HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 05-01; Corner Grand Ave Project; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type
of environmental documentation (i.e., Enviroimiental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your
application, per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes
of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist," that is a checklist that is merely checked
"yes impact" or "no impact," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act. When preparing this form, each "yes impact" or "no impact"
answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes impact" or "no
impact" answer. Any environmental studies (i.e., biological, cultural resource, traffic,
noise) that are necessary to substantiate a "no impact" or "yes impact" determination
should be submitted as an attachment to this Environmental Impact Assessment. This is
especially important when a Negative Declaration is being sought. The more information
provided in this form, the easier and quicker it will be for staff to complete the Enviroimiental
Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE:
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ^^l^kic^ OyC^i^ As^3 - ^{Icrj^c^
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: gt>u<KC^o ^<sJi^^ Cja\<^
4. PROJECT LOCATION: •^>3n>oa3(4r CA<2AIJ>S ^rr3p^=V^SpKA ^*
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: ^
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: (LBt>B\/^KJO^ M.^KjrT
7. ZONING: V- (2.
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., pennits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Rev. 07/26/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of enviromnental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the foUowiQg pages.
1 1 Aesthetics 1 1 Geology/Soils 1 1 Noise
1 1 Agricultural Resources 1 1 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 Population and Housing
• Air Quality 1 1 Hydrology/Water Quality 1 1 Public Services
1 1 Biological Resources 1 1 Land Use and Planning 1 1 Recreation
1 1 Cultural Resources 1 1 Mineral Resources 1 1 Transportation/Circulation
1 1 Mandatory Findings of
Significance 1 1 Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 07/26/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the enviroimient. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part I", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
Rev. 07/26/02
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part I analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or detemiine the effectiveness ofa mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION QF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• • • 0
• • • 0
• • • 0
• • • 0
II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstmct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
O O • 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
O 0-
O 0
0 O 0
0 0-^
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
rv. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by Califomia Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
conimunity identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological intermption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 O O 0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0'
0 0'
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
JZ
0'
0 0 0 0^
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paieontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0^
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O 0 0 0
0 0 0 ^
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0'
0 0 0 0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface mnoff in
a maimer, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
f) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stmctures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result ofthe failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Zf
0 0
0
0 0
0 \z^
Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following constmction?
o) Increase in any pollutant to an akeady impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zonuig
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural conimunity conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboume vibration or groundboume noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
O
0
0
0
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact Impact
0 0 Zl
0 0 zl
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0^
0 0 0 El
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 zf
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 ^
0 Vl
10 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastmcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the constmction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered govemment
facilities, the constmction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0' 0 0 [Z
0 0 0 0^
0
0
o
0
0 0
0 0"
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 zl
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0^
0 0 0 0
11 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the constmction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the coimty
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
project:
Would the
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the constmction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the constmction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the constmction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 zf
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 zf
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 Z]
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
12 Rev. 07/26/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
Califomia history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula-
tively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 a
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
13 Rev. 07/26/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR QUALITY—Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other Califomia non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incoiporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Califomia
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City's General Plan and the RAQS.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstmct
implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of
Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in
2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates
in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. If there is grading associated
with the project, the project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and constmction.
Such emissions would be minimized through standard constmction measures such as the use of properly timed
equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project
will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in
the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality
readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as
less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
14 Rev. 07/26/02
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine
particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the
proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project,
air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered
de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
15 Rev. 07/26/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
16 Rev. 07/26/02
Environmental Impact Assessment Form
Issue Explanation
Comer Grand Avenue Project
Carlsbad, Califomia
I. Aesthetics-The project will require a pubfic hearing before the Design Review
Board for recommendation and a public hearing before the Housing &
Redevelopment Commission for final decision.
II. Agricultural Resources-This project is located in an existing residential &
commercial community.
III. Air Quality-Only typical emissions will come from the site during and after
constmction relative to current practices.
IV. Biological Resources-No life forms are known to inhabit or frequent this area
other than common weed and grass specimens.
V. Cultural Resources-No historical, archeological, pale ontological, or unique
geological features will be aflfected.
VI. Geology and Soils-According to an 'Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation'
done for the project and dated
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials-This is a residential community. No
hazardous materials will be transported to this site nor is such traffic
encouraged by this project. Air traffic is away from the site. No activities
will be in practice which could potentially harm others.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality-All use of existing waters supphes, discharge of
waste, and use of similar resources has been researched and confirmed with
the City of Carlsbad so as to provide the least possible impact to existing and
fiature availability. No adverse impacts are foreseen on this project should the
recommendations in the report be met.
IX. Land use and Planning-The site has 1 existing house. It's in an existing
residential community. Local land use plans, poHcies, and regulations wdll be
addressed before issuance of constmction permits.
X. Mineral Resources-Standard geological samples were taken and no loss of
available of known mineral resources will be affected in any way.
XI. Noise-No excessive noise will penetrate nor escape the project site. Some
inconvenience may be felt during constmction.
XII. Population and Housing-This project is vsdthin local density requirements.
There will be no displacement. The constmction will be contained within the
site and should not interfere with the neighborhood outside of normal
parameters.
XIII. PubHc Services-No excessive strain vsdll be placed on maintaining acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives of public
services.
XIV. Recreation-No existing or planned future public recreation projects will be
overly affected.
XV. Transportation/trafiflc-Current transportation and traffic pattems will not be
overly affected.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems-Current or planned fiiture utilities or service
systems wifi need to be upgraded to meet this project.
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance-There are no current or foreseen
significant impacts implied by this project to the environment other than the
use of the land.
XVIII. . A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation is in process.
The proposed development wiU consist of 2 residential units on a single stmcture
with basement/garage sub-floors and two additional stories above the sub-floors,
as well as underground utility improvements.
Prepared for:
Mr. Ed Mullen
MULLEN CONSTRUCTION
2890 Pio Pico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
P ^ RECEIVED
iiiiii/ NOV 1 12m
U Pt B A HI CITY OF CARLSBAD CROSS ROA.OS HOUSING & REDEVELOPIVIENT
DEPARTIVIE^JT
5411 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
Carisbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
Bill Lawson, INCE
Jeremy Louden
TyJ Arambulo
GRAND AND JEFFERSON RESIDENTIAL
FINAL NOISE STUDY
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
November 15, 2005
JN:03380-03
JL:TA:js
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Exterior Noise Mitigation 1-1
1.2 Interior Noise Mitigation 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
3.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS 3-1
3.1 Noise Descriptors 3-1
3.2 Traffic Noise Prediction 3-2
3.3 Noise Control 3-2
3.4 Ground Absorption 3-2
3.5 Noise Barrier Attenuafion 3-3
4.0 NOISE STANDARDS 4-1
4.1 Transportation Noise Standards 4-1
4.2 Stationary Noise Standards 4-1
5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES 5-1
5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model 5-1
5.2 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs 5-1
6.0 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS 6-1
6.1 Traffic Noise Level Assessment 6-1
6.2 Receiver Assumptions 6-1
6.3 Source Assumptions 6-1
6.4 Future Traffic Noise Levels 6-2
6.5 Noise Barrier 6-2
6.6 Noise Control Barrier Construcfion Materials 6-4
7.0 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS 7-1
7.1 Interior Noise Reducfion Methodology 7-1
7.2 Calculated Interior Noise Reducfions 7-2
7.3 Interior Noise Level Assessment 7-2
APPENDICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD NOISE STANDARDS A
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT COMPUTER PRINTOUTS B
GRADING PLANS C
INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS D
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT PAGE
1- A SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1-2
2- A LOCATION MAP 2-2
2-B SITE PLAN 2-3
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
5-1 ROADWAY PARAMETERS 5-3
5- 2 HOURLY TRAFFIC FLOW DISTRIBUTION 5-4
6- 1 FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (dBA CNEL) 6-3
7- 1 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS (dBA CNEL) 7-3
7-2 FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (dBA CNEL) 7-4
7-3 SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (dBA CNEL) 7-5
JEFFERSON AND GRAND RESIDENTIAL
FINAL NOISE STUDY
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A final noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure and the
necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Jefferson and Grand residential
development. The proposed project includes a total of 2 attached residenfial units and is
generally located on the western corner of Jefferson Street and Grand Avenue in the City
of Carisbad.
The results of this analysis indicate that the future vehicle noise from Jefferson Street is
the principal source of community noise that will impact the site. Based on the future
traffic projections, portions of the site will experience unmitigated exterior noise levels
approaching the City of Carisbad noise standards for transportation related noise
impacts. To reduce exterior traffic noise impacts and to meet the City of Carisbad 60 dBA
CNEL exterior and the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard, the project should provide
the noise mitigation measures presented on Exhibit 1-A and listed below:
1.1 Exterior Noise Mitigation
• Provide a 6.0-foot high noise barrier for the exterior use in the northern portion
of the project site aiong Jefferson Street.
1.2 Interior Noise Mitigafion
• Provide standard windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rafing 26 or
higher for both residenfial units.
• Provide a windows closed condifion requiring a means of mechanical
venfilafion (fresh air intake) for both residential units.
1-1
EXHIBIT 1-A
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
LEGEND:
•••• = NOISE BARRIER LOCATION
6.0* = MINIMUM NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT
(IN FEET)
A = PROVIDE A "WINDOWS CLOSED" CONDITION
^ REQUIRING A MEANS OF MECHANICAL
VENTILATION (e.g. AIR CONDITIONING)
PER UBC REQUIREMENTS
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: 1-A^dwg
• In addition, provide fresh air intake ducts at these lots based on the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) requirements that state "in lieu of exterior openings for
natural venfilation, a mechanical venfilafing system may be provided. Such a
system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour with minimum
outside fresh air requirements.
• All window and door assemblies used throughout the project shall be free of cut
outs and openings and shall be well fitted and well weather-stripped.
• Provide exterior walls with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rafing
of 46. Typical walls with this rating will have 2x4 studs or greater, 16" o.c. with
R-13 insulafion, a minimum 7/8" exterior surface of cement plaster and a
minimum interior surface of 1/2" gypsum board.
• Provide roof / ceiling system utilizing minimum V2" plywood sheathing that is
well sealed to form a confinuous barrier with minimum R-19 batt insulation in
the joist cavities.
No additional exterior or interior noise mitigation is required to meet the City of Carisbad
60 dBA CNEL exterior and 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. With the
recommended noise mitigation measures provided in this study, the proposed residenfial
project will meet the City of Carisbad noise standards for residential development.
1-3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a final noise study for the Jefferson and Grand
residential development. The proposed project includes 2 attached residential units and
is generally located on the western corner of Jefferson Street and Grand Avenue in the
City of Carisbad. The general location of the project is shown on the Locafion Map,
Exhibit 2-A. The site plan used forthis analysis is shown on Exhibit 2-B.
