Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment GPA1990004 - Draft Land Use Element Amendment 82-1, Draft ImpacDRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 82-1 Environmental Impact Report 82-3 AREAS OF CONCERN 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 h tin t®b t tcih d funnemenepargco N jj P development services October 1982, (ii cember 28, 1982) P TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Methodology 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 5 2.1 Yorktown-Main Area 5 2.2 Mushroom Farm Area 13 2.3 Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area 25 2.4 Huntington Harbour Beac 33 2.5-, Beac view Mobile Home Area 41 2.6 Magnolia-Banning Area 51 2.7 Density Bonus Provisions for Affordable Housing 59 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 61 3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 61 3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 62 3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 62 APPENDICES Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions Appendix B Initial Study Appendix C Air Quality Calculations Appendix D Letters of Comment Appendix E Letter from State Department of Health Services 2.4 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLI,B I The fourth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element 82-1 is a 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes (see Figure 1-1). The amendment request was filed, by the property owner, the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina, in conjunction with Landal Development Incorporated and Pacific Development Incorporated. 2.4.1 Background The applicant's request is to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development (Figure 2-9). The three land use alternatives considered in this amendment are open space, mixed development and low density residential. The area of concern is currently zoned Recreation Open Space (ROS) (Figure 2-10) and is developed as the Huntington Harbour Beach Club which includes a clubhouse, private beach, tennis courts and other recreational amenities. The subject property is generally bounded by Wetherly Bay Marina to the north, medium density residential to the west, low der,, ity residential to the east and Warner Avenue to the south. The existing residential development to the east of the site and across Wetnerly Bay is part of the Huntington Harbour development and consists of single family water oriented homes. The property on the opposite side of Warner Avenue is within Orange County's Coastal Zone and is included in the County's Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan area. While specific development plans have not yet been adopted by the State Coastal Commission, ,the County has proposed that medium to high density residential uses will, be located alone this section of Warner. 2.4.2 Analysis 1. Land I se Under the existing open space general plan designation and ROS zoning, recreational uses such as those currently occupying the site are appropriate. A redesignation to mixed development could allow a variety of uses including: retail and specialty commercial, office professional, hotels and motels, residential, public facilities, light industrial uses, open space and recreational facilities. The applicant has requested a redesignation to mixed development in order to accommodate a development plan for commercial recreation combined with residential. Specifically, the proposal includes upgrading the existing beach club and recreational facilities and constructing 48 residential condominiums along Warner Avenue. WESTPORT 3 ILL CF-R ALADDIN OR, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" EDGEWATER WEATHERLY BAY . OPEN SPACE WATER CF-R F CE Existing General Plan Area of Concerr8 2A 34 Figure 2-9 PATO ORION LOW DENSITY- 7UN/O C a% CF-R RE RI RI ECGEMIYIEY RI A€AYYC'LY BAY I RI.ALAN RI CF-R RI ROS WARNER RI RI Eft AVE. 0 RI RI Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2.4 0 0 ET R3 RI R3 5 RI RI 2 R3 C4` C2 35( 000 2 a) The compatibility of a mixed use designation with the surrounding ©rea„ will ultimately depend on the type of land uses developed. As previously mentioned, the mixed use designation allows a wide variety of land uses in addition to recreation and residential. Some of these uses, particularly industrial and commercial could have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding developments and would be inappropriate on this site. Should the site be redesignated to mixed use it is important that only those land uses compatible with adjacent properties be allowed. One way to do this would be., to condition the General Plan Amendment to allow only recreational and residential uses on this property. The applicant has also agreed to rezone the site through a specific plan process. This plan will indicate the size and location of all facilities; parking and landscaping to be permitted on the site. It should be noted that a mixed use designation could result in the existing recreational facilities recycling to a new use. These facilities were originally designed to serve the Huntington Harbour residents. Should the City wish to retain some recreational amenities on this site, they may want to condition the General Plan Amendment to require that a certain portion of the site remain in recreational uses. Another approach would be to require that a Specific Plan process be used to implement the mixed use designation. The Specific Plan can then set a maximum residential density and require that a certain percentage of the site remain in commercial recreation. The third land use considered for the subject area is low density residential. Should the existing facilities recycle, this designation could result in `39 