Appendix F
Noise Assessment Technical Report
ATTACHMENT E4
NOISE ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
Pasadena, California
Prepared for:
City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Luis Rocha, Senior Planner
Prepared by:
38 N Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Mike Greene, INCE Bd. Cert.
MAY 2020
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
i May 2020
Section Page No.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... V 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location and Description............................................................................ 1
1.3 Noise Background and Terminology ...................................................................... 2
1.4 Noise Regulations ................................................................................................. 10
1.4.1 Federal....................................................................................................... 10
1.4.2 State........................................................................................................... 10
1.4.3 City of Pasadena ....................................................................................... 11 2 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS ................................................................................15
2.1 Surrounding Uses .................................................................................................. 15 3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .........................................................................................19
3.1 Evaluation Criteria for Project .............................................................................. 19 4 IMPACTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................21
4.1 Transportation Noise Exposure............................................................................. 21
4.1.1 Roadway Noise ......................................................................................... 21
4.2 Operational Noise Generation............................................................................... 22
4.2.1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 22
4.3 Construction Noise................................................................................................ 23
4.3.1 Construction – Equipment Data and Description ..................................... 24
4.3.2 Construction Noise Assessment – On-Site ............................................... 25
4.3.3 Construction Noise Reduction Techniques ............................................... 29
4.3.4 Off-Site Construction Noise Assessment.................................................. 30
4.4 Groundborne Vibration ......................................................................................... 31
4.4.1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 31 5 MITIGATION MEASURES...........................................................................................33
5.1 Groundborne Vibration ......................................................................................... 33 6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ...............................................35 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................37
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
12101
ii May 2020
APPENDICES
A Field Noise Measurement Data
B Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) Data Sheets
C Mechanical Equipment Noise Calculation Worksheet
D Roadway Noise Construction Model (RNCM) Data Sheets
FIGURES
1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................3 2 Project Site Plan ...................................................................................................................5 3 Noise Measurement Locations ...........................................................................................17 TABLES
1 Outside-to-Inside Noise Attenuation (dBA) ................... .....................................................9 2 Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use .................... ..................................................11 3 Interior Noise Standard .................................................................................................... ..13 4 Measured Average Traffic Sound Level and Manual Traffic Count Results ....................15 5 Traffic Noise (Existing and Existing-with-Project) .......... .................................................21 6 Summary of Mechanical Equipment Operational Noise Results ... ...................................23 7 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usag e Factors ...................24 8 Construction Scenario Assumptions ..................................................................................25 9 Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses ........... ...............................................28 10 Construction-Related Traffic Noise ......................... ..........................................................31
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
iii May 2020
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
ADT average daily traffic
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Pasadena
CNEL community noise equivalent level
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Ldn day–night sound level
Leq equivalent sound level
Lmax maximum sound level
Lmin minimum sound level
Lxx percentile-exceeded sound levels
N/A not applicable
PPV peak particle velocity
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
iv May 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
v May 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this noise assessment technical report is to eva luate the potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed 740-790 East Gre en Street Mixed-Use Project (proposed Project) in the City of Pasadena (City) in Los Angele s County, California. The proposed Project would include 263 for-rent units (including 41 units designated as affordable housing), 16,234 square feet (sf) of commercial use (e.g., retail, cafe), lobby area, a leasing office, business center, fitness center, and pool lounge, as well as bicycle parking and mechanical equipment areas within the parking garage. The project also wou ld include 27,180 sf of outdoor community open space (i.e. 4,110 sf publicly available pocket p ark, numerous breezeways, swimming pool courtyard, roof terraces), 600 sf of indoor commu nity open space, and 11,703 sf of private open space (i.e. balconies), for a total of 39,483 s f of community open space. The proposed parking garage would provide 446 vehicle parking spaces and 49 bicycles spaces., and a 4,110-sf publicly accessible pocket park.
Adjacent land uses include single- and multi-family residential and commercial to the west across Oak Knoll Avenue; commercial and parking to the north ac ross Green Street; multi- family residential and parking to the east across Hudson Avenue ; and offices and a church immediately to the south, with multi-family and office uses bey ond. This assessment uses the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the California Environ mental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).
Operational Noise Impacts
Operation of the proposed Project would generate noise from added traffic generation on vicinity roads and mechanical noise from project-related equipment. Traf fic noise levels were calculated based on existing and existing plus project average daily traff ic (ADT). Noise levels did not significantly increase because of the project. Existing and existing plus project noise levels in the project vicinity are in the “normally acceptable” range of the Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use Table in the City’s Revised Noise Element of the General Plan: Existing and Future Conditions (Noise Element) (City of Pasadena 2002). Thus, the traffic noise impact is considered less than significant. Mechanical noise from the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system equipment was determined to be less than significant as well.
Temporary Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts
Construction of the proposed Project would result in the temporary increases in noise in the project vicinity. The City’s Noise Ordinance provides a limit on equipment noise emission levels and hours of operation. It states that it is unlawful for construction equipment to emit noise levels exceeding 85 Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
vi May 2020
A-weighted decibels (dBA) when measured at 100 feet from the equipment (City of Pasadena 2008).
The expected equipment list does not include equipment that would exceed this sound level at 100 feet.
Construction hours are expected to be limited to those allowed under the Noise Ordinance. Based on the local regulations, the expected noise impact due to constru ction activities would be less than significant. An assessment of the construction noise levels bas ed on expected equipment list and schedule was also conducted. Because of the proximity of noise-sensitive receptors to the project site, calculated construction noise levels were shown to be well above ambient noise levels. Based on this result, recommended construction practices are described.
Groundborne vibration levels at the nearest adjacent sensitive receptors were calculated. It was determined that on an operational basis, no vibration impacts would occur; however, groundborne vibration created during construction would cause potentially s ignificant impacts without mitigation. A mitigation measure (MM-VIB-1) is provided which would reduce potential vibration impacts to a less than significant level.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
1 May 2020
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This technical report evaluates noise impacts of the 740-790 Ea s t G r e e n S tr e e t M i xe d- U s e Project (proposed Project), including construction and operatio n. Noise sources from future implementation of the Project include traffic, mechanical equip ment, and short-term construction operations. The results of this analysis are inten ded for use in the CEQA environmental review document being prepared by the City.
1.2 Project Location and Description
The proposed Project site is located in the “Central District Transit Oriented Devel opment Area” of the City of Pasadena and within the Playhouse District South/Green Street Precinct. The Project site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 5734-025-024, -014, -026, -030, -029, and -027, which total
2.33 acres. The Project site is located within the CD-4 (Centra l District, Pasadena Playhouse) zoning district. The Project site is bounded by East Green Stre et to the north, South Hudson Avenue to the east, private property to the south, and South Oa k Knoll Avenue to the west.
Regional access to the Project site is via Interstate 210 (I-21 0), exiting South Lake Avenue. The nearest light rail stations are the Lake Metro Gold Line Station located at the I-210 approximately
0.5-mile to the north, and the Del Mar Metro Gold Line Station located approximately 0.8-mile to the west near Central Park.
Noise-sensitive (single- and multi-family residential) uses are located to the west of the Project site, across South Oak Knoll Avenue. Multi-family residential u ses are also located to the east across Hudson Avenue. A church is located immediately to the south, and multi-family residential uses are located to the south of an office building. Refer to Figure 1, Project Location.
The proposed Project involves the demolition of five commercial buildings in order to accommodate the development of a new 3- to 6-story, mixed-use b uilding. The proposed Project includes 263 for-rent units (including 41 units designated as a ffordable housing), 16,234 square feet (sf) of commercial use (e.g., retail, cafe), lobby area, a leasing office, business center, fitness center, and pool lounge, as well as bicycle parking and mechani cal equipment areas within the parking garage. The project also would include 27,180 sf of out door community open space (i.e. 4,110 sf publicly available pocket park, numerous breezeways, s wimming pool courtyard, roof terraces), 600 sf of indoor community open space, and 11,703 sf of private open space (i.e. balconies), for a total of 39,483 sf of community open space. The proposed parking garage would provide 446 vehicle parking spaces and 49 bicycles spaces. Refer to Figure 2, Site Plan.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
2 May 2020
1.3 Noise Background and Terminology
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Vibrations, traveling as waves through air from a source, exert a force perceived by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) is measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels (dB) that represent the fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure.
Frequency, or pitch, is a physical characteristic of sound and is expressed in units of cycles per second, or hertz. The normal frequency range of hearing for mos t people extends from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz. The human ear is more sensitive to middle and high frequencies, especially when the noise levels are quieter. As noise levels become louder, the human ear starts to hear the frequency spectrum more evenly. To accommodate for this phenomenon, a weighting system to evaluate how loud a noise level is to a human was developed. The frequency weighting, called “A” weighting, is typically used for quieter noise level s, which de -emphasizes the low frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the re sponse of a human ear. This A- weighted sound level is called the “noise level” and is referenced in units of dBA. £¤66
W
ilsonAve
San Pasqual St
Yolo St
Rhodes Aly
Oakwood PlMiles St
Mira Monte Pl
E Bellevue Dr
Pleasant St
N Me
ntor Ave
Steuben St
Blanche St
Boston Ct
Magnolia Ave
S Euclid Ave
S Oakla
nd Av
e
S Oak K
noll Av
e S Hudson
Ave
Waldo Ave
El Dorado St
Shoppers Ln
N Hudson Ave
Locust St
N Oa
k Knoll Ave
S Chester Ave
N Catalina Ave
N Madison Ave
N Mar V
ista Ave
N Michigan
Ave
S Michigan Ave
S Mentor Ave
S Catalina Av
e
S Madi
son Av
e
Polytechnic
School
California
Institute of
Technology
McKinley
Junior High
School
§¨210
Grant
Park
E Green St
N
W
ilsonAve
N el Molino Ave
E Union St
S Wilson Ave
N Garfield Ave
Cordova St
N Euclid Ave
S E
l Molin
o Av
e
Millikan
Library
Pasadena
Conference
Center
E California Blvd
E Del Mar Blvd
Los Robles Ave
N
LakeAve
Walnut St
S
Lake Ave
E Corson St
Brown Gym
Mayfield
Junior School
The Hardy
School
Mount
Sierra Career College
California School
of Culinary Arts
Le Cordon
Bleu College of
Culinary Arts E Colorado Blvd
Maple St
Foothill Fwy
Pacific Asia Museum
David Allen
Hubbard Library
Project Location
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
SOURCE: Esri and DigitalGlobe, Open Street Map 2019
Date: 9/25/2019 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1210100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Fig_ProjLocation.mxd 0 800400
Feet
n
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
1:9,600
0 225112.5
Meters
IrvineSanta Ana
Seal
Beach
Anaheim
Lakewood Corona
Long
Beach
Torrance
Norco
Maywood
Commerce PomonaPico
Rivera Eastvale
Malibu
Alhambra
Upland
Irwindale San DimasCalabasas
Azusa
Glendora
Fontana
DuartePasadena
Glendale
San Fernando
Hesperia
Hesperia
Santa Clarita
Victorville
Adelanto
Adelanto
Palmdale
Lancaster
Rialto
Palos
Verdes
Estates
Jurupa
Valley
Santa Monica
Thousand
Oaks
Moorpark
Fillmore
Simi Valley
Los Angeles
Kern County
Ventura
County
£¤101
£¤395ÄÆ48
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ118
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ103
ÄÆ138
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ23
ÄÆ187
ÄÆ126
ÄÆ34
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ213
ÄÆ22
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ55
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ83
ÄÆ241
ÄÆ27 ÄÆ66
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ138ÄÆ14
ÄÆ2
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
405
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
210
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
710 §¨¦
605
§¨¦
10 §¨¦
105
§¨¦
15 LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Project Site
!(^
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
4 May 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Site Plan
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
FIGURE 2SOURCE: MVE + Partners"Z:\Projects\j1210100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Fig_SitePlan.ai" Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
6 May 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
7 May 2020
According to the California Department of Transportation, “it is generally accepted that the average healthy ear . . . can barely perceive a noise level change of 3 dB” (Caltrans 201 3a). A change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as twice or half as loud. A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the average daily numb ers of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.
An individual’s no ise exposure occurs over a period of time. Being the product of many noise sources at various distances, all of which constitute a relatively stable background or ambient noise environment, community noise sources continuously vary. The bac kground, or ambient, noise level gradually changes throughout a typical day, corresponding to distant noise sources, such as traffic, as well as changes in atmospheric conditions.
Noise levels are generally higher during the daytime and early evening when traffic (including airplanes), commercial, and industrial activity is the greatest. However, noise sources experienced during nighttime hours when background levels are generally low er can be potentially more conspicuous and irritating to the receiver. To evaluate noise i n a way that considers periodic fluctuations experienced throughout the day and night, a concep t termed “community noise equivalent level” (CNEL) was developed, wherein noise measurements are weighted, added, and averaged over a 24-hour period to reflect magnitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence.
Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), percentile-exceeded sound levels (L xx), the day–night sound level (L dn), and the CNEL. The following are brief definitions of these measurements and other terminology used in this technical report:
x Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals.
x A-weighted decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in dB that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
x Equivalent sound level (Leq). The constant level that, over a given time period, transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound. Leq are the basis for the Ldn and CNEL scales.
x Maximum sound level (L max). The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
8 May 2020
x Minimum sound level (L min). The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period.
x Percentile-exceeded sound level (Lxx). The sound level exceeded x percent of a specific time period. For example, L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time. x Day–night average sound level (L dn). The City has historically described community noise levels in terms of the Ldn. The Ldn is a 24-hour average A-weighted sound level with a 10 dB penalty added to the nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The 10 dB penalty is applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the nighttime hours. In the City’s Noise Element (City of Pasadena 2002), noise guidelines are described in terms of Ldn or CNEL (see definition below); resulting values from applicat ion of L dn v e r s u s CNEL rarely differ by more than 1 dB; therefore, these two methods of describing average noise levels are often considered interchangeable.
x Community noise equivalent level (CNEL). The City’s Noise Element (2002) describes community noise levels in terms of the CNEL. The CNEL is the av erage equivalent A- weighted sound level during a 24-hour day. CNEL accounts for th e increased noise sensitivity during the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by adding 5 dB to the sound levels in the evening and 10 dB to the sound levels at night. CNEL and Ldn are often considered equivalent descriptors.
Exterior Noise Distance Attenuation
Noise sources are generally classified in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or a group of construction vehicles and equipment working withi n a spatially limited area at a given time; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of pass-by sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance from t he source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and at a rate of 7.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from source to re ceptor at acoustically “soft” sites.
Sound generated by a line source (i.e., a roadway) typically at tenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling distance for hard and soft sites, respectively. Sound levels can also be attenuated by constructed or natural barriers. For the purpose of a sound attenuation discussion, a “hard” or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt or concrete ground surfaces, as well as very hard-packed soils. An acoustically “soft” or absorptive site is characteristic of unpaved loose soil or vegetated ground.
Structural Noise Attenuation
When just breaking the line of site between a source and a rece iver, approximately 5 dB of attenuation can be expected. Typical California Department of Transportation noise barriers Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
9 May 2020
provide approximately 10 dB of noise reduction. An upper limit for sound reduction due to added wall barriers is typically approximately 20 dB (Caltrans 2009). Structures can also provide noise reduction by insulating interior spaces from outdoor noise. The outside-to-inside noise attenuation provided by typical structures in California ranges between 17 and 30 dBA with open and closed windows, respectively, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Outside-to-Inside Noise Attenuation (dBA)
Building Type Open Windows Closed Windowsa
Residences 17 25
Schools 17 25
Churches 20 30
Hospitals/offices/hotels 17 25
Theaters 17 25
Source: Transportation Research Board 2000.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel
a As shown, structures with closed windows can attenuate exterior noise by 25 to 30 dBA.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Groundborne vibration is a small, rapidly fluctuating motion transmitted through the ground. The strength of groundborne vibration diminishes (or “attenuates”) fairly rapidly over distance. Some soil types transmit vibration quite efficiently; other types (primarily “sandy” soils) do not. Ground- borne vibration information related to construction activities has been collected by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2013b). Structural response to vibration is typically evaluated in terms of peak particle velocity (ppv), which is of ten used since it is related to the stresses that are experienced by the buildings. Information from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a peak particle velocity of approximately 0.1 inches per second begin to annoy people. Va rious general standards are contained in the International Stan dards Organization’s Standards 3945, 4866, and 7626-1. Limits set by these standards indicate a low probability of structural damage occurring to common structures at a peak part icle velocity of 2.0 inches per second. Older (and non-reinforced) masonry structures would have a limit of 0.75 to 1.0 inch per second (Caltrans 2013b). The Fede ral Transit Administration ide ntifies a vibration damage threshold criterion of 0.20 inch per second for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (i.e., fragile buildings), or 0.12 inch per second for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration (i.e., fragile historic buildings) (FTA 2018). For the purposes of thi s analysis, a damage threshold of
0.20 inches per second PPV is utilized.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
10 May 2020
1.4 Noise Regulations
1.4.1 Federal
Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration Standards Although the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards are intended for federally funded mass transit projects, the impact assessment procedures and cri teria included in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) are routinely used for projects evaluated by local jurisdictions. The FTA and Federal Railroad Administration have published guidelines for assessing the impacts of groundborne vibration associated with rail projects, which have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects.
1.4.2 State
California Noise Control Act of 1973
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, declares that excessive noise is a s erious hazard to the public health and welfare, and exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also identifies a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The act declares that the Sta te of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise.
It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
Noise Insulation Standards
In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Dev elopment adopted noise insulation standards for hotels, motels, dormitories, and multifamily residential buildings (24 CCR Part 2). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise (attributable to outside noise sources).
The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be pr epared whenever a multifamily residential building or structure is proposed to be located in an area with CNEL (or L dn) of 60 dBA
or greater. Such acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residence has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL (or Ldn) of 45 dBA (24 CCR Part 2).
The 2013 California Green Building Standards Code includes Section 5.507.4, Acoustical Control.
This section dictates that, within 65 CNEL contours, a prescriptive or performance method of noise control must be used to assure interior levels are acceptable. The prescriptive method requires a composite sound transmission class rating of at least 50 or outside inside transmission class rating Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
11 May 2020
of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum sound transmission class of 40 or outside inside transmission class of 30 when within the 65 CNEL noise contour of a transportation source.
When transportation noise contours are not available, if the building would be exposed to an hourly equivalent noise level of 65 dBA in any hour, the building may be presumed to fall within the 65 CNEL contour. The prescriptive or performance method applies to the same noise contour areas.
However, the interior noise environment attributable to exterio r sources has a higher threshold at 50 dBA 1 hour Leq during any hour of operation (24 CCR Part 11).
The 2013 California Green Building Standards Code also addresses interior sound transmission. It states that “wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating tenant spaces . . . shall have an STC [sound transmission class] of at least 40” (24 CCR Part 11).
1.4.3 City of Pasadena
The City established guidelines and standards in the City’s Noise Element and in the Pasadena Municipal Code.
Pasadena General Plan
The City adopted a revised General Plan Noise Element in December 2002. The Noise Element includes objective, policies, and implementation details. Furthermore, the Noise Element includes Table 2 (City of Pasadena 2002). This table shows acceptable, normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and normally unacceptable CNEL ranges for various types of land uses. Refer to Table 2 for this noise compatibility guideline information.
Table 2
Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use
Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL
Land Use Category 0–55 56–60 61–65 66–70 71–75 75–80 81–85 Residential: low density
single family, mobile homes
Residential: multiple family
and mixed
commercial/residential use
Transient lodging: motels,
hotels
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
12 May 2020
Table 2
Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use
Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL
Land Use Category 0–55 56–60 61–65 66–70 71–75 75–80 81–85 Schools, libraries,
churches, hospitals,
nursing homes
Playgrounds, neighborhood
parks
Office buildings, business
commercial and
professional
Industrial, manufacturing,
utilities, agriculture
Source: City of Pasadena 2002.
Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; Ldn = day–night sound level Clearly Acceptable. Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the as sumption that any buildings involved are of normal, conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Normally Acceptable. New construction or developmen t should be undertaken after an analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made, and needed insulation featur es have been included in the design . Conventional constr uction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
Conditionally Acceptable. If new construction or development proceeds, an analysis of the noise reduction requirements should be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Normally Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken, unless it can be demonstrated that an interior level of 45 dBA can be achieved.
The residential uses in the site vicinity are composed of single family and multifamily residential land uses. Based on these uses, the guidelines dictate “clearly acceptable” ranges of up to 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL for single-family uses and multifamily uses, respectively. Single family and multifamily residential levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are “normally acceptable.” Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
13 May 2020
Implementation measures are also included in the Noise Element. Relevant implementation measures are listed below (City of Pasadena 2002):
x Measure 1: The City will consult the guidelines for noise compatible land use shown on [Table 2 of this technical report] to guide the appropriateness of land uses relative to roadway noise. (Policies 1a, 2a)
x Measure 2: An acoustical study showing the ability to meet state noise insulation standards may be required for any development proposed in an area where the noise level . . . exceeds the “clearly acceptable level ” as determined by the City and shown [in Table 2 of this technical report]. (Policies 1a, 2a)
x Measure 3: The City will enforce the California Noise Insulation Standard s (Title 25 California Administration Code for future development and redev elopment) to ensure an acceptable interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn in habitable rooms. (Policies 1a, 2a) City of Pasadena Noise Ordinance
The Pasadena Municipal Code, Chapter 9.36, includes a series of restrictions relating to noise, based on specific activities, land uses and times of day (commonly referred to as the Noise Ordinance). The Noise Ordinance states that “it is unlawful for any person to create, cause, or make or continue to make or permit to be made or continued any noise or sound which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels ” (City of Pasadena 2008).
Section 9.36.060 addresses multifamily residential property. It is unlawful to produce sounds at a level greater than those shown in Table 3 when measured inside any dwelling unit on the same property or 20 feet from the outside of the source dwelling unit.
Table 3
Interior Noise Standard
Time Interval Interior Noise Standard (dBA)
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Source: City of Pasadena 2008.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel
Noise impacts from construction and stationary sources are regulated through the City’s Noise Ordinance. The Pasadena Municipal Code, Section 9.36.070, Construction Projects, limits typical construction hours within a residential district or within 500 feet of a residential district to certain hours depending on the day. On weekdays (Monday through Friday), allowable construction hours Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
14 May 2020
are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. On Saturdays, construction can occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. On Sundays and holidays, construction is prohibited.
In addition to construction hour restrictions, Pasadena Municip al Code, Section 9.36.080, further limits the noise level of powered construction equipment. It st ates that it is unlawful for construction equipment to emit noise levels exceeding 85 dBA wh en measured at 100 feet from the equipment.
The Pasadena Municipal Code also limits “any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump fan, air condition apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB” (City of Pasadena 2008).
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
15 May 2020
2 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
2.1 Surrounding Uses
The Project site is located at 740-790 East Green Street. The Project site is bounded by East Green Street to the north, South Hudson Avenue to the east, private property to the south, and South Oak Knoll Avenue to the west. Single- and multi-family residential uses are located to the west of the Project site, across South Oak Knoll Avenue. Multi-family residential uses are located to the east across Hudson Avenue. A church is located immediately to the south, and multi-family residential uses are located to the south of an office building.
A sound-level survey was conducted on September 17, 2019, to evaluate existing sound levels and assess potential Project noise impacts on the surrounding area. Short-term (1 hour or less) attended sound-level measurements were taken with a SoftdB Piccolo sound-level meter. This instrument is categorized as type 2, general use. The sound-measuring instrument used for the survey was set to the “slow” time response and the A -weighting scale for all noise measurements. To ensure accuracy, the calibration of the instrument was field checked b efore the measurements using a portable acoustical calibrator. The microphone height was 5 feet above the ground on a tripod, and the microphone was equipped with a windscreen.
Short-term sound levels were measured at four locations in the Project vicinity, as shown on Figure 3, Noise Measurement Locations. During the field measurements, physical observations of the predominant noise sources were noted. The major noise source in the Project area was vehicle traffic. Other secondary noise sounds included distant conversa tions, birds, distant construction noise, and other community noises. Appendix A includes field data sheets from the measurements conducted in the site vicinity. Table 4 provides the measured n oise levels and concurrent traffic volumes for the pertinent roadway facilities. As shown in Table 4, measured noise levels varied from 65 dBA L
eq at ST2 to 71 dBA Leq at ST4.
Table 4
Measured Average Traffic Sound Level and Manual Traffic Count Results Site Primary Noise Source Date Time Leq Cars MT2 HT3
ST1; 101 South
Oak Knoll
Avenue
Traffic on South Oak
Knoll Avenue
9/17/19 9:49 to 10:04 a.m. 66 dBA 52 1 0
ST2; 128 South
Oak Knoll
Avenue
Traffic on South Oak
Knoll Avenue
10:07 to 10:22 a.m. 65 dBA 44 1 0
ST3; 139-141
South Hudson
Avenue
Traffic on South Hudson
Avenue
10:32 to 10:47 a.m. 67 dBA 62 1 0
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
16 May 2020
Table 4
Measured Average Traffic Sound Level and Manual Traffic Count Results Site Primary Noise Source Date Time Leq Cars MT2 HT3
ST4; 820 East
Green Street
Traffic on South Hudson
Avenue
10:51 to 11:06 a.m. 71 dBA 61 1 0
Source: Appendix A
Notes:
1 Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Time-Average Sound Level) 2 Medium Trucks
3 Heavy Trucks
General Notes: Temperature 71 degrees, overcast, calm wind.
£¤66
E Green St
Mount Sierra
Career College
E Colorado Blvd
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
Noise Measurement Locations
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
SOURCE: LAR-IAC 2014, Open Street Map 2019
0 200100
Feet
Project Boundary
Noise Measurement
Locations
FIGURE 3
1:2,400
05 025
Meters
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
18 May 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
19 May 2020
3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guid elines, the Project would have a significant impact on noise if it would result in:
1. The generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
2. The generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
With regards to Significance Criteria 3, the proposed Project s ite is located approximately 6.9 miles northwest of San Gabriel Airport, and approximately 12.8 miles southeast of Long Beach Airport. The proposed Project site is not located within the Ai rport Influence Areas of either of these airports, and thus would not expose people residing or wo rking in the Project area to excessive noise levels from the airports. Similarly, no private airstrips exist in the Project vicinity.
Therefore, this is considered to be no impact, and is not addre ssed further. The remaining significance criteria issues are addressed below.
3.1 Evaluation Criteria for Project
Based on the City’s Noise Element (City of Pasadena 2002) and Municipal Code (City of Pasadena 2008), the following criteria are used in this assessment to ev aluate the Project against the significance thresholds listed above:
x Project operation-generated noise levels causing an increase in ambient noise of greater than 3 dB where existing levels are above 65 dBA CNEL at multi-family residential uses in the Project vicinity is considered significant based on the Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use Table (City of Pasadena 2002).
x An increase of 5 dB in ambient noise levels at the property line because of on-site Project operational activities based on the Pasadena Municipal Code (City of Pasadena 2008). x Operation of individual pieces of construction equipment that w ould generate noise in excess of 85 dB A at a distance of 100 feet based on the City’s Noise Ordinance (City of Pasadena 2008).
