Chapter 13:
Noise
A. INTRODUCTION
The noise analysis considers the noise levels that would be produced by operation of the
Proposed Project, and whether that noise could result in significant adverse noise impacts on the
surrounding area. The noise impact assessment examines noise generated by traffic traveling to
and from the Project Site, vehicles moving within and parking at the Project Site, the operation
of mechanical equipment associated with the proposed school, and athletic events held on the
proposed school’s campus. A separate analysis of noise levels during construction of the
Proposed Project is provided in Chapter 15, “Construction Impacts.”
It is the Applicant’s belief that the analysis in this Chapter concludes the Proposed Project would
be in compliance with the City of White Plains Code’s restrictions on noise. Pursuant to the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) noise guidance document, it
is also the Applicant’s belief that operation of the Proposed Project would not be expected to
result in significant adverse noise impacts at residences immediately adjacent to the Project Site.
B. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS AND METHODOLOGY
NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
GENERAL EFFECTS
Quantitative information on the effects of airborne noise on humans is well documented. If
sufficiently loud, noise may adversely affect humans in several ways. For example, noise may
interfere with human activities, such as sleep, speech communication, and tasks requiring
concentration or coordination. It may also cause annoyance, hearing damage, and other
physiological problems. Although it is possible to study these effects on humans on an average
or statistical basis, it must be remembered that all the stated effects of noise vary greatly with the
individual. Several noise scales and rating methods are used to quantify the effects of noise on
humans. These scales and methods consider such factors as loudness, duration, time of
occurrence, and changes in noise level with time.
“A”-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA)
Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dB), which are 10 times the logarithm of the
ratio of the sound pressure squared to a standard reference pressure squared. Because loudness is
important in the assessment of the effects of noise on humans, the dependence of loudness on
frequency must be taken into account in the noise scale used in environmental assessments.
Frequency is the rate at which sound pressures fluctuate in a cycle over a given quantity of time,
and is measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz equals 1 cycle per second. Frequency defines sound in
terms of pitch components. In the measurement system, one of the simplified scales that accounts
for the dependence of perceived loudness on frequency is the use of a weighting network—
13-1
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
known as A-weighting—that simulates response of the human ear. For most noise assessments,
the A-weighted sound pressure level in dBA units is used in view of its widespread recognition
and its close correlation with perception. In this analysis, all measured noise levels are reported in
dBA or A-weighted decibels. Common noise levels in dBA are shown in Table 13-1.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NOISE LEVELS
The average ability of an individual to perceive changes in noise levels is well documented (see
Table 13-2). Generally, changes in noise levels less than 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most
listeners, whereas 10 dBA changes are normally perceived as doublings (or halvings) of noise
levels. These guidelines permit direct estimation of an individual's probable perception of
changes in noise levels.
Table 13-1
Common Noise Levels
Sound Source
Military jet, air raid siren
130
Amplified rock music
110
Jet takeoff at 500 meters
Freight train at 30 meters
Train horn at 30 meters
Heavy truck at 15 meters
Busy city street, loud shout
Busy traffic intersection
100
95
90
Highway traffic at 15 meters, train
70
Predominantly industrial area
Light car traffic at 15 meters, city or commercial areas or
residential areas close to industry
Background noise in an office
Suburban areas with medium density transportation
Public library
60
80
50
40
Soft whisper at 5 meters
30
Threshold of hearing
0
Note:
Source:
08/06/12
(dBA)
A 10 dBA increase in level appears to double the loudness, and a 10
dBA decrease halves the apparent loudness.
Cowan, James P. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Van
Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1994.
Egan, M. David. Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
1988.
13-2
Chapter 13: Noise
Table 13-2
Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels
Change
(dBA)
Human Perception of Sound
2-3
Barely perceptible
5
Readily noticeable
10
A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound
20
A dramatic change
40
Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound
Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic
Noise, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration. June 1973.
NOISE DESCRIPTORS USED IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Because the sound pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment and
very few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise over extended periods have been
developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard
over a specific time period as if it had been a steady, unchanging sound. For this condition, a
descriptor called the “equivalent sound level,” Leq, can be computed. Leq is the constant sound
level that, in a given situation and time period (e.g., 1 hour, denoted by Leq(1), or 24 hours,
denoted as Leq(24)), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound. Statistical
sound level descriptors such as L1, L10, L50, L90, and Lx, are used to indicate noise levels that are
exceeded 1, 10, 50, 90 and x percent of the time, respectively. Discrete event peak levels are
given as L1 levels. Leq is used in the prediction of future noise levels, by adding the contributions
from new sources of noise (i.e., increases in traffic volumes) to the existing levels and in relating
annoyance to increases in noise levels.
The relationship between Leq and levels of exceedance is worth noting. Because Leq is defined in
energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is not simply related to the levels of exceedance.
If the noise fluctuates very little, Leq will approximate L50 or the median level. If the noise
fluctuates broadly, the Leq will be approximately equal to the L10 value. If extreme fluctuations
are present, the Leq will exceed L90 or the background level by 10 or more decibels. Thus the
relationship between Leq and the levels of exceedance will depend on the character of the noise.
In community noise measurements, it has been observed that the Leq is generally between L10
and L50. The relationship between Leq and exceedance levels has been used in this analysis to
characterize the noise sources and to determine the nature and extent of their impact at all
receptor locations.
