria are provided in Table 3-3. It is noted that the guidance manual also provides additional criteria for more specific Special Buildings such as concert halls, TV studios, recording studios, auditoriums, and theaters; these criteria are not presented in this report. 8

13 For evaluating potential construction vibration impacts, the guidance manual addresses both annoyance/interference and building damage. To evaluate annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities the criteria provided in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 are used. Additional criteria are provided for the assessment of potential building damage effects. These vibration damage criteria are summarized in Table 3-4 for various structural categories. These limits should be viewed as criteria that should be used during the environmental impact assessment phase to identify problem locations that must be addressed during final design. It is noted that peak particle velocity 4 (PPV) is the preferred measure for assessment of potential building damage impacts. Table 3-2. FTA Land Use Categories for Transit Vibration Impact Criteria Land Use Category Type Description of Land Use Category 1 High Sensitivity Buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance; vibration-sensitive research & manufacturing, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, & university research operations. The vibration limits for Category 1 are based on acceptable vibration for moderately vibration-sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes & electron microscopes with vibration isolation systems. Defining limits for equipment that is even more sensitive requires a detailed review of the specific equipment involved. This type of review is usually performed during the Detailed Analysis associated with the final design phase & not as part of the environmental impact assessment. Note that this category does not include most computer installations or telephone switching equipment. 2 Residential 3 Institutional This category covers all residential land uses & any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. No differentiation is made between different types of residential areas. This is primarily because ground-borne vibration & noise are experienced indoors & building occupants have practically no means to reduce their exposure. This category includes schools, churches, other institutions, & quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. Although it is generally appropriate to include office buildings in this category, it is not appropriate to include all buildings that have any office space. For example, most industrial buildings have office space, but it is not intended that buildings primarily for industrial use be included in this category. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. May The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak amplitude of the vibration velocity. The accepted unit for measuring PPV in the USA is inches per second (in/sec). PPV is only applicable to this project in the assessment of potential building damage due to ground-borne vibration. (PPV is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings subjected to ground-borne vibration.) 9

14 Table 3-3. FTA Vibration Velocity Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels 5 Land Use Category Frequent Events a Occasional Events b Infrequent Events c 1 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB 2 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 3 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB Notes a. Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. b. Occasional Events is defined as 30 to 70 vibration events per day. c. Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. May Table 3-4. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (in./s) Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage Thresholds of Significance CEQA and Other A significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels occurring without the project. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Exposure of persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. 5 Vibration velocity level (L v ) is used for evaluating human response. L v describes the root mean square (rms) velocity amplitude of the vibration. This rms value may be thought of as a smoothed or magnitude-averaged amplitude. The rms of a signal is typically calculated over a 1 second period. The maximum L v describes the maximum rms velocity amplitude that occurs during a vibration measurement. L v is stated in terms of decibels. Although it is not a universally accepted notation, the abbreviation VdB is used throughout this report to denote vibration velocity level decibels in order to reduce the potential for confusion with sound level decibels. The VdB is a logarithmic unit that describes the ratio of the actual rms velocity amplitude to a reference velocity amplitude. The accepted reference velocity amplitude is in/sec in the USA. 10

15 5 Existing Conditions There are a number of existing noise and vibration sources within the Greater Tehachapi Area. Of these, only the major sources are considered in this study, including traffic, railroad movements, aircraft flights, the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill operations, and the wind energy farm. Figure 5-1 identifies the location of these sources relative to the Greater Tehachapi Area. Each is discussed in the following sections. It should be noted that the discussions of the existing noise and vibration environments are based solely on a review of available documents, and are not based on field measurements, analyses, or on-site observations. 5.1 Traffic The only major roadways within the Greater Tehachapi Area for which noise contours are identified in the documents reviewed for this study are: State Route 58 (1988 contours, identified in Reference 4) State Route 58 (1973 and 1995 contours, identified in Reference 3) State Route 58 (unknown year, identified in Reference 25) State Route 202 (1973 and 1995 contours, identified in Reference 3) State Route 202 (unknown year, identified in Reference 6) Comanche Pointe Road (unknown year, identified in Reference 7) Highline Road (1989 and 2009, identified in References 1 and 24) Tehachapi Road (unknown year, identified in Reference 25) Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road (1989 and 2009, identified in References 1 and 24) Woodford (unknown year, identified in Reference 25) The noise contour locations for the above roadways are identified in Table 5-1. Where the contour locations differ between two or more references, the most conservative distances have been identified. Table 5-1. Distance to Roadway Noise Contour Lines Distance to CNEL/L dn Contour Roadway / Segment Reference 65 db 60 db SR SR Comanche Point Road Highline Road Tehachapi Road Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road Woodford 25 N/A