This final noise study outlines the project, provides basic information regarding the
fundamentals of traffic noise, describes local noise guidelines, provides the study
methods and procedures for traffic noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior and
interior noise environments. The recommendations for control of the noise impacts for
exterior and interior areas were designed to satisfy the City of Carisbad noise standards.
2-1
EXHIBIT 2-A
LOCATION MAP
500 1,000
Feet
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California • 03380:locmap.mxd URBAiy
\ \
EXHIBIT 2-B
SITE PIAN
I
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: 02.dwg
3.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when
it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has
adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure
level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective
response of the human ear to broad frequency noise sources by discriminafing against
very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to
refiect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.
3.1 Noise Descriptors
Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound
pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent
sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same
total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The peak hour
Leq is the noise metric used by Caltrans for all traffic noise impact analyses.
The Community Noise Equivalent Levei (CNEL) is the weighted average of the
intensity of a sound, with correcfions for fime of day, and averaged over 24
hours. The time of day correcfions require the addifion of 5 decibels to sound
levels in the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and the addifion of 10
decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions
are made to account for the noise sensitive fime periods during night hours when
sound appears louder. CNEL values do not represent the actual sound level
heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The
City of Carisbad relies on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation
related impacts on noise sensitive land uses.
3-1
3.2 Traffic Noise Prediction
The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of the
traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the fiow of
traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic
volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a
combinafion ofthe noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires.
Because of the logarithmic nature of traffic noise levels, a doubling of the traffic
noise (acousfic energy) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the
FHWA community noise assessment criteria, this change is "barely percepfible."
In other words, doubling the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and truck
mix do not change) results in a noise increase of 3 dBA. The truck mix on a
given roadway also has a significant effect on community noise levels. As the
number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the
vehicle mix, adjacent noise levels increase.
3.3 Noise Control
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for a
particular observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source,
transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-
path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to any
and all of these three elements.
3.4 Ground Absorption
To account for the ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site
conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft site and hard site
conditions. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over
natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. A drop-off rate of
4.5 dBA per doubling of distance is typically observed over soft ground with
3-2
landscaping. On the other hand, a 3.0 dBA drop-off rate is observed for hard
site conditions, such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth.
Based on our experience, soft site conditions better refiect the predicted noise
levels. In addition, Caltrans' own research has shown that the use of soft site
conditions is more appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise
prediction model uses in this analysis.
3.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 decibels, cuffing the
loudness of traffic noise in half. Noise barriers are most effective when placed
close to the noise source or receiver. However, noise barriers do have
limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough
to block the view of a road. Noise barriers do litfie good for homes on a hillside
overlooking a road or for buildings which rise above the barrier. A noise barrier
can achieve a 5 dB noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-
of-sight.
3-3
4.0 NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Carisbad has identified two separate types of noise sources: (1)
transportation, and (2) stationary. To control transportation related noise sources such as
arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads, the City of Carisbad has established
guidelines for acceptable community noise levels in the Noise Element of the General
Plan. To control stationary source, non-transportafion related noise impacts, the City of
Carisbad has identified the worst-case noise levels for daytime and nighttime activities in
residenfial areas of the City.
4.1 Transportafion Noise Standards
For noise sensifive residenfial uses, the City Noise Element requires an exterior
noise level of less than 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor living areas and an interior
noise level of less than 45 dBA CNEL. In the context of this noise analysis, the
noise impacts associated with the project are controlled by the City Noise Element.
The City of Carisbad Noise Element is included in Appendix "A".
4.2 Stationary Noise Standards
The most effective method to control community noise impacts from non-
transportation noise sources (such as playgrounds, trash compactors, air-
condifioning units, etc.) is through the application of a community noise ordinance.
For the purpose of this analysis, the noise impacts associated with this project are
controlled by the City of Carisbad Noise Element.
4-1
5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze
the future noise environment.
5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model
The projected roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were projected using a
computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administrafion (FHWA)
Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108 (the "FHWA Model"). The
FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to
the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Adjustments are then
made to the reference energy mean emission level to account for; the roadway
classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major and arterial), the roadway acfive
width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each
side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the
percentages of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks in the traffic volume,
the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked),
the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground,
pavement or landscaping) and the percentage of total average daily traffic (ADT)
which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period.
5.2 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs
The roadway parameters including the average daily traffic volumes used for this
study are presented in Table 5-1. The roadway classification shown on Table 5-1
was obtained from the City of Carisbad Circulation Element. Future buildout
Average Daily Traffic estimates were taken from SANDAG 2030 Traffic Volume
Forecast model.
Table 5-2 presents the houriy traffic flow distribution (vehicle mix) used in this
analysis. The vehicle mix provides houriy distribution percentages of automobile.
5-1
medium trucks and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model. The houriy traffic
fiow distributions for the City of Carisbad is based on a typical average vehicle axle
traffic counts observed in cites in Southern California.
5-2
TABLE 5-1
ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ROADWAY LANES CLASSIFICATION^ BUILDOUT ADT
SPEED
(MPH)
SITE
CONDITIONS
Jefferson Road 2 Collector 11,000 35 Hard
^ Road Classifications based upon the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element.
^ Based on the Wolf Valley Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by RKJK & Associatrs, Inc. on December 17th, 1998.
S:\Carlsbad_Jobs\__03300\03380\Excel\[03380-1.xls]T5-1
5-3
TABLE 5-2
HOURLY TRAFFIC FLOW DISTRIBUTION
MOTOR-VEHICLE
TYPE
DAYTIME
(7 AM TO 7 PM)
EVENING
(7 PM TO 10 PM)
NIGHT
(10 PM TO 7 AM)
TOTAL %
TRAFFIC FLOW
Automobiles 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
S:\Carlsbad_Jobs\_03300\03380\Excel\[03380-1.xls]T5-2
5-4
6.0 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site will be traffic
noise from Jefferson Street.
6.1 Traffic Noise Level Assessment
An analysis has been performed to determine the acoustical shielding which may
be used to reduce the expected roadway noise impacts to below 60 dBA CNEL for
the affected outdoor usable areas. The grading plan was used to predict the future
noise environment. This information identifies the relationship between the
roadway centeriine elevafion, the pad elevation and the centeriine distance to the
noise barrier, and the backyard observer. The exterior noise levels were
determined based on an observer location ten feet from the lot boundary. Key
input data for these barrier performance equafions include the relative source-
barrier-receiver horizontal separations, the relative source-barrier-receiver vertical
separafions, the typical noise source spectra and the barrier transmission loss.
The following general assumpfions were used in determining the source and
receiver geometry:
6.2 Receiver Assumptions
Horizontal Geometry:
Vertical Geometry:
Distance behind top-of-slope: 10 feet
Height above pad for ground level receivers:
• Exterior noise: 5 feet
• 1st Floor Interior: 5 feet
• 2nd Floor Interior: 16 feet
6.3 Source Assumptions
Horizontal Geometry: All vehicles are located at the single lane equivalent
acoustic center of the full roadway.
6-1
Vertical Geometry: Height above road grade:
• Autos = 0.0 feet
• Medium Trucks = 2.3 feet
• Heavy Trucks = 8.0 feet
6.4 Future Traffic Noise Levels
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in
Tables 5-1 and 5-2, calculations of the expected future noise impacts were
completed. Table 6-1 presents a summary of future exterior unmitigated and the
mitigated noise impacts. Based on the FHWA traffic noise prediction model, the
future unmifigated exterior noise levels for the lots analyzed will range from 65.2 to
65.5 dBA CNEL. With the recommended exterior noise mitigation measures that
include the construction of a 6.0-foot high sound wall, the mifigated exterior noise
levels in the exterior useable space of the units adjacent to Jefferson Street will
range from 58.4 to 58.5 dBA CNEL. The computer outputs for the specific site
impacts are included in Appendix "B." The grading plans used for this analysis are
included in Appendix "C."
6.5 Noise Barrier
The noise barrier recommendations presented on Exhibit 1-A indicates a barrier
location at the property line, between the adjacent roadway and the exterior use
area. Indicated barrier heights are assumed to be the top of the slope, above pad
or roadway elevafion, whichever is greater. Where applicable, the barriers should
wrap around the ends of the dwelling units to prevent flanking of noise into the site.
6-2
TABLE 6-1
FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (dBA CNEL)
LOT UNMITIGATED MITIGATED
BARRIER HEIGHT (IN
FEET)
TOP OF BARRIER (IN
FEET)
2 65.4 58.4 5.0 62.0
1 65.5 58.5 5.0 62.0
Rear Yard 65.2 58.4 5.0 62.0
S:\Carlsbad_Jobs\_03300\03380\Excel\[03380-1.xls]T6-1
6-3
6.6 Noise Control Barrier Construction Materials
The designed noise screening may only be accomplished if the barrier's weight
is at least 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area and has no decorative cutouts
or line-of-site openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The
recommended noise control barrier may be constructed using one of the
following alternafive materials:
1. Masonry block;
2. Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1 inch thick tongue
and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot;
3. Glass (1/4 inch thick), or other transparent material with sufficient weight
per square foot;
4. Earthen berm;
5. Any combination of these construction materials.
The recommended barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom.
Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts should not be made. All gaps
(except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.
6-4
7.0 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the
building facade and the noise reducfion ofthe structure. Typical building construction will
provide a noise reduction of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum
20 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." Several methods are used to improve
interior noise reduction, including: (1) weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; (2)
upgraded dual glazed windows; (3) mechanical venfilation/air conditioning; and (4)
exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings.
New construction will generally produce a "windows closed" noise reduction ranging from
25 dBA to 30 dBA. However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window
assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise.
7.1 Interior Noise Reduction Methodology
The noise reduction characterisfics of a building are determined by combining
the transmission loss of each of the building components that make up the
building. Each unique component has a transmission loss value. For residenfial
homes, the crifical building components include the roof, walls, windows, doors,
and attic configurafion and insulation characteristics. The total noise reducfion is
dependent upon the transmission loss of each element and the surface area of
that element in relation to the total surface area ofthe room.
To account for the acoustic energy absorbed within a room, the absorption
coefficients for individual surface areas such as drywall and carpet are used to
calculate the interior room effects. The calculated building noise reducfion
includes both the transmission loss associated with the exterior wall assembly
and the room absorption characteristics.
7-1
7.2 Calculated Interior Noise Reducfions
Noise reduction calculations based on architectural floor plans were used to
esfimate the "windows closed" interior noise levels for both floor plans. The
interior noise reduction was calculated for all plans that required a reducfion
greater than 20 dBA, which is the minimum provided by typical new construction.