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
20 May 2020
x For demolition and construction, groundborne vibration levels g reater than the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) construction vibration criterion, which incl udes 0.2 inch per second PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
21 May 2020
4 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
4.1 Transportation Noise Exposure
4.1.1 Roadway Noise
Increases in Ambient Noise Levels Due to Traffic
The primary noise-related effect that most non-industrial proje cts produce is a potential for off- site increases in traffic, which in turn can produce greater tr affic noise exposure levels for noise- sensitive land uses located along such roadways. The noise levels associated with roadway traffic were determined based on the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (City of Pasadena 2020) and using the Federal Highway Administration TNM 2.5 Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 (FHWA 2004).
TNM 2.5 was employed to compare the existing traffic noise leve l to the resulting traffic noise level from the addition of Project generated traffic. Refer to Appendix B for complete traffic modelling inputs and results.
The results of the traffic modeling for the existing and existing plus Project scenarios are summarized in Table 5. As shown, the Project-related traffic would result in a noise level increase of 1 dB CNEL or less along the studied roads in the vicinity of the Project site. Increases would be below the significance threshold of 3 dB. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in an exceedance of the City’s 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold. Therefore, traffic related to the proposed Project would not substantially increase the existing noise levels in the Project vicinity, and operational traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Table 5
Traffic Noise (Existing and Existing-with-Project)
Modeled Receptor
Existing Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing plus Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL
Noise Level
Increase
(dB)
ST1 68 69 1
ST2 68 69 1
ST3 68 69 1
ST4 70 70 0
Source: Appendix B
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
22 May 2020
4.2 Operational Noise Generation
4.2.1 Impact Analysis
The implementation of the Project would result in changes to ex isting noise levels in the Project vicinity by developing new stationary sources of noise. Operational noise sources for the Project include HVAC equipment.
Mechanical equipment noise was analyzed based on common residen tial HVAC units and distances to the property lines. Standard acoustic distance cal culations were performed to determine the attenuated noise level at the property line locat ion for each cluster of mechanical noise sources.
Based on the most recent plan set provided by the applicant, HV AC equipment (i.e., the condenser units) would be mounted on the rooftops. Exact specif ications for the equipment are not yet available, but locations h ave been specified in the roo f plans. General assumptions regarding the HVAC are used to analyze the potential for operat ional noise impacts from the HVAC equipment. Based on noise emission data from a representative residential condenser model line (Trane 4DCY4024 through 4DCY4060), the sound power l evels would range from 68 to 71 dBA (Trane 2013).
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Noise
The roof plans indicate that a total of 26 HVAC units would be placed on the roof of the northwestern wing, 19 HVAC units would be placed on the roof of the northern wing, 76 units would be placed on the roof of the central wing, and 19 units would be placed on the roof of the southern wing. The elevations of the rooftop HVAC equipment wou ld range from approximately 30 feet to 70 feet above ground level, and the plans indicate 4-foot high parapets around the roof.
The parapets would provide not only visual screening, but would also act as a noise barrier. A spreadsheet is provided in Appendix C with results of calculati ons for the HVAC noise at the western and eastern property lines, where the closest off-site residences are located. Calculations were also performed at the property lines to the south, adjacen t to a church and residences. The worksheet sums the noise contribution from each of the individu al HVAC units, then applies attenuation for distance and for the presence of the roof parap ets. The results of the HVAC noise calculations are summarized in Table 6. The maximum noise level for all HVAC units in operation, along the northwestern side of the Project boundary, was calcul ated to be 37 dBA L eq. Along the
southern side of the Project site, the noise level was calculat ed to be 30 dBA L eq. The measured existing ambient levels are approximately 30 dB or more above the calculated noise levels due to Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
23 May 2020
the mechanical equipment. Therefore, operational noise levels f rom the expected mechanical equipment for the Project would be less than significant.
Table 6
Summary of Mechanical Equipment Operational Noise Results Equipment
Noise Level at Property Boundary
Property Line
Average Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
HVAC North, West Side 33
HVAC North, East Side 37
HVAC South, West Side 30
HVAC South, East Side 30
HVAC East, North Side 30
HVAC East, Mid-Block 35
HVAC West, North Side 35
HVAC West, Mid-Block 33
Source: Appendix C
4.3 Construction Noise
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena. Const ruction noise and vibration levels vary from hour-to-hour and day-to-day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations being performed, and the distance between the source and receptor.
Construction of the proposed Project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors to elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of the construction, distance between the noise source and receiver, and intervening structures. This section discusses the calculated construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residences).
Residences exist to the east and west of the Project site (across Hudson Avenue and Oak Knoll Avenue, respectively); additionally, a church is located immediately south of the Project site, and residences are also located to the south, south of an office bu ilding. Despite these noise-sensitive land uses in the immediate proximity of the Project site, it is understood that the City examines construction noise impacts at 100 feet to compare these noise l evels to the 85 dBA limitation in the Noise Ordinance exemption.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
24 May 2020
4.3.1 Construction – Equipment Data and Description
Equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing noise levels less than the maximum level. The typical noise levels for various pi eces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors Equipment Description Impact Device? Acoustical Use Factor (%) Lmax @ 50 Feet
(dBA, Slow)
All other equipment > 5
horsepower
No 50 85
Auger drill rig No 20 85
Backhoe No 40 80
Bar bender No 20 80
Compressor (air) No 40 80
Concrete pump truck No 20 82
Crane No 16 85
Dozer No 40 85
Dump truck No 40 84
Excavator No 40 85
Flatbed truck No 40 84
Front-end loader No 40 80
Generator No 50 82
Generator
(<25 kilovolt-amps)
No 50 70
Hydra break ram Yes 10 90
Man lift No 20 85
Pickup truck No 40 55
Pneumatic tools No 50 85
Pumps No 50 77
Roller No 20 85
Sand blasting (single nozzle) No 20 85
Scraper No 40 85
Tractor No 40 84
Welder/torch No 40 73
Source: FHWA 2006.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; Lmax = maximum sound level As shown in Table 7, a backhoe has a maximum sound level of 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet; with outdoor attenuation rates, this level would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet, and 68 dBA at 200 feet.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
25 May 2020
Comparing the reported levels in Table 7 with the City’s 85 dBA at 100 feet criterion reveals the following equipment with noise levels that could violate the Pa sadena Municipal Code: impact pile driver, shears on a backhoe, single nozzle sand blasting, and vibratory pile driver. Because none of these pieces of equipment are expected to be employed for construction of the Project, the Project is anticipated to be compliant with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
4.3.2 Construction Noise Assessment – On-Site
A noise analysis of on-site construction noise was performed using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2008). Input variables for RCNM consist of the receiver/land use types, the equipment type (e.g., backhoe, crane, truck), the number of equipment pieces, the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (i.e., percentage of each hour or reference period that the equipment typically works), and the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Table 8 provides a summary of the assumed construction equipment used for the different phases of construction based on the air quality analysis (Dudek 2020).
Table 8
Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
Phase
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily Worker
Trips
Average
Daily Vendor
Truck Trips
Average Daily
Haul Truck
Trips1 Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Demolition 16 0 25 Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8
Excavators 3 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8
Grading 20 0 78 Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Trenching 4 0 0 Trenchers 1 8
Building construction 288 68 0 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8
Welders 1 8
Architectural
Coating
16 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6
Paving 58 0 0 Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Source: Dudek 2020
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
26 May 2020
1 Average Daily Haul Truck Trips derived by dividing the number of Total Haul Truck Trips (by construction phase) from the Air Quality section by the phase duration/number of working days.
With the construction equipment noise sources identified above, a construction noise assessment was performed using RCNM. Refer to Appendix D for the inputs used in the RCNM, as well as results.
Noise-sensitive land uses exist to the south, east and west of the Project site. The closest noise- sensitive receiver consists of a church that is as near as 10 f eet from the Project site, located immediately south of the Project site. Multi-family residences exist to the south, west, and east, approximately 60 feet from the Project site. Additionally, sing le-family residences exist to the west, approximately 60 feet from the Project site. These nearby land uses (and the nearest source- receiver distances) were used to assess worst-case construction noise levels.
However, the above distance assumptions would not be representative of more typical construction noise, because in general the construction activities would not take place either at the nearest or at the farthest portions of the Project site, but somewhere in bet ween. Thus, in order to provide information on typical construction noise levels, the distance from the nearest receivers to the Project’s “acoustic center” was also analyzed. The acoustic center represents the idealized point from which the energy sum of all construction activity noise, near and far, would be centered. The acoustic center is derived by taking the square root of the pro duct of the nearest and the farthest distances. For example, the acoustic center for the nearest noise-sensitive land use (the church to the south) was found to be approximately 60 feet. Given the ove rall size of the Project site, and the relatively equal distribution of proposed development across the property, noise levels derived from the acoustic center of construction activity would provide a better representation of average noise level exposure across the entire construction process for a given off-site receiver, than using the minimum distance worst-case method.
Finally, the noise ordinance contains a construction noise restriction which pertains specifically to sound levels at 100 feet from the construction noise sources; a ccording to the noise ordinance, construction equipment must not produce noise that exceeds 85 dBA at 100 feet.
The results of the construction noise analysis using RCNM are summarized in Table 9 (Appendix D includes the associated input and output files). As shown, the highest noise levels from construction are predicted to range from approximately 88 dBA L eq (during the architectural
coating phase) to 95 dBA Leq (during the demolition phase) at the nearest adjacent noise-sensitive receiver (i.e., church located 10 feet from the closest point o f construction). These noise levels would be substantially higher than ambient noise levels in the area, and would be considered annoying or disruptive for daily activities at the closest off- site receptor (i.e., nineteen feet from the northern property line).
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
27 May 2020
At the nearest residences, located approximately 60 feet away, the highest noise levels would range from approximately 72 dBA L eq (during architectural coating) to 83 dBA L eq (during demolition and grading). These noise levels are considered to be a peak ex posure, applicable not more than 10-15% of the total construction period, only while the construction activity is taking place at the nearest boundaries of the respective off-site receivers. The ty pical construction noise levels (for construction taking place at a range of locations on-site and m odeled at the acoustical center for analysis purposes) range from approximately 72 dBA L eq (during architectural coating) to approximately 86 dBA Leq (during grading) at the church to the south, and from 64 dBA Leq (during architectural coating) to 78 dBA Leq (during grading) at the residences, and are also shown in Table
9. These typical construction noise levels would still be consi derably greater than ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, likely resulting in annoyance.
Construction noise levels at 100 feet were also evaluated, and are shown in the bottom row of Table 9. These values are compared against the City’s 85 dBA at 100 feet criterion for construction equipment noise. As shown in Table 9, the estimated construction noise level would remain below the 85 dBA criterion, resulting in a less than significant construction noise impact.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
28 May 2020
Table 9
Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Uses
Off-site Receptor
Location
Noise Sensitive
Land Use
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
Distance from Construction Activity to
Noise Receptor (feet)
Estimated Construction Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Demolition
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
Architectural
Coating
Trenching
South of the Project Site Church 66 Nearest Construction Activity /Receiver Distance (10')
95 94 90 90 88 91
Typical Construction Activity /Receiver
Distance (60')
84 86 83 80 72 76
West of the Project Site Single-family and multi-
family residences
65 Nearest Construction Activity /Receiver
Distance (60')
83 83 79 78 72 76
Typical Construction Activity /Receiver
Distance (150')
76 78 75 72 64 68
South of the Project Site Multi-family residences 67 Nearest Construction Activity /Receiver Distance (60')
83 83 79 78 72 76
Typical Construction Activity /Receiver
Distance (150')
76 78 75 72 64 68
East of the Project Site Multi-family residences 71 Nearest Construction Activity /Receiver Distance (60')
83 83 79 78 72 76
Typical Construction Activity /Receiver
Distance (150')
76 78 75 72 64 68
100-Foot Reference
Distance
N/A N/A 100' 79 79 76 74 68 71
Source: Appendix D
Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures.
Leq dBA: Energy-averaged noise level
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
29 May 2020
The Project would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance by adhering to the following construction schedule (City of Pasadena 2008):
Construction activity shall be consistent with City noise ordin ance requirements, which limits construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., on weekdays. Saturday construction can occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Construction on Sundays and holidays is prohibited.
Noise from construction activities may be annoying because leve ls would generally be well above typical existing ambient noise levels. However, construct ion noise would be temporary, and restricting construction activities to the daytime period w ill avoid disruption of evening relaxation and overnight sleep periods.
4.3.3 Construction Noise Reduction Techniques
Based on the construction equipment list for the proposed Proje ct, the equipment meets the City’s construction noise requirement. With adherence to the limited co nstruction hours, the Project would result in a less-than-significant short-term cons truction noise impact based on the City’s Noise Ordinance. However, due to the close proximity of noise-s ensitive receptors, the following recommendations are provided to minimize the pote ntial for noise-related annoyance during construction.
Recommended Construction Techniques to Minimize the Potential f or Construction Noise Disruption
x Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent should be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners/users to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions should be implement ed, and a report of the action should be provided to the reporting party.
x The Project contractor should, to the extent feasible, schedule construction activities to avoid the simultaneous operation of construction equipment to m inimize noise levels resulting from operating several pieces of high noise level emitting equipment. x All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Enforcement shall be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities to the sa tisfaction of the City ’s Building & Safety Division.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
30 May 2020
x Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, constructing a temporary noise barrier, maximizing the distance between cons truction equipment staging areas and residences and the seminary, and using electr ic air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment should be used where feasible. x During construction, stationary construction equipment should be placed so emitted noise is directed away or shielded from noise-sensitive receptors, including residences. x During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shou ld be located as far as practical from noise-sensitive receptors, including adjacent residences. x If equipment that can cause hearing damage at adjacent noise re ceptor locations (distance attenuation shall be taken into account) is being used, portabl e noise barriers should be installed that are demonstrated to be adequate to reduce noise levels at receptor locations below hearing damage thresholds. This may include erection of t emporary plywood barriers to create a break in the line of sight or erection of a heavy vinyl tent around the noise source.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation is not required because impacts would be less than significant without mitigation, based on the interpretation of the construction noise regulations con tained in the municipal code.
However, the recommended construction techniques are provided t o minimize construction- related noise levels, since noise-sensitive receptors are in proximity of the Project site.
4.3.4 Off-Site Construction Noise Assessment
The proposed Project would result in temporary increases in traffic from worker vehicles and project-related truck trips. The increase in vehicles along local arterials would correspond with an incremental increase in traffic noise. Based on the air quality analysis prepared for the Project (Dudek 2020), the Project would result in as many as 78 daily one-way truck trips (up to 39 round trips) and 288 daily one-way worker trips (144 round trips) during the various construction phases, as shown in Table 8. It should be noted that the highest number s of truck trips and worker trips would not occur during the same construction phases.
In order to assess potential noise impacts from construction- related traffic, the FHWA’s TNM noise model (FHWA 2004) was utilized. Because the nearest City-designated truck routes are Del Mar Boulevard and Lake Avenue, Project-related trucks would lik ely access the Project site via either (or both) of these streets, then using either Green Stre et, Oak Knoll Avenue or Hudson Avenue. As a conservative measure, it was assumed that Project-related trips could use all of these streets; For each of the two phases for which haul truck trips and worker trips would be at their Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
31 May 2020
respective peaks (grading and building construction, respectively), Project-related autos and truck trips were added to all of the adjacent modeled roadways. The resulting noise levels and resulting Project-related increases are summarized in Table 10. As shown in Table 10, temporary traffic noise increases would be 2 decibels (dB) or less. Although individual truck pass-bys would be audible, the incremental increase in hourly average (and 24-hour CNEL1) vehicle noise would not be an audible (as detailed in Section 1.3, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered to be barely audible). Therefore, off-site construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Table 10
Construction-Related Traffic Noise
Modeled Receptor
Existing Noise Level
(Peak-Hour Leq dBA)
Existing plus
Construction Traffic
Noise Level
(Peak-Hour Leq dBA)
Noise Level Increase
(dB)
Grading Phase
ST1 68 69 1
ST2 68 69 1
ST3 68 69 1
ST4 70 70 0
Building Construction Phase
ST1 68 70 2
ST2 68 70 2
ST3 68 70 2
ST4 70 72 2
Source: Appendix B
4.4 Groundborne Vibration
4.4.1 Impact Analysis
Operation of the Project does not include any heavy rotating equipment. Thus, significant groundborne vibration is not expected during the operational phase of the Project.
Construction activities that might expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise could cause a potentially significant impact. Groun d-borne vibration information related to construction activities has been collected by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2013b). Information from Caltrans indicates that cont inuous vibrations with a peak particle velocity (PPV) of approximately 0.1 inches per second begin to annoy people. The heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as bulldozers, would hav e peak particle velocities of
1 The 24-hour CNEL traffic noise levels and the peak-hour Leq traffic noise levels are effectively equivalent to one another.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
32 May 2020
approximately 0.089 inches per second PPV or less at a distance of 25 feet. Lighter construction equipment, such as a small bulldozer, would have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.003 inches per second PPV (FTA 2018). The construction activity wou ld not include blasting or pile driving, which are the primary sources of high vibration levels associated with construction.
Ground-borne vibration is typically attenuated over short distances. The distance from the nearest vibration-sensitive receivers (the church to the south of the Project site on the Project’s west side, and an office building to the south of the Project site on the Project’s east side) to where demolition / construction activity would be occurring on the Project site is approximately 10 feet. At a distance of 10 feet, and with the anticipated construction equipment, th e peak particle velocity vibration level would be approximately 0.352 inches per second PPV. These vibration levels would exceed the vibration threshold of potential annoyance of 0.1 inches pe r second PPV at a distance of 10 feet. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact without mitigation. At a distance of 25 feet, the vibration levels would be less than the threshold of potential annoyance of 0.1 inches per second. With mitigation (MM-VIB-1), potential construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
The major concern with regards to construction vibration is rel ated to building damage, which could occur at vibration levels of 0.2 inches per second or gre ater for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. As discussed above, the anticipated vibration levels associated with on-site Project construction using heavy construction equipment would b e approximately 0.352 inches per second PPV at the nearest structures, which is above the threshold of 0.2 inches per second for building damage. Therefore, potential vibration impacts would b e potentially significant without mitigation. At a distance of 15 feet or more, the anticipated vibration levels would be less than 0.2 inches per second PPV. With mitigation (MM-VIB-1), potential construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
33 May 2020
5 MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential impacts related to Project-related transportation noi se, on-site operational noise, on-site construction noise and off-site construction noise were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. Although Project-related groundborne vibration during operation would be negligible, Project-related groundborne vibration impacts during construction would occur, unless mitigated. The following mitigation measure is intended to mitigate potentially significanct groundborne vibration impacts during to less than significant levels.
5.1 Groundborne Vibration
MM-VIB-1. During Project construction, the use of heavy construction equipment shall be minimized to the extent practicable within 25 feet of the nearest off-site buildings along the south side of the Project site. Within 15 feet of the nearest off-site structures, lighter construction equipment (e.g. small bulldozers rather than large bulldozers) shall be utilized during earthwork activities.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
34 May 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
35 May 2020
6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
On-site construction activities would generate groundborne vibr ation levels in excess of significance thresholds. The implementation of mitigation measure MM-VIB-1 would ensure that the use of construction equipment with the potential to generat e higher vibration levels is minimized in proximity to the southerly side of the Project sit e. Through the use of lighter construction equipment, groundborne vibration would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
36 May 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
37 May 2020
7 REFERENCES
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
24 CCR Part 2. California Building Code.
24 CCR Part 11. 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Sacramento, California: California Building Standards Commission. July 2013. ISBN 978-1-60983- 462-3. http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/toc/2015/CALIFORNIA/2013% 20CALIFORNIA%20GREEN%20BUILDING%20STANDARDS,%
20SUPPLEMENT%20JULY%202015/index.html.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol: A Guide for Measuring, Modeling, and Abating Highway Operation and Construction Noise Impacts. California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, & Paleontology Office. September 2013.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California.
September 2013.
City of Pasadena. 2002. Revised Noise Element of the General Plan: Existing and Future Conditions. Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants Inc. December 2002.
City of Pasadena. 2008. Pasadena Municipal Code. Chapter 9.36 – Noise Restrictions. Accessed April 2020. https://library.municode.com/ca/pasadena/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_ARTIVOFAGPUPE_CH9.36NORE_9.36.050GENOSO.
City of Pasadena. 2020. Transportation Impact Analysis, CEQA Evaluation, Category 2. April 2020.
Dudek. 2020. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum for the 740– 790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project. Prepared for the City of Pasadena. April 2020.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5.
Office of Environment and Planning. Washington, DC. February.
Noise Assessment Technical Report for the
740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project
12101
38 May 2020
FHWA. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Final. FHWA-HEP-06- 015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. August 2006.
FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Federal Transit Administration. September 2018.
Juan Vazquez Architects. 2017. Bellevue Gardens Architecture Plan Set. April 9, 2017.
Trane. 2013. Product Data: 4DCY4024 through 4DCY4060 Single Packaged Convertible Dual Fuel 14 SEER.
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
APPENDIX A
Field Noise Measurement Data
APPENDIX B
Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) Data Sheets
INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101 a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Existing of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave 50.0 point1 1 1,086.0 2,370.6 800.00 Average point2 2 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av 28.0 point31 31 1,080.8 1,964.4 800.00 Average point7 7 1,596.3 1,967.8 800.00
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave 60.0 point33 33 1,077.3 1,514.8 800.00 Average point9 9 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St 38.0 point35 35 1,605.0 1,431.5 800.00 Average point14 14 1,603.0 1,517.3 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St 30.0 point37 37 2,045.9 1,435.0 800.00 Average point19 19 2,041.0 1,525.6 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St 45.0 point39 39 2,528.4 1,436.7 800.00 Average point23 23 2,526.4 1,517.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St 38.0 point40 40 1,588.0 2,370.5 800.00 Average point17 17 1,589.4 2,776.7 800.00
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St 30.0 point41 41 2,028.4 2,373.1 800.00 Average point21 21 2,033.7 2,766.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St 45.0 point42 42 2,528.4 2,375.8 800.00 Average point25 25 2,526.7 2,776.7 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point43 43 1,602.7 1,522.6 800.00 Average point15 15 1,599.8 1,971.3 800.00 Average
point16 16 1,587.6 2,360.1 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point44 44 2,040.8 1,529.8 800.00 Average point20 20 2,028.5 2,371.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St 45.0 point45 45 2,526.6 1,519.3 800.00 Average point24 24 2,528.4 2,372.9 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 1 1 M INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave 60.0 point46 46 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00 Average point12 12 2,778.4 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave 60.0 point47 47 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00 Average point11 11 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 60.0 point48 48 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00 Average point10 10 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave 50.0 point49 49 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00 Average point5 5 2,811.4 2,372.3 800.00
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave 50.0 point50 50 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00 Average point4 4 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 50.0 point51 51 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00 Average point3 3 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 2 1 M INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Existing
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles
VS VS VS VS VS
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave point1 1 958 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point2 2
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av point31 31 82 25 2 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point7 7
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave point33 33 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point9 9
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St point35 35 309 35 6 35 3 35 0 0 0 0 point14 14
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St point37 37 484 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point19 19
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St point39 39 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point23 23
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St point40 40 409 35 8 35 4 35 0 0 0 0 point17 17
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St point41 41 462 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point21 21
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St point42 42 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point25 25
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St point43 43 309 35 6 35 3 35 0 0 0 0 point15 15 309 35 6 35 3 35 0 0 0 0
point16 16
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St point44 44 484 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point20 20
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St point45 45 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point24 24
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave point46 46 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point12 12
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave point47 47 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point11 11
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point48 48 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point10 10
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave point49 49 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point5 5
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave point50 50 958 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point4 4
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point51 51 958 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point3 3
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 2 INPUT: RECEIVERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Existing
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 1,586.3 2,197.7 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST2 2 1 1,605.7 1,986.5 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST3 3 1 2,024.9 1,885.4 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST4 4 1 2,037.9 2,324.9 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 1 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: BARRIERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Existing
Barrier Points
Name Type Height If Wall If Berm Add'tnl Name No. Coordinates (bottom) Height Segment Min Max $ per $ per Top Run:Rise $ per X Y Z at Seg Ht Perturbs On Important Unit Unit Width Unit Point Incre- #Up #Dn Struct? Reflec- Area Vol. Length ment tions?
