Loading...
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