The calculations assumed building construction that includes standard dual
glazed windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class Rating (STC) of 26.
As shown on Table 7-1, with standard windows the interior noise reducfion will
range from 27.1 to 29.9 dBA. The interior noise reducfion calculafions with
standard windows are included in Appendix "D".
7.3 Interior Noise Level Assessment
Tables 7-2 and 7-3 present the future first and second floor interior noise levels.
The exterior noise levels at the building facade are predicted to be as high as 59
dBA CNEL for flrst floor areas (no mitigation required) and up to 65 dBA CNEL for
second floor areas. The calculations show that the "windows open" condition will
not provide adequate interior noise mitigation.
To meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard, an interior noise level reducfion
of 20 dBA CNEL is required for second fioor areas. The noise levels shown on
Tables 7-2 and 7-3 show that with a "windows closed" condifion, requiring a means
of mechanical ventilation for all units and standard windows with a STC rating 26
or higher for both units, the future interior noise levels will be below the City of
Carisbad 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard.
7-2
TABLE 7-1
INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS (dBA CNEL)
ROOM FLOOR NOISE REDUCTION WITH ROOM FLOOR
STANDARD WINDOWS
FLOOR PLAN (dBA CNEL)^
1
Living / Dining 1 29.9
1 Master Bedroom 2 27.1 1
Bedroom 2 27.3
2 Living / Dining 1 28.4 2
Master Bedroom 2 27.8
Interior noise reduction calculations with standard windows (STC 26) included in Appendix "D"
S:\Carlsbad„JobsL03300\03380\Excel\[03380-1.xls]T7-1
7-3
TABLE 7-2
FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (dBA CNEL)^
UNIT
FLOOR
PLAN
NOISE
IMPACTS
AT
FACADE
INTERIOR NO
WIN
ISE LEVEL FOR
DOWS
REQUIRED
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION
CALCULATED
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION'^ UNIT
FLOOR
PLAN
NOISE
IMPACTS
AT
FACADE OPEN^ CLOSED^
REQUIRED
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION
CALCULATED
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION'^
1 la 58.5 46.5 28.6 13.5 29.9
2 2a 58.4 46.4 30.0 13.4 28.4
^ Includes the noise barrier recommendations as presented in Table 6-1.
^ A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows open condition
With the calculated interior noise reduction with a windows closed condition and standard windows presented in Table 7-1
Includes standard windows with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 26.
S:\Carlsbad_Jobs\_03300\03380\Excel\[03380-1.xls]T7-2
7-4
TABLE 7-3
SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (dBA CNEL)^
LOT
FLOOR
PLAN^
IMPACTS
AT
FAQADE
INTERIOR NO
WIN
ISE LEVEL FOR
DOWS
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION
CALCULATED
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION^
LOT
FLOOR
PLAN^
IMPACTS
AT
FAQADE
OPEN^ CLOSED^
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION
CALCULATED
INTERIOR
NOISE
REDUCTION^
1 lb 65.4 53.4 38.3 20.4 27.1
1 Ic 65.4 53.4 38.1 20.4 27.3
2 2b 65.2 53.2 37.4 20.2 27.8
^ Includes the noise barrier recommendations as presented in Table 6-1.
^ Floor Plan 1 is a single story dwelling unit
^ A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows open condition
^ With the calculated interior noise reduction with a windows closed condition and standard windows presented in Table 7-1
^ Includes standard windows with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 26.
7-5
The calculated interior noise reduction requires that exterior walls with a
minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rafing of 46. Typical walls with this
rating will have 2x4 studs or greater, 16" o.c. with R-13 insulafion, a minimum 7/8"
exterior surface of cement plaster and a minimum interior surface of 1/2" gypsum
board. Interior wall finish shall be at least 1/2-inch thick gypsum wallboard or
plaster. Ceilings shall be finished with gypsum board or plaster that is at least
1/2 inch thick.
The roof system should have minimum 1/2" plywood sheathing which is well
sealed to form a continuous traffic noise barrier with a minimum insulafion of R-
19 for all atfic spaces.
In addition, provide fresh air intake ducts at these lots based on the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) requirements that state "in lieu of exterior openings for
natural ventilation, a mechanical ventilating system may be provided. Such a
system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour with minimum
outside fresh air requirements.
7-6
APPENDIX A
CITY OF CARLSBAD NOISE STANDARDS
Heritage Hall was built in 1926 to house the congregation of St. Patrick's Church at the southeast
comer of Harding Street and Oak Avenue. In 1952 the church was moved across the street where
it became the City's first administrative offices. Over the next few years it served as home to the
City Manager, City Council, Police Department and Fire Department, and as a Coimty branch
Library. As new City offices were constructed and Gty departments moved out, use of the building
changed from that of City Hall, to the City library, to the children's library, to a studio for the North
Counry Ballet. Finally, in 1979 the sturdy little structure was slated for demolition to make way
for a parking lot; however, it was rescued from demolition by a coaHtion consisting of Friends of
the Library, the Carlsbad Historical Society and volunteer building tradesmen who arranged for it
to be moved to Magee Historical Park. With only minor repairs, the old church once again became
a public meeting place.
Note: Information derived in part from SEEKERS OF THE SPRING, by Marjorie Howard-Jones.
Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. BACKGROUND AND INTENT 1
B. STATE LAW 1
C. RELATIONSHIPTOOTHER ELEMENTS 1
II. SOURCES OF NOISE 2
A. CIRCULATION ; 2
1. Roads 2
2. Airport 2
3. Rail 3
B. LAND USE 4
COTHER MOBILE SOURCES 4
1. Off Road Motorcycle Noise 4
2. Motor Boat 4
3. Modified Vehicle Exhaust System 5
III. NOISE CONTOUR MAPS 5
IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PRO-
GRAMS 5
GENERAL 5
A. Goal 5
B. Objectives 5
C. Implementing Policies and Acfion Programs 5
LANDUSE 6
A. Goals 6
B. Objectives 6
C. Implementing Policies and Acfion Programs 6
CIRCULATION 8
ROADS 8
A. Goal 8
B. Objective 8
C. Implementing Policies and Action Programs 8
AIRPORT 8
A. Goal : 8
B. Objectives 8
C Implementing Policies and Action Programs 8
RAIL 9
A. Goal 9
B. Objective 9
C. Implementing Policies and Action Programs 9
EMPLOYMENT 9
A. Goal 9
B. Objectives 9
C. Implementing Policies and Action Programs 10
V. MAPS 11
Map 1: EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR MAP (1990) 1 1
Map 2: FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOUR MAP (2010) 12
Map 3: AIRPORT NOISE CONTOUR MAP :: 13
VI. GLOSSARY 15
NOISEELEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND AND INTENT
TTie goal of the Noise Element is to achieve and
maintain an environment which is free from objectionable,
excessive or hannful noise.
The Noise Element
- Identifies and defines existing and future envi-
ronmental noise levels from sources of noise within or
adjacent to the Cil\ of Carlsbad by means of Noise
Contour maps.
- Establishes goals, objectives and policies to
mitigate these noise impacts
- Provides policies and action programs to imple-
ment the Goals and Objectives.
''The Goal of the Noise Element is to
achieve and maintain an environment
which is free from objectionable, ex-
cessive or harmful noise,
B. STATE LAW
Section 65302(f) of California's Planning and
Zoning Laws requires a Noise Element which identifies
and appraises noise problems in the community. The
Noise Element shall recognize the guidelines established
b\- the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of
Health Services and shall anaKze and quantifS', to the
extent practicable, as determined b>' the legislative body,
current and projected noise le\'els for all of the following
sources
1. Highwass and frccwaxs.
2 Pnmap, arterial and major local streets;
3. Passenger and freight online railroad opera-
tions and ground rapid transit systems;
4. Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helis-
top, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights,
jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and
maintenance functions related to airport operation;
5. Local mdustnal plants, mcluding, but not
limited to, railroad classification yards; and
6. Other ground stationary noise sources identi-
fied by local agencies as contributing to the communit>'
noise environment.
Noise contours shall be shown for all of these
sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent
level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise
contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitor-
ing or following generally accepted noise modeling tech-
niques forthe vanous sources identified in paragraphs (1)
to (6), inclusive. The noise contours shall be used as a
guide for establishing a pattem of land uses in the Land
Use Element that minimizes the exposure of community
residents to excessive noise.
The Noise Element shall include implementation
measures and possible solutions that address existing and
foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted Noise
Element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the
state's Noise Insulation Standards.
C. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
ELEMENTS
The Noise Element is conelated with the Land
Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements of the General
Plan. Tlie Land Use Element is related to the Noise
Element in that noise can have a significant impact on land
use. Tlie Circulation Element is related to the Noise
Element in that the majont)' of the noise created m
Carlsbad is created b\ trains, planes or automobiles. The
Housing Element relates to the Noise Element bypromot-
ine desirable residential environments which buffer exist-
Page
NOISE ELEMEN T
ing and future residents from undesirable noise impacts.
Consistent vvith state law, it is the policy of the Cit>' that
the Noise Element be consistent with all Generai Plan
Elements.
SOURCES OF NOISE
A. CIRCULATION
considerable number ofexjsting Single family and multi-
family dwellings which are impacted by freeway noise
levels in excess of 65 dBA CN^L. For these existing
dwellings, noise attenuation is difficult. Construction of
solid barriers along the freeway is possible, but cost may
be prohibitive. The City can, however, educate property
owners as to the methods of insulating existing residential
units from freeway noise through the use of barriers and
insulation matenals. TheCity's"DevelopmentReview:
Noise Guidelines Manual" is a useful reference.
1. ROADS
Roadway traffic noise is the most extensive noise
problem faced by Carlsbad. Bamng any dramatic changes
in truck or automobile usage pattems, it is likely that the
amount of traffic in Carisbad will grow with the City's
population. New development is occumng adjacent to
major roadways throughout the City. Unless precaution-
ary measures are taken, senous noise problems could
result.
^^Roadway traffic noise is the most
extensive noise problem faced by
Carlsbad "
Vehicular noise has three main component sources:
engine/transmission noise, exhaust noise and tire noise.
The intensity of noise emissions from any given vehicle
will vary wath its size and other factors, such as speed,
acceleration, braking, roadway grade and conditions of
the roadway surface. Thus abusy downtown artenal with
stop and go traffic is often noisier than an open highway
with comparable traffic volumes.
Noise contours have been prepared for all Circu-
lation Element roadways m Carlsbad as shown on the
current and future noise exposure maps (See Map 1:
Existmg Noise Exposure Contour Map and Map 2.
Future Noise Exposure Contour Map).