ft ft $/sq ft $/cu yd ft ft:ft $/ft ft ft ft ft ft
Barrier2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point3 3 1,629.0 2,218.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point5 5 1,625.6 2,322.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point6 6 1,782.6 2,323.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point7 7 1,784.4 2,231.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point195 195 1,645.3 1,577.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point138 138 1,638.4 1,771.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point139 139 1,782.5 1,771.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point140 140 1,785.9 1,575.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point197 197 1,102.0 1,928.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point114 114 1,421.4 1,935.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point115 115 1,428.3 1,850.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point116 116 1,549.9 1,850.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point117 117 1,536.0 1,728.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point118 118 1,367.6 1,730.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point199 199 1,289.5 2,160.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point128 128 1,390.2 2,164.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point129 129 1,397.1 2,011.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point130 130 1,296.4 2,009.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point201 201 1,185.3 2,323.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point132 132 1,374.5 2,320.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point133 133 1,379.7 2,252.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point134 134 1,235.7 2,249.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point135 135 1,239.2 2,174.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point136 136 1,178.4 2,172.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point203 203 1,848.0 2,647.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point53 53 1,850.7 2,428.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point54 54 1,988.5 2,422.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point55 55 1,994.0 2,652.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point205 205 1,424.0 2,324.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point97 97 1,536.1 2,328.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point98 98 1,557.4 2,305.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point99 99 1,558.0 2,215.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point100 100 1,432.2 2,215.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point207 207 1,404.4 2,150.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point43 43 1,546.3 2,148.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 1 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
point44 44 1,550.4 2,010.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point45 45 1,430.5 2,008.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point46 46 1,429.2 2,050.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point47 47 1,500.8 2,050.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point48 48 1,499.4 2,107.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point49 49 1,441.6 2,107.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point50 50 1,442.9 2,055.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point51 51 1,404.4 2,056.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point209 209 1,608.3 2,511.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point57 57 1,613.8 2,429.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point58 58 1,732.3 2,431.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point59 59 1,735.0 2,512.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point211 211 2,060.1 2,710.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point61 61 2,062.9 2,415.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point62 62 2,275.1 2,415.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point63 63 2,273.7 2,659.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point213 213 1,556.8 1,579.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point122 122 1,115.9 1,568.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point214 214 1,084.7 2,153.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point124 124 1,272.1 2,148.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point125 125 1,289.5 1,994.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point126 126 1,091.6 2,006.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point216 216 1,491.4 2,513.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point106 106 1,491.4 2,421.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point107 107 1,553.7 2,417.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point108 108 1,554.8 2,515.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point218 218 1,501.6 2,207.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point102 102 1,549.8 2,207.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point103 103 1,549.8 2,172.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point104 104 1,498.4 2,173.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point220 220 1,381.5 2,511.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point110 110 1,482.2 2,509.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point111 111 1,485.6 2,408.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point112 112 1,388.4 2,408.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point222 222 1,789.6 2,214.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point9 9 1,787.9 2,332.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point10 10 1,999.6 2,330.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point11 11 2,000.5 2,231.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point12 12 1,943.2 2,233.6 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point224 224 2,324.1 2,334.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point66 66 2,477.2 2,333.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point67 67 2,477.2 2,248.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point68 68 2,331.2 2,249.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point69 69 2,330.7 2,267.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point70 70 2,306.1 2,267.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point226 226 2,395.8 2,168.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point76 76 2,398.6 2,040.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point77 77 2,488.1 2,038.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point78 78 2,486.8 2,175.3 800.00 20.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 2 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point228 228 2,331.1 2,419.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point72 72 2,471.6 2,416.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point73 73 2,477.1 2,704.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point74 74 2,321.5 2,701.6 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point230 230 1,861.6 2,132.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point17 17 1,864.2 2,060.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point18 18 1,938.0 2,058.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point19 19 1,938.9 2,008.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point20 20 1,993.6 2,008.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point21 21 1,987.5 2,133.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point232 232 2,074.3 2,104.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point14 14 2,070.8 2,326.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point15 15 2,322.5 2,330.0 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point234 234 1,642.1 2,090.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point23 23 1,792.2 2,091.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point24 24 1,793.1 2,021.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point25 25 1,641.2 2,018.4 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point236 236 2,076.2 1,759.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point80 80 2,331.0 1,755.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point81 81 2,477.1 1,755.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point82 82 2,482.6 1,616.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point83 83 2,078.9 1,620.1 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point238 238 1,796.5 1,792.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point93 93 1,993.5 1,792.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point94 94 1,997.7 1,748.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point95 95 1,799.2 1,746.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point240 240 1,856.4 1,940.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point35 35 1,986.6 1,940.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point36 36 1,987.5 1,894.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point37 37 1,857.3 1,895.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point242 242 1,798.4 1,874.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point39 39 1,987.1 1,874.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point40 40 1,992.6 1,807.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point41 41 1,801.1 1,804.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point244 244 1,643.8 1,995.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point27 27 1,726.2 1,995.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point28 28 1,729.7 1,953.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point29 29 1,643.8 1,954.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point30 30 1,642.1 1,920.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point31 31 1,642.9 1,861.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point32 32 1,781.8 1,857.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point33 33 1,780.1 1,920.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point246 246 2,329.7 1,892.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point85 85 2,461.9 1,894.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point86 86 2,467.4 1,759.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point87 87 2,340.7 1,760.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point248 248 2,347.6 2,033.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point89 89 2,464.7 2,030.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point90 90 2,468.8 1,959.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 3 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
point91 91 2,357.2 1,959.0 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point250 250 1,367.6 1,697.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point120 120 1,549.9 1,695.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point121 121 1,556.8 1,579.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point252 252 1,817.2 1,716.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point142 142 1,989.0 1,714.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point143 143 1,985.5 1,573.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point144 144 1,900.5 1,579.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point145 145 1,905.7 1,667.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point146 146 1,810.2 1,665.9 800.00 20.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 4 1 May 2020 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Existing
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 67.6 66 67.6 10 Snd Lvl 67.6 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 0.0 67.7 66 67.7 10 Snd Lvl 67.7 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 0.0 67.7 66 67.7 10 Snd Lvl 67.7 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 0.0 69.8 66 69.8 10 Snd Lvl 69.8 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Existing 1 1 May 2020 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101 a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Exist w Prj of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave 50.0 point1 1 1,086.0 2,370.6 800.00 Average point2 2 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av 28.0 point31 31 1,080.8 1,964.4 800.00 Average point7 7 1,596.3 1,967.8 800.00
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave 60.0 point33 33 1,077.3 1,514.8 800.00 Average point9 9 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St 38.0 point35 35 1,605.0 1,431.5 800.00 Average point14 14 1,603.0 1,517.3 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St 30.0 point37 37 2,045.9 1,435.0 800.00 Average point19 19 2,041.0 1,525.6 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St 45.0 point39 39 2,528.4 1,436.7 800.00 Average point23 23 2,526.4 1,517.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St 38.0 point40 40 1,588.0 2,370.5 800.00 Average point17 17 1,589.4 2,776.7 800.00
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St 30.0 point41 41 2,028.4 2,373.1 800.00 Average point21 21 2,033.7 2,766.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St 45.0 point42 42 2,528.4 2,375.8 800.00 Average point25 25 2,526.7 2,776.7 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point43 43 1,602.7 1,522.6 800.00 Average point15 15 1,599.8 1,971.3 800.00 Average
point16 16 1,587.6 2,360.1 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point44 44 2,040.8 1,529.8 800.00 Average point20 20 2,028.5 2,371.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St 45.0 point45 45 2,526.6 1,519.3 800.00 Average point24 24 2,528.4 2,372.9 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 1 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave 60.0 point46 46 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00 Average point12 12 2,778.4 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave 60.0 point47 47 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00 Average point11 11 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 60.0 point48 48 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00 Average point10 10 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave 50.0 point49 49 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00 Average point5 5 2,811.4 2,372.3 800.00
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave 50.0 point50 50 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00 Average point4 4 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 50.0 point51 51 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00 Average point3 3 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 2 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Exist w Prj
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles
VS VS VS VS VS
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave point1 1 958 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point2 2
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av point31 31 82 25 2 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point7 7
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave point33 33 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point9 9
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St point35 35 411 35 9 35 4 35 0 0 0 0 point14 14
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St point37 37 484 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point19 19
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St point39 39 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point23 23
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St point40 40 435 35 9 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point17 17
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St point41 41 472 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point21 21
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St point42 42 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point25 25
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St point43 43 411 35 9 35 4 35 0 0 0 0 point15 15 411 35 9 35 4 35 0 0 0 0
point16 16
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St point44 44 585 35 12 35 6 35 0 0 0 0 point20 20
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St point45 45 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point24 24
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave point46 46 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point12 12
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave point47 47 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point11 11
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point48 48 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point10 10
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave point49 49 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point5 5
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave point50 50 958 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point4 4
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point51 51 958 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point3 3
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 2 INPUT: RECEIVERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Exist w Prj
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 1,586.3 2,197.7 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST2 2 1 1,605.7 1,986.5 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST3 3 1 2,024.9 1,885.4 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST4 4 1 2,037.9 2,324.9 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 1 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: BARRIERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Exist w Prj
Barrier Points
Name Type Height If Wall If Berm Add'tnl Name No. Coordinates (bottom) Height Segment Min Max $ per $ per Top Run:Rise $ per X Y Z at Seg Ht Perturbs On Important Unit Unit Width Unit Point Incre- #Up #Dn Struct? Reflec- Area Vol. Length ment tions?
ft ft $/sq ft $/cu yd ft ft:ft $/ft ft ft ft ft ft
Barrier2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point3 3 1,629.0 2,218.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point5 5 1,625.6 2,322.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point6 6 1,782.6 2,323.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point7 7 1,784.4 2,231.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point195 195 1,645.3 1,577.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point138 138 1,638.4 1,771.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point139 139 1,782.5 1,771.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point140 140 1,785.9 1,575.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point197 197 1,102.0 1,928.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point114 114 1,421.4 1,935.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point115 115 1,428.3 1,850.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point116 116 1,549.9 1,850.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point117 117 1,536.0 1,728.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point118 118 1,367.6 1,730.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point199 199 1,289.5 2,160.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point128 128 1,390.2 2,164.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point129 129 1,397.1 2,011.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point130 130 1,296.4 2,009.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point201 201 1,185.3 2,323.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point132 132 1,374.5 2,320.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point133 133 1,379.7 2,252.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point134 134 1,235.7 2,249.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point135 135 1,239.2 2,174.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point136 136 1,178.4 2,172.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point203 203 1,848.0 2,647.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point53 53 1,850.7 2,428.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point54 54 1,988.5 2,422.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point55 55 1,994.0 2,652.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point205 205 1,424.0 2,324.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point97 97 1,536.1 2,328.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point98 98 1,557.4 2,305.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point99 99 1,558.0 2,215.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point100 100 1,432.2 2,215.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point207 207 1,404.4 2,150.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point43 43 1,546.3 2,148.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 1 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
point44 44 1,550.4 2,010.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point45 45 1,430.5 2,008.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point46 46 1,429.2 2,050.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point47 47 1,500.8 2,050.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point48 48 1,499.4 2,107.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point49 49 1,441.6 2,107.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point50 50 1,442.9 2,055.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point51 51 1,404.4 2,056.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point209 209 1,608.3 2,511.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point57 57 1,613.8 2,429.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point58 58 1,732.3 2,431.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point59 59 1,735.0 2,512.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point211 211 2,060.1 2,710.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point61 61 2,062.9 2,415.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point62 62 2,275.1 2,415.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point63 63 2,273.7 2,659.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point213 213 1,556.8 1,579.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point122 122 1,115.9 1,568.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point214 214 1,084.7 2,153.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point124 124 1,272.1 2,148.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point125 125 1,289.5 1,994.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point126 126 1,091.6 2,006.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point216 216 1,491.4 2,513.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point106 106 1,491.4 2,421.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point107 107 1,553.7 2,417.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point108 108 1,554.8 2,515.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point218 218 1,501.6 2,207.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point102 102 1,549.8 2,207.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point103 103 1,549.8 2,172.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point104 104 1,498.4 2,173.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point220 220 1,381.5 2,511.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point110 110 1,482.2 2,509.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point111 111 1,485.6 2,408.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point112 112 1,388.4 2,408.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point222 222 1,789.6 2,214.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point9 9 1,787.9 2,332.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point10 10 1,999.6 2,330.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point11 11 2,000.5 2,231.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point12 12 1,943.2 2,233.6 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point224 224 2,324.1 2,334.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point66 66 2,477.2 2,333.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point67 67 2,477.2 2,248.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point68 68 2,331.2 2,249.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point69 69 2,330.7 2,267.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point70 70 2,306.1 2,267.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point226 226 2,395.8 2,168.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point76 76 2,398.6 2,040.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point77 77 2,488.1 2,038.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point78 78 2,486.8 2,175.3 800.00 20.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 2 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point228 228 2,331.1 2,419.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point72 72 2,471.6 2,416.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point73 73 2,477.1 2,704.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point74 74 2,321.5 2,701.6 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point230 230 1,861.6 2,132.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point17 17 1,864.2 2,060.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point18 18 1,938.0 2,058.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point19 19 1,938.9 2,008.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point20 20 1,993.6 2,008.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point21 21 1,987.5 2,133.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point232 232 2,074.3 2,104.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point14 14 2,070.8 2,326.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point15 15 2,322.5 2,330.0 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point234 234 1,642.1 2,090.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point23 23 1,792.2 2,091.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point24 24 1,793.1 2,021.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point25 25 1,641.2 2,018.4 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point236 236 2,076.2 1,759.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point80 80 2,331.0 1,755.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point81 81 2,477.1 1,755.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point82 82 2,482.6 1,616.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point83 83 2,078.9 1,620.1 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point238 238 1,796.5 1,792.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point93 93 1,993.5 1,792.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point94 94 1,997.7 1,748.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point95 95 1,799.2 1,746.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point240 240 1,856.4 1,940.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point35 35 1,986.6 1,940.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point36 36 1,987.5 1,894.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point37 37 1,857.3 1,895.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point242 242 1,798.4 1,874.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point39 39 1,987.1 1,874.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point40 40 1,992.6 1,807.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point41 41 1,801.1 1,804.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point244 244 1,643.8 1,995.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point27 27 1,726.2 1,995.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point28 28 1,729.7 1,953.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point29 29 1,643.8 1,954.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point30 30 1,642.1 1,920.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point31 31 1,642.9 1,861.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point32 32 1,781.8 1,857.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point33 33 1,780.1 1,920.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point246 246 2,329.7 1,892.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point85 85 2,461.9 1,894.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point86 86 2,467.4 1,759.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point87 87 2,340.7 1,760.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point248 248 2,347.6 2,033.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point89 89 2,464.7 2,030.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point90 90 2,468.8 1,959.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 3 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
point91 91 2,357.2 1,959.0 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point250 250 1,367.6 1,697.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point120 120 1,549.9 1,695.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point121 121 1,556.8 1,579.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point252 252 1,817.2 1,716.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point142 142 1,989.0 1,714.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point143 143 1,985.5 1,573.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point144 144 1,900.5 1,579.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point145 145 1,905.7 1,667.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point146 146 1,810.2 1,665.9 800.00 20.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 4 1 May 2020 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 East Green St_Pasadena_Exist w Prj
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 68.9 66 68.9 10 Snd Lvl 68.9 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 0.0 68.9 66 68.9 10 Snd Lvl 68.9 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 0.0 68.5 66 68.5 10 Snd Lvl 68.5 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 0.0 70.4 66 70.4 10 Snd Lvl 70.4 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex with Proj 1 1 Ma INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101 a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (bldg cnst) of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave 50.0 point1 1 1,086.0 2,370.6 800.00 Average point2 2 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av 28.0 point31 31 1,080.8 1,964.4 800.00 Average point7 7 1,596.3 1,967.8 800.00
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave 60.0 point33 33 1,077.3 1,514.8 800.00 Average point9 9 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St 38.0 point35 35 1,605.0 1,431.5 800.00 Average point14 14 1,603.0 1,517.3 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St 30.0 point37 37 2,045.9 1,435.0 800.00 Average point19 19 2,041.0 1,525.6 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St 45.0 point39 39 2,528.4 1,436.7 800.00 Average point23 23 2,526.4 1,517.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St 38.0 point40 40 1,588.0 2,370.5 800.00 Average point17 17 1,589.4 2,776.7 800.00
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St 30.0 point41 41 2,028.4 2,373.1 800.00 Average point21 21 2,033.7 2,766.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St 45.0 point42 42 2,528.4 2,375.8 800.00 Average point25 25 2,526.7 2,776.7 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point43 43 1,602.7 1,522.6 800.00 Average point15 15 1,599.8 1,971.3 800.00 Average
point16 16 1,587.6 2,360.1 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point44 44 2,040.8 1,529.8 800.00 Average point20 20 2,028.5 2,371.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St 45.0 point45 45 2,526.6 1,519.3 800.00 Average point24 24 2,528.4 2,372.9 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Bldg Const 1 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave 60.0 point46 46 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00 Average point12 12 2,778.4 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave 60.0 point47 47 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00 Average point11 11 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 60.0 point48 48 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00 Average point10 10 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave 50.0 point49 49 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00 Average point5 5 2,811.4 2,372.3 800.00
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave 50.0 point50 50 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00 Average point4 4 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 50.0 point51 51 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00 Average point3 3 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Bldg Const 2 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (bldg cnst)
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles
VS VS VS VS VS
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave point1 1 1246 35 29 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point2 2
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av point31 31 82 25 2 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point7 7
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave point33 33 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point9 9
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St point35 35 309 35 6 35 3 35 0 0 0 0 point14 14
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St point37 37 484 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point19 19
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St point39 39 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point23 23
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St point40 40 409 35 8 35 4 35 0 0 0 0 point17 17
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St point41 41 462 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point21 21
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St point42 42 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point25 25
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St point43 43 597 35 15 35 3 35 0 0 0 0 point15 15 597 35 15 35 3 35 0 0 0 0
point16 16
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St point44 44 772 35 19 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point20 20
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Bldg Const 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St point45 45 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point24 24
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave point46 46 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point12 12
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave point47 47 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point11 11
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point48 48 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point10 10
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave point49 49 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point5 5
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave point50 50 1246 35 29 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point4 4
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point51 51 1246 35 29 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point3 3
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Bldg Const 2 INPUT: RECEIVERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (bldg cnst)
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 1,586.3 2,197.7 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST2 2 1 1,605.7 1,986.5 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST3 3 1 2,024.9 1,885.4 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST4 4 1 2,037.9 2,324.9 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Bldg Const 1 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (bldg cnst)
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 70.3 66 70.3 10 Snd Lvl 70.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 0.0 70.3 66 70.3 10 Snd Lvl 70.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 0.0 69.6 66 69.6 10 Snd Lvl 69.6 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 0.0 71.5 66 71.5 10 Snd Lvl 71.5 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Bldg Const 1 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101 a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (Demo) of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave 50.0 point1 1 1,086.0 2,370.6 800.00 Average point2 2 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av 28.0 point31 31 1,080.8 1,964.4 800.00 Average point7 7 1,596.3 1,967.8 800.00
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave 60.0 point33 33 1,077.3 1,514.8 800.00 Average point9 9 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St 38.0 point35 35 1,605.0 1,431.5 800.00 Average point14 14 1,603.0 1,517.3 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St 30.0 point37 37 2,045.9 1,435.0 800.00 Average point19 19 2,041.0 1,525.6 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St 45.0 point39 39 2,528.4 1,436.7 800.00 Average point23 23 2,526.4 1,517.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St 38.0 point40 40 1,588.0 2,370.5 800.00 Average point17 17 1,589.4 2,776.7 800.00
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St 30.0 point41 41 2,028.4 2,373.1 800.00 Average point21 21 2,033.7 2,766.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St 45.0 point42 42 2,528.4 2,375.8 800.00 Average point25 25 2,526.7 2,776.7 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point43 43 1,602.7 1,522.6 800.00 Average point15 15 1,599.8 1,971.3 800.00 Average
point16 16 1,587.6 2,360.1 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point44 44 2,040.8 1,529.8 800.00 Average point20 20 2,028.5 2,371.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St 45.0 point45 45 2,526.6 1,519.3 800.00 Average point24 24 2,528.4 2,372.9 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Demo 1 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave 60.0 point46 46 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00 Average point12 12 2,778.4 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave 60.0 point47 47 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00 Average point11 11 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 60.0 point48 48 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00 Average point10 10 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave 50.0 point49 49 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00 Average point5 5 2,811.4 2,372.3 800.00
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave 50.0 point50 50 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00 Average point4 4 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 50.0 point51 51 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00 Average point3 3 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Demo 2 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (Demo)
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles
VS VS VS VS VS
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave point1 1 974 35 20 35 13 35 0 0 0 0 point2 2
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av point31 31 82 25 2 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point7 7
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave point33 33 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point9 9
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St point35 35 309 35 6 35 3 35 0 0 0 0 point14 14
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St point37 37 484 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point19 19
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St point39 39 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point23 23
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St point40 40 409 35 8 35 4 35 0 0 0 0 point17 17
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St point41 41 462 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point21 21
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St point42 42 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point25 25
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St point43 43 325 35 6 35 6 35 0 0 0 0 point15 15 325 35 6 35 6 35 0 0 0 0
point16 16
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St point44 44 496 35 10 35 8 35 0 0 0 0 point20 20
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Demo 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St point45 45 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point24 24
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave point46 46 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point12 12
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave point47 47 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point11 11
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point48 48 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point10 10
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave point49 49 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point5 5
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave point50 50 974 35 20 35 13 35 0 0 0 0 point4 4
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point51 51 974 35 20 35 13 35 0 0 0 0 point3 3
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Demo 2 INPUT: RECEIVERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (Demo)
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 1,586.3 2,197.7 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST2 2 1 1,605.7 1,986.5 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST3 3 1 2,024.9 1,885.4 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST4 4 1 2,037.9 2,324.9 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Demo 1 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (Demo)
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 68.3 66 68.3 10 Snd Lvl 68.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 0.0 68.3 66 68.3 10 Snd Lvl 68.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 0.0 68.1 66 68.1 10 Snd Lvl 68.1 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 0.0 70.2 66 70.2 10 Snd Lvl 70.2 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Demo 1 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101 a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (grading) of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points
Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On
Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct?
Affected
ft ft ft ft mph %
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave 50.0 point1 1 1,086.0 2,370.6 800.00 Average point2 2 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av 28.0 point31 31 1,080.8 1,964.4 800.00 Average point7 7 1,596.3 1,967.8 800.00
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave 60.0 point33 33 1,077.3 1,514.8 800.00 Average point9 9 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St 38.0 point35 35 1,605.0 1,431.5 800.00 Average point14 14 1,603.0 1,517.3 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St 30.0 point37 37 2,045.9 1,435.0 800.00 Average point19 19 2,041.0 1,525.6 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St 45.0 point39 39 2,528.4 1,436.7 800.00 Average point23 23 2,526.4 1,517.0 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St 38.0 point40 40 1,588.0 2,370.5 800.00 Average point17 17 1,589.4 2,776.7 800.00
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St 30.0 point41 41 2,028.4 2,373.1 800.00 Average point21 21 2,033.7 2,766.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St 45.0 point42 42 2,528.4 2,375.8 800.00 Average point25 25 2,526.7 2,776.7 800.00
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point43 43 1,602.7 1,522.6 800.00 Average point15 15 1,599.8 1,971.3 800.00 Average
point16 16 1,587.6 2,360.1 800.00
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St 10.0 point44 44 2,040.8 1,529.8 800.00 Average point20 20 2,028.5 2,371.3 800.00
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St 45.0 point45 45 2,526.6 1,519.3 800.00 Average point24 24 2,528.4 2,372.9 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 1 INPUT: ROADWAYS 12101
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave 60.0 point46 46 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00 Average point12 12 2,778.4 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave 60.0 point47 47 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00 Average point11 11 2,512.8 1,518.3 800.00
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 60.0 point48 48 1,601.5 1,520.0 800.00 Average point10 10 2,037.2 1,527.0 800.00
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave 50.0 point49 49 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00 Average point5 5 2,811.4 2,372.3 800.00
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave 50.0 point50 50 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00 Average point4 4 2,521.5 2,374.0 800.00
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson 50.0 point51 51 1,592.8 2,365.3 800.00 Average point3 3 2,035.4 2,372.3 800.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 2 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (grading)
Roadway Points
Name Name No. Segment
Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles
VS VS VS VS VS
veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph
East Green Street w of S Oak Knoll Ave point1 1 978 35 20 35 20 35 0 0 0 0 point2 2
Mira Monte Place - w of S. Oak Knoll Av point31 31 82 25 2 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point7 7
Cordova Street - w. of S. Oak Knoll Ave point33 33 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point9 9
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of Cordova St point35 35 309 35 6 35 3 35 0 0 0 0 point14 14
South Hudson Ave - s. of Cordova St point37 37 484 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point19 19
South Lake Ave - s. of Cordova St point39 39 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point23 23
South Oak Knoll Ave - n. of E. Green St point40 40 409 35 8 35 4 35 0 0 0 0 point17 17
South Hudson Ave - n. of E. Green St point41 41 462 35 10 35 5 35 0 0 0 0 point21 21
South Lake Ave - n. of E. Green St point42 42 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point25 25
South Oak Knoll Ave - s. of E. Green St point43 43 329 35 6 35 13 35 0 0 0 0 point15 15 329 35 6 35 13 35 0 0 0 0
point16 16
South Hudson Ave - s. of E. Green St point44 44 504 35 10 35 15 35 0 0 0 0 point20 20
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 1 INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR LAeq1h Volumes 12101
South Lake Ave - s. of E. Green St point45 45 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point24 24
Cordova St- E of S Lake Ave point46 46 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point12 12
Cordova St- E of S Hudson Ave point47 47 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point11 11
Cordova St - Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point48 48 959 35 20 35 10 35 0 0 0 0 point10 10
East Green St- E of S Lake Ave point49 49 2279 35 47 35 23 35 0 0 0 0 point5 5
East Green St- E of S Hudson Ave point50 50 978 35 20 35 20 35 0 0 0 0 point4 4
East Green St- Oak Knoll Ave to Hudson point51 51 978 35 20 35 20 35 0 0 0 0 point3 3
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 2 INPUT: RECEIVERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: RECEIVERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (grading)
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Coordinates (ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in
Ground LAeq1h LAeq1h Sub'l Goal Calc.
ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB
ST1 1 1 1,586.3 2,197.7 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST2 2 1 1,605.7 1,986.5 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST3 3 1 2,024.9 1,885.4 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
ST4 4 1 2,037.9 2,324.9 800.00 5.00 0.00 66 10.0 8.0 Y
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 1 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
INPUT: BARRIERS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (grading)
Barrier Points
Name Type Height If Wall If Berm Add'tnl Name No. Coordinates (bottom) Height Segment Min Max $ per $ per Top Run:Rise $ per X Y Z at Seg Ht Perturbs On Important Unit Unit Width Unit Point Incre- #Up #Dn Struct? Reflec- Area Vol. Length ment tions?
ft ft $/sq ft $/cu yd ft ft:ft $/ft ft ft ft ft ft
Barrier2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point3 3 1,629.0 2,218.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point5 5 1,625.6 2,322.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point6 6 1,782.6 2,323.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point7 7 1,784.4 2,231.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point195 195 1,645.3 1,577.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point138 138 1,638.4 1,771.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point139 139 1,782.5 1,771.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point140 140 1,785.9 1,575.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point197 197 1,102.0 1,928.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point114 114 1,421.4 1,935.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point115 115 1,428.3 1,850.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point116 116 1,549.9 1,850.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point117 117 1,536.0 1,728.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point118 118 1,367.6 1,730.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point199 199 1,289.5 2,160.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point128 128 1,390.2 2,164.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point129 129 1,397.1 2,011.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point130 130 1,296.4 2,009.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point201 201 1,185.3 2,323.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point132 132 1,374.5 2,320.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point133 133 1,379.7 2,252.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point134 134 1,235.7 2,249.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point135 135 1,239.2 2,174.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point136 136 1,178.4 2,172.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point203 203 1,848.0 2,647.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point53 53 1,850.7 2,428.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point54 54 1,988.5 2,422.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point55 55 1,994.0 2,652.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point205 205 1,424.0 2,324.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point97 97 1,536.1 2,328.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point98 98 1,557.4 2,305.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point99 99 1,558.0 2,215.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point100 100 1,432.2 2,215.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point207 207 1,404.4 2,150.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point43 43 1,546.3 2,148.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 1 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
point44 44 1,550.4 2,010.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point45 45 1,430.5 2,008.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point46 46 1,429.2 2,050.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point47 47 1,500.8 2,050.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point48 48 1,499.4 2,107.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point49 49 1,441.6 2,107.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point50 50 1,442.9 2,055.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point51 51 1,404.4 2,056.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point209 209 1,608.3 2,511.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point57 57 1,613.8 2,429.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point58 58 1,732.3 2,431.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point59 59 1,735.0 2,512.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point211 211 2,060.1 2,710.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point61 61 2,062.9 2,415.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point62 62 2,275.1 2,415.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point63 63 2,273.7 2,659.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point213 213 1,556.8 1,579.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point122 122 1,115.9 1,568.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point214 214 1,084.7 2,153.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point124 124 1,272.1 2,148.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point125 125 1,289.5 1,994.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point126 126 1,091.6 2,006.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point216 216 1,491.4 2,513.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point106 106 1,491.4 2,421.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point107 107 1,553.7 2,417.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point108 108 1,554.8 2,515.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point218 218 1,501.6 2,207.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point102 102 1,549.8 2,207.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point103 103 1,549.8 2,172.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point104 104 1,498.4 2,173.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point220 220 1,381.5 2,511.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point110 110 1,482.2 2,509.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point111 111 1,485.6 2,408.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point112 112 1,388.4 2,408.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point222 222 1,789.6 2,214.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point9 9 1,787.9 2,332.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point10 10 1,999.6 2,330.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point11 11 2,000.5 2,231.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point12 12 1,943.2 2,233.6 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point224 224 2,324.1 2,334.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point66 66 2,477.2 2,333.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point67 67 2,477.2 2,248.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point68 68 2,331.2 2,249.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point69 69 2,330.7 2,267.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point70 70 2,306.1 2,267.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point226 226 2,395.8 2,168.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point76 76 2,398.6 2,040.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point77 77 2,488.1 2,038.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point78 78 2,486.8 2,175.3 800.00 20.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 2 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point228 228 2,331.1 2,419.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point72 72 2,471.6 2,416.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point73 73 2,477.1 2,704.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point74 74 2,321.5 2,701.6 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point230 230 1,861.6 2,132.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point17 17 1,864.2 2,060.1 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point18 18 1,938.0 2,058.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point19 19 1,938.9 2,008.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point20 20 1,993.6 2,008.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point21 21 1,987.5 2,133.8 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point232 232 2,074.3 2,104.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point14 14 2,070.8 2,326.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point15 15 2,322.5 2,330.0 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point234 234 1,642.1 2,090.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point23 23 1,792.2 2,091.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point24 24 1,793.1 2,021.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point25 25 1,641.2 2,018.4 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point236 236 2,076.2 1,759.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point80 80 2,331.0 1,755.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point81 81 2,477.1 1,755.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point82 82 2,482.6 1,616.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point83 83 2,078.9 1,620.1 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point238 238 1,796.5 1,792.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point93 93 1,993.5 1,792.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point94 94 1,997.7 1,748.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point95 95 1,799.2 1,746.9 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point240 240 1,856.4 1,940.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point35 35 1,986.6 1,940.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point36 36 1,987.5 1,894.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point37 37 1,857.3 1,895.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point242 242 1,798.4 1,874.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point39 39 1,987.1 1,874.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point40 40 1,992.6 1,807.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point41 41 1,801.1 1,804.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point244 244 1,643.8 1,995.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point27 27 1,726.2 1,995.8 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point28 28 1,729.7 1,953.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point29 29 1,643.8 1,954.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point30 30 1,642.1 1,920.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point31 31 1,642.9 1,861.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point32 32 1,781.8 1,857.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point33 33 1,780.1 1,920.3 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point246 246 2,329.7 1,892.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point85 85 2,461.9 1,894.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point86 86 2,467.4 1,759.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point87 87 2,340.7 1,760.7 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point248 248 2,347.6 2,033.4 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point89 89 2,464.7 2,030.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point90 90 2,468.8 1,959.0 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 3 1 May 2020 INPUT : BARRIERS 12101
point91 91 2,357.2 1,959.0 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point250 250 1,367.6 1,697.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point120 120 1,549.9 1,695.5 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point121 121 1,556.8 1,579.2 800.00 20.00
Barrier2-2-2-2-2 W 0.00 99.99 0.00 0.00 point252 252 1,817.2 1,716.3 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0 point142 142 1,989.0 1,714.6 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point143 143 1,985.5 1,573.9 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point144 144 1,900.5 1,579.2 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point145 145 1,905.7 1,667.7 800.00 20.00 0.00 0 0
point146 146 1,810.2 1,665.9 800.00 20.00
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 4 1 May 2020 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS 12101
Dudek 1 May 2020
MG TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: 12101
RUN: 740 E Green St_Ex plus Const (grading)
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
ST1 1 1 0.0 69.3 66 69.3 10 Snd Lvl 69.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST2 2 1 0.0 69.3 66 69.3 10 Snd Lvl 69.3 0.0 8 -8.0
ST3 3 1 0.0 68.8 66 68.8 10 Snd Lvl 68.8 0.0 8 -8.0
ST4 4 1 0.0 70.8 66 70.8 10 Snd Lvl 70.8 0.0 8 -8.0
Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 4 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Projects\740 East Green Street_PN 12101\Ex plus Const Trips 1
APPENDIX C
Mechanical Equipment
Noise Calculation Worksheet
MECHA
NICAL EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
Location:
North 1, Property Line 177 355 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 65 20 45 849 4.0 5.01 20 50 30 2 160 244 849 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 112 5 107 849 24.0 24.00 27 48 28 3 210 196 870 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 162 212 -50 870 4.0 107.98 33 45 25 4 310 196 870 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 207 136 71 870 4.0 15.23 25 45 25 5 380 196 870 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 258 50 208 870 4.0 2.10 17 43 26 6 370 321 839 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 196 88 108 839 4.0 2.71 18 42 24 7 177 290 839 177 355 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 65 113 -48 839 4.0 88.78 33 51 31 TOTAL LEQ: 56 36
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
Location:
North 2, Property Line 370 355 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 204 25 179 849 4.0 0.90 13 40 27 2 160 244 849 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 238 50 188 849 24.0 10.33 23 41 21 3 210 196 870 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 226 75 151 870 4.0 4.50 20 42 22 4 310 196 870 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 170 25 145 870 4.0 2.24 17 47 30 5 380 196 870 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 159 50 109 870 4.0 5.41 20 47 27 6 370 321 839 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 34 75 -41 839 4.0 72.02 32 57 37 7 177 290 839 370 355 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 204 25 179 839 4.0 0.61 12 41 29 TOTAL LEQ: 58 39
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
LwA
Equip Site X Y
Ele
v. At
Roof
or
Ground
Source
Height
Single
Source Number of Units
Sou
nd Level
at 5
0 feet
Total
Equ
ip. Location Site /
Nu
mber Frequency (in Hz) 50
0 1 177 290 849 3 71 20 52 1 Tr
ane 4DCY4060
2 160 244 849 3 71 34 55 2 Trane 4DCY4060
3 210 196 870 3 71 36 55 3 Trane 4DCY4060
4 310 196 870 3 71 64 57 4 Trane 4DCY4060
5 380 196 870 3 71 60 57 5 Trane 4DCY4060
6 370 321 839 3 71 26 53 6 Trane 4DCY4060
7 177 290 839 3 71 26 53 7 Trane 4DCY4060
266
Receivers at P.L.
W1 PL 121 224 800
W2 PL 121 183 800
S1 PL 143 88 800
S2 PL 360 33 800
E1 PL 462 315 800
E2 PL 462 195 800
N1 PL 177 355 800
N2 PL 370 355 800
740_E Green St_Rooftop Mech Noise Calcs_Rev 051823 N1_N2 MECHA
NICAL EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
Location:
South 1, Property Line 143 88 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 205 48 10 849 24.0 11.76 24 40 20 2 160 244 849 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 157 30 76 849 4.0 1.70 16 45 29 3 210 196 870 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 127 42 30 870 4.0 6.63 21 47 27 4 310 196 870 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 199 120 30 870 4.0 13.05 24 45 25 5 380 196 870 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 260 210 30 870 4.0 23.48 27 43 23 6 370 321 839 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 325 85 88 839 44.0 17.51 25 37 17 7 177 290 839 143 88 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 205 80 35 839 4.0 2.10 17 41 25 TOTAL LEQ: 52 34
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
Location:
South 2, Property Line 360 33 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 360 33 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 315 48 267 849 24.0 8.41 22 36 16 2 160 244 849 360 -25 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 335 30 305 849 4.0 0.44 11 38 27 3 210 196 870 360 -25 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 267 42 225 870 4.0 1.63 16 40 25 4 310 196 870 360 -25 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 227 120 107 870 4.0 9.29 23 44 24 5 380 196 870 360 -25 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 222 210 12 870 4.0 42.80 29 44 24 6 370 321 839 360 -25 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 346 85 261 839 44.0 16.79 25 37 17 7 177 290 839 360 -25 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 364 80 284 839 4.0 0.59 12 36 25 TOTAL LEQ: 49 32
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
LwA
Equip Site X Y
Ele
v. At
Roof
or
Ground
Source
Height
Single
Source Number of Units
Sou
nd Level
at 5
0 feet
Total
Equ
ip. Location Site /
Nu
mber Frequency (in Hz) 50
0 1 177 290 849 3 71 20 52 1 Tr
ane 4DCY4060
2 160 244 849 3 71 34 55 2 Trane 4DCY4060
3 210 196 870 3 71 36 55 3 Trane 4DCY4060
4 310 196 870 3 71 64 57 4 Trane 4DCY4060
5 380 196 870 3 71 60 57 5 Trane 4DCY4060
6 370 321 839 3 71 26 53 6 Trane 4DCY4060
7 177 290 839 3 71 26 53 7 Trane 4DCY4060
266
Receivers at P.L.
W1 PL 121 224 800
W2 PL 121 183 800
S1 PL 143 88 800
S2 PL 360 33 800
E1 PL 462 315 800
E2 PL 462 195 800
N1 PL 177 355 800
N2 PL 370 355 800
Receivers at Adjacent NSLUs
W1 71 224 800
W2 71 183 840
S1 143 76 800
S2 360 -25 840
E1 512 315 840
E2 512 195 840
740_E Green St_Rooftop Mech Noise Calcs_Rev 051823 S1_S2 MECHA
NICAL EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
Location:
East 1, Property Line 462 315 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 462 315 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 286 20 266 849 4.0 0.43 11 37 27 2 160 244 849 512 315 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 359 5 354 849 24.0 17.85 26 38 18 3 210 196 870 512 315 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 325 212 113 870 4.0 11.09 24 39 19 4 310 196 870 512 315 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 234 136 98 870 4.0 10.82 23 44 24 5 380 196 870 512 315 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 178 50 128 870 4.0 4.37 20 46 27 6 370 321 839 512 315 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 142 88 54 839 4.0 6.50 21 44 24 7 177 290 839 512 315 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 336 113 223 839 4.0 1.06 14 37 23 TOTAL LEQ: 51 32
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
Location:
East 2, Property Line 462 195 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 300 25 275 849 4.0 0.46 11 37 26 2 160 244 849 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 306 50 256 849 24.0 8.50 22 39 19 3 210 196 870 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 252 75 177 870 4.0 3.54 19 41 22 4 310 196 870 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 152 25 127 870 4.0 2.71 18 48 30 5 380 196 870 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 82 50 32 870 4.0 17.45 25 53 33 6 370 321 839 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 156 75 81 839 4.0 3.70 19 44 25 7 177 290 839 462 195 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 300 25 275 839 4.0 0.32 10 38 28 TOTAL LEQ: 55 37
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
LwA
Equip Site X Y
Ele
v. At
Roof
or
Ground
Source
Height
Single
Source Number of Units
Sou
nd Level
at 5
0 feet
Total
Equ
ip. Location Site /
Nu
mber Frequency (in Hz) 50
0 1 177 290 849 3 71 20 52 1 Tr
ane 4DCY4060
2 160 244 849 3 71 34 55 2 Trane 4DCY4060
3 210 196 870 3 71 36 55 3 Trane 4DCY4060
4 310 196 870 3 71 64 57 4 Trane 4DCY4060
5 380 196 870 3 71 60 57 5 Trane 4DCY4060
6 370 321 839 3 71 26 53 6 Trane 4DCY4060
7 177 290 839 3 71 26 53 7 Trane 4DCY4060
266
Receivers at P.L.
W1 PL 121 224 800
W2 PL 121 183 800
S1 PL 143 88 800
S2 PL 360 33 800
E1 PL 462 315 800
E2 PL 462 195 800
N1 PL 177 355 800
N2 PL 370 355 800
740_E Green St_Rooftop Mech Noise Calcs_Rev 051823 E1_E2 MECHA
NICAL EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL
Location:
West 1, Property Line 121 224 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 87 48 39 849 4.0 9.90 23 48 28 2 160 244 849 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 44 30 14 849 4.0 14.02 25 56 36 3 210 196 870 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 93 42 51 870 4.0 11.20 24 49 29 4 310 196 870 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 191 120 71 870 4.0 14.51 25 46 26 5 380 196 870 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 261 210 51 870 4.0 23.46 27 43 23 6 370 321 839 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 267 85 182 839 4.0 1.23 14 39 25 7 177 290 839 121 224 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 87 80 7 839 4.0 21.82 26 49 29 TOTAL LEQ: 58 38
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
Location:
West 2, Property Line 121 183 800
Source Coordinates Receiver Coordinates Location-Equipment Leq (h) at 50' Receiver Elevation Source Elevation Source to Receiver Source to Barrier Receiver to Barrier Barrier (base) Barrier Height Fresnel No. Barrier Leq w/o Barrier Leq w/Barrier Equip Site X Y Z X Y (dBA) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) at 500 Hz Attenuation (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 177 290 849 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 52 805 852.0 121 48 73 849 4.0 4.99 20 45 25 2 160 244 849 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 852.0 72 30 42 849 4.0 6.91 22 51 31 3 210 196 870 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 55 805 873.0 90 42 48 870 4.0 11.85 24 50 30 4 310 196 870 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 189 120 69 870 4.0 14.84 25 46 26 5 380 196 870 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 57 805 873.0 259 210 49 870 4.0 23.86 27 43 23 6 370 321 839 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 285 85 200 839 4.0 1.07 14 38 24 7 177 290 839 121 183 Trane 4DCY4060 53 805 842.0 121 80 41 839 4.0 8.42 22 46 26 TOTAL LEQ: 56 36
Without With Barrier/
Barrier Parapet
LwA
Equip Site X Y
El
ev. At
Roo
f or
Ground
Source
Height
Single
Source Number of Units
Sound Level
at
50 feet
Total
Equi
p. Location Site /
Number Frequency
(in Hz) 50
0 1 177 290 849 3 71 20 52 1 Trane
4DCY4060
2 160 244 849 3 71 34 55 2 Trane 4DCY4060
3 210 196 870 3 71 36 55 3 Trane 4DCY4060
4 310 196 870 3 71 64 57 4 Trane 4DCY4060
5 380 196 870 3 71 60 57 5 Trane 4DCY4060
6 370 321 839 3 71 26 53 6 Trane 4DCY4060
7 177 290 839 3 71 26 53 7 Trane 4DCY4060
266
Receivers at P.L.
W1 PL 121 224 800
W2 PL 121 183 800
S1 PL 143 88 800
S2 PL 360 33 800
E1 PL 462 315 800
E2 PL 462 195 800
N1 PL 177 355 800
N2 PL 370 355 800
740_E Green St_Rooftop Mech Noise Calcs_Rev 051823 W1_W2
APPENDIX D
Roadway Noise Construction Model
(RNCM) Data Sheets
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/13/2020
Case Description: 740 Green Street - Demolition
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 20 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 10 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 40 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 30 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 97.5 90.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 94.7 90.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 82.6 78.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 85.1 81.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 89.6 85.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 97.5 94.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 70 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 90 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 70 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 100 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 86.7 79.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 75.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 77.8 73.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 75.6 71.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 86.7 82.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 70 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 90 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 70 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 100 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 86.7 79.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 75.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 77.8 73.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 75.6 71.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 86.7 82.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 70 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 90 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 70 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 100 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 86.7 79.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 75.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 77.8 73.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 75.6 71.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 86.7 82.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 60 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 80.1 76.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 80.1 76.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 80.1 76.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 76 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 82.4 78.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 77.5 73.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 82.4 83.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #6 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #7 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #8 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #9 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
100 Foot Reference Distance Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 110 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 100 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 110 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 130 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 160 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 82.7 75.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 74.7 70.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 73.9 69.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 73.4 69.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 71.6 67.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 82.7 79 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/13/2020
Case Description: 740 Green Street - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 10 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 20 0
Grader No 40 85 40 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 30 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 50 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 60 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 30 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 94.7 90.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 88.7 84.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 86.9 83 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 86.1 82.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 83.6 79.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 91.5 87.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 76 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 83.5 79.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 94.7 94.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 80 0
Grader No 40 85 90 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 70 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 100 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 90 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 80 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 79.9 75.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 78.7 74.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 78.5 74.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 73.5 69.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79.9 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 80 0
Grader No 40 85 90 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 70 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 100 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 90 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 80 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 79.9 75.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 78.7 74.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 78.5 74.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 73.5 69.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79.9 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 80 0
Grader No 40 85 90 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 70 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 100 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 90 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 80 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 79.9 75.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 78.7 74.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 78.5 74.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 73.5 69.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79.9 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 60 0
Grader No 40 85 60 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 60 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 60 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 60 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 60 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 83.4 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 80.1 76.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 82 78 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 82 78 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 76 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 77.5 73.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 83.4 85.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #6 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Grader No 40 85 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 150 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 150 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 150 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 75.5 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 74 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 74 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 75.5 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #7 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Grader No 40 85 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 150 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 150 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 150 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 75.5 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 74 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 74 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 75.5 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #8 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 150 0
Grader No 40 85 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 150 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 150 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 150 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 150 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 71.2 67.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 75.5 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 72.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 74 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 74 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 75.5 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #9 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
100 Foot Reference Distance Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 100 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 120 0
Grader No 40 85 150 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 110 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 130 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 160 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 140 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 74.7 70.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 73.1 69.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 75.5 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 74.8 70.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 75.3 71.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 73.5 69.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68.6 64.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 75.5 78.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/13/2020
Case Description: 740 Green Street - Building Construction ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 10 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 20 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 40 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 30 0
Generator No 50 80.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 60 0
Tractor No 40 84 30 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 40 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 94.5 86.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 82.7 75.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 76.6 69.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 79.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 80.6 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 85.5 81.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 77.5 73.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 88.4 84.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 75.9 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 94.5 90.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 60 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 80 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 90 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 70 0
Generator No 50 80.6 100 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 90 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 80 0
Tractor No 40 84 90 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 110 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 70.6 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 69.6 62.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 71.8 64.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 74.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 72.5 68.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 75 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 78.9 74.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 67.2 63.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 60 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 80 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 90 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 70 0
Generator No 50 80.6 100 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 90 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 80 0
Tractor No 40 84 90 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 0 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 70.6 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 69.6 62.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 71.8 64.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 74.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 72.5 68.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 75 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 78.9 74.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch -4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 60 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 80 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 90 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 70 0
Generator No 50 80.6 100 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 90 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 80 0
Tractor No 40 84 90 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 110 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 70.6 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 69.6 62.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 71.8 64.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 74.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 72.5 68.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 75 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 78.9 74.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 67.2 63.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 60 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 60 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 60 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 60 0
Generator No 50 80.6 60 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 60 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 60 0
Tractor No 40 84 60 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 73.1 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 73.1 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 73.1 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 79 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 76 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 77.5 73.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 82.4 78.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 72.4 68.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 82.4 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #6 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Generator No 50 80.6 150 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 150 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Tractor No 40 84 150 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 71.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 64.5 60.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #7 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Generator No 50 80.6 150 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 150 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Tractor No 40 84 150 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 71.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 64.5 60.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #8 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Generator No 50 80.6 150 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 150 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 150 0
Tractor No 40 84 150 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 71.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 64.5 60.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #9 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
100 Foot Reference Distance Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 100 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 120 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 150 0
Man Lift No 20 74.7 110 0
Generator No 50 80.6 130 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 160 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 140 0
Tractor No 40 84 150 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 120 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 74.5 66.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 67.1 60.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 67.9 60.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 72.3 69.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 67.5 63.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 70.2 66.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 74.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 66.4 62.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 75.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/13/2020
Case Description: 740 Green Street - Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 10 0
Paver No 50 77.2 20 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 40 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 30 0
Roller No 20 80 50 0
Roller No 20 80 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 91.2 88.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 85.2 82.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 80.7 76.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 85.8 78.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 88 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 91.2 90.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 60 0
Paver No 50 77.2 80 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 90 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 70 0
Roller No 20 80 100 0
Roller No 20 80 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 75.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 73.1 70.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 73.7 69.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 78.5 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 74 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 74.9 67.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 78.5 78 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 60 0
Paver No 50 77.2 80 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 90 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 70 0
Roller No 20 80 100 0
Roller No 20 80 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 76.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 79.9 75.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 78.7 74.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 78.5 74.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79.9 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 60 0
Paver No 50 77.2 80 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 90 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 70 0
Roller No 20 80 100 0
Roller No 20 80 90 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 70.6 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 69.6 62.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 71.8 64.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 74.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 72.5 68.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 60 0
Paver No 50 77.2 60 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 60 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 60 0
Roller No 20 80 60 0
Roller No 20 80 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 73.1 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 73.1 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 73.1 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 79 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 76 72 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 82.4 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #6 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 150 0
Paver No 50 77.2 150 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 150 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 150 0
Roller No 20 80 150 0
Roller No 20 80 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 71.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #7 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 150 0
Paver No 50 77.2 150 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 150 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 150 0
Roller No 20 80 150 0
Roller No 20 80 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 67.7 64.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 67.7 64.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 69.3 65.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 71.9 64.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 70.5 63.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 70.5 63.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 71.9 72.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #8 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 150 0
Paver No 50 77.2 150 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 150 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 150 0
Roller No 20 80 150 0
Roller No 20 80 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 65.2 58.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 71.1 68.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 68 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #9 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
100 Foot Reference Distance Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 100 0
Paver No 50 77.2 120 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 150 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 110 0
Roller No 20 80 130 0
Roller No 20 80 160 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 71.2 68.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 69.6 66.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Mixer Truck 69.3 65.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Concrete Pump Truck 74.6 67.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 71.7 64.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 69.9 62.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.6 74 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/13/2020
Case Description: 740 Green Street - Architectural Coating ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 10 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 91.6 87.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 91.6 87.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 76.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 76.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 82.4 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #6 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #7 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 68.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 68.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #8 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 68.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 68.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #9 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
100 Foot Reference Distance Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 100 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 71.6 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 71.6 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/13/2020
Case Description: 740 Green Street - Trenching
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 10 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 94.3 91.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 94.3 91.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 76.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 76.1 72.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 79 79.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #5 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest - Church to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 60 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 79 71 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 82.4 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #6 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
SF and MF Resi's to West - Typical Residential 65 60 55 Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 71 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.5 74.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #7 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to South - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 70.8 67.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 70.8 67.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #8 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
MF Resi's to East - Typical Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 150 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 68.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 68.1 64.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #9 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
100 Foot Reference Distance Residential 65 60 55
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 80.4 100 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Slurry Trenching Machine 71.6 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 71.6 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
Appendix G
Transportation Impact Analysis
Transportation Impact Analysis
CEQA Evaluation
Category 2
Project Address: 740-790 East Green Street
Project Summary: Demolition of existing commercial office buildings and construct 263 residential units,
16,481 sf commercial space, a pocket park,
and subterranean parking
Applicant: Stanford Pasadena, LLC
Attention: Daniel Taban
888 South Figueroa Street
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attention: Talyn Mirzakhanian, Planning Manager
City Planning Department
April 14, 2020
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis i 4/14/2020
Table of Contents
I. Study Objective .............................................. ............................................................ 1 II. Project De scription ..................................................................................................... 1 III. Existing Transpor tation Network............................ ..................................................... 1 Street System Classifications ..................................................................................... 1 Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................. 4 IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology......................................................................... 4 Analysis Purpose............................................... ......................................................... 5 Analysis Cap Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures.................................. 5 VMT Per Capita................................................. ......................................................... 6 VT Per Capita.................................................. ........................................................... 6 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network ................................................................... 6 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network.................................................................... 7 Pedestrian Accessibility Score.................................................................................... 7 V. Project Transportati on Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 8 VI. Conclusion.................................................. .............................................................. 10 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................. 10 VII. Appendices............................................................................................................... 10 740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis ii 4/14/2020
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Ground Floor Plan.................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. City of Pasadena Adopted Street Types Map .................................................... 3 List of Tables
Table 1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy.................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Description of Transit Facilities............................................................................ 7 Table 3. City of Pasadena CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................... 8 Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary............ ....................................... 9 740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 1 4/14/2020
I. Study Objective
This report analyzed the impact the development will have on the City transportation system by estimating incremental changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, vehicle trips per capita (VT), the project impact on service population proximity access to transit and bike facilities, and walk accessibility score.
II. Project Description
The City of Pasadena Department o f Transportation conducted an analysis to review potential transportation impacts related to the construction of 263 residential units, 16,481 sf commercial space, a pocket park, and subterranean parking. Vehicular site access to the proposed project is planned to be along Oak Knoll Avenue.
Figure 1 depicts the project’s ground floor plan.
III. Existing Transportation Network
Street System Classifications
Union Street is a one-way westbound City Connector with three travel lanes. Restricted parking and time-limited parking are found along both sides of this roadway from Hill Avenue to St. John Avenue. A future cycle track is proposed along this roadway.
Currently, Union Street is not a bike lane or route.
Colorado Boulevard is an east/west City Connector. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction with turn lanes at key intersections. Time limited street parking is provided along both sides of the roadway. Colorado Boulevard has neither a bike lane nor bike route.
Green Street is a one-way eastbound City Connector which runs immediately north of the development. Three through lanes are provided within the project study area. Time limited parking may be found along both sides of this tree-lined, predominantly office and commercial land-use street. Green Street is not designated as a bike lane or route.
Cordova Street is a four-lane Neighborhood Connector with two lanes in each direction.
A future road diet is proposed along this roadway, which will include bike lanes. Currently, the roadway in the vicinity of the project is an enhanced Category 3 bike route.
Oak Knoll Avenue is a north/south Access Road bordering the project site to the west.
One through travel lane is provided in each direction with time limited street parking along both sides of the roadway. Portions of Oak Knoll Avenue is posted with a speed limit of 25 mph.
Hudson Avenue is a two-lane, one-way northbound Neighborhood Connector east of the development. No parking is allowed on the west side of the street.
Figure 2 depicts the project in the City of Pasadena’s Adopted Street Types map. 740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 2 4/14/2020
Figure 1. Project Ground Floor Plan
Oak Knoll Ave
Hudson Ave
Green St
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 3 4/14/2020
Figure 2. City of Pasadena Adopted Street Types Map
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 4 4/14/2020
Existing Transit Service
Public transit service within the project study area is currently provided by LA Metro, Foothill Transit, LA Department of Transportation (CE), and Pasadena Tra nsit (PT). The locations of public transit stops near the project are summarized as follows:
Location Route
Madison Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner
– Southeast corner
PT 10; Metro 180, 181, 256, 686
El Molino Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner
– Southeast corner
PT 10; FT 187
Oak Knoll Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner
– Southeast corner
PT 10; Metro 180, 181, 256, 686
Hudson Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner
– Southeast corner
PT 10
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northeast corner PT 20; Metro 180, 258; CE 549
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southwest corner PT 10, 20; Metro 258; CE 549
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner
PT 10; Metro 180, 181, 256, 686, 780; FT
187
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southeast corner Metro 181, 256, 686, 780; FT 187
Lake Ave at Green St
– Northeast corner PT 20; Metro 258
Lake Ave at Green St
– Southwest corner PT 10, 20; Metro 258, CE 549
Lake Ave at Cordova St
– Northeast corner PT 10, 20; Metro 258; CE 549
Lake Ave at Cordova St
– Southwest corner PT 10, 20; Metro 258
Metro Gold Line
– Lake Avenue at I-210 Fwy Gold Line
IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology
With the City of Pasadena General Plan, the City’s guiding principles cumulatively represent the community’s vision for the future:
- Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance q uality of life. - New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing historic resource. - Economic vitality will be prom oted to provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 5 4/14/2020
- Pasadena will be a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable community.
