valcoustics canada ltd. - milton, ontario appcilabel gudienile lmi tsi ... september 21, 2012, which...

VALCOUSTICS CANADA LTD. Milton Heights Neighbourhood/Royal Park North – Noise FeasibilityFile: 102-286-200

30 Wertheim Court, Unit 25, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 1B9 Tel: 905-764-5223/Fax: 905-764-6813/E-mail: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.1 Road Traffic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1.2 Rail Traffic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2.1 MOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2.2 Region of Halton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2.3 Town of Milton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3.1 Road Traffic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.4 NOISE CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4.1 Exterior Wall and Window Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.4.1.1 Residential Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4.1.2 Commercial Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4.2 Ventilation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4.3 Outdoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4.4 Warning Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.0 INDUSTRY NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.1 INDUSTRY NOISE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.1.1 Modatek and Karmax Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.1.2 Additional Industrial Lands at the East Side of Peru Road . . . . . 10

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2.1 Outdoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2.2 Plane of a Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.2.3 Ambient Sound Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2.4 Applicable Guideline Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2.5 D-1 and D-6 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.3 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.3.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.3.2 Noise Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.3.3 Sound Level Prediction Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.3.3.1 Modatek Impulse Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3.4 Sound Level Prediction Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3.5 Compliance Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.0 GROUND VIBRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.1 CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.2 STAMPING PRESSES (KARMAX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

..../cont’d



TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

5.0 APPLICATION OF D-1 AND D-6 GUIDELINESTO PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1 FUTURE USES AT MI DEVELOPMENT LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.2 EXISTING U-NEED STORAGE FACILITY (75 PERU ROAD) . . . . . . . 18

6.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 FUTURE ROAD TRAFFIC DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

TABLE 2 PREDICTED SOUND ENERGY EXPOSURE OUTDOORSROAD TRAFFIC NOISE – NO MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

TABLE 3 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24NOTES TO TABLE 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 KEY PLAN

FIGURE 2 CONCEPT PLAN

FIGURE 3 KARMAX + MODATEK FUTURE 2 + HYPOTHETICAL NEW INDUSTRYNON-IMPULSE EXCESSES

FIGURE 4 MODATEK FUTURE 2A IMPULSE EXCESSES

FIGURE 5 SOUND LEVEL EXCESSES FOR ALL SCENARIOS

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX AROAD TRAFFIC DATA CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX BENVIRONMENTAL NOISE GUIDELINES

APPENDIX C SAMPLE CALCULATION ROAD TRAFFIC SOURCES

..../cont’d



TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF APPENDICES (continued)

APPENDIX D MODATEK AND KARMAX PLANT DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDIX EUPDATED INDUSTRY INFORMATION

APPENDIX F STATIONARY SOURCE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS ANDASSUMPTIONS

APPENDIX G MODATEK C OF A

APPENDIX H KARMAX PRESS GROUND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX I EXAMPLE WINDOW STC RATINGS

VALCOUSTICS CANADA LTD. Milton Heights Neighbourhood/Royal Park North – Noise FeasibilityFile: 102-286-200 Page 1


Environmental Noise Feasibility Assessment

Milton Heights Neighbourhood

Royal Park North

Proposed Mixed-Use DevelopmentTown of Milton

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Valcoustics Canada Ltd. (VCL) previously prepared a Noise Feasibility Assessment for theoverall Milton Heights Neighbourhood dated November 28, 2006 (hereafter referred to asthe November 28, 2006 Report) (Reference 6). The November 28, 2006 Report assessedthe noise impact from the existing and future transportation noise sources and the twoexisting industrial plants immediately east, on the Milton Heights development site as awhole. Since 2006, various updates have been prepared based on more currentinformation for the industries, as well updated road traffic data for the area roads andhighways. This has included a most recent report submission to the Town of Milton onSeptember 21, 2012, which included a letter supplement dated September 20, 2012 withappended report in draft form dated April 06, 2012 (Reference 10).

