Noise Abatement Decision Report

Transcription

1 Mid County Parkway NADR Noise Abatement Decision Report Noise Study Report, January 212 Riverside County, California 8-RIV-MCP PM./16.3; 8-RIV-2 PM 28./34.3 EA 8-F32 (PN 8125) April 212

2 This page intentionally left blank

3

4 This page intentionally left blank

5 Table of Contents Table of Contents...v List of Figures... vii List of Tables...ix List of Abbreviated Terms...xi Chapter 1. Introduction Noise Abatement Assessment Requirements Purpose of the Noise Abatement Decision Report Project Location and Description Purpose and Need Project Alternatives Alternative 1A: No Project/No Action Existing Ground Conditions Alternative 1B: No Project/No Action General Plan Circulation Element Conditions Alternative 4 Modified: North Perris (Drain) Alternative 5 Modified: South Perris (at Rider Street) Alternative 9 Modified: Placentia Avenue Design Variations... 8 Chapter 2. Results of the Noise Study Report Noise Impact Locations Noise Impacts for All three Build Alternatives Traffic Conditions Noise Impacts for Alternative 4 Modified Traffic Conditions Noise Impacts for Alternative 5 Modified Traffic Conditions Noise Impacts for Alternative 9 Modified Traffic Conditions Noise Impacts for Design Variation Traffic Conditions Interior Noise Impacts Locations Evaluated for Noise Abatement Noise Barrier Analysis for Alternative 4 Modified Noise Barrier Analysis for Alternative 5 Modified Noise Barrier Analysis for Alternative 9 Modified Noise Barrier Analysis for Design Variations Feasible Noise Barriers...25 Chapter 3. Preliminary Noise Abatement Decision Summary of Key Information Barrier Optimization Non-Acoustical Factors Relating to Feasibility Preliminary Recommendation and Decision...55 Chapter 4. Secondary Effects of Abatement Land Use Growth Farmlands and Timberlands Community Impacts Utilities and Emergency Services Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Traffic and Transportation Visual/Aesthetics...58 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report v

6 Table of Contents Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Floodplains Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Geology and Soils Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Paleontological Resources Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Hazardous Waste Air Quality Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Natural Communities Wetlands and Other Waters Plant Species Animal Species Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Threatened and Endangered Species Invasive Exotic Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures...64 Chapter 5. References Appendix A Figures Appendix B Noise Barrier Construction Cost Estimate vi Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

7 List of Tables Table 2-1. Summary of Feasible Noise Barriers from the Noise Study Report Table 3-1. Summary of Abatement Information Table 3-2. Summary of Optimized Abatement Information Table 3-3. Summary of Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers Table 3-4. Summary of Preliminary Recommended Noise Barriers Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report vii

8 List of Tables This page intentionally left blank viii Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

9 List of Abbreviated Terms APE area of potential effects BMPs best management practices BSA Biological Study Area Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations County Riverside County db decibels dba A-weighted decibels EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration ft foot/feet I-2 Interstate 2 L eq equivalent continuous sound level MCP Mid County Parkway mi mile MLD Most Likely Descendant NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NADR Noise Abatement Decision Report NAHC Native American Heritage Commission National Register National Register of Historic Places NES Natural Environment Study NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSR Noise Study Report PMP Paleontological Mitigation Program RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SJN DV San Jacinto North Design Variation SJRB DV San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation SR-79 State Route 79 SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TNM Traffic Noise Model Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report ix

10 List of Abbreviated Terms This page intentionally left blank x Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

11 Chapter 1. Introduction The Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) presents the preliminary noise abatement decision as defined in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 211). This report has been approved by a California licensed professional civil engineer. The Noise Study Report (NSR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., dated January 212, is hereby incorporated by reference Noise Abatement Assessment Requirements Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards (23 CFR 772) and the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol require that noise abatement be considered for projects that are predicted to result in traffic noise impacts. A traffic noise impact is considered to occur when future (24) predicted noise levels with the project approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) defined in 23 CFR 772 or when the predicted 24 noise levels with the project substantially exceed existing noise levels. A predicted 24 noise level is considered to approach the NAC when it is within 1 decibel (db) of the NAC. A substantial increase is defined as being 12 db or more over the corresponding existing noise level. The FHWA standards (23 CFR 772) require noise abatement measures that are reasonable and feasible and that are likely to be incorporated into the project be identified before adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the MCP project. The Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol establishes a process for assessing the reasonableness and feasibility of noise abatement. Before publication of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for the MCP project, a preliminary noise abatement decision is made. The preliminary noise abatement decision is based on the feasibility of evaluated abatement and the preliminary reasonableness determination. Noise abatement is considered to be acoustically feasible if it provides a noise reduction of 5 db or more at receptors subject to noise impacts. Other nonacoustical factors relating to geometric standards (e.g., sight distances), topography, utilities, other noise sources, property access, safety, maintenance, and security can also affect feasibility. Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 1