- Pasadena will be a ci ty where people can circulate without cars. - Pasadena will be promoted as a cul tural, scientific, corporate , entertainment, and educational center for the region.
- Community participation will be a permanent part of achieving a greater city. - Pasadena is committed to public education and a diverse educat ional system responsive to the broad needs of the community.
Understanding the goals and objectives of the General Plan, the Pasadena Department of Transportation sets forth goals and policies to improve overall transportation in Pasadena and create “a community where peopl e can circulate without cars .” Inherent in this vision statement is to accommodate different modes of transportation including vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. This report will assess accessibility of these different modes of travel and the project’s transportation impacts using the Ci ty’s adopted transportation performance measures.
Analysis Purpose
Pasadena reviews several types and sizes of projects that could be subject to environmental review under the California Env ironmental Quality Act (CEQA). Tr ansportation impact analyses are an integral part of the environmental review proce ss that is required for all proposed projects not categorically exempt under CEQA.
Analysis Cap Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures The Pasadena Department of Transportation adopted a set of performance measures and CEQA thresholds that are closely aligned with the Mobility Element objectives and policies. Pasadena Department of Transportation’s mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures are employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development projects. They are:
- Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita
- Vehicle Trips per Capita
- Proximity and Quality of the Bicycle Network
- Proximity and Quality of the Transit Network
- Pedestrian Accessibility
These performance measures align with the sustainability goals of the General Plan by evaluating the “efficiency” of projects by analyzing the per capita length and number of trips associated with changes in land use. With the expanded emphasis on sustainability and a continued focus on livability, the proposed performance measures will assist in determining how to balance travel modes as well as understand the mobility needs of the community. 740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 6 4/14/2020
Definitions
VMT Per Capita
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena Travel Demand Model (that is based on the SCAG regional model). The VMT total considers 100% of the mileage of trips that begin and end inside Pasadena and 50% of the distance travelled for trips with one end outside of Pasadena.
The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
VT Per Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City.
The measure sums the trips with origins and destination within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the 2013 Trip-based citywide Travel Demand Model. The regional VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within City of Pasadena boundaries, and 50% of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City, but have one trip end outside of the City. The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of bicycle facility types.
The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s (Draft) Bicycle Transportation Plan categories as shown in the following table:
Table 1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy
LEVEL DESCRIPTION FA CILITIES INCLUDED
1 Advanced Facilities Bike Paths
Multipurpose Paths
Cycle Tracks/Protected Bike Lanes
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 7 4/14/2020
2 Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes
Bike Boulevards
3 Basic Facilities Bike Routes
Enhanced Bike Routes
Emphasized Bikeways
For each bike facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer is identified.
The City can improve measures of Bike Facility Access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and by encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high-quality bike facilities.
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of each of each of three transit facility types, as defined in the following table:
Table 2. Description of Transit Facilities
TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Includes all Gold Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods.
2 Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and 15 minutes in peak periods.
3 Includes corridors with transit headways of 16 minutes or more at peak periods.
For each facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer is identified.
The City can improve the measures of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.
Pedestrian Accessibility Score
Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment score provides a measure of the average walkability in the TAZ surrounding Pasadena residents, based on a Pedestrian Accessibility metric. The Pedestrian proximity metric is a simple count of the number of 740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 8 4/14/2020
land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or employee in a given TAZ within a 5- minute walk.
The ten categories of land uses are:
- Retail
- Personal Services
- Restaurant
- Entertainment
- Office (including private sector and government offices) - Medical (including medical office and hospital uses)
- Culture (including churches, re ligious and other cultural uses) - Park and Open Space
- School (including element ary and high schools)
- College
The following table summarizes the City’s Metrics for determining CEQA Caps:
Table 3. City of Pasadena CEQA Thresholds of Significance
METRIC DESCRIPTION IMPACT THRESHOLD
1. VMT Per
Capita
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the
City of Pasadena per service
population (population + jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase
over existing Citywide VMT per
Capita of 22.6.
2. VT Per
Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City of
Pasadena per service population
(population + jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase
over existing Citywide VT per
Capita of 2.8.
3. Proximity
and Quality
of Bicycle
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a quarter
mile of bicycle facility types
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease
in existing citywide 31.7% of
service population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of Level
1 & 2 bike facilities.
4. Proximity
and Quality
of Transit
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) located within a
quarter mile of transit facility types.
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease
in existing citywide 66.6% of
service population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of Level
1 & 2 transit facilities.
5. Pedestrian
Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility Score
uses the mix of destinations, and a
network-based walk shed to
evaluate walkability
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease
in the Citywide Pedestrian
Accessibility Score
V. Project Transportation Impact Analysis
Project analyses are based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Proposed projects are analyzed using the City’s calibrated travel demand forecasting model (TDF) built on SCAG’s regional model.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 9 4/14/2020
The City’s TDF model uses TransCAD software to simulate traffic levels and travel patterns for the City of Pasadena. The program consists of input files that summarize the City’s land uses, street network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using this data, the model performs a series of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, and the route taken by the trip.
To be deemed accurate for project transportation impact on the transportation system, a model must be calibrated to a year in which actual land use data and traffic volumes are available and well documented. The Pasadena TDF has been calibrated to 2013 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, Census data, and land use data compiled by City staff with land uses’ associated population and job increase estimates.
Projects with proposed land uses that are consistent with the General Plan and complimentary to their surrounding land uses are expected to reduce the trip length associated with adjacent land uses; and/or increase the service population access to pedestrians, bike, and transit facilities if the project is within a quarter mile of those facilities.
Table 4 summarizes the following analyses of the proposed project’s impacts on the transportation system using the calibrated TDF model. The results are based on the project’s vehicular and non-vehicular trip making characteristics, trip length, and its interaction with other surrounding/citywide land uses, and the City’s transportation network.
Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary
Transportation Performance Metrics
Significant
Impact Cap
(existing)
Incremental
change
(existing +
project)
Significant
Impact?
VMT per Capita >22.6 18.5 No
VT per Capita >2.8 3.8 Yes
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 31.7 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.8 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 No
The TDF model calculation results indicated that the incremental VT per capita change is
3.8. This incremental change exceeds the adopted caps of significance under the Vehicle Trips (VT) per capital of 2.8.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 10 4/14/2020
VI. Conclusion
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review potential transportation impacts related to the construction of 263 residential units, 16,481 sf commercial space, a pocket park, and subterranean parking. Vehicular site access to the proposed project is planned to be along Oak Knoll Avenue.
Using the City’s Transportation Demand Model, DOT found that the proposed project exceeds the vehicular trips per capita threshold outlined in the City’s guidelines.
Mitigation Measures
The Travel Demand Forecasting Model calculation results for thi s project determined that the project results in a vehicle trips per capita (VT) signific ant impact. In order to bring the project to a level below significant impact, the applicant shall develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan strategies that reduce these vehicular trips by a minimum of 27%.
The City’s TRO Ordinance supports to the City’s measures to reduce the demand for vehicle commute trips by ensuring that the design of major residential and nonresidential development projects accommodates facilities for alternative modes of transportation.
Other programmatic strategies to reduce the VT per capita significant impact shall complement the City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) minimum requirements. Strategies shall include measures identified in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010 Report, and include at minimum:
a) Unbundled parking for the residential use;
b) The applicant shall purchase 121 Metro passes and offer them to interested residents at 50% discount for five consecutive years from the issuance of the COO. c) The applicant shall provide an Annual TDM Survey beginning one year after the issuance of COO to demonstrate at minimum a 27% reduction of project vehicular trips per capita is maintained.
By implementing the above strategies, the project VT impact will be reduced to below levels of significance. The TDM program plan will be required to be reviewed and approved by Pasadena Department of Transportation annually. DOT may substitute alternative measures of equivalent cost and effectiveness at its discretion.
VII. Appendices
Memorandum of Understanding
City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model Output/Results
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 11 4/14/2020
Appendix:
Memorandum of Understanding
Appendix:
Memorandum of Understanding
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 12 4/14/2020
Appendix:
City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model Output/Results
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 13 4/14/2020
Daily Trips Internal External Pop 136,475
Interna l 351,711 336,095 Emp 111,121
Externa l 336,095 491,145 Ext. Factor 50%
EMFAC
Speed Internal External Regional Total INPUT
5 109 0 1,741 1,850 0%
10 673 135 14,359 15,167 0%
15 4,137 1,355 45,878 51,370 1%
20 16,455 4,421 75,193 96,069 2%
25 97,410 12,684 150,219 260,313 5%
30 491,378 61,455 275,151 827,984 15%
35 822,563 139,312 320,280 1,282,155 23%
40 201,508 55,913 225,502 482,922 9%
45 136,155 104,954 169,414 410,523 7%
50 112,565 2,074 211,768 326,407 6%
55 95,631 7,980 229,337 332,948 6%
60 120,095 15,091 238,178 373,363 7%
65 323,800 20,909 181,094 525,803 9%
70 3,630 0 529,232 532,862 11%
75 0 0 77,304 77,304
8 0 0000
8 5 0000
SUM 2,426,109 426,281 2,744,649 5,597,039 100%
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,426,109 852,563 5,489,298 8,767,969 35.4
VT 351,711 672,191 - 1,023,902 4.1
Length 6.9 1.3 - 8.6 -
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,426,109 426,281 2,744,649 5,597,039 22.6
VT 351,711 336,095 - 687,806 2.8
Length 6.9 1.3 - 8.1 -
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
136,475 111,121 5,597,039 687,806 22.6 2.8
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
135,938 111,348 5,591,328 686,619 22.6 2.8
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
537 -227 5,711 1,187 18.5 3.8
PASS FAIL
740-790 East Green Street
VMT/Cap and VT/Cap Calculations Summary
2013 EXISTING SUMMARY
INCREMENTAL SCENARIO RESULTS
FINAL DAILY SCENARIO SUMMARY
TOTAL RAW DAILY SUMMARY
FINAL REDUCED DAILY VMT BY SPEED BIN
REDUCED DAILY SUMMARY
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 14 4/14/2020
Existing
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 2 78,415 0 78,415 31.7% Level 3 123,670 0 123,670 50.0% N o Facility 45,202 0 45,202 18.3% Exist City Total 247,286 0 247,286 100.0% Existing + Project
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 2 78,415 0 78,415 31.7% Level 3 123,670 309.5308759 123,980 50.1% N o Facility 45,202 0 45,202 18.3% Exist City Total 247,286 309.5308759 247,596 100.1% Network Service Population
Adjustment Significant Impact Threshold Service Population % Impact? Bike 309.5308759 < 31.7% 31.7% No
Existing
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 1 90,600 0 90,600 36.6% Level 2 74,298 0 74,298 30.0% Level 3 50,495 0 50,495 20.4% N o Facility 31,893 0 31,893 12.9% Exist City Total 247,286 02 47,286 100.0% Existing + Project
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 1 90,600 309.5308759 90,910 36.8% Level 2 74,298 0 74,298 30.0% Level 3 50,495 0 50,495 20.4% N o Facility 31,893 0 31,893 12.9% Exist City Total 247,286 309.5308759 247,596 100.1% Network Service Population
Adjustment Significant Impact Threshold Service Population % Impact? Transit 309.5308759 < 66.6% 66.8% No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary - Bicycle
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary
740-790 East Green Street
Proximity and Quality Metric Calculations Summary
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 15 4/14/2020
Weighted Average: 3.884013343
PasadenaDTATAZ Land Use Types Population_In_TAZ Employment_In_TAZ Service_Population Land Use Types 91 5 1238.82612 734.2118677 1973.037988 5
740-790 East Green Street
Pedestrian Accessibility Summary
Appendix H
Utility Letters
DATE: August 21, 2018
TO: Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planning and Community Development Department
FROM: Yannie Wu, Principal Engineer
Department of Public Works
RE: Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
740-790 East Green Street
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Planned Development PLN2018-00408 at 740-790 East Green Street. The applicant is for the demolition of five existing commercial buildings and associated on-grade parking improvements on an approximately 101,430 square feet (2.33 acre) site; and construction of a mixed-use building, subterranean parking, and open space. The proposed building would include a total of 273 for-rent units (including 30 units designated for very low-income households), and 19,660 square feet of commercial use. The buildings would range in height from three to five stories, with a maximum height of 82 feet. Parking would be provided in a two-level subterranean parking garage with 453 parking spaces and 51 bicycle parking stalls would be provided. An earlier version of this project was routed for PPR2017-00017 in November 2017. The approval of this Planned Development should be based upon satisfying all of the following conditions:
1. The Department of Transportation requirements:
a. Pursuant to the adopted Street Design Guide by the City Council, the applicant shall comply with the following:
i. Provide a 16’ wide sidewalk with 8’ min clear walk zone by additional right-of-way dedication or sidewalk easement along the project’s frontage on Green Street.
ii. Maintain a 12’ wide sidewalk with 5’ min clear walk zone free of any obstructions along the project’s frontage on Hudson Avenue. iii. Maintain a 10’ wide sidewalk with 5’ min clear walk zone free of any obstructions along the project’s frontage on Oak Knoll Avenue. b. The applicant shall be responsible for all the costs required to complete the dedications. The dedication documents and processing fee/deposit shall be submitted to this office, the Department of Public Works, at least three to
MEMORANDUM - CITY OF PASADENA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
four (3-4) months prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication documents shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
c. A circulation plan for the parking structure must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Transportation. The plan shall be drawn to a 1”=20’ or 1”=40’ scale. The plan shall include the turning radius of the ramp and proposed striping/configuration of parking spaces to ensure that vehicles can safely enter and exit the parking area.
d. If a gate will be placed at the parking garage entrance, the gate shall be installed at least 20’ back from the property line.
e. The ramps shall have a minimum width of 20’ along the entire length of the ramps to accommodate 2-way traffic on the ramp. The driveway apron width shall match the ramp width. The plan satisfies the minimum width since both ramps show a 22’ ramp width. To improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the driveway, the design plans shall indicate a slope of 2 percent or less from the property line to 20’ into the property before the start of the ramp slope to improve vehicular sight distance, or include the installation of an exit arm.
f. Since Hudson Avenue is a one-way northbound street, the driveway would introduce conflicting turning movements into and out of the project site if the driveways are traditionally designed with the entrance to the right of the driveway and the exit to the left of the driveway. Therefore, it is recommended that the method of ingress and egress of vehicles from the Hudson Avenue driveway be reversed, where the inbound vehicles entering to the left of the driveway, and the outbound vehicles exiting to the right of the driveway.
This driveway configuration has been standard practice for several projects fronting one-way streets in the City of Pasadena. Examples of this configuration can been seen in the Paseo Colorado project, the 35 South Raymond Avenue project, and the Trio Apartments project located at 621 E Colorado Boulevard. Additional measures (i.e. signage, gate arms, median islands, etc.) to alert drivers of the modified configuration are recommended for installation.
g. Driveways shall be located a minimum distance of 50 feet from any intersection and approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building).
h. The proposed drive approaches shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Drawing No. S-403.
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
2. No private improvements may be placed within the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, soldier beams, tie-backs, utility conduits, backflow preventers, transformers, fire sprinkler valve, decorative sidewalk and applicable parade post holes on Colorado Boulevard per Standard Drawing S-419. Private improvements may only be placed in the public right-of-way by submitting a license agreement, which must be approved by the City. The license agreement application for any private improvement within the public right-of-way shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and shall be approved by the City before any permits are granted.
The applicant shall submit the application, plan and processing fee/deposit, associated with processing the license agreement, at least three to four (3-4) months prior to the issuance of any permits. An approved license agreement will allow the applicant to install and maintain the private improvements within the public right-of-way with conditions.
A license agreement for shoring requires an indemnity bond in order to guarantee that shoring and tie-backs are free from defect due to faulty material, workmanship and failure. Upon review of the license agreement exhibits, an indemnity bond estimate will be prepared and forwarded to the applicant. The estimated amount is equivalent to the cost of reconstructing the public right of way, including all affected utilities, public facilities, and infrastructures, based on the plane of failure at a 45-degree angle from the lowest point of excavation. The indemnity bond shall be submitted to the City prior to the execution of the agreement and the issuance of any building or demolition permits.
All steel rods in every tie-back unit shall be relieved of all tension and stresses, and any portion of soldier beams and any portion of the tie-backs located be removed entirely from the public right-of-way. A monthly monitoring report stamped and certified by a licensed surveyor shall be submitted to indicate that the deflection from any piles or soldier beams does not exceed one inch. Upon completion of construction, the developer or his contractor shall remove all tie-back rods within the public right-of-way. The removal shall be documented by a report certified by a licensed deputy inspector. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The applicant will be charged a penalty of $7,000 for each tie-back rod not removed from the public right-of-way. For temporary tie-backs or shoring, the maximum width of the license area fronting the development frontage(s) shall only extend to the centerline of the public right-of-way.
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
3. The applicant shall clarify, on plan, if the proposed 6,694 sq. ft. park, fronting Oak Knoll Avenue is serving the general public and notes as such. If so, it may affect the Residential Impact Fee calculation. Should the proposed public park is approved by the Department of Public Works, the following and other conditions are required:
a. Land described as public space should be deeded to the City as a separate parcel or at a minimum, have a permanent open space easement recorded. b. The maintenance of the public park shall be provided by the development owners in perpetuity or for a substantial duration.
c. Any public park space should be designed and constructed to the City’s standards.
d. Should not be subject to closure except as allowed under City policies for park space.
e. City will determine the public space naming process.
The applicant shall submit more detailed information on the proposed public park for review including its specific usage, improvements, associated land value, any intention for dedication for public use or if it is just for the intended on-site residents, any request for full or partial waiver (amount or percentage) of Residential Impact Fee (RIF) in the form of a dedicated community park. RIF is due at the time of building permit’s issuance; any proposal to dedicate land in lieu of all or a portion of RIF will require prior City Council’s approval.
4. In order to provide for an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant ramp, the applicant shall reconstruct all corners of the following intersections with ADA compliant directional ramps, if feasible, per Caltrans Standard A88A and City of Pasadena Standard S-414:
a. Green Street and Oak Knoll Avenue
b. Green Street and Hudson Avenue
Additional striping, signal work, and/or poles/utility relocations might be necessary.
The curb ramps construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A separate permit from the Department of Public Works is required for all construction in the public right-of-way. Please contact 626-744-4195 for the general process.
5. The applicant shall submit to the City for review any proposed designs that will comply with the ADA requirements. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of the new curb ramp. Plans for the curb ramp improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submittal of improvement plans to the Departments of Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
Public Works for review, the applicant will be required to place a deposit with the Department of Public Works to cover the cost of plan checking. The amount of deposit will be based on the current City’s General Fee Schedule. Note that the building plans approved by the City’s Planning (Building) Department do not constitute approvals for work in the public right-of-way. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division – at 175 North Garfield Avenue Window 6. The applicant shall submit the curb ramp improvement plans and the plan check deposit at least two (2) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits.
6. Upon review of the curb ramp improvement plans, the applicant may need to dedicate to the City for street purposes the land necessary at the property line corner rounding, per City Standard S-423, to provide for the minimum clearance required by the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. If so, the applicant shall remove and reconstruct the sidewalk for the dedicated area, per Standard Plan No. S-421. The applicant shall be responsible for all the cost required to complete the dedication, if it is required. The dedication document and processing fee shall be submitted to this office, at least three to four (3-4) months prior to issuance of any permits. The dedication document shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Green Street and Oak Knoll Avenue Traffic Signal
a. The intersection at Green Street at Oak Knoll Avenue has existing non- standard concrete traffic signal poles. To bring the intersection up to a standard of safety, all existing concrete traffic signal poles shall be upgraded to a Caltrans Standard metal pole, galvanized, and painted according to the District color; and the vehicle heads and pedestrian heads on all poles will be upgraded to LED equipment.
b. The existing traffic signal cabinet on Green Street at Oak Knoll Avenue is an old standard 337 cabinet with a 170 controller. Because of this technology, the intersection operation and upgraded traffic signal equipment cannot be utilized. The cabinet and controller will need to be upgraded to a Pasadena Standard 332 cabinet with a 2070 controller. The cabinet shall be primed and painted with the District color. Because of the cabinet upgrade, any conductors that may not reach the new cabinet location and be terminated, will need to be replaced with longer conductors. This upgrade does not limit and conduits and pull boxes that may need to be upgraded as well.
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
c. All existing 1-A traffic signal poles at Oak Knoll Avenue at Green Street will need a new paint coat. The existing pole will require sanding, priming, and painting with the District’s color.
8. Green Street and Hudson Avenue Traffic Signal
a. The intersection at Green Street at Hudson Avenue has existing non- standard concrete traffic signal poles. To bring the intersection up to a standard of safety, all existing concrete traffic signal poles shall be upgraded to a Caltrans Standard metal pole, galvanized, and painted according to the District color; and the vehicle heads and pedestrian heads on all poles will be upgraded to LED equipment.
b. The existing traffic signal cabinet on Green Street at Hudson Avenue is an old standard 337 cabinet with a 170 controller. Because of this technology, the intersection operation and upgraded traffic signal equipment cannot be utilized. The cabinet and controller will need to be upgraded to a Pasadena Standard 332 cabinet with a 2070 controller. The cabinet shall be primed and painted with the District color. Because of the cabinet upgrade, any conductors that may not reach the new cabinet location and be terminated, will need to be replaced with longer conductors. This upgrade does not limit and conduits and pull boxes that may need to be upgraded as well. c. All existing 1-A traffic signal poles at Hudson Avenue at Green Street will need a new paint coat. The existing pole will require sanding, priming, and painting with the District’s color.
d. All existing signs shall be relocated and remounted with the appropriate mounting strap standards.
e. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be repainted at each intersection and all lanes between the intersections.
f. All existing curb painting shall also be repainted throughout each intersection and everywhere between the intersections.
9. The existing street lighting fronting the subject site is substandard. In order to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, the applicant shall replace/renovate the existing street lighting, on or near the frontage of the subject property, with LED lights, per the City requirements and current standards as follow:
a. Three (3) street lights along Oak Knoll Avenue frontage b. Four (4) street lights along Green Street frontage
c. Four (4) street lights along Hudson Avenue frontage
d. The applicant shall restore and re-paint all existing metal street light poles, traffic signal poles and traffic signal controller cabinets, along the subject Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
frontages of the subject property in a manner acceptable to the Department of Public Works. The cost of the street light pole and traffic signal pole/equipment restoration and painting is the applicant’s responsibility.
10. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and the construction of all required street lights and traffic signal modification. Plans for the improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submission of improvement plans to the Departments of Public Works for checking, the applicant will be required to place a deposit with the department to cover the cost of plan checking and construction inspection of the improvements. The amount of deposit will be determined when the plans are submitted. In addition, there is possibly considerable lead-time for the materials required for the construction and modification. In order to avoid delays in the development schedule, the applicant shall coordinate with this office at 626-744-4195 regarding this street light/traffic signal condition at least five (5) months in advance of the anticipated issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
11. Any existing street tree(s) proposed to be removed are subject to the approval of the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC).
12. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established for all existing City trees within the scope of a construction project. The TPZ extends from the base of the tree to four (4) radial feet beyond the dripline of a tree and applies to the entirety of the tree – from the roots to the canopy of the tree.
The applicant is prohibited from the following within a designated TPZ: construction vehicle access, construction vehicle operation, staging of materials, and trenching without the consent of the Department of Public Works.
The applicant shall at minimum provide the following within a designated TPZ:
mulching, irrigation, and protective fencing.
13. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a Preliminary Tree Protection Plan (PMC Ch. 8.52 – City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance), prepared by a Landscape Architect or certified Arborist, showing the TPZ and all structures, footings, and grading that may impact City trees shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, for review and approval. Given that each construction project poses unique conditions, it is the responsibility of the applicant to develop a Tree Protection Plan based off the TPZ standards to the extent feasible. The Plan shall conform to the Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
Tree Protection Standards which specifically require showing the locations of all existing trees, their diameters, canopies, whether the tree is a public tree or private tree, as well as any trees to be planted with their canopy at mature size. The final conditions of the Tree Protection Plan shall be approved by the Forestry Superintendent. A non-refundable flat fee, per the current General Fee Schedule, will be required for staff time to review the Tree Protection Ordinance compliance.
14. All new drive approaches shall be at least seven (7) feet clear of the existing street trees measured from the edge of the trunk closest to the drive approach. All public trees shall be protected and fenced with a posting on the fences advising of the tree protection.
15. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a valuation assessment report of the existing public tree(s) along the boundary of their project. The report shall be prepared by a registered Arborist and submitted to PNR for review and approval. If it is determined that the applicant has failed to care for any City tree within their Tree Protection Plan, and the health of the tree(s) was critically compromised requiring its removal, the applicant shall be liable for the following costs: assessed value of tree determined by a PNR Arborist using a current ISA assessment methodology; the removal cost determined by PNR; and any applicable infraction or administrative fines determined by Code Compliance.
16. Prior to issuance of any permit, a sundry deposit in the amount of the applicant’s total liabilities based on the aforementioned approved tree assessment report shall be submitted to the City. The sundry deposit is fully refundable, less administrative fees, upon the satisfaction of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
17. The proposed development shall connect to the public sewer with one or more new six-inch diameter house sewer(s) laid at a minimum slope of two percent. In accordance with PMC Chapter 13.24.010, house sewer “means that part of the horizontal piping beginning 24 inches from the exterior wall of the building or structure and extending to its connection with the public sewer.” The section of house sewer within the public right-of-way - from the property line to the public sewer, or within easement, shall be vitrified clay or cast iron pipe. The house sewer shall meet City Standards as determined by the Department of Public Works, and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works is required for work within the public right-of- way. The construction of all new house sewers shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
18. The applicant shall demolish existing and construct all new public improvements along the subject development frontage of Green Street, Oak Knoll Avenue and Hudson Avenue, including concrete drive approach per Standard Plan S-403; concrete sidewalk per Standard Plan S-421; concrete curb and gutter per Standard Plan S-406.
All public improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
19. Green Street and Hudson Avenue restoration, fronting the subject development, including intersection, shall be a full width (from gutter to gutter) cold milling and resurfacing of 1.5 inches depth asphalt concrete roadway, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Restoration of asphalt concrete pavement shall be per Standard Plan S- 416 and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Traffic channelization shall be restored per the Department of Transportation requirements and approval.