For the purposes of this DEIS analysis, the maximum one-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(1))
has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. Leq(1) is the
noise descriptor used by most governmental agencies, including the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide
an indication of highest expected sound levels.
NOISE STANDARDS AND IMPACT CRITERIA
CITY OF WHITE PLAINS NOISE CONTROL LAW
The City of White Plains Noise Control Law, Chapter 3-4 of the Municipal Code of White
Plains, prohibits “loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs,
injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of other persons within the
13-3
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
limits of the city.” Specific noise level restrictions are not set forth in the law, except for
mechanical equipment noise, which must not create sound levels exceeding 55 dB (A, B, or C
weighting scale) as measured anywhere on or beyond the property line of the property where the
mechanical equipment is located.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
NYSDEC has published a policy and guidance document, Assessing and Mitigating Noise
Impacts (DEP-00-1, February 2, 2001), which presents noise impact assessment methods,
identifies thresholds for significant impacts, and discusses potential avoidance and mitigative
measures to reduce or eliminate noise impacts.1
NYSDEC’s guidance document sets forth thresholds that can be used in determining whether a
noise increase due to a project may constitute a significant adverse impact, noting that these
thresholds should be viewed as guidelines subject to adjustment as appropriate for the specific
circumstances. According to DEP-00-1:




Increases in noise ranging from 0 to 3 dBA should have no appreciable effect on receptors;
Increases of 3 to 6 dBA may have the potential for adverse impacts only in cases where the
most sensitive of receptors (e.g., hospital or school) are present;
Increases of more than 6 dBA may require a closer analysis of impact potential depending
on existing noise levels and the character of surrounding land use and receptors; and
Increases of 10 dBA or greater deserve consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures
in most cases.
The guidance document also sets forth noise thresholds that can be used in identifying whether a
noise level due to a project should be considered a significant adverse impact. According to the
guidance, the addition of any noise source in a non-industrial setting should not raise the ambient
noise level above a maximum of 65 dBA, and ambient noise levels in industrial or commercial areas
may exceed 65 dBA with a high end of approximately 79 dBA. As set forth in the guidance,
projects that exceed these levels should explore the feasibility of implementing mitigation.
PROJECT IMPACT CRITERIA
For purposes of this impact assessment, consistent with NYSDEC guidance, operations that
would result in an increase of more than 6.0 dBA in ambient Leq(1) noise levels at receptor sites
and produce ambient noise levels of more than 65 dBA at residences or 79 dBA at an industrial
or commercial area will be considered to be a significant adverse noise impact resulting from the
Proposed Project. These criteria are consistent with the NYSDEC guidance document. It is
assumed that the Proposed Project’s mechanical equipment will be designed to comply with the
restrictions in the White Plains Noise Control Law.
METHODOLOGY
This assessment examines noise associated with the Proposed Project due to vehicular traffic,
the operation of mechanical equipment, and from athletic event spectators. The noise assessment
considers each source of noise individually and cumulatively.
1
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/noise2000.pdf.
08/06/12
13-4
Chapter 13: Noise
MOBILE SOURCE NOISE METHODLOGY
Mobile sources constitute vehicles arriving at and departing from the Project Site. Proportional
modeling was used to determine locations that had the potential for having significant noise
impacts and to quantify the magnitude of those potential impacts.
Using this technique, the prediction of future noise levels, where traffic is the dominant noise source,
is based on a calculation using measured existing noise levels and predicted changes in traffic
volumes to determine future without the Proposed Project (No Build) and future with the Proposed
Project (Build) levels. Vehicular traffic volumes are converted into Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE)
values, for which one medium-duty truck (having a gross weight between 9,900 and 26,400 pounds)
is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 13 cars, and one heavy-duty truck (having a gross
weight of more than 26,400 pounds) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 47 cars, and one
bus (vehicles designed to carry more than nine passengers) is assumed to generate the noise
equivalent of 18 cars. Future noise levels are calculated using the following equation:
FB NL - EX NL = 10 * log10 (FB PCE / EX PCE)
where:
FB NL = Future Build Noise Level
EX NL = Existing Noise Level
FB PCE = Future Build PCEs
EX PCE = Existing PCEs
Sound levels are measured in decibels. They increase logarithmically with sound source strength. In
this case, the sound source is traffic volumes measured in PCEs. For example, assume that traffic is
the dominant noise source at a particular location. If the existing traffic volume on a street is 100
PCE, and the future traffic volume increased by 50 PCE to a total of 150 PCE, the noise level would
increase by 1.8 dBA. Similarly, if the future traffic were increased by 100 PCE, or doubled to a total
of 200 PCE, the noise level would increase by 3.0 dBA.
FTA PARKING LOT METHODOLOGY
Noise due to vehicles accessing and traversing the Proposed Project’s parking lot and the Project
Site were determined using methodologies set forth in the Federal Transit Administration May
2006 version of the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual.
Specifically, the parking lot was modeled using the techniques described for general noise
assessment of a park and ride lot. The general noise assessment methodology consists of the
following steps:

Determine the Project noise exposure at 50 feet from the center of the parking facility, based
on the maximum number of automobiles expected to enter and exit the Project Site in a
given hour,

Calculate Project-generated noise levels at each of the sensitive receptor locations based on
the Leq at 50 feet and adjusted for the distance of each receptor relative to the center of the
parking area,

Logarithmically add the calculated Leq at each receptor to the measured Leq at that receptor in
order to determine a resultant total Leq.