12 Chapter 1 Introduction The NADR presents the preliminary noise abatement decision based on acoustical and non-acoustical feasibility factors and the relationship between noise abatement allowances and the engineer s cost estimate. The NADR does not present the final decision regarding noise abatement; rather, it presents key information on abatement to be considered throughout the environmental review process, based on the best available information at the time the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS is published. The final overall reasonableness decision will take this information into account, along with other reasonableness factors identified during the environmental review process. These factors include: The noise reduction design goal (i.e., 7 db at one or more benefited receptors); The cost of noise abatement; and The viewpoints of benefited receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors) The preliminary reasonableness determination is made by calculating an allowance that is considered to be a reasonable amount of money, per benefited unit, to spend on abatement. This reasonable allowance is then compared to the engineer s cost estimate for the abatement. If the engineer s cost estimate is less than the allowance, the preliminary determination is that the abatement is reasonable. If the cost estimate is higher than the allowance, the preliminary determination is that abatement is not reasonable. Additionally, each noise barrier must provide at least 7 db of noise reduction at one or more benefited receptors to meet the noise reduction design goal and be considered reasonable. At the end of the public review process for the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, the final noise abatement decision will be made and will be indicated in the Final EIR/EIS. The preliminary noise abatement decision will become the final noise abatement decision unless compelling information received during the environmental review process indicates that it should be changed Purpose of the Noise Abatement Decision Report The purpose of the NADR is to: Summarize the conclusions of the NSR relating to acoustical feasibility and the reasonable allowances for the evaluated abatement; Present the engineer s cost estimate for the evaluated abatement; Present the engineer s evaluation of non-acoustical feasibility issues; 2 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

13 Chapter 1 Introduction Present the preliminary noise abatement decision; and Present preliminary information on the secondary effects of abatement (impacts on cultural resources, scenic views, hazardous materials, biology, etc.). The NADR does not address noise barriers or other noise-reducing treatments required as mitigation for significant adverse environmental effects identified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Location and Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with the FHWA, Caltrans District 8, the County of Riverside, the City of San Jacinto, and the City of Perris, proposes to construct the MCP project, a new freeway project in Riverside County, California. The project area is located in western Riverside County, primarily along or parallel to the existing Ramona Expressway. Figure A-1 in Appendix A of the NSR (LSA 212) depicts the MCP project study area and the regional location of the project. The MCP project study area is approximately 16 miles (mi) long and ranges from 1 to 5 mi wide. The MCP project will serve as a major west-east connection within western Riverside County and will also provide for regional movement to eastern Riverside County. The proposed action would adopt an MCP project alignment and construct a major, limited-access freeway to meet current and projected 24 travel demand from Interstate 2 (I-2) on the west to State Route 79 (SR-79) on the east Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a transportation facility that would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional west-east movement of people, goods, and services between and through Perris and San Jacinto. More specifically, the selected Alternative would: Provide increased capacity to support the forecast travel demand for the 24 design year; Provide a limited access facility; Provide roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards; Accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act National Network trucks; and Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 3

14 Chapter 1 Introduction Provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation system. The MCP project is located in an area of western Riverside County that is undergoing substantial population and employment growth. According to the California Finance Department, in 29, the population in Riverside County reached approximately 2.1 million people. Specifically, the population in western Riverside County is expected to increase by over 1.3 million people between 21 and 235, an increase of more than 6 percent. Growth in employment is expected to occur at an even higher rate, approximately 8 percent between 21 and 235 (Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] 28). The Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report (San Bernardino Associated Governments [SANBAG] 21) states employment in the Inland Empire is no longer decreasing, and employment is projected to increase by 1,5 jobs in 21 (approximately.9 percent). In addition, the report states the housing market in the Inland Empire appears to have bottomed out and is now in the recovery period due to demand and overwhelming supply coming from foreclosures. Although currently funded transportation improvements will address some of the projected future demand, additional transportation improvements are needed to provide for the efficient movement of people and goods in the future Project Alternatives To address the concerns in responses to comments on the Draft EIR/EIS for a 32 mi MCP facility, RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans developed an approach for completing the EIR/EIS process for the project that would refine the project purpose statement and project alternatives to focus on the transportation needs from I-2 to SR-79. Therefore, the Build Alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS for the 32 mi MCP project have been withdrawn in response to these concerns (i.e., Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). The following are descriptions of the refined project alternatives for the MCP facility between I-2 in the west and SR-79 in the east, including two No Project/No Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1A and 1B) and the three Build Alternatives (Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified). 4 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

