180 El Camino Real Residences
South San Francisco, California
ALUC ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ANALYSIS
28 February 2022
Prepared for: Bridget Metz
Steelwave
101 California Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
[email protected]
Prepared by: Salter
Skyler Carrico – Consultant
Valerie Smith, PE – Vice President
[email protected]
[email protected]
Salter Project: 22-0062
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
1.0 INTRODUCTION
We have conducted an Airport Land-Use Commission (ALUC) environmental noise analysis for the proposed multi-family housing project at 180 El Camino Real in South San Francisco.
This report is broken into the following sections:
● Section 1.0 – Introduction
● Section 2.0 – Acoustical Criteria
● Section 3.0 – Noise Environment
● Section 4.0 – Recommendations
● Appendix A – Fundamentals of Environmental Acoustics
● Appendix B – SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated ● Appendix C – 2019 SFO Noise Contour Map, with Project Site Indicated ● Appendix D – 2021 3rd Quarter Noise Contour Overlay, December 2019 Airport Director’s Report, with Project Site and Nearby Monitors Indicated
Those readers not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental noise may refer to Appendix A and Figure A1 for additional information.
1.1 Executive Summary
The proposed project at 180 El Camino Real will consist of four buildings (three Research & Development buildings and one multi-family residential building). The site is located along South Spruce Avenue, between El Camino Real and Huntington Avenue. This ALUC study only addresses the residential building.
In summary:
● The project site is located near the CNEL1 65 to 70 dB contours for airport noise for the three available site noise contour maps (See Section 3.2 and Appendices B, C, and D for further information).
● Per the South San Francisco Noise Element, the ALUC uses the “latest quarterly noise contour report to determine the compatibility of land use plans”. This quarterly noise contour is shown in Appendix D. The 2021 3
rd Quarter contours indicate the site is outside of the CNEL 65 dB contour for airport noise.
1 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the CNEL and DNL are usually interchangeable.
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
● The project can achieve the State Building Code standard of CNEL 45 dB indoors with the use of commercially-available windows and conventional wood-frame construction.
2.0 ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA
2.1 State Noise Standards
The 2019 California Building Code requires that the indoor noise level in residential units of multi-family projects not exceed DNL2 45 dB.
2.2 City Noise Standards
The City also has the following related policies:
o Policy 9-I-1: Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. o Policy 9-I-2: Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls.
o Policy 9-I-4: Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the latest official SFIA noise contours3and on-site noise measurement data.
o Policy 9-I-6: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. o Policy 9-I-7: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. o Policy 9-I-10: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the CNEL 70 dB+ areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria, with 2 DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. DNL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the nighttime hours. DNL penalizes sound levels by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the DNL and CNEL are usually interchangeable. DNL is sometimes written as Ldn.
3 We understand the latest noise contours are the 2021 3 rd Quarter noise contours. See Appendix D.
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and to the extent necessary, approved through the local agency override process.
4 o Policy 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAAaccepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO), or those projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and, to the extent necessary, approved through the local agency override process4, to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO.
The City of South San Francisco’s Noise Element notes that the San Mateo County ALUC will need to approve new development prior to permit issuance. The Noise Element identifies the following ALUC land-use compatibility guidelines for residential land use:
Table 1: Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas
CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria
Less than 65 dB Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 dB Development requires analysis of noise
reduction requirements and noise insulation as
needed
Over 70 dB Development should not be undertaken
To determine if a site is in an aircraft noise-impacted area, the ALUC determines the CNEL 65 dB boundary using the following resources:
o The federal CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined using the most recent noise exposure map (NEM) as accepted by the FAA under the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. At this time, the latest accepted NEM is the Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map5. This map is included in Appendix C with the project site indicated. o The state CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined from the quarterly noise contours, based on the required airport noise monitoring system. Appendix D contains the 2021 3 rd Quarter noise contour
overlay, as well as the directors report with the approximate location of the project site indicated.
