Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 177-2020 (20-868)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, • 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City Council Resolution: RES 177-2020 File Number: 20-868 Enactment Number: RES 177-2020 RESOLUTION OVERRULING THE SAN MATEO CITY / COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (C/CAG) AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY WITH RESPECT TO NOISE POLICIES FOR THE 410 NOOR MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ("410 NOOR" OR "PROJECT") BY ADOPTING SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERRIDE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DIVISION 9, PART 1, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 3.5 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. WHEREAS, the SyRes Properties has proposed construction of a high-density residential development, consisting of 338 residential units, 466 parking spaces, a small retail space, and residential and open space amenities at 410 Noor Avenue, APNs 014-183-270, 014-183-230, and 014-183-220 (collectively referred to as "Project Site") in the City; and WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP18-0006), Design Review (DR18-0006), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM18-0003), Waiver Modification (WM20-0005), General Plan Amendment (GPA20-0001), and Zoning Text Amendment (ZA20-0001) for the Project; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the City Council's authority to utilize the local agency override process provided for in Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code; and WHERAS, the 410 Noor Project is located within Airport Influence Area B of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), the area subject to formal C/CAG Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2020, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21670 et seq. of the Public Utilities Code ("Section 21670") the City referred the proposed development project and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments to the C/CAG ALUC of San Mateo County for a determination of consistency with the ALUC's Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the San Francisco International Airport; and City of South San Francisco Page 1 File Number: 20-868 Enactment Number: RES 177-2020 WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, the ALUC, acting pursuant to its authority under Section 21670 determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment to reference the Local Agency Override Process that is available per State law are consistent with the applicable land use and airport policies and criteria contained in the ALUCP for the San Francisco International Airport; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, the ALUC, acting pursuant to its authority under Section 21670 determined that the 410 Noor project is inconsistent with SFO ALUCP Policy NP -1, Noise Compatibility Zones, and Table IV -1, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria, the project site is located almost entirely within the 70-75 dB CNEL noise contour, and multi -family residential use is identified as "Not Compatible" within that contour, unless at the time of adoption of the SFO ALUCP (2012) the site had been zoned exclusively for residential use, which is not the case with the Project site; and WHEREAS, as a final review authority, the City Council, may, after a public hearing, choose to overrule the ALUC determination by a two-thirds vote of the City Council, if the City of South San Francisco makes specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of the Public Utilities Code Section 21670 regarding the protection of public health, safety and welfare in the areas surrounding airports and by providing the C/CAG ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ("Division") with notice of the City's intent to consider overruling the C/CAG ALUC determination along with supportive findings at least 45 days prior to the City's action to overrule the ALUC; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution making draft findings and declaring an intent to consider overruling the C/CAG ALUC determination that the 410 Noor project is inconsistent with respect to noise policies and directed staff to transmit the required notice to the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Code provides that the City must provide the notice of intent and draft findings to the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics at least forty-five (45) days prior to the decision to overrule the Commission; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2020, City staff provided a notice and associated draft findings to the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics declaring the City's intent to consider overruling the C/CAG ALUC determination, and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the override and made its final decision on December 1, 2020, which is more than forty-five (45) days after October 15, 2020 the date upon which the City transmitted its notice of intent to the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics; and WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Code provides that the ALUC and the Division shall respond to the referral of the findings of override within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings; and City of South San Francisco Page 2 File Number. 20-868 Enactment Number. RES 177-2020 WHEREAS, the ALUC and the Division responded to the referral of the findings of override within 30 days and provided comment letters to the City, which are incorporated into this resolution as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the comments by the ALUC or Division are advisory to the City under State law, and WHEREAS, the City Council shall include comments from the ALUC and the Division in the final record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. That the Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 21676.5 provide that a local governing body may overrule the Airport Land Use Commission if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670. The City Council therefore finds the following: a. The first purpose of Section 21670 is to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this State, and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of California airport noise standards and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The second purpose of Section 21670 is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. b. With respect to safety, the majority of the proposed Project site is located outside of all of the Safety Zones for the San Francisco International Airport. A small portion of the site is located within Safety Zone 4, the Outer Approach / Departure Zone, which prohibits biosafety facilities, schools, child day care centers, stadiums, and arenas. Per the Project plans, the only public space identified within this safety zone is the leasing office, which is considered a compatible use. Thus, the Project is consistent with the ALUC safety policies and was determined to be so by the ALUC. c. With respect to the Airspace Protection Policies, per the ALUCP, airspace protection policies are established with a two -fold purpose: 1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public's exposure to potential safety hazards that could be created through the construction of tall structures, and, , 2) To protect the public interest City of South San Francisco Page 3 File Number: 20-868 Enactment Number: RES 177-2020 in providing for the orderly development of SFO by ensuring that new development in the Airport environs avoids compromising the airspace in the Airport vicinity. This avoids the degradation in the safety, utility, efficiency, and air service capability of the Airport that could be caused by the attendant need to raise visibility minimums, increase minimum rates of climb, or cancel, restrict, or redesign flight procedures. The proposed Project site includes three buildings that range in height from three to five stories, with the maximum building height of approximately 60 feet. The proposed Project site is located within an area that requires filing FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, for structures exceeding 30 feet in height. The Project will include a Condition of Approval requiring that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this FAA requirement, prior to obtaining building permits. The Project site is also located within the Part 77 airspace protection surfaces for SFO. The applicant has submitted a detailed airspace analysis completed by Williams Aviation Consultants (incorporated as Exhibit A) which concludes that the Project will not penetrate the Part 77 Imaginary Surface. The height for the imaginary surface established for the horizontal surface at the site location is 163.2 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The proposed Project parcels are located at between 35 and 48 feet above MSL. The proposed buildings at the 410 Noor project site are designed to be constructed at a maximum building height of 59 feet above ground level. Maximum structure heights would be approximately 94 to 107 feet above MSL. A structure built at a maximum of 107 feet above MSL would be well below the imaginary surface height established. Based on the proposed Project's maximum height of 107 feet above MSL, no additional safety requirements are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the airspace policies as established in the adopted 2012 SFO ALUCP, as determined by the ALUC in their review of the project. Per ALUCP Policy A4, proposed land uses with characteristics that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft taking off or landing at the Airport or in flight are incompatible in Area B of the Airport Influence Area. As a mixed-use residential project, the 410 Noor proposed Project does not contain any characteristics that would cause these hazards. Additionally, the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Section 20.300.010) contains performance standards to ensure that all development protects the community from nuisances, hazards and objectionable conditions, including those which could be aircraft hazards, including light, glare, air contaminants, or electromagnetic interference. As proposed, the 410 Noor project is consistent with the performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and would not create an aircraft hazard. d. With respect to noise, the applicant has submitted an on-site noise study prepared by Salter and Associates (incorporated as Exhibit B) which shows that on-site noise monitoring and SFO noise monitoring from 2017 to the present indicate that the Project site is within the 65-70 dB CNEL contour, not within the 70dB CNEL contour as was the case when the ALUCP was adopted. While the Project is not consistent with the ALUCP noise policies, recent site-specific data shows that the airport noise patterns are lessening over time, and that the Project site is currently less impacted by airport noise than at the City of South San Francisco Page 4 File Number: 20-868 Enactment Number: RES 177-2020 time the ALUCP was adopted. Additionally, the Salter Noise Study also illustrates that implementation of noise control measures and construction standards will lessen noise impacts to residents. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed acoustical analyses shall be completed as part of the final design for the proposed residential structures. The Project shall incorporate construction methods, sound attenuation features, and sound reducing barriers that reduce noise impacts in accordance with Section 21670, State Building Code, and General Plan requirements to meet the interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL. Sound control treatments shall include mechanical ventilation for all units so that windows can be kept close at the resident's discretion to control noise, and special building construction techniques (such as sound -rated windows and building fagade treatments) for all units. The Project is also required to include real estate disclosures in residential leases, disclosing the presence of an airport within two miles of the property, per Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code. e. As illustrated by the above discussion, approval of the proposed Project as configured would provide for orderly development adjacent to the airport and promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems because the proposed Project provides much needed housing near transit on an underutilized site, while also utilizing advanced construction techniques to minimize any noise impacts to residents, and the location, size, height and configuration of the Project would not create any safety problems. Furthermore, approval of the proposed Project protects public health, safety and welfare because as configured the Project minimizes the public's exposure to excessive airport noise through the application of advanced construction techniques and does not expose the public to any safety hazards or create any aircraft hazards. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and overrules the San Mateo City / County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Airport Land Use Commission determination of inconsistency with respect to Noise Policies for the 410 Noor multi -family residential project ("410 Noor" or "Project") in accordance with its authority pursuant to the local agency override process provided for in Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code. In doing so, the City Council hereby specifically finds that approval of the Project is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. City of South San Francisco Page 5 File Number: 20-868 Enactment Number. RES 177-2020 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. At a meeting of the City Council on 12/1/2020, a motion was made by Vice Mayor Addiego, seconded by Councilmember Matsumoto, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed. Yes: 5 Mayor Garbarino, Vice Mayor Addiego, Councilmember Nagales, Councilmember Nicolas, and Councilmember Matsumoto Attest by . 'L osa Govea Acosta, City Clerk City of South San Francisco Page 6 410 Noor Override Resolution: Exhibit A: Airspace Analysis 18521 E Queen Creek Road, Suite 105-491, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Phone 480-987-7823 5/2/2019 Summary Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. (WAC) has been retained by Barbara Lichman of Buchalter to complete an obstruction evaluation and airspace analysis for the 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project, proposed by SyRES Properties, LLC, located in the City of South San Francisco, California. The project includes three proposed buildings; one at three stories, one at four stories, and one at five stories. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the maximum elevation to which a building can be erected at the project site without having an adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The proposed structure’s location in relation to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 - Project Location 2 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. FAA Review Process The FAA utilizes the criteria contained in FAR Part 77 to determine reporting requirements, the impact of a proposed structure on navigable airspace, and whether the structure, if constructed, will require lighting and/or marking. FAR Part 77 defines the criteria for determining if a structure will require reporting to the FAA, if the structure exceeds the stated criteria and requires the submittal of FAA Form 7460-1, and/or whether or not the structure has an impact on navigable airspace. If the FAA determines that there is an impact to navigable airspace, a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH) will be issued and an aeronautical study will be conducted. Concurrent with the NPH the project is distributed to the FAA divisions having the responsibility for air traffic control, flight procedures, airport infrastructure and navigational aids. Each of these divisions then evaluates the project for impacts within their area of jurisdiction. These divisions submit their comments to the Air Traffic division who will issue a determination. If the FAA determines that the proposed structure has a substantial adverse impact they will issue a Determination of Hazard. In some cases they will offer the project proponent options to mitigate the adverse impact, i.e., lower the structure, redesign etc. It is not uncommon for the FAA’s initial analysis to disregard factors unique to a specific airp ort such as existing structures or special procedures that have been developed for that airport. Once the FAA’s initial analysis is complete, additional data can be presented to the FAA for their consideration which may result in the approval of the proposed structure. WAC Analysis The WAC airport and airspace compatibility analysis includes a review of the following criteria to determine possible adverse impacts to aeronautical operations: 1. Public and private airports in the vicinity of the proposed structure. 2. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. 3. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) including instrument approach and departure procedures. 4. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) Traffic Pattern Airspace. 5.One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Criteria Public/Private Airports: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 9,139 Feet South East of the proposed site location (Figure 2). San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is a commercial use, publicly-owned airport located within the City of San Francisco, CA. The airport currently maintains four runways; Runway 10L/28R with a length of 11,870 feet, Runway 10R/28L with a length of 11,381 feet, Runway 1R/19L with a length of 8,650 feet, and Runway 1L/19R with a length of 7,650 feet. 3 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Half Moon Bay Airport (HAF) is located approximately 8.5 Nautical Miles (NM) South West of the proposed project, however only SFO was identified as requiring detailed analysis to determine whether or not the proposed structures would have a significant adverse impact on flight procedures. An in depth analysis of SFO was conducted to determine possible impacts on navigable airspace, flight procedures, and determine the maximum achievable structure elevation which will not adversely impact aeronautical operations. Figure 2 - Project in relation to SFO FAR Part 77 Analysis: FAR Part 77 Reporting Requirements and Obstruction Standards An analysis of FAR Part 77 reporting requirements was conducted and it was determined that a proposed mixed use project would require formal submission to the FAA. An analysis of FAR Part 77 obstruction standards was completed to determine the maximum elevation and height to which a structure could be erected without exceeding FAR Part 77 Obstruction Standards. FAA Order 7400.2M Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters paragraph 6-3-9b. “Obstruction standards are used to identify potential adverse effects and are not the basis for a determination. The criteria used in determining the extent of adverse affect are those established by the FAA to satisfy operational, procedural, and electromagnetic requirements. These criteria are contained 4 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. in regulations, advisory circulars, and orders (e.g., the 8260 Order series and Order 7110.65). Obstruction evaluation personnel must apply these criteria in evaluating the extent of adverse effect to determine if the structure being studied would actually have a substantial adverse effect and would constitute a hazard to air navigation.” The proposed project is located within 14 CFR Part 77.19 (a) Horizontal Surface (Figure 3), which is a flat ho rizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation and extends outward 10,000 feet from the center of each Primary Surface at SFO 1. The airport elevation at SFO is 13 feet, making the Horizontal Surface height 163' Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). Figure 3 - Obstruction Criteria Conclusion: At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Horizontal Surface at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 163' AMSL. However, even if there had been a penetration of Obstruction Criteria, that does not mean the structure will have an adverse impact on operations, rather the airport’s specific procedures, such as Instrument Approach/Departure and VFR Traffic Pattern procedures, must be studied to determine if the specific procedures will be impacted. The results are discussed below. 1 CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space. Part 77 - Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Subpart C - Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or Navigational Aids or Facilities. 5 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) An analysis of the Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) criteria was completed to determine the maximum elevation to which a structure could be erected without impacting San Francisco International Airport (SFO) instrument approach and departure procedures. Order 8260.3D United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), Order 8260.58A United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design, and Order 7400.2M Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters were used to construct the instrument approach and departure procedures at SFO. SFO Approach Procedures Approach Procedures to SFO include ; Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP), Circle-to-Land Procedures, and VFR Traffic Pattern Procedures. A penetration to the Obstacle Clearance Surfaces (OCS) by a proposed structure would result in the need to increase the procedure’s Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) (the lowest altitude that a pilot can descend on an approach) and would likely receive a Hazard Determination from the FAA. SFO Instrument Approach Procedures A review of SFO's Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) revealed that approaches for aircraft landing on Runways 10R and 10L have the lowest Obstacle Clearance Surfaces (OCS) over the proposed location. Lateral Navigation (LNAV) IAP OCS include the Primary Area with a Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) of 250 feet, and a Secondary Area with a ROC is 250 feet at the primary boundary, tapering uniformly to zero feet at the outer edge.2 Required Navigation Performance (RNP) IAP OCS has a Final Segment Obstacle Evaluation Area (OEA) that is 2 x RNP and a OCS based on Vertical Error Budget (VEB).3 Figures 4 through 7 display an overview of the OCS associated with IAP’s to Runway 27.  Figure 4 - SFO Runway 10L LNAV OCS  Figure 5 - SFO Runway 10R LNAV OCS  Figure 6 - SFO Runway 10R RNP OCS  Figure 7 - SFO Runway 10R RNP OCS 2 8260.58A CHG 2United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design Chapter 3. RNAV (GPS) Approach. Section 3-2 General Non-Vertically Guided Final Segment. 3 8260.58A CHG 2 United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design Chapter 4. RNAV (RNP) Approach. Section 4-2. Final Approach Segment (FAS). 6 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 4 - LNAV RWY 10L Figure 5 - LNAV RWY 10R 7 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 6 - RNP RWY 10R Figure 7 - RNP RWY 10R 8 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Conclusion: The lowest IAP over the proposed project is the RNP RWY 10R. The maximum elevation of the study area is approximately 320' AMSL on the south eastern corner, and approximately 360' AMSL on the north western corner. The proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the RNP RWY 10R, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 320' AMSL to the south and 360' AMSL to the north. Circle-to-Land Instrument Approach Procedure Each instrument approach procedure to SFO contains a circle-to-land option. The circle-to-land portion of the procedure allows a pilot to approach the airport in instrument conditions then, once he has the airport environment in sight, the pilot can maneuver the aircraft to the opposite end of the runway to land. A pilot would execute this type of instrument approach procedure if the winds were not favorable for landing on the primary runway for which the procedure was designed. The surfaces which protect the circle-to-land consist of horizontal circular surfaces which extend from the end of each runway. The radius of each circle is dependent on the category of aircraft utilizing the circle-to-land approach. The minimum ROC in the circling approach OEA is 300 feet.4 Figure 8 display an overview of the lowest OCS associated with the Circle-to-Land Category B Approach to Runways 10R and 10L. 4 Order 8260.3D United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) Chapter 2. General Criteria . Section 2-7. Circling Approach and Sidestep Maneuvers. 9 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 8 –Circle-to-Land Category B OCS Conclusion: At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Circle-to-Land Cat. B at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 660' AMSL. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) Traffic Pattern Airspace An analysis of SFO’s VFR Traffic Pattern Airspace was completed to determine the maximum elevation to which a structure could be erected without impacting aircraft operating in visual conditions at SFO. A structure that exceeds FAR Part 77 Obstruction Criteria (as applied to visual approach runways) could have an impact on aircraft operating in an airport’s VFR Traffic Pattern. The study area is located beyond the lateral limits of the Conical Surface (as applie d to visual approach runways) and is in the climb/descent area, which is 350 feet above airport elevation or the height of 14 CFR section 77.17(a)(2), whichever is greater not to exceed 499 feet Above Ground Level (AGL).5 Figure 9 displays the elevation to which a structure could be erected without penetrating the surfaces associated with obstruction standards (as applied to visual approach runways). 5 Order 7400.2M Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Chapter 6. Aeronautical Studies. Section 3. Identifying/Evaluating Aeronautical Effect. 