Interstate 5 has the greatest existing and pro-
jected roadway noise emissions. In addition, 1-5 impacts
the greatest number of existing dwellimzs There are a
While other routes within the City have a lesser
impact than does 1-5, many roads will still have significant
noise impact potential and new projects should therefore
be subject to noise impact evaluation.
It is important that new development fronting on
major roadways be compatible with the recommendations
of this element. The action plan section of this element
contains the measures intended to avert future problems
caused by traffic noise.
2. AIRPORT
McClellan-Palomar Airport is presently operat-
ing as a general aviation facility and is located west of El
Camino Real, just north of Palomar Airport Road in the
City ofCarisbad. Theairport's current annual operation
of approximately 23 5,000 aircraft is expected to increase
at the airport's ultimate buildout condition to approxi-
mately 3 34,000. In general, land m the immediate vicimty
of the airport or under the take off or landing approach is
subject to noise levels which are unsuitable for residential
development, schools, hospitals and other similar noise
sensitive uses. Projected noise contours arotind the air-
port are provided in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport and have been
included in this Element (See Map 3; Airport Noise
Contour Map). In 1989 the FAA began a detailed noise
study for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The findings of
this study have been published in the proposed 1992 Part
150 Study forthe airport, w4nch is cunently under review
as part of its adoption process However, all new devel-
opment in the vicinit\' of the airport should continue to be
reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise standards
Pane 2
NOISEELEMENT
contamed in this element and the approved Comprehen-
sive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar
Airport.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
McClellan-Palomar Aiiport is to be a long-range master
plan forthe airport. As stated in State Pubhc Utihty Code
Section 21675, "The commission plan shall include and
shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport
layout plan, as determined bythe Division of Aeronautics
of the Department of Transportation, that reflects the
anticipated growth ofthe airport during at least the next 20
years." For purposes of General Plan Land Use planning,
and lacking further information, the City of Carlsbad must
assume that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
for McClellan-Palomar Airport is a longrange master
plan updated every five years, that reflects anticipated
growth for the airport for at least the next twenty (20)
years.
3. RAIL
The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF)
Railroad runs parallel to the coastline through its 6 1/2
mile length in Carlsbad. The railroad right-of-way is 100
feet wide throughout most of the area south of Tamarack
Avenue and expands to 200 feet in width as it travels north
of Tamarack through the downtown beach area and
central business district.
Currently AMTRACK operates several daily
passenger trains between San Diego and Los Angeles.
Additionally, a number of freight trains pass through
Carlsbad daily, some after 5 P.M. These evening and
nighttime freight trains are of particular concem because
they run during the hours when people are more sensitive
to noise. By the end of 1993, it is projected that a
commuter rail will run at least four daily trips firom
Oceanside to San Diego with two stops in Carlsbad.
Ultimately, up to 20 commuter trains may travel through
the Cit\- at high speed.
There are several sources of railroad noise. The
majonty of the noise emanates from the locomotive (and
its component systems, such as exhaust devices and
cooling fans) and from the interaction between the rail and
train wheels. The rhythmic clacking noise emitted by
trains result from fiiction of the wheel at rail joints.
Roughness on either the rail or wheel can also contribute
to increased noise emissions.
Safety devices such as waming whistles and wig-
wags with bells used at grade crossings can contribute
significantly to raihoad noise. The State of Califomia
Pubhc Utihties Commission requires these waming sig-
nals as trains approach grade crossings to warn motorists
and pedestrians.
'^A combined program of noise miti-
gating design and building sound in-
sulation will help control future noise
problems near the railroad "
For existing residenfial units, noise reduction is a
problem. It is often difficuh and expensive to instaU sound
insulation materials on existing structures. Also, the State
Uniform Building Code standards for sound insulation
apply only to new structures. Construcfion of noise
barriers along the railroad right-of-way could attenuate
noise levels significantly. However, the railroad right-of-
way is owned by the AT«feSF Railroad, whose consent
would be necessary before any barrier could be con-
structed. Also cost and aesthefic impact may be prohibi-
tive factors in the constmction of noise baniers.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan des-
ignates a substantial amount of land bordering along the
raihoad right-of-way for residential use. New residential
development and nonresidential development will occur
adjacent to the railroad.
The City does have the ability to regulate site
design and requires sound insulation for new development
in the vicinity of the raihoad. A combined program of
noise mifigating design and building sound insulation will
help control future noise problems near the railroad.
NOISE EIEMENT
New projects shouid maximize the physical sepa-
ration of structures from the railroad tracks. Additionally,
project design should stress the onentation of units away
from the railroad, limiting or acoustically designing win-
dow openmgs onto the nght-of-way, and construction of
noisebamers such as solid walls, earthen berms, orberm/
wall combmations.
B. LAND USE
To agreat extent, the future ambient noise levels
ofthe City will be determined by the type, intensity and
location of future land uses. Future noise levels will also
be affected by the construction of new roadways to serve
new development and by land uses that generate noise.
Noise levels may affect the desirability or livability of a
community. Noise may also negatively impact the eco-
nomic viability of acommunity by reducing the desirabil-
ity of an area as a place to live, work, play, or shop. For
these reasons, noise continues to be an important consid-
eration of the City in future land use planning.
''To agreat extent, the future ambient
noise levels of the City will be deter-
mined by the type, intensity and loca-
tion of future land uses,
Some land uses are more compatible with higher
noise levels than are others. For example, schools,
hospitals, churches and residences are generally consid-
ered more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial
or industrial activities. To respond to the sensitivity of
certain iand uses to higher noise levels, this element
includes policies to reducenoise impacts on noise-sensi-
tive uses such as residences.
It may be appropnate to develop noise-sensitive
uses such as residences, hospitals, or churches in noisy
areas In these instances, it is important that the proper
measures are used to reduce noise impacts. In al! cases
sensitix esite plan design is to be used as the first method
to reduce noise impacts on a project. Sensitive site plan
design measures wall include, for example, increasingthe
distajice between the noise source and the receiver, plac-
ing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, main-
tenance facilities, and utilit>'areas between the source and
the receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as
a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas, and, orienting
buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source.
These and other noise mitigation techniques are discussed
in more detail in the City's Noise Guidelines Manual
available in the Planning Department.
C. OTHER MOBILE SOURCES
1. OFF ROAD MOTORCYCLE NOISE
MotorcyclenoisehasbeenaprobleminCarlsbad.
In parficular, complaints have been registered against
recreafional use of dirt bikes or two-cycle engine motor-
cycles. The Police Department continues to enforce the
prohibifion of motonzed off-road vehicles within the
City, except as permitted at the Carlsbad Raceway.
Local junsdictions have the authority to control
loud or faulty mufflers, hom blowing, off-road vehicles
and vehicle speed. Although noise limits may be set for
off-road vehicles, they are rarely necessary smce statutes
against trespassing neariy always apply.
Most trail bikes are not outfitted with the neces-
sary lights, fenders, mufflers, spark arresters or baffles
required by law. Consequently they are not licensed and
cannot be legally operated on public streets. Continued
police enforcement against these unlicensed vehicles would
likely reduce motorcycle noise on public streets.
2. MOTOR BOAT
This noise problem does not affect very many of
Carlsbad's residents. However, in response to noise
complaints, the City has adopted a maximum speed limit
for boats on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and has pur-
chased a boat for enforcement. The reduction in speed
does reduce noise somewhat. If further control appears
wananted, the City should consider semng curfews on the
use ofthe lagoon or limit the t>^es of boats which could
use the laeoon
Pas
NOISE ELEMENT
3. MODIFIED VEHICLE EXHAUST
SYSTEM
Vehicles operatmg on city streets which have
faulty or modified exhaust systems can cause significant
local noise impacts, especially when operated m a"hot
rod" manner. Continued enforcement ofthe vehicle code
is encouraged m orderto control this contnbutor to noise
pollution.
III. NOISE CONTOUR MAPS
The noise contour maps contained herein, show
1990 and 2010 noise contours forthe following transpor-
tation systems (See Maps I: Exisfing Noise Exposure
Contour Map (1990) and Map 2: Future Noise Exposure
Map(2010):
(1) hiterstate 5
(2) State Highway 78
(3) Circulation El ement Roadways ofthe Carlsbad
General Plan
(4) Rail
(5) McClellan-Palomar Airport
Substantial changes in traffrc pattems or the
availability of new noise contour data may indicate the
need for revisions of this element. Consequently, the noise
contours contained m this element should be reviewed and
revised penodically.
Noise levels for McClellan-Palomar Airport are
expressed m terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNTL), measured at 5 dB mcrements and are mapped for
the range of 55 to 75 dBA CNEL. Noise levels for
freeways, prime artenals and the railroad are expressed as
CNEL down to the 60 dBA. All other transportation
modes shown on the contour map are expressed as CN^L
dowTitothe55 dBA. Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNTiL) IS based upon A-weighted noise level, number or
duration of noise events, and time of occurrence through-
out the 24 hour day. The CNEL measurement weights
noise occunences in the evening and nighmme greater
than those in the daytime. Please refer to the Carisbad
"Noise Guidelmes Manual" for more information regard-
ing CNEL and general noise science.
The airport's projected noise contours idenfified
m the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport are included in this element
(See Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map).
IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND IMPLEMENTING
POLICIESANDACTION
PROGRAMS
GENERAL
A. GOAL
A City which is free from excessive, objecfion-
able, or harmful noise.
B. OBJECTIVES
B. 1 To create an ongoing noise identification and
control program.
B.2 To control harmful or undesirable noise.
B. 3 To protect the heanng and well being of
Carlsbad residents and visitors.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
Cl Control harmful or undesirable sounds
through the pianning and regulatory process with empha-
sis on noise/land-use compatibility planning.
C.2 Review all development proposals, both
public and pnvate, for consistency with thepolicies of tius
element.
Paee 5
NOISE ELEMENT
C.3 Review existing City ordinances which
relate to noise control for compatibility wnth the goals and
policies ofthis Element.
C.4 Connnue to enforce building codes to ensure
adequate sound insulation between dwellings and to en-
sure adequate sound insulation of intenor areas from loud
extemal noise sources. TheCity shali continuetoenforce
project conditions of approval related to noise control.
C.5 Attempt to control noise primanly at its
source. Where this is not feasible, controls along the
transmission path of the noise shouid be required.
C.6 Controi noise generated through its own
functions and activities and minimize noise impacts re-
sultmg from City-sponsored or approved activities.
C.7 Review City operations to make sure that
noise generated by construction, maintenance activities,
and street sweeping minimize significant adverse noise
levels.