13-5
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT NOISE
In place of full design details for the Proposed Project’s mechanical systems, which are not yet
complete, assumptions about the loudest pieces of mechanical equipment expected to be
included as part of the project were used to develop estimations of the noise levels associated
with the Project’s mechanical equipment. Appendix K contains the specifications of roof-top
equipment being considered. The loudest pieces of outdoor mechanical equipment were
determined to be air-cooled chillers and emergency generators. Air handlers would also be
mounted on the roof, but could be enclosed within a gable. This involved developing estimated
noise levels from the emergency generators and air-cooled chillers associated with the Project at
each of the nearby noise receptors based on the projected size and location of the equipment,
along with expected noise control (e.g., generator enclosures, acoustical wrapping for
compressors). The contribution from each generator and air-cooled chiller was then combined
for all of the analyzed receptors to determine the approximate amount of mechanical equipment
noise at that receptor.
In addition to the screening-level analysis presented in this chapter, the Proposed Project’s
mechanical equipment would be designed to comply with all applicable noise regulations,
including the White Plains Noise Control Law restrictions for mechanical equipment noise.
ATHLETIC EVENT NOISE
Noise levels produced by an athletic event were predicted based upon noise levels measured at
White Plains High School in White Plains, NY during two athletic events: 1) a varsity girls’
soccer game (White Plains High School vs. New Rochelle High School) on October 5, 2011, and
2) junior varsity boys’ baseball practice on May 7, 2012 (See Appendix K-1). There was no use
of a public address system or noise makers during either event.
Observations at the two events determined that noise associated with a soccer game was
attributable primarily to the spectators, while the noise associated with baseball activities was
dominated by the sound of the bat contacting the ball. The soccer game produced constant noise
throughout the gameplay, while the baseball activities resulted in instantaneous peak noise levels
occurring occasionally, with very little noise in between events. Consequently, soccer was
predicted to result in a substantially higher Leq noise level than baseball, whose noise was much
less when averaged over time.
For the soccer game, noise measurements were performed at three (3) locations at different
distances from the spectator area at the game: 1) directly adjacent to the bleachers
(approximately 50 feet from spectators), 2) on the far side of the playing field (approximately
160 feet from spectators), and 3) further from the playing field (approximately 210 feet from
spectators). Approximately 100 spectators were present during the soccer game. These separate
measurements allow for a calculation of how noise levels diminish over distance. The measured
noise level 50 feet from spectators was 67.8 dBA. The measured noise level 160 feet from
spectators was 66.7 dBA. The measured noise level at 210 feet from spectators was 65.1 dBA.
Consequently, an approximately 4.5 dBA drop-off per doubling of distance from the field can be
applied to determine the noise level associated with soccer at different receptor distances at the
FASNY Project Site.
The noise generated by the spectators can also be scaled proportionately to account for whatever
size crowd is expected for the events at the fields included in the Proposed Project. Assuming an
08/06/12
13-6
Chapter 13: Noise
attendance of approximately 25 spectators at FASNY events, the maximum Leq sound level at
160 feet from the spectator area would be approximately 60.7 dBA.
For the baseball practice, noise measurements were performed at two (2) locations at different
distances from the baseball field. Based on these measurements the maximum noise level
attributable to baseball activities at a distance of 133 feet from the field was found to be 48.7
dBA. Using the approximately 4.5 dBA drop-off per doubling of distance from the field
determined above, the noise level due to baseball at a distance of 50 feet was determined to be
54.6 dBA. This was applied to determine the noise level associated with baseball at different
receptor distances.
At noise receptors adjacent to Parcel B, whose only athletic field is a baseball diamond, the
athletic event noise was assumed to be baseball noise. At noise receptors closest to Parcel A,
which contains soccer fields, the athletic event noise was assumed to be soccer noise.
CONSERVANCY ACTIVITIES
Use of the Conservancy on the Project Site was not considered to be an activity that would generate
substantial amounts of noise. Incidental use of walking trails or other passive recreation features by
FASNY students, staff, or the general public would not generate perceptible levels noise at nearby
receptors. Use of the Conservancy for outdoor classroom use, including conversation between
students and teachers, would also not generate perceptible levels of noise at nearby receptors. Thus,
no specific analysis of noise generated from Conservancy activities is warranted.
INDOOR SCHOOL NOISE
Activities taking place within proposed school buildings, such as physical education, performing
arts classes, and general classroom uses, would not be expected to contribute substantially to the
noise associated with the Proposed Project. These activities generate relatively little noise compared
to the other noise sources analyzed in this chapter, and are shielded by the proposed school
buildings’ facades, which would be expected to provide at least 30 dBA of attenuation with
windows closed, and between 5 and 10 dBA of attenuation with windows open. The noise level in a
typical classroom setting is comparable to that of the background noise in an office, which is
approximately 50 dBA (see Table 13-1). Assuming an open window condition, and given that the
school buildings are all located at least 250 feet away from adjacent noise receptors, noise levels
due to indoor school noise at the adjacent receptors would be well below the existing daytime noise
levels at the receptors, and would therefore not have the potential to result in significant increases in
noise. Consequently, no specific analysis of noise generated inside the proposed school buildings is
warranted.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE DESCRIPTION
As described in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” the Project Site is located on the former Ridgeway
Country Club along the north side of Ridgeway south of Bryant Avenue, between Mamaroneck
Avenue to the west and North Street to the east. The athletic fields associated with the Proposed
Project would be located at the southwest corner of the Project Site, east of Murchison Place between
Ridgeway and Gedney Esplanade. The school buildings, including their associated mechanical
equipment, would be located toward the southern portion of Parcels A and D along Ridgeway.