snits at full development. A low density use would be compatible with surrounding. neighborhoods, however, access and parking For the existing public marina would need to be preserved in the new development. This designation could also result in a loss of recreational facilities currently enjoyed by Huntington Harbour residents. .Coastal Considerations The project site is located within the City's Coastal Zone boundary. At this time, because the City's local coastal program has not been certified, all projects within this zone must be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. The City's Land Use Plan designates this site as open space recreation. Should this designation be changed, the City would be required to amend the Coastal Land Use Plan, and such amendment would need to be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal. Act. When reviewing the City's coastal plan, the Coastal Commission has been con'.erned with preserving access to Weatherly Bay and preserving existing views from Warner Avenue to the bay. Any future development on the area of concern should be sensitive to these issues. 36 io G cbN N 1 N Three policies in the City's adopted Coastal LUP relate to Area of Concern 2.4. Policy 4g states "Preserve and where possible provide additional access to Huntington Harbour waterways." Public access to Huntington Harbour waterways can be provided under an open space, a mixed use, and a residential land use resignation. None of the alternatives analyzed for the subject site would preclude the provision of such access. The exact location of such access should be determined at the project level. Policy 6a states among other things that new development should preserve public views to the shoreline and ocean. Views to and from Huntington Harbour waterways on the subject site are currently limited by the existing real estate office and tennis courts. Depending on the specific project design, development on the site under any of the land use alternatives analyzed could preserve and enhance much of the view currently available from the site. Policy 15f requires, with some exceptions, that 20 percent of new residential projects be affordable. As discussed in Section 2.4.2.3 of this report, this policy would apply to residential development on the area of concern. 2. Economic Considerations The planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period , 1982-1992 . The land use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined in Appendix A. The results of the analysis are summarized in the following tables: Cash Flow Basis Alt. 1 Open Space Alt. 2 Mixed Development Alt. 3 Low Density Residential Revenue (1)76.15 607 .62 591.81 Cost (1)138.54 358.89 265.34 Reven @minus cost U )-62.39 248.73 325.97 Revenue/cost .55 1.69 2.23 (1) in $1,000I As shown in the above table, the mixed development and low density residential alternatives would generate a surplus to the City over a ten year period of approximately $248,730 and $325,970 respectively. The Open Space alternative would generate a deficit to the City of approximately $62,390. 3. Housing A designation of low density residential or mixed development with residential included, could result in approximately 39-48 additional housing units being added to the City's existing housing stock. The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. Considering the location of this particular site, it is improbable that any affordable units would be constructed in this area. 'However, pursuant to the housing policy contained in the, City's" Coastal Element, all new residential projects of 20 or more for-sale units in the coastal zone must provide for.20 percent of the project as ^ffordable units either on-site or elsewhere within the City. A 48-unit condominium project on this site could result in the addition of ten affordable. units to the City's housing stock either on-site or elsewhere within the City. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is served by, a 15" sewer located in Edgewater Lane and a 15" sewer located in Warner Avenue. The City's Public Works Department indicates that due. to its low elevation, the area has traditionally experienced severe sewage problems. All sewage from Huntington Harbour is pumped uphill by Pump Station "D" before it can connect into a gravity flow system. This pump station is currently nearing capacity. Should significant development occur in the Huntington Harbour area, improvements to the station may be needed. Costs for improvements will be shared proportionately by developers. b. Water The area is served by a 14" water main located in Warner Avenue along with a six inch water main in Sceptre Lane and an eight inch water main in Edgewater Lzne. At this time the Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in servicing the project area under any of the three land use designations. c. Drainage The project site is served by a 24" storm drain in Warner Avenue arid a 15" storm drain originatin in the center of the project site. The storm water from these pipes drains into the Bolsa Chica immediately across Warner from the subject The City's Public Works Department does not ,anticipate any lifications will be required to serve the site under any of me three land use designations. 