HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 15, 2020 C-18CITY OF LODI AGENDA ITEM (2qg '
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Accept Report on Results of Phase 1 Environmental Study and Noise Studies for
Two Potential Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) Project Sites
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2020
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director,
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report on results of Phase 1 Environmental Study and Noise
Studies for two potential Homeless Emergency Aid Program
(HEAP) project sites.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In December 2018, the San Joaquin Continuum of Care (SJCoC)
awarded the City $1,250,000 in HEAP grant funds for its tiny
home permanent supportive housing project. In May 2019, the City
Council accepted the award.
City staff worked with numerous stakeholders to gather and evaluate feedback on potential sites,
including Lodi's Committee on Homelessness, homeless services providers, local advocacy groups such
as Take Back Lodi, local law enforcement, developers, and residents. Factors for site selection were
deliberated, such as vacant lots, proximity to resources for project residents, compatibility with
surrounding uses, compliance with zoning and development codes, concentration of similar type
projects, property acquisition costs, and site development costs such as environmental assessments and
clearance.
As a result of these discussions, two potential locations were identified: 1) 301 East Lodi Avenue and 2)
2 East Lodi Avenue (Maple Square). An environmental assessment is a factor in selecting an appropriate
site, as it reveals additional costs that may need to be factored into site development and acquisition
costs. Staff proposed and Council approved that an environmental assessment be conducted on these
two potential sites as part of this site evaluation. Specifically, consultant Michael Baker International
conducted a noise study and peer review of a previous Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
for 301 East Lodi Avenue, and conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and noise study for
2 East Lodi Avenue.
For 301 East Lodi Avenue, the consultant found that the previous Phase 1 ESA missed an evaluation of
the potential contaminants from an off-site dry-cleaning plume and underground tanks. A Phase 2 ESA
could evaluate these missing items. Furthermore, the noise study revealed that on-site sound levels
exceeded allowable limits for residential uses so that certain measures would need to be taken to reduce
the impact on residents. As for 2 East Lodi Avenue, the consultant found that the site has potential
contaminants from underground fuel tanks that may or may not still be present, a petroleum pipeline
under the railroad, heavy metals from the operating rail line, and a potential off-site dry-cleaning plume. A
Phase 2 ESA would evaluate these items further to determine the level of contaminant, if any. The noise
study revealed that noise levels would be approximately 78 dBA (A -weighted decibel scale) outdoors and
45 dBA indoors, both of which exceed permitted noise levels for residential use. City staff and the
consultant are looking into whether it is possible to take actions that would reduce noise levels to a
permitted level. Actions that are being researched include walls, landscaping, site layout, and building
APPROVED:
p en Schwaba , City Manager
HEAP Enviro
January 15, 2020
Page 2 of 2
materials, to name a few. More details can be found in the attached memorandums (due to the length of
each study, the appendices are not attached to this report; they can be made available upon request).
The results of the environmental assessments will be factored into the viability of these two sites. Once
this environmental analysis is completed, including further research into noise mitigating measures and a
potential Phase 2 ESA, this information will be brought to City Council and the public for consideration of
potential project sites. Then once a site is selected and the project moves forward toward construction,
the environmental clearance would be conducted.
Project Description:
The City's tiny home project will create approximately five units of permanent supportive housing for
homeless individuals and families or those at risk of homelessness. This supportive housing will help
homeless individuals/families move from emergency shelters, motel voucher and transitional housing
programs, or off the streets into long-term, affordable housing where they can continue their progress
toward stable and independent living.
The project will receive tenant referrals from local organizations including Salvation Army, Lodi House,
and Women's Center, as well as the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (HACSJ). HACSJ
will supply housing choice vouchers to tenants. Volunteer supportive housing services will be available
for tenants, and tenants will sign lease agreements that include appropriate maintenance of each unit.
The City has partnered with HACSJ to manage the construction of this project. Also, the City will acquire
or provide the land for the project site and HACSJ will own and manage the tiny homes project, similar to
its other housing properties.
Project Budget:
The tiny homes project is estimated to cost $1,867,942, of which $128,058 is set aside for acquisition
costs, including environmental assessments.
FISCAL IMPACT. The HEAP grant will provide $1.25 million in funds to cover project costs,
including a set-aside of $128,058 in related property acquisition costs. The
environmental assessment and clearance would be reimbursed from the
HEAP grant.
FUNDING AVAILABLE San Joaquin Continuum of Care Homeless Emergency Aid Program
(HEAP) Grant: 35584000.77020
Andrew Keys, Deputyity Manager/Internal Services Director
Ste S waba r__
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. 301 East Lodi Avenue Phase 1 Third Party Review Memorandum
2. 301 East Lodi Avenue Noise Study Memorandum
3. 2 East Lodi Avenue Phase 1 Executive Summary
4. 2 East Lodi Avenue Noise Study Memorandum
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
MEMORANDUM
To: Patrick Hindmarsh
From: Kristen Bogue
Date: November 11, 2019
We Make a Difference
ference
Subject: Third Party Review of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Holmes
Property, located at 301, 303, and 305 East Lodi Avenue, Lodi, California
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has conducted a third -party review of the Phase /
Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), prepared by AdvancedGeo Environmental
(AGE), dated July 2, 2018, for the property located at 301, 303, and 305 East Lodi Avenue, Lodi,
California (the subject site).
AGE's Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions
Per the author, the Phase I ESA was performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. AGE concluded that the Phase I ESA has revealed no
evidence of de minimis conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), or
historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) in connection with the subject site.
However, evidence of the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) were reported:
Former On -Site Gasoline Service Station — Past use of the property as a gasoline service
station, which utilized three underground storage tanks (USTs). Records from the San
Juaquin County Environmental Health Department (SJCEHD) indicate three USTs were
removed from the property in 1985. No information related to soil sampling was found. In
addition, records showed a fourth UST located east of the area of the removed USTs. No
records related to the removal or installation of this fourth UST were found.
Michael Baker's Review and Opinions
The following is Michael Baker's opinions as to our review of the findings, opinions, and
conclusions made by AGE and are considered preliminary. Michael Baker's scope of work
included a review of the subject Phase I ESA (as provided). Michael Baker did not conduct any
work to satisfy the conditions of a Phase I ESA (i.e., site inspection, records search, interviews,
etc.) per the ASTM E 1527 Standard Practice, nor did Michael Baker conduct any soil/subsurface
investigations. Michael Baker's opinions are solely based on our review of the Phase I ESA as it
was provided.
1) It is acknowledged that the Phase I ESA was written per ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-
13. The purpose of the ASTM E 1527 Standard Practice is to satisfy one of the
requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona
fide prospective purchaser limitations on scope of Comprehensive Environmental
MBAKERINTLCOM
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 1 Santa Ana, CA 92707
Office: 949-472-3505 1 Fax: 949-472-8373
Mr. Hindmarsh
November 11, 2019
Page 2
We Make o Difference
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. Section 9601) liability
(hereinafter, the "landowner liability protections," or "LLPs"). As such, in order to qualify
for LLPs, after six months, the report must be updated and, after one year, the Phase I
ESA is no longer valid and needs to be completely re -written (ASTM E 1527-13 Section
4.6, Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessment). It is acknowledged that the
database records search was conducted on June 14, 2018, historical documentation was
obtained in June 2018, and the site reconnaissance was conducted on June 20,2018.