10 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 9 – SFO VFR Traffic Pattern Conclusion: At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the VFR Traffic Pattern at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 363' AMSL. Obstacle Departure Procedures The OCS associated with SFO’s published departure procedures was analyzed. A penetration to the Departure procedure Initial Climb Area (ICA) could result in the need for the departure procedure to be modified. Departure procedure obstacle clearance is based on a minimum climb gradient performance of 200 feet per Nautical Mile (NM).6 Departures o ff Runways 28R and 28L have the lowest OCS over the proposed project. Figures 10 and 11 display ICA associated with the obstacle departure procedure from Runway 28L. Figures 12 and 13 display ICA associated with the obstacle departure procedure from Runway 28R. 6 Order 8260.3D United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) Chapter 14. Departure Procedure Construction. Section 14-1. General Criteria. 11 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 10 - Departure RWY 28L ICA Figure 11 - Departure RWY 28L ICA AMSL Heights 12 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 12 - Departure RWY 28R ICA Figure 13 - Departure RWY 28R ICA AMSL Heights 13 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Conclusion: The Departure RWY 28R ICA has the lowest OCS over the proposed project. The maximum height is approximately 232' AMSL on the south eastern corner, and approximately 253' AMSL on the north western corner. At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Departure ICA at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 232' AMSL to the south and 253' AMSL to the north. One Engine Inoperative (OEI) All commercial airlines are required to develop OEI procedures for each airport / runway out of which they conduct flight operations. The Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) prescribe that in the event of an engine failure on takeoff, commercial air carrier type aircraft must be loaded in such a manner that they are able to clear obstacles along their intended route of flight by either 35 feet vertically or 300 feet laterally. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-91 Obstacle Accountability Area is used to identify all obstacles that must be cleared vertically. The Obstacle Accountability Area off Runways 28L and 28R is shown in Figure 14. Figure 14 shows an existing 82' AMSL Obstruction closer to the end of the Runways which must be cleared vertically before proceeding over the proposed project. This existing obstruction will provide shielding to the proposed project heights, therefore the proposed project will not have an effect on OEI at SFO. Figure 14 - Obstacle Accountability Area 14 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Conclusion: With shielding from the existing obstruction, the proposed project will not have an effect on OEI at SFO. WAC Summary The WAC technical analysis revealed:  An analysis of FAR Part 77 reporting requirements was conducted and it was determined that a proposed mixed use project would require formal submission to the FAA.  At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Horizontal Surface at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 163' AMSL.  The lowest IAP over the proposed project is the RNP RWY 10R. The maximum elevation of the study area is approximately 320' AMSL on the south eastern corner, and approximately 360' AMSL on the north western corner.  The proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the RNP RWY 10R, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 320' AMSL to the south and 360' AMSL to the north.  At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Circle-to-Land Cat. B at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 660' AMSL.  At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the VFR Traffic Pattern at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 363' AMSL.  The Departure RWY 28R ICA has the lowest OCS over the proposed project . The maximum height is approximately 232' AMSL on the south eastern corner, and approximately 253' AMSL on the north western corner.  At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Departure ICA at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 232' AMSL to the south and 253' AMSL to the north.  With shielding from the existing obstruction, the proposed project will not have an effect on OEI at SFO. 410 Noor Overrride Resolution: Exhibit B: Environmental Noise Study 410 Noor Residences South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Prepared for: Glen Ceridono SyRES Properties 150 Pelican Way San Rafael, CA 94901 Email [email protected] Prepared by: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Valerie Smith, PE – Senior Associate 130 Sutter Street, Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.397.0442 Email: [email protected] Salter Project Number: 19-0338 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have conducted an environmental noise study for the proposed project at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco. This study is an update to the 2017 noise study prepared by Papadimos Group 1 and includes updated on-site noise measurements. This report is broken into the following sections: •Section 1.0 – Introduction •Section 2.0 – Acoustical Criteria •Section 3.0 – Noise Environment •Section 4.0 – Recommendations •Appendix A – Fundamentals of Environmental Acoustics •Appendix B – SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated •Appendix C – 2019 SFO Noise Contour Map, with Project Site Indicated •Appendix D – July 2019 Airport Director’s Report, with Project Site and Nearby Monitors Indicated •Appendix E – 2017 Noise Study prepared by Papadimos Group Those readers not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental noise may refer to Appendix A and Figure A1 for additional information. 1.1 E xecutive S ummary The proposed project at 410 Noor Avenue will consist of three buildings, located near the corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco. This noise study serves as an update to the 2017 noise study prepared by Papadimos Group (contained in Appendix E). In summary: •Updated on-site noise measurements were consistent with the measurements conducted by Papadimos Group. The on-site noise measurements include both traffic and aircraft noise sources. •The project site is located near the CNEL 2 65 to 70 dB contours for airport noise for the three available site noise contour maps (See Section 3.2 and Appendices B, C, and D for further information). •Per the South San Francisco Noise Element, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the “latest quarterly noise contour report to determine the compatibility of land use plans”. This quarterly noise contour is shown in Appendix D. The 2019 2nd Quarter contours indicate the site is outside of the CNEL 70 dB contour for airport noise. •The project can achieve the State Building Code standard of CNEL 45 dB indoors with the use of commercially-available windows and conventional wood-frame construction. 1 410 Noor Avenue Development Exterior Noise Study DRAFT, prepared by Papadimos Group, dated 25 September 2017. See Appendix E 2 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the CNEL and DNL are usually interchangeable. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 3 2.0 ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA 2.1 State Noise Standards Section 1207 of the 2016 California Building Code requires that the indoor noise level in multi-family residences not exceed CNEL 45 dB. 2.2 City Noise Standards The City also has the following related policies: •Policy 9-I-1: Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. •Policy 9-I-2: Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. •Policy 9-I-4: Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the latest official SFIA noise contours 3 and on-site noise measurement data. •Policy 9-I-6: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. •Policy 9-I-7: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. •Policy 9-I-10: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in 70+ dB CNEL areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria. •Policy 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA- accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. The City of South San Francisco’s Noise Element notes that the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will need to approve new development prior to permit issuance. The Noise Element identifies the following ALUC land-use compatibility guidelines for residential land use: 3 We understand the latest noise contours are the 2019 2nd Quarter noise contours. See Appendix C. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 4 Table 1: Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria Less than 65 dB Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 dB Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 70 dB Development should not be undertaken To determine if a site is in an aircraft noise-impacted area, the ALUC determines the CNEL 65 dB boundary using the following resources: •The federal CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined using the most recent noise exposure map (NEM) as accepted by the FAA under the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. At this time, the latest accepted NEM is the Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map 4. This map is included in Appendix C with the project site indicated. •The state CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined from the quarterly noise contours, based on the required airport noise monitoring system. Appendix D contains the 2019 2nd Quarter noise contour overlay, as well as the directors report with the approximate location of the project site indicated. Per the Noise Element, the ALUC uses the latest quarterly noise contour to determine the compatibility of land use plans. Appendix D contains the 2019 2nd Quarter Noise Contour overlay. 2.3 SFO Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Table IV-I of the November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport contains the following polices and compatibility criteria for evaluating multi-family residential land uses. •Policy NP-1 Noise Compatibility Zones: For the purposes of the ALUCP, the projected 2020 CNEL noise contour map from the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Runway Safety Area Program shall define the boundaries within which noise compatibility policies described in this Section shall apply. •Policy NP-2 Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria: The compatibility of proposed land uses located in the Airport noise compatibility zones shall be determined according to the noise/land use compatibility criteria shown in Table IV-1 [excepts shown below as Table 2]. The criteria indicate the maximum accepted airport noise levels, described in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), for the indicated land uses. The compatibility criteria indicate whether a proposed land use is “compatible”, “conditionally compatible”, or “not compatible” within each zone, designated by the identified CNEL ranges. 4 Per www.flysfo.com, this NEM was submitted for approval in July 2018. The Final 2019 map is dated 13 August 2015. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 5 Table 2: ALUCP Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria CNEL Range Land Use Less than 65 dB Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. 65 to 70 dB Land use and related structures are permitted, provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower and that an avigation easement is granted to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO. 70 dB to 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible. However, use is conditionally compatible only on an existing lot of record zoned only for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. Use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. Over 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible • Policy NP-4 Residential Uses Within CNEL 70 dB Contour: As described in Table IV-1, residential uses are not compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB and typically should not be allowed in high noise areas. o Policy NP-4.1 Situations Where Residential Use is Conditionally Compatible: Residential uses are considered conditionally compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB only if the proposed use is on a lot of record zoned exclusively for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. In such a case, the residential use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. The property owner also shall grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco in accordance with Policy NP-3 prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed building or structure. 3.0 NOISE ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Project Description The project is located on the corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco. The project consists of three buildings: Building A is located along Huntington Avenue, Building C is located at the corner of Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue, and Building B is between these Buildings A and C. The noise environment at the site is predominantly controlled by vehicular traffic and aircraft overflights. To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted two long-term noise measurements between 30 May and 5 June 2019 (see Figure 1 for the measurement locations and measured noise levels). The monitors were located at a height of 12 feet above grade. Data from the on-site noise measurements include traffic from local streets, as well as aircraft noise from SFO. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 6 3.2 Noise from SFO Per the published resources, the site is exposed to the following noise levels from SFO airport: • November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: Exhibit IV-6 shows the majority of the site within the CNEL 70 dB contour. This exhibit references noise contours provided in 2011. See Appendix B for the project site location. • Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map: Appendix C contains the Part 150 map generated by the San Francisco International Airport. Per the exhibit, it was submitted on 13 August 2015. This exhibit references sources from 2014 for the creation of the noise contours. Salter has added an overlay of the project site to the Part 150 map to clarify the project location. Per this map, the majority of the project site is located within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB contour. A portion of Building C will be located at the edge of the CNEL 70 dB contour. • July 2019 Airport Director’s Report: Per this overlay 5, the project site is fully within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB contour. This information is based on 2019 noise monitoring. See Appendix D for the approximate site location. GIS maps of historical quarterly noise reports are not available at this time. We have reviewed the noise levels provided in the monthly Airport Director’s Reports dating back to March 2017. For the three noise monitors closest to the project site, noise levels are generally below CNEL 70 dB. The graph below shows the monthly measured noise levels since March 2017. Detailed information is provided in Appendix D, along with information on the noise monitor locations. 5 SFO 2nd Quarter CNEL Overlay, received as a Google Earth (“.kmz”) file on 24 September 2019 from the SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober2017 2018 2019Measured CNEL (dB)Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports (March 2017 to October 2019) Site 4 (SSF)Site 6 (SSF)Site 14 (SSF) CNEL 70 dB 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 7 3.3 Site Noise Context The main noise sources at the project site include car pass-bys on the nearby roadways and aircraft overflights from SFO. We conducted noise measurements at the project site (see Figure 1), which collected noise data from both the car pass-bys and the aircraft overflights. We measured on-site noise levels of CNEL 72 dB at the project site (see Figure 1), which is consistent with the noise measurements conducted in 2017 by the Papadimos Group (see Appendix E). Since both car and aircraft noise exist at the site, we have referenced the Airport Director’s Report to determine the aircraft contribution to noise at the site. The Airport Director’s Report summarizes the noise data from 29 noise monitors managed by the airport that continuously collect noise data. In general, these airport noise monitors are located away from major roadways, reducing the amount of traffic noise that is collected (see data for aircraft noise presented in Appendix D), so that the airport contribution can be determined. Using the 2019 June Airport Director’s Report, the contribution of airport noise at the site is expected to approximately CNEL 69 dB 6. Logarithmically, subtracting the aircraft contribution from our noise measurements would result in a noise level of approximately CNEL 69 dB from traffic: CNEL 72a dB [from aircraft+traffic] – CNEL 69b dB [from aircraft] = CNEL 69c dB [from traffic] a = measured at project site, see Figure 1 b = determined from 2019 July Airport Director’s Report c = calculated See Appendix A for additional information on decibel mathematics. Individual aircraft flyovers from SFO are significantly louder than individual car pass-bys, but the flyovers occur at a lower frequency than the car pass-bys, resulting in similar average overall noise levels (CNEL). For reference, CNEL above 70 dB are common along large roadways and rail lines. Figure 9-2 of the South San Francisco Noise Element indicates that noise levels in South San Francisco were estimated to be above CNEL 70 dB in 2006 in the vicinity of I-280, I-380, US 101, and along the Caltrain line. Recent noise measurements indicate that noise levels are above CNEL 70 dB along portions of Linden Avenue in South San Francisco and along El Camino Real on the peninsula. 6 The project site is near Airport Noise Monitors 04, 06, and 14. We have referenced Monitor 04 for this CNEL level. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 8 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS We used the Progress Set of Drawings dated 23 May 2019 for the unit dimensions and locations. We calculated the window and exterior door STC 7 ratings needed to meet the project criteria. We understand that there are various facades where glazing is still in development. For these facades, we used similar units with maximum glazing percentages to estimate STC ratings. 4.1 Residential Recommendations For our calculations, we assumed that all rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring and all exterior wall assemblies achieve STC 45 at a minimum (e.g., 3-coat stucco, siding over one layer of cement board and one layer of plywood sheathing). To meet the indoor DNL 45 dB criterion, it will be necessary for the windows and exterior doors to have STC ratings as shown in Figure 2 and 3. The recommended STC ratings are for full window assemblies (glass and frame) rather just the glass itself. Tested sound-rated assemblies should be used. For reference, typical construction-grade windows generally achieve STC 28. Where STC ratings are above 32, at least one pane of glass should be laminated. Where windows need to be closed to achieve an indoor CNEL of 45 dB, an alternative method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation) should be considered. This issue should be discussed with the project mechanical engineer. 4.2 Exterior Recommendations The project site has outdoor-use spaces in the following locations: • Courtyard A1, exposed to Huntington Avenue • Courtyard A2, exposed to Huntington Avenue • Courtyard B1, enclosed within the B building At Courtyards A1 and A2, exterior noise levels are estimated to be approximately CNEL 69 dB due to traffic. At Courtyard B1, exterior noise levels are estimated to be approximately CNEL 60 dB due to traffic. Policy 9-I-7 notes that exterior noise levels should be reduced to CNEL 65 dB where site conditions permit. This noise level is met at Courtyard B1 without mitigation. At Courtyards A1 and A2, a six-foot barrier would be needed along the roadway to reduce noise from Huntington Avenue to CNEL 65 dB. A barrier would not reduce noise from aircraft. We understand that visual sound walls are not desired by the City. If used, the barrier should be constructed of a material with a minimum surface density of 3 lbs/ft, continuous from grade to top, and contain no cracks or gaps. * * * 7 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX A Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Noise This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report. Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are: • The intensity or level of the sound • The frequency spectrum of the sound • The time-varying character of the sound Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds, which we hear in the environment, do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments. Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dB." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A-1. Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle pass-bys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise. As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "Leq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation. In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24-hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning • Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time. Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix A1 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated 280 380 101 101 101 EL C A MIN O R E A L C A L L A N B L V D SSI O N R D GRAND A V E H IL L S ID E BLVD SNEA T H L N P A R K W Y OAKM O NT DR F LE E TWOOD DR S H A R P P A R K R DA R R O YO D RS A IRPORT BLVDN MCDONNELL RD L O M ITA AVES SPRUCE AVECHESTNUT AVES M C D O N N E L L R D E G R A N D A V E W E S T B OROUGH BLVDHOLLY AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH AV E C R E S T MOOR D R JENEV EI N A V E MADISON A VEHICKEY BLVD CRY S T A L SPRINGS RDE SAN BRUNO AVE W SAN B R U NO A V E W O R A N G E A V EALTA ME S A DR PARK BLVDR O L LING W OO D DR MAGNOL I A A VEORANGE AVEEVERGREEN AVESAN MATEO AVEOLYMPIC DRJUNIPERO SERRA BLVDGLENVIEW DRW H I T M A N WY R I D G E WOOD DREAR L AVEST F R A N CI S BLVD RICH M O N D D RGATEWAY DRCRESTWOOD DR 7TH AVES K Y L I N E BOU L E V ARDAVA LON D R LITTLEFIELD AVEBA Y S H O R E H W YEL CAM INO REALEUCALYPTUS AVETAYLOR BLVDMOSSWOOD LNBA R C E L O N A D R 82 G RAND AVE HICKEY BL V D W SAN B R U N O A V E S N EATH LNS K Y L I N E BO U L E V A R D SAN MATEO AVEHUNTINGTON AVE SNEAT H L N HELE N D R PacificaPacifica San BrunoSan Bruno South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco MillbraeMillbrae Daly CityDaly City BurlingameBurlingame ColmaColma BrisbaneBrisbane San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake 0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles Exhibit IV-6 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport NOISE COMPATIBILITY ZONES --DETAIL NORTH Municipal Boundary Road Regional Park or Recreation Area Freeway Railroad San FranciscoSan FranciscoInternational AirportInternational Airport C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California Noise Contour Data: - Draft Environmental Assessment, Proposed Runway Safety Area Program, San Francisco International Airport. URS Corporation and BridgeNet International, June 2011 County Base Maps: - San Mateo County Planning & Building Department, 2007 Local Plans: - Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan, August 2006 - Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, January 2009 - Burlingame General Map, September 1984 - North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan, February 2007 - Colma Municipal Code Zoning Maps, December 2003 - Daly City General Plan Land Use Map, 1987 - Hillsborough General Plan, March 2005 - Millbrae Land Use Plan, November 1998 - Pacifica General Plan, August 1996 - San Bruno General Plan, December 2008 - San Mateo City Land Use Plan, March 2007 - San Mateo County Zoning Map, 1992 - South San Francisco General Plan, 1998 San FranciscoSan FranciscoBayBay LEGEND CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast Hospital Place of Worship School Airport Property BART Station CALTRAIN Station Open Space Planned use not mapped Public Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development Sources: Planned Land Use Per General Plans: CNE L 7 5 d B Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet 10L10R1R 1L 19RCNE L 7 0 d B CNEL 6 5 d B EL CAM CN E L 6 5 d B CN E L 7 0 d B SANITARY SEWER AT&T FIBER OPTICWATER EASEMENTPAR CE L 2 PARCEL 1 MOVE- I N BIKE / LOBB YB2784 SFB3 87 2 S F C111 3 3 S FB1792 SFB2784 SFB3872 SFB2784 SFB3872 SF C111 3 3 S FB2784 SFB 3872 S F LO BBY /MAILGARAGEACCESS B2 784 SF B3 872 SF C1 1133 SFC11133 S F B1792 S F B2 784 SFB3 872 SFB1792 S FB1792 SF B179 2 SF A1 587SF A1 587SF B3 872 SFC1 11 3 3 SFB1 792 SF B1 792 SF B2 784 SFB3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SF B1792 SFB1 792 SFC11133 SFB179 2 SF C1 11 3 3 SF B1 792 SFB1792 SF B1792 SF ACCESS A1587S F A1587S F A158 7S F LEAS INGBELOWCAFEBELOW C1 1133 SF C1 1133 SF C1 1133 SF TRASHELEC . B1792 SF B1 792 SF C1 1133 SFB1 792 SF C1 1133 SF GAR ACC BLDG ABLDG BBLDG CCLUB C1 1133 SF C1 1133 SF A1 587SF B1792 SF B1 792 SF B1 792 SF C2 .3 10 9 7 S F C2 .3 10 9 7 S F C2 .2 10 7 4 S F C2 .2 10 7 4 S FC2.11103 SF C2.2 1074 SF FI TN ESS1856 SF B2 784 SF -5'-9 " -5'-9 " -4'-2 " -9'-1 -10'- 6 " -15 ' - 8 " -10'- 6 " -10'-6 " -10 ' - 6 " -12 ' - 1 1 " -14' - 4" -11' - 4 " -11'- 3 " -14' - 4 " 0'-0"0'-0"0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0 " -11'-4 " -11'-0 " 0'-0 " 0'-0"CLUB 135 4 SF9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0" RR RRLOBBY 86 1 SF BIK E50STALLFIR E PUM P MOVE-IN B1 792 SFELECT C21102 S F C2 1102 SF STUDY 20'-2"56'-10 "60'-4 " 29'-6"34'-11 "22' - 10 "37'-7 " Inset added by Salter to illustrate project location 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX C 2019 SFO Part 150 Noise Contour Map, with Project Site Indicated 1CNEL 65 dBCNEL 70 dBCNEL 70 dBSANITARY SEWERAT&T FIBER OPTICWATER E A S EME NT PARC E L 2 PARCE L 1 MOVE - I N BIKE/ LOBBY B27 84 S F B3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B179 2 SFB2 784 S F B3 872 SF B27 84 S F B3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B27 84 S F B3 872 SF LOBB Y/ MAIL GARAG E ACCES S B2784 SFB3 872 SF C11133 SFC1 1133 SF B1 792 SF B2784 SFB3 872 SF B1 792 SF B1 792 SF B1 792 SFA1587SFA1587SFB3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SF B1792 SFB2784 SFB3 872 SF C11133 SFB1792 SFB1 792 SF B1 792 