C.8 Penodically review the noise contours con-
tained in this element. Substantial changes in traffic
pattems or the availability ofnew noise contour data may
indicate the need for revisions
C.9 Participate in noise controi and hearing
conservation programs in all appropnate work environ-
ments owned, operated, or otherwise under the control
of the Citv'.
LANDUSE
A. GOALS
AIA City where land uses are not significantly
impacted by noise
A 2 A City with industnai and commercial land
uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise
impacts
A. 3 A City which controls mobile sources of
noise to help assure that mobile noise sources do not
substantially contnbute to the noise environment.
B. OBJECTIVES
B. 1 To achieve noise compatibility between in-
dustrial/commercial and surrotindmg land uses and achieve
an acceptablenoise environmentm mdustnal/commercial
areas.
B.2 To achieve noise impact compatibility be-
tween land uses through the land use planning/develop-
ment review process.
B. 3 To actively control mobile noise violations.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible
land uses in areas which are subject to excessive noise
levels.
C.2 Develop specific noise standards for use in
reviewingnoise sensitive deveiopment
C.3 Require the use ofproject design techniques,
such as, mcreasing the distance between the noise source
and the receiver; placing non-noise sensitive uses such as
parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility areas
between the source and the receiver; using non-sensitive
structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive
areas; and, onenting buildings to shield outdoor spaces
from a noise source to mmirmze noise impacts dunng any
discretionary reviewof a residential or other noise sensi-
tive project.
C.4 Continuetoenforce the State Motor Vehicle
Code as it applies to excessive noise. The Carlsbad Pohce
Department should continue to reduce tiie number of
PaLie 0
NOISE ELEMENT
excessively noisy vehicles on city streets. The Depart-
ment should also continue to deter persons from
operating their motor vehicles in a noisy manner.
C.5 Enforce the poiicy of the City that sixty
(60) dBA CNTEL is the extenor noise level to which all
residential units should be mitigated. 65 dBA CNEL
IS the maximum noise level to which residential units
subject to noise from McClelian-Palomar Airport
should be permitted. Additional disclosure actions
(easements, deed resttictions, recorded notice, etc.)
may be required of developers/sellers of noise im-
pacted residential units.
For residential properties identified as requinng
a noise study, a study shall be prepared by an acoustical
professional. This study shali document the projected
maximum extenor noise level and mitigate the projected
extenornoise level to amaximum allowablenoise level as
identified m this policy.
Intenor noise levels should be mitigated to 45
dB A CNEL when openings to the extenor of the residence
are open or closed. If openings are required to be closed
to meet the intenor noise standard, then mechanical
ventilation shaii be provided.
If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise
levels cannot be mitigated to the level allowable as iden-
tified inthispolicyor less, the development should not be
approved without one or more of the foilowang findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan-
tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise).
(2) Changes or alterations to avoid or substan-
tially lessen the significant environmental effect (noise)
are within the responsibility and junsdiction of another
public agency and nottiie City ofCarisbad. Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should
be adopted by such other agency
(3) Specific economic, social, or other consid-
erations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect (noise).
If a project is approved with extenor noise
levels exceeding the level allowable pursuant to this
policy, all purchasers of the impacted property shall be
notified in wnting prior to purchase, and by deed
disclosure m writing, thatthe property they are purchas-
ing is, or will be, noise impacted and does not meet
Carlsbad noise standards for residential property.
Notwithstanding project approval, no residen-
tial interior CNEL should exceed 45 dBA.
C.6 Require that a "Noise" Study be submit-
ted with all discretionary applications for residential
projects of five or more single family dwelling units or
any multiple family dwelling units located within or
500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines
as shown on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour
Map.
C.7 Enforce the policy of the City that site
design techniques such as increasing the distance
between the noise source and the receiver; placing non-
noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance
facilities and utility areas between the source and the
receiver; using non-noise sensitive structures, such as
a garage, to shield noise-sensitive areas; and orienting
buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source,
be the first tool used to mitigate noise impacts on noise
sensitive iand uses rather than the construction of walls
or berms.
C.8 Recognize that mitigation of existing or
future noise impacts from Circulation Element road-
ways, AT&SF railroad or McClellan-Palomar Airport
for existing or future development within the City,
shall not be funded by the City. However, the City
Page 7
NOISE ELEMENT
shall assist applicants with the processing of necessary'
permits for mitigating noise on private property,
which permits may include right-of-way permits,
encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and
zoning vanances. The City shall also assist property
owners in the establishment of assessment distncts, to
fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance
with established City poiicies and procedures.
C.9 Discourage the exclusive use of noise walls
in excess of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise
along Circulation Element roadways.
C. 10 Utilize natural barriers such as site topog-
raphy or constructed earthen berms to mitigate noise on
a project. When noise walls are determined to be the
only feasible solution to noise mitigation, then the
walls shall be designed to limit aesthetic impacts.
When over-height walls are necessary to mitigate
noise, a berm/wall combination with heav>' landscap-
ing, a terraced wall heavily landscaped, or other similar
irmovative wall design technique shaii be used to
minimize visual impacts.
CIRCULATION
ROADS
ued enforcement of applicable sections of the Califor-
nia Vehicie Code regarding equipment and/or opera-
tion of motor vehicles.
C.2 Consider noise impacts m the design of
road systems and give special consideration to those
road comdors in scenic or noise sensitive areas.
C.3 Review traffic flow systems and synchro-
nize signalization, wherever possible to avoid traffic
stops and starts, which produce excessive noise, and to
adjust traffic fiow to achieve noise levels acceptable to
sunoimding areas.
C.4 Apply the residential noise policies of this
element in the review of proposals for the construction or
improvement of any roadway, railroad, transitsystem or
other noise producing facility.
AIRPORT
A. GOAL
A City that achieves long-term compatibility
between the airport and surrounding land use.
B. OBJECTIVES
A. GOAL
To provide a roadway system that does not
subject surrounding land uses to significantly adverse
noise levels
B. OBJECTIVE
To design and manage all roadways to maintain
acceptable noise levels.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
C 1 Take measures to reduce traffic noise on
.streets throughout Carlsbad This wall include contin-
B. 1 To mimmize noise impacts on City residents,
the City has planned for non-residential land uses within
the 65 dBA CNEL Noise Contour ofMcClellan-Palomar
Airport, as shown on Map 3: Airport Noise Contour Map.
B. 2 To develop and enforce programs dealing
with airport noise disclosure, avigation easements and
noise control that provide for noise compatibility With
surroundmg land uses.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Encourage the development of compatible
land uses and restrict incompatible iand uses surround-
ing airport facilities.
NOISE ELEMENT
C.2 Utilize the noise standards contained in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
McClellan-Palomar Airport (on file m the Planning
Department). However, the City reserves the right to
deviate from tiie CLUP as provided for in State Public
Utilmes Code Section 21676.
C.3 Recognize that procedures for the abate-
ment of aircraft noise have been identified in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-
Palomar Airport. The City expects the widespread
dissemination of, and pilot adherence to, the adopted
procedures.
C.4 Expect the airport to control noise while the
City shall control land-use thus sharing responsibility for
achieving and maintaining long-term noise/land-use com-
patibility in the vicinity of McClelian-Palomar Airport.
C.5 Discourage the development of residential
projects with exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dBA
CNEL as caused by airport/aircraft operations. The
City recognizes that noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL, as
caused by aircraft operations, are generally incompat-
ible with developments of residential uses and such
developments should not be permitted wathin the 65
dBA CNEL Airport Noise Contour (See Map 3:
Airport Noise Contour Map). However, if residential
projects are approved, the City will require Avigation
Easements to be placed over lots within new residentiai
development projects located within the 65 dBA
CN^L noise contour as mapped on Map 3; Airport
Noise Contour Map.
RAIL
B. OBJECTIVE
To develop, maintain and manage a mitiga-
tion program for railroad noise.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Apply the residential noise policies of this
Element in the review and approval of the constmction or
improvement of railroad facilities.
C.2 Apply the noise mitigation guidelines of
the Noise Guidelines Manual (on file in the Planning
Department) to all proposed development within the
60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour line as depicted on Map
2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map.
EMPLOYMENT
A. GOAL
A City with healthy and productive work environ-
ments that do not cause hearing damage or other adverse
noise related health impacts to workers in the City of
Carlsbad.
B. OBJECTIVES
B. 1 To promote an ongoing noise control and
heanng conservation program for the work environment.
place.
B.2 To promote heanng conservation in the work-
A. GOAL
Noise from railroad travel through Carlsbad is
not disruptive to adjacent land uses and activities
B.3 To encourage that all busmess entities
operating m the City comply with all occupational Heaith
and Safety laws, rules and/or regulations established by
authorized city, county, state or federal agencies.
Paee 9
AW.V£ ELEMENT
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND
ACTION PROGRAMS
C l Participate in noise control and heanng
conservation programs in ali appropnate work environ-
ments owned, operated, or otherwise under the control
of the City.
C.2 Promote that all persons responsible for
operation of noise-producing equipment or processes,
exercise reasonable care to minimize casual noise expo-
sure to unprotected workers or passers-by to reduce nsk
of heanng damage
C.3 Encourage and assist its employees in
identifying and abating potential noise hazards on
City- owned or controlled property.