13-7
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
SELECTION OF NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Noise from operation of the Proposed Project was analyzed at five locations near the Project Site
(shown in Figure 13-1):





Site 1: Adjacent to western edge of the residence at 408 Ridgway on Hathaway Lane.
Existing noise measurements were conducted here on September 27 and December 3, 2011.
Site 2: Adjacent to southern edge of the residence at 408 Ridgway on Ridgeway. Existing
noise measurements were conducted here on September 27 and December 3, 2011.
Site 3: Rear of residences along Murchison Place (north of Ridgeway). Existing noise
measurements were conducted here on October 5 and December 3, 2011.
Site 4: Rear of residences along Murchison Place (south of Gedney Esplanade). Existing
noise measurements were conducted here on October 5 and December 3, 2011.
Site 5: Residences along Ridgeway between Murchison Place and Seymour Place. Existing
noise measurements were conducted here on October 5 and December 3, 2011.

Site 6: Rear of residences along Macy Avenue (north of Gedney Esplanade). Existing noise
measurements were conducted here on June 26, 2012.

Site 7: Rear of residences along Oxford Road (north of Gedney Esplanade). Existing noise
measurements were conducted here on June 26, 2012.

Site 8: Rear of residence on Hathaway Lane at Gedney Esplanade. Existing noise
measurements were conducted here on June 26, 2012.
These locations represent the noise-sensitive land uses that would be most likely to experience
noise level increases due to the Proposed Project because of their proximity to the Project Site.
Other sensitive land uses (i.e., residences, schools, open spaces) in the area would be expected to
experience less noise resulting from the Proposed Project than these sites.
NOISE MONITORING
At sites 1 through 4, 20-minute measurements were made on a weekday for the AM peak (8 AM
to 9 AM), PM peak (2 PM to 3 PM), weekday evening (EV) (5 PM to 6 PM) weekday late-night
(LN) (12 AM to 2 AM) and weekend mid-day (WE) (2 PM to 3 PM) time periods. At site 5, 20minute measurements were made on a weekday for the AM peak (8 AM to 9 AM), PM peak (2
PM to 3 PM), and weekday evening (EV) (5 PM to 6 PM) time periods. At sites 6 through 8, 20minute measurements were made on a weekday for the AM peak (8 AM to 9 AM), PM peak (2
PM to 3 PM), weekday evening (EV) (5 PM to 6 PM), and weekday late-night (LN) (12 AM to 2
AM) time periods. At locations where traffic noise is a primary contributing or dominant source
of noise, 20-minute noise measurements are a statistical representation of the hourly equivalent
noise level, allowing sufficient time for Leq values, as well as other statistical noise descriptors,
to stabilize and not fluctuate based on individual noise events (e.g., vehicle pass-bys). A 20minute measurement will include several cycles of any nearby traffic lights and the traffic cycles
associated with those light cycles, as well as any other natural short-term traffic cycles that
would manifest themselves within a single hour. Since the 20 minutes of traffic accounted for by
the 20-minute noise measurement would be comparable to a full hour of traffic at the same
location, and traffic is the dominant source of noise at the location, the 20-minute noise
08/06/12
13-8
6.27.12
COLONIAL RD
WYNDH
AM
OSE
CL
NT
BRYA
BRY
ANT
AVE
AVE
LE
DA
ST
EA
RD
T
HS
RT
NO
M
LE RD
DA
ID
LEIR CT
BR
N
YA
T
C
S
RE
GABRIEL
THD
NOR
RD
ALE
ALE
THD
SOU
CT
RD
THER LN
HEA
RD
N
OD
HO
BIN
RO
L
LITT
N
DL
AN
D
MR
HOOD
ROBIN
RD
D
YR
REL
LE
AN
ST
VIL
HA
LAU
OO
BL
ER
H
AT
HE
D
YR
N
TO
AN
EL
RD
RD
AY
HATHAW
OXFORD
TH
NOR
ST
R
1
D
OE
NR
MO
NE
N
AY L
HAW
ADE
LAN
ESP
HAT
8
DG
EW
AY
E
AVE
HN PL
LING
6
2
ADE
LAN
SP
YE
LN
RD
MACY AV
AVE
LITTLE JO
RMAN
SHE
BUR
NEY
GED
4
DR
TE
L
GED
7
RI
OD
HO
BIN
RO
CL
DR
UB POINTE
ES
M
SEY
3
R
OU
AVE
Noise Receptor Locations
R
5
YD
WA
FAIR
PL
E
NT
PO
K AV
1
Project Site Boundary
DU
DR
NEC
ARO
K
PAR
M
MA
Legend
L
NP
NEY
GED
W
ISO
RCH
MU
TW
AY
HO
0
500
1000 FEET
SCALE
Noise Receptor Locations
French-American School of New York
Figure 13-1
Chapter 13: Noise
measurement provides a representation of the one-hour noise level, generally within one to three
dBA.1
Measurements were performed on September 27, October 5, and December 3, 2011 and June 26,
2012.