Per the Noise Element, the ALUC uses the latest quarterly noise contour to determine the compatibility of land use plans. Appendix D contains the 2021 3
rd Quarter Noise Contour overlay.
4 Per the General Plan Amendment Resolution #20-870, which was passed on 1 December 2020. Amendment information provided by Genna Yarkin on 28 February 2022.
5 Per www.flysfo.com, this NEM was submitted for approval in July 2018. The Final 2019 map is dated 13 August 2015. 180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
2.3 SFO Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Table IV-I of the November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport contains the following polices and compatibility criteria for evaluating multi-family residential land uses.
o Policy NP-1 Noise Compatibility Zones: For the purposes of ALUC, the projected 2020 CNEL noise contour map from the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Runway Safety Area Program shall define the boundaries within which noise compatibility policies described in this Section shall apply.
o Policy NP-2 Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria: The compatibility of proposed land uses located in the Airport noise compatibility zones shall be determined according to the noise/land use compatibility criteria shown in Table IV-1 [excepts shown below as Table 2]. The criteria indicate the maximum accepted airport noise levels, described in terms of CNEL, for the indicated land uses. The compatibility criteria indicate whether a proposed land use is “compatible”, “conditionally compatible”, or “not compatible” within each zone, designated by the identified CNEL ranges.
Table 2: ALUCP Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria
CNEL Range Land Use
Less than 65 dB Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. 65 to 70 dB Land use and related structures are permitted, provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower and that an avigation easement is granted to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO.
70 dB to 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible. However, use is conditionally compatible only on an existing lot of record zoned only for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. Use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources.
Over 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible o Policy NP-4 Residential Uses Within CNEL 70 dB Contour: As described in Table IV-1, residential uses are not compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB and typically should not be allowed in high noise areas.
– Policy NP-4.1 Situations Where Residential Use is Conditionally Compatible: Residential uses are considered conditionally compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB only if the proposed use is on a lot of record zoned exclusively for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. In such a case, the residential use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. The property owner also shall grant an 180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco in accordance with Policy NP-3 prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed building or structure.
3.0 NOISE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Project Description
The project site is located in South San Francisco, and is bounded by El Camino Real, Huntington Street, and South Spruce Avenue. It is also near San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The major noise source at the project site is traffic along these roads, and flyovers from SFO.
To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted three long-term noise measurements between 19 and 21 January 2022 (see Figure 1 for measurement locations and measured noise levels). The long-term noise monitors were installed at a height of approximately 12 feet above grade.
A future traffic analysis was not provided for this project. Therefore, we have added 1 dB to the calculated noise levels to account for general future traffic increases6.
3.2 Noise from SFO
Per the published resources, the site is exposed to the following noise levels from SFO airport:
o November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: Exhibit IV-6 shows the site within or directly on the CNEL 70 dB contour. This exhibit references noise contours provided in 2011. See Appendix B for the project site location.
o Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map: Appendix C contains the Part 150 map generated by the San Francisco International Airport. Per the exhibit, it was submitted on 13 August 2015. This exhibit references sources from 2014 for the creation of the noise contours.
Salter has added an overlay of the project site to the Part 150 map to clarify the project location. Per this map, the majority of the project site is located within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB contour. o December 2019 Airport Director’s Report7: See Appendix D for the approximate site location. Per this overlay8, the project site is fully beyond the CNEL 65 contour. This information is based on 2021 noise monitoring.
6 The California Department of Transportation assumes a traffic volume increase of three-percent per year, which corresponds to a 1 dB increase in DNL over a ten-year period. 7 Due to decreased noise levels from March 2020 onward due to the pandemic, we have used the December 2019 Airport Director’s Report.
8 SFO 2021 3rd Quarter CNEL Overlay
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
GIS maps of historical quarterly noise reports are not available at this time. We have reviewed the noise levels provided in the monthly Airport Director’s Reports dating back to January 2019. For the three noise monitors closest to the project site, noise levels are generally below CNEL 69 dB. The graph below shows the monthly measured noise levels since January 2019. Detailed information is provided in Appendix D, along with information on the noise monitor locations.