38 d. Parks New residential construction developed in conjunction with the existing recreational facilities would be adequately served by recreational amenities on the project site. These include: tennis courts, a swimming pool and a private beach. Should the existing recreational amenities recycle to allow for residential development there would be a reduction of facilities in this neighborhood. However, the project site could still be served by a number of mini parks located throughout the Huntington Harbour area as well as by Bo&sa Chico State Beach located less than a quarter of a mile away. d. Police and Fire Protection The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated that adequate service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the three land use alternatives. f. Schools 9• The project site is located within the Ocean View Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Districts do not anticipate that there will be any problem accommodating the students generated by either a residential or mixed use land use. Gas and Electrical Uti_ities.and Telephone Service The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no difficulty serving future development under any of the three alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 5. Traffic and Circulation Primary access to the project will be from Warner Avenue. Warner currently has a capacity of 25,000 - 30,000 trips per day. Ultimate capacity of Warner Avenue is projected co be 40,000 trips per day. Existing traffic volume is approximately 20,000 trips per day. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any problem in accommodating future traffic from the three alternatives as the actual counts are considered to be insignificant. The following table provides projec.ad future traffic volumes: Lanir Use Alternative Traffic Generation Open Space Recreation 64 Trip ends Mixed Development 385 Trip ends* Low Density Residential 542 Trip ends * This number is based on the conceptual plan submitted by the applicant. J, t It should be noted that the County's plan for future development of the Balsa Chica could generate significant traffic along Warner Avenue. The County proposes to mitir-ate this problem by 're-aligning Warner and re-designing it to accommodate any additional traffic. It is anticipated that by 1995 Warner will be carrying between 35,000 and 39,000 trips per day. The Orange County Transit District has indicated that a bus turnout and sholter may be required on Warner Avenud depending on future levels of development on the subject site or in the Balsa Chica. 6.Environmen tal Issues a. Hydrology The Huntington Harbour area has traditionally experienced water quality problems due to lack of proper tidal flushing. Because of the $it°-'s location adjacent to the Bay, any grading to ::commodate futi!re development must be carefully monitored for alterations in runuff patterns or potential impacts to water quality. b. Seismic Safety The proposed site, along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building this area and will be required as conditions for approval. 2.4.3 Staff Recommendation 2.4.4 40 Staff recommends that the applicant's request for, a mixed development designation he granted with the conditions that only residential and recreational uses are to be permitted, that a maximum of 48 units be permitted on the site, and that the designation be implemented by specific plan. Of the land uses allowed under mixed development, staff feels that a residential use combined with the existing commercial recreational facilities would be the most appropriate. This allows the existing recreational facilities to be preserved and allows additional residential development which would be compatible with the surrounding homes. The applicant proposes using a specific plan process '-o provide .coning for the site. At the time the specific plan is filed careful consideration should be given to see that adequate buffering is provided between new residential units and the existing homes. Additionally, future development should not prohibit access to the public marina. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission, recommends that the existing open space designation on the subject property be retained. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that (1) the proposed mixed development designation is inconsistent with the certified Coastal Land Use Plan for Huntington Beach, (2) a mixed development is not compatible with the existing surrounding development, and (3) the existing open space designation is compatible with the existing development. and allows all uses propo.3ed in the mixed use designation other than residential. 90/477 GORDON B RICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING . ACOUSTICAL and ENERG Y ENGINEERS June 25, 1990 A C O U S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S B A Y C I T Y Prepared b Gordo ricken Pres dent /m'mb 0 F C L U B P H A S E H U iN T I N G T 0 N B E A C H Prepared for: MS. KATHLEEN TER".LA COULTI;UP DEVELOPMENT 13001 Seal Beach Blvd.,#300 Seal Beach , California ,90740 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite Ka Santa Ana, California 92701 a Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 M 90/477 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTIN G ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS S U M M A R Y The analysis has been completed to determine the exterior and interior noise exposure and the necessary mitigation measures for the proposed Bay Club Phase II project located in the City of Huntington Beach. A detailed list of recommendations and requirements is given in the following summary . Details are discussed in the body of the report. A. NOISE CONTROL BY BARRIER DESIGN An eight foot (8') high sound wall must be constructed along Warner. The location is shown in Exhibit 4. B. NOISE CONTROL BARRIER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS The required noise control barriers may be constructed using one of the following materials: Masonry block Stucco on wood frame 3/4" plywood 1/4" glass or 1/2" LEXAN Any combination of these materials or any material rated 3.5 pounds per square foot surface weight or greater. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K • Santa Ana, California 92701 • Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 90/477 solid face permitted C. Each completed noise control barrier must present from top-to-bottom. Cutouts and openings are not except for drain holes. INTERIOR NOISE CONTROL a The buildings would be expected to be constructed, as a minimum, in accordance with the outline of Table 6. This is adequate for all buildings and units with the following exceptions: Add STC 31 or STC 29 glazing as noted on Exhibit 6 for windows facing warner Avenue. D. VENTILATION When calculations depend on having windows closed, as it is in this case, it is desirable to provide adequate fresh air ventilation or air conditioning without resorting to the opening of the ,A ndows, should the occupant desire not to do so. 90/477. GORDO N BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results o: i noise impact and design study of the proposed Bay Club Phase II project located on Warner Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Included in this report is a discussion of the expected exterior community noise environment and the recommendations for control of noise in the exterior and interior living areas. A vicinity map showing the general location of the construction site is presented on Exhibit I -- Site Location Map. The proposed development is 18, single family detached buildings. 2.0 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA The City of Huntington Beach requires all residential projects :o conform to the requirements of Table 1. TABLE I APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA(1) Exterior ...... 65 CNEL Interior ...... 45 CNEL (1) Please see NOISE RATING METHODS (Appendix 1) for a complete explanation of acoustical terminology. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92701 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 90/477 3.0 EXISTING NOISE LEVE'' 3.1 ROADWAYS A measurement was performed on the site. The record of this measurement is attached as Exhibit 2. Measurements are conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2209 Type I Sound Level Meter, a B & K Model 2306 Strip Chart Recorder, and a B & K Model 4426 Statistical Noise Analyzer. The Averacge Noise Level reported from this measurement was 70 Leq. The measurement was taken at a point 65 feet from the centerline of Warner Avenue. A ten minute traffic count was taken during the measurement period. The results of that count are given in Table 2. TABLE 2 TEN MINUTE TRAFFIC COUNTS AUTOS MEDIUM TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS TOTAL TEN MINUTES 202 2 0 204 HOURLY EQUIVALENT 1,212 12 0 1,224 PERCENTAGE 99.0 1.0 0 100.0 The primary function of the measurements is to calibrate the Noise Model (FHWA RD-77-108) used to compute the CNEL data. The model relies on the acoustical metric of the Average Noise Level (Leq). By taking the traffic count during the measurement, calculating the Leq value for that sample, and comparing it to the measured sample, it is possible to calibrate the CNEL model for any factors which are present and not adequately identified in the prediction equations. The computer print-out is attached in Appendix 2. The calculated levels and the measured level are compared in Table 3 on the following page. 90/477 TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND MEASURED AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS Calculated 70 Measured 70 DIFFERENCE 0 The calculated and measured values correspond. Therefore, no corrections need be applied to the CNEL calculations. 3.2 RAILROAD There is no railroad near the site. 3.3 AIRCRAFT There is no airport near the site. 3.4 STATIONARY There are no stationary sources near the site. 4.0 DESIGN NOISE LEVELS 4.1 ROADWAY The expected future roadway noise impact was projected using the Federal Highway Admini - stration's Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77- 108) together with several roadway and site parameters, which determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise, including the roadway crossection (e.g. number of lanes) , the roadway active width, the average daily traffic (ADT), the vehicle travel speed, the percentages of auto and truck traffic, the roadway grade, the angle-of-view, the site conditions ("hard" or "soft"), and the percent of total average daily traffic which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. The forecast traffic volume was obtained from the Warner Avenue widening EIR at 42,000 ADT. 5 90/477 The percentage of truck traffic was obtained from a 1987 Study of Thirty-one Arterial Intersections by the County of Orange. The same source was used for the distribution by the time of day. The data is listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 TRAFFIC INPUT DATA -- WARNER % DAY % EVENING % NIGHT % VOLUME Autos 75.51 12.57 9.34 100.0 Medium Trucks 1.56 .09 .19 100.0 Heavy Trucks .64 .02 .08 100.0 Volume =42,000 ADT The calculations are listed in Appendix 3. The calculations yield a design noise level of 75 CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Warner. The noise contours are shown on Exhibit 3 for the vacant site. 4.2 RAILROAD Railroad noise is not expected to occur. Thus, railroad noise will not impact the site. 4.3 AIRCRAFT Aircraft noise is not expected in the future. Thus, aircraft noise will impact the site. 4.4 STATIONARY Stationary sources are not expected to impact the site. 