This reach of Green Street contains asbestos concentration greater than 1% and is considered asbestos containing materials, or ACMs, in accordance with the US EPA definition of ACM. ACMs are required to be abated prior to the demolition or re- surfacing activities that will impact or disturb the ACM resulting in the creation of airborne asbestos fiber. All ACMs shall be abated by a State of California licensed asbestos abatement contractor using 40-hour asbestos trained workers and appropriate wet methods and engineering controls. All asbestos abatement workers must have current asbestos training documentation, current medical exams and releases, and current fit tests for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The asbestos abatement contractor shall be responsible for estimating and verifying dimensions and quantities of ACMs to be abated. Asbestos abatement methods must comply with Title 8, Section 1529 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403.
20. Oak Knoll Avenue restoration, fronting the subject development, including intersection, shall be a full width (from gutter to gutter) cold milling and resurfacing of 1.5 inches depth rubberized asphalt concrete roadway, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Restoration of rubberized asphalt concrete pavement shall be per Standard Plan S-416 and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Traffic channelization shall be restored per the Department of Transportation requirements and approval.
21. The applicant shall remove the existing culvert at the southwest corner of Green Street and Hudson Avenue and connect to the existing 48”- diameter storm drain system on Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
Green Street with a new catch basin and connector pipe, and reconstruct all affected sidewalk and curb and gutter.
22. On-site drainage, such as roof drain, area drain and subterranean garage discharge, shall be contained on-site per LA County Regional Water Quality Control Board’s current permit.
23. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of all required public improvements. Plans for the above improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submittal of improvement plans to the Departments of Public Works for review, the applicant will be required to place a deposit with the department to cover the cost of plan checking and construction inspection of the improvements. The amount of deposit will be determined when the plans are submitted and will be based upon the estimated cost to the department for the work. Note that building plans approved by the City’s Planning (Building) Department do not constitute approvals for work in the public right-of-way. Independent plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division – at 175 North Garfield Avenue.
The applicant is encouraged to submit these plans as early as possible to avoid delays in the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
24. Past experience has indicated that projects such as this tend to damage the abutting street improvements with the heavy equipment and truck traffic that is necessary during construction. Additionally, the City has had difficulty in requiring developers to maintain a clean and safe site during the construction phase of development.
Accordingly, the applicant shall place a $20,000 deposit with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. This deposit is subject to refund or additional billing, and is a guarantee that the applicant will keep the site clean and safe, and will make permanent repairs to the abutting street improvements that are damaged, including striping, slurry seal/resurfacing, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, either directly or indirectly, by the construction on this site. The deposit may be used for any charges resulting from damage to street trees. A processing fee will be charged against the deposit.
25. Prior to the start of construction or the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The template for the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan can be obtained from the Department of Public Works webpage at: https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-and- Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
construction/engineering/forms-and-applications/ . A flat fee, based on the current General Fee Schedule, is required for plan review and on-going monitoring during construction. This plan shall show the impact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way (and the private street) including all street occupations, lane closures, detours, staging areas, and routes of construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site. An occupancy permit shall be obtained from the department for the occupation of any traffic lane, parking lane, parkway, or any other public right-of-way. All lane closures shall be done in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and California Supplement. If the public right-of-way occupation requires a diagram that is not a part of the MUTCD or California Supplement, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted as part of the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to the department for review and approval. No construction truck idling or staging, material storage, or construction trailer are allowed in the public right-of-way.
In addition, prior to the start of construction or issuance of any permits, the applicant shall conduct a field meeting with an inspector from the Department of Public Works for review and approval of construction staging, parking, delivery and storage of materials, final sign-off procedure, and any of the specifics that will affect the public right-of-way. An appointment can be arranged by calling 626-744-4195.
26. In preparation for the New Year Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game, the Department of Public Works will suspend all works within the public right-of-way during the holiday season in accordance to PMC 12.24.100 and City Policy.
In general, all public streets, sidewalks and parkways shall be free and clear of excavations and other construction related activities during the period of November through January of the following year. Specific dates will vary on an annual basis.
Accordingly, contractors will be required to shut down construction operations which would impede traffic and pedestrian movements during these periods unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer. Any existing excavations shall be backfilled, compacted and temporarily repaved before the beginning of the moratorium period.
The Holiday Moratorium Map, showing the appropriate shutdown period, and corresponding areas in the City, is available at the Department of Public Works Permit Counter (window #6), 175 N. Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91109, or at the following link:
https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-and- construction/engineering/forms-and-applications/ .
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
27. All costs associated with these conditions shall be the applicant’s responsibility.
Unless otherwise noted in this memo, all costs are based on the General Fee Schedule that is in effect at the time these conditions are met. A processing fee will be charged against all deposits. A Public Works permit is required for all construction and occupancies in the public right-of-way. If construction vehicles and equipment are parked off-site in the public right of way, the permit fee for street and sidewalk occupancy will be based on the area and duration corresponding to the current City’s General Fee Schedule. For more information, please contact Yannie Wu at 626-744- 3762.
In addition to the above conditions, the requirements of the following ordinances will apply to the proposed project:
o Sewer Facility Charge - Chapter 4.53 of the PMC
The ordinance provides for the sewer facility charge to ensure that new development within the city limits pays its estimated cost for capacity upgrades to the city sewer system, and to ensure financial solvency as the city implements the operational and maintenance practices set forth in the city's master sewer plan generated by additional demand on the system. Based on sewer deficiencies identified in the City’s Master Sewer Plan, the applicant may be subject to a Sewer Facility Charge to the City for the project’s fair share of the deficiencies. The Sewer Facility Charge is based on the Taxes, Fees and Charges Schedule and will be calculated and collected at the time of Building Permit Issuance.
o Sidewalk Ordinance - Chapter 12.04 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) In accordance with Section 12.04.035, entitled “Abandoned Driveways” of the PMC, the applicant shall close any unused drive approach with standard concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. In addition, the applicant shall repair any existing or newly damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the subject frontage prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in accordance with Section 12.04.031, entitled “Inspection required for Permit Clearance” of the PMC.
o City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance - Chapter 8.52 of the PMC The ordinance provides for the protection of specific types of trees on private property as well as all trees on public property. No street trees in the public right- of-way shall be removed without the support of the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee. No trees shall be damaged by the proposed construction, if a City tree is damaged, the applicant may be liable for the assessed value of the tree. Refer to
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/parks-and-natural-resources/urban- forestry/ for guidelines and requirements for tree protection.
o Residential Impact Fee Ordinance - Chapter 4.17 of the PMC The ordinance was established to provide funds to mitigate the impact of new residential development on City parks and park and recreational facilities. A copy of the Residential Impact Fee Information Packet is available at the city webpage at: https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-and- construction/engineering/information-and-reports/
The Residential Impact Fee is based on the current Taxes, Fees and Charges Schedule (https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/finance/fees-tax-schedules/) and will be calculated and collected at the time of Building Permit Issuance.
The building plans shall include, preferably on the title sheet, a summary of all living units to capture the number of different units; number of bedrooms in each unit; and types of units (Regular, Workforce housing, Skilled nursing unit, Student housing, Residential care facility for the elderly, Affordable Housing). The definitions on the different types of units are available in the abovementioned Residential Impact Fee Information Packet as well as in the Pasadena Municipal Code.
The estimated Residential Impact Fee based on the current tax schedule and the submitted information in the application, dated July 20, 2018, for this project is:
$3,306,166.06. This amount is a rough estimate and for informational purposes only. The exact amount will be calculated at the time of Building Permit issuance.
o Construction and Demolition Waste Ordinance, Chapter 8.62 of the PMC The applicant shall submit the following plan and form which can be obtained from the Permit Center’s webpage at https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/public- works/street-maintenance-waste-management/recycling-resources/construction- and-demolition-debris-recyclers/ and the Recycling Coordinator, (626) 744-7175, for approval prior to the request for a permit:
a. C & D Recycling & Waste Assessment Plan – Submit plan prior to issuance of the permit. A list of Construction and Demolition Recyclers is included on the waste management application plan form and it can also be obtained from the Recycling Coordinator.
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Zoning Administrator
Planned Development – PLN2018-00408
August 21, 2018
b. Summary Report with documentation must be submitted prior to final inspection.
A security performance deposit of three percent of the total valuation of the project or $30,000, whichever is less, is due prior to permit issuance. For Demolition Only projects, the security deposit is $1 per square foot or $30,000, whichever is less. This deposit is fully refundable upon compliance with Chapter 8.62 of the PMC. A non-refundable Administrative Review fee is also due prior to permit issuance and the amount is based upon the type of project.
If you have questions regarding the above conditions and requirements of the ordinances, please contact me at (626) 744-3762 or email [email protected].
YANNIE WU
Principal Engineer
YW:bs
Water & Power – Water Division Comments Page 1
PASADENA WATER AND POWER
MEMORANDUM
August 23, 2018
To: L u i s R o c h a
Planning Department
From: Sandra Andrade-Hernandez
Water Engineering, Water and Power
Subject: Planned Development, 740-790 E Green Street, 118 S Oak Knoll Avenue, 111 S Hudson Avenue
Enclosed is the check sheet for the above listed per your request dated August 3, 2018.
Water & Power – Water Division Comments Page 2
Case Number: Planned Development, 740-790 E Green Street, 118 S Oak Knoll Avenue, 111 S Hudson Avenue
5734-025-024, 5734-025-014, 5734-025-
026, 5734-025-030, 5734-025-029, 5734-
025-027
WATER & POWER DEPARTMENT -
WATER DIVISION
Plan Reviewer: Sandra Andrade-Hernandez
Phone: (626) 744-4189
Email: [email protected]
Date Reviewed: August 23, 2018
District Map Sheet: 617
Water Mains:
Pasadena Water and Power (PWP), Water Division can serve water to this project. There are three water mains surrounding this property. There is an 8-inch cas t iron water main in Green Street that was installed under Work Order 1220 in 1925 . This water main is located approximately 9 feet north of the south property line of Green Street. There is an 8-inch cast iron water main in Hudson Avenue that was installed under Work Order 2832 in 1933. This water main is located approximately 39 feet east of the west property line of Hudson Avenue. There is a 6-inch cast iron water main in Oak Knoll Avenue that was installed under Work Order 783 in 1920. This water main is located approximately 44 feet west of the east property line of Oak Knoll Avenue.
Moratorium:
Verify with Public Works Department regarding any street construction moratorium affecting this project.
Water Pressure:
The approximate water pressure in the area is 50 - 60 psi.
Water Service:
PWP records reflect seven services serving this project. There are three 1-inch domestic services (3479, 3477, and 3468). There are three 1 ½-inch domestic services (44549, 42627, and 24101).
There is one 4 -inch service (44269). Any change in water service will be reviewed when the building plans are submitted. Any change in service will be in stalled at actual cost and paid for by the owner/developer. Additionally, if it is determined that a water main must be upgraded due to size, age, pressure deficiencies, and/or the integrity of the existing water main; the upgrade will be paid for by the owner/developer. A deposit will be requested for the water main design and a cost estimate will be provided to the owner/developer for the new water service installations, main design, and main construction. The owner/developer must be awa re that the design of a new water main will take 3 to 4 months after the initial deposit is made by the owner/developer. Also, an additional 4 to 6 months will be needed for the construction of the water main after the balance of the estimate is paid in full by the owner/developer. The design and construction estimated time depends on the size and length of the water main and other mains in the queue. For this reason, it is imperative that the initial deposit be submitted promptly.
Water Division Requirements:
x Water lines are not permitted to cross lot lines to serve adjo ining lots without a utility easement; the Pasadena Water Division shall approve all proposed easements. x The Water Division will install the service tap, lateral, wate r meter and designate the
Water & Power – Water Division Comments Page 3
distribution main and service tap.
x All services not in use must be abandoned at the distribution main at the applicable rate. x For subdivided lots with one unit behind the existing, show easement documentation and assessor parcel map showing the subdivision.
x Pursuant to the PWP Water Regulation Section XI ‘A water servic e and meter may be evaluated for its continuing integrity. Should PWP find a serv ice, meter, vault or other appurtenance to be substandard and no longer suitable for continued use, replacement and/or construction of new facilities may be required. PWP may require that a portion or all of the costs of such replacement and/or construction be pai d or contracted for by the Applicant or Customer prior to construction.’ The property owner is responsible for the replacement cost. All service pipes shall be of suitable capac ity as determined by applicable plumbing and fire codes. The minimum sized service installed by PWP is 1- inch.
Cross Connection Requirements for Domestic Services:
x All city cross- connection prevention policies must be adhered to. The develop er is required to provide back-flow protection at all connections whereby the plan arrangement or configuration could potentially contaminate the domestic water system. x There shall be no taps between the meter and the backflow asse mbly. x The owner/developer shall provide and install an approved double check valve backflow prevention assembly at each water service if more than one water service serves property. The location of the back-flow prevention assembly shall be above ground within 20-feet of the property line.
x The property owner is responsible for the back- flow prevention assembly. The assembly will be registered and require an annual test certification. All manufacturer warranties shall be transferred upon installation and certification to the property owner. x The owner/developer is responsible for certifying and testing t he assembly after installation by a person that possesses a current and valid license , and must be certified by the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services. x The owner/developer shall submit the results of the test to the Water Utility Service Section for approval. Upon approval, the City will maintain domestic water to the property and will automatically register the assembly.
x All water services shall be protected from cross connections b y means of approved backflow prevention techniques and assemblies. x An administrative fee of $194.00 will be charged for each back flow prevention assembly installed.
Cross Connection Requirements for Fire Service:
x The fire service requires a detector meter and back-flow preve ntion assembly. x The assembly shall be located in a readily accessible location for meter reading, test and maintenance.
x All fire sprinkler systems require installation of an approved double check valve backflow prevention assembly at the sprinkler lateral off the domestic system. x Contract service other than PWP, providing the backflow preven tion assembly shall contact the Water Utility Services Section to verify assembly approval or contact the University of Southern California foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research for an approve list of assemblies.
Water & Power – Water Division Comments Page 4
x All manufacturer warranties sha ll be transferred upon installation and certification to the property owner. The property owner shall assume ownership of the back-flow prevention assembly. The assembly will be registered and require an annual test certification.
x If PWP is to provide DCDA for fire service, PWP will install W ilkins, model 450 DA. x Choose from one of the below listed options and incorporate into the fire sprinkler plans.
Option 1:
Detector meter located on double check detector check assembly (DCDA) outside the structure on private property.
x The Water Division will install the service tap, lateral, DCDA (optional Wilkins, models 350 DA or 450 DA) and designate the distribution main and service tap. x The location of the back-flow prevention assembly shall be a m inimum of 12-inches above grade within 10-feet of the property line, on private property. Reference Water Division Plan Check for certification and registration.
Option 2:
Detector meter located in a vault within the public right of way with a double check valve backflow prevention assembly (DCA) provided and installed inside or outside the building by the owner/developer.
x The Water Division will install the service tap, lateral, dete ctor water meter and designate the distribution main and service tap.
x The location of the back-flow prevention assembly shall be a m inimum of 12-inches above grade within 20-feet of the property line on private property. Reference Water Division Plan Check for certification and registration.
All Other Cross Connection Requirements:
The owner/developer is also responsible for additional cross connection requirements for irrigation system, swimming pool and/or spa, boiler / chilled water / cooling tower (using chemical additives), domestic water line at makeup to carbonation system, sewage ejector, decorative water fountain, and makeup water to reverse osmosis filtration equipment.
Fire Flow and Fire Hydrants:
The Pasadena Fire Department (PF D) has jurisdiction and establishes the requirements for fire protection within the City of Pasadena. PFD must be consulted in this regard. Any cost incidental to providing adequate fire protection for the project must be paid for by the owner/developer.
There are three fire hydrants in close proximity to the project site. x Fire hydrant 617-9 is located on the southeast corner of Green Street and Hudson Avenue. x Fire hydrant 617-13 is located on the southeast corner of Green Street and Oak Knoll Avenue.
x Fire hydrant 617-2 is located on the southwest corner of the t hree-way intersection of Mira Monte Place and Oak Knoll Avenue.
There is no current fire flow test inf ormation for these three fire hydrants. If you would like to request for a fire flow test, please contact Marco Sustaita at (626) 744-4498.
Water & Power – Water Division Comments Page 5
Fire Hydrants Details:
*5((1
+8'621
2$..12//
0,5$0217(
6+8'621$9(
(*5((167
(*5((167 (*5((167
62$..12//$9(
62$..12//$9(
(*5((167
62$..12//$9(
62$..12//$9(
(*5((167
6+8'621$9(
(*5((167
6+8'621$9(
(*5((167 6+8'621$9(
(&2/25$'2%/9'
6+8'621$9(
(*5((167 (*5((167(*5((167
6+8'621$9(
(*5((167
62$..12//$9(
PROPOSED PRIVATE
PROPERTY VAULT
LOCATION
PROPOSED
FEED POINT
EXACT LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL VAULT ROOM
MUST BE COORDINATED WITH PWP ELECTRIC SERVICE
PLANNING TO ENSURE ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
IF ELECTRICAL SERVICE IS SHARED BETWEEN MULTIPLE
PARCELS, AN EASEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED.
CONTACT PWP ELECTRIC SERVICE PLANNING TO
COORDINATE ELECTRICAL SERVICE.
EXISTING ELECTRICAL SERVICE WILL
NEED TO BE DEMOLISHED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND WILL REQUIRE
AN OUTAGE. CONTACT PWP ELECTRIC
SERVICE PLANNING TO COORDINATE.
____________________________________________________________________________ 740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project 12101
Responses to Comment on the IS/MND & MMRP June 2023
Attachment B
Transportation Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT E4
DATE: May 23, 2023
TO: Stephanie Cisneros, Senior Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
FROM: Nader Asmar, T.E.
Principal Engineer
RE: Transportation Analysis
CASE: 740-790 East Green Street
MEMORANDUM
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation (DOT) reviewed the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed construction of a 263-residential unit, 16,229 sf office development with subterranean parking. A traffic impact analysis was completed in 2022 and DOT project conditions were submitted. Recently, the project scope has been modified from the original scope used in the traffic impact analysis. The revised project scope includes 263 residential units, 14,346 sf office space with subterranean parking, and a community pocket park.
DOT has reviewed the new project scope and has determined that no additional traffic analysis will be conducted since the revised project description falls within the parameters of the previous study. Additionally, any exterior modifications that have changed since the previous submittal do not affect the analysis since the driveway access points have remained in the same approximate locations. DOT project conditions will remain the same.
Transportation Impact Analysis
CEQA Evaluation
Category 2
Project Address:
740-790 East Green Street
Project Summary:
Demolition of existing commercial office
buildings and construct 263 residential units,
16,229 sf office, and subterranean parking
Applicant:
Stanford Pasadena, LLC
Attention: Daniel Taban
888 South Figueroa Street
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attention:
Beilin Yu, Zoning Administrator
City Planning Department
February 24, 2022
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis i 2/24/2022
Table of Contents
I. Study Objective .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Project Description...................................................................................................... 1 III. Existing Transportation Network ................................................................................. 1 Street System Classifications ..................................................................................... 1 Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................. 4 IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology ......................................................................... 4 Analysis Purpose ........................................................................................................ 5 Analysis Cap Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures .................................. 5 VMT Per Capita .......................................................................................................... 6 VT Per Capita ............................................................................................................. 6 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network ................................................................... 6 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network .................................................................... 7 Pedestrian Accessibility Score.................................................................................... 7 V. Project Transportation Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 8 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 10 VII. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 10
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis ii 2/24/2022
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Level 1 Floor Plan (dated 4/6/2021) ....................................................... 2 Figure 2. City of Pasadena Adopted Street Types Map .................................................... 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy .................................................................................. 6
Table 2. Description of Transit Facilities ............................................................................ 7 Table 3. City of Pasadena CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................... 8 Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary ................................................... 9
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 1 5/4/2021
I. Study Objective
This report analyzed the impact the development will have on the City transportation system by estimating incremental changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, vehicle trips per capita (VT), the project impact on service population proximity access to transit and bike facilities, and walk accessibility score.
II. Project Description
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review potential transportation impacts related to the construction of 263 residential units, 16, 229 sf office space, a pocket park, and subterranean parking . Vehicular site access to the proposed project is planned to be along Oak Knoll Avenue.
Figure 1 depicts the project’s Level 1 floor plan.
III. Existing Transportation Network
Street System Classifications
Union Street is a one-way westbound City Connector with three travel lanes. Restricted parking and time-limited parking are found along both sides of this roadway from Hill Avenue to St. John Avenue. A future cycle track is proposed along this roadway.
Currently, Union Street is not a bike lane or route.
Colorado Boulevard is an east/west City Connector. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction with turn lanes at key intersections. Time limited street parking is provided along both sides of the roadway. Colorado Boulevard has neither a bike lane nor bike route.
Green Street is a one-way eastbound City Connector which runs immediately north of the development. Three through lanes are provided within the project study area. Time limited parking may be found along both sides of this tree-lined, predominantly office and commercial land-use street. Green Street is not designated as a bike lane or route.
Cordova Street is a four-lane Neighborhood Connector with two lanes in each direction.
A future road diet is proposed along this roadway, which will include bike lanes. Currently, the roadway in the vicinity of the project is an enhanced Category 3 bike route.
Oak Knoll Avenue is a north/south Access Road bordering the project site to the west.
One through travel lane is provided in each direction with time limited street parking along both sides of the roadway. Portions of Oak Knoll Avenue is posted with a speed limit of 25 mph.
Hudson Avenue is a two-lane, one-way northbound Neighborhood Connector east of the development. No parking is allowed on the west side of the street.
Figure 2 depicts the project in the City of Pasadena’s Adopted Street Types map.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 2 2/24/2022
Figure 1. Project Level 1 Floor Plan (dated 4/6/2021)
Oak Knoll Ave
Hudson Ave
Green St
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 3 2/24/2022
Figure 2. City of Pasadena Adopted Street Types Map
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 4 2/24/2022
Existing Transit Service
Public transit service within the project study area is currently provided by LA Metro, Foothill Transit, LA Department of Transportation (CE), and Pasadena Transit (PT). The locations of public transit stops near the project are summarized as follows:
Location Route
Madison Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner PT 10; Metro 180, 686; FT 187
Madison Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southeast corner Metro 180
El Molino Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner PT 10
El Molino Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southeast corner PT 10; FT 187
Oak Knoll Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner PT 10; Metro 180, 686
Oak Knoll Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southeast corner Metro 686
Hudson Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner
– Southeast corner
PT 10
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northeast corner CE 549
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southwest corner PT 10, 20; Metro 662; CE 549
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Northwest corner PT 10; Metro 180, 686; FT 187
Lake Ave at Colorado Blvd
– Southeast corner Metro 181, 686; FT 187
Lake Ave at Green St
– Northeast corner PT 20; Metro 662
Lake Ave at Green St
– Southwest corner PT 10, 20; Metro 662, CE 549
Lake Ave at Cordova St
– Northeast corner PT 10, 20; Metro 662; CE 549
Lake Ave at Cordova St
– Northwest corner CE 549
Lake Ave at Cordova St
– Southwest corner PT 10, 20; Metro 662
Metro Gold Line
– Lake Avenue at I-210 Fwy Gold Line
IV. Transportation Analysis Methodology
With the City of Pasadena General Plan, the City’s guiding principles cumulatively represent the community’s vision for the future:
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 5 2/24/2022
- Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance quality of life. - New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing historic resource. - Economic vitality will be promoted to provide jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities.
- Pasadena will be a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable community.
- Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars. - Pasadena will be promoted as a cultural, scientific, corporate, entertainment, and educational center for the region.
- Community participation will be a permanent part of achieving a greater city. - Pasadena is committed to public education and a diverse educational system responsive to the broad needs of the community.
Understanding the goals and objectives of the General Plan, the Pasadena Department of Transportation sets forth goals and policies to improve overall transportation in Pasadena and create “a community where people can circulate without cars.” Inherent in this vision statement is to accommodate different modes of transportation including vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. This report will assess accessibility of these different modes of travel and the project’s transportation impacts using the City’s adopted transpor tation performance measures.
Analysis Purpose
Pasadena reviews several types and sizes of projects that could be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Transportation impact analyses are an integral part of the environmental review process that is required for all proposed projects not categorically exempt under CEQA.
Analysis Cap Criteria - Transportation Performance Measures The Pasadena Department of Transportation adopted a set of performance measures and CEQA thresholds that are closely aligned with the Mobility Element objectives and policies. Pasadena Department of Transportation’s mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures are employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development projects. They are:
- Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita
- Vehicle Trips per Capita
- Proximity and Quality of the Bicycle Network
- Proximity and Quality of the Transit Network
- Pedestrian Accessibility
These performance measures align with the sustainability goals of the General Plan by evaluating the “efficiency” of projects by analyzing the per capita length and number of trips associated with changes in land use. With the expanded emphasis on sustainability and a continued focus on livability, the proposed performance measures will assist in determining how to balance travel modes as well as understand the mobility needs of the community.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 6 2/24/2022
Definitions
VMT Per Capita
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena Travel Demand Model (that is based on the SCAG regional model). The VMT total considers 100% of the mileage of trips that begin and end inside Pasadena and 50% of the distance travelled for trips with one end outside of Pasadena.
The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
VT Per Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City.
The measure sums the trips with origins and destination within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the 2013 Trip-based citywide Travel Demand Model. The regional VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within City of Pasadena boundaries, and 50% of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City, but have one trip end outside of the City. The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of bicycle facility types.
The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s (Draft) Bicycle Transportation Plan categories as shown in the following table:
Table 1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy
LEVEL DESCRIPTION FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Advanced Facilities Bike Paths
Multipurpose Paths
Cycle Tracks/Protected Bike Lanes
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 7 2/24/2022
2 Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes
Bike Boulevards
3 Basic Facilities Bike Routes
Enhanced Bike Routes
Emphasized Bikeways
For each bike facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer is identified.
The City can improve measures of Bike Facility Access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and by encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high-quality bike facilities.
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of each of each of three transit facility types, as defined in the following table:
Table 2. Description of Transit Facilities
TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Includes all Gold Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods.
2 Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and 15 minutes in peak periods.
3 Includes corridors with transit headways of 16 minutes or more at peak periods.
For each facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer is identified.
The City can improve the measures of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.
Pedestrian Accessibility Score
Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment score provides a measure of the average walkability in the TAZ surrounding Pasadena residents, based on a Pedestrian Accessibility metric. The Pedestrian proximity metric is a simple count of the number of 740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 8 2/24/2022
land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or employee in a given TAZ within a 5- minute walk.
The ten categories of land uses are:
- Retail
- Personal Services
- Restaurant
- Entertainment
- Office (including private sector and government offices) - Medical (including medical office and hospital uses)
- Culture (including churches, religious and other cultural uses) - Park and Open Space
- School (including elementary and high schools)
- College
The following table summarizes the City’s Metrics for determining CEQA Caps:
Table 3. City of Pasadena CEQA Thresholds of Significance
METRIC DESCRIPTION IMPACT THRESHOLD
1. VMT Per
Capita
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the
City of Pasadena per service
population (population + jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase
over existing Citywide VMT per
Capita of 22.6.