3.3 Site Noise Context
The main noise sources at the project site include vehicle passbys on the nearby roadways and aircraft overflights from SFO. We conducted noise measurements at the project site (see Figure 1), which collected noise data from both the car passbys and the aircraft overflights. We measured on-site noise levels of CNEL 71 to 75 dB at roads surrounding the project site (see Figure 1).
Since both car and aircraft noise exist at the site, we have referenced the Airport Director’s Report to determine the aircraft contribution to noise at the site. The Airport Director’s Report summarizes the noise data from 29 noise monitors managed by the airport that continuously collect noise data. In general, these airport noise monitors are located away from major roadways, reducing the amount of 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2019 2020 2021
Measured CNEL (dB)
Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports
(January 2019 to December 2021)
Site 4 (SSF) Site 6 (SSF) Site 14 (SSF)
CNEL 70 dB
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
traffic noise that is collected (see data for aircraft noise presented in Appendix D), so that the airport contribution can be determined.
Using the 2019 December Airport Director’s Report9, the contribution of airport noise at the site is expected to approximately CNEL 69 dB10. Logarithmically, subtracting the aircraft contribution from our noise measurements would result in a noise level of approximately CNEL 69 dB from traffic:
CNEL 75
a dB [from aircraft+traffic] – CNEL 69b dB [from aircraft] = CNEL 74c dB [from traffic] a = measured at project site, see Figure 1
b = determined from 2019 December Airport Director’s Report c = calculated
See Appendix A for additional information on decibel mathematics.
Individual aircraft flyovers from SFO are significantly louder than individual car passbys, but the flyovers occur at a lower frequency than the car passbys, resulting in similar average overall noise levels (CNEL).
For reference, CNEL above 70 dB are common along large roadways and rail lines. Figure 9-2 of the South San Francisco Noise Element indicates that noise levels in South San Francisco were estimated to be above CNEL 70 dB in 2006 in the vicinity of I-280, I-380, US 101, and along the Caltrain line. Recent noise measurements indicate that noise levels are above CNEL 70 dB along El Camino Real.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
To meet the Code criterion of CNEL 45 dB inside residences, it will be necessary for the windows and exterior doors to have STC11 ratings. Our calculations are based on preliminary drawings dated 6 January 2022 and the following assumptions and understandings of the current design:
● Living rooms are 12 by 15 feet
● Bedrooms are 10 by 12 feet
● Glazing is 50% of the facade
● Flooring is hard surfaced in all rooms, including bedrooms ● Residences have 9-foot-tall ceilings
9 Due to decreased noise levels from March 2020 onward due to the pandemic, we have used the December 2019 Airport Director’s Report.
10 The project site is near Airport Noise Monitors 04, 06, and 14. We have referenced Monitor 04 for this CNEL level. 11 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation.
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
Based on the above, the following is a summary of our initial analysis:
● Rooms along Spruce: STC ratings up to 43
● Rooms along the east and west facades: STC ratings up to 38 ● Rooms along the south facade: STC ratings up to 35
The recommended STC ratings are for full window assemblies (glass and frame) rather than just the glass itself. Tested sound-rated assemblies should be used. For reference, typical construction-grade assemblies achieve an STC rating of 28. Where STC ratings above 32 are required, at least one pane will need to be laminated. STC ratings above 38 typically require IGU greater than one-inch thick. This will vary depending on the window manufacturer.
Since the windows need to be closed to achieve an indoor DNL of 45 dB, an alternative method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation) should be provided. This issue should be discussed with the project mechanical engineer.
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
APPENDIX A: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report.
Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are:
● The intensity or level of the sound
● The frequency spectrum of the sound
● The time-varying character of the sound
Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing.
The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds, which we hear in the environment, do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments.
Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra.
Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range.
The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dB." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A1.
Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle passbys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. 180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise.
As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "Leq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation.