It is Michael Baker's understanding that this Phase I ESA is intended for use in an
Environmental CEQA Compliance Document. As long as no changes to the activities at
the subject site have occurred since the publication of the Phase I ESA, Michael Baker
agrees that using this report for the purposes of CEQA analysis is appropriate. However,
the report may not be used for the purposes of LLPs unless completely updated.
2) It is the opinion of Michael Baker that AGE should include the following findings and
opinions to support the Phase I ESA conclusions for the following:
a. Former On -Site Gasoline Service Station REC — Michael Baker agrees with AGE's
conclusion that the former on-site service station has resulted in an REC on-site
and additional sampling is necessary to determine whether or not a REC is actually
present. However, in addition to the former UST pit sampling, it is the opinion of
Michael Baker that additional sampling in areas of the former on-site piping, fuel
pump island locations, and former automobile repair shop should also be
conducted.
b. Former Adjoining Dry Cleaner Facility. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), dry cleaners are known to use a significant amount
of chemicals, such as perch loroethylene (perc), which pose environmental
concerns. At the end of the dry cleaning process, the cleaning fluid is separated
from waste water by distillation. In the past, the waste water was often poured
down floor drains. Perc can seep through the ground and contaminate surface
water, groundwater, and potentially drinking water. Since a small amount of perc
can contaminate a large amount of water, properties within a close proximity to dry
cleaners or past dry cleaner sites have been found to potentially have subsurface
contamination.
Based on provided Sanborn Maps and City Directory Abstract, a former adjoining
dry cleaner facility (Pennant Cleaners) was present at 228 East Lodi Avenue, from
approximately between 1926 and 1970. The Environmental Professional should
present a finding, opinion, and conclusion regarding the past adjoining drycleaner
use, including the potential for groundwater contamination and/or soil vapor
encroachment onto the subject site.
Based on the distance from the subject site, approximately 143 feet south-
southeast, and the high likelihood for a release due to the nature of drycleaner
activities, it is Michael Baker's opinion that this past adjoining use presents a REC
and sampling for potential soil vapor at the subject site, as a result of this past off-
site dry cleaner, should be conducted.
We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 N A L
MEMORANDUM
To: Patrick Hindmarsh, Michael Baker International
From: Danielle Regimbal, Michael Baker International
Eddie Torres, Michael Baker International
Date: November 20, 2019
Subject: 301 East Lodi Avenue — Noise Study
PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to determine railway noise levels at the proposed 301 East
Lodi Avenue Project (project) site due to the Amtrak/Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railway in the project
vicinity. Additionally, this technical memorandum will identify appropriate noise recommendation
measures to ensure noise levels at the project site are below the City of Lodi's noise standard.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located at 301 East Lodi Avenue within the City of Lodi (City). The project consists
of one parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN]: 043-067-16) comprising approximately 0.24 -acre.
According to the Lodi General Plan, the project site is designated Mixed Use Corridor. This designation
includes a variety of office and general commercial uses, as well as residential uses. The project site is
currently vacant land. The site is bounded by residential uses to the north and east, East Lodi Avenue to
the south, and South Washington Street to the west.
The project proposes to construct a five -unit residential development. Regional access to the project site
is provided via State Route 99 (SR -99) and State Route 12 (SR -12). Local access to the project site is
provided via East Lodi Avenue and South Washington Street.
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is
characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies
equally. In particular, the ear de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the
sensitivity of human hearing, the A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. Decibels are based
on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a
more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In
terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud
and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range
MBAKERINTL.COM
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Office: 94947235051 Fax: 949472.8373
from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from
approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million
times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB),
is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile
sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites,
machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced)
at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface
and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces,
such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces,
such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA
per doubling of distance.
There are several metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over
time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the
specified period, has the same sound energy as the time -varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer
period is often evaluated based on the Day -Night Sound Level (LdJ. This is a measure of 24-hour noise
levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The
penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours,
particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldp
noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
REGULATORY SETTING
State of California
State Office of Planning and Research
The State Office of Planning and Research's Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and
interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible
land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes
the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the CNEL.
Table 1, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, presents guidelines for determining
acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. The
guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that
reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community's sensitivity to noise, and the
community's assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 2
Table 1
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
City of Lodi
Lodi General Plan
The Noise Element of the Lodi General Plan (General Plan) identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise
sources, defines areas of noise impact, and establishes policies to ensure that City residents are protected
from excessive noise. The chapter contains two land use compatibility tables that describe the
compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Ldn and CNEL.
Table 1 presents State's guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise
exposure limits for various land use categories. Additionally, Table 2, Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, presents guidelines for maximum allowable interior and exterior noise levels for various land
use categories. The following lists applicable noise policies obtained from the General Plan:
Policy N -P1 Control and mitigate noise at the source where feasible, as opposed to
at the receptor end.
Policy N -P2 Encourage the control of noise through site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques for new
development deemed to be noise generators.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 3
Community Noise Exposure (Ldp or CNEL dBA)
Land Use Category
Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density Single -Family, Duplex, Mobile
50-60 60-70 70-75 75-85
Homes
Residential - Multiple Family
50-65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels
50-65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
50-65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
NA 50-70 NA 65-85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports
NA 50-75 NA 75-85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
50-67.5 NA 67.5-72.5 72.5-85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
50-70 70-80 80-85
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional
50-70 70-75 75-85 NA
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
50-70 70-80 80-85 NA
Notes: NA: Not Applicable; Lai: average day/night sound level; CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level, dBA = A -weighted decibels
Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh
air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearl Unacce table — New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2017.
City of Lodi
Lodi General Plan
The Noise Element of the Lodi General Plan (General Plan) identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise
sources, defines areas of noise impact, and establishes policies to ensure that City residents are protected
from excessive noise. The chapter contains two land use compatibility tables that describe the
compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Ldn and CNEL.
Table 1 presents State's guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise
exposure limits for various land use categories. Additionally, Table 2, Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, presents guidelines for maximum allowable interior and exterior noise levels for various land
use categories. The following lists applicable noise policies obtained from the General Plan:
Policy N -P1 Control and mitigate noise at the source where feasible, as opposed to
at the receptor end.
Policy N -P2 Encourage the control of noise through site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques for new
development deemed to be noise generators.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 3
Table 2
Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use CNELI
Interior2 Exterior3
Residential 45 60
Motels, Hotels 45 60
Public/Semi-Public 45 65
Recreational 50 65
Commercial 50 65
Industrial 65 70
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
1. The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to
sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a. m.
2. Indoor environment, excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors.
3. For non-residential uses, where an outdoor activity area is not proposed, the standard does not apply .
Source: City of Lodi, Lodi General Plan, April 2010.
Policy N -P3 Use the noise and land use compatibility matrix (Table 9-2 [Table 1]) and
allowable noise exposure levels (Table 9-3 [Table 2]) as review criteria
for all new land uses. Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all
projects that have noise exposure levels of "conditionally acceptable"
and higher. These may include:
■ Fagades constructed with substantial weight and insulation;
■ Sound -rated windows in habitable rooms;
■ Sound -rated doors in all exterior entries;
■ Active cancellation;
■ Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, fans and gable ends;
■ Ventilation system affording comfort under closed -window
conditions; and
■ Double doors and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of
gypsum board on resilient channels to meet the highest noise
level reduction requirements.