16 Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill Lehigh Southwest Cement Co. Tehachapi Municipal Airport Mountain Valley Airport Wind Energy Farm Figure 5-1. Location of Major Noise Sources Relative to the Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan 12

17 Referring to Table 5-1, the County s 65 db standard may be exceeded at noise-sensitive areas that are not properly mitigated within 331 of SR-58, 75 of SR-202, 110 of Comanche Point Road, 102 of Highline Road, 41 of Tehachapi Road, and 83 of Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road. Noise-sensitive areas include residential properties, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. 5.2 Railroad Movements The only major railroad within the Greater Tehachapi Area is owned and operated by Union Pacific & Burlington Northern Santa Fe (UP & BNSF). Railroad noise levels and impacts are discussed in References 3, 4, 5, and 25. However, noise contour distances are only provided in References 3, 4 and 25. Of these, the most conservative contour estimates are for the year 1995 provided in the Kern County Noise Element (Reference 3), and provided in Table 5-2. Table 5-2. Distance to Railroad Noise Contour Lines Distance to CNEL Contour Segment 65 db 60 db 55 db West of Tehachapi Station 960 2,160 4,840 Tehachapi Station to Monolith 610 1,190 2,300 Monolith to Cameron Canyon Road 660 1,260 2,400 Referring to Table 5-2, the County s 65 db standard may be exceeded at noise-sensitive areas that are not properly mitigated within 610 to 960 of the UP & BNSF rail line. Noise-sensitive areas include residential properties, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. 5.3 Aircraft Flights There are two airports within the Greater Tehachapi Area that have enough activity to generate noise contours. These are Tehachapi Municipal Airport and Mountain Valley Airport. Tehachapi Municipal Airport is a municipally owned public use airport consisting of one runway. There are approximately 96 aircraft based at the airport, of which 90 are single-engine airplanes, 4 are multiengine airplanes, one jet aircraft and one ultralight airplane. Aircraft operations average 30 per day, of which 59% are transient general aviation and 41 % are local general aviation. (Source: airport/tsp). The noise contours of Figure 5-2 for Tehachapi Municipal Airport were obtained from Kern County (Reference 2). Referring to the figure it can be seen that the contours lie entirely within the Tehachapi city limits and therefore do not impact the Greater Tehachapi Area. Mountain Valley Airport is a privately owned public use airport consisting of two runways on 235 acres. Typical hours of airport operations are between 7:00 a.m. and dusk. The Mountain Valley Airport is used primarily by sailplanes and the aircraft used to tow them to their release location. The airport is the base of operations for 90 aircraft. These include ten single-engine planes while the rest are predominantly sailplanes. Other planes which use the airport include cropdusters, transient planes, and other light general aviation propeller aircraft not associated with sailplane operations. According to Mountain Valley Airport and the California Department of Aeronautics, approximately 13

18 Unincorporated County City of Tehachapi City of Tehachapi Unincorporated County Figure 5-2. Noise Contours for Tehachapi Municipal Airport 14

19 55,000 total flight operations are conducted at the airport each year. Approximately 7,000 operations involve the arrival and departure of 3,500 transient single- and twin-engine propeller aircraft and approximately 48,000 operations involve the departure of 12,000 single-engine propeller aircraft with sailplanes in tow. There is an average of 137 aircraft operations per day. During a busy weekend, between 125 and 175 sailplane tows may occur at the Mountain Valley Airport, resulting in between 500 and 700 flight operations. Five arrivals and five landings by aircraft not associated with sailplane operation may occur during a busy weekend. (Sources: Reference 1, and airport/l94.) The noise contours of Figure 5-3 for Mountain Valley Airport were obtained from Kern County (Reference 2). Referring to the figure it can be seen that the contours lie entirely with unincorporated Kern County and do not intrude into the City of Tehachapi. In addition to the two public and private airports discussed above, there are two military airbases that may impact the Greater Tehachapi Area. These are Edwards Air Force Base and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. Due to the required flying mission at these military bases, aircraft need to fly beyond the boundaries of the installations at supersonic speeds and sometimes as low as 200 feet above the ground. In order to minimize flight hazards to non-military aircraft the military aircraft fly within restricted airspace known as the Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex. This complex is considered an extension of the airspace for these military aviation installations and their flying mission. Referring to Figure 5-4, it can be seen that a large portion of the Greater Tehachapi Area lies within the R-2508 Complex. As a result, there is the potential in this portion of the Greater Tehachapi Area for noise impacts from low level flying aircraft, sonic booms, and recurring helicopter missions. However, based on information provided by military personnel the CNEL noise contours from the bases do not extend over the Greater Tehachapi Area. Referring to Figure 5-3, the 65 db noise contour for Mountain Valley Airport is located entirely within the airport properties. Therefore, there is no exceedance of the County s 65 db standard at noise-sensitive areas in the vicinity of the airport. However, based on the ALUC land use compatibility criteria, the following uses are only marginally acceptable at locations between the 60 db and 65 db contours of the airport: residential, churches, auditoriums, concert halls, offices, retail trade, and livestock breeding. These land uses are only acceptable on the conditions that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used. Schools, libraries, hospitals and amphitheaters are normally unacceptable at locations between the 60 db and 65 db contours of the airport. Noise intrusion on indoor activities at these land uses can be mitigated by requiring special noise insulation construction. There are noise-sensitive locations within the Greater Tehachapi Area that are situated under or near the flight patterns for Tehachapi Municipal Airport and Mountain Valley Airport, and within the Joint Powers Restricted R-2508 Complex. As stated in the Kern County ALUC Plan, at these locations there is increased potential for annoyance due to single events resulting from aircraft overflights, sonic booms, etc., particularly if these events occur during the late night or early morning hours. 15