The site as a whole comprises three separate parcels each with different ownership, thesebeing:

• Royal Park North (RPN) parcel at the north end, bordering Highway 401;• Century Grove parcel, in the middle area; and• Andrin parcel at the south end, bordering the CPR rail line running along a northwest

to southeast diagonal.

An additional land parcel, Royal Park South (RPS), is proposed at the south side of No. 3Sideroad. This report addresses the RPN parcel only. The other land parcels areaddressed under separate cover.

The noise control measures have been updated accounting for changes to the subdivisionplan, current road traffic data and confirmed alignment of the New Tremaine Road. In



addition, noise from the two industrial plants east of the site have been updated based onrecent sound source inventories by the plant operators.

The sound exposures on the site due to the primary transportation sources and primaryindustrial uses have been predicted and compared to the applicable Ministry of theEnvironment (MOE) noise guideline limits. Where excesses above the guideline limitsoccur, mitigation measures have been recommended.

This assessment concludes that the proposed residential uses are feasible, relative toensuring compliance with the applicable environmental noise guidelines. This conclusionincludes the potential impacts from the nearby industrial uses.

1.1 SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION

The site is bounded by:

• Highway 401 to the north, including a drainage channel (watercourse) between thehighway and the site;

• Peru Road along the east side, with the existing Modatek Systems (Magna)industrial plant beyond, at the east side of Peru Road, and a second industrial plant,Karmax Heavy Stamping (Magna) south of the Modatek plant;

• No. 3 Sideroad to the south, with existing residential beyond (as well as proposedresidential immediately south of the existing, and owned by the same applicant butnot part of this application); and

• existing residential along the west side at the south end, with the existing TremaineRoad at the north end.

The site is currently agricultural with some existing residential uses. New Tremaine Roadwill be realigned with an interchange with Highway 401. The realigned New TremaineRoad will bisect the site and will be elevated to accommodate a grade separation overHighway 401. The residential and commercial blocks will be on the west side of therealigned Tremaine Road, with a future business park (and stormwater pond) at the eastside. The business park is part of the RPN application.

A Key Plan is shown as Figure 1.

This report is based on the RPN Concept Plan by MBTW Group, dated February 20, 2013and shown as Figure 2, as well as grading information from the Grading Concept planprepared by Urbantech Consulting dated February 2013.

The concept includes:

1. Three-storey “decked townhouses” along the northern periphery of the site. Thesewill include an outdoor deck at the second floor, atop the garage. The outdoor deckin this case will be located at the south side of the dwellings, and well shielded fromHighway 401 to the north; and



2. Two-storey single family dwellings with laneway garages (laneway singles),conventional townhouses and townhouses with rear lane garages (lanewaytownhouses).

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT

2.1 TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES

The noise sources with the potential for impact on the proposed development are roadtraffic on:

• Highway 401;• the realigned Tremaine Road; and• the existing Tremaine Road.

The existing Tremaine Road was reviewed but was found to be insignificant relative to theHighway 401 noise contribution, and therefore is not included in the noise predictionsummaries.

Traffic volumes on the existing Peru Road and No. 3 Sideroad are insignificant relative tothe other (primary) traffic sources and have not been considered.

The existing CPR line to the south is far enough away that it does not require consideration.

2.1.1 Road Traffic Sources

Road traffic data used in this assessment is summarized in Table 1. Appendix A includesassociated correspondence.

The future (ultimate) traffic data for Highway 401 was obtained from the Ministry ofTransportation (MTO).

The traffic data for the existing Tremaine Road (Year 2010) and the New Tremaine Roadrealignment (future condition) was obtained from the Region of Halton. The existingTremaine Road data was not escalated (on the basis that any future traffic growth willdefault to the New Tremaine Road realignment).

(Additional information regarding road existing road traffic volumes for Highway 401 andNew Tremaine Road is presented in Section 3.2.2 below. The existing data is used toestablish the background ambient sound exposures and associated noise guideline limitsexpected at the subject site around the time of initial occupancy, as part of the assessmentof the industry sources).


(1) Leq Day - 16 hour energy equivalent sound level (0700-2300 hours).(2) Leq Night - 8 hour energy equivalent sound level (2300-0700 hours).