EQUIPMENT USED FOR NOISE MONITORING
Measurements were performed using a Brüel & Kjær Sound Level Meter (SLM) Type 2260 (S/N
2375602), a Brüel & Kjær ½-inch microphone Type 4189 (S/Ns 2378182), and a Brüel & Kjær
Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231 (S/N 2688762). The SLM has a laboratory calibration date of
August 3, 2011 which is valid through July, 2012. The Brüel & Kjær SLM is a Type 1 instrument
according to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.4-1983 (R2006). At each
receptor site, the instrument was mounted approximately 5 feet above grade. The microphone was
mounted at least 6 feet away from any large reflecting surfaces. The SLM was field checked before
and after readings with a Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator using the appropriate
adaptor. Measurements were made on the A-scale (dBA). The data were digitally recorded by the
SLM. Measured quantities included the Leq(1) values. All measurement procedures were based on
the guidelines outlined in ANSI Standard S1.13-2005.
RESULTS OF MEASUREMENTS
Table 13-3 below shows the measured existing noise levels.
As shown in Table 13-3, Leq(1), noise levels ranged from relatively low to moderately high
depending on the location and time of day. The dominant noise source at all measurement
locations was vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways, and noise levels reflect the level of traffic
on adjacent roadways.
D. THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Without the Proposed Project, noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site would be similar to
existing conditions. There would be no appreciable change in noise levels. Future noise levels
would be expected to be within 1 dBA of existing noise levels.
E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Using the analysis methodologies described above, an assessment was made of changes in future
Leq(1) noise levels at sensitive receptor sites near the Project Site.
MOBILE SOURCE NOISE
Using the methodology described earlier, future noise levels due to vehicular traffic associated
with the Proposed Project were calculated for the five noise receptor sites. These future noise
levels are shown in Table 13-4.
1
NYC CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 19, page 15.
www.nyc.gov/html/oec/downloads/pdf/2012_ceqr_tm/2012_ceqr_tm_ch19_noise_revised_06_18.pdf
Additionaly, 20-minute measurements have been used to develop the one-hour time-weighted average in
other noise studies completed within the City of White Plains.
13-9
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
Table 13-3
Existing Noise Levels at Noise Receptor Sites (dBA)
Site
Location
1
Parking Lot Adjacent to 408 Ridgeway
2
Ridgeway East of 408 Ridgeway
Rear of Residences Along Murchison Place
(North of Ridgeway)
3
Rear of Residences Along Murchison Place
(South of Gedney Esplanade)
4
5
6
7
8
Notes:
08/06/12
Ridgeway between Murchison and Seymour
Places
Time
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
AM
Rear of Residences Along Macy Avenue
(north of Gedney Esplanade)
PM
EV
LN
AM
PM
EV
Leq
56.1
54.9
53.4
39.0
51.9
66.5
66.7
65.7
39.1
65.3
54.0
49.6
49.2
36.3
50.3
56.5
47.7
47.5
36.6
42.7
69.2
63.6
64.5
46.8
52.1
46.1
35.8
47.5
L1
61.3
63.6
59.8
49.8
61.0
75.8
77.2
74.9
44.0
75.7
57.9
54.8
54.1
49.4
58.3
62.6
53.0
55.4
43.3
48.4
49.4
73.2
73.7
53.5
58.1
53.4
43.4
51.2
L10
58.7
56.5
56.5
38.8
56.0
71.2
70.9
70.4
40.9
70.2
56.0
51.8
51.1
35.4
53.5
59.0
49.5
49.5
39.4
44.6
72.7
68.2
68.9
48.7
54.5
48.8
37.8
49.4
L50
55.3
51.4
52.2
36.5
47.8
59.8
58.6
59.0
38.3
54.9
53.6
48.8
48.7
32.6
48.4
55.6
46.9
46.1
34.9
41.8
63.9
56.6
58.5
45.9
51.2
44.4
34.2
47.1
L90
51.8
46.8
47.1
35.6
39.4
48.0
47.0
46.5
37.2
40.5
51.9
46.4
45.7
31.3
43.5
51.1
45.2
44.5
33.7
39.5
53.0
49.9
48.9
44.2
47.5
41.3
32.6
45.0
53.4
61.7
56.1
51.6
49.1
47.7
56.4
50.3
45.9
43.0
LN
38.1
42.2
39.3
37.6
36.6
AM
47.4
56.2
50.1
45.1
43.2
PM
49.8
54.4
52.2
49.1
46.9
EV
47.9
54.6
50.4
46.2
44.5
Rear of Residence on Hathaway Lane at
LN
Gedney Esplanade
38.6
43.0
40.3
38.0
36.8
Field measurements were performed by AKRF, Inc. on September 27, October 5, and December
3, 2011, and June 26, 2012.