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 EXTERIOR The mitigation of exterior noise will require a barrier along Warner since the levels will exceed 65 CNEL. The assumptions for the barrier calculations are listed in Table 5 on the following page. 90/477 TABLE 5 BARRIER ANALYSIS GENERAL ASSUMPTIONG FOR RECEIVER AND SOURCE GEOMETRY R E C E I V E R A S S U M P T I O N S HORIZONTAL GEOMETRYA VERTICAL GEOMETRY Distance behind top-of-roadways Height above pad for ground barrier: 5' to 10' level receivers: 5' Distance behind individual Height above pad for second patio and balcony barriers: level receivers: 14' 1' to 3' ____ ____S O U R C E A S S U M P T I O N S HORIZONTAL GEOMETRY* VERTICAL GEOMETRY For roadways with grades no Automobiles: 0' above center- greater than 2%, all vehicles line road grade were located at the single lane equivalent acoustic center of Medium Trucks: 2.3' above the full roadway. For roadways centerline road with over 2% grade, vehicle grade ^ount was divided in half and located at the single lane Heavy Trucks: 8' above equivalent acoustic center for centerline road each side of the roadway. grade Single lane equivalent (SLE) location. The results of the barrier calculations, contained in Appendix 4, show that an eight foot (8') sound wall will be needed to reduce noise levels to a maximum exterior level of 65 CNEL. Balconies are not required to be attenuated since these are not stacked units and private open space is available at the first floor level. The barrier location is depicted on Exhibit 4,. 90/477 The required noise control barriers may be constructed using one of the following materials: (1) Masonry block (2) Stucco on wood frame (3) 3/4" plywood (4) 1/4" glass or 1/2" LEXAN (5) Any combination of these materials or any material rated 3.5 pounds per square foot surface weight or greater. Each completed noise control barrier must present a solid face from top-to-bottom. Cutouts and openings are not permitted except for drain holes. 5.2 INTERIOR The City's exposure criteria for new resi- dential construction requires that the interior noise environment, attributable to outside sources, be limited to 45 CNEL. Analysis and recommendations for control of outdoor-to-indoor noise intrusion are presented in this section. The exterior-to-interior noise reduction expected for the planned construction was based on a detailed analysis of sample rooms and units planned for the development. Calculations of the expected typical noise reduction performance were performed for sample rooms. The analysis was based on the typical spectra expected for the primary sources of community noise impact, the typical octave-band transmission loss for each element in the planned building shell, the relative square footage of each element of the planned building shell, the expected typical inl•erior surface treatment, and the acoustical absorption coefficient for each interior surface treatment. Corrections for the "A" weighted room absorption factors are also included. Each component of the building shell (e.g. exterior wall, windows, doors, etc.) provides a different amount of transmission loss for each "A" Weighted octave-band of community noise. With the knowledge of the building shell components and their individual octave band transmission loss values for the noise sources, calculations of the composite building shell transmission loss can be made for each room. a- 90/477 The characteristics of the basic building shell are listed in Table 6. TABLE 6 BASIC BUILDING SHELL CHARACTERISTICS PANEL CONSTRUCTION Exterior Wall 7/8" stucco , 2" X 4" studs, R-11 Fiberglass Insulation, 1/2" Drywall Windows 3/32" single pane aluminum horizontal sliders Sliding Glass Door 3/16" single pane aluminum horizontal sliders Roof Shingle over 1/2" plywood, Fiber- glass Insulation, 1/2" drywall, Vented Floor Carpeted except kitchen and baths The Table 6 construction minimums will provide around 20 dBA interior noise reduction. This would be adequate for the first floor since the sound wall reduces levels to 65 CNEL, and 20 dBA of reduction is all that is required to achieve 45 CNEL. At the second and third floors, the situation varies. The required reduction is noted on Exhibit 5 Calculations were carried out for sample rooms and are contained in Appendix 5. The variable was the glazing. The results are given in Table 8. TABLE 8 ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUES STC PLAN ROOM 21 25 27 29 31 1 Bedroom #2 19 22 24 26 28 Bedroom #3 21 21 23 25 27 3 Master Bedroom 21 24 25 27 29 The calculations are used in conjunction with Exhibit 5 to produce the allocations shown on Exhibit 6. 90/477 5.3 VENTILATION When calculations depend on having windows closed, as it is in this case, according to it is desirable to provide adequate fresh air ventilation without resorting to the opening of the windows, should the occupant desire not to do so. 10 LEdINGER $ IAVAT_ ON W - 1 ` t 60 DW'-oouI A'r I MI I `Y mow'"CIFI 40, 7 4 2 . EXHIBIT 1 SITE LOCATION MAP yQUT-A-%"r c eojy TE LUOE DO1 z A- •i 9.i TT' C 3 TOCK'• z of I-picK CA .9 lp, I' S F SEA pRAIIrt L't .AAM r W A O i { 9 APLC' e` 3li-19k RDWAL ppfIHfI I4 -0 i Es I J ' O RT W • FS •cw r s ltL CMtA STATE REACH ff co .40100ATWERLY 1. DIA3LO CIR LAI iP 4 E>rClE f 23. f 1RrIDRQLD C1R 4. STILES CIA S. MQRSE CIR aa Sc DATE11/3/89CHART SPEED .3mmSCALE ALOCATION65' FROM C/L OFWARNEREXHIBIT 2100s40 50 60 DB 70 80 9090- ._ . _, -9080--8070-DB60-- -- ---.,40- -40QP 010290--9080- -8070- _D8ao--70DB-6050- -5040- -OP 0102-40 EXHIBIT 3CNEL NOISE CONTOURSVACANT SITEr-vyvyvvv vvIUUlUlUGUUJIVut;l, •,11111111i MOODULTRUP° ©VEL IPM NAT C CLIL 1flu r TOM LW-000 5R MMY CLUBCIL0SCll16F :CAOS1 A.u 1]11^LT AEEA 1 .111OIUOOLC 0.3011 561tlL CJUIDIJC.OIx3AA=.tr ,IIt .MT.AYAx0DEACU - .00l M.0.N"Y1 COMPISUTI0x AM-T10ltx In l11, III ' - WII 1 .111301fpAL IUOUC Al O LIPID C CMd16 TO 90 ACNIO'I•ILUILIIL•OSTO111 1010 11.EIMA UI:IIS14 1ORI• NALIMA UnrtsIL 00*10 OF' .ATEI 6x05111 10.363 ' OrE.'ATER 0x111VI w'XV'MAAIAA UBRIT TOTALUMITII•.511UI,lC 0CDUIIILU I'APAIiC INUI II!I;DCOYCAED 11 COYEAEC- JSQUEST IJ 011Cm • wTOTAL TOTAL0A@JIOF..0. 