In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24- hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24- hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels.
For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn.
The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories:
● Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction ● Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning ● Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss
The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time.
Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged.
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.
A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response.
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
APPENDIX B: SFO ALUCP 2020 CONTOURS, WITH PROJECT SITE INDICATED
APPENDIX B
SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated
APPENDIX B
SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated
APPENDIX B
SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated
APPENDIX B
SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated
APPENDIX B
SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated
A1
A1
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
APPENDIX B: SFO ALUCP 2020 CONTOURS, WITH PROJECT SITE INDICATED 280
380
101
101
101
EL CAMINO REAL
CALLAN BLVD
SSION RD
GRAND AVE
HILLSIDE BLVD
SNEATH LN
PARK WY
OAKMONT DR
FLEETWOOD DR
SHARP PARK RD
ARROYO DR
S AIRPORT BLVD
N MCDONNELL RD
LOMITA AVE
S SPRUCE AVE
CHESTNUT AVE
S MCDONNELL RD
E GRAND AVE
WESTB OROU GH BLVD
HOLLY AVE
S LINDEN AVE
UTAH AVE
CRESTMO OR DR
JENEVEIN AVE
MADIS O N AVE
HICKEY BLVD
CRY S TAL S PRINGS RD
E SAN BRUNO AVE
W SAN BRUNO AVE
W O RANGE AVE
ALTA MESA DR
PARK BLVD
ROL LINGWOOD DR
MAGNOLIA AVE
ORANGE AVE
EVERGREEN AVE
SAN MATEO AVE
OLYMPIC DR
JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD
GLENVIEW DR
WHITMAN WY
RIDGEWOOD DR
EARL A V E
ST FRANCIS BLVD
RICHMOND DR
GATEWAY DR
CRESTWOOD DR
7TH AVE
SKYLINE BOULEVARD
A VALON DR
LITTLEFIELD AVE
BAYSHORE HWY
EL CAMINO REAL
EUCALYPTUS AVE
TAYLOR BLVD
MOSSWOOD LN
BARCELONA DR
82 GRAND AVE
HICKEY BLVD
W SAN BRUNO AVE
SNEATH LN
SKYLINE BOULEVARD
SAN MATEO AVE
HUNTINGTON AVE
SNEATH LN
HELEN DR
Pacifica Pacifica
San Bruno San Bruno
South San Francisco South San Francisco
Millbrae Millbrae
Daly City Daly City
Burlingame Burlingame
Colma Colma
Brisbane Brisbane
San Andreas Lake San Andreas Lake
0 0.2 0.4 0.1
Miles
Exhibit IV-6
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
NOISE COMPATIBILITY ZONES --
DETAIL
NORTH
Municipal Boundary
Road
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Freeway
Railroad
San Francisco San Francisco
International Airport International Airport
C/CAG
City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, California
Noise Contour Data:
- Draft Environmental Assessment, Proposed Runway Safety Area Program, San Francisco International Airport. URS Corporation and BridgeNet International, June 2011
County Base Maps:
- San Mateo County Planning & Building Department, 2007 Local Plans:
- Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan, August 2006
- Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, January 2009
- Burlingame General Map, September 1984
- North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan, February 2007 - Colma Municipal Code Zoning Maps, December 2003
- Daly City General Plan Land Use Map, 1987
- Hillsborough General Plan, March 2005
- Millbrae Land Use Plan, November 1998
- Pacifica General Plan, August 1996
- San Bruno General Plan, December 2008
- San Mateo City Land Use Plan, March 2007
- San Mateo County Zoning Map, 1992
- South San Francisco General Plan, 1998
San Francisco San Francisco
Bay Bay
LEGEND
CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast
Hospital
Place of Worship
School
Airport Property
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
Open Space
Planned use not mapped
Public
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
Mixed Use
Transit Oriented Development
Sources:
Planned Land Use Per General Plans:
CNEL 75 dB
Elevation 13.2 Feet Elevation 13.2 Feet
10 L
10 R
1 R
1 L
19 R
CNEL 70 dB
CNEL 65 dB
Inset map added by Salter to illustrate project location 180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
APPENDIX C: 2019 SFO PART 150 NOISE CONTOUR MAP, WITH PROJECT SITE
INDICATED
1 CNEL 65 dB
CNEL 70 dB
CNEL 70 dB Inset added by Salter to illustrate project location 180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
APPENDIX D: DECEMBER 2019 AIRPORT DIRECTOR’S REPORT, WITH PROJECT SITE AND
NEARBY MONITORS INDICATED
Monthly Noise Monitor Data from Historical Airport Director’s Reports12 The following noise monitors (Monitors 4, 6, and 14) appear to be closest to the site at 180 El Camino Real.