Rear of Residences Along Oxford Road
(north of Gedney Esplanade)
13-10
Chapter 13: Noise
Table 13-4
Future Noise Levels due to Vehicular Traffic (dBA)
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Notes:
Time
Existing Leq(1)
Future Build Leq(1)
Project Increment
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
56.1
54.9
66.5
66.7
54.0
49.6
56.5
47.7
69.2
63.6
46.8
52.1
47.5
53.4
47.4
49.8
61.4
60.5
70.3
70.5
54.0
49.6
56.5
47.7
74.5
68.8
46.8
52.1
47.5
53.4
47.4
49.8
5.3
5.6
3.8
3.8
1
0.0
0.01
1
0.0
0.01
5.3
5.2
1
0.0
0.01
1
0.0
0.01
1
0.0
0.01
1
The Project would not generate any traffic on roadways adjacent to
these locations, and would thus not result in any Project noise increment
due to vehicular traffic.
Comparing future with the Proposed Project noise levels with existing noise levels, at all sites,
the maximum increase in Leq(1) noise level would not exceed NYSDEC’s threshold for a
significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. Noise level increments greater than 3.0 dBA but less
than 6.0 dBA, such as those predicted at sites 1, 2, and 5, would be readily noticeable, although
not considered significant according to NYSDEC criteria. The Project increment at site 1 is
greater than the Project increment at site 2 because the existing noise level at site 2 is higher
during the peak hour of traffic generation. In the future with the Proposed Project, the absolute
levels at sites 2 and 5 would exceed NYSDEC’s recommended level for residential use of 65
dBA, but the existing noise levels at these locations already exceed that level.
PARKING LOT NOISE
Using the methodology described above from the FTA’s guidance manual, noise levels
generated by vehicles traversing and accessing the Proposed Project’s parking area were
calculated at each of the noise receptor locations, and the resultant incremental noise levels
combined with the existing noise levels to determine future noise levels with the Proposed
Project’s parking lot (See Appendix K-2 for details). These future noise levels are shown in
Table 13-5.
13-11
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
Table 13-5
Future Noise Levels due to Vehicles Accessing and Parking on the
Project Site (dBA)
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time
Existing
Leq(1)
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
56.1
54.9
66.5
66.7
54.0
49.6
56.5
47.7
69.2
63.6
46.8
52.1
47.5
53.4
47.4
49.8
Combined Future
Calculated
Build Leq(1)
Parking Lot Leq(1)
35.1
37.6
33.8
36.3
30.4
32.9
33.6
36.1
27.8
30.3
35.5
38.0
43.5
46.0
43.5
46.0
56.1
55.0
66.5
66.7
54.0
49.7
56.5
48.0
69.2
63.6
47.1
52.3
49.0
54.1
48.9
51.3
Project
Increment
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.5
0.7
1.5
1.5
Comparing future with the Proposed Project noise levels with existing noise levels, at all sites,
the maximum increase in Leq(1) noise level would not exceed NYSDEC’s threshold for a
significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. The predicted noise level increases at the noise
receptor sites due to vehicles accessing and parking in the Proposed Project’s parking lot would
not exceed 2.0 dBA and would be imperceptible per NYSDEC criteria.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT NOISE
Using the methodology described earlier, mechanical equipment noise associated with the
Proposed Project was estimated at each of the noise receptor locations. The locations of
mechanical equipment included in the noise assessment are shown in Figure 13-2. The
emergency generators would be expected to operate only during emergencies or during tests,
which would happen during the daytime on weekdays, so their contribution is included in the
mechanical equipment noise only during the AM and PM time periods. The full details of the
mechanical equipment noise assessment are included in Appendix K-3.
Table 13-6 shows the results of the mechanical equipment noise assessment.
08/06/12
13-12
6.27.11
Chiller/Air Handler #1
Chiller/Air Handler #2
150 KW Emergency
Generator
100 KW Emergency
Generator
85 Ton Air-Cooled Chiller
Air Handler
125 Ton Air-Cooled Chiller
Air Handler
200 KW Emergency
Generator
Air Handler
Air Handler
Air Handler
150 Ton Air-Cooled Chiller
Air Handler
100 KW Emergency
Generator
0
100
200 FEET
SCALE
Proposed Mechanical Equipment
French-American School of New York
Figure 13-2
Chapter 13: Noise
Table 13-6
Future Noise Levels due to Mechancial Equipment Noise (dBA)
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Notes:
Time
Existing Leq(1)
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
PM
EV
56.1
54.9
53.4
39.0
51.9
66.5
66.7
65.7
39.1
65.3
54.0
49.6
49.2
36.3
50.3
56.5
47.7
47.5
36.6
42.7
69.2
63.6
64.5
AM
46.8
PM
52.1
EV
46.1
LN
35.8
WE
41.2
AM
47.5
PM
53.4
EV
47.7
Mechanical
Equipment
Noise2
Future Build
Leq(1)
Project
Increment
48.2
48.2
38.8
38.8
38.8
44.1
44.1
34.9
34.9
34.9
48.2
48.2
33.1
33.1
33.1
50.9
50.9
33.9
33.9
33.9
44.7
44.7
29.2
48.3
48.3
34.2
34.2
34.2
51.3
51.3
39.3
39.3
39.3
50.4
50.4
41.9
41.9
41.9
56.8
55.7
53.5
41.9
52.1
66.5
66.7
65.7
40.5
65.3
55.0
52.0
49.3
38.0
50.4
57.6
52.6
47.7
38.5
43.2
69.2
63.7
64.5
50.6
53.6
46.4
38.1
42.0
52.8
55.5
48.3
41.8
44.5
52.2
53.1
48.9
43.6
45.6
0.7
0.8
0.1
2.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.0
2.4
0.1
1.7
0.1
1.1
4.9
0.2
1.9
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.8
1.5
0.3
2.3
0.8
5.3
2.1
0.6
3.7
1.6
4.8
3.3
1.0
5.0
2.5
1
LN
38.1
WE
42.9
AM
47.4
PM
49.8
1
EV
47.9
LN
38.6
WE
43.1
1
1
Weekend Mid-day existing noise levels at sites 6 through 8 were estimated by extrapolating weekday
measured noise levels based on weekend measurements performed at a nearby receptor site (site 4).