15 Chapter 1 Introduction Alternative 1A: No Project/No Action Existing Ground Conditions Alternative 1A represents 24 traffic on the planned street network except for future improvements to Ramona Expressway, which would remain as it exists today. Construction of an MCP project would not be implemented with the No Project/No Action Alternative 1A. The future west-east traffic described in the study area would be served by the existing Ramona Expressway between I-2 and SR-79. This alternative assumes 24 land use conditions and implementation of planned improvements to the regional and local circulation system, as accounted for in the adopted Riverside County General Plan, RCTC s Measure A program, and other adopted plans and policies Alternative 1B: No Project/No Action General Plan Circulation Element Conditions Alternative 1B represents 24 traffic levels on the planned street network, according to the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan. Construction of an MCP project would not be implemented with No Project/No Action Alternative 1B. This alternative is the same as Alternative 1A, but includes implementation of the Ramona Expressway consistent with the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element Alternative 4 Modified: North Perris (Drain) Alternative 4 Modified proposes a six-lane controlled access freeway. Alternative 4 Modified follows a northern alignment through the City of Perris, adjacent to the Perris Drain, as shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A of the NSR. System interchanges (a freeway-to-freeway type interchange) are proposed for all Build Alternatives at I-2 and SR-79. Descriptions of these system-to-system interchanges are as follows: The MCP/I-2 interchange is proposed as a three-level interchange that will not preclude possible future connections to the west. At the highest point, the MCP/ I-2 interchange would be approximately 75 to 1 feet (ft) above ground level. The MCP/SR-79 interchange is proposed as a three-level interchange at an approximate height of 75 ft. The MCP connection to SR-79 will be made at the Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 5

16 Chapter 1 Introduction proposed realignment of SR-79, south of Ramona Expressway. 1 The MCP facility provides direct connectors to northbound and southbound SR-79, as well as a sixlane easterly extension that terminates at a proposed signalized intersection at Ramona Expressway. The SR-79 Realignment Project is currently undergoing separate environmental review and is assumed to be constructed prior to the MCP project. Service interchanges (interchanges that connect a freeway to local arterials) for Alternative 4 Modified are proposed at Perris Boulevard, Evans Road, Ramona Expressway/Antelope Road, Bernasconi Road, Reservoir Avenue, Town Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial associated with future proposed development), Park Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial associated with future proposed development), and Warren Road. All of the modified Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, include improvements to I-2. These improvements are as follows: (1) the addition of one auxiliary lane between the MCP/I-2 systems interchange and the adjacent service interchange to the north and south to facilitate movement between the MCP facility and I-2; (2) the addition of an operational/mixed-flow lane from the MCP facility to the Van Buren Boulevard interchange to accommodate additional traffic on I-2 as a result of the MCP project; (3) the addition of an operational/mixed-flow lane from Nuevo Road to Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway or Harley Knox Boulevard to facilitate weaving on I-2; (4) the addition of a new interchange at Placentia Avenue; and (5) modification of the existing interchange at Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway. Alternative 4 Modified also includes two design variations: San Jacinto North (SJN DV) and San Jacinto River Bridge (SJRB DV). See Section for additional detail Alternative 5 Modified: South Perris (at Rider Street) Similar to Alternative 4 Modified, Alternative 5 Modified is a six-lane controlledaccess freeway. However, Alternative 5 Modified follows an alignment through Perris along Rider Street, as shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A of the NSR. 1 SR-79 is proposed to be realigned as a four-lane limited access expressway on a new alignment from south of Domenigoni Parkway to north of Gilman Springs Road and is currently undergoing separate environmental review. 6 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