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SFB1792 SFB1792 SFACCES S A1 587SF A1 587SF A1 587SF LEASIN G BELOW CAFE BELOW C11133 SFC11133 SFC11133 SFTRASH ELEC.B1792 SFB1792 SFC11133 SFB1792 SFC11133 SFGAR ACC BLDG A BLDG B BLDG C CLUB C11133 SFC11133 SFA1587SFB1792 SFB1792 SFB1792 SFC2.3 1097 SF C2.3 1097 SF C2.2 1074 SF C2.2 1074 SF C2 .1 1103 SF C2.21074 SFFITNES S 1856 SF B2784 SF-5'-9" -5'-9" -4'-2" -9'-1 -10'-6" -15'-8" -10'-6" -10'-6" -10'-6" -12'-11" -14'-4" -11'-4" -11'-3" -14'-4" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" -11'-4" -11'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" CLUB 1354 SF 9'- 0 " X20' - 0 " 9'-0 " X20' - 0 " 9'-0 " X20' - 0 " 9'- 0 " X20' - 0 " 9'- 0 " X20' -0 " 9'- 0 " X20' -0 "9'-0 "X20'- 0 " RRRR LOBBY 861 SF BIKE 50 STALL FIRE PUMP MOVE-I NB1792 SFELECT C2 1102 SF C21102 SFSTUDY 20'-2"56'-10 " 60'-4"29'-6"34'-11 " 22'-10" 37'-7"Inset added by Salter to illustrate project location 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX D 1) 2019 2nd Quarter CNEL Overlay (from Google Earth Contours) 2) July 2019 Airport Director’s Report, with Project Site Indicated 3) Monthly Noise Monitor Data from Historical Airport Director’s Reports 8 8 Accessed from https://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/airport-directors-report Images used by SFO are Rights Managed Images and have specic usages dened. Please see photography usage guidelines document for more information and only use approved images on SFO Widen Media Collective. Presented at the October 2, 2019 Airport Community Roundtable Meeting Aircraft Noise Abatement Oce July 2019 Airport Director’s Report Aircraft Noise Levels 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 1110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 © 2019 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap Site City Noise Events (AVG Day) CNEL (dBA) SEL (dBA) LMax (dBA) CNEL (dBA) 1 San Bruno 3 SSF 4 SSF 5 San Bruno 6 SSF 7 Brisbane 8 Millbrae 9 Millbrae 10 Burlingame 11 Burlingame 12 Foster City 13 Hillsborough 14 SSF 15 SSF 16 SSF 17 SSF 18 Daly City 19 Pacifica 20 Daly City 21 San Francisco 22 San Bruno 23 San Francisco 24 San Francisco 25 San Francisco 26 San Francisco 27 San Francisco 28 Redwood City 29 San Mateo 68789374227 6569805476 61789069151 64768968165 60768765136 6070795022 66698262233 5872835131 5971825339 5870855124 60728364385 597085372 64718461134 60708157144 60718359113 61708259128 60748663118 63728460115 6369834930 6267764112 64718463171 7069825681 6267794721 6263764332 6366774111 596881416 526778396 6172875413 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 1500 2000 2500 Aircraft Significant Exceedances2,474 Increase due to Foster City Site 12. Multiple aircraft arrived after midnight due to thunderstorms in the East Coast Significant Exceedances Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Note: Site 2 is currently not operational Color image (left) centered on SFO is 2019 2nd Quarter noise contour generated by computer modeling. The contours show various Aircraft CNEL exposure. California’s Title 21 Noise Regulation established acceptable level of aircraft noise at less than 65dBA CNEL. Noise Monitor’s CNEL values (top) are derivedfrom actual measured events and are used to validate the 65dBA CNEL noise footprint. Aircraft and Community monthly CNEL average for each monitor site are provided, along with daily average aircraft counts with the average Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Maximum Level (LMax). The map shows 29 aircraft noise monitoring locations that keep track of noise levels in the communities around the airport. Image centered on SFO airport shows quartlerly aircraft noise levels (dBA) exposure. The green zone marks 65dBA Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric is used to assess and regulate aircraft noise exposure in communities surrounding the airport. The graph below shows aircraft noise events that produced a noise level higher than the maximum allowable decibel value established for a particular monitoring site. 65dBA 70dBA 75dBA 60dBA 55dBA July 2019 55-60 CNEL 60-65 CNEL 65-70 CNEL 70-75 CNEL 75 CNEL Aircraft Community 1 41,836 Monthly Ops 1,350 AVG Daily Ops 38,111 12 Month AVG 1.0% YOY Growth 1 AM3 AM5 AM7 AM9 AM11 AM1 PM3 PM5 PM7 PM9 PM11 PM0 10 20 30 40 50 60 AVG Day Ops July 2019 Average Day (Hourly) Los Angeles Seattle 6%6% Top Destinations 1.1 BDEGA East 1.2 BDEGA West 71% 29% Down the Bay vs Peninsula United Skywest Alaska Delta Southwest American 41% 21% 13% 10% 8% 7% Airlines with the Most Operations 6% Non Airline 80% Narrow Body 15% Wide Body Boeing B737 Airbus A320 Family Embraer E170 Bombardier CRJ2 Boeing B752 Boeing B77W 34% 31% 13% 10% 6% 5% Most Utilized Aircraft Types 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 500 1000 1500 Operations1,155 1,427 Average= 1,350 Daily Aircraft Operations 1. BDEGA 2. DYAMD 3. SERFR 4. OCEANIC 6% 27% 39% 29% Arrival Route A. GAP B. SSTIK C. NIITE D. TRUKN RWY 01 D. TRUKN RWY 28 3% 41% 8% 26% 21% Departure Route Major Arrival and Departure Routes (West Flow) West Flow is depicted in the above image and is a predominate flow at SFO. West Flow 100% Operations July 2019 Arrivals Departures Date 2 Runway Usage and Nighttime Operations Monthly Runway usage is shown for arrivals and departures, futher categorized by all hours and nightttime hours. Graph at the bottom of the page shows hourly nighttime operations for each day. Power Runup locations are depicted on the airport map with airlines nighttime power runup counts shown below. Percent [%] is rounded to the nearest whole number. Arrivals Departures 01 L/R 10 L/R 28 L/R 23% 4,430 0% 1 77% 15,151 100% 19,555 Runway Utilization Departures 10 L/R 01 L/R 28 L/R 52% 350 48% 324 0% 1 Late Night Preferential Runway Use (1 am - 6 am)Arrivals 28L 28R 52%48% Runway Utilization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Operations12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 5 AM Late arrivals on July 8, 9 & 10 due to low cloud ceilings at SFO and thunderstorms in the East Coast. Hourly Nighttime Operations A power runup is a procedure used to test an aircraft engine after maintenance is completed. This is done to ensure safe operating standards prior to returning the aircraft to service. The Aircraft power settingsrange from idle to full power and may vary in duration. Hour 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 58%42% Night (10pm-7am) Alaska Airlines 7 American Airlines 10 Delta Airlines 2 Southwest Airlines 1 United Airlines 8 Nighttime Power Run-Ups 10pm-7am 28 L/R 1 L/R 10 L/R 19 L/R 3 RoundtableAtherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Daly City El Granada Foster City Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Francisco San Mateo South San Francisco Woodside OtherAptos Ben Lomond Berkeley Bonny Doon Boulder Creek Brookdale Capitola Carmel Valley Castro Valley Cupertino Danville East Palo Alto Emerald Hills Felton Fremont Hayward Lafayette Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Montara Moraga Morgan Hill Moss Beach Mountain View Oakland Orinda Palo Alto Penngrove Richmond San Jose Santa Clara Santa Cruz Saratoga Scotts Valley Soquel Stanford Sunnyvale Union City Watsonville Grand Total 11 17 22 37 3 9 12 33 29 4 23 7 18 1 6 13 20 3 6 1 1 5 5 71 67 4 121 1 1 4 1 192 2 26 32 1 2 3 1 121 26 117 1 1 1 13 10 1 1 1 1 2 18 1 9 2 4 5 10 1,160 1,394 195 2,413 4,598 161 565 1,902 7,251 3,133 14 1,610 90 853 974 994 210 1,680 328 1,601 174 381 348 518 10,978 13,134 336 24,294 10 4 3,271 6 45,740 157 7,117 3,756 2 299 281 738 20,549 10,240 18,144 115 46 180 932 4,580 1 2 693 17 67 2,452 6 228 57 1,039 36 477 201,371 1,240 Reporters Annual AVG 186,436 Reports Annual AVG 46 New Reporters Foster City New Reporters Top City 88 Miles Furthest Report 4 Reports per SFO Operation B737A320E75L Top Aircraft Type ASA1947DAL1381UAL2201 Top Flight Number © 2019 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap Noise Reporters Location Map 0 20 40 60 80 AVG Day Counts for dual cha..0 20 40 60 80 SFO Flight Operations89 Hourly Noise Reports (Average Day in a Month) Noise Reports July 2019 Noise Reporters / Noise Reports Noise Reporters Operations 12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMHour of the Day 0 10 20 SFO Noise Reporters21 Night I I Evening I SQL 7% SJC 5%SFO 74% PAO 9% OAK 5% Airport Notes: Address validation Relies on USPS-provided ZIP Code look up table and USPS-specified default city values. of noise reports correlate to a flight origin/destination airport. 100% Source: SFO Intl Airport Noise Monitoring System 4 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix The following noise monitors (Monitors 4, 6, and 14) appear to be closest to the site at 410 Noor. 410 Noor 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober2017 2018 2019Measured CNEL (dB)Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports (March 2017 to October 2019) Site 4 (SSF)Site 6 (SSF)Site 14 (SSF) CNEL 70 dB 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix The table below summarizes noise levels from October 2019 to March 2017 at the three locations closest to the 410 Noor Site. Noise levels were below 70 dB at all locations at all times, with the exception of July 2017 at Site 4, where noise levels were exactly 70 dB. Note that this location is closer to SFO than the 410 Noor project site. Year Month Aircraft CNEL (dBA) from Directors Reports Site 4 (SSF) Site 6 (SSF) Site 14 (SSF) 2019 October 68 64 59 September 68 65 61 August 69 65 60 July 69 65 61 June 69 65 61 May 68 65 61 April 69 66 61 March 68 66 61 February 67 65 61 January 69 66 61 2018 December 69 65 61 November 68 64 59 October 69 65 60 September 68 65 60 August 68 64 60 July 69 65 60 June 69 66 62 May 69 67 62 April 68 66 61 March 68 66 61 February 67 65 60 January 69 66 61 2017 December 69 65 60 November 68 66 61 October 68 65 60 September 68 66 60 August 69 57 60 July 70 56 61 June 69 47 61 May 69 67 62 April 68 66 62 March 69 67 62 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX E 2017 Noise Study P repared by Papa dimos Group A C O U S T I C A N D V I B R A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S 410 NOOR AVENUE DEVELOPMENT South San Francisco, California Exterior Noise Study DRAFT 25 September 2017 S U B M I T T E D T O : Glen Ceridono Senior Vice President SyRES Properties LLC 150 Pelican Way | San Rafael, CA 94901 Tamsen Plume Partner Holland & Knight LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 2 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................... 4 3.1 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.......................................................................................... 4 3.2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN ............................................................................ 4 3.3 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) ............................................................ 6 3.4 FEDERAL GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 6 3.5 SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SFO) NOISE MAPS .............................................. 6 3.6 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ........................................................ 6 3.7 RECOMMENDED CRITERIA FOR SINGLE-EVENT INTERIOR NOISE ............................................... 7 3.8 NOISE EXPOSURE FOR OUTDOOR USES ............................................................................. 7 4.0 SITE NOISE EXPOSURE................................................................................................ 7 4.1 NOISE SURVEY ........................................................................................................... 7 4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 10 4.3 FUTURE INCREASES ................................................................................................... 10 5.0 EXTERIOR-TO-INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS ................................................................. 11 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 11 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A - FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS ................................... 16 APPENDIX B - NOISE MEASUREMENT CHARTS ................................................................. 23 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 3 of 27 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This report summarizes the results of an environmental noise study carried out at 410 Noor Avenue in August 2017 to analyze exterior noise exposure for a proposed multi- family residential development and determine requirements for exterior-to-interior noise control to meet relevant regulations and guidelines.  This study is based on results of a site noise survey over several days from August 16 to 23, 2017 to confirm the existing noise exposure for the project site.  The project site is about two miles northwest of the San Francisco International Airport and directly under a departure path for runways 28R & 28L, which is the primary source of noise exposure for the site.  The site is also exposed to vehicular traffic noise that is at least 10 dB lower than aircraft noise on the average. Addressing aircraft noise as described below will also automatically address vehicular traffic noise.  