41.3 IMOYIDEO• ISUitlr?/r, • .1 gal n -,•-r.{-_J vvvvvvv,vv-.1--1r1r-jwtgn[•_CODULTRO1P DD CVCtOpf 17 CO.NU MME-friG',M°°-0® DRAW CLUD.EXHIBIT 4SOUND WALL,I,Lll.lurton M.4 loll. amnpwu lrtlowrlLrLOUCOnarsm,Ir NInK..r...r... ...rn • w1.r.,Lp.Yra ILln01w,K+.n1Yrt10Ir. 0 31 of , 1 n N l r ,.(In.L IYrLK prG 4,rp NGLJLI ,n 1,0., •iprIWLIWNL1.1 M'.N' ( ,001.0 unfrY.r„1,1 'w.M'0u *0111 wow D,r r.llr uxilfII, w+rl ' Orlr.I1.YnrtrI, 10GLYxmr.. °•omxlu1-rr(0.0.1111D1•,00101 cum1(010wrn)9VI.ro•u„ 1.01,Oin•.,xiL.Jr k.0041rZOI VVVVVVV,\IV• 1,IA7.7. c(6 13 AI-.7aefqC©UUL i,p 10EVEL(0[P)Imvffi?ff C©[`. do CN1 RAW CLUBr- IEXHIBIT 5REQUIRED NOISEREDUCTION[ILLLL)LgAmmoaop.x4 ;I,I.naxu 7xllamunmo,on InaLU[gy,mur orl.Didio;Ir' N;(IC • , -,r axU rt.hl ..plan Lo. .-A [MlenuG.i •nmirl an. L.>U Ix•• ,.M,. w I r,ri..L p5LL1 or[. 4.o IUC!WIS rn I,c,U n41-U..I pS- .,.,i.. I..nlpspxlI ...ir. U.-III ID'Op,x .. U,IT,I Ior.LU.o*I'.x.i.411LUNIp0 I ..xl.-IfUllx, .C0.Nfo•-. 11 fun.TU- II1.itI V 1 I V;1.ul l,l.So1r PP[A N EXHIBIT 6'GLAZING RATINGS2nd/3rd FLOOR WINDOW/SGGFACING WARNERSIOC Iat'Arim[JLIAoW0A011 AIG I lUNC1AA0A 1111Amunmcllon val.nWCiLLVYUC01'00AYU:10' 110EIIt YA;OAY AX01UC11- ) AClhS0-1111COMIIIULION AOIUIIS I.OICN IAN. 11r w01 • Ir I N 1I I.+ 1104110 OrhN U.r041CMNb TO 110 AI II IvVvvvvV,vvCIwIJUJSOC114 )alp' 11AAINA UOIS!111SO.a'AIAIINAOnm111 14".110' 0r1 D'UC1011115111 10'A!1'011I 'AI U ON0!u,ill,rA UNR ..........II 0O1ALUnrt11'001111* N100110 •A00VMAC0GUMIDou4_CCsrc31-==" I Illl 11 11 1111111111 1C©UUL ° Nip DG EL(oo pfalEw coo.nmn- OR mu CLUBI'ANNINO 11101 -III I1cove- -GUM - 10SlMr pLgN tU GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPEND I X 1 NOISE RATING METHODS 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92701 Phone (714) 8350249 FAX (714) 835-1957 Page 1 of 3 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS N O I $R A T I N g M E T HOD S The A-weighted decibel of "14° scale on the sound level meter is often used in the measurement of noise because the weighting characteristics of this scale approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency band noise source by discriminating against the very low and the very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. Since community noise is seldom constant, varying from moment to moment and throughout the day, the "A" weighted noise level needs to be further described to provide meaningful data. The Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Department of Transportation, foreign countries and private consultants are aow using three time-exceeded percentile figures to describe noise, which are: (1) L90 is the noise level which is exceeded 90% of any sample time period (such as 24 hours) and is used to describe the background or ambient noise level. (2)L50 is the noise level which is exceeded 50% of the time. It is the median level. (3) L10 is the noise level which is exceeded 10% of the time and is a good descriptor of fluctuating noise sources, such as vehicular traffic. It indicates the near-maximum levels which occur from grouped single events. Being related to the subjective annoyance to community noise, it is a good design tool 1621 East Se.enteen:h Street. Suite K 9 Santa Ana, California 92701 • Phone(714) 835-029 Page 2 of 3 in the planning of acoustical barriers. More recent noise assessment methods are based on the equivalent energy concept where Leq(x) represents, the average energy content of a fluctuating noise source over a sample period. The subscript (x) represents the period in which the energy is computed and measured. Current practice references the quantity to either one (1) hour, eight (8) hours, or twenty- four (24) hours. When referenced to one (1) hour, Leq is also sometimes called HNL (Hourly Noise Level). Since Leq is the summation of the functional products of noise level and duration, many combinations of noise level, duration time and time history can make up the same Leq value. Thus, an Leq(24)equals 50 means only that the average noise level is 50 dB. During the 24-hour period there can be times when the noise level is higher than 50 dB, and times when it is lower. If the period of the measurement is only a single event, the energy content is not averaged. The energy expression for a single event is simply the sum of the functional product of the noise level and duration time of the event. This term is called Le or SENEL (Single Event Noise Exposure Level). The summation of Le values averaged over one hour is Leq(l)' Leq (8)1 and Leq (24)'etc. Leq is further refined into Ldn (Level Day-Night) and CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) , where noises that occur during certain hours of the day are weighted (or penalized) because they are considered subjectively more annoying during these time periods: (1) Lan is the sound level in dBA which corresponds to the average energy content of the noise being measured over a 24-hour period including a 10 dBA weighting penalty for sound levels which occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. This is a rating method recommended by the Environmental Page or J Protection Agency because it takes into account those subjectively more annoying noise events which occur during the sleeping hours. (2) CNEL is the sound level in dBA which corres- ponds to the average energy content of the noise being measured over a 24-hour period including a five (5) dBA penalty for noise which occurs during the evening hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M ., and a ten (10) dBA weighting penalty for noise that occurs during the night- time hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. For typical high- way vehicular traffic situations , computer analysis has shown that CNEL and Ldn correlate within 