17 Chapter 1 Introduction System interchanges proposed for Alternative 5 Modified are the same as for Alternative 4 Modified, with connections at I-2 and SR-79. However, the I-2 system interchange differs from that in Alternative 4 Modified since it connects the MCP facility to I-2 near Rider Street. As with Alternative 4 Modified, the system interchange at I-2 is proposed as a three-level interchange that will not preclude possible future connections to the west. The interchange will be approximately 75 to 1 ft above ground level. Locations of the service interchanges proposed for Alternative 5 Modified are the same as those in Alternative 4 Modified: Perris Boulevard, Evans Road, Ramona Expressway/Antelope Road, Bernasconi Road, Reservoir Avenue, Town Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial associated with future proposed development), Park Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial associated with future proposed development), and Warren Road. Alternative 5 Modified also includes the same improvements to I-2 as described above for Alternative 4 Modified. In addition, Alternative 5 Modified includes the same design variations (SJN DV and SJRB DV) as Alternative 4 Modified. See Section for additional detail Alternative 9 Modified: Placentia Avenue Similar to Alternatives 4 Modified and 5 Modified, Alternative 9 Modified is a sixlane controlled-access freeway. However, Alternative 9 Modified follows a more southerly alignment through the City of Perris along Placentia Avenue, as shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A of the NSR. System interchanges are proposed for all Build Alternatives, including Alternative 9 Modified, at I-2 and SR-79. The system interchange at SR-79 is the same as those proposed for Alternative 4 Modified and Alternative 5 Modified. However, the I-2 system interchange differs from those in Alternatives 4 Modified and 5 Modified since it connects the MCP to I-2 near Placentia Avenue. As with Alternatives 4 Modified and 5 Modified, the system interchange at I-2 is proposed as a three-level interchange that will not preclude possible future connections to the west. The interchange will be approximately 75 to 1 ft above ground level. Service interchanges are also proposed for Alternative 9 Modified at the following locations: Redlands Avenue, Evans Road, Ramona Expressway/Antelope Road, Bernasconi Road, Reservoir Avenue, Town Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 7

18 Chapter 1 Introduction associated with future proposed development), Park Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial associated with future proposed development), and Warren Road. Alternative 9 Modified also includes the same improvements to I-2 as described above for Alternative 4 Modified. In addition, Alternative 9 Modified has been designed to avoid Paragon Park. Alternative 9 Modified includes the same design variations (SJN DV and SJRB DV) as Alternatives 4 Modified and 5 Modified. See Section for additional detail Design Variations The following design variations apply to all of the Build Alternatives: San Jacinto North Design Variation: Under SJN DV, the MCP route diverges from the proposed MCP alignment west of Warren Road and follows an alignment easterly that is approximately 1,14 ft north of the existing Ramona Expressway, as shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A of the NSR. The SJN DV will also provide a connection to the existing Ramona Expressway from Warren Road, similar to the base case for Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified. San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation: Under SJRB DV, the MCP project would construct two bridges in the Lakeview Nuevo area: a 531 ft bridge spanning Martin Street and a 1,941 ft bridge spanning the San Jacinto River, for a total of 2,472 ft of bridge roadway. The base case proposes one 4,321 ft bridge to span the floodplain and Martin Street. The SJRB DV applies to all three Build Alternatives (Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified). The SJRB DV would also include a total of 1,849 ft of fill on either end of each bridge within the same limits as the base case bridge. Similar to the base case, the bridges under this design variation would be located south of the existing Ramona Expressway Bridge, which is 255 ft in length and would remain in place. 8 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

19 Chapter 2. Results of the Noise Study Report The noise study report (NSR) for this project was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. in January Noise Impact Locations Potential long-term noise impacts associated with project operations are solely from traffic noise. Traffic noise was evaluated for the worst-case traffic conditions, as described in Section 5.3 of the NSR (LSA 212) for future scenarios (24 No Build and Build Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified). Using coordinates obtained from the topographic maps, totals of 337, 358, and 355 receptor locations for Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified, respectively, were modeled and evaluated for potential noise impacts resulting from vehicular traffic. These receptor locations were representative of frequent outdoor use areas (Activity Categories B and C), as well as office uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and agriculture uses (Activity Categories E and F), and vacant land/open space (Activity Category G) per the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 211). These receptor locations are shown on Figure A-4 in Appendix A of the NSR. The modeled 24 noise levels with the project were compared to the modeled existing noise levels (after calibration) from Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5 to determine whether a substantial noise increase would occur. The modeled 24 noise levels under Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified were also compared to the 67 A-weighted decibel (dba) equivalent continuous sound level (L eq ) Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) under Activity Categories B and C to determine whether a traffic noise impact would occur. Implementation of MCP Build Alternatives would result in potential short-term noise impacts during construction and long-term noise impacts from use of the completed project. Of the 337 modeled receptors under the Alternative 4 Modified traffic noise conditions, 73 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dba L eq NAC, and 133 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 decibels (db) or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level for Activity Categories B and C. Of the 358 modeled receptors under the Alternative 5 Modified traffic noise conditions, 69 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dba L eq NAC, and 1 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 db or more over their Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 9