Based on the results of the noise survey, the site noise exposure is currently CNEL 72 dB and attributed to aircraft departures. This is also generally consistent with the SFO ALUC noise exposure maps. For the purposes of this study, a 1 dB increase has been applied to measured data resulting in CNEL 73 dB to account for future conditions in the 10 to 20-year horizon.  Existing and predicted future noise exposure therefore would exceed the CNEL 70 dB threshold of incompatibility for residential developments as established in the South San Francisco General Plan and SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).  To facilitate further review for the project by local jurisdictions, this study outlines minimum exterior-to-interior sound isolation performance to meet California Building Code requirements for exterior noise inside residential spaces (CNEL 45 dB).  To meet CNEL 45 dB inside residential spaces per the California Building Code, the exterior building shell inclusive of walls, glazing and the roof must be designed to provide sound isolation with Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) values ranging from 30 to 35 as described in the Recommendations section of this report.  Such performance requires detailed design of exterior constructions and upgrades above and beyond the typical minimum standard for multifamily residential buildings. In general, this would include exterior wall and roof constructions with additional layers of mass and/or resilient attachment of interior drywall, glass systems with deep increased airspace and use of heavier or laminated glazing, sound-rated exterior door assemblies and properly designed sound attenuating elements in ventilation systems.  The South San Francisco General Plan also recognizes the need for controlling single- event maximum aircraft noise for residential uses, but has no specific noise limits.  This study proposes limits for aircraft single-event maximum noise based on minimizing sleep disturbance (50 dBA and 70 dBC) and provides OITC ratings for the building exterior shell based on site noise exposure to achieve such performance which is above and beyond the minimum building code requirement for average interior 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 4 of 27 noise (CNEL 45 dB). Such performance is difficult to achieve with wood framed structures and generally requires concrete roof construction and heavy or double exterior wall designs in addition to double glazing systems with deep airspace cavities. 2.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results and findings of an environmental noise study carried out for a proposed residential development consisting of 300 apartment units at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, CA. The purpose of this study was to confirm the existing noise exposure for the site and develop design requirements for meeting relevant regulations and guidelines regarding exterior-to-interior noise control for residential uses. Noise analysis is based on a noise survey that included on-site attended noise readings and unattended noise readings over several days from August 16 to 23, 2017 and review of relevant regulatory documents that included the Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of South San Francisco and the SFO Airport Land Use Policies. 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The current development proposal includes approximately 300 apartment units in wood-framed buildings between 4 and 5 floors above below-grade parking. The project location at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, California is about two miles northwest of the SFO airport and directly under a departure path for runways 28R & 28L. Immediately adjacent to the project site are local streets (Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue) and existing commercial/industrial uses. For definitions of acoustical terms and fundamentals of environmental acoustics refer to Appendix A. Relevant codes and regulatory information as it pertains to exterior noise and in particular aircraft noise and recommended criteria to address single-event aircraft noise based on previous experience are provided in the subsections below. 3.1 California Building Code The California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 12, Section 1207 has the following requirement regarding interior noise from exterior sources. This study includes exterior-to-interior sound isolation recommendations for meeting this standard based on measured site noise exposure. 1207.4 Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan. 3.2 South San Francisco General Plan The following excerpt from page 9-4 of the South San Francisco General Plan (downloaded from City of South San Francisco website August 2017) references the 65 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 5 of 27 dB CNEL contour impact boundary previously established by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and state regulations. “ALUC’s 1995 SFO Land Use Plan establishes the 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO, consistent with noise restrictions in the California Administrative Code, Title 21, Subchapter 6 “Noise Standards.” Local plans, policy actions, or development activities that affect areas within that boundary must receive ALUC approval or have a finding of overriding consideration prior to local permit issuance.” The General Plan has the following land-use compatibility criteria (excerpts from Table 9.2-1) regarding noise exposure for residential development as well as open land uses which may be relevant for outdoor occupied uses on the project: Implementing policy 9-I-10 also limits residential development where aircraft noise exposure exceeds CNEL 70 dB: Furthermore, the General Plan seeks to address pass-by (single-event) noise in addition to the long-term average (CNEL) through the following implementing policy (9-I-1), although no specific limits for single event noise are given. The General Plan also includes a noise contour map for rail and road noise only (Figure 9-2), indicating noise exposure in the absence of aircraft would be CNEL 60 dB or less 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 6 of 27 on the project site and vicinity and the site is therefore fully compatible for residential development with regards to vehicular traffic noise exposure. 3.3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (November 2012) shows the project site currently within the CNEL 70-75 dB noise contour forecast for 2020 (Exhibit III-1, p. III-9). This means that according to the South San Francisco General Plan requirements described above, the proposed residential project would be technically incompatible under the current ALUCP without proper review and approval by local jurisdictions. 3.4 Federal Guidelines The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies 65 Ldn (similar metric to CNEL) as the threshold of incompatibility for residential uses exposed to aircraft noise (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 150 – Airport Noise Compatibility Planning). This is consistent with other federal guidelines issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3.5 San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Noise Maps According to the Noise Exposure Map Report published by SFO in August 2015 as required for compliance with federal regulations (14 CFR Part 150), the project site is entirely within the CNEL 65-70 dB range based on the 2014 noise exposure map (Exhibit 5-1 in SFO report). The 2019 forecast (Exhibit 5-2 in SFO report) indicates the CNEL 70 dB contour line crossing the southwest corner of the project site while most of the project site remains in the CNEL 65-70 dB range. The same report also forecasts a 2% annual compound growth rate in aircraft operations between 2013 and 2033 (Table 2-4). This translates to a 22% increase in aircraft operations over 10 years and 49% increase over 20 years. This information is used later in this study to predict future aircraft noise exposure. 3.6 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment The project site is part of the planning area captured in the November 2009 Draft EIR for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment. Airport noise contours are included in the EIR for a 2001 baseline condition and 2006 projection and indicate that the project site is within the CNEL 65-70 dB range. The EIR does not include more recent noise contours. Proposed Amendment Policies (p. 3.2-18 in the EIR) include requiring an acoustical analysis for any proposed residential development within the CNEL 60 to 69 dB range (Policy 9-I-4) and not allowing such development where noise exposure is CNEL 70 dB or higher (Policy 9-I-11). 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 7 of 27 3.7 Recommended Criteria for Single-Event Interior Noise The California Building Code interior noise requirement (45 dBA CNEL) is based on a 24-hour average and does not address maximum single-event noise associated with individual aircraft. Such events would typically be the prime source of annoyance and sleep disturbance in residential spaces. Given the site proximity to the airport, such noise associated with individual aircraft should be taken into consideration to address speech interference and sleep disturbance. We recommend consideration of the following single-event criteria for limiting maximum aircraft noise inside residential units, in addition to CNEL 45 dB as required by code. Similar criteria have previously been adopted by other local communities1 and the same or more stringent limits are recommended by current industry guidelines2.  A-weighted limit: 50 dBA (single-event maximum)  C-weighed limit: 70 dBC (single-event maximum) The 50 dBA limit above is based on previous field studies showing up to a 5% probability for sleep awakenings from a single aircraft flyover (refer to Appendix A, Figure 2) and the 70 dBC limit is based on minimizing low-frequency aircraft noise intrusion that could potentially induce rattling and vibration of lightweight constructions and fixtures. 3.8 Noise Exposure for Outdoor Uses For outdoor occupied uses such as courtyard seating areas or green roof areas where groups of people would gather for limited periods of time, speech interference would be the primary consideration regarding noise exposure. If continuous noise sources such as steady traffic or mechanical equipment are controlled below 60 dBA, conditions are generally favorable for normal conversation. While noise levels during jet aircraft departures above the site are commonly in the 80 to 90 dBA range and would interfere with most speech communication, this may be acceptable for casual outdoor uses given the short duration of aircraft overflights. There is also no practical way to control aircraft noise outdoors since the aircraft are flying over the site and we are not aware of any previous instances where this has been addressed. 4.0 SITE NOISE EXPOSURE 4.1 Noise Survey The noise survey carried out between August 16 and 23, 2017 included unattended and attended noise readings at the positions shown in Figure 1 below (‘ST’ refers to short-term attended readings and ‘LT’ refers to unattended long-term readings). 1 City of Fremont, California General Plan, Chapter 10, 2011, Page 10-64 2 ASHRAE 2015 Applications Handbook, Chapter 48, Table 1 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 8 of 27 Unattended readings were taken using Larson Davis model 820 sound level meters placed in trees at two positions on the project site. These meters recorded the average noise level (Leq) in hourly intervals and maximum noise levels for single events above 75 dBA. The Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) for each full day of unattended readings were the calculated using the measured hourly average (Leq) levels. The results are provided in Table 1 below and charts that show measured hourly noise levels along with evening and nighttime penalties as required by the CNEL metric are provided in Appendix B (Charts 1a thru 2b). To statistically assess single-event noise, histograms of maximum noise levels during individual loud events were produced and are shown in Charts 3 and 4 in Appendix B. While these events are largely attributed to aircraft departures and generally consistent with our attended observations, certain loud activities near the unattended sound level meters such as dogs barking, etc. could also have influenced measured levels shown on the histograms. However, such events would be rare compared to noise exposure from aircraft. When considering that the two unattended sound level meters should have near agreement in measured noise for aircraft overflights, the loudest 1%, 5% and 10% of aircraft single event noise levels are assessed at 95 dBA, 92 dBA and 91 dBA, respectively. This is generally consistent with attended observations as discussed below. Table 1 – CNEL at Unattended Measurement Positions Date Duration (hours) Measured CNEL (dBA) Position LT-1 Position LT-2 Thursday, Aug. 17, 2017 24 72.5 72.3 Friday, Aug. 18, 2017 24 71.7 71.4 Saturday, Aug. 19, 2017 24 72.5 72.8 Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017 24 70.3 70.6 Monday, Aug. 21, 2017 24 70.8 71.6 Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2017 24 71.2 71.9 5-Day CNEL -- 71.7 71.8 Attended noise readings were taken using a hand-held acoustic analyzer (Bruel &Kjaer model 2250) at various locations across the site to directly observe aircraft and other noise sources and capture representative frequency spectra for subsequent exterior- to-interior noise analysis. Attended noise readings were synchronized with the unattended sound levels meters at Positions LT-1 and LT-2 and the results of these readings are reported in Table 2 below. Refer to Chart 5 for representative frequency spectra of aircraft overflights. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 9 of 27 FIGURE 1: Map of Measurement Positions 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 10 of 27 Table 2 – Short Term Attended Noise Readings Start Time (Duration) Position Measured Noise Level, dBA Average (Leq) Minimum Single-events (maximum) 8/16/17 1:35 pm (15 min) ST-1 68 50 84, 86 (aircraft) LT-1 69 53 80, 84 (aircraft) LT-2 69 51 84, 87 (aircraft) 8/16/17 2:20 pm (15 min) ST-2 70 50 82, 90 (aircraft) LT-1 72 54 84, 91 (aircraft) LT-2 74 52 86, 94 (aircraft) 8/23/17 8:45 am (15 min) ST-3 53 46 89 (loud car) (no aircraft) ST-4 65 50 LT-1 65 51 LT-2 56 48 4.2 Existing Conditions Based on the results of the noise survey described above, site noise exposure is assessed at CNEL 72 dB. This is attributed to aircraft departures from SFO and not local street traffic. According to the San Francisco General Plan, road and rail traffic for the project site is predicted below CNEL 60 dB and this is consistent with our attended noise readings during a period without any aircraft departures. Additionally, both unattended sound level meters measured nearly the same 5-day averaged values (CNEL 71.7 for LT-1 and CNEL 71.8 dB for LT-2 ) despite having very different setback distances from local street traffic (see Figure 1), further indicating that long-term average noise exposure for the site is not influenced by street traffic. 4.3 Future Increases Using information from the Noise Exposure Map Report published by SFO, aircraft operations are predicted to increase by 22% over 10 years and 49% over 20 years. On the assumption that each doubling in aircraft volume results in 3 dB noise increase, this would amount to a 1 dB increase over 10 years and 2 dB over 20 years. However, the trend historically has been towards quieter aircraft designs that partially offsets increased aircraft operations in terms of noise exposure near airports. Therefore, only a 1 dB adjustment has been applied to the existing measured noise levels to account for future conditions, resulting in a future worst-case aircraft noise exposure of CNEL 73 dB for the purposes of this study. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 11 of 27 5.0 EXTERIOR-TO-INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS The following calculation has been used to determine the required sound transmission loss for exterior façades in terms of Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC). Review of measured spectra for typical aircraft overflights has confirmed consistency between OITC ratings and A-weighted exterior-to-interior sound isolation for aircraft spectra. OITC = Exterior Noise Level – Interior Noise Limit – 10log(S/A) + ADJ Where: 10log(S/A) is the room effect S = total room sound absorption (in Sabines) A = exterior wall and roof areas (ft2) Note: For this analysis, residential interiors are assumed to have hard flooring and typical furnishings, resulting in the term 10log(S/A) estimated at 2 dB for rooms with only wall areas exposed to aircraft noise and 5 dB for rooms with both wall and roof areas are exposed to aircraft noise (top floors). ADJ = up to 3 dB to account for sound reflections such as in courtyard areas. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Using the methodology described in the previous section, building exterior constructions would need to meet the following minimum acoustic performance for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB interior):  Roof: OITC 33  Walls: OITC 30 to 35 (refer to Figures 2 thru 4) For meeting the recommended single-event interior noise criteria (50 dBA and 70 dBC) based on all but the loudest 10% of aircraft (up to 90 dBA and 96 dBC), the building exterior constructions would need to provide the following minimum acoustical performance:  Roof: OITC 45  Walls: OITC 42 to 45 (refer to Figures 5 thru 7) 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 12 of 27 FIGURE 2 – Min. OITC Ratings for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB inside) - Floors 1-3 FIGURE 3 – Min. OITC Ratings for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB inside) – Floor 4 FIGURE 4 – Min. OITC Ratings for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB inside) – Floor 5 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 13 of 27 FIGURE 5 – Min. OITC Ratings for single-event noise control (50 dBA max. inside) – Floors 1-3 FIGURE 6 – Min. OITC Ratings for single-event noise control (50 dBA max. inside) – Floor 4 FIGURE 7 – Min. OITC Ratings for single-event noise control (50 dBA max. inside) – Floor 5 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 14 of 27 The OITC values stated above refer to total composite acoustical performance of entire exterior wall and roof systems inclusive of solid areas, glazing, doors and ventilation openings. Appropriate design analysis and/or laboratory testing will be necessary to properly assess the overall performance of various constructions and confirm minimum specified OITC values are met. Some typical constructions for various OITC ratings are listed below as a guideline:  OITC 25: This is generally achievable with standard acoustically sealed exterior constructions, fully gasketed solid core wood or metal insulated exterior doors and standard 1” insulating glass.  OITC 30: For glazing this usually requires laminated glass on at least one side or increasing the total system depth to roughly 1-½” with thicker glazing and/or airspace. Solid wall sections and roof sections should have multiple layers of exterior plywood layers and/or multiple layers of interior drywall to increase mass. Doors to be sound-rated total assemblies with demonstrated laboratory- tested performance.  OITC 35: This generally requires glazing systems with laminated glass and overall depth of 2” or more. Solid wall sections generally require additional layering for min. 10 psf surface weight on the exterior side (i.e. stucco) and may also require multiple drywall layers on the interior. Doors must be sound-rated total assemblies with laboratory-tested performance. Roof potentially achieve this level of performance with adequate mass on the top (min. 10 psf) and multiple layers of interior drywall but require detailed review.  OITC 40: This generally requires laminated-insulated systems of substantial glazing (½” or thicker each side) and deep airspace (4” or more) and specially designed solid wall and roof sections with resilient interior drywall attachment and demonstrated laboratory tested performance.  OITC above 40: This is difficult to achieve with wood framed construction and generally requires double exterior wall systems with inner and outer separate framing in addition to substantial glazing and a concrete roof. Verifying Acoustic Performance of Exterior Wall Systems Since the specified OITC ratings refer to the total performance of overall exterior wall systems, each specific component of the exterior wall system in conjunction with interior gypsum board construction should be reviewed and analyzed in detail to verify the total system performance and determine any necessary upgrades. Such an evaluation should be carried out using sound transmission loss data for each component based on laboratory acoustic tests in accordance with relevant ASTM standards. For prefabricated components, this is typically available from the manufacturer, or in the absence of such test data, previous acoustical tests of similar systems and/or theoretical calculations based on mass and area of the framing system may be provided to estimate sound transmission performance. For built-up components including interior drywall sections, detailed information including 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 15 of 27 material types, dimensions and details of perimeter conditions should be used to estimate sound transmission performance and the resulting OITC ratings. Ventilation Systems Because open windows only provide 10 to 15 dB of exterior to interior attenuation, the project must also include forced-air ventilation systems properly designed to provide fresh air intake and condition interior spaces while maintaining specified OITC ratings. Treatments such as z-ducts or other sound-attenuating air intake ducts can potentially be effective but require detailed design review to ensure that total composite sound isolation performance of exterior constructions is maintained. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS In summary, based on the noise survey described in this report, noise exposure for the project site exceeds local, state and federal land use planning guidelines as they pertain to average aircraft noise exposure (CNEL 70 dB). At a minimum, sound-rated exterior constructions as described in this report are required to comply with California Building Code requirements for interior noise due to exterior sources (CNEL 45 dB). Also relevant and identified in the South San Francisco General Plan without specific limits, is maximum aircraft noise inside residences from single events. This is important for minimizing the potential for sleep interference and other effects on indoor residential activities. Based on limits proposed in this assessment upgraded building constructions not typically achievable with wood framed construction would be required to provide control of single event aircraft noise; however, this is above and beyond the minimum standards established by the California Building Code for control of average noise. Aircraft noise in outdoor use areas for the development cannot be practically controlled since the aircraft fly overhead. We understand common use areas will be indoors and similar provisions outlined in this report for residential spaces to comply with the Building Code should be considered. I trust you will find this information useful but please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, THE PAPADIMOS GROUP, INC. Roman Wowk Chris Papadimos Senior Associate Principal 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 16 of 27 APPENDIX A FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 17 of 27 Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound is typically due to its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales, which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement, which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method is the A-weighted sound level, (dBA) which gives greater weight to frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy- equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time and sensitivity to noise and the potential for sleep disturbance is the highest during times that ambient levels are the lowest, i.e. evening, night and early morning hours. Therefore, time-weighted, average noise levels have been developed and are used to quantify and describe a noise environment and determine impacts. The two average noise level descriptors most commonly used are L dn (also referred to as DNL) and CNEL. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within 1 dB (Type 1 instrument). Various computer models have been commercially developed and can be used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. One way of anticipating a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare the new noise with the existing noise environment to which the person has become adapted, i.e., the so-called "ambient" noise level. With regards to increases in A-weighted noise levels, knowledge of the following relationships is helpful:  Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of one dBA cannot be perceived. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 18 of 27  Outside of the laboratory, a three dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in noise level of at least five dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.  A 10 dBA increase is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. TABLE 1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 µPa. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de- emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. L1, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn (or DNL) The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Background Noise The sound pressure level in a given environment from all sources. For the purposes of outdoor noise measurements it is the residual steady noise level in an environment due to a combination of sources near and far and excluding intermittent noises. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 19 of 27 Sound level meter An instrument that measures sound in dB. Various features are incorporated into such instrument including frequency bands, integration of sound over time and display of average, minimum, and maximum levels. Sound pressure level The ratio, expressed in decibels, of the mean-square sound pressure level to a reference mean-square sound pressure level that by convention has been selected to approximate the threshold of hearing (0.0002 µbar) Octave band The frequency range of one octave of sound frequencies. The upper limit is always twice the frequency of the lower limit. Octave bands are identified by the geometric mean frequency or center between the lower limit and the upper limit. One-third octave band The frequency range of one-third of one octave of sound frequencies. The upper limit is 21/3 (1.26) times the lower limit. One-third octave bands are identified by the geometric mean frequency or center between the lower limit and the upper limit. TABLE 2: Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment At a Given Distance from Noise Source A-Weighted Sound Level in dBA Noise Environments Subjective Impression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100’) 130 Jet Takeoff (200’) 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Diesel Pile Driver (100’) 100 Very Loud 90 Boiler Room Printing Press Plant Freight Cars (50’) Pneumatic Drill (50’) 80 Freeway (100’) Vacuum Cleaner (10’) 70 Garbage Disposal in Kitchen Moderately Loud 60 Data Processing Center Light Traffic (100’) Large Transformer (200’) 50 Department Store 40 Private Business Office Quiet Soft Whisper (5’) 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 20 of 27 Effects of Noise Hearing Loss While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise, but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a noise exposure standard which is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over eight hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter. Speech Interference and Sleep Disturbance The threshold for speech interference indoors is 45 dBA if the noise is steady and 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating, depending on room acoustic conditions. Outdoors a threshold of at least 10 dBA higher may be considered for steady noise where the required distance between a talker and listener is reduced as the noise level increases, as shown in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1: Outdoor noise effect on distance at which ordinary speech can be understood (Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, FICON, 1992, p. 3-9) 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 21 of 27 Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep and therefore require due consideration in project planning and criterion selection. Figure 2 below shows the relationship between noise level and probability to be awakened, in terms of Sound Exposure Level (SEL). The SEL corresponds to the total energy of an individual noise event which for typical aircraft operations is often 10 dB higher than the maximum noise level of the event. On that basis using the studies shown in Figure 2, if indoor noise levels stay below 50 dBA (i.e. 60 dBA SEL) there is less than 5% likelihood for sleep awakenings. FIGURE 2: Sleep disturbance as a function of indoor noise exposure (Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep, Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise, 1997) Exterior to interior attenuation in buildings is typically in the 15 dBA range with open windows. With standard insulated windows in good condition and closed, the noise attenuation factor is at least 20 dBA for typical transportation noise sources. Noise levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is typical for primary/major arterials. Noise levels of 75-80 dBA are normal at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. If the outdoor level is kept below 70 dBA then a typical residential structure with windows closed would limit typical transportation noise in the interior to 50 dBA, but this needs to be properly analyzed and validated on a case- by-case basis taking into consideration the specific spectral content of the intruding noise. In addition, some noise sources with high content of low frequency such as commercial jet aircraft, trains and trucks have the potential of inducing vibration into structures and this is an area with limited research but requires proper consideration during project development. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 22 of 27 Annoyance Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. Twenty-four hour noise metrics such as DNL (or CNEL) have been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 55 dBA DNL. At about 60 dBA DNL, approximately 2 percent of the population is found to be highly annoyed. When the DNL increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to over 10 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 1 percent per dBA from 60 to 70 dBA DNL. Between 70 and 80 dBA DNL, each decibel increase results in about 2 percent increase on percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the DNL is 60 dBA, approximately 10 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA DNL adds about 2 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA DNL, each decibel increase results in about a 3 percent increase on population highly annoyed. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 23 of 27 APPENDIX B NOISE MEASUREMENT CHARTS 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 24 of 27 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 1a - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-1 (Fri thru Sun) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Fri 18 Aug Sat 19 Aug Sun 20 Aug 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 1b - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-1 (Mon & Tues) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Mon 21 Aug Tues 22 Aug 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 25 of 27 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 2a - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-2 (Fri thru Sun) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Fri 18 Aug Sat 19 Aug Sun 20 Aug 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 2b - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-2 (Mon & Tues) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Mon 21 Aug Tues 22 Aug 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 26 of 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 75 80 85 90 95 100Number of EventsMaximum A-weighted Sound Level of Event (dBA) Chart 3 - Histogram of Loud Events above 75 dBA Unattended sound level meter at Position LT-1 10% of events exceeded 91 dBA 5% of events exceeded 92 dBA 1% of events exceeded 95 dBA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 75 80 85 90 95 100Number of EventsMaximum A-weighted Sound Level of Event (dBA) Chart 4 - Histogram of Loud Events above 75 dBA Unattended sound level meter at Position LT-2 10% of events exceeded 91 dBA 5% of events exceeded 94 dBA 1% of events exceeded 96 dBA 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 27 of 27 NC-70 NC-65 NC-60 NC-55 NC-50 NC-45 NC-40 NC-35 NC-30 NC-25 NC-20 NC-15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000Sound Pressure Level (dB re 20 µPa)Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Highest (91 dBA, 98 dBC) Average (84 dBA, 90 dBC) Lowest (77 dBA, 84 dBC) Chart 5: Range of measured aircraft spectra Several aircraft departures Approximate Threshold of Hearing A B Region A: Noticeable vibration of lightweight construction when such levels occur inside buildings. Region B: Possible vibration of lightweight construction when such levels occur inside buildings. 410 Noor Override Resolution Exhibit C: Agency Comment Letters C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Millbrae • Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County •South San Francisco • Woodside November 12, 2020 South San Francisco City Council 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: 410 Noor Avenue ALUC Determination – Override Consideration Honorable Mayor and Council Members, The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), in its capacity as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, hereby acknowledges receipt of South San Francisco City Council Resolution No. 136-2020 giving notice of your intent to consider an override of the ALUC determination that the 410 Noor Project is inconsistent with the noise policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, and appreciates the opportunity to provide a brief comment/clarification. The findings laid out in South San Francisco’s Resolution, specifically Section 2.d., indicate that the noise contour has decreased since adoption of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP) in 2012, and we believe it is important to address this point. The noise contours in the SFO ALUCP do not directly reflect the noise measured at a specific time, but rather are forecasts based on a long-range airport development plan that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport over a 20-year period, as required by PUC Section 21675 (a). So, while “point in time” measurements, such as those included in the project noise study, may reflect a lower noise level at present, it is cautioned that the SFO ALUCP projects that noise levels are likely to increase at the site over time. If the City of South San Francisco (City) pursues an override of the ALUC’s inconsistency determination, C/CAG respectfully recommends that the City consider whether additional sound attenuation measures would be needed to mitigate the noise levels and noise contours included in the SFO ALUCP. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, ______________________________ Marie Chuang, C/CAG Chair CC: SSF Planning Division SFO Planning Caltrans Division of Aeronautics 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS – M.S. #40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 9427 4-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life. November 16, 2020 Ms. Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Electronically Sent City of South San Francisco [email protected] 400 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080-3634 Dear Ms. Friedman: Thank you for soliciting input from the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division) regarding the proposed Mixed-Use Residential project (Project) in South San Francisco (City). The State of California Legislature enacted California Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21670 et. seq. to ensure compatible land use within a two-mile radius of airports. The legislative purpose is to protect the “public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards.” By authority of the Legislature, the Division has jurisdiction to assist airports, airport land commissions (ALUC), and local agencies in the implementation of compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. One of the goals of the Division, is to assist cities, counties, and ALUCs in the development and implementation of policies that protect the safety and general welfare of the communities in which aeronautical activities take place. The proposed Project is located at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, APNs 014-183-270, 014-183-230, and 014-183-220. The proposed Project includes high-density residential development, consisting of 338 residential units, a small retail space, and residential and open space amenities on a 4.74-acre parcel that is within the Airport Influence Area for San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Division was notified on October 15, 2020, of the Proposed Decision to Overrule the County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Determination of Inconsistency for the Project with the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco International Airport (CALUCP). The policies of this CALUCP help protect the public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize exposures to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public-use airports. 2 The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule. Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in PUC section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC section 21670(a) (1) and (2). The C/CAG is responsible for conducting airport land use compatibility planning and preventing the creation of new noise and safety problems in the vicinity of public-use airports , pursuant to PUC sections 21670 (a) and (b). The C/CAG is also mandated by PUC sections 21674(c), 21675 to use its CALUCP to accomplish the implementation of compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. The Division agrees with the C/CAG determination regarding this proposed Project and supports their decision of inconsistency with the CALUCP. The ALUC is correct in applying the noise policies of the CALUCP, and the Division agrees that this proposed Project would create new noise problems for SFO. Please note, a Division’s Airport Safety Officer, Chis Brooks, comments concerning the proposed Project: As for the Project itself, the development would be subject to a high volume of overflights by large frame heavy turbine aircraft. Runways 28L/28R handles the majority of [these] departures which would fly directly over the proposed Project at low altitude and full power. Please note: The Division comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at (916)704-1474 or via email at [email protected] Sincerely, Originally signed by GWYN REESE Aviation Planner c: Ms. Susy Kalkin, [email protected] Ms. Laurie Suttmeier, [email protected] 3