2. VT Per
Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City of
Pasadena per service population
(population + jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase
over existing Citywide VT per
Capita of 2.8.
3. Proximity
and Quality
of Bicycle
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a quarter
mile of bicycle facility types
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease
in existing citywide 31.7% of
service population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of Level
1 & 2 bike facilities.
4. Proximity
and Quality
of Transit
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) located within a
quarter mile of transit facility types.
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease
in existing citywide 66.6% of
service population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of Level
1 & 2 transit facilities.
5. Pedestrian
Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility Score
uses the mix of destinations, and a
network-based walk shed to
evaluate walkability
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease
in the Citywide Pedestrian
Accessibility Score
V. Project Transportation Impact Analysis
Project analyses are based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Proposed projects are analyzed using the City’s calibrated travel demand forecasting model (TDF) built on SCAG’s regional model.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 9 2/24/2022
The City’s TDF model uses TransCAD software to simulate traffic levels and travel patterns for the City of Pasadena. The program consists of input files that summarize the City’s land uses, street network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using this data, the model performs a series of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, and the route taken by the trip.
To be deemed accurate for project transportation impact on the transportation system, a model must be calibrated to a year in which actual land use data and traffic volumes are available and well documented. The Pasadena TDF has been calibrated to 2013 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, Census data, and land use data compiled by City staff with land uses’ associated population and job increase estimates.
Projects with proposed land uses that are consistent with the General Plan and complimentary to their surrounding land uses are expected to reduce the trip length associated with adjacent land uses; and/or increase the service population access to pedestrians, bike, and transit facilities if the project is within a quarter mile of those facilities.
Table 4 summarizes the following analyses of the proposed project’s impacts on the transportation system using the calibrated TDF model. The results are based on the project’s vehicular and non-vehicular trip making characteristics, trip length, and its interaction with other surrounding/citywide land uses, and the City’s transportation network.
Table 4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary
Transportation Performance Metrics
Significant
Impact Cap
(existing)
Incremental
change
(existing +
project)
Significant
Impact?
VMT per Capita >22.6 10.3 No
VT per Capita >2.8 2.8 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 31.7 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.8 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 No
The TDF model calculation results indicated that the project does not exceed any of the adopted CEQA caps of significance.
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 10 2/24/2022
VI. Conclusion
The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation conducted an analysis to review potential transportation impacts related to the construction of 263 residential units, 16,229 sf office space, and subterranean parking. Vehicular site access to the proposed project is planned to be along Oak Knoll Avenue.
Using the City’s Transportation Demand Model, DOT found that the proposed project does not exceed any of the CEQA thresholds outlined in the City’s guidelines.
VII. Appendices
Memorandum of Understanding
City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model Output/Results
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 11 2/24/2022
Appendix:
Memorandum of Understanding
740-790 East Green Street
Transportation Impact Analysis 12 2/24/2022
Appendix:
City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model Output/Results
740-790 East Green Street
VMT/Cap and VT/Cap Calculations Summary
2022-0224 740-790 E Green St_VMT_Final Scope.xlsx
2/28/2022
Daily Trips Internal External Pop 136,475
Internal 351,540 335,995 Emp 111,143
External 335,995 491,168 Ext. Factor 50%
EMFAC
Speed Internal External Regional Total INPUT
5 110 0 1,740 1,850 0%
10 673 135 14,353 15,161 0%
15 4,139 1,354 45,860 51,352 1%
20 16,943 4,473 75,163 96,579 2%
25 97,483 12,495 150,158 260,136 5%
30 489,109 61,019 275,039 825,167 15%
35 823,601 139,849 320,147 1,283,597 23%
40 201,449 55,566 225,414 482,429 9%
45 136,121 105,249 169,350 410,720 7%
50 113,989 2,073 211,686 327,749 6%
55 94,128 7,973 229,250 331,352 6%
60 120,050 15,084 238,083 373,217 7%
65 323,622 20,901 181,022 525,545 9%
70 3,630 0 528,979 532,609 11%
75 0 0 77,285 77,285
80 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 0 0
SUM 2,425,047 426,170 2,743,529 5,594,746 100%
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,425,047 852,340 5,487,058 8,764,446 35.4
VT 351,540 671,991 - 1,023,531 4.1
Length 6.9 1.3 - 8.6 -
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,425,047 426,170 2,743,529 5,594,746 22.6
VT 351,540 335,995 - 687,536 2.8
Length 6.9 1.3 - 8.1 -
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
136,475 111,143 5,594,746 687,536 22.6 2.8
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
135,938 111,348 5,591,328 686,619 22.6 2.8
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
537 -205 3,418 917 10.3 2.8
PASS PASS
FINAL REDUCED DAILY VMT BY SPEED BIN
REDUCED DAILY SUMMARY
2013 EXISTING SUMMARY
INCREMENTAL SCENARIO RESULTS
FINAL DAILY SCENARIO SUMMARY
TOTAL RAW DAILY SUMMARY
740-790 East Green Street
Proximity and Quality Metric Calculation Summary
2022-0228 740-790 E Green St_ProxQual_FinalScope.xlsx
2/28/2022
Existing
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 2 78,415 0 78,415 31.7% Level 3 123,670 0 123,670 50.0% No Facility 45,202 0 45,202 18.3% Exist City Total 247,286 0 247,286 100.0% Existing + Project
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 2 78,415 0 78,415 31.7% Level 3 123,670 331.6668687 124,002 50.1% No Facility 45,202 0 45,202 18.3% Exist City Total 247,286 331.6668687 247,618 100.1% Network Service Population
Adjustment Significant Impact Threshold Service Population % Impact? Bike 331.6668687 < 31.7% 31.7% No
Existing
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 1 90,600 0 90,600 36.6% Level 2 74,298 0 74,298 30.0% Level 3 50,495 0 50,495 20.4% No Facility 31,893 0 31,893 12.9% Exist City Total 247,286 0 247,286 100.0% Existing + Project
Facility Type Service Population Service Population Adjustment Final Service Population Percent of Service Population Level 1 90,600 331.6668687 90,932 36.8% Level 2 74,298 0 74,298 30.0% Level 3 50,495 0 50,495 20.4% No Facility 31,893 0 31,893 12.9% Exist City Total 247,286 331.6668687 247,618 100.1% Network Service Population
Adjustment Significant Impact Threshold Service Population % Impact? Transit 331.6668687 < 66.6% 66.8% No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary - Bicycle
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
Proximity and Quality Metric Summary
2022-0228 740-790 E Green St_PedAccess_FinalScope.xlsx
2/28/2022
Weighted Average: 3.884113107
PasadenaDTATAZ Land Use Types Population_In_TAZ Employment_In_TAZ Service_Population Land Use Types 91 5 1238.82612 756.3478606 1995.173981 5
740-790 East Green Street
Pedestrian Accessibility Summary
____________________________________________________________________________ 740-790 East Green Street Mixed-Use Project 12101
Responses to Comment on the IS/MND & MMRP June 2023
Attachment C
Protected Tree Report
J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 2 2
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 ( R E V . 1 )
C I T Y O F P A S A D E N A P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T 740 - 7 9 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T
P A S A D E N A, C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 10 1
S U B M I T T E D T O :
M R . D A N I E L T A B A N
S T A N D F O R D P A S A D E N A, L L C
8 8 8 S . F I G U E R O A S T R E E T, S U I T E 1 9 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S, C A L I F O R N I A 90 0 1 7
P R E P A R E D B Y :
C H R I S T Y C U B A
A S C A R E G I S T E R E D C O N S U L T I N G A R B O R I S T #502 I S A C E R T I F I E D A R B O R I S T # W E 1 9 8 2A
I S A T R E E R I S K Q U A L I F E D
S C O T T M C A L L A S T E R
I S A C E R T I F I E D A R B O R I S T # W E 7 0 1 1 A
I S A T R E E R I S K Q U A L I F I E D
C I T Y O F P A S A D E N A P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T 740 - 7 9 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A , C AL I F O R N I A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT .......................................................................................................... 1
OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 2
TABLE 1 – PROPOSED DISPOSITIONS OF THE TREES ......................................................................... 6
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ENCROACHMENTS ......................................................... 8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 9
EXHIBIT A - AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY .................................................................................. 12
EXHIBIT B – REDUCED COPY OF PROTECTED TREE LOCATION EXHIBIT ...................................... 13
EXHIBIT C – REDUCED COPY OF PROTECTED TREE IMPACT EXHIBIT AND PROTECTION PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 14
EXHIBIT D – REDUCED COPY OF CONCEPT SECTIONS ..................................................................... 15
EXHIBIT E – TREE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................ 20
TABLE 3 – TREE FIELD INVENTORY SPREADSHEET .......................................................................... 49
TABLE 4 – STREET TREE APPRAISAL SPREADSHEET ...................................................................... 52
HEALTH AND STRUCTURE GRADE DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 54
CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................................... 56
ARBORIST STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 57
RESUMES................................................................................................................................................... 58
MAP POCKETS FOR FULL-SIZE PROTECTED TREE LOCATION EXHIBIT AND
PROTECTED TREE IMPACT EXHIBIT AND PROTECTION PLAN
J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 2 2
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 ( R E V . 1 )
February 4, 2022
Daniel Taban
Stanford Pasadena, LLC
888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re: 740-790 East Green Street, Pasadena, California – City of Pasadena Protected Tree Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses our evaluation of 26 trees located on or adjacent to your project site located at 740-790 East Green Street in Pasadena, California. Of these 26 trees, two are considered a ‘protected’ private property tree as set forth by the City of Pasadena’s Tree Protection Ordinance No. 8.52, 10 are non-protected private property trees, and 14 are public rights-of-way trees. If the project proceeds as proposed, two protected trees, 10 non-protected trees, and 4 rights-of-way trees will be removed. The rights-of-way trees to remain will experience minor to significant encroachments into their canopies and Root Protection Zones (RPZ).
Recommendations for tree preservation during construction are provided at the end of this report.
BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT
You are proposing the development of a three- to five-story, mixed-use project, comprising 263 residential units and 16,229 square feet of ground-level commercial space over two subterranean garage levels. The existing structures will be demolished, and the lot will be redeveloped to accommodate the new project.
The 26 inventoried trees are scattered within, and immediately adjacent to, the property limits. We were retained to visit the property, inventory the trees, evaluate the potential impacts of construction, make recommendations for the protection of trees to remain, prepare value appraisals of the rights-of-way trees in accordance with the protocols set forth in the Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition) and prepare a Protected Tree Report for submittal to the City of Pasadena. We used the Trunk Formula Method (Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition) for the appraisals. We used the Site Plan & Project Summary (2021, MVE + Partners), as well as information from EPT Design to determine the impacts to the protected trees. This report is based on our site visit of July 26, 2021.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 2 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION
The project site fronts 740-790 East Green Street to the north, Hudson Avenue to the east, Oak Knoll Avenue to the west, and a church and office building to the south. Existing commercial office buildings and their associated ‘on grade’ parking lots comprise the current land use on the property. Tree trunk locations and canopy spreads (approximate driplines) were recorded in the field, from grade, and plotted using the topographic survey (JRN Civil Engineers, 2021) provided to us. The on-site trees were numbered and tagged with an embossed aluminum tag. The rights-of-way trees were numbered on our exhibits with an ‘ST’ designation but were not tagged. The locations of the on-site, and right-of-way trees are illustrated on the ‘Protected Tree Location Exhibit’ and the ‘Protected Tree Impact Exhibit and Protection Plan.’
Of the 26 inventoried trees, two are protected/specimen trees based on their species and trunk size and 14 are protected due to their designation as public street trees. Ten trees do not meet the City’s protection requirements because of size or species. One right-of-way tree (#ST 5) has been removed since an earlier tree inventory by EPT Design, which indicated that ST5 was in poor condition.
On Oak Knoll Avenue, the existing and proposed sidewalk width is 10 feet wide from the back of the curb. The project includes an additional 5-foot 9-inch-wide setback for the new residential building proposed for the southern half of the property. Two levels of subterranean parking garage are proposed under the new buildings. On the Oak Knoll side, the building foundation and retaining wall for the parking garage will be flush with the new setback. This will allow for less root damage to street tree #ST 2. There appears to be no roofline overhang associated with the western sides of the buildings. It is assumed that some level of sidewalk renovation will be included with the redevelopment of the property.
On Green Street, the existing building setback and sidewalk width is 11 feet from the back of the curb. The City is requiring the project to provide an additional 5-foot easement that will increase the sidewalk width to a total of 16 feet. In addition to the 16-foot sidewalk, the proposed project is providing non-required setbacks of 5-feet below grade, a 3-foot setback at the ground level, and a 5-foot setback above grade at Levels 2 and 3, with an architectural overhang of 3 feet. In summary, the total dimensions from the face of the street curb are as follows:
• 21 feet to the face of the below-grade parking retaining walls • 19 feet to the outermost building face at ground level • 21 feet to the building face at the upper levels
• 18 feet to the edge of the roof overhang
The setbacks will allow for less root impacts in the lower soil profiles and less canopy pruning that would occur without them. It is assumed that some level of sidewalk renovation will be included with the redevelopment of the property.
On Hudson Avenue, the proposed sidewalk width is 12 feet wide from the back of the curb. The project includes an additional 2-foot-wide setback for the mixed-use building and an additional 5-foot-wide setback for the new residential building proposed for the southern half of the property. On the Hudson Avenue side, the building foundation and retaining wall for the parking garage will be setback approximately 12 -15 feet from the street trees. There appears to be a 3–4-foot roofline overhang associated with the eastern side of the mixed - use building, but no overhang with the residential building. It is assumed that some level of sidewalk renovation will be included with the redevelopment of the property.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 3 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T There are numerous potential consequences related to residential construction that may affe ct trees during and after a typical construction process. They are as follows and are discussed below:
• EXCAVATION / TRENCHING - ROOT SEVERANCE
• SOIL COMPACTION (DURING AND POST-CONSTRUCTION)
• ALTERATION OF THE WATER TABLE/SITE DRAINAGE
• SUBSTANTIAL TRIMMING OF CANOPY OR ROOTS
• MECHANICAL DAMAGE
• IRRIGATION
A. Excavation/Trenching—Root Severance
Trenching can include excavation for irrigation, utility, or drainage lines. Trenching and excavation can also be required for foundations of structures and free-standing walls. Trenching and excavation removes soil and tree roots. When performed in the critical root zone (approximately 5x the trunk diameter of any tree) or within the dripline (outer edge of the natural canopy), there is the potential to remove large areas of root mass, and to shatter and tear roots that will remain connected to the tree(s). Torn and shattered roots cannot callous over or generate new roots in the manner of cleanly-cut roots. Torn and shattered roots are potentially unstable, are entry points for disease and decay organisms, and eventually die. Significant root loss a nd/or severance can be critical to the health and structure of trees to remain in a landscape.
B. Soil Compaction
Soil compaction is a complex set of physical, chemical, and biological constraints on tree growth. Principal components leading to limited growth are the loss of aeration and pore space, poor gas exchange with the atmosphere, lack of available water, and mechanical hindrance of root growth. Soil compaction is considered to be the largest single factor responsible for the decline of trees on construction sites.
C. Changes in Grade
Typically, the vast majority of the root mass exists within the top three feet of soil, and most of the fine roots active in water and nutrient absorption are in the top 12 inches. Changes in grade, by the addition or removal of soil (filling or cutting), can be injurious. Lowering the grade around trees can have immediate and long -term effects on trees. The addition of soil and compaction for common engineering practices also results in long - term effects on trees.
D. Alteration of the Water Table/Site Drainage
The water table is the upper surface of the zone in which soil macropores are saturated with water; water tables may vary seasonally. Rather than a flat, static surface, the water moves down a gradient. Its de pth varies, depending on the structure of the soil through which it flows. A perched water table may form in soils that have impermeable strata. Swamps are created where the water table intersects level ground.
Structures such as footings, basements, subterranean buildings, and retaining walls may intercept impermeable layers in the soil on which water perches. If adequate drainage is not provided, the water table uphill may gradually rise and interfere with tree roots. This type of damage usually takes a period of time to be recognized and diagnosed.1
Some trees are particularly susceptible to root infections, such as Armillaria and Phytophthora. Both of these fungal diseases can progressively weaken a root system, resulting in dead branches in the ca nopy of the tree,
1 Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark, Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development, (Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998), pp. 88-89.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 4 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T loss of stability of the entire tree because of decaying roots, and premature death of the tree. Trees form roots in accordance with existing soil composition and water availability. Minor drainage changes in the winter and spring months are significant to the health of the trees.
E. Canopy and Root Pruning
Leaves perform vital functions for trees. Through photosynthesis, they manufacture sugars that feed the tree and are used to create the building blocks of wood. Leaves help to move water and nutrients up from the roots and around the tree through their vascular system and cool the tree down through transpiration. They moderate temperatures beneath the tree, lessen the drying action of winds, and intercept rainfall, which reduce s erosion.
On the ground, they moderate soil temperatures, retain moisture, and as they decompose, return their nutrients back to the soil to be recycled and reused by the tree. A healthy canopy of leaves is essential to ensure an adequate food supply for the roots to perform their important functions.
Typically, root systems extend outward past the dripline, two to four times the diameter of the average tree’s crown. Main root functions include water and mineral conduction, food and water storage, and anchorage of the tree to the soil. Root systems consist of short-lived, fine-textured, feeder roots and larger, woody, perennial roots. Feeder roots, while averaging only 1/16 inch in diameter, constitute the major portion of the root system’s surface area. Feeder roots act like sponges, growing predominantly outward and upward from the large roots near the soil surface where minerals, water and oxygen are usually abundant. Larger, woody roots and their subordinates tend to annually increase in diameter and grow horizontally. Predominantly located in the top 6 to 24 inches of the soil, these structural and storage roots usually do not grow deeper than three to seven feet.
Root growth is generally inhibited by soil compaction and temperature. As the de pth increases, soil compaction increases, and the availability of water, minerals, oxygen, and soil temperature all decrease.
Removal of significant amounts of the canopy and/or root system can lead to both immediate and long -term detrimental effects on trees. Effects can be physiological, structural, or both.
F. Protection against Mechanical Damage/Fencing
Fencing is a temporary enclosure erected around a tree to enclose as much of its safety zone as possible.
Fences are critical to (1) prevent direct contact and damage to the canopy, branches, and trunk, (2) preserve roots and soil in an intact and non-compacted state, and (3) identify the Tree Protection Zone. Fencing must be in place before demolition or the initiation of construction and remain until adjacent construction activity no longer threatens tree health.
G. Irrigation
Trees that have suffered root loss may not be able to exploit as large a soil volume as before injury. Also, changed patterns of drainage may divert water away from trees. In either case, trees may benefit from supplemental irrigation. The following are general guidelines:
• The amount of water applied must be appropriate to the species. • Light, infrequent irrigations should be avoided.
• Excess irrigation from new landscaping should be avoided. Runoff from plantings should be minimized and/or directed away from trees.
• Wetting the trunk should be avoided.2
2 See Matheny and Clark, p. 125.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 5 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T For structural safety, arboricultural research discourages root severance within five times a tree’s trunk dia meter (dbh3) on any one side of the tree4. While individual tree species, health, and structural conditions may lead to variations in the recommended distance, 5x dbh is likely to be a sustainable distance for many trees. For the purposes of this report, we refer to this area as the 'critical root zone' (CRZ) and include it in our analysis and recommendations.
Demolition of existing structures along with implementation of the proposed mixed-use development will require the removal of four right-of-way trees (#ST3, ST6, ST13, ST16), two protected private property trees (#1 and 19), and 10 non-protected trees (#4, 18, 20-27). Proposed construction will encroach within the canopies and the Root Protection Zones (RPZs) of 10 rights-of-way trees (#ST2, ST7-ST12, ST14-ST15, and ST17). The assembly of scaffolding for construction near those canopies will require additional pruning. Furthermore, construction equipment, foot traffic, materials storage, and overspray from the application of stucco and paint may impact the rights-of-way tree canopies and the RPZs.
Table 1 summarizes the inventoried trees, their protected status, and their proposed dispositions. Table 2 summarizes the estimated encroachments. Captioned photographs and exhibits at the conclusion of this report illustrate site context, tree locations, tree structure, and vigor. Field data is included in Table 2 after the photographs. Full-sized copies of the ‘Protected Tree Location Exhibit’ and ‘Protected Tree Impact Exhibit and Protection Plan’ are included in back pockets of this report.
3 Dbh = diameter at breast height; a forestry term used for standard measurements of tree trunks 4.5 feet from grade. 4 “Likelihood of Tree Failure from Root & Sapwood Cutting”, E. Thomas Smiley, Ph.D., Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories / Clemson University, 2014 Western Tree Management Symposium.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 6 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T TABLE 1 – PROPOSED DISPOSITIONS OF THE TREES
Tree # Common Name Botanical Name DBH(s)
(inches)
Protected Diameter
on City Lists or 19" if
not on Lists (inches)
Health
Grade
Structure
Grade
Proposed
Disposition Protected Reason for
Removal
1 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 21.5 20 A B Remove Yes
ST2 kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 9.4, 8.1, 12.2,
11.9 N/A B B Preserve ROW
ST3 kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 17.5 N/A B B Remove ROW Demolition &
grading for the
new driveway
4 carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 9.1 19 A B Remove No Demolition &
grading for the
new driveway
ST5 camphor Cinnamomum camphora N/A N/A N/A N/A Tree not present N/A
ST6 camphor Cinnamomum camphora 22.5 N/A D D Remove ROW Poor health/structure
ST7 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 33.3 N/A B- B Preserve ROW ST8 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 34.2 N/A B- C Preserve ROW ST9 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 25.3 N/A B- C Preserve ROW ST10 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 26.3 N/A B- C Preserve ROW ST11 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 32 N/A B- C Preserve ROW ST12 holly oak Quercus ilex 14 N/A B B Preserve ROW
ST13 holly oak Quercus ilex 11.5 N/A C- D Remove ROW Poor health/structure
ST14 holly oak Quercus ilex 22.5 N/A B B Preserve ROW
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 7 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T Tree # Common Name Botanical Name DBH(s)
(inches)
Protected Diameter
on City Lists or 19" if
not on Lists (inches)
Health
Grade
Structure
Grade
Proposed
Disposition Protected Reason for
Removal
ST15 holly oak Quercus ilex 16.1 N/A B- B- Preserve ROW ST16 holly oak Quercus ilex 20 N/A B- C Remove ROW Poor health/structure
ST17 holly oak Quercus ilex 11 N/A B C Preserve ROW
18 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 29.7 30 A C Remove No Demo/grading & development
19 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 30.6 30 A A Remove Yes Demo/grading & development
20 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 11.2 20 B C Remove No Demo/grading & development
21 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 8.5 20 B C Remove No Demo/grading & development
22 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 11.3 20 B C- Remove No Demo/grading & development
23 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 7 20 C C Remove No Demo/grading & development
24 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 11.5 @ 4" 20 B C Remove No Demo/grading & development
25 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta BT - 25' N/A B B Remove No Demo/grading & development
26 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 10.6 20 B B Remove No Demo/grading & development
27 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 8 20 C C Remove No Demo/grading & development
Notes:
DBH – Diameter at Breast Height – a forestry term referring to a tree’s trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade. Often used as a representation of tree size.
Additional definitions for the headings in this table are provided in the field inventory table at the end of this report. Converted trunk diameters are used when a tree has multiple trunks; it provides a more accurate indication of trunk diameter than merely adding multiple trunk diameters.
ROW = Right of Way
BT – Brown Trunk. Because palms do not typically increase in trunk diameter as they age, they are measured in “Brown Trunk Height,” the distance between grade and the newest emerging spear.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 8 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ENCROACHMENTS
Tree # Common Name DBH(s) (In.)
Critical
Root Zone
(Ft.)
Approx.
Distance From
Trunk to New
Bldg. Edge (Ft.)
Approx. Distance to
New Parking
Garage/Bldg.
Foundation (Ft.)
Approx. Square Feet
of Canopy Area in
Total (Sq. Ft.)
Approx. Canopy
Area Impacted
(Sq. Ft.) (% of Total
Canopy)
ST2 kurrajong 9.4, 8.1,
12.2, 11.9 9 12 12 545 15 (3%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be minimal. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal.
Demolition of existing hardscape and the building, plus grading for the pocket park may damage roots. New sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST7 Indian laurel fig 33.3 14 13 24 1,941 339 (17%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be minimal-moderate. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST8 Indian laurel fig 34.2 14 13 24 3,354 915 (27%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be moderate. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST9 Indian laurel fig 25.3 11 14 24 2,977 612 (21%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be moderate. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal to moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST10 Indian laurel fig 26.3 11 14 24 2,777 790 (28%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be moderate-significant. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal to moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST11 Indian laurel fig 32 13 13 24 3,419 1,076 (31%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be significant. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction, may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST12 holly oak 14 6 10 12 633 88 (14%)
Encroachment Notes:
Canopy impacts will likely be minimal. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal.
Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the protected root zone to an unknown degree.
ST14 holly oak 22.5 9 9 15 1,955 664 (34%)
Canopy impacts will likely be significant. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal to moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST15 holly oak 16.1 8 10 15 466 21 (5%)
Canopy impacts will likely be minimal. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal to moderate. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
ST17 holly oak 11 5 10 15 536 0 0%
Canopy impacts will likely be minimal – no direct building impacts, but adjacent tree removal may require some reshaping of the crown. Root zone impacts due to the grading for the building and parking structure construction will likely be minimal. Demolition of existing hardscape and buildings, plus new sidewalk construction may damage the root zone to an unknown degree.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 9 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Carlberg conducted a tree inventory and assessment of potential impacts for the construction of the 740- 790 East Green Street project. Of the 26 trees included in the inventory, two are protected Specimen Trees and 14 are protected by virtue of their status as public street trees. Ten do not meet the species or trunk diameter thresholds for protection and are proposed to be removed. If the project proceeds as proposed :
• Two on-site protected trees (#1 and #19) are proposed to be removed. • Four right-of-way trees (#ST3, ST6, ST13, and ST16) are also proposed for removal. • Ten non-protected trees (#4, 18, and 20-27) are in the construction footprint and are proposed to be removed.
• Encroachments into the canopies and RPZ of the following protected trees are proposed:
ST2, ST7, ST8, ST9, ST10, ST11, ST12, ST14, ST15, and ST17. • Demolition of existing, and construction of new hardscape in the public rights-of-way may injure, or require removal of, an unknown quantity of street tree roots.
In my professional opinion, the following recommendations should be included in the project’s conditions of approval and implemented:
• Any demolition, digging, excavating, grading, or trenching within the root protection zone of any protected tree to remain is monitored by a qualified arborist. • Trenching, excavation, and demolition activities that take place in the RPZ of protected trees shou ld be accomplished with hand tools and small, hand-held equipment. Where larger equipment must be used, the equipment should sit outside of the RPZ and reach in with a mechanized arm. Such work should be monitored by a qualified arborist.