Policy N -P4 Discourage noise sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, schools,
libraries, and rest homes from locating in areas with noise levels above
65 dB. Conversely, do not permit new uses likely to produce high levels
of noise (above 65 dB) from locating in or adjacent to areas with existing
or planned noise -sensitive uses.
Policy N -P5 Noise sensitive uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and
rest homes, proposed in areas that have noise exposure levels of
"conditionally acceptable" and higher must complete an acoustical
study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer. This study should
specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 4
design and construction of these uses, to achieve interior noise levels
consistent with Table 9-3 (Table 2).
Policy N -P6 Where substantial traffic noise increases (to above 70 dB) are expected,
such as on Lower Sacramento Road or Harney Lane, as shown on the
accompanying graphic, require a minimum 12 foot setback for noise -
sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and
rest homes.
Mimi 10
' L■■■ J■■ iii
Minimum setback of 12 feet for noise -sensitive land uses.
Policy N -P7 Require developers of potentially noise -generating new developments to
mitigate the noise impacts on adjacent properties as a condition of
permit approval. This should be achieved through appropriate means,
such as:
■ Dampening or actively canceling noise sources;
■ Increasing setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings;
■ Using soundproofing materials and double -glazed windows;
■ Screening and controlling noise sources, such as parking and
loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
■ Using open space, building orientation and design, landscaping
and running water to mask sounds, and
■ Controlling hours of operation, including deliveries and trash
pickup.
Policy N -P12 Restrict the use of sound walls as a noise attenuation method to sites
adjacent to State Route (SR) 99, the railroad, and industrial uses east of
SR -99.
Municipal Code
Title 9, Public Pease, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 9.24, Noise Ordinance, of the Lodi, California Municipal
Code (Municipal Code) establishes standards concerning acceptable noise levels for both noise -sensitive
land uses and noise -generating land uses. The following sections of the Municipal Code are applicable to
the proposed project.
§ 9.24.020 — Public nuisance noise.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 5
The following special noise restrictions are established without regard to their sound level
impact and may be enforced without the prerequisite of a sound level measurement.
(A) General Noise Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in
addition thereto, it is unlawful for any persons to willfully make or continue or permit or
cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which
unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes
discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal noise sensitivity.
(B) No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location
within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or
otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any
other property to exceed: The standards which shall be considered in determining whether
a violation of the provision of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. The volume of the noise;
2. The intensity of the noise;
3. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual for the area and hour;
4. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;
5. The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any;
6. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
7. The nature and the zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
8. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;
9. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
10. The duration of the noise,
11. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.
This section shall be inapplicable to emergency work as defined herein.
§ 9.24.030 — Excessive, offensive or disturbing noise.
The following activities are declared to cause excessive, offensive or disturbing noise in
violation of this section, but said enumeration shall not be deemed exclusive:
(A) It is unlawful for any person to sound any horn or other signaling device on any vehicle
except as an emergency or danger warning signal. This provision shall be inapplicable to
the sounding of any horn, bell, whistle, siren or other audible warning device which is
operated in compliance with Section 7064 of the California Public Utilities Code, or with
any other state or federal provision governing railroad operations.
(B) It is unlawful to play or operate any drum, radio, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound
amplifier, stereo, television, or other similar sound system, whether mobile or from a fixed
location upon the public streets, public right-of-way or in public parks in such a fashion
that it is clearly audible at a distance of fifty feet. The city council finds and declares that
any sound or noise audible at such distance endangers the public safety and welfare by
interference with normal human capability for hearing nearby traffic movement and
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study
warning signals. This section shall be inapplicable to radio systems operated under or
pursuant to Federal Communications Commission licenses in the regular course of
business.
It is found and declared as a matter of legislative policy that the operation of the
aforementioned equipment or instruments on the public streets and rights-of-way
adjacent to public parks during the hours between ten p.m. and seven a.m. in such a
manner as to be clearly audible at a distance of fifty feet or greater shall constitute prima
facie evidence of a violation of this section.
(C) It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to cause, permit, or generate any noise
or sound as described herein between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. which exceeds
the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential property (or, if a
condominium or apartment house within any adjoining apartment) as determined at the
time of such reading by more than five decibels. This section shall be applicable whether
such noise or sound is of a commercial or noncommercial nature.
§ 9.24.050 — Exemptions.
This chapter (Chapter 9.24) shall not apply to the following:
(A) Sirens or other similar emergency warning devices located upon any emergency vehicle as
defined by the Vehicle Code, or upon the premises of any public safety agency;
(e) Any bell, siren or similar device on any vehicle, which is required by law, and which is
automatically activated by placing the vehicle transmission in reverse, or by any backing
movement,
(C) Any sound equipment operating under a city license or permit, or being utilized for an
activity subject to First Amendment protection;
(D) Emergency repair work as defined herein;
(E) Events in public parks or other public places, sponsored by the city,
(F) Noise necessarily generated in conjunction with health or sanitation services, including
but not limited to refuse collection.
EXISTING NOISE SETTING
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker International
conducted two noise measurements in the site vicinity on October 29, 2019; refer to Appendix A, Noise
Data, and Exhibit 11 Noise Measurement Locations. The noise measurement locations are representative
of typical existing noise exposure at and immediately adjacent to the site. Ten-minute measurements
were taken between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. at each location during the day. Short-term (Lep)
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 7
WALNUT STREET --
. 1 .I 19
LU
CDZ
Y Q
C
ai,r G
_ ` J
J- LODI, AVENUE +p�'
LU
LU
Cr
■ i -- r ; t Jam, W
IL
Source: Google Earth Pro, November 2019
NOT TO SCALE
QPROJECT SITE
I N T E R N A T I O N A L
11/19 A 175297
301 EAST LODI AVENUE
NOISE STUDY
Noise Measurement Locations
Exhibit 1
measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. Noise
measurements were taken during "off-peak" (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this
provides a more conservative baseline. During rush hour traffic, vehicle speeds and heavy truck volumes
are often low. Free-flowing traffic conditions just before or after rush hour often yield higher noise levels.'
The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table 3, Noise
Measurements.
Table 3
Noise Measurements
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm temperatures, with light wind speeds (9 miles per hour),
and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Bruel &
Kjaer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre -polarized microphone. The
monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards
Institute for Type I (precision) sound level meters. Measured noise levels during the daytime
measurements ranged from 64.0 to 67.1 dBA Leq.
Existing Rail Noise Levels
Railway noise is generated from the rail traffic on the Amtrak/UPRR railway located approximately 0.2 -
mile west of the project site. This railroad consists of freight operations and regional passenger rail
operations (Amtrak and UPRR). Noise associated with these operations includes locomotive engines,
wheel -to -rail and switch noise, horn sounding, station approach and disembark bell sounding, emergency
signaling devices, and stationary bells associated with the at -grade crossings at Lodi Avenue. Passenger
rail movements occur through the project vicinity multiple times per day between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. Freight trains also operate along the Amtrak/UPRR railway daily. According to the General
Plan, the project site is not located within the 65 dBA railroad noise contour.
Modeled Rail Noise Levels
Noise generated by rail traffic on the Amtrak/UPRR railway was calculated using the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Noise Impact Assessment model (version 1/29/2019). Input parameters used in
Noise Impact Assessment model included train type, frequency of pass-bys during daytime (7:00 a.m. —
10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) hours, speed of travel, and total number of rail cars.