2.1.2 Rail Traffic Sources

The existing CPR line to the south is at least 530 m from the site at the closest point, andwill have insignificant noise impacts on the subject site.

CPR have noise requirements for separations of 300 m or less, relative to the railright-of-way, which is exceeded here.

The CPR line is not considered further in this study.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES

2.2.1 MOE

The applicable environmental noise guidelines for new residential developments are givenin MOE Publication LU-131 and are summarized in Appendix B.

For daytime sound energy exposures ( Leq Day(1)) at the exterior face of living or dining rooms

greater than 65 dBA, means must be provided so that windows can be kept closed fornoise control purposes and central air conditioning is required. For daytime soundexposures between 56 and 65 dBA inclusive, there need only be the provision for addingair conditioning at a later date. A warning clause advising the occupant of the potentialinterference with some activities is also required. At nighttime, air conditioning would berequired when the sound exposure exceeds 60 dBA (Leq Night

(2)) at bedroom windows(provision for adding air conditioning is required at 50 dBA).

For outdoor amenity areas (“Outdoor Living Areas” – OLA’s), the design goal is 55 dBALeq Day (0700 to 2300 hours), with an excess not exceeding 5 dBA considered acceptablein some cases.

For road traffic sources the indoor criteria are 45 dBA for living quarters and 40 dBA forsleeping quarters. The architectural design of the building envelope (walls, windows, etc.)must provide adequate sound isolation to achieve these indoor sound exposure limits,based on the applicable outdoor sound exposure on the facades.

For non-residential (commercial) uses, the only requirement is an indoor sound level limitof 50 dBA for transportation sources.

2.2.2 Region of Halton

The acoustical consultant representing the Region of Halton for this Milton Heights projectindicates that the noise policy sets out a maximum 3.0 m sound barrier height, and inpractice up to 3.5 m can be allowable in some cases. In addition, a minimum barrier height



of 2.4 m is required, where sound barriers are shown as being needed. The policy speaksto the height in relation to the noise barrier "wall", and does not appear to state or imply thatthe height is inclusive of a berm. In other words, the maximum height may relate only tothe wall or fence portion, and the overall height including an earth berm (or retaining wall)can exceed the 3.0 m height.

(It is worthy to note that the maximum sound barrier height determined for this site is 2.2 mfor at-grade barriers, as discussed in Section 2.4.3 below. This excludes temporary soundcontrol berms indicated as being needed prior to the full build-out of the site).

2.2.3 Town of Milton

The Town’s policy stipulates a maximum fence height of 2.0 m. Greater heights areallowable using a combination earth berm and wall or fence. The maximum height adjacentto rail lines is 3.0 m, and presumably relates to the wall or fence height only; that is,excluding an earth berm.

2.3 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.3.1 Road Traffic Sources

Using the road traffic data in Table 1, the sound energy exposures, in terms of Leq Day andLeq Night, were determined using STAMSON V5.04 – ORNAMENT, the computerized roadtraffic noise prediction model of the MOE.

The daytime calculations were made at a height of 1.5 m above grade and correspondingto an outdoor standing height at grade or a first storey living room/dining room window. Forthe two-storey dwellings (i.e., laneway singles, conventional townhouses, lanewaytownhouses), nighttime calculations were made at a 4.5 m high receptor, correspondingto a second floor bedroom window. For the decked townhouses, a 7.5 m high receptorrepresenting a third floor bedroom window was used.

Screening of the Highway 401 express lanes by the elevated realigned New TremaineRoad, as well as the elevated Highway 401 on-ramp, was accounted for in the noisepredictions, where applicable.

The following summarizes the predicted daytime and nighttime sound exposures at thebuilding facade for several key locations:

• North periphery: maximum 74 dBA and 76 dBA, respectively, at the north facadeof the decked townhouses closest to Highway 401, and reducing to about 66 dBAdaytime and 68 dBA nighttime, at the dwellings towards the east side of the site.

• West Periphery: 62 dBA daytime, and 63 dBA nighttime at the exposed westfacade, with higher levels at the extreme northern units closest to Highway 401.