• Pulling, tearing, and shattering of roots in the CRZ and the RPZ should be strictly avoided. • Within the RPZ of protected trees to remain - Exposed roots to remain, if found, should be covered with burlap, carpet remnants or other material that may be kept moist until backfill can be placed. • Within the RPZ of protected trees to remain - Exposed roots to be pruned, as monitored and instructed by the arborist, should be cut cleanly with sharp, clean, tools, at a 90-degree angle.
Pruning tools should be disinfected between each cut.
• This report and the enclosures should be incorporated into the set of plans given to the contractors.
The contractors should be familiar with the specific instructions and responsibilities pertaining to protected trees. It is recommended that a consulting arborist be retained and meet with the contractor and his personnel prior to commencement of the project. • If canopy pruning of protected trees is found to be necessary for building clearance, it should only be performed after review of the circumstances by the project’s consulting arborist, performed by a qualified ISA Certified Arborist or ISA Certified Tree Worker, and monitored by the project’s consulting arborist.
• Protected trees shall not be removed unless approval is granted by the City of Pasadena. • Equipment, materials, and vehicles shall not be stored, parked, or operated within the root protection zone of protected trees to remain unless encroachments are approved by the City of Pasadena. • Equipment with overhead exhaust shall not be placed in such a manner as to scorch overhanging branches or foliage. Smaller equipment shall be used in such areas as deemed necessary by the monitoring arborist.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 10 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T • Protected trees removed for project development will be replaced as stated in the City’s Tree Ordinance and associated mitigation matrix.
• Extra care will need to be taken when erecting the scaffolding for the sections of the buildings adjacent to trees to remain. Tarps or other means of tree canopy protection may be required during construction to avoid damage to branches and over-spray of stucco, paint, etc. on to the branches and leaves. • Rights-of-way trees are the property of the City of Pasadena. Canopy and root pruning or any other work required on these trees must be performed by the Urban Forestry Division. • The City of Pasadena will be responsible for the ultimate decisions to retain or remove trees within their right-of-way based on conditions noted in the field during tree canopy and root pruning.
• Demolition of existing, and construction of new hardscape in the public rights-of-way may need to be performed by the City.
• The City of Pasadena will be responsible to decide on the ultimate amount and configuration of pruning for rights-of-way trees. More or less pruning than indicated in this report may be necessary.
• Tree Protection Fencing shall be installed as illustrated on the enclosed tree protection plan and a ‘Warning’ signs prominently displayed at regular intervals around the fencing line (street tree fencing and signage will follow the City’s Standard). The sign will be a minimum of 8.5 inches x 11 inches and clearly state the following:
• “Carlberg Associates” should be noted the Site Plans, Demolition Plans, Grading Plans, Landscape plans, etc., as the Project Arborist, along with our logo and contact information (www.cycarlberg.com)
• All measures outlined on the Protected Tree Impact Exhibit and Protection Plan shall be implemented.
• Arborist monitoring reports will be submitted to the client, the construction foreman/supervisor, and the City’s project planner during construction.
• Demolition of the existing hardscape and structures should be performed in a manner that avoids damaging the tree trunks, roots, and branches.
• No roots over 2" in diameter or clusters of roots shall be cut unless and until authorized by the Project Arborist and the City of Pasadena (for right-of-way trees). • Keep any exposed roots moist with coverings of wet burlap or carpet remnants. • Project Arborist and/or City of Pasadena Urban Forestry (for right-of-way trees) will inspect all roots to be cut and will record distances from the tree trunks.
• If Project Arborist or the City of Pasadena Urban Forestry staff determines that the cuts may cause a significant decrease in structural integrity of the tree(s), alternative designs may be required.
I prepared street tree appraisal values (Table 4 on page 52) based on the information gathered during my site visit. In my opinion, the total appraised value of the 14 rights-of-way trees is $128,410.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE
THIS FENCE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 11 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Please feel welcome to contact me at 626.428.5072 if you have any immediate questions or concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Christy Cuba, Registered Consulting Arborist
Senior Arborist, Carlberg Associates
This report comprises a total of 62 pages and two full-size maps. Unauthorized separation or removal of any portion of this report deems it invalid as a whole. Conditions represented in this report are limited to the inventory date and time. Rating for health and structure do not constitute a health or structural guarantee beyond that date. Risk assessments were not performed for this project.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 12 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
EXHIBIT A - AERIAL IMAGE OF PROPERTY – 740-790 EAST GREEN STREET, PASADENA (SOURCE: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - GIS)
Boundary lines are not accurate and are for illustrative purposes only.
Not to Scale
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 13 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T EXHIBIT B – REDUCED COPY OF THE PROTECTED TREE LOCATION EXHIBIT (not to scale)
J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 14 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T EXHIBIT C – REDUCED COPY OF THE PROTECTED TREE IMPACT EXHIBIT & PROTECTION PLAN (not to scale)
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 15 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
EXHIBIT D – REDUCED COPY OF THE CONCEPT SECTIONS
(not to scale)
This section is looking east/west on Green Street
and illustrates the approximate extent of the
necessary canopy pruning.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 16 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
This section is looking east/west on Green Street
and illustrates the approximate extent of the
necessary canopy pruning.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 17 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
This section is looking north/south on Hudson
Avenue and illustrates the approximate proximity
of the proposed buildings and garages to the
public right of way along Hudson Avenue near
Green Street. St#12 is located near here and
will be preserved.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 18 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
This section is looking north/south on Hudson
Avenue and illustrates the setback of the parking
structure and building at the southeast corner of
the project. The existing private property tree
that is located in this area, Tree #19, will need to
be removed.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 19 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
This section is looking north/south on Oak Knoll
and illustrates the parking garage and building
setback. Street Tree #3 is located in this area
and will need to be removed for construction of
the new driveway.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 20 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
EXHIBIT E – TREE PHOTOGRAPHS
Tree #1
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 21 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST2
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 22 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST3
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 23 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #4
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 24 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #5 – removed since the previous inventory
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 25 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST6
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 26 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST7
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 27 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST8
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 28 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST8
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 29 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST9
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 30 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST10
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 31 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST11
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 32 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST12
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 33 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST13
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 34 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST14
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 35 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST15
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 36 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST16
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 37 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #ST17
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 38 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #18
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 39 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #19
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 40 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #19
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 41 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #20
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 42 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #21
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 43 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #22
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 44 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #23
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 45 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #24
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 46 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #25
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 47 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #26
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 48 740 - 79 0 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Tree #27
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N D F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 49 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T TABLE 3 – TREE FIELD INVENTORY SPREADSHEET
Tree # Common Name
Botanical
Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet (DBH)
in inches Height
Canopy
Spread
(N / E / S / W) Condition Structure
Protected
Tree? Disposition Comments
1 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 21.5 30 20/20/28/30 A B Yes Preserve EPT tree #17 ST2 kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 9.4, 8.1, 12.2,
11.9 20 9/16/15/14 B B ROW Preserve EPT tree #16; powerline; bricks around base
ST3 kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 17.5 25 18/14/16/21 B B ROW Remove EPT tree #15; powerline;
mechanical damage; bricks
around base
4 carrot wood Cupaniopsis
anacardioides 9.1 20 11/9/9/8 A B No Remove EPT tree #16B; pruned poorly ST5 camphor Cinnamomum camphora N/A 0 0 n/a n/a ROW n/a Tree was removed prior to our site visit; EPT tree #14
ST6 camphor Cinnamomum camphora 22.5 35 32/8/16/30 D D ROW Remove EPT tree #13; mechanical damage
ST7 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 33.3 50 30/17/21/34 B- B ROW Preserve EPT tree #1; root pruned; thinned
ST8 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 34.2 50 35/40/30/32 B- C ROW Preserve EPT tree #2; root pruned; mechanical damage; thinned
ST9 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 25.3 50 28/40/25/35 B- C ROW Preserve EPT tree #3; root pruned; mechanical damage; thinned
ST10 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 26.3 50 30/34/28/32 B- C ROW Preserve EPT tree #4; root pruned; mechanical damage; thinned
ST11 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 32 50 28/45/30/35 B- C ROW Preserve EPT tree #5; root pruned; mechanical damage; thinned
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N D F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 50 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T Tree # Common Name
Botanical
Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet (DBH)
in inches Height
Canopy
Spread
(N / E / S / W) Condition Structure
Protected
Tree? Disposition Comments
ST12 holly oak Quercus ilex 14 25 12/18/15/12 B B ROW Preserve EPT tree #6; epicormic growth ST13 holly oak Quercus ilex 11.5 20 5/8/8/11 C- D ROW Remove EPT tree #7; epicormic growth; cankers
ST14 holly oak Quercus ilex 22.5 32 26/22/27/28 B B ROW Preserve EPT tree #8 ST15 holly oak Quercus ilex 16.1 25 11/17/13/10 B- B- ROW Preserve EPT tree #9; epicormic growth; history of breakage
ST16 holly oak Quercus ilex 20 25 14/19/15/16 B- C ROW Remove EPT tree #10; epicormic growth; powdery mildew
ST17 holly oak Quercus ilex 11 20 17/19/20/0 B C ROW Preserve EPT tree #11; shaded out 18 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 29.7 45 32/33/32/32 A C No Remove EPT tree #11B 19 Indian laurel fig Ficus microcarpa 30.6 45 28/34/35/31 A A Yes Remove EPT tree #12 20 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 11.2 10 5/4.5/10/9 B C No Remove EPT tree #24; leans S; retaining wall
21 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 8.5 13 4/8/8/6 B C No Remove EPT tree #23; codominant stems with included bark
22 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 11.3 16 5/6/7/8 B C- No Remove EPT tree #22 23 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 7 12 4/0/8/6 C C No Remove EPT tree #21
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N D F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 51 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T Tree # Common Name
Botanical
Name
Diameter at
4.5 feet (DBH)
in inches Height
Canopy
Spread
(N / E / S / W) Condition Structure
Protected
Tree? Disposition Comments
24 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 11.5 @ 4" 16 6/8/12/7 B C No Remove EPT tree #20 25 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta BT - 25' 30 6/6/6/6 B B No Remove EPT tree #19B 26 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 10.6 18 5/10/11/11 B B No Remove EPT tree #19 27 lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus 8 15 3/8/8/6 C C No Remove EPT tree #18; history of breakage
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N D F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 52 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T TABLE 4 – STREET TREE APPRAISAL SPREADSHEET
Basic Appraised & Replacement Tree Information Depreciation Factors Additional Costs Tree
ID
No.
Common
Name
Botanical
Name
Individual
Trunk
diameter
(In.)(DBH)
(1)
Cross-
sectional
Area in
In.2 (2)
Replacement
Tree Unit
Cost /$ In.2
(6)
Basic
Replacement
Tree Cost ($)
Condition
Rating %
(3)
Functional
Limitations
Rating %
(4)
External
Limitations
Rating %
(5)
Depreciated
Cost/Value
($)
Delivery
Cost (7)
Permits/Traffic
Control Cost
(if applicable)
(8)
Crane
Cost
(assumes
1 hour
minimum)
(9)
Installation
Cost (10)
Appraised
Tree
Clean-Up
Costs (11)
Temporary
Maintenance
Cost (12)
Total
Depreciated
Appraised
Cost (incl.
Added Costs)
Rounded
Depreciated
Cost / Value
ST2 kurrajong Brachychiton
populneus 21.1 349.67 144.56 $ 50,548.00 0.7 0.5 0.8 $ 14,153.44 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 14,638.44 $14,600 ST3 kurrajong Brachychiton
populneus 17.5 240.53 145.56 $ 35,011.36 0.7 0.5 0.8 $ 9,803.18 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 10,288.18 $10,300 ST6 camphor Cinnamomum
camphora 22.5 397.61 146.56 $ 58,273.54 0.2 0.5 0.8 $ 4,661.88 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 5,146.88 $5,100 ST7 Indian
laurel fig
Ficus
microcarpa 33.3 870.92 147.56 $128,513.28 0.6 0.25 0.5 $ 9,638.50 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 10,123.50 $10,100 ST8 Indian
laurel fig
Ficus
microcarpa 34.2 918.64 148.56 $136,472.45 0.6 0.25 0.5 $ 10,235.43 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 10,720.43 $10,700 ST9 Indian
laurel fig
Ficus
microcarpa 25.3 502.73 149.56 $ 75,187.80 0.6 0.25 0.5 $ 5,639.09 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 6,124.09 $6,100 ST10 Indian
laurel fig
Ficus
microcarpa 26.3 543.25 150.56 $ 81,792.22 0.6 0.25 0.5 $ 6,134.42 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 6,619.42 $6,600 ST11 Indian
laurel fig
Ficus
microcarpa 32 804.25 151.56 $121,892.07 0.6 0.25 0.5 $ 9,141.91 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 9,626.91 $9,600 ST12 holly oak Quercus ilex 14 153.94 152.56 $ 23,484.84 0.65 0.5 0.9 $ 6,869.32 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 7,354.32 $7,400 ST13 holly oak Quercus ilex 11.5 103.87 153.56 $ 15,950.15 0.25 0.5 0.9 $ 1,794.39 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 2,279.39 $2,280 ST14 holly oak Quercus ilex 22.5 397.61 154.56 $ 61,454.41 0.7 0.5 0.9 $ 19,358.14 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 19,843.14 $19,800 ST15 holly oak Quercus ilex 16.1 203.58 155.56 $ 31,669.45 0.65 0.5 0.9 $ 9,263.32 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 9,748.32 $9,700 ST16 holly oak Quercus ilex 20 314.16 156.56 $ 49,184.89 0.5 0.5 0.9 $ 11,066.60 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 11,551.60 $11,600 ST17 holly oak Quercus ilex 11 95.03 157.56 $ 14,973.46 0.6 0.5 0.9 $ 4,042.83 $485.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 4,527.83 $4,530 $128,410
Appraisal-related notes are located on the next page.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N D F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 53 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T Notes:
Reproduction Method Trunk Formula Technique, Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA. 1) DBH = Diameter at breast height (4' 6" from grade); when trees have multiple trunks, this number represents the converted single trunk diameter based on the added trunk areas of the stems. 2) DBH2 x 0.7854
3) Condition rating = overall assessment of Health, Structure, and Form 4) Functional Limitations (assessment of species-site interaction) 5) External Limitations (assessment of outside factors that influence plant success 6) Unit cost in $/in2 of the largest commonly available nursery tree (as researched at regional nurseries) Caliper/Diameter of replacement tree (in.) converted to Cross-sectional area (in.2) / Purchase cost ($) = Unit cost $$/in.2. See below note #12 for details. 7) Delivery cost From Nursery to site (average from regional nurseries) 8) Permits and traffic control are usually needed for trees/palms over approximately 40 feet in length and/or where a crane is needed on the street. 9) Cranes are generally needed for larger palms and container stock over 24-inch box. A 36-inch box may be manually moved off the truck by some nurseries. 10) For street / ROW trees, we assume that the City crew will install the trees; for private installations this is the average cost for a landscape contractor to install (can vary widely). 11) For street trees, we assume that the City will remove the original tree & prepare the replacement site; for private installations this is the average cost for a landscape contractor to perform the work (can vary widely).
12) For street trees, we assume that the City will maintain the replacement trees.
For Street Trees - we used 24-inch box as replacement since it is commonly available, will fit in most existing parkways without major hardscape change, and can be handled without traffic control or a crane.
24-inch Box Tree Costs: (incl. est. 10% tax)
Nursery
1 $184.80 Norman's
Nursery
2 $165 AY
Nursery
3 $412.50 Boething
(ret.)
Average: $254.10
Caliper: 1.5 inches
Cross-
sectional
Area
(in.2)
1.77 Caliper 2 x
0.7854
Average Cost/In2 = $ 143.56
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 54 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
HEALTH AND STRUCTURE GRADE DEFINITIONS
Health and structure ratings of the trees are based on the archetype tree of the same species through a subjective evaluation of its physiological health, aesthetic quality, and structural integrity.
Overall physiological condition (health) and structural condition were rated A-F:
Health
A. Outstanding – Exceptional trees of good growth form and vigor for their age class; exhibiting very good to excellent health as evidenced by normal to exceptional shoot growth during current season, good bud development and leaf color, lack of leaf, twig or branch dieback throughout the crown, and the absence of decay, bleeding, or cankers. Common leaf and/or twig pests may be noted at very minor levels.
B. Above average – Good to very good trees that exhibit minor necrotic or physiological symptoms of stress and/or disease; shoot growth is less than reasonably expected, leaf color is less than optimal in some areas, the crown may be thinning, minor levels of leaf, twig, and branch dieback may be present, and minor areas of decay, bleeding, or cankers may be manifesting. Minor amounts of epicormic growth may be present. Minor amounts of fire damage or mechanical damage may be present. Still healthy, but with moderately diminished vigor and vitality. No significant decline noted.
C. Average – Average, moderately good trees whose growth habit and physiological or fire - induced symptoms indicate an equal chance to either decline or continue with good health into the near future. Most of these trees exhibit moderate to significant small deadwood in outer crown areas, decreased shoot growth and diminished leaf color and mass. Some stem and branch dieback is usually present and epicormic growth may be moderate to extensive. Cavities, pockets of decay, relatively significant fire damage, bark exfoliation, or cracks may be present. Moderate to significant amounts of insect or disease symptoms may be present; the tree may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the lifespan of the tree. Tree may be in early decline.
D. Below Average/Poor - trees whose growth habit and physiological or fire-induced symptoms indicate significant, irreversible decline. Most of these trees exhibit significant dieback of wood in the crown, possibly accompanied by significant epicormic sprouting.
Shoot growth and leaf color and mass is either significantly diminished or nonexistent throughout the crown. Cavities, pockets of decay, significant fire damage, bark exfoliation, and/or cracks may be present. Significant amounts of insect or disease symptoms may be present; the tree may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it has negatively impacted the lifespan of the tree. Tree appears to be in irreversible decline.
F. Dead or in spiral of decline – this tree exhibits very little to no signs of life.
Structure
A. Outstanding – Trees with outstanding structure for their species exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a sturdy form or architecture that resists failure under normal circumstances. The spacing, orientation, and size of the branches rela tive to the trunk are quintessential for the species and free from defects. No outward sign of decay or pathological disease is present. Some trees exhibit naturally inherent branching defects,
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 55 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T like multiple, narrow points of attachment from one point on the trunk, which would preclude them from achieving an “A” grade.
B. Above average - Trees with good to very good structure for their species. They exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a relatively sturdy form or architectu re that resists failure under normal circumstances, but may have some mechanical damage, over-pruning, or other minor structural defects. The spacing, orientation, and size of the branches relative to the trunk are still in the normal range for the species, but they exhibit a minor degree of defects. Minor, sub-critical levels of decay or pathological disease may be present, but the degree of damage is not yet structurally significant. Trees that exhibit naturally inherent branching defects, like multiple, narrow points of attachment from one point on the trunk, would generally fall into this category. A small percentage of the canopy may be shaded or crowded, but not in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the structural integrity or lifespan of the tree.
C. Average - Trees with moderately good structure for their species, but with obvious defects.
They exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a less than sturdy form or architecture, which reduces their resistance to failure under normal cir cumstances.
Moderate levels of mechanical damage, over-pruning, or other structural defects may be present. The spacing, orientation, and size of some of the branches relative to the trunk are not in the normal range for the species. Moderate to significant levels of decay or pathological disease may be present that increase the likelihood of structural instability.
Influences such as an excessive trunk lean, slope erosion, root pruning, or other growth - inhibiting factors may be present. A moderate to significant percentage of the canopy may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the structural integrity or lifespan of the tree. Risk of full or partial failure in the near future appears to be moderately elevated.
D. Well Below Average/Poor - Trees poor structure for their species and with obvious defects.
They exhibit trunk and branch arrangement and orientation that result in a significantly less than sturdy form or architecture, significantly reducing their resistance to failure under normal circumstances. Significant levels of mechanical damage, over-pruning, or other structural defects may be present. The spacing, orientation, and size of many of the branches relative to the trunk are not in the normal range for the species. Significant levels of decay or pathological disease may be present that increase the likelihood of structural instability. Influences such as an excessive trunk lean, slope erosion, root pruning, or other growth-inhibiting factors may be present. A significant percentage of the canopy may be shaded or crowded in such a way that it is expected to negatively impact the structural integrity or lifespan of the tree. Risk of full or partial failure in the near future appears to be advanced.
F. Severely Compromised – trees with very poor structure and numerous or severe defects due to growing conditions, historical or recent pruning, mechanical damage, history of limb or trunk failures, advanced and irreparable decay, disease, or severe fire damage. Trees with this rating are in severe, irreparable decline, or are barely alive. Risk of full or partial failures in the near future may be severe.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 56 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
I, Christy Cuba, certify:
▪ That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal (if appropriate) is stated in the attached report and the Terms of Assignment;
▪ That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
▪ That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own;
▪ That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices;
▪ That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicate d within the report;
▪ That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party.
I further certify that I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist, a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, and have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the study of trees for over 25 years.
Signed:
Date: February 4, 2022
Christy Cuba
Certified Arborist, WE-1982A
Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 57 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
ARBORIST STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees contribute greatly to our enjoyment and appreciation of life. Nonetheless, they are subject to the laws of gravity and physiological decline. Therefore, neither arborists nor tree owners can be reasonably expected to warrant unfailing predictability or elimination of risk.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.
The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Execution of any/all recommendations for cultural care, maintenance, pest, or disease treatment, pruning, tree removal, etc., when made verbally or in writing by the arborist, is/are the sole responsibility of the client or the City/County, depending on if trees are privately or publicly owned.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 58 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
CHRISTINE CUBA
CARLBERG ASSOCIATES
Satellite Office – 80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #241 • Sierra Madre • California • 91024 2402 California Avenue • Santa Monica • California • 90403 [email protected] • m: 626.428.5072
Education B.A., Environmental Analysis & Design, University of California, Irvine, 1993 Graduate, International Society of Arboriculture Certification Study Program, April 1998 Graduate, Consulting Academy, American Society of Consulting Arborists, February 2008
Experience Director of Environmental Services & Senior Arborist, Land Design Consultants, Inc.
Pasadena, 1994 – 2011
Park Specialist/Naturalist, City of Monrovia, 1988-1996
Certificates Certified Arborist, WE-1982A, International Society of Arboriculture Registered Consulting Arborist, #502, American Society of Consulting Arborists Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Ms. Cuba is experienced in the following areas of tree management and preservation:
• Tree health & risk assessments
• Inventories & reports for native and non-native trees • Master planning
• Evaluation of trees for preservation, encroachment, relocation, restoration, and hazards • Value assessments (appraisals) for native and non-native trees • Post-fire inventories, assessments, and valuations for native and non-native trees • Guidelines for tree preservation, planting, pruning and maintenance specifications • Pest and disease identification
• Tree and landscape resource mapping – GPS, GIS, and AutoCAD • Planning Commission, City Council, and community meetings representation • Review of landscape plans for mitigation compliance & fire fuel modification planning • Preparation of native habitat and woodland management plans • Performance of long-term mitigation compliance monitoring & reporting • Expert testimony
PREVIOUS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
Ms. Cuba has performed hundreds of tree inventories, health evaluations, impact analyses, hazard, and value assessments for counties, cities, sanitation districts, and water districts, as well as private developers, architects, engineers, and homeowners. She has over 23 of experience in arboriculture and is trained in environmental planning, state and federal regulatory permitting, preparation of CEQA analyses, and habitat mitigation planning and implementation. Representative clients include:
City of Pasadena San Diego Gas & Electric
City of Monrovia Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan (attorneys at law) City of Santa Clarita Figure 8 Group
City of Glendora City of South Gate
Los Angeles County Fire Department City of Sierra Madre Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts D2 Development Newhall County Water District Burrtec, Inc.
Pulte/Centex Homes City of West Hollywood
Newhall Land and Farming Corky McMillin Companies
AFFILIATIONS
Ms. Cuba serves with the following national and regional professional organizations:
• Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
• Member, International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter • Member, ASCA Education Task Force
• Member, Los Angeles Oak Woodland Habitat Conservation Strategic Alliance • Past President, Street Tree Seminar, Inc.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 59 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
SCOTT MCALLASTER
CARLBERG ASSOCIATES
Satellite Office – 80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #241 • Sierra Madre • California • 91024 828 Fifth Street, Suite 3 • Santa Monica • California • 90403 [email protected] • m: 424.285.3334 • www.cycarlberg.com
Education B.A., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2000
Experience Project Planner & Senior Arborist, Land Design Consultants, Inc.
Pasadena, 1999 – 2014
Certificates Certified Arborist, WE-7011A, International Society of Arboriculture, 2004 Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture, 2015
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Mr. McAllaster is experienced in the following areas of tree management and preservation:
• Tree health & risk assessments
• Inventories & reports for native and non-native trees • Master planning
• Evaluation of trees for preservation, encroachment, relocation, restoration, and hazards • Construction monitoring and reporting
• Value assessments (appraisals) for native and non-native trees • Post-fire inventories, assessments, and valuations for native and non-native trees • Guidelines for tree preservation, planting, pruning and maintenance specifications • Tree and landscape resource mapping – GPS and AutoCAD • Planning Commission, City Council, and community meetings representation • Review of landscape plans for mitigation compliance & fire fuel modification planning • Performance of long-term mitigation compliance monitoring & reporting
PREVIOUS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
Mr. McAllaster has performed hundreds of tree inventories, health evaluations, impact analyses, hazard, and value assessments for counties, cities, sanitation districts, and water districts, as well as private developers, architects, engineers, and homeowners. He has over 17 years of experience in arboriculture and is trained in environmental planning, state and federal regulatory permitting, preparation of CEQA analyses, and habitat mitigation planning and implementation. Representative clients include:
City of Pasadena San Diego Gas & Electric
City of Santa Clarita Corky McMillin Companies
City of Glendora City of South Gate
Los Angeles County Fire Department City of Arcadia
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts D2 Development Newhall County Water District Burrtec, Inc.
Pulte/Centex Homes The Claremont Colleges
Newhall Land and Farming The New Home Company
E & S Ring, Inc. William Carey University
Hollywood Forever Cemetery Claremont Golf Course
Archdiocese of Los Angeles Universal Hilton
St. John’s Hospital, Santa Monica Gensler Architects
Kovac Architects Marmol Radziner, Architects
Tim Barber, Ltd., Architects NAC Architecture
Ojai Valley Community Hospital Aurora/Signature Health Services The Kibo Group Monte Vista Grove Homes
El Monte Garden Senior Center Highpointe Communities
IMT Capital, LLC Claremont University Center
AFFILIATIONS
Mr. McAllaster serves with the following national and regional professional organizations:
• Member, International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter • Member, Street Tree Seminar, Inc.
F E B R U A R Y 4 , 2 0 2 2 / S T A N F O R D P A S A D E N A , L L C P A G E 60 740 - 790 E A S T G R E E N S T R E E T, P A S A D E N A – P R O T E C T E D T R E E R E P O R T
Map Pockets for Full-size sheets:
Protected Tree Location Exhibit
(24” x 36”)
and
Protected Tree Impact Exhibit & Tree Protection Plan
(24” x 36”)