The Noise Impact Assessment model has a calculation output of a day -night noise levels (Ldn), which is
1 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol,
September 2013.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 9
Leq
Lmin
Lmax
Peak
Site No.
Location
Time
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBA
Along Lodi Avenue, approximately 90 feet east of the
1
67.1
47.4
79.5
99.0
11:13 a.m.
Washington Street and Lodi Avenue intersection
Along Washington Street, approximately 36 feet north of the
2
Washington Street and Lodi Avenue intersection.
64.0
48.3
75.0
93.8
11:25 a.m.
Note: dBA = A -weighted decibels; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin = Minimum Sound Level; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level
Refer to Exhibit 1, Noise Measurement Locations for a map of the noise measurement locations.
Source: Michael Baker International, October 29, 2019.
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm temperatures, with light wind speeds (9 miles per hour),
and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Bruel &
Kjaer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre -polarized microphone. The
monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards
Institute for Type I (precision) sound level meters. Measured noise levels during the daytime
measurements ranged from 64.0 to 67.1 dBA Leq.
Existing Rail Noise Levels
Railway noise is generated from the rail traffic on the Amtrak/UPRR railway located approximately 0.2 -
mile west of the project site. This railroad consists of freight operations and regional passenger rail
operations (Amtrak and UPRR). Noise associated with these operations includes locomotive engines,
wheel -to -rail and switch noise, horn sounding, station approach and disembark bell sounding, emergency
signaling devices, and stationary bells associated with the at -grade crossings at Lodi Avenue. Passenger
rail movements occur through the project vicinity multiple times per day between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. Freight trains also operate along the Amtrak/UPRR railway daily. According to the General
Plan, the project site is not located within the 65 dBA railroad noise contour.
Modeled Rail Noise Levels
Noise generated by rail traffic on the Amtrak/UPRR railway was calculated using the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Noise Impact Assessment model (version 1/29/2019). Input parameters used in
Noise Impact Assessment model included train type, frequency of pass-bys during daytime (7:00 a.m. —
10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) hours, speed of travel, and total number of rail cars.
The Noise Impact Assessment model has a calculation output of a day -night noise levels (Ldn), which is
1 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol,
September 2013.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 9
calculated differently from CNEL values. Ldp values are typically always within 1 dBA of CNEL values; thus,
this analysis considers the Ld, output of the Noise Impact Assessment model to be analogous to the CNEL
values required for land use planning and noise assessment.
Both passenger and freight rail were modeled to be traveling at speeds of 30 miles per hour (mph).
Passenger trains were modeled with a single locomotive engine, while freight trains were assumed to
have an average of three. Input parameters for daytime/nighttime pass -by frequencies were obtained
from published Amtrak timetables, details from which are shown below in Table 4, Rail Operation
Assumptions.
Freight train schedules are not standardized or publicly available. Thus, this analysis used assumptions
made in the San Joaquin County Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report, which estimated an average of 17 freight train pass-bys each day. With no additional
available information on specific schedules, this study interprets "each day" to mean during daytime
hours. However, this study assumes that at least one freight train will operate along this track between
the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., to provide for a worst case analysis.
Table 4
Rail Operation Assumptions
Train Service Typical Locomotives Daytime Nighttime Modeled
1 Cars Per Train 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Speed (mph)
Amtrak 1/6 9 1 30
Freight' 3/80 17 1 30
Notes:
1. The assumptions made in the San Joaquin County Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report accounts for all train types observed during a 90 hour study period. Therefore, the assumption of 17 trains per day (i.e. 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 .m.) is considered conservative as it accounts for passenger rail operations as well as freight.
Sources: Environmental Science Associates, Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft Environmental Impact Report,
dated September 2011.; Amtrak, San Joaquin's (San Francisco/Oakland — Sacrament - Stockton — Merced — Fresno — Bakersfield —
Southern Californian and intermediate Stations), effective October 28, 2019.
Due to the presence of a roadway grade crossing at Lodi Avenue, train horn sounding was modeled at the
grade crossing as required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49 CFR Part 222 Use of Locomotive
Horns at Public Highway -Rail Grade Crossings. As stipulated in 49 CFR Part 222, when trains are traveling
below 60 miles -per -hour, locomotive horns are required to be sounded no sooner than 15 seconds and
no later than 20 seconds before the locomotive enters the crossing. Thus, at a modeled speed of 30 miles -
per -hour at the crossings, or 44 feet -per -second, train horn soundings were modeled to occur at the 17 -
second approach mark, or, approximately 750 feet from either side of the grade crossing.
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project site is located approximately 0.2 -miles east of the Amtrak/UPRR railway, which runs
in a north -south direction. At the time of this analysis, the project design phase has not been conducted.
Therefore, the exact location of residential buildings and outdoor activity areas within the project site are
unknown. As a result, rail noise levels were modeled at the western project property line, approximately
1,040 feet (i.e. 0.2 -mile) east of the rail centerline.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 10
Exterior Noise Levels
Based on the FTA Noise Impact Assessment model and assumptions noted above, noise generated from
the Amtrak/UPRR railway would not increase the ambient noise environment at the project site. This is
primarily due to the Amtrak/UPRR railway distance from the project site, as well as intervening buildings
acting as noise barriers between the project site and the Amtrak/UPRR railway. As a result, railway noise
levels experienced at the project site would not exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 60 dB CNEL.
However, it should be noted that existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity range from range
from 64.0 to 67.1 dBA; refer to Table 3. Therefore, existing ambient noise levels at the project site
currently exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 60 dB CNEL. As such, Recommendation Measure
NOI-1 relies on a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare an acoustical study based on the final project
design. The acoustical study would incorporate exterior noise reduction features (i.e., perimeter walls,
orientation of the buildings to mask noise to outdoor activity areas) to ensure exterior noise level
exposure at the project site is at or below the City's exterior noise standard of 60 dB CNEL.
Interior Noise Levels
According to the General Plan, as well as Title 24 standards, the City requires interior noise levels not to
exceed 45 dBA to minimize sleep interference indoors. As previously discussed, noise generated from the
Amtrak/UPRR railway would not increase the ambient noise environment at the project site. However,
as depicted in Table 3, exterior ambient noise levels in the project vicinity range from 64.0 to 67.1 dBA.
The exterior ambient noise levels were utilized to obtain the interior noise levels using a standard exterior -
to -interior attenuation rate of 24 dB with windows closed.' Accounting for the attenuation rate of 24 dB,
interior noise levels would range from 40.0 to 43.1 dBA. Therefore, interior noise levels would not exceed
the City's residential interior noise standard of 45 dBA.
Recommendation Measures:
NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical
engineer to prepare an acoustical study, based on the final project design, and shall implement
any and all measures recommended as a result of the study, which shall be approved by the City
of Lodi Planning Division. The acoustical study shall include the following:
• The location, minimum height, density, and building material of any perimeter walls to be
constructed.
• A detailed analysis demonstrating that perimeter walls, building orientations, and/or setbacks
have been incorporated into the project design, such that noise level exposure to residential
receivers in all useable outdoor areas within the project site is at or below the City of Lodi's
exterior noise standard (i.e., 60 dB CNEL).
z U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), November 1979.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 11
REFERENCES
Documents
1. Amtrak, San Joaquin's (San Francisco/Oakland — Sacrament - Stockton — Merced — Fresno —
Bakersfield —Southern Californian and intermediate Stations), effective October 28, 2019.
2. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol, 2013.
3. City of Lodi, Lodi General Plan, April 2010.
4. City of Lodi, Lodi Municipal Code, October 16, 2019.
5. Environmental Science Associates, Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report, dated September 2011.
6. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
September 2018.
7. State Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October
2017.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), November
1979.
Websites / Programs
Federal Transit Administration, Noise Impact Assessment Model (version 1/29/2019), January 2019.
Google Earth, 2019.
301 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 12
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
2 East Lodi Avenue
APN 045-310-01
City of Lodi
State of California
Prepared in General Accordance with:
ASTM E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments
For:
City of Lodi
211 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Attn: Mr. Steve Schwabauer
INTERNATIONAL.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
December 12, 2019
JN 175297
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
December 12, 2019
Steve Schwabauer
City of Lodi
211 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
We Make o Difference
175297
SUBJECT: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 2 East Lodi Avenue, located in the
City of Lodi, California
Dear Mr. Schwabauer:
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) is pleased to submit this Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) for the above referenced project, herein referenced as the "subject site." The
goal of this Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated
with the subject site. This Phase I ESA has been prepared for the sole use of the City of Lodi, for
the above -referenced subject site. Neither this Phase I ESA, nor any of the information contained
herein, shall be used or relied upon for any purpose by any person or entity other than the City
of Lodi.
The Phase I ESA was prepared using methods consistent with the ASTM International (ASTM) E
1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, the scope of services, and inherent
limitations presented in our proposal. The Phase I ESA is not intended to present specific
quantitative information as to the actual presence of hazardous substances on or adjacent to the
subject site, but is to identify RECs based on available information.
Should you or your staff have any questions or concerns after reviewing the enclosed report,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/855-5747.
Sincerely,
Kristen Bogue
Environmental Professional
Planning/ Environmental Services
MBAKERINTL.COM
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 1 Santa Ana, CA 92707
Office: 949-472.35051 Fax: 949.837.4122
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
I [We] declare that, to the best of my[our] professional knowledge and belief, I[we] meet the
definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 312 and I[we] have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and
experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I[we]
have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and
practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Signature of Michael Baker Environmental Professional
Kristen Bogue
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................................. E-1
Section1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose..............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Detailed Scope of Services..............................................................................1-1
1.3 Significant Assumptions.................................................................................1-2
1.4 Limitations, Deviations, and Exceptions......................................................1-2
1.5 User Responsibilities.......................................................................................1-3
1.6 Special Terms and Conditions.......................................................................1-6
1.7 User Reliance....................................................................................................1-6
Section 2.0 User Provided Information........................................................................................2-1
2.1
Previous Documents........................................................................................2-1
2.2
Litigation/ Administrative Proceedings.......................................................2-2
2.3
Governmental Notices.....................................................................................2-2
2.4
Environmental Liens.......................................................................................2-2
2.5
Activity and Use Limitations.........................................................................2-2
2.6
Specialized Knowledge or Experience..........................................................2-2
2.7
Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information.................2-2
2.8
Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues...........................................2-3
2.9
Degree of Obviousness....................................................................................2-3
2.10
Reason for Performing Phase I.......................................................................2-3
Section3.0 Records Review............................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Physical Setting Sources..................................................................................3-1
3.2 Standard Environmental Records Sources ................................................... 3-8
3.3 File Record Reviews......................................................................................3-16
3.4 Historical Use Information
on the Subject Site and Adjoining Properties.............................................3-21
Section4.0 Site Reconnaissance....................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions........................................................4-1
4.2 On -Site Observations.......................................................................................4-1
4.3 Off -Site Observations......................................................................................4-6
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I i
Table of Contents
Section5.0 Interviews......................................................................................................................5-1
Regional Vicinity..............................................................................................3-2
5.1
Property Owner...............................................................................................5-1
Site Vicinity.......................................................................................................3-3
5.2
Key Site Manager/ Operator ...........................................................................5-1
Subject Site........................................................................................................3-4
5.3
Occupants..........................................................................................................5-1
Overview Map..................................................................................................3-9
5.4
Local Government Officials............................................................................5-2
On -Site Photographs.......................................................................................4-2
5.5
Other Persons...................................................................................................5-2
Off -Site Photographs.......................................................................................4-3
Section6.0 Evaluation......................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Findings and Opinions....................................................................................6-1
6.2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................6-9
6.3 Limiting Conditions/ Deviations .................................................................6-10
Section7.0 References.....................................................................................................................7-1
List of Exhibits
1.
Regional Vicinity..............................................................................................3-2
2.
Site Vicinity.......................................................................................................3-3
3.
Subject Site........................................................................................................3-4
4.
Overview Map..................................................................................................3-9
5.
On -Site Photographs.......................................................................................4-2
6.
Off -Site Photographs.......................................................................................4-3
List of Tables
Appendices
1-1. Groundwater Plume Dimension Assumptions...........................................1-2
3-1. Database Summaries.....................................................................................3-10
3-2 Identified Regulatory Sites of Concern.......................................................3-13
3-3. Historical Uses Summary.............................................................................3-24
Appendix A: ASTM Terminology
Appendix B: Database Records Searches
Appendix C: Documentation
Appendix D: Qualifications of the Environmental Professional
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAI All Appropriate Inquiries
ACM Asbestos Containing Materials
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AULs Activity and Use Limitations
bgs Below ground surface
BTEX Ethylbenzene and xylenes
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CORRACTS facilities subject to Corrective Action under RCRA
CPSC United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
CPSA Central Plume Source Area
CREC Conditional Recognized Environmental Condition
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DOGGR California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EHD Environmental Health Department
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (also known as SARA
Title III), 42 U.S.C. §§11001-11050 et seq.)
ERNS emergency response notification system
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FOIA U.S. Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. §552 as amended by Public Law No.
104-231,110 Stat.)
FR Federal Register
GIS Geographic Information System
GWET Groundwater extraction and treatment system
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I iii
Acronyms
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HWTS Hazardous Waste Tracking System
ICs Institutional Controls
kg Kilogram
LAC Lodi Area of Contamination
LBP
Lead Based Paints
lbs
Pounds
LCPA
Lodi Central Plume Area
LUFT
Leaking Underground Fuel Tank
LUST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MGP
Manufactured gas plant
MSDS
Material Safety Data Sheet
msl
Mean sea level
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NFA
No Further Action
NFRAP Former CERCLIS sites where no further remedial action is planned under
CERCLA
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
PAH
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (also known as polyaromatic hydrocarbons or
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PNA])
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCE
Tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene [perc])
pCi/L
picocuries per liter
perc
Perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethene [PCE])
PNA
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (also known as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons [PAH] or polyaromatic hydrocarbons)
REC
Recognized Environmental Condition
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.)
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SBBM
San Bernardino Base and Meridian
SCS
Soil Conservation Service
SVE
Soil Vapor Excavation
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
TCE
Trichloroethene
TPH
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
TPH-d
Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel
TPH-g
Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I iv
Acronyms
TPH-mo Total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TSDF Treatment, storage, or disposal facility for hazardous waste and certain industrial
waste
UPRR
Union Pacific Railroad
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USGS
United States Geological Survey
UST
Underground Storage Tank
VOC
Volatile organic compounds
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of
ASTM International (ASTM) E 1527-13 Standard Practice of the approximate 0.62 -acre property
located at Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 045-310-01, City of Lodi, California, the subject site.
Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.0, Introduction, of this
Phase I ESA. This Phase I ESA has revealed the following evidence of recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject site:
• Former Firehouse. It is the opinion of Michael Baker that an underground storage tank
(UST) is likely present on the subject site as a result of the past firehouse. Based on files
reviewed, a firehouse was constructed on the subject site prior to 1926 and was remodeled
with a garage by 1950. It is typical for fire station facilities to include gasoline or diesel
USTs (from the 1940s through the 1980s). Until the mid-1980s most USTs were made of
bare steel, which is likely to corrode over time and allow UST contents to seep into the
soil and contaminate groundwater. With the exception of the installation of an auto
garage, no evidence documenting the presence/ removal of any USTs was noted.
However, since the auto garage was added to the subject site by 1950, it is Michael Baker's
opinion that a UST may be present on the subject site. Given the time the UST may have
been installed (1940-1950), it is likely that this UST, if present, is a single -walled steel tank.
Thus, it is the opinion of Michael Baker that this potential undocumented UST represents
a REC at this time. A Phase II Site Investigation would be necessary to determine if
contamination actually exists.
• Amtrak/UPRR railway and Petroleum Pipelines. It is the opinion of Michael Baker that
petroleum hydrocarbons, lead concentrations, hazardous materials associated with
treated wood, as well as herbicide/ pesticide residues may be present within on-site soils,
particularly along the eastern boundary. It is the opinion of Michael Baker that a REC has
resulted at the time of this Phase I ESA. Further, railroad right-of-way includes a
petroleum pipeline (owned by Kinder Morgan), which presents a concern to soil gas.
•
Groundwater/ Soil Gas Contamination. It is the opinion of Michael Baker that the
following past adjoining automobile uses (potential soil gas and groundwater
contamination) have resulted in a REC at the time of this Phase I ESA:
0 1 West Lodi Avenue (Al's Signal Service Gas Station);
0 301 South Sacramento Street (Historical Gas Station);
0 228 South Sacramento Street (Former Auto Dealership); and
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I D-1
Appendix D I Qualifications of the Environmental Professional
o Central Plume Area (from off-site drycleaner facility).
Section 6.1, Findings and Opinions, documents Michael Baker's findings and opinions as to
whether or not a REC (or Conditional Recognized Environmental Condition [CREC]) is present
at the subject site.
2 East Lodi Avenue Phase I ESA I D-2
We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 N A L
MEMORANDUM
To: Patrick Hindmarsh, Michael Baker International
From: Danielle Regimbal, Michael Baker International
Eddie Torres, Michael Baker International
Date: December 11, 2019
Subject: 2 East Lodi Avenue — Noise Study
PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to determine railway noise levels at the proposed 2 East
Lodi Avenue Project (project) site due to the adjoining Amtrak/Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railway.
Additionally, this technical memorandum will identify appropriate noise recommendation measures to
ensure noise levels at the project site are below the City of Lodi's noise standard.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located at 2 East Lodi Avenue within the City of Lodi (City). The project consists
of one parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN]: 045-310-01) comprising approximately 0.62 -acre.
According to the Lodi General Plan, the project site is designated Mixed Use Corridor. This designation
includes a variety of office and general commercial uses, as well as residential uses.
The project site is currently developed with one structure, identified as Maple Square, located on the
northwestern portion of the project site. The southern portion of the project site consists of a gravel
parking lot, while the northeastern portion of the project site primarily consists of vegetation and trees.
The site is bounded by East Lodi Avenue to the north, the Amtrak/UPRR railway to the east, and
commercial uses to the south and west.
The project proposes to construct a five -unit residential development. Regional access to the project site
is provided via State Route 99 (SR -99) and State Route 12 (SR -12). Local access to the project site is
provided via East Lodi Avenue and South Sacramento Street.
MBAKERINTL.COM
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Office: 949.472.35051 Fax: 949.472.8373
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is
characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies
equally. In particular, the ear de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the
sensitivity of human hearing, the A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. Decibels are based
on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a
more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In
terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud
and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range
from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from
approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million
times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB),
is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile
sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites,
machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced)
at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface
and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces,
such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces,
such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA
per doubling of distance.
There are several metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over
time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the
specified period, has the same sound energy as the time -varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer
period is often evaluated based on the Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise
levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The
penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours,
particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Lan
noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
REGULATORY SETTING
State of California
State Office of Planning and Research
The State Office of Planning and Research's Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and
interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible
land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes
the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the CNEL.
Table 1, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, presents guidelines for determining
acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. The
guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 2
reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community's sensitivity to noise, and the
community's assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
Table 1
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
City of Lodi
Lodi General Plan
The Noise Element of the Lodi General Plan (General Plan) identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise
sources, defines areas of noise impact, and establishes policies to ensure that City residents are protected
from excessive noise. The chapter contains two land use compatibility tables that describe the
compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Ldn and CNEL.
Table 1 presents State's guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise
exposure limits for various land use categories. Additionally, Table 2, Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, presents guidelines for maximum allowable interior and exterior noise levels for various land
use categories. The following lists applicable noise policies obtained from the General Plan:
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 3
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL dBA)
Land Use Category
Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density Single -Family, Duplex, Mobile
50-60 60-70 70-75 75-85
Homes
Residential - Multiple Family
50-65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels
50-65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
50-65 65-70 70-75 75-85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
NA 50-70 NA 65-85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports
NA 50-75 NA 75-85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
50-67.5 NA 67.5-72.5 72.5-85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
50-70 70-80 80-85
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional
50-70 70-75 75-85 NA
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
50-70 70-80 80-85 NA
Notes: NA: Not Applicable; Ldp: average day/night sound level; CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level, dBA = A -weighted decibels
Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh
air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearl Unacce table — New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2017.
City of Lodi
Lodi General Plan
The Noise Element of the Lodi General Plan (General Plan) identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise
sources, defines areas of noise impact, and establishes policies to ensure that City residents are protected
from excessive noise. The chapter contains two land use compatibility tables that describe the
compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Ldn and CNEL.
Table 1 presents State's guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise
exposure limits for various land use categories. Additionally, Table 2, Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, presents guidelines for maximum allowable interior and exterior noise levels for various land
use categories. The following lists applicable noise policies obtained from the General Plan:
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 3
Table 2
Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
CNEL1
Land Use
Inter1or2
Exterior3
Residential 45
60
Motels, Hotels 45
60
Public/Semi-Public 45
65
Recreational 50
65
Commercial 50
65
Industrial 65
70
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
1. The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of
approximately five decibels to
sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the
night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a. m.
2. Indoor environment, excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors.
3. For non-residential uses, where an outdoor activity area is not proposed, the standard does not apply
.
Source: City of Lodi, Lodi General Plan, April 2010.
Policy N -P1 Control and mitigate noise at the source where feasible, as opposed to
at the receptor end.
Policy N -P2 Encourage the control of noise through site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques for new
development deemed to be noise generators.