12 Accessed from https://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/airport-directors-report 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2019 2020 2021
Measured CNEL (dB)
Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports
(January 2019 to December 2021)
Site 4 (SSF) Site 6 (SSF) Site 14 (SSF)
CNEL 70 dB
180 ECR
180 El Camino Real Residences
28 February 2022
ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis
The table below summarizes noise levels from December 2021 to January 2019 at the three locations closest to the 180 El Camino Real site. Noise levels were below 70 dB at all locations at all times.
Year Month Aircraft CNEL (dBA) from Directors Reports
Site 4 (SSF) Site 6 (SSF) Site 14 (SSF)
December 69 66 61
November 67 65 61
2021
October 68 66 61
September 69 66 61
August 68 65 61
July 69 65 61
June 69 65 61
May 69 65 60
April 68 65 61
March 68 64 59
February 68 65 60
January 67 64 60
2020
December 67 65 60
November 67 63 59
October 66 63 59
September 61 58 53
August 62 59 54
July 61 58 54
June 62 59 54
May 62 59 54
April 62 59 54
March 62 59 53
February 63 60 55
January 64 61 56
2019
December 63 60 55
November 62 60 55
October 63 60 56
September 64 61 56
August 64 60 55
July 63 60 55
June 63 59 54
May 64 60 55
April 64 61 56
March 64 62 57
February 64 61 56
January 66 63 59
See the following figure for the 2021 3
rd Quarter CNEL Project Site Overlay.
Figure 1
Noise Contour Map (2021 Q3)Source: AEDT version 3c
Inset added by Salter toillustrate project location
Images used by SFO are Rights Managed Images and have
speciÿc usages deÿned. Please see photography usage
guidelines document for more information and only use
approved images on SFO Widen Media Collective.
Airport Director’s Report
Presented at the August 5, 2020
Airport Community Roundtable Meeting
Aircraft Noise Abatement Office
December 2019
r
l
l
l
l
AircraftNoiseLevels December2019
Themapshows29aircraftnoisemonitoringlocationsthatkeeptrackof noiselevelsinthecommunitiesaroundtheairport.Imagecenteredon SFOairportshowsquarterlyaircraftnoiselevels(dBA)exposure.The greenzonemarks65dBACommunityNoiseExposureLevel(CNEL).The CNELmetricisusedtoassessandregulateaircraftnoiseexposurein communitiessuroundingtheairport.
27 26
21 25 24
20 23
7 146
17 15
19 18 3
16 4
2 Thegraphbelowshows
aircraftnoiseeventsthat
producedanoiselevel
higherthanthemaximum
alowabledecibelvalue
establishedfora
particularmonitoring
site.