20 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report corresponding modeled existing noise level for Activity Categories B and C. Of the 355 modeled receptors under the Alternative 9 Modified traffic noise conditions, 66 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dba L eq NAC, and receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level for Activity Categories B and C Noise Impacts for All three Build Alternatives Traffic Conditions The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC or have a substantial noise increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level under Alternative 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified traffic conditions: Receptor S1-14: This receptor location represents an existing residence on the east side of Interstate 2 (I-2), north of Nance Street. Receptor S1-43: This receptor location represents an existing recreational area (i.e., volleyball court) at the Salvation Army/rehabilitation facilities on the west side of I-2, south of Orange Avenue. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding this property. Receptor S1-46: This receptor location represents the playground associated with Nan Sanders Elementary School located on the west side of I-2, south of Nuevo Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding this property. Receptors S1-48, S1-5, and S1-51: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the east side of I-2, south of Nuevo Road. Two existing walls, S1-EW No. 11 (6 to feet [ft]) and S1-EW No. 14 (13.5 ft), located along the east side of I-2 and south of Nuevo Road shield these residences. Receptors S2-1 through S2-: These receptor locations represent approved future residential development in Stoneridge on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, east and west of Antelope Road. Receptors S2-33, S2-34, and S2-36 through S2-56: These receptor locations represent approved future residential development in Community Southwest on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Martin Street. Receptors S2-6 through S2-65: These receptor locations represent approved future development in The Villages of Lakeview on the north side of the Ramona Expressway between Reservoir Avenue and Town Center Boulevard. Receptors S2-69 through S2-72, S2-77a, S2-78, and S2-79: These receptor locations represent existing residences, a school, and approved future 1 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

21 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report development in The Villages of Lakeview on the south side of the Ramona Expressway between Reservoir Avenue and Town Center Boulevard. Receptors S2-8 through S2-85: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the Ramona Expressway between Town Center Boulevard and Park Center Boulevard. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding the existing residences. Receptors S2-89 through S2-93: These receptor locations represent approved future development in The Villages of Lakeview on the south side of the Ramona Expressway between Town Center Boulevard and Park Center Boulevard. Receptors S2-94 through S2-99: These receptor locations represent approved future development in The Villages of Lakeview on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, east of Park Center Boulevard. Receptors S3-1 through S3-4: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding the existing residences. Receptor S3-5: This receptor location represents an existing residence on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding this residence. Receptor S3-6: This receptor location represents an existing residence on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding this residence. Receptors S3-12 and S3-13: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the east side of State Route 79 (SR-79), south of Ramona Boulevard. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences Noise Impacts for Alternative 4 Modified Traffic Conditions The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC or have a substantial noise increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level under Alternative 4 Modified traffic conditions only: Receptors S1-9 through S1-12, S1-12a, S1-12b, S1-19, and S1-21: These receptor locations represent an existing recreational vehicle park and residential areas on the east side of I-2 between Markham Street and California Street. Receptors S1-67 through S1-72, and S1-72c and S1-72d: These receptor locations represent an existing camping area (which is considered a residence) on Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 11

22 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report the south side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Redlands Avenue. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding the camping area. Receptors S1-73 through S1-86, S1-87a, S1-96a, S1-89 through S1-18, S1-19a, and S1-11 through S1-112: These receptor locations represent existing residences and a park on the east side of the MCP mainline between the Ramona Expressway and Evans Road. A few existing walls shield some of residences. Receptors S1-88a, S1-88b, S1-118, S1-118a, S1-118b, and S1-119 through S1-122: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the west side of the MCP mainline between Rider Street and Evans Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-129 through S1-134 and S1-136 through S1-138: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-168, S1-17 through S1-179, and S1-181 through S1-184: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-139 through S1-143, S1-145 through S1-147, and S1-149 through S1-5: These receptor locations represent approved future development in McCanna Hills on the north side of the MCP mainline, west of the Ramona Expressway. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-185 through S1-21: These receptor locations represent approved future development in McCanna Hills on the south side of the MCP mainline, west of Antelope Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences Noise Impacts for Alternative 5 Modified Traffic Conditions The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC or have a substantial noise increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level under Alternative 5 Modified traffic conditions only: Receptors S1-9 through S1-12, S1-12a, S1-12b, S1-19, and S1-21: These receptor locations represent an existing recreational vehicle park and residential areas on the east side of I-2 between Markham Street and California Street. 12 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