0.5 dBA. The percentile figures L10 ' L50,and L90 can be directly scaled from a graphical recording of the measured noise over a particular time period . They are also convenient to implement in automatic measurement equipment. Energy parameters Le, Leq, Ldn, and CNEL require expensive and complicated equip- ment. As a result , engineers have devised ways of estimating Leq (and hence, Ldn) using standard instrumentation and methods. I GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APP END I X 2 CALCULATIONS FROM TRAFFIC COUNTS 1621 East Seventeenth Street. Suite K • Santa Ana, California 92701 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PROS! ECT (: T STREET NAME WARNER SITE TYPE HARD INPUT DATA SPEED. AUTO E. "r METK 50 HVTI< 50 VOLUME 9 1 0 VOLUME =1224 HYY TRf: GRADIENT =0 DBA NOISE LEVEL AUTO 69.81 MED. TRR.59. S9 H V Y . TRk;.0.00 TOTAL 70.23 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- LED AT SPECIFIED DISTANCES ----------------------------- DISTANCE LED 50 70.2 75 65.47 100 6-17. 22 125 66.25 150 65.46 1 5 64.79 200 64.21 250 6 = , 24 3 00 62.4 5 350 '-61 . f 8 400 .51 .20 4 5C)6i).69 0)SLI.2_ 550 59. 600 .59. 44 650 59, ('r9 7'()()-55. 77 7 50 58. 47 9w) 5;3.1 1.000 57.22 GORD ON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPEND I X 3 DESIGN CNEL CALCULATIONS 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K * Santa Ana. California 92701 Phone (714) 835.0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 FHb1A RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREP I CT ]: ON MODEL PROJECT NAME SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION SITE TYPE CT HUNTINGTON BEACH WARNEF: ;HARD --------------- --------------------------------------------------- INPUT DATA AUTO MEDIUM TRUCK HEAVY TRUCK SPEED 45 45 45 DAY 75.51 1.56 .64 EVENING 1.3.57 0. 09 Co . 0'2 NIGHT 9,34 . iq .08 VOLUME 100 100 100 VOLUME 42 000 ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----AVERAGE HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET'----- DAY EVENING NIGHT -4 HOUR CNEL A(.1TO---- ---•----]. , 5'1---------7i1. 14 64.09 70, 01 73, MEDIUM TRK.65.2 9 58.92 57.39 6 2. 99 66.06 HEAVY TRK:.,66.08 57.05 58.30 6';.:71 66.77 TOTAL 73.61 70.65 45 .76 71.57 74.79 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NOISE LEVEL AT SPECIFIED DISTANCES DISTANCE CNEL. 50 74.78 75 -1.01 100 71.76 125 70.80 150 70.00 175 69.33 200 68.75 225 68.24 250 67 .7q :a75 67.07 300 66.?q 325 66.45 50 66.52, 3 75 66.02 400 65.74 450 5. 2:7, 500 64.79 550 64. 3v 600 6 3.9e 650 64 70C)63.31 750 6',.01 800. 62. , GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ACOUS TICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPEND I X 4 BARRIER CALCULATIONS 1621 East Seventeenth Street. Suite K Santa Ana, California 92701o Phone ('14) 835-0249 FAX (714)'835.1957 HARRIER NOISE REDUCTION ANALY 7:S.WALL_ HEIGHT VARIABLE PROTECT.. ...CT PJ. DESCRIPTION.-SOUND WALLALONG WARNER SOURCE ELEVAT ION .... .0 RECEIVER ELEVATION .....() BARRIER ELEVATION..... RECEIVER HE I GH`I........ .5 DISTANCE TO SOURCE.... .65 DISTANCE TO RECEIVER ...14) AUTO NOISE LEVEL ......7_.27 M.1'Rk NOISE LEVEL ......66. ()6 H.TRk:NOISE LEVEL .......66.77 SOURCE NOISE LEVEL .....74.77 ANGULAR CORRECT ION (OS) - 0 WALL HEIGHT NOISE LEVEL INSERTION LOSS ). ))t)7 tit (11.0.00 1 . (!O 73. 01 0 .01 ) 2.(0YI)13.( 1.O. 00 OO 7-,.(,)l O. 00 4.:n:73.01 0.00 6.00 66.90 6111 7.00 45 70 7 .3 1 d. 00 64.26 S,711, 9.00 62.92 10. 20 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIAT'EF.S CONSULTING ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APP END I X 5 ROOM CALCULATIONS 162' East Seventeenth Street. Suite K Santa Ana, California 92701 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME F 3 NOR RETREAT+ST C 3 ] FLOOR AREA 419 SURFACES TL AREA T*S - ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- EXT. WALL 1 4C)196 . 0196 EXT. WALL.2 0 0 0 EXT. WALL 3 i) WINDOW 1 29 60 7.553551E-02 WINDOW 2 0 . 05 t-)0 WINDOW 3 C).)ti 0 0 SGD 0 .05 0 C) DOORS i ). 04 i.)c l ROOF Cr .04 0 0 FLOOR .6 4.19 --------------------------------------------------------------- ET*S 9.513551E-O2 -1OLOG(ET*S)10.21657 1OLOGA 24.524 NR 28.74057 ------------------------------------------- NOTE : 5=1 r IC).:., ( TL 1 >) , WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME P MGR/RETREAT +STC27 FLOOR AREA 41.9 SURFACES TL @ AREA T*S EXT. WAI._L 1 40 196 .0196 EXT. WALL 2 0 0 0 EX'". WALL..3 is 0 0 WINDOW 1 25 .05 40 .1897366 WINDOW 2 0 .05 0 0 WINDOW 0 .05 0 0 SGD o . 05 0 0 DOORS 0 .04 0 it ROOF 0 .04 ti 0 FLOOR .6 419 -----------------------------------------------------------___ - ET*:S .:093366 -10LOG(ET.S )8.791549 1OLOGA 24.524 NR 25.31555 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE S=1.110''( TL/10) WnRK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME P-3 I`1t-F;/RETREAT +STC' q FLOOR AREA 419 SURFACES TI._.1)AREA TT:S - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E_YT. WALL 1 40 16 .0196 EXT. WALL.2 c0 t:0 EXT.4ALL 0 WINDOW 1 27 05 40 .1197157 WINDOW 7 r.'y 05 0 +). WINDOW .;6 . 0 .5 ti SUD C)05 0 0 DOORS 0 04 l 0 ROOF c)cr a t'c) FLOOR 6 419 --------------------------------------------------------------- ET .S .13931 57 -L0LOGQT$.E)a,559993 10LOGA 24.524 NR 27.08399 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:8 L/!0''( TL.:10) W(1RF" THEE T FOR CALCULATI NG ROOM NOISE REI)LICTION VALUE ROOM NAME P T MDR/RETREAT FLOOR AREA 419 SURFACES TL AREA T*S ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT. WALL 1 40 196 .0196 EXT. WALL 2 0 EXT. WALL 3 0 0 0 WINDOW 1 2t,.05 60 .6 WINDOW 2 0 .05 0 ti WINDOW?ii .!;!S !a !:! 960 0 .05 o c,. DOORS 0 .04 0 0 ROOF 0 . 