SignificantExceedances
5 1
22 8
9 11
10 29
13 Noise
Events
Aircraft Community
(AVG CNEL SEL LMax CNEL
Site City Day) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
1 SanBruno 145 72 94 79 69
2 SanBruno 40 53 82 71 64
3 SSF 28 52 81 69 64
4 SSF 97 67 91 79 60
5 SanBruno 108 66 89 77 64
6 SSF 92 64 88 77 57
7 Brisbane 17 49 81 71 58
8 Milbrae 276 67 86 70 69
9 Milbrae 26 51 82 71 59
10 Burlingame 12 47 85 71 59
11 12
13 Burlingame
FosterCity
Hilsborough
25 328
6 52
62 35
84 82
81 71
72 70
59 60
56 14 SSF 87 60 84 72 60
15 SSF 125 59 83 70 60
16 SSF 77 59 84 72 59
17 SSF 83 58 83 71 58
18 19
DalyCity
Pacifica
90 75
64 60
88 86
76 74
60 58
20 21
DalyCity
SanFrancisco
26 7
48 40
80 77
69 67
60 57
22 SanBruno 108 59 82 71 66
23 SanFrancisco 71 54 81 69 65
24 SanFrancisco 16 45 79 68 61
25 SanFrancisco 23 43 76 64 55
26 SanFrancisco 4 38 80 68 59
27 SanFrancisco 7 46 87 73 90
28 29
RedwoodCity
SanMateo
5 50
41 54
83 82
69 71
53 60
Noise Monitor's CNEL values (top) are derived from
actual measured events and are used to validate the
65dBA CNEL noise footprint. Aircraft and Community
monthly CNEL average for each monitor site are
provided, along witha daily average aircraft counts with the average Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Maximum
Level (LMax).
12 ©2020Mapbox©OpenStreetMap Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000
1500
2000
2500
AircraftSignificantExceedances
2,089
28 Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
Note:Site2onlinestarting11/20/2019
1 0
Operations December2019
MonthlyOps AVGDailyOps 12MonthAVG YOYGrowth MajorArivalandDepartureRoutes(WestFlow) 36,814 1,188 37,764
WestFlowisdepictedintheaboveimageandis
apredominateflowatSFO.
WestFlow
80%
-1.5%
December2019AverageDay(Hourly)
60 50
40 30
20 10
Arrivals
Departures
AVGDayOps
1AM3AM5AM7AM9AM
11AM
1PM3PM5PM7PM9PM
11PM
ArivalRoute DepartureRoute
DowntheBayvs 19%
32%
8%
27%
37%
28%
r
r
I
t
r
1.BDEGA A.GAP
TopDestinations Peninsula B.SSTIK 2.DYAMD C.NITE 8%
LosAngeles Seatle LasV
75%
25% 3.SERFR
0%
egas 1.1BDEGAEast D.TRUKNRWY01 41%
7% 4% 4% 1.2BDEGAWest 4.OCEANIC D.TRUKNRWY28
AirlineswiththeMostOperations NonAirline MostUtilizedAircraftTypes United 39% 6%
BoeingB737 30%
Skywest 24% AirbusA320 25%
Alaska 13% NarowBody BombardierCRJ2 13%
Delta 9% 79% EmbraerE170 12%
Southwest 8% BoeingB777 9%
American 8% WideBody BoeingB757 7%
16% Boeing787 4%
DailyAircraftOperations
150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 0
0 0
998
1,296
Average=1,188
ChristmasDay
SFOGroundDelay
Programduetoweather
Date
100
50 2
t
t
r l t
t t
t
r
r
t
t
l
t
e n er ou eas
Planon12/1,12/2&12/7. IntermitentGroundDelay
SFO&EastCoast
GroundDelay
programforSFOfrom615a.m.
to1200a.m.duetolowceilings
andwind;delaysof60-90
programs. minutes.
12AM
1AM
RunwayUsageandNightimeOperations
MonthlyRunwayusageisshownforarivalsanddepartures,futhercategorizedbyalhoursandnightimehours.Graphat thebotomofthepageshowshourlynightimeoperationsforeachday.PowerRunuplocationsaredepictedontheairport mapwithairlinesnightimepowerrunupcountsshownbelow.Percent[%]isroundedtothenearestwholenumber.