• East Periphery: 66 dBA daytime, and 63 dBA nighttime at the exposed east facade,with higher levels at the extreme northern units closest to Highway 401.

• Interior Lots: 62 dBA daytime, and 63 dBA nighttime for several worst caselocations at the second row along the north periphery. Other interior lots willexperience much lower sound exposures due to the greater screening.

The predicted daytime sound exposures at the OLA’s are summarized as follows:

• North periphery: 66 dBA at the worst case second level decks (this assumes thedeck is not covered, and without the wing wall extensions at the side(s)). This isdiscussed further in Section 2.4.3 below.

• West periphery: 62 dBA to 65 dBA, depending upon location (higher level closer toHighway 401.

• East Periphery: 65 dBA at the north limit (decked townhouses and assuming nocovered deck/side wing walls), daytime, and about 61 dBA at the end units of thedwellings fronting towards New Tremaine Road. In one case where the dwellingsides onto Street E, the level is about 65 dBA, assuming the OLA is not shelteredby a specially sited dwelling.

• Interior lots beyond the northern and eastern periphery will experience lower soundexposures due to the shielding by the intervening dwellings.

A sample calculation of the future road traffic sound exposure is contained in Appendix C.

2.4 NOISE CONTROL MEASURES

The noise control measures for transportation noise sources can generally be classified intotwo categories which are interrelated, but which can be treated separately for the most part:

(a) Architectural elements to achieve acceptable indoor noise guidelines;

(b) Design features to protect the OLA’s.

Table 3 and attached notes summarizes the noise abatement recommendations, as wellas Figure 2.

2.4.1 Exterior Wall and Window Construction

2.4.1.1 Residential Dwellings

Exterior wall and window construction above the minimum requirements governed by theminimum Ontario Building Code (OBC) should be expected for the dwellings closest to theperipheries of the site.



The required Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for the exterior facades werecalculated assuming windows have a surface area equalling 20% of the associated roomfloor area, and exterior walls were assumed to have a surface area equal to 80% of theassociated room floor area for walls carrying a window.

The exterior wall and window requirements are based on standard assumptions and shouldbe checked once detailed working drawings are available for the dwellings.

For the dwellings at the northern, western and eastern peripheries of the site, brick veneerexterior wall construction (or STC 54 equivalent) is recommended, and has been assumedwhen determining the exterior window STC requirements. Figure 2 shows the dwellingswhere the upgraded brick veneer wall construction is recommended.

Assuming the brick veneer exterior wall construction requirement for the dwellings indicatedabove, the closest townhouse dwellings fronting toward Highway 401 will require upgradedwindows:

• For corner bedroom units, windows on the north facade are required to haveminimum STC 39 ratings and the windows on the east or west facade are requiredto have minimum STC 36 ratings;

• For non-corner units, windows on the north facade require minimum STC 36 ratings;

• Windows meeting the minimum non-acoustical aspects of the OBC are acceptablefor most other windows, and assuming brick veneer exterior wall construction for thelocations shown in Figure 2 and in Table 3.

Table 3 summarize the general architectural exterior wall/window requirements.

2.4.1.2 Commercial Buildings

Standard 1 inch sealed units double glazed units will be sufficient to allow the indoor soundlevel limits to be met.

Upgraded exterior wall construction should not be necessary. Standard constructionmeeting the minimum OBC requirements should be sufficient. This includes glazed ormetal panel spandrel rated at about STC 35 or higher.

2.4.2 Ventilation Requirements

Mandatory air conditioning should be anticipated at the first row of dwellings along thenorthern, eastern and western periphery of the site.

Beyond the first rows requiring air conditioning, subsequent rows will require the provisionto allow the future installation of air conditioning, by the occupant. For low densitydevelopment, the provision normally takes the form of a ducted ventilation system suitablysized to accommodate the addition of central air conditioning. Regardless of the noise



control requirements, all dwellings in the development are anticipated to be designed withthis type of system.

Figure 2 and Table 3 show the ventilation requirements.