Policy N -P3 Use the noise and land use compatibility matrix (Table 9-2 [Table 1]) and
allowable noise exposure levels (Table 9-3 [Table 2]) as review criteria
for all new land uses. Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all
projects that have noise exposure levels of "conditionally acceptable"
and higher. These may include:
■ Fagades constructed with substantial weight and insulation;
■ Sound -rated windows in habitable rooms,
■ Sound -rated doors in all exterior entries,
■ Active cancellation;
■ Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, fans and gable ends;
■ Ventilation system affording comfort under closed -window
conditions; and
■ Double doors and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of
gypsum board on resilient channels to meet the highest noise
level reduction requirements.
Policy N -P4 Discourage noise sensitive uses such as residences, hospitals, schools,
libraries, and rest homes from locating in areas with noise levels above
65 dB. Conversely, do not permit new uses likely to produce high levels
of noise (above 65 d8) from locating in or adjacent to areas with existing
or planned noise -sensitive uses.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 4
Policy N -P5 Noise sensitive uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and
rest homes, proposed in areas that have noise exposure levels of
"conditionally acceptable" and higher must complete an acoustical
study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer. This study should
specify the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the
design and construction of these uses, to achieve interior noise levels
consistent with Table 9-3 (Table 2).
Policy N -P6 Where substantial traffic noise increases (to above 70 dB) are expected,
such as on Lower Sacramento Road or Harney Lane, as shown on the
accompanying graphic, require a minimum 12 foot setback for noise -
sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, and
rest homes.
s
HAR EY LN
O
Minimum setback of 12 feet for noise -sensitive land uses.
Policy N -P7 Require developers of potentially noise -generating new developments to
mitigate the noise impacts on adjacent properties as a condition of
permit approval. This should be achieved through appropriate means,
such as:
■ Dampening or actively canceling noise sources;
■ Increasing setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings;
■ Using soundproofing materials and double -glazed windows;
■ Screening and controlling noise sources, such as parking and
loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
■ Using open space, building orientation and design, landscaping
and running water to mask sounds; and
■ Controlling hours of operation, including deliveries and trash
pickup.
Policy N -P12 Restrict the use of sound walls as a noise attenuation method to sites
adjacent to State Route (SR) 99, the railroad, and industrial uses east of
SR -99.
Municipal Code
Title 9, Public Pease, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 9.24, Noise Ordinance, of the Lodi, California Municipal
Code (Municipal Code) establishes standards concerning acceptable noise levels for both noise -sensitive
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 5
land uses and noise -generating land uses. The following sections of the Municipal Code are applicable to
the proposed project.
§ 9.24.020 — Public nuisance noise.
The following special noise restrictions are established without regard to their sound level
impact and may be enforced without the prerequisite of a sound level measurement.
(A) General Noise Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in
addition thereto, it is unlawful for any persons to willfully make or continue or permit or
cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which
unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes
discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal noise sensitivity.
(e) No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location
within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or
otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any
other property to exceed: The standards which shall be considered in determining whether
a violation of the provision of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. The volume of the noise;
2. The intensity of the noise;
3. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual for the area and hour;
4. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;
S. The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any;
6. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
7. The nature and the zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
8. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;
9. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
10. The duration of the noise;
11. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.
This section shall be inapplicable to emergency work as defined herein.
§ 9.24.030 — Excessive, offensive or disturbing noise.
The following activities are declared to cause excessive, offensive or disturbing noise in
violation of this section, but said enumeration shall not be deemed exclusive:
(A) It is unlawful for any person to sound any horn or other signaling device on any vehicle
except as an emergency or danger warning signal. This provision shall be inapplicable to
the sounding of any horn, bell, whistle, siren or other audible warning device which is
operated in compliance with Section 7064 of the California Public Utilities Code, or with
any other state or federal provision governing railroad operations.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 6
(e) It is unlawful to play or operate any drum, radio, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound
amplifier, stereo, television, or other similar sound system, whether mobile or from a fixed
location upon the public streets, public right-of-way or in public parks in such a fashion
that it is clearly audible at a distance of fifty feet. The city council finds and declares that
any sound or noise audible at such distance endangers the public safety and welfare by
interference with normal human capability for hearing nearby traffic movement and
warning signals. This section shall be inapplicable to radio systems operated under or
pursuant to Federal Communications Commission licenses in the regular course of
business.
It is found and declared as a matter of legislative policy that the operation of the
aforementioned equipment or instruments on the public streets and rights-of-way
adjacent to public parks during the hours between ten p.m. and seven a.m. in such a
manner as to be clearly audible at a distance of fifty feet or greater shall constitute prima
facie evidence of a violation of this section.
(C) It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to cause, permit, or generate any noise
or sound as described herein between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. which exceeds
the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential property (or, if a
condominium or apartment house within any adjoining apartment) as determined at the
time of such reading by more than five decibels. This section shall be applicable whether
such noise or sound is of a commercial or noncommercial nature.
§ 9.24.050 — Exemptions.
This chapter (Chapter 9.24) shall not apply to the following:
(A) Sirens or other similar emergency warning devices located upon any emergency vehicle as
defined by the Vehicle Code, or upon the premises of any public safety agency;
(e) Any bell, siren or similar device on any vehicle, which is required by law, and which is
automatically activated by placing the vehicle transmission in reverse, or by any backing
movement,
(C) Any sound equipment operating under a city license or permit, or being utilized for an
activity subject to First Amendment protection;
(D) Emergency repair work as defined herein,
(E) Events in public parks or other public places, sponsored by the city;
(F) Noise necessarily generated in conjunction with health or sanitation services, including
but not limited to refuse collection.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 7
EXISTING NOISE SETTING
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker International
conducted two noise measurements in the site vicinity on October 29, 2019; refer to Appendix A, Noise
Data, and Exhibit 1, Noise Measurement Locations. The noise measurement locations are representative
of typical existing noise exposure at and immediately adjacent to the site. Ten-minute measurements
were taken between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. at each location during the day. Short-term (Leq)
measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. Noise
measurements were taken during "off-peak" (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this
provides a more conservative baseline. During rush hour traffic, vehicle speeds and heavy truck volumes
are often low. Free-flowing traffic conditions just before or after rush hour often yield higher noise levels.'
The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table 3, Noise
Measurements.
Table 3
Noise Measurements
Site No.
Location
Leq
Lmin
Lmax
Peak
dBA
dBA
dBA(dBA)Time
Along Lodi Avenue, approximately 90 feet east of the
1
Sacramento Street and Lodi Avenue intersection
68.6
47.3
90.2
108.0
10:37 a.m.
Along eastern project boundary, approximately 125 feet
2
76.5
46.4
102.6
118.2
10:55 a.m.
south of Lodi Avenue(including train horn and pass -by)
Note: dBA = A -weighted decibels; Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin = Minimum Sound Level; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level
Refer to Exhibit 1, Noise Measurement Locations for a map of the noise measurement locations.
Source: Michael Baker International, October 29, 2019.
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm temperatures, with light wind speeds (7 miles per hour),
and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Bruel &
Kjaer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre -polarized microphone. The
monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards
Institute for Type I (precision) sound level meters. Measured noise levels during the daytime
measurements ranged from 68.6 to 76.5 dBA Leq.