Pane 10
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FHWA-RD.77.108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 2
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
FNS
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:
Vehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site Data
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
56.000
58.297
64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 52.000
Medium Trucks: 51.785
Heavy Trucks: 51.692
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.24 0.00 1.08 0.000 0.000
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.22 0.00 1.29 0.000 0.000
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.21 0.00 1.91 0.000 0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour LeQ Day Leq Evening LeQ Night Ldn CNEL
Autos: 64.4 62.5 60.8 54.7 63.3 63.9
Medium Trucks: 56.9 55.4 49.1 47.5 56.0 56.2
Heavy Trucks: 58.2 56.8 47.7 49.0 57.3 57.5
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 64.2 61.2 56.3 64.9 65.4
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType \ Leq Peak Hour^
Autos: 64.4
Medium Trucks: 56.9
Heavy Trucks: 58.2
Vehicle Noise: 65.9
Leq Day Leq Evening
62.5
55.4
56.8
60.8
49.1
47.7
Leq Night \
^547^
47.5
49.0
Ldn CNEL
63.3
56.0
57.3
63.9
56.2
57.5
64.2 61.2 56.3 64.9 65.4
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 1
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
FNS
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet Vehicle Mix
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 56.000
Medium Trucks: 58.297
Heavy Trucks: 64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 50.000
Medium Trucks: 49.777
Heavy Trucks: 49.679
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.07 0.00 •1.43 0.000 0.000
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.05 0.00 •1.66 0.000 0.000
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.04 0.00 •2.27 0.000 0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day LeQ Evening LeQ Night Ldn CNEL
Autos: 64.6 62.7 60.9 54.9 63.5 64.1
Medium Trucks: 57.1 55.6 49.2 47.7 56.1 56.4
Heavy Trucks: 58.4 56.9 47.9 49.2 57.5 57.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 64.3 61.4 56.5 65.1 65.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour LeQ Day Leq Evening LeQ Night Ldn CNEL
Autos: 64.6 627 60.9 54.9 63.5 64.1
Medium Trucks: 57.1 55.6 49.2 47.7 56.1 56.4
Heavy Trucks: 58.4 56.9 47.9 49.2 57.5 57.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 64.3 61.4 56.5 65.1 65.5
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77.108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Backyard No Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: Common Use Area
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles Autos: 10
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Vehicle Mix
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 56.000
Medium Trucks: 58.297
Heavy Trucks: 64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 54.000
Medium Trucks: 53.793
Heavy Trucks: 53.703
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.40 0.00 0.84 0.000 0.000
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.39 0.00 •1.05 0.000 0.000
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.38 0.00 1.66 0.000 0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) \
VehicleType ] LeQ Peak Hour LeQ Day LeQ Evening LeQ Night Ldn CNEL i
Autos: 64.3 62.4 60.6 54.5 63.2 63.8
Medium Trucks: 56.8 55.2 48.9 47.3 55.8 56.0
Heavy Trucks: 58.0 56.6 47.6 48.8 57.2 57.3
Vehicle Noise: 65.8 64.0 61.1 56.2 64.7 65.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) }
VehicleType | LeQ Peak Hour LeQ Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
Autos: 64.3 624 60.6 54.5 63.2 63.8
Medium Trucks: 56.8 55.2 48.9 47.3 55.8 56.0
Heavy Trucks: 58.0 56.6 47.6 48.8 57.2 57.3
Vehicle Noise: 65.8 64.0 61.1 56.2 64.7 65.2
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 2
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
! Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
! Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Vehicle Mix
! Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet VehicleType Day \ Evening Night Daily
Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 56.000
Medium Trucks: 58.297
Heavy Trucks: 64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 52.210
Medium Trucks: 51.904
Heavy Trucks: 51.663
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64
-0.26
-0.23
-0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.18
0.03
-7.220
-6.640
-5.300
-10.220
-9.640
-8.300
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
64.4
56.9
58.2
62.5
55.4
56.8
60.7
49.0
47.7
54.7
47.5
49.0
63.3
56.0
57.3
63.9
56.2
57.5
65.9 64.2 61.2 56.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
Leq Day VehicleType |
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Peak Hour
" 57T
50.3
52.9
55.3
48.8
51.5
LeQ Evening \
53.5
42.4
42.4
LeQ Night \
47.5
40.9
43.7
Ldn
64.9
56.1
49.3
52.0
65.4
CNEL
56.7
49.6
52.2
59.2 57.4 54.1 49.6 58.1 58.6
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 1
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Highway Data
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:
10%
1,100 vehicles
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Vehicle Mix Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet VehicleType Day \ Evening Night Daily
Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Roacf Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Roacf Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Roacf Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 56.000
Medium Trucks: 58.297
Heavy Trucks: 64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Roacf Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Roacf Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 50.230
Medium Trucks: 49.925
Heavy Trucks: 49.683
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64
-0.09
-0.06
-0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.79
0.05
-7.290
-6.720
-5.500
-10.290
-9.720
-8.500
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
Vehicle Type j Leg* Peak Hour j
Autos: 64.6
Medium Trucks: 57.1
Heavy Trucks: 58.4
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Day
62.7
55.6
56.9
LeQ Evening
6a9
49.2
47.9
LeQ Night
54:9
47.7
49.2
Ldn CNEL
63.5
56.1
57.5
64.1
56.4
57.6
66.1 64.3 61.4 56.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType \ Leq Peak Hour \
Autos: 57.3
Medium Trucks: 50.4
Heavy Trucks: 52.9
Vehicle Noise: 59.2
LeQ Day
55.4
48.9
51.4
LeQ Evening
53^6
42.5
42.4
LeQ Night i
47J6
40.9
43.7
Ldn
65.1
56.2
49.4
52.0
65.5
CNEL
56.8
49.6
52.1
57.5 54.2 49.7 58.2 58.7
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lof Number: Common Use Area
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Highway Data
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt)
Peak Hour Percentage
Peak Hour Volume
Vehicle Speed
Near/Far Lane Distance
11,000 vehicles
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site Data
Barrier Height: 6,0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.0 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Autos: 77.5% 12.9%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7%
9.6% 97.42%!
10.3% 1.84%
10.8% 0.74%
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
56.000
58.297
64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 54.197
Medium Trucks: 53.892
Heai^y Trucks: 53.650
VehicleType
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
65.11
74.83
80.05
-0.45
-17.68
-21.64
-0.42
-0.39
-0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.17
0.02
-7.290
-6.560
-5.200
-10.290
-9.560
-8.200
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType ] LeQ Peak Hour
Autos: ~642
Medium Trucks: 56.7
Heavy Trucks: 58.0
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Day
62.3
55.2
56.6
LeQ Evening
'60.6
48.9
47.6
LeQ Night ^
54^5 '
47.3
48.8
Ldn CNEL
63.1
55.8
57.2
63.8
56.0
57.3
65.8 64.0 61.1
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
Leq Peak Hour \ Leq Day ] LeQ Evening \
57.0 55T 53.3
50.2 48.7 42.3
52.8 51.4 42.4
VehicleType |
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
56.2
LeQ Night I
47^2'
40.8
43.6
Ldn
64.7
55.9
49.2
52.0
65.2
CNEL
56.5
49.5
52.1
59.0 57.3 53.9 49.4 58.0 58.4
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77.108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 2
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data j Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:
Vehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Site Data
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening] Night Daily
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
56.000
58.297
64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 52.292
Medium Trucks: 51.961
Heavy Trucks: 51.654
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.26 0.00 0.29 -7.430 -10.430
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.24 0.00 0.19 -6.720 -9.720
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.21 0.00 0.04 -5.400 -8.400
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType J LeQ Peak Hour LeQ Day LeQ Evening \ LeQ Night Ldn CNEL
Autos: 64.4 62.5 60.7 54.7 63.3 63.9
Medium Trucks: 56.9 55.4 49.0 47.5 56.0 56.2
Heavy Trucks: 58.2 56.8 47.7 49.0 57.3 57.5
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 64.2 61.2 56.3 64.9 65.4
VehicleType | Leq Peak Hour
Autos: 57.0
Medium Trucks: 50.2
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise: 59.0
LeQ Day
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
' • LeQ Evening I
"53T
42.3
52.8
55.1
48.7
51.4 42.3
LeQ Night j
47.3
40.8
43.6
Ldn CNEL
55.9
49.2
51.9
56.5
49.5
52.1
57.3 53.9 49.4 58.0 58.4
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD.77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 1
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
FNS
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:
Vehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:
11,000 vehicles
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day \ Evening] Night Daily
Site Data
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Obsen/er: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 56.000
Medium Trucks: 58.297
Heavy Trucks: 64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 50.312
Medium Trucks: 49.981
Heavy Trucks: 49.675
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL 7rai^/c Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.10 0.00 0.29 -7.430 -10.430
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.07 0.00 0.21 -6.870 -9.870
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.04 0.00 0.06 -5.600 -8.600
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
Vehicle Type
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening
64.6
57.1
58.4
62.7
55.6
56.9
60.9
49.2
47.9
LeQ Night [
~~~54J3
47.7
49.2
Ldn
63.5
56.1
57.5
CNEL \
64^l'
56.4
57.6
66.1 64.3 61.4 56.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType j Leq Peak Hour
Autos: 57.1
Medium Trucks: 50.2
Heavy Trucks: 52.8
Vehicle Noise: 59.1
Leq Day
55.2
48.7
51.3
Leq Evening
53.5
42.3
42.3
Leq Night
474
40.8
43.6
Ldn
65.0
56.0
49.3
51.9
65.5
CNEL
56.6
49.5
52.0
57.4 54.1 49.5 58.1 58.5
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD.77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: Common Use Area
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
FNS
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Vehicle Mix
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 10%
Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet VehicleType Day Evening] Night Daily
Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 56.000
Medium Trucks: 58.297
Heavy Trucks: 64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos: 54.279
Medium Trucks: 53.948
Heavy Trucks: 53.642
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64
-0.43
-0.40
-0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.19
0.03
-7.430
-6.720
-5.300
-10.430
-9.720
-8.300
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType \ Leq Peak Hour
Autos: ~ 6472
Medium Trucks: 56.7
Heavy Trucks: 58.0
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
62.3
55.2
56.6
60.6
48.9
47.6
54.5
47.3
48.8
63.1
55.8
57.2
63.7
56.0
57.3
65.8 64.0 61.1
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
Leq Day VehicleType |
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Peak Hour
56.8
50.0
52.7
54.9
48.5
51.3
Leq Evening
53.T
42.2
42.3
56.2
Leq Night
~ 47/1
40.6
43.5
64.7 65.2
Ldn CNEL
55.7
49.1
51.9
56.3
49.3
52.0
58.9 57.1 53.8 49.3 57.8 58.3
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Second Floor With Wal
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 2
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Highway Data
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:
Vehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:
11,000 vehicles
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Site Data
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 52.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 8.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 16.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade; 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening] Night Daily
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%!
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%'
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
56.000
58.297
64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 54.537
Medium Trucks: 53.844
Heavy Trucks: 52.518
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.45 0.00 -2.52 0.000 0.000
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.39 0.00 -2.87 0.000 0.000
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.28 0.00 -3.86 0.000 0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType ^ Leq Peak Hour
Autos: 64.2
Medium Trucks: 56.8
Heavy Trucks: 58.1
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
62.3
55.2
56.7
60.6
48.9
47.7
54.5
47.3
48.9
63.1
55.8
57.3
63.7
56.0
57.4
65.8 64.0 61.0
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
Leq Evening VehicleType |
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Peak Hour \ Leq Day
64.2
56.8
58.1
62.3
55.2
56.7
60.6
48.9
47.7
56.2
Leq Night \
54.5
47.3
48.9
Ldn
64.7
63.1
55.8
57.3
65.2
CNEL
63.7
56.0
57.4
65.8 64.0 61.0 56.2 64.7 65.2
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA.RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
Road Name: Jefferson
Lot Number: 1
Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Job Number: 3380
Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Highway Data
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt)
Peak Hour Percentage
Peak Hour Volume
Vehicle Speed.