23 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report Receptors S1-22 through S1-24: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP eastbound on-ramp at Perris Boulevard, east of Perris Boulevard. There is an existing 6 ft high property wall (S1-5-EW No. 1) located along the residential property line that shields these residences. In addition, the existing 6 ft high wall (S1-5-EW No. 1) would be removed as part of the project. Receptor S1-25: This receptor location represents an existing residence on the south side of the MCP eastbound on-ramp at Perris Boulevard, east of Perris Boulevard. An existing 4 to 6 ft high wall (S1-5-EW No. 2) along the residential property line currently shields the residence. Receptors S1-211 through S1-218, S1-222 through S1-228, S1-228a through S1-228f, S1-237 through S1-254, S1-254a, S1-25b, S1-284, S1-284a, and S1-285: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP mainline between Perris Boulevard and Evans Road. Currently there are no existing walls that shield these residences. Receptors S1-233 through S1-235, S1-235a, S1-255a, S1-255b, and S1-255 through S1-275: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the MCP mainline between Perris Boulevard and Evans Road. There are several small existing walls that shield some of these residences. Receptors S1-288 and S1-289: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road. Receptors S1-29 through S1-295, S1-297 through S1-299, S1-31 through S1-35, and S1-38: These receptor locations represent approved future development in McCanna Hills on the north side of the MCP mainline, west of the Ramona Expressway. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-318 through S1-333 and S1-333a: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-334 through S1-354: These receptor locations represent approved future development in McCanna Hills on the south side of the MCP mainline, west of Antelope Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences Noise Impacts for Alternative 9 Modified Traffic Conditions The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC or have a substantial noise increase of 12 db Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 13

24 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report or more over their corresponding adjusted modeled existing noise level under Alternative 9 Modified traffic conditions only: Receptors S1-7 through S1-12, S1-12a, S1-12b, S1-16 through S-18, S1-2, and S1-21: These receptor locations represent existing residential areas and a recreational vehicle park on the east side of I-2 between Markham Street and California Street. Receptor S1-37: This receptor location represents an existing residence on the east side of I-2, north of Placentia Avenue. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding this residence. Receptors S1-358, S1-364, S1-365, and S1-367 through S1-379: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the MCP mainline between Perris Boulevard and Redlands Avenue. There are existing property walls (S1-9-EW No. 1 [8 ft], S1-9-EW No. 2 [4 to 8 ft], and S1-9-EW No. 3 [6 ft]) located along the residential property line that shields these residences. The existing walls would be partially removed as part of the project. Receptors S1-382, S1-383, S1-386, S1-395, S1-396, and S1-42: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP mainline between Perris Boulevard and Redlands Avenue. There are existing property walls (S1-9-EW No. 1 [8 ft], S1-9-EW No. 2 [4 to 8 ft], and S1-9-EW No. 3 [6 ft]) located along the residential property line that shields these residences. The existing walls would be partially removed as part of the project. Receptors S1-44 through S1-47, S1-45a, S1-45b, S1-413a, and S1-413 through S1-446: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the MCP mainline between Perris Boulevard and Evans Road. There are several small existing walls that shield some of these residences. Receptors S1-48 through S1-412, S1-412a, S1-412b, and S1-447 through S1-449: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP mainline between Redlands Avenue and Evans Road. Receptor S1-452: This receptor location represents an existing residence on the north side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road. Receptors S1-453 through S1-465, S1-467, and S1-468: These receptor locations represent approved future development in McCanna Hills on the north side of the MCP mainline, west of the Ramona Expressway. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. 14 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

25 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report Receptors S1-478 through S1-493: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the south side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences. Receptors S1-494 through S1-511: These receptor locations represent approved future development in McCanna Hills on the south side of the MCP mainline, west of Antelope Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences Noise Impacts for Design Variation Traffic Conditions The following receptor locations would be or would continue to be exposed to noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC or have a substantial noise increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level under the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation (SJRB DV) for the three Build Alternatives and San Jacinto North Design Variation (SJN DV) conditions only: Receptors S2-33, S2-34, and S2-36 through S2-56 for SJRB DV for Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified: These receptor locations represent approved future residential development in Community Southwest on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Martin Street. Receptors S3-1 through S3-4 for SJN DV: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding the existing residences. Receptors S3-12 and S3-13 for SJN DV: These receptor locations represent existing residences on the east side of SR-79, south of the Ramona Expressway. Currently, there are no existing walls shielding these residences Interior Noise Impacts Potential interior noise impacts were evaluated for the Templo Calvario Church, Val Verde High School, Val Verde Elementary School, Nan Sanders Elementary School, Sierra Vista Elementary School, Lakeside Middle School, and Jesus Center Christian School. Figures A-5, A-6, and A-7 in Appendix A of the NSR show the locations of the interior noise evaluation. As shown in Table 7-1 of the NSR, noise levels in the meeting rooms closest to I-2 that are associated with the Templo Calvario Church under Alternative 9 Modified and represented by Receptor EI-1 and the classrooms closest to I-2 at the Val Verde High School under Alternatives 5 Modified and 9 Modified and represented by Receptor EI-2 would approach or exceed the 52 dba L eq NAC under Activity Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