2
Mechanical equipment noise includes the contribution of air-cooled chillers (assuming sound insulation on the
compressors) and emergency generators (assuming best available sound-attenuating enclosures).
13-13
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
Comparing future with the Proposed Project noise levels associated with mechanical noise with
existing noise levels, at all sites, the maximum increase in Leq(1) noise level would not exceed
NYSDEC’s threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. Noise level increments
greater than 3.0 dBA but less than 6.0 dBA, such as those predicted at sites 4, 6, 7, and 8, would
be readily noticeable, although not considered significant according to NYSDEC criteria.
The mechanical equipment system would also be designed to comply with the City of White
Plains Noise Control Law, and would thus not create noise levels in excess of 55 dB (on A-, B-,
or C-weighted scales) at the property line of the Proposed Project.
ATHLETIC EVENT NOISE
Using the methodology described above, data collected at athletic events at White Plains High
School was used to predict the noise levels during an athletic event at the Proposed Project.
Table 13-7 shows the results of the athletic event noise assessment for the receptors with a line
of sight to the proposed athletic facilities.
Table 13-7
Future Noise Levels due to Athletic Event Noise (dBA)
Site
3
4
6
7
8
Notes:
1
Time
Existing
Leq(1)
PM
EV
WE
PM
EV
WE
PM
EV
WE
PM
EV
WE
PM
EV
WE
49.6
49.2
50.3
47.7
47.5
42.7
52.1
46.1
41.22
53.4
47.7
42.92
49.8
47.9
43.12
Distance
to Field
(feet)
Sport
Reference Athletic
Athletic Event1 Leq
Project
Future
Event Leq
at
at 50 feet Receptor Build Leq(1) Increment
55.9
356
Soccer
67.8
169
Soccer
67.8
133
Baseball
54.6
60.4
48.7
50.8
93
Baseball
54.6
53.6
520
Soccer
67.8
56.8
56.7
56.9
60.6
60.6
60.5
53.7
50.6
49.4
55.3
52.6
51.5
55.1
54.6
53.9
7.2
7.5
6.6
12.9
13.1
17.8
1.6
4.5
8.2
1.9
4.9
8.6
5.3
6.7
10.8
Assumes 25 spectators at event.
2
Weekend Mid-day existing noise levels at sites 6 through 8 were estimated by extrapolating weekday
measured noise levels based on weekend measurements performed at a nearby receptor site (site 4).
The predicted noise level increments for baseball games adjacent to receptor sites 6 and 7 would
typically be less than 6 dBA, the NYSDEC threshold for a significant noise increase, but may be
readily noticeable. The only exception would be if a baseball game were to occur on a weekend
when ambient noise levels are generally lower. If a baseball game were held on a weekend,
noise levels at receptor sites 6 and 7 could be as high as 8.6 dBA higher than background levels.
However, the overall noise levels with a baseball game would still be only approximately 50
dBA, well below the 65 dBA threshold established by NYSDEC for residential use.
08/06/12
13-14
Chapter 13: Noise
The predicted noise level increments for soccer games on Parcel A (adjacent to receptor sites 3,
4, and 8) would likely exceed the 6 dBA NYSDEC threshold for a significant noise impact,
would be readily noticeable, and may be intrusive. These large noise level increases occur
primarily because the receptors facing the proposed soccer fields experience extremely low
existing noise levels, due to these receptors being shielded from the nearby roadways. However,
the soccer games would occur only occasionally and only during certain times of the year, and
not at night. Thus, they would not represent a continuous and regular increase in noise levels.
Furthermore, the absolute noise levels during soccer games would be below the 65 dBA level
recommended by NYSDEC for residential use.
Consequently, it is the Applicant’s belief that the noise due to athletic events associated with the
Proposed Project (both baseball games and soccer games) would not constitute a significant
noise impact. FASNY acknowledges that incremental noise above 6 dBA or 10 dBA could be
considered intrusive or an impact, based on NYSDEC thresholds. However, FASNY believes
that noise from schools and their associated athletic fields are typically not considered adverse
significant impacts. Even though not proposed, mitigation could include installation of a solid
wood fence along the western property line of Parcel A. This fence would have to be constructed
without any gaps and would need to block the line of sight between the adjoining residences and
the athletic fields. Thus, this fence could have to be higher than eight (8) feet tall to effectively
shield these receptors from the noise source. (A fence higher than eight (8) feet tall would
require a variance from Section 4.4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance). FASNY is not proposing
installation of a solid fence at this location.
CUMULATIVE NOISE EFFECTS
At certain times of the day and at certain locations, the effects of more than one noise source
associated with the Proposed Project may combine at the nearby receptors to result in
cumulative noise levels greater than those predicted for each of the noise sources individually.