Near/Far Lane Distance:
11,000 vehicles
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Autos: 10
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 10
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 10
Vehicle Mix
Site Data
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 50.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 6.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 16.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
VehicleType Day \ Evening] Night Daily
Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
56.000
58.297
64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 52.633
Medium Trucks: 51.915
Heavy Trucks: 50.538
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.29 0.00 -3.25 0.000 0.000
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.23 0.00 -3.63 0.000 0.000
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.12 0.00 -4.67 0.000 0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour
Autos: 64.4
Medium Trucks: 56.9
Heavy Trucks: 58.3
Vehicle Noise:
Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL
62.5
55.4
56.9
60.7
49.0
47.8
54.7
47.5
49.1
63.3
56.0
57.4
63.9
56.2
57.6
65.9 64.2 61.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
Leq Peak Hour j Leq Day J Leq Evening
64.4 623 60.7
56.9 55.4 49.0
58.3 56.9 47.8
VehicleType |
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Vehicle Noise:
56.3
Leq Night \
54.7
47.5
49.1
Ldn
64.9
63.3
56.0
57.4
65.4
CNEL
63.9
56.2
57.6
65.9 64.2 61.2 56.3 64.9 65.4
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO)
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall Project Name: Jefferson and Grand - FNS
Road Name: Jefferson Job Number: 3380
Lot Number: Common Use Area Analyst: T. Arambulo
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data 1 Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:
Vehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:
10%
1,100 vehicles
35 mph
12 feet
Autos
Medium Trucks (2 Axles)
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles)
10
10
10
Site Data
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType
Barrier Height: 6.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
Centeriine Dist. to Barrier: 44.0 feet
Centeriine Dist. to Observer: 54.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 16.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 57.5 feet
Road Elevation: 56.0 feet
Road Grade.- 0.0%
Le^ View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Day Evening] Night I Da//y
'7T5Vo 12.9% a6%^9742°7o|
84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%|
86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%!
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos:
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
56.000
58.297
64.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 56.447
Medium Trucks: 55.778
Heavy Trucks: 54.499
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos: 65.11 -0.45 -0.60 0.00 -1.97 0.000 0.000
Medium Trucks: 74.83 -17.68 -0.54 0.00 -2.30 0.000 0.000
Heavy Trucks: 80.05 -21.64 -0.44 0.00 -3.25 0.000 0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) "1
VehicleType | Leq Peak Hour 1 Leq Day | Leq Evening Leq Night 1 Ldn \ CNEL
Autos: 64^i" 62.2 60.4 54.3 63.0 63T6
Medium Trucks: 56.6 55.1 48.7 47.2 55.6 55.9
Heavy Trucks: 58.0 56.5 47.5 48.8 57.1 57.2
Vehicle Noise: 65.6 63.8 60.9 56.0 64.6 65.0
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation)
VehicleType | Leq Peak Hour ' Leq Day 1 Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn j CNEL
Autos: 64 A 62.2 60.4 54.3 63.0 63.6
Medium Trucks: 56.6 55.1 48.7 47.2 55.6 55.9
Heavy Trucks: 58.0 56.5 47.5 48.8 57.1 57.2
Vehicle Noise: 65.6 63.8 60.9 56.0 64.6 65.0
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
APPENDIX C
GRADING PLANS
SCALE: r'=10'
N
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: appendix.dwg
SCALE: r'=10'
N
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: appendix.dwg
SCALE: 1"=10'
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: appendix.dwg URBAN
SCALE: 1"=10'
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: appendix.dwg
SCALE: 1"=10'
N
GRAND AND JEFFERSON FINAL NOISE STUDY, Carlsbad, California - 03380: appendix.dwg
APPENDIX D
INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
o < oo -n
CO
oo H
CD CO
CO
C
TD C
CD
TD C CO
C O
CD
CD
CO
^
o
(D
v.-
o o
c
3 CT
I
</) v> O
« g>
uj
CO (J) o o CO in o o o o CM o o o o o o o o
CD CD CD CD CD
CO CJ) o o
CO in o o o o o o o o q o o o
CD d CD CD CD
CD o o o CN
CNJ o o o O 00 o o o O q q q q CD CD CD CD CD
O — o o o CM ^!— o o T—
T— r— o o o CD q o q CD CD CD CD CD
CO o o o CO o o CD
T— a> o o o q in o q o o cvi CD CD C3
CD CD o o CO CNJ <N o o 00
o CO o o o CD q o o o
CD CD CD CD
CO 00 G) LD 00 00 CM
h-N-
oo 00 00
CD CNI CNI 00 00 00
in in 00 CNI CNI CNI
CM o CNI
1^ C\J CM CM T—
CD CD CD 1^
CNI CNJ CNI
CN o o CNj
o oo 00 CO
o o O O
o o
i 5 5 •> o o
CO CQ QQ
Q < <
o T3 c
8 9
TO B D CO Q
•D
CD
1^ 00
CN CD
CNJ
CD
00 00
CD 00
o
00
CNI
CNI
CNJ
CN
CNI
o
c
D
UJ
05
o L
E
0)
o
CO
5 o o
o o
O CNI
CO q CD CN T- CNI
o o 00 CO
CD CD CNI
T- T- CNI
O O CNI
oq oq q
CD cd CM
T- T- CNI
o o o
00 CO CD CN CN 00
o
CO
ooo
CM O
T-^ CD 00
T- in
O CNI oo 00
00 o o o
CN 00 oo oo in o o q
d CD CD d
CN 00 00 00 oq q q q
d d d d
CN in in in T- o o o
d d d d
1^ 00 00 00
T-^ q q q
d d d d
m CN o o
T-; q T-; T-;
d d d d
o in o o 00 o in in
d d d d
o o Tj-
CD 00 in N-
CO CO
oo 00 CO oo
cL ci cL cL
c/3 .22 CO
I— *!... CD CO CO CO
I I I X
•D TD TD •D
•> •>
>
•>
CO CO CO CO
Q Q Q Q
CO — CO
c Q > 1 Q
1 CD C o o a3 lo
LL O
in o
CNl
q q
cd CN
CNI in cq q
CD d
oo
CN in cq q
•"^ CN 00 ' CNJ
CD CN
CD ^
in
in 00 — I
CN
CD Tf
Tf °0
CN CNI
CD
ULl
CO cn
<
E o o
CD|
o
o
UJ
S o o o
I- cm
o
o o
CD
o
o
o
o
CD
q
CD
o
CO LL
CD E
to
<
CD
D
CD
"O c
D
c
CD E to
D
<
o
UJ
o o
o
CD CN
Tt T-^
CO '
o o
O 1^ CN O)
00 CO
(D > CD _l
TD
c
D O
CO
TD
D)
'cD
E O
o O
Q: O
CO D CO cr O <p _1 v_
c ^ O TD
CD 5^ > ro
o
O
cs
CD O
00
CN
CM CN CM CN
CD O CD Tf
T- CD CD
00 in
Tf oo
c
_co .9
CD O
> D CD TD -I CD TD cm
•D ^ 05 <
05 ^
0) -J
> LU
< o
o
CO
05
:3
o
TD c ro
CD
TD C
ro
CD
05
e
CD
o
05
5"
<
CO
5:
o o
it
E
o
QJ
CQ
ro
5
UJ
C:5 1^ O O T—
in in O O o O Tf O O o q o q O q d d d d d
CD O o T_
in in o o o O o o o q O q o o d d d d d
CD in o o CN •r— Tf o o o T— Tf o o o q o q q d d d d d
00 CM o o
00 Tf o o T—
T— CN o o o O q o q d d d d d
00 CM o o CD 05 CD o o CD
CM CD o o o q in q q q d Tf d d d
00 O o o CD
T— CD o o 00 Tf T— o o o CD 00 o o o
O o o o
Tf 00 00 C75
in 00 00 CM
CD h-.
Tf 00 00 CO
CD CN CN Tf 00 oo oo
Tf in in oo Tf CN CN CN
CM o CN
t—
CM CN CM
CD CD CD
Tf CM CM CN
CM CD O CN o Tf CM
o o
O O
o
TD C
X5
> u o
ro CQ CD
Q < <
o •D c
•D 05 N
ro
CD
"TO
o
TD C
•o
0)
C/) Q LL
Tf
OO
oo oo
CO oo
CM
in
CD
oo
in
d
CNI
o
CM
CD O
CO
_l
c
o
CO — E
CO c ro
H
c
D
cn\
UJ
_Q5
CO
o L
E
O
O
c
3 CT
O CM
00 o
00 00
T- Tf
iri 1^
CM 00 00 00
T T T ^
CO in in
CD T- T- T-
CM
CNI CO 00 00 q T-^ r-; Tf
T-^ in in
CD T- T- T-
o o in q oq q
in in d
CM CM CM
00 00 00
T- Tf Tf
o
Tf
o
CD
O O 00
T- in in
00 00 o o
d d
CN CO 00 00
in q q o
d d d d
CM 00 00 00
00 o o o d d d d
CM in in in T- q q q
d d d d
oo 00 00 •<-; q q q d d d d
in CM o o
•r^ q T- T-
d d d d
o in o o CO o in in
CD T-o 00 in un
1^ 00 00 Tf Tf Tf
00 OO CO oo
a. cL cL cL
CO (0 CO CO
ro ro ro ro X X X X
•D TD TD TD
•> •> •> •>
ro ro ro ro Q Q Q Q
05 ^ B- >^ ^ ro .E Q
O > I
I I CD i_ i_ C
Q
05
O
00 Tf
00 00
o '
00
00 r--in tn
Tf in
CD '
T- 00
q in
d cd
00
T- Tf
CM
d in o '
00
CD
CD •<-
od in I CO
CM CD
r-- in
05
UJ
ro c/)
<
E
o o
cm]
D5|
O
m
o o
C5
o
o o
o o
o o
C5
o
o
o
ts
c
05 E
"co
D^
TD < 05 O ^ D
O (D TD C D
C/)
CD
d
CN
00
CM
lh
CM
CD
c
05 E
"GO
D^
< +
E o o
+
c/5
O CD
05 > 05 _l
TD C D O
C/5
r:
05
'05
O O 05 •.;= O
CM
Tf
CD
CO
1^
cd od
CM CM
o o o
CO CM CD Tf
T-^ v-^ d d
CO I 00 CO
o CO in q CM T-
d lh lh
CM CM
CD Tf
CD CO
CD 00 CD 05
CM CD
in O CO 00 00
00 O 00 CD
Tf T- in Tf
CN CD cd cd
T- T- CM CM
05 O > D 05 TD 0
a:
o z
<
OQ
TD
_l LU
O < O
o <
CO —> CO >^ CO l~
L; CD CO
-Q Num Ana O
CD
TD
C ro c
o
c/5
CD
o o
it
is
I
v>
V)
o c o S) w
S
c
S: CO
o
0
CO
5
UJ
CM 05 o o
CM CD o o o O CM o o o q q q q q d d d d d
CM CD o o T—
CM 05 o o o O CM o o o O o o o o
O o o o o
Tf CO o o 00
Tf o o o o CD o o o q O q q o
d d d d d
CD oo o o in
CD Tf o o T—
o o o o o Tf q q o d d d d d
o CD o o CO
T— CN o o C75
T— CD o o o q q q q q d CN d d d
CM in o o
T— o o Tf Tf CD o o o CO q q o d d d d
Tf 00 00 CD in 00 00 CM
CD 1^ T—
Tt CO 00 CO
CD CN CM Tf 00 00 CO
Tf LO in 00 Tf CM CN CN
CM o Tf CM
IV.