20 City of Tehachapi Unincorporated County Figure 5-3. Noise Contours for Mountain Valley Airport 16

21 Greater Tehachapi Area Boundary of Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex Figure 5-4. Portion of GTASP Area Located Within the Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex 17

22 5.4 Cement Plant Referring to Figure 5-1, the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant operates within the Greater Tehachapi Area. The plant is not discussed in the documents reviewed for this study; as a result, no information is available on the noise levels generated by activities at the plant. However, cement plants can produce significant levels of noise due to truck movements, blasting, batch plant operations, bulldozers, rock crushers, etc. Typically, cement plants begin work during the early morning hours, which can exacerbate the potential for annoyance to nearby residents. Table 5-3 identifies typical maximum noise levels that may be generated by activities at a cement plant. The L dn generated by activities at the cement plant can vary greatly, and depends on the type of activities and equipment that are used, the time of day the activities occur, the duration of the activities, the locations of the activities and equipment relative to the noise-sensitive receptors, and the barrier effects provided by intervening terrain. Because these factors are unknown, and to provide a conservative assessment, it is concluded that the impact of the cement plant is potentially significant at nearby noise-sensitive properties. 18

23 Table 5-3. Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Cement Plants Equipment L max, 50 Backhoe 80 Blasting 94 Boring Jack Power Unit 83 Boring Hydr. Jack, Horizontal 82 Compactor 82 Compressor, Air 81 Dozer 85 Drill, Rock 98 Excavator 85 Excavator, Vacuum (Vac-truck) 85 Generator 81 Grader 85 Gradall 85 Grapple (on backhoe) 87 Hammer, Jack 88 Hammer, Mounted Impact (hoe ram) 90 Hydra Break Ram 90 Impact Wrench 85 Loader (Front End Loader) 85 Plant, Concrete Batch 83 Plant, Slurry 78 Pump 76 Pump, Concrete 82 Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) 96 Shovel, Clam (dropping) 93 Truck 88 Truck, Dump 84 Truck, Flat Bed 84 Truck, Pickup 75 Vibrating Hopper 87 Warning Horn Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill The Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill is not discussed in the documents reviewed for this study; as a result, no information is available on the noise levels generated by activities at the landfill. However, landfills can produce significant levels of noise due to truck movements, bulldozers, scrapers, graders, etc. Table 5-4 identifies typical maximum noise levels that may be generated by activities at a landfill. The L dn generated by activities at the landfill can vary greatly, and depends on the type of activities and equipment that are used, the time of day the activities occur, the duration of the activities, the locations of the activities and equipment relative to the noise-sensitive receptors, and the barrier effects provided by intervening terrain. Because these factors are unknown, and to provide a conservative assessment, it is concluded that the impact of the landfill is potentially significant at nearby noise-sensitive properties. 19