2.4.3 Outdoors

The unmitigated daytime sound exposures at the OLA’s of the dwellings along theperiphery of the site with exposure to either Highway 401 or the realigned Tremaine Roadare above the 55 dBA MOE guideline and 60 dBA MOE upper in some cases.

Sound barriers and other methods to achieve acoustical screening have been investigated.

Figure 2 shows the noise mitigation measure to achieve the 55 dBA guideline at the OLA's.

• North Boundary: along the north boundary of the site, the noise mitigation measurewill consist of a covered second floor deck with wing-wall extensions at the side.This is required at the end units of blocks with exposure to Highway 401 and/or NewTremaine Road. The locations are illustrated in Figure 2.

• West Side (Full Build Out): this is for the case with full build out at the west side,including lands up to and abutting the east side of the existing Tremaine Road. Atthe west side of the site, and extreme northwest corner, special siting of the dwellingwill be used such that the dwelling and associated structures act as the soundbarrier, that is, the OLA is located at the sheltered side of the dwelling. This alonewill be sufficient to meet the 55 dBA guideline, and based on a minimum height ofthe dwelling structure of at least 5.4 m above the rear yard grade elevation.

• West Side (Prior to Full Build Out): this is for the case where the build out does notextend to the east side of existing Tremaine Road. The Concept Plan shows theline identifying the limit for a temporary berm (with a height of 5.4 m). The 5.4 mheight will be sufficient to meet 55 dBA at the closet OLA’s to the east, that have fullor partial exposure to the west.

• East Side – Flankage Lot: at the row flanking towards New Tremaine Road, thesame special dwelling siting will be used for the eastern most dwelling. The 55 dBAguideline is met at the sheltered OLA provided the dwelling structure is at 6.0 mabove the rear yard grade elevation, and a 2.2 m high sound barrier fence isprovided along the north property line.

• East Side – Reverse Frontage: standard dwelling construction is used, but thedwelling also acts as the sound barrier in this case. At the end units of each block,a 1.8 m to 2.1 m high sound barrier is required, depending upon location.

The sound barrier requirements are shown on Figure 2 and summarized in Table 3.



The grade level sound barrier heights are based on the preliminary grading informationprovided in the Grading Concept plan prepared by Urbantech Consulting. The soundbarrier requirements will need to be reviewed and confirmed once final developmentgrading and dwelling sitings become available.

Sound barriers must be of solid construction with no gaps, cracks or holes and must havea minimum surface density of 20 kg/m². A variety of materials are available including wood,masonry, earth berms, or a combination of materials.

Responding to peer review comments representing the Town of Milton, the indicated soundbarrier and acoustical screening have been recommended on the basis of protecting thefull available OLA. The actual OLA’s are not available at this time. In some cases, theareas may be less than the minimum protected area suggested under LU-131. Forexample, from the very preliminary concept plans for the second floor decks, the full deckarea is likely to be around 16 m². This is short of the minimum 37 sq m suggested underLU-131, but is not atypical of new residential of similar urban densities. For the “lanewaytowns” type dwellings, where the OLA is nestled between the dwelling and the detachedgarages, the preliminary estimate is about 45 m². This would appear to meet the 37 m² LU-131 requirement for row housing.

Figure 2 and Table 3 summarize the sound barrier requirements.

2.4.4 Warning Clauses

Where the sound exposure guidelines are exceeded, appropriate warning clauses shouldbe registered on title to make future occupants aware of the potential noise situation.

See Table 3 and attached notes.

3.0 INDUSTRY NOISE

The potential noise impacts from the two industrial plants at the east side of Peru Roadwere reviewed in great detail as part of our November 2006 Report ( Modatek Systems atthe north, and Karmax Heavy Stamping at the south). The industrial noise assessment wasbased on sound measurements made on these two industrial properties, including at therooftop and with the full cooperation of both plants operators.