1 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol,
September 2013.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 8
r•
111E1t'
�' �. ;�.—moo•.. m�
1
,LEGEND
Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Google Earth Pro, November 2019
NOT TO SCALE
QPROJECT SITE
I N T E R N ATI O N A L
12/19 A 175297
"A
2 EAST LODI AVENUE
NOISE STUDY
Noise Measurement Locations
Exhibit 1
Existing Rail Noise Levels
Railway noise is generated from the rail traffic on the Amtrak/UPRR railway adjoining the project site to
the east. This railroad consists of freight operations and regional passenger rail operations (Amtrak and
UPRR). Noise associated with these operations includes locomotive engines, wheel -to -rail and switch
noise, horn sounding, station approach and disembark bell sounding, emergency signaling devices, and
stationary bells associated with the at -grade crossings at Lodi Avenue. Passenger rail movements occur
through the project vicinity multiple times per day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Freight
trains also operate along the Amtrak/UPRR railway daily. According to the General Plan, the project site
is within the 65 dBA railroad noise contour.
Modeled Rail Noise Levels
Noise generated by rail traffic on the Amtrak/UPRR railway was calculated using the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Noise Impact Assessment model (version 1/29/2019). Input parameters used in
Noise Impact Assessment model included train type, frequency of pass-bys during daytime (7:00 a.m. -
10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) hours, speed of travel, and total number of rail cars.
The Noise Impact Assessment model has a calculation output of a day -night noise levels (Ldn), which is
calculated differently from CNEL values. Ldn values are typically always within 1 dBA of CNEL values; thus,
this analysis considers the Ldn output of the Noise Impact Assessment model to be analogous to the CNEL
values required for land use planning and noise assessment.
Both passenger and freight rail were modeled to be traveling at speeds of 30 miles per hour (mph).
Passenger trains were modeled with a single locomotive engine, while freight trains were assumed to
have an average of three. Input parameters for daytime/nighttime pass -by frequencies were obtained
from published Amtrak timetables, details from which are shown below in Table 4, Rail Operation
Assumptions.
Freight train schedules are not standardized or publicly available. Thus, this analysis used assumptions
made in the San Joaquin County Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report, which estimated an average of 17 freight train pass-bys each day. With no additional
available information on specific schedules, this study interprets "each day" to mean during daytime
hours. However, this study assumes that at least one freight train will operate along this track between
the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., to provide for a worst case analysis.
Table 4
Rail Operation Assumptions
Train Service Typical Locomotives Daytime Nighttime Modeled
1 Cars Per Train 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Speed mph
Amtrak 1/6 9 1 30
Freight' 3/80 17 1 30
Notes:
1. The assumptions made in the San Joaquin County Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report accounts for all train types observed during a 90 hour study period. Therefore, the assumption of 17 trains per day (i.e., 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 .m.) is considered conservative as it accounts for passenger rail operations as well as freight.
Sources: Environmental Science Associates, Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft Environmental Impact Report,
dated September 2011.; Amtrak, San Joaquin's (San Francisco/Oakland - Sacrament - Stockton - Merced - Fresno - Bakersfield -
Southern Californian and intermediate Stations), effective October 28, 2019.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 10
Due to the presence of a roadway grade crossing at Lodi Avenue, train horn sounding was modeled at the
grade crossing as required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49 CFR Part 222 Use of Locomotive
Horns at Public Highway -Rail Grade Crossings. As stipulated in 49 CFR Part 222, when trains are traveling
below 60 miles -per -hour, locomotive horns are required to be sounded no sooner than 15 seconds and
no later than 20 seconds before the locomotive enters the crossing. Thus, at a modeled speed of 30 miles -
per -hour at the crossings, or 44 feet -per -second, train horn soundings were modeled to occur at the 17 -
second approach mark, or, approximately 750 feet from either side of the grade crossing.
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project site is located approximately 37 feet west of the Amtrak/UPRR railway, which runs
in a north -south direction. At the time of this analysis, the project design phase has not been conducted.
Therefore, the exact location of residential buildings and outdoor activity areas within the project site are
unknown. As a result, rail noise levels were modeled at the eastern project property line, approximately
37 feet west of the rail centerline.
Exterior Noise Levels
Based on the FTA Noise Impact Assessment model and assumptions noted above, the anticipated
maximum railway noise level experienced at the project site would be approximately 78 dBA. As such,
railway noise levels experienced at the project site would exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 60
dB CNEL. As noted in General Plan Policy N -P12, the City restricts the use of sound walls as a noise
attenuation method to sites adjacent to the railroad. Therefore, a sound wall would not be a feasible
noise reduction method for the project site. As the project design phase has not been conducted at the
time of this analysis, Recommendation Measure N0I-1 relies on a qualified acoustical engineer to prepare
an acoustical study based on the final project design. The acoustical study would incorporate exterior
noise reduction features (i.e., perimeter walls, orientation of the buildings to mask noise to outdoor
activity areas) to ensure exterior noise level exposure at the project site is at or below the City's exterior
noise standard of 60 dB CNEL.
Interior Noise Levels
According to the General Plan, as well as Title 24 standards, the City requires interior noise levels not to
exceed 45 dBA to minimize sleep interference indoors. The exterior noise levels were utilized to obtain
the interior noise levels using a standard exterior -to -interior attenuation rate of 24 dB with windows
closed.z Accounting for the attenuation rate of 24 dB, interior noise levels would be 54 dBA, which would
exceed the City's residential interior noise standard of 45 dBA. Therefore, Recommendation Measure
N0I-1 would incorporate interior noise reduction features (e.g. acoustically rated windows and doors) to
ensure interior noise level exposure at the project site is at or below the City's interior noise standard of
45 dB CNEL.
Recommendation Measures:
N0I-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical
engineer to prepare an acoustical study, based on the final project design, and shall implement
z U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), November 1979.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 11
any and all measures recommended as a result of the study, which shall be approved by the City
of Lodi Planning Division. The acoustical study shall include the following:
• The location, minimum height, density, and building material of any perimeter walls to be
constructed.
• A detailed analysis demonstrating that perimeterwalls, building orientations, and/or setbacks
have been incorporated into the project design, such that noise level exposure to residential
receivers in all useable outdoor areas within the project site is at or below the City of Lodi's
exterior noise standard (i.e., 60 dB CNEL).
• Demonstrate that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources at the project site will not
exceed the City of Lodi's interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL. It is anticipated that the typical
method of compliance would be to provide noise barriers where appropriate; structure
setbacks; acoustically rated windows and doors; or air conditioning or equivalent forced air
circulation to allow occupancy with closed windows, which, for most construction, would
provide sufficient exterior -to -interior noise reduction. The acoustical study shall demonstrate
and verify that interior noise levels at the project site are below the City of Lodi's 45 dBA CNEL
noise standard within all habitable residential rooms.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 12
REFERENCES
Documents
1. Amtrak, San Joaquin's (San Francisco/Oakland — Sacrament - Stockton — Merced — Fresno —
Bakersfield — Southern Californian and intermediate Stations), effective October 28, 2019.
2. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol, 2013.
3. City of Lodi, Lodi General Plan, April 2010.
4. City of Lodi, Lodi Municipal Code, October 16, 2019.
5. Environmental Science Associates, Union Pacific Expansion and Modernization Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report, dated September 2011.
6. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
September 2018.
7. State Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October
2017.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), November
1979.
Websites / Programs
Federal Transit Administration, Noise Impact Assessment Model (version 1/29/2019), January 2019.
Google Earth, 2019.
2 East Lodi Avenue
Noise Study 13