24 5.6 Wind Energy Farm Table 5-4. Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Landfills Equipment L max, 50 Backhoe 80 Dozer 85 Grader 85 Loader (Front End Loader) 85 Scraper 89 Shovel, Clam (dropping) 93 Truck 88 Truck, Dump 84 Truck, Pickup 75 Warning Horn 85 Referring to Figure 5-1, there is a wind energy farm adjacent to the southeastern portion of the Greater Tehachapi Area. Wind turbines most commonly produce broadband noise (usually described as a swishing or whooshing sound) as their revolving rotor blades encounter turbulence in the passing air. Some wind turbines (usually older ones) can also produce tonal sounds (i.e., a hum or a whine at a steady pitch), particularly at low frequencies. Turbines built in the early 1980s were extremely noisy, to the point that they were annoying to hear from as much as a mile away. However, modern wind turbines that have been designed with noise control in mind are generally quiet, and their noise tends to be masked by the background noise of the wind itself. An exception to this can occur when a wind energy farm is located in hilly terrain where nearby residences are in dips or hollows downwind that are sheltered from the wind. In such a case, turbine noise may carry further than on flat terrain. Information provided in a study by the National Wind Coordinating Committee 6 indicates that a typical 350 kw turbine produces a noise level of 45 db(a) at a distance of 400 feet, and a study prepared by the American Physical Society 7 indicates a noise level of 50 db(a) at a distance of 656 feet downwind of a 920 kw turbine. In the documents reviewed for this study, no information is available on the noise levels generated by the wind energy farm adjacent to the Greater Tehachapi Area. The L dn generated by the wind energy farm can vary greatly, depending on the type of equipment that is used, the time of day the equipment operates, the duration of the operation, the locations of the equipment relative to the noise-sensitive receptors, the barrier effects provided by intervening terrain, and atmospheric conditions. Because these factors are unknown, and to provide a conservative assessment, it is concluded that the impact of the wind energy farm is potentially significant at nearby noise-sensitive properties. 6 Wind Energy Environmental Issues. National Wind Coordinating Committee. Wind Energy Series. Number 2. January Wind Energy. W.A. Edelstein and C.J. Walcek. September 12,

25 It should be noted that there is also a potential for increased annoyance at noise-sensitive receptors if the wind energy farm produces tonal noise. 5.7 Ground Vibration The only known vibration sources of possible concern within the Greater Tehachapi Area are train movements on the UP & BNSF railroad, and blasting at the Lehigh Southwest Cement plant. None of the documents reviewed for this study identify vibration levels. However, based on information provided in Reference 8, typical freight trains generate estimated ground vibration velocity levels of 78 VdB at a distance of 105 feet, 75 VdB at a distance of 145 feet, and 65 VdB at a distance of 400 feet. These distances can be significantly greater depending on the condition of the train suspension system and wheels, and the condition of the track. Typical blasting activities that may occur at a cement plant produce a ground vibration velocity level of about 100 VdB at a distance of 50 feet (Reference 8). Table 5-5 identifies the estimated distances required to achieve various peak particle velocities (PPVs): Table 5-5. PPV at Various Estimated Distances from Vibration Sources PPV Railroad Blasting 0.5 in/sec < in/sec < in/sec in/sec Note: Estimated distances for the railroad are based on a crest factor of 5. The distances can be significantly greater than those indicated in the table depending on the condition of the train suspension system and wheels, and the condition of the track. Based on the information available, the FTA guideline of 75 VdB for occasional vibration events is exceeded at residences, hotels and hospitals located within about 145 feet of the railroad. For schools, churches, other institutions, and offices, the FTA guideline of 78 VdB for occasional events is exceeded at a distance of about 105 feet from the railroad. Building damage is possible at locations within about 30 feet of the railroad, or within about 158 feet of a blasting site at the cement plant, depending on the type of building construction. 6 Significance Status of Existing Conditions Based on the discussions in Section 5 of this report, the following summarizes the significance status of existing conditions in the Greater Tehachapi Area: A potentially significant impact exists at noise-sensitive locations adjacent to SR-58, SR-202, Comanche Point Road, Highline Road, Tehachapi Road, Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road, the UP & BNSF rail line, the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill, and 21