3.1 INDUSTRY NOISE SOURCES

3.1.1 Modatek and Karmax Plants

The primary industry sources with the greatest potential for noise impacts at the subject siteare the Modatek Systems plant, immediately east at the east side of Peru Road, and asecond industrial plant, Karmax Systems located south of Modatek. An open area thatincludes rail spurs is located between the two plants. Both plants are operated by Magna.



Relative to the original assessment and report in 2006, this study is based on updatedinformation for the Modatek and Karmax plants, as described in Appendices D & E, and thematerials noted in Reference 7 as provided by Magna.

Appendix D includes brief descriptions for the regular operations at the Modatek andKarmax plants, as provided to us with the Reference 7 materials. Appendix E describesthe changes to the industry information provided since the 2006 Noise Report was issued.

3.1.2 Additional Industrial Lands at the East Side of Peru Road

The lands to the east located at 77 and 99 Peru Road, which are currently occupied bylegal non-conforming residences, are currently zoned to allow for industrial development.As requested by the Town of Milton, noise emissions from a future hypothetical industrialuse have been considered for these lands. It is noted however that there are currentlyexisting dwellings located closer to this new hypothetical industry than the subject site.Thus, the noise emissions from any new industry to be developed on these lands would belimited by the presence of these dwellings, where the noise guideline limits would need tobe met. Regardless, a review was undertaken.

A use similar to the size and scope of the recently added warehouse at the Karmax landshas been assumed on these lands. The assumed noise generating sources include:

• nine rooftop exhaust fans (same number and reference sound emission levels asthe Karmax warehouse);

• one grade level emergency generator (same number and reference sound emissionlevels as the Karmax warehouse);

• two rooftop duct collectors (reference sound emissions based on measurementsfrom other VCL projects); and

• one rooftop cooling tower (reference sound level is based on the Modatek coolingtowers, for a single unit).

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES

The applicable environmental noise guidelines for new residential developments are givenin MOE Publication LU-131 and are summarized in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Outdoors

The MOE guidelines set a (one-hour Leq) exclusionary limit of 50 dBA, or the ambient dueto road traffic noise, if higher, during any hour of the daytime (0700 to 2300 hours), for thesound exposure from a stationary source at any outdoor point of reception in any areaamenable for use. This can include outdoor balconies.

3.2.2 Plane of a Window

The applicable sound level limit is expressed in terms of one-hour Leq (as opposed to16-hour [day] and 8-hour [night] as is used for ground transportation sources). The MOEguidelines set a (one-hour Leq) exclusionary limit of 50 dBA during the day and evening



(0700 to 2300 hours) and 45 dBA at night (2300 to 0700 hours) or the ambient due to theroad traffic noise, if higher, in the plane of a window. No specific indoor sound exposureguidelines are provided for stationary sources.

The MOE guidelines recognize minimum sound level limits which are called the “exclusionlimits” for stationary sources, or the existing ambient sound exposure if higher. Theexclusion limits for a Class 1 area are:

• Daytime (0700 to 2300 hours): 50 dBA (Leq 1);• Nighttime (2300 to 0700 hours): 45 dBA (Leq 1).

The same guideline limits also apply to impulsive sources, based on logarithmic meanimpulse level (LLM).

For sources or events that are considered infrequent, these are excluded from needing tocomply with the MOE guideline limits.

Certain sources are subject to being penalized where the source character has a greaterpotential to cause annoyance, and has been included here.

3.2.3 Ambient Sound Levels

Minimum ambient sound levels, due to road traffic sources (Highway 401 and newTremaine Road), were predicted at the proposed residential buildings. The road trafficpredictions were completed using the CadnaA implementation of the RLS-90 traffic noisemodel. The RLS-90 model was “calibrated” using emission data for each road source aspredicted by the MOE traffic noise model ORNAMENT/STAMSON. The reference soundlevel from ORNAMENT/STAMSON is provided at 15 m. This reference sound level wasmanually adjusted accounting for distance effect only for use in the RLS-90 algorithms,which use a 25 m reference distance.