CN CM CM
CD CD CD 1^
Tf CN CM CM
Tf O o Tf
LO CM 00
o o O O
$ 5 o o
TD TD
O O
CQ CQ < <
CO
o TD C
TD 05 N
_ro
9
"TO
o TD c
o
L5
O
CO Q LL
TD 05
CO 00
q d
Tf
q
d
Tf
in oo
00
CM
od
CM
CM
CO CM
00
CM
CD O
c g
'to -E
CO
c ro ^ I h-
C D
C/5
u c
Q> 3
o-
is
C
.£ o !£ o o O
c p
s-o v>
UJ
o L
E
O
0)
o
o
o CD Tf Tf
T— CM CJ5
CM CD d Tf
CD
CD Tf Tf Tf
CM CM 05
d d d Tf
CD T—
CO Tf Tf
q CM CM q cd d d CD
CO o o o
q Tf Tf CD
CD lh lh Tf
oo T— CM
CD Tf Tf Ti-
CD CM CD oo
CM d Tf d in CN 00
o CO o o CM T-CO 00
CD CD d d 00 Tf
O CN 00 00
CO O q q d d d d
CM 00 00 00
q q q q d d d d
CM 00 oo CO
CO o o o
d d d d
CM in in in o o o
d d d d
00 00 00
q o q d d d d
in CM o o
q d d d d
o in o o 00 o in q d d d d
00 o co 00
o o CD 00 CO
CO 00
Tf Tf Tf Tf
OO OO CO oo
ci cL Q. cL
CO CO W CO
v_ I— t ro ro ro ro X X X X
TD TD TD TD
•> •> •> •>
ro ro ro ro Q Q Q Q
"ro
05 "TO
Q. a ro c a
O > Q
1 05 1
C
o o o o 05 CD
LL LL O
in CM 00 '
00 CM CD '
00 O CD CD
Tf
CD
q CO
CM CO 00 '
05 •5<
LU
c !Q ro
CD
<
E o
cm]
D5|
o r
C5
LU
E o o
cm
CD O
CD
C3 O
C5
o
o
o
C5
o
o
CD
D
<
05 O
i_ D O CO
TD C D O
cn
o o ro u_
"c
05
E
TD <
UJ
E o o cm
o o
00 CM
O q d
CO CN
CD od
o |v
T- Tt
CD d
05 > 05 _J
TD c ZD o cn
sz
05
05
O
O
c
05 D
cr
05
ro CQ
05 > ro
tj
O
05 >
_J
TD C D O
cn
TD 05
CM O
CO r~-
od cd
CM CM
o o
00 CO
in CM
CM T-
LO lh
OJ CM
00 O 00 o
CM q q IV.
d od od od
05 "a
'05 -J
< o
o < CO —) CO >^ ro h-
L." 05 CO
-Q
:3
CO
c
•Ci
o
TD C
ro
CD
ro c o (/)
0)
05
05 C S -2 ^ CL
o
05
CL
o o
it
:^ o c o
3
cr
Is
I
v> o ^ c o tf) tf)
s
tf) c
=5 CO
Q
- I
">
.2 o Ir, ^
uj
CD o o CM CO O o o O CN O o o q o O o o
d d d d d
N-CD O o
CM 00 O o o O CM o o o O o o o q d d d d d
Tf o o CM LO in o o o o o o o q q q q q d d d d d
in in o o CM CO CD o o T—
o o o o o 00 o q q d d d d d
Tf CO o o CM oo Tf o o rv
T— CD o o o q q q q q d CM d d d
o CM o o
in 00 o o Tf
CM in o o o Tt 05 o o o o o o o o
Tf 00 00 CD
in 00 00 CM
05 rv. rv
Tf oo oo CO
CD CM Osl
Tt CO 00 oo
Tf in in 00
Tf CM CM CM
CM rv rv. o
Tt CM
r— T— rv.
CM CN OJ
CO CD CD N-Tf CM OJ CM
CO O o 00
T CN 00
CM 00
o o
o
TD C
o o
CQ CQ < <
O
TD C
TD
05
N
ro
9
"TO
o
TD C
TD
05
^ D ><
CO Q LL
o
oo
1^
C75
d
Tt
1^
d
Tf
CO
00
CO
d
CM
00
00
od
CM
CD O
c
D
CO
UJ
_Q5
CO
o L
E o CJ
c •2 u
€
0) o o c o S-o
tf)
0)
u
3 CO
S o o
00 00 o q
d CD
CM 00 00 00
rv. q o 00
Tf d d
rv T- T-
00 CO CO
o o CO
o o 00 CO
00 00 00 q q q
d CD od
T- CM Tf
CM o o [v. CD CD
d cd Tf 00 in
O CM 00 00 q q q q
d d d d
00 oo 00 OOO
oooo
00 00 CO
ooo
oooo
CN tn in LO
T-^ q q q d d d d
IV. 00 00 00
T-; o q q d d d d
in CM o o
q T-; T-;
d d d d
o in o o q q q q
d d d d
CD O CO CO 00 00 Tf CO 00 in
rv. rv 00 00
Tf Tf Tf
00 00 OO oo
ci d. cL ci
CO CO CO CO
i_
ro ro ro ro X X X X
TD TD TD TD
•> •> •> •>
ro ro ro ro Q Q Q Q
00 Tf Tf r-
00 CM
O '
00 in
CD CD
od od
00 '
CD 00 CM CD
CO
od
00 CD
lh od
05
"><
UJ
ro
CO
o
CO
<
E
CDl
O
UJ
E o
cm
o o
o o
CD
o
CD
O
o o
o
CD
o
o o ro
LL
"c
05 E
'co
D^
<
05 C5 i_
D
CO
c
CO
D^
TD < +
C/5
O
UJ
E o o cm
c ro
I-
CM CJ5
q q
d d
00 CN
o rv
00 CD
O CD CN OO
O
CO
TD 05
05
•Q5
CD CD CM CM
CO o 00 in q q T- q
1-^ cd d d
1- CN CM
00 r-
q CM d d oo oo
o c
O c/5 O
>> 05 o o > D
c 05 TD
<D _l 05 D TD cm req luni se u_ o
TD CO No C TD ro 05 < CQ .C CQ
05 O) X5
> '05 _l ro XS NE O < O
o
CO CO CO
05 -Q
o
05
05
05
!
05
CL
<
Ss o c u
3
I
is
I
tf)
tf) O
c .o
tf)
S tf) c
o
(D
CQ
oc]
•g §
,x
UJ
CO CD o O Osl in o O o o CN o O o o q q q q d d d d d
00 CD o O
CM in o O o o CM o O o o q o o q d d d d d
CD o o o 00 Tf CM o o o o 00 o o o q o q o q d d d d d
Tf o o 00
rv T— o o T—
o •r-o o o q Tf q o q d d d d d
rv CO o o oo T— 00 o o CO r— 05 o o o q q o q q d Osi d d d
.r-CD o o in
05 CM o o Tf CD 00 o o o q q q q q d d d d
Tf 00 00 05
in CO oo CM
CD rv r^
Tf oo 00 CO
CD CM CM Tf 00 00 CO
in in 00 Tf CM Osl CM
Osl (V-rv. o
Tf CM
rv T— T— IV.
CN CM CM T—
CD CD CO rv.
Tf CM CM CM
moo
CO CO
|v-
oo o o
ci ^ ^ CO
Q
ro
X
TD •> o o ro CQ CQ < <
o
TD
TD 05 N
_ro
9
lo
D
Q
o
TD c
TD
05
CD 00
Tf
d
Tf
1^
Tf
d
Tf
lh 00
IV.
00
CN
CM
CM
OJ ^.
00
CM
CD O
c ro t_ h-
"o c
D
CO
tf)
c
c p
s-o
tf)
o c
3
cr
is
C
o
I
Q> O
O c p
s-
o tf)
UJ
CO
o L
E
O
o
•e
3 CO £ o o
o CM CO o
q o Osi d d lh CM
CD
CM CO 00 o 00
o Tf
d d d lh Osi in T— 05 T—
CM CO 00 o CO
q o CM
d d lh CD 00
CN o o o CM
rv. q 00 o q d lh th th CM
00 T— OsJ 05
rsj CO 00 o CO
q Tf o CO
Osi d Tf d lh
in CM Tf CM
o OJ O o OJ
CD — q q q lh d d d CM
Tf oo in 00
o CM oo 00
oo q q o d d d d
CM 00 oo 00
q q q q d d d d
CM oo oo CO
q q q q d d d d
CN in in in
q q o d d d d
rv oo CO 00
q o o d d d d
tn CM o o
q d d d d
o in o o
q q q q d d d d
CD o CD o CM
o o o r—
00 00 in T—
T—
rv rv 00 CO
Tf Tf Tf Tf
00 00 00 oo
ci ci ci cL
CO CO CO *^ k-
ro ro ro ro X X X X
TD TD TD TD
•>
'>
•> •>
ro ro ro ro Q Q Q Q
05
CL
o >
D
CD)
c
05
U
X
UJ
(/5 I
C
ro
CO
c
<
E o o
05|
O
C5
m
E
Cd
o
d
o
o
o o
o
q d
o o
o o
OQ
•o
o o o
CM
O
O
O
Osl
Osl
CD
E
D
<
05 O i_
D
O
CO
TD
C D
O CO
in q
d
00
o q
lh
CM
C5
UJ
E o o
cm
tv
CM
in oo
00 CM
d d
CM CN
O 00
CO CO
lh lh
OJ CM
Tf
CO in
d d
Osl CM
CO o 00 q q Tf q
d od d d
CD 00
00 r^
00 CD 05 CD T- 1- CM CM
05
>
05
_l
TD
C
O
CO
TD
05
'05
<
.o
o o ro
LL
c
o
o
05
o O
o c
05
D
CT
05
TD C
ro
CQ
05 > ro
c
D
O
CO
TD 05
05
"05
05 O > D
05 TD
-) 05
TD Od
05 CO •Q z
<
CQ
TD
_J LU
o < o