26 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report Category D. For these locations, noise barriers were evaluated to provide attenuation for the church (Alt9-NB-1) and classroom buildings (Alt5-NB-5 and Alt9-NB-5 for Alternatives 5 Modified and 9 Modified, respectively). The remaining locations would not approach or exceed the 52 dba L eq NAC under Activity Category D Locations Evaluated for Noise Abatement Noise abatement measures, such as noise barriers, were considered along I-2, the MCP mainline, and SR-79, where frequent outdoor use areas exist and would continue to be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC or would experience a substantial noise increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level. Noise barriers were analyzed for each of these frequent outdoor use areas. At each location, up to seven noise barrier heights were analyzed: 6, 8, 1, 12, 14, 16 ft, and 18 ft (if necessary to meet the 7 db design goal). Noise barriers with a height of 16 ft or 18 ft were not analyzed if the barrier would be located within ft of the nearest travel lane (see Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrans 27). The locations of the modeled noise barriers for Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified are shown on Figures A-5, A-6, and A-7 in Appendix A of the NSR, respectively. A total of 21 of 22 noise barriers evaluated for Alternative 4 Modified, 23 of 24 noise barriers evaluated for Alternative 5 Modified, and 23 of 24 noise barriers evaluated for Alternative 9 Modified were capable of reducing noise levels by 5 db or more as required to be considered feasible. Two or three combined barriers that are evaluated to shield the same group of impacted receptors are counted as one barrier because they overlap with one another. Barriers Alt4-NB-4 for Alternative 4 Modified, Alt5-NB-4 for Alternative 5 Modified, and Alt9-NB-4 for Alternative 9 Modified were determined to be not feasible because they would not reduce noise levels by 5 db or more. One noise barrier for SJRB DV under all three Build Alternatives and two noise barriers for SJN DV under all three Build Alternatives were evaluated for feasibility based on achievable noise reduction and were determined to be capable of reducing noise levels by 5 db or more as required to be considered feasible Noise Barrier Analysis for Alternative 4 Modified The following barriers were analyzed to shield frequent outdoor use areas that would be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the 67 dba L eq NAC or would experience a substantial increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level under Alternative 4 Modified: 16 Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

27 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report Alt4-NB-1: A 3,761 ft long barrier located on the east side of I-2, between Harley Knox Boulevard and the Ramona Expressway, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S1-9, S1-11, S1-12, S1-12a, S1-12b, S1-14, S1-19, and S1-21. Alt4-NB-2: A 744 ft long barrier located on the west side of I-2, south of Orange Avenue, was analyzed along the property line to shield Receptor S1-43. Alt4-NB-3: A 228 ft long barrier located on the west side of I-2, south of Nuevo Road, was analyzed along the Nan Sanders Elementary School property line to shield Receptor S1-46. Alt4-NB-6/7/12: Because the three barriers overlap one another, Alt4-NB-6, Alt4-NB-7, and Alt4-NB-12 are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt4- NB-6/7/12), one that comprises lengths of 1,644 ft, 1,412 ft, and 1,439 ft, respectively. Alt4-NB-6/7/12, located on the east side of the MCP mainline between the Ramona Expressway and Evans Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-73 through S1-85, S1-86, S1-87a, S1-96a, S1-89 through S1-18, S1-19a, and S1-11 through S Alt4-NB-8: A 4,33 ft long barrier located on the west side of the MCP mainline, south of the Ramona Expressway, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-67 through S1-72, S1-72c, and S1-72d. Alt4-NB-9/1/: Because the three barriers overlap one another, Alt4-NB-9, Alt4-NB-1, and Alt4-NB- are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt4-NB-9/1/), one comprising lengths of 7,29 ft, 1,284 ft, and 1,255 ft, respectively. Alt4-NB-9/1/, located on the west side of the MCP mainline, west of Evans Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-88a, S1-88b, S1-118, S1-118a, S1-118b, and S1-119 through S Alt4-NB-7/11/12: Because the three barriers overlap one another, Alt4-NB-7, Alt4-NB-11, and Alt4-NB-12 are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt4-NB-6/7/12), one comprising lengths of 1,412 ft, 3,176 ft, and 1,439 ft, respectively. Alt4-NB-7/11/12, located on the north side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-129 through S1-134 and S1-136 through S Alt4-NB-1/14/: Because the three barriers overlap one another, Alt4-NB-1, Alt4-NB-14, and Alt4-NB- are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt4-NB-1/14/), one comprising lengths of 1,284 ft, 2,66 ft, and 1,255 ft, respectively. Alt4-NB-1/14/, located on the south side of the MCP mainline, east of Evans Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-168, S1-17 through S1-179, and S1-181 through S Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 17