26 the wind energy farm. At these locations people may be exposed to noise levels in excess of the Kern County General Plan standards. A potentially significant impact exists at sensitive receptors adjacent to the UP & BNSF rail line and the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company. At these locations people may be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of the FTA guidelines. A potentially significant impact exists at residences, churches, auditoriums, concert halls, offices, retail trade, and livestock breeding areas in the near vicinity of Mountain Valley Airport. At these locations people may be exposed to marginally acceptable noise levels per the Kern County ALUC guidelines. A potentially significant impact exists at schools, libraries, hospitals and amphitheaters in the near vicinity of Mountain Valley Airport. At these locations people may be exposed to normally unacceptable noise levels per the Kern County ALUC guidelines. A potentially significant impact exists at noise-sensitive land uses under or near the flight patterns for Tehachapi Municipal Airport and Mountain Valley Airport, and within the Joint Powers Restricted R-2508 Complex. At these locations there is increased potential for annoyance due to single events resulting from aircraft overflights, sonic booms, etc. 7 Environmental Issues/Mitigation Measures for GTASP As indicated in Section 6 of this report, the environmental noise issues in the Greater Tehachapi Area are associated with traffic on SR-58, SR-202, Comanche Point Road, Highline Road, Tehachapi Road, and Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road; train movements on the UP & BNSF rail line; activities at the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill, and the wind energy farm; and flight operations at Tehachapi Municipal Airport, Mountain Valley Airport, Edwards Air Force Base, and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. Environmental vibration issues are associated with train movements on the UP & BNSF rail line; and activities at the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company. The following measures should be considered in the design of any new developments within the Greater Tehachapi Area in order to mitigate the potentially significant impacts: 1. An acoustical analysis should be required at new noise-sensitive land uses 8 in noise-impacted areas 9 to verify that the uses have been properly designed 10 to comply with the County s L dn requirements of 65 db or less in outdoor activity areas and 45 db or less within interior living areas or other sensitive interior spaces. The acoustical analysis should also address single-event 8 The Kern County General Plan defines noise-sensitive land uses to include residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. 9 A noise-impacted area is defined to be an area where the L dn is 60 db or greater. 10 The design features required to achieve the noise standard may include one or more of the following elements, as verified by the acoustical study: building setbacks from the noise source, noise barriers, building orientation relative to the noise source, sound-rated windows, upgraded exterior wall and/or roof construction, insulation batts, and/or forced air ventilation. 22

27 aircraft noise levels if the uses are under or near the flight tracks from Tehachapi Municipal Airport or Mountain Valley Airport, or within the Joint Powers Restricted R-2508 Complex. 2. An acoustical analysis should be required at new noise-sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill, the wind energy farm, or other existing noise-generating land use to verify that the noise-sensitive land uses have been properly designed 11 to comply with the County s L dn requirements of 65 db or less in outdoor activity areas and 45 db or less within interior living areas or other sensitive interior spaces. The acoustical analysis should also address single-event equipment noise levels and tonal noise as potential sources of annoyance. 3. An acoustical analysis should be required for each new noise-generating land use project (e.g., commercial centers, utilities, or manufacturing/industrial developments) to verify that the project has been properly designed or arranged 12 so that they will not subject residential or other noise-sensitive land uses to exterior noise levels in excess of 65 db L dn and interior noise levels in excess of 45 db L dn. 4. An acoustical analysis should be required at new auditoriums, concert halls, offices, and retail trade buildings within the 60 db L dn noise contour of Mountain Valley Airport to verify that the uses have been properly designed 13 to comply with the County s L dn requirement of 45 db or less within interior living areas or other sensitive interior spaces. 5. New schools, libraries, hospitals and amphitheaters should not be permitted within the 60 db L dn noise contour of Mountain Valley Airport. 6. A vibration analysis should be required at new uses that may be highly sensitive to groundborne vibration (e.g., some research and manufacturing facilities, and research hospitals) if they are located within 600 feet of the UP & BNSF rail line or the cement plant to verify that buildings will not be exposed to a vibration level greater than 65 VdB, or to a peak particle velocity of 0.2 in/sec or greater. 7. A vibration analysis should be required at new residential uses (including buildings where people sleep such as hotels and hospitals) if they are located within 200 feet of the UP & BNSF rail line or the cement plant to verify that buildings will not be exposed to a vibration level greater than 75 VdB, or to a peak particle velocity of 0.2 in/sec or greater. 8. A vibration analysis should be required at new institutional uses (including schools, churches, and office buildings) if they are located within 120 feet of the UP & BNSF rail line or the cement plant to verify that buildings will not be exposed to a vibration level greater than 78 VdB, or to a peak particle velocity of 0.2 in/sec or greater. 11 Ibid. 12 The design features required to achieve the noise standards may include one or more of the following elements, as verified by the acoustical study: locating activity centers and mechanical equipment behind buildings and/or away from sensitive property lines, noise barriers, building orientation relative to the sensitive properties, reduction in hours of operation, and procurement specifications for quieter equipment. 13 The design features required to achieve the noise standard may include one or more of the following elements, as verified by the acoustical study: building setbacks from the noise source, noise barriers, building orientation relative to the noise source, sound-rated windows, upgraded exterior wall and/or roof construction, insulation batts, and/or forced air ventilation. 23