The cumulative effects of the various noise sources must therefore be examined. The
contribution from each noise source associated with the Proposed Project was calculated
according to the methodology described above, and the various contributions were combined to
determine a total Project-generated noise level and increment. This analysis is very conservative
and represents a true worst case scenario, which would be expected to occur only very
infrequently for short periods of time. Table 13-7 shows the results of the cumulative noise
assessment.
Comparing future with the Proposed Project noise levels with existing noise levels, at sites 1, 2
and 5, the maximum cumulative increase in Leq(1) noise level would not exceed NYSDEC’s
threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. At sites 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, the noise
level increments during the weekday PM, weekday evening, and weekend time periods, when
athletic events may occur, would exceed NYSDEC impact criteria. However, as described
above, these athletic events would occur only occasionally and only during certain limited times
of year. It is the Applicant’s belief that these very limited exceedances of the NYSDEC criteria
would not constitute a significant noise impact.
13-15
08/06/12
French-American School of New York
Table 13-8
Cumulative Noise Effects of the Proposed Project (dBA)
Site Time
AM
1
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
2
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
3
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
4
PM
EV
LN
WE
AM
5
PM
EV
6
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
7
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
8
AM
PM
EV
LN
WE
Notes:
08/06/12
Mechanical
Athletic
Existing Traffic Parking
Noise Lot Noise Equipment Noise Event Noise
Leq(1)
56.1
59.9
35.1
48.2
0.0
54.9
59.1
37.7
48.2
0.0
53.4
0.0
0.0
38.8
0.0
39.0
0.0
0.0
38.8
0.0
51.9
0.0
0.0
38.8
0.0
66.5
68.0
33.8
44.1
0.0
66.7
68.2
36.3
44.1
0.0
65.7
0.0
0.0
34.9
0.0
39.1
0.0
0.0
34.9
0.0
65.3
0.0
0.0
34.9
0.0
54.0
0.0
30.4
48.2
0.0
49.6
0.0
32.9
48.2
55.9
49.2
0.0
0.0
33.1
55.9
36.3
0.0
0.0
33.1
0.0
50.3
0.0
0.0
33.1
55.9
56.5
0.0
33.6
50.9
0.0
47.7
0.0
36.1
50.9
60.4
47.5
0.0
0.0
33.9
60.4
36.6
0.0
0.0
33.9
0.0
42.7
0.0
0.0
33.9
60.4
69.2
73.0
27.8
44.7
0.0
63.6
67.2
30.3
44.7
0.0
64.5
0.0
0.0
29.2
0.0
0.0
46.8
35.5
48.3
0.0
52.1
0.0
38.0
48.3
48.7
46.1
0.0
0.0
34.2
48.7
35.8
0.0
0.0
34.2
0.0
1
41.2
0.0
0.0
34.2
48.7
0.0
47.5
43.5
51.3
0.0
53.4
0.0
46.0
51.3
50.8
47.7
0.0
0.0
39.3
50.8
38.1
0.0
0.0
39.3
0.0
1
42.9
0.0
0.0
39.3
50.8
0.0
47.4
43.5
50.4
0.0
49.8
0.0
46.0
50.4
53.6
47.9
0.0
0.0
41.9
53.6
38.6
0.0
0.0
41.9
0.0
1
43.1
0.0
0.0
41.9
53.6
1
Total
Noise
Total Noise
Increment
61.6
60.8
53.5
41.9
52.1
70.3
70.5
65.7
40.5
65.3
55.0
57.4
56.7
38.0
56.9
57.6
61.1
60.6
38.5
60.5
74.5
68.8
64.5
50.8
54.9
50.7
38.1
49.5
53.3
57.1
52.8
41.8
51.7
52.7
56.7
54.8
43.6
54.2
5.5
5.9
0.1
2.9
0.2
3.8
3.8
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.0
7.8
7.5
1.7
6.6
1.1
13.4
13.1
1.9
17.8
5.3
5.2
0.0
4.0
2.8
4.6
2.3
8.3
5.8
3.7
5.1
3.7
8.8
5.3
6.9
6.9
5.0
11.1
Weekend Mid-day existing noise levels at sites 6 through 8 were estimated by extrapolating weekday
measured noise levels based on weekend measurements performed at a nearby receptor site (site 4).
13-16
Chapter 13: Noise
F. BUILDING ATTENUATION
Proposed school buildings included in the Proposed Project would include double-glazed
windows and central air conditioning systems, which would provide sufficient attenuation to
ensure interior noise levels less than 45 dBA, which is a generally accepted interior noise level
threshold for classroom uses.
G. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis performed, it is the Applicant’s belief that the operation of the Proposed
Project would not result in significant adverse noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Some
exceedances of NYSDEC’s noise level increase criteria would be expected to occur at sites 3, 4,
6, 7, and 8 during athletic events associated with the Proposed Project, but they would be of such
limited duration and frequency that they would not constitute a significant impact. Absolute
noise levels at sites 2 and 5 would exceed NYSDEC’s recommended noise level for residential
use, but the existing noise levels at these locations exceed that level as well. The Proposed
Project’s mechanical equipment system would be designed to comply with the noise level
restrictions in the Municipal Code of the City of White Plains. Consequently, it is the
Applicant’s belief that the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in any significant
adverse noise impacts.

13-17
08/06/12