28 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report Alt4-NB-13: A 3,228 ft long barrier located on the north side of the MCP mainline, west of the Ramona Expressway, was analyzed within the limit of proposed improvement line to shield Receptors S1-139 through S1-143, S1-145 through S1-147, and S1-149 through S1-5. Alt4-NB-16: A 2,469 ft long barrier located on the south side of the MCP mainline, west of Antelope Road, was analyzed within the limit of the proposed improvement line to shield Receptors S1-185 through S1-21. Alt4-NB-41/42: Because the two barriers overlap one another, Alt4-NB-41 and Alt4-NB-42 are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt4-NB-41/42), one comprising lengths of 3,56 ft and 2,397 ft, respectively. Alt4-NB-41/42, located on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, east and west of Antelope Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S2-1 through S2-. Alt4-NB-43: A 4,736 ft long barrier located on the south side of Ramona Expressway, west of Martin Street, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S2-33, S2-34, and S2-36 through S2-56. Alt4-NB-44: A 5,213 ft long barrier located on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, between Reservoir Avenue and Town Center Boulevard, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S2-6 through S2-65. Alt4-NB-45: A 5,74 ft long barrier located on the south side of the Ramona Expressway between Reservoir Avenue and Town Center Boulevard was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S2-69 through S2-72, S2-77a, S2-78, and S2-79. Alt4-NB-46: A 6,96 ft long barrier located on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, between Town Center Boulevard and Park Center Boulevard, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S2-8 through S2-85. Alt4-NB-47: A 5,699 ft long barrier located on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, between Town Center Boulevard and Park Center Boulevard, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S2-89 through S2-93. Alt4-NB-48: An 8,964 ft long barrier located on the south side of the Ramona Expressway, east of Park Center Boulevard, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S2-94 through S2-99. Alt4-NB-49: A 4,695 ft long barrier located on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S3-1 through S3-4. Alt4-NB-5: A 99 ft long barrier located on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road, was analyzed along the residential property line to shield Receptor S Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report

29 Chapter 2 Results of the Noise Study Report Alt4-NB-51: A 124 ft long barrier located on the north side of the Ramona Expressway, west of Warren Road, was analyzed along the residential property line to shield Receptor S3-6. Alt4-NB-52/53/54: Because the three barriers overlap one another, Alt4-NB-52, Alt4-NB-53, and Alt4-NB-54 are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt4-NB-52/53/54), one comprising lengths of 2,61 ft, 1,676 ft, and 1,218 ft, respectively. Alt4-NB-52/53/54, located on the east side of SR-79, south of the Ramona Expressway, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S3-12 and S Noise Barrier Analysis for Alternative 5 Modified The following barriers were analyzed to shield frequent outdoor use areas that would be exposed to traffic noise levels approaching or exceeding the 67 dba L eq NAC or would experience a substantial increase of 12 db or more over their corresponding modeled existing noise level under Alternative 5 Modified: Alt5-NB-1: A 3,659 ft long barrier located on the east side of I-2, between Harley Knox Boulevard and the Ramona Expressway, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder line to shield Receptors S1-9 through S1-12, S1-12a, S1-12b, S1-14, S1-19, and S1-21. Alt5-NB-2: A 744 ft long barrier located on the west side of I-2, south of Orange Avenue, was analyzed along the property line to shield Receptor S1-43. Alt5-NB-3: A 228 ft long barrier located on the west side of I-2, south of Nuevo Road, was analyzed along the Nan Sanders Elementary School property line to shield Receptor S1-46. Alt5-NB-5: A 254 ft long barrier located on the east side of I-2, south of the Ramona Expressway, was analyzed along the Val Verde High School property line to shield Receptor Int/Ext 2. Alt5-NB-19: A 589 ft long barrier located on the east side of Perris Boulevard, south side of the MCP eastbound on-ramp, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-22 through S1-24. Alt5-NB-17/18/24: Because the three barriers overlap one another, Alt5-NB-17, Alt5-NB-18, and Alt5-NB-24 are referred to as one barrier in this discussion (Alt5-NB-17/18/24), one comprising lengths of 7,394 ft, 866 ft, and 1,383 ft, respectively. Alt5-NB-17/18/24, located on the north side of the MCP mainline between Perris Boulevard and Evans Road, was analyzed along the edge of shoulder to shield Receptors S1-233 through S1-235, S1-235a, S1-255a, S1-255b, and S1-255 through S Mid County Parkway Noise Abatement Decision Report 19