All ambient calculations were done for the most stringent nighttime period only, to considerthe worst case condition. For Highway 401, the minimum hourly road traffic data wasprovided by the Ministry of Transportation. The average minimum hourly volume (over7 days) for Highway 401 of 695 vehicles occurs during the 0200 to 0300 hour. For NewTremaine Road, the future Year 2031 data provided by the Region was scaled back to theYear 2015 data using an assumed 2% annual decay rate (ie the reverse of a standard 2%annual growth rate). This was in the absence of near term estimates of the traffic volumeson New Tremaine Road when initially opened, and coinciding with the initial occupanciesof the subject site. The minimum hourly data for New Tremaine Road was derived fromthe 24-hour data using the typical ITE traffic distribution model for well travelled roadways.According to this distribution, the minimum hourly volume of 44, which is 0.2% of the 2015volume of 21,802 vehicles, occurs during the hours of 0400 to 0500.

It is noted that the contribution of New Tremaine road is only relevant at the east side of theRPN site, at the dwellings closest to the New Tremaine Road. At all other locations thesound level contribution from New Tremaine Road is insignificant.



3.2.4 Applicable Guideline Limits

The predicted ambient sound exposures are greater than the minimum exclusion limits atthe peripheries of the site, where there is greater exposure to the nearby roadways. At theinterior of the site, where more screening from the dwellings themselves occurs, theminimum exclusion limits apply.

3.2.5 D-1 and D-6 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

The MOE D-1 and D-6 guidelines are intended to assist in the planning process when newsensitive land uses are proposed within the potential influence area of existing facilities, orwhen new facilities are proposed where existing sensitive uses would be within the newinfluence area. The stated objectives of the MOE guidelines are to "...minimize or prevent,through the use of buffers, the exposure of any person... to adverse effects associated withthe operation of specified facilities...". Environmental noise is one identified, potential,adverse effect.

Separation distance is one buffering technique. Other types of buffers or mitigation arerecognized, such as sound barrier berms, walls or buildings. Where a specific site isproposed for development, it is the proponent's responsibility to investigate, propose andimplement mitigation that can be located either at the source, elsewhere on the facility site,on the sensitive land use site, or on intervening sites.

The D-6 guideline is a direct application of D-1, specific to industrial operations/facilities andsensitive land uses.

Guideline D-6 identifies potential separation distances between sensitive land uses andindustry, based on categorizing industry into one of three classes.

Class I: potential zone of influence 70 m; minimum 20 m. Class II: potential zone of influence 300 m; minimum 70 m.Class III: potential zone of influence 1000 m; minimum 300 m.

The setbacks are typically lot line to lot line. Where zoning setbacks preclude uses withpotential for conflict, setbacks on source or receptor properties can be part of the minimumsetback.

In general, compliance with the numeric sound level guideline limits outlined in MOEpublications LU-131 or NPC 205/232 have been adequate to demonstrate land usecompatibility between industrial facilities and noise sensitive uses, for buffer setbacks lessthan the suggested minimums outlined in the D-1 and D-6 publications.

There are several pit-falls in the literal application of Guideline D-6:

1. It is not always easy to fit every industry into only one of three categories. Somesmaller industries (Class I) sometimes have one of the characteristics of a largerindustry (Class III) and as a result, on occasion, there has been a tendency toclassify based on the highest category for any characteristic rather than on an



overall judgement. This can lead to ridiculous conclusions on occasion for verysmall industrial operations with one characteristic being the same as the Class IIIindustry examples given in D-6.

2. Applying the minimum recommended (or other arbitrary) separation distanceprovides no assurance that there will be no environmental noise impacts and thatno mitigation will be required. There have been occasions where planners assumedthat implementing either the minimum or a separation distance equal to the indicatedpotential zone of influence automatically resolved all issues. Conversely, there areexamples where noise sensitive developments have been approved with buffersetbacks much less than the minimums under D-6, on the basis that the applicableMOE noise guideline limits of LU-131 or NPC 205/232 are met. In fact, high densityresidential with common property lines to Class III industry (i.e., 0 m setback) hasbeen approved on this basis. In other words, compliance with the numeric soundlevel limits of the MOE can be a better predictor of land use compatibility, ratherthan buffer setbacks alone and in the absence of numeric sound limits.