04 0 0 FLOOR .6 419 ET S .6196 -1!.?LOG IET S)2.079857 1 0LOGA 24.524 NR 20.60288 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: S=1/10•`•( TL/10) WORE: SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISI REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME P3 MOR /RETRETA+STC25 FLOOR AREA 41'-Q SURFACE 'Fl-:D APEA T --------------------------------------------------------------- F"{T. WWL.L 1 4!1 1 9 , i?196 Ex1. WAL. L. 2 0 [, 0 EXT.WALL w u WINDOW 1 3 007121. L\)INL10l)) 2 !.) .'.Y5 !) i WINDOW 3 C) .r,;AA 95C) !:1 .05 OnORS- 04 ROOF 04 !"> !: FL. OOP 419 --------------------------------------------------------------- E_ T': -•101..L1( (ET*S) 1 OL OGA NR .0201124 4.'944262 24.5"24 23. A 6826 Will F : 1' 1 0•''• I TL 1 1 0'; I WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME R1 BR3+6STC'i. FLOOR AREA 1.4 SURFACES TL AREA TES--------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT. WALL 1 40 64 tiC)b4 EXT. WALL_2 0 0 0 EXT. WALL,3 C0 0 0 WINDOW 1 0 .05 0 i0 WINDOW 2 0 05 t]i0 WINDOW 3 1 O5 o 0 SGD 29 . 05 40 5.035701E-02 DOORS 0 , 04 0 o ROOF 0 .04 C 0 FLOOR .6 143 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ET*S 5.675701E-02 -10LOG (ET*S)12.451?81 1 OLOGA 20. 02425 NR 26.48406 ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE:S=1!10'( TI_110) WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE F:OOM NAME FLOOR AREA PI 8R 3+STC2 1.41 SURFACES TL AREA T*S EXT. WALL 1 40 .'4 .0084 EXT. WALL.2 4.0 0 EXT. WALL.3 Ct 0 0 WINDOW 1 C;.05 C)C0 WINDOW 2 0 .05 C;C; WINDOW 3 0 .05 0 0 SOD 25 .05 40 .126491 DOORS 0 .04 0 0 ROOF 0 .04 C)0 FLOOR .6 143 --------------------------------------------------------- ET*S .1 3 28911 -10LOG (ET'*S)8 .765042 10LOGA 20. 02425 NR 22.7893 ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:S=1/10'••( TL/1O) WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME PI 5h; S+STC2q FLOOR AREA 143 SURFACES TL AREA T*S ------------------------------- EXT. WALL 1 40 64 .0064 EX.T. WALL 2 0 EXT-WA LL 3 C0 0 C) WINDOW 1 0 -0 WINDOW 2 0 .07,C)i> IQ [NDOW :'(" 1 .05 0 Cf w 6j)2 T .05 40 7 .981049E-02 DOORS S). 04 0 0 ROOF .04 ii i ) FLOOR .6 143 --------------------------------------------------------------- FT *S 8.42 1 O 48E-02 -tCLOG(ET*3)10.6444 1C'LOi4 2002425 NR 24.61S65 ---------------------------------------------------- NIAT'a6 =11 10 =i TWO) f WORk: SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME Pi BPI-, FLOOR AREA 14:7, SURFACES TL : AREA T*S ------------------------------------------------------------------ E_'XT. WALL 1 40 64 .0064 EXT.WALL 2 43 SS 4. 410447E- l F_XT. WALL 3 0 s'1 0 WINDOW 1 it .05 0 WINDOW 2 C).05 0 0 WINDOW ;_0 .05 )C) SGD 23 .05 40 .2004749 DOORS 0 .04 C)0 ROOF (1 .04 C1 FLOOR .6 143 --------------------------------------------------------------- ET*:S .2112854 -1OLOGSET*S)6.751""5 1 OLOGA 19.86951 NR 20.62081 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: S=1 i 1(V ( TL/10) WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME Pt BR=+STC25 FLOOR AREA 14= SURFACES TL AREA T*S ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT. WALL. 1 4()64 . 0064 EXT.WALL 2 43 88 4.41044 7E-03 EXT. WALL 3 Cl ' WINDOW 1 0 "lam 0 C) WINDOW 2 0 .05 0 WINDOW "0 05 is O SGD . 05 40 ..2004749 DOORS CI {ail i.) ROOF o .04 Ci FLOOR . 6 14" ET *:'S .2112854 -L1"?I_OG vE l"*S)0.7 5130 5 1 OL.:UGA 19.96931 NR 20.62081 ------------------------------- ------------------------------- NOTE :S=1/10-i TL/10) WORK', SHEET FOR CALCULAIIM G ROOM NOISE !REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME FLOOR AREA P1 BR2+STC3 i. 15Q SURFACES TL AREA T*S EXT. WALL 1 40 63 .0068 EXT. W 1L_L 2 0 s:0 EXT. WALL 0 0 0 WINDOW 1 29 .05 712 4.028561E-02 WINDOW 2 0 .05 0 0 WINDOW 3 0 .05 0 0 SOD ().05 0 r_i DOORS 0 .04 0 0 ROOF 0 .04 0 c, FLOOR .6 150 --ET*S 4.708561E-02 -IOLOG(ET*S)13.27112 10L.OGA 20.29384 NR 27.56496 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:S=1,10'`( TL/10) 1JfFK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME Pi BF: 2+A ;STC2 7 FLOOR AREA 150 SURFACES TL AREA TES --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT. WALL 1 40 68,.0062 EXT.WALL 2 C)C)C) EXT. WALL 3 r°r 0 0 WINDOW 1 25 .05 32 .1011928 WINDOW 2 0 .05 0 C) WINDOW 3 0 .05 U fl SGD 0 .05 0 0 DOORS r:).04 C)C) ROOF U .04 0 0 FLOOR .6 150 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ET*:S -10LOG(ET:S) 10LOGA NR . 1 079928 9.666051 20.29384 23.95989 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE S=1 f t C)'''• ( TL/10) WORK SHEET FOR CAL.CULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME P1 BF:2+STC79 FLOOR AREA t s(:) SURFACES TI-AREA T*S EX T. WALL 1 40 68 EXT. WALT..2 0 0 EXT. WALL -C)i) WINDOW 1 .05 32 0618424 WINDOW 2 r). 5 i 1 t'S WINDOW 3 C).05 0 13G11 t;).05 [)r _) il011RS 0 .04 0 t ) ROOF .04 C)i i FLOOR .6 L50 ------------------------------------------------------------------ E T 1S'7.064839E-U2 -10LO1: (ETTS)1 1.50898 10LOGA 20.29, 384 NR 25.80282 --------------------------------- 'dOTE:8=1; 10-•• t TI . 0, ------------------------------ WORD: SHEET FOP CALCULATING ROOM NO1.SF REDUCTION VAL1 E ROOM NAME P1 rR2 FLOOR AREA SURFACES 150 TI_AREA TES ----------------- ------------------------ EXT. WALL 1 40 68 0068 EXT.WALL 2 rl 1)Cl EXT, WALL 3 WINDOW 1 7'0 .05 32 .32 WINDOW 0 .05 Ci 0 W I t,4mvi 3 i:1 .05 i Co SGD 0 .05 0 0 DOORS i .04 ii 0 ROOF 0 .04 0 0 FLOOR .6 150 ET*S .3260 -10LOG(ET*S)0957141 10LOGA 20. 29384 NR 19.15102 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:S=1!10'' t TL/10) WORK SHEET FOR CALCULATING ROOM NOISE REDUCTION VALUE ROOM NAME R1. 8R2+STC25 FLOOR AREA 150 SURFACES TI_8 AREA T*:S ----------------- - EXT. WALL 1 40 68 , 0068 EXT. WALL 2 0 0 0 EXT. WALL'_ t)ri ±i WINDOW 1 .05 32 .16038 WINDOW 2 0 .05 0 0 WINDOW 3 0 . OFD 0 0 SGD it 0 s5 0 (i DOORS 04 Ci :> ROOF FLOOR .04 .6 150 ET*:S --10LOG(ET*9) 1 0LOtr A NR NOTE:6=1 1i'" i TL /10) .1671799 7. 7881 5 C.7 20 , 2c' +84 22.062 (",