RunwayUtilization LateNightPreferential RunwayUtilization RunwayUse(1am-6am) Arivals Departures
66% Departures 01L/R Arivals 11,705 39% 10L/R 28L 28R 1% 19% 200 10L/R 45% 55% 194 3,407 41% 18% 1% 01L/R 19L/R 208
3,261 150 Night(10pm-7am)
80% 13% 20%
28L/R 28L/R
14,188 2,373 99 32% 68%
Nighti
10pm-7am
AlaskaAirlines
AmericanAirlin
UnitedAirlines
Apowerrunu
totestanaircr
maintenanceis
donetoensur
standardsprio
aircrafttoserv
powersetings
fulpoweran
duration.
pisaprocedureused
aftengineafter
completed.Thisis
esafeoperating
rtoreturningthe
ice.TheAircraft
rangefromidleto
dmayvaryin
7 es6
8 mePowerRun-Ups
28L/R
10L/R
19L/R
1L/R
HourlyNightimeOperations Hour 12AM 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM
Not:SFOu d S th t
Operations
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 4
l
l
.
l
l
l
l
t
l
l
t l
0 l
r
December2019 NoiseReports
NoiseReporters/NoiseReports
Atherton
Belmont
5 5
998
194 AnnualAVG
Reporters NoiseReportersLocationMap
Brisbane 24 1,468
Burlingame 5 77 1,138 DalyCity 12 1,057
ElGranada 2 1,073
FosterCity 12 551 Reports
HalfMoonBay 2 9 AnnualAVG
Other RoundtableMenloPark 22 1,930
Milbrae 7 39 177,683
Montara 1 364
MossBeach 1 6 New
Pacifica 25 3,205 Reporters
PortolaValey 26 6,994
RedwoodCity 17 1,477 74
SanBruno 7 113
SanCarlos 1 34 New SanFrancisco 44 5,593 Reporters SanMateo 24 1,035 SouthSanFra. 10 155 TopCity
Woodside 9 2,887 SanFrancisco
Alameda 5 106
Aptos 6 241 Furthest
BenLomond 3 16 Report
Berkeley 14 3,240
BonnyDoon 2 27 88miles
BoulderCreek 7 123
Brookdale 1 1 Reportsper
Capitola 14 1,361 SFO
CarmelValey 2 26 Operation
CastroValey 1 1 4 Cupertino 1 1,536
Danvile 2 32 TopAircraft
EastPaloAlto 2 47 Types EmeraldHils 8 2,600
Felton 7 370 B737 0.3 A320 0.1
Fremont 1 309 E75L 0.3
Hayward 1 355 TopFlight Kensington 1 3 Numbers LaSelvaBeach 1 5 Lafayete 1 1 UAL2201 ASA945 ©2020Mapbox©OpenStreetMap LosAltos 95 13,459 ASA1969 LosAltosHils 23 8,612
LosGatos 86 10,196
Moraga 4 552 HourlyNoiseReporters(AverageDayinaMonth) MorganHil 2 27 NoiseReporters Operations MountainView 30 3,053 80 81 17 80 SFONoiseReporters
Oakland 31 7,491
Orinda 3 36
tOperations
15 PaloAlto 157 34,551
Penngrove 1 11
Richmond 6 4,037
60 60
SanJose 1 1 4010 40
SantaCruz 94 14,101
Saratoga 2 218
Fligh
205 20 ScotsValey 59 6,189
SFO
Soquel 56 8,744
Stanford 4 791 0
Sunnyvale 8 788
Watsonvile 1 193
GrandTotal 1,004 152,709
12AM
1AM2AM3AM4AM5AM6AM7AM8AM9AM
10AM11AM
12PM
1PM2PM3PM4PM5PM6PM7PM8PM9PM
10PM11PM
Night I HouroftheDay IEveningI
Airports
99% ofnoisereportscorelatetoa
Notes:AddressvalidationReliesonUSPS-providedZIPCode
lookuptableandUSPS-specifieddefaultcityvalues.
OAK
7%
PAO
6%
SFO
SJC
12%
origin/destinationairport. SQLother.
4% 3%
Source:SFOIntlAirportNoiseMonitoringSystem
68%
0