3. The D-1 and D-6 guidelines are broad guidelines considering a variety of potentialenvironmental impacts, including noise and air quality, etc. Distance separationalone is generally not an efficient mitigation technique for noise, because of thenon-linear relationship between sound level and distance from a source. That is, therate of fall off of sound level diminishes with increasing distance. Thus, relying ondistance alone can lead to inefficient use of infrastructure and available land.Including mitigation such as sound barriers, building orientation (e.g., direction thatloading docks face), or noise control at source (e.g., equipment selection, silencerson fans, etc.) can often lead to appropriate compliance with noise criteria and landuse compatibility, using separation distances less than the minimum in the D-6guidelines.

3.3 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.3.1 Methodology

The noise analysis was completed using CadnaA V4.1 environmental acoustics modellingsoftware. A 3-D model of each industrial plant and the surrounding lands was developedusing the proposed draft plan and industrial building massing (as defined by recent aerialimagery from Google Earth). The site topography is based on the most recent gradingplan. The noise modelling accounts for the soft ground topography between the noisesources and receiver areas, screening by existing buildings and structures whereapplicable, as well as various environmental factors such as atmospheric absorption,ground effects, etc, following the procedures of ISO 9613 Part 2. Appendix F indicates theparameters and assumptions used in the assessment.

The sound level predictions were completed using the building evaluation method in theCadnaA prediction program. This method calculates sound levels at all points along thefacade as well as at each storey of the building. The ambient sound exposures were alsocalculated in this way at each building in the model. Algorithms within the program werethen used to subtract the applicable guideline limits from the predicted sound levels, to



determine locations where sound level excesses may occur. The results below arepresented in terms of sound level excesses (as opposed to identifying the industryattributable sound levels and ambient levels separately). Where an excess is predicted, itis rounded to the nearest whole number.

3.3.2 Noise Control Measures

The sound level predictions account for the future noise control measures to be includedat both industrial plants and as identified in Tables 1A and 2A of the Reference 9 materials.

The construction of the buildings on the business park on the east side of New Tremaineroad and the mixed use block at the southeast corner of the site (northwest corner of No.3 Sideroad and New Tremaine Road) will not occur until after the other residential portionsof the project are constructed. However, structures on these lands are required for noisecontrol purposes, since these structures will provide acoustical screening for the rest of thesite. In the interim period before these non-residential uses are built, earthen berms willbe erected on these lands to provide the necessary acoustical screening. The heights ofthese berms will be 6.0 m above grade for the berm on the Business Park Block lands and7.2 m above grade for the berm on the Commercial Block. These berms have beenconsidered in this assessment. It is also noted that these berms were also accounted forwhen completing the ambient sound level predictions. The ultimate design of the buildingsto be constructed on these lands can be the subject to an updated noise analysis review,to ensure proper acoustical screening is provided by the massing.

3.3.3 Sound Level Prediction Scenarios

The operating scenarios as presented in the Reference 7 to 9 materials were investigated,specifically:

• Karmax – existing scenario, non-impulse sources;• Karmax – existing scenario for impulse sources;• Modatek – existing scenario, future 1 and future 2, non-impulse sources;• Modatek – existing/future1 impulse sources; and• Modatek – future 2 for impulse sources (broken out as 2A and 2B, to address

specific source types).

As mentioned above, a non-impulse scenario accounting for the hypothetical industry onthe lands located at 77 and 99 Peru Road was also investigated.

To present a worst case condition, the non-impulse noise emissions from both Karmax andModatek plants, as well as the new hypothetical future plant combined, have beenconsidered. This was not done for the impulse sources as these have been assessed onan individual basis, which is the worst case condition.

Only the predicted sound exposures, and excesses over the applicable guideline limits,from the “worst case” scenarios at the proposed residential uses have been included in thereport. These worst case scenarios are:



• Non-impulse: Karmax Existing + Modatek Future 2 + Hypothetical New Industry.

• Impulse: Modatek Future 2A scenario.

3.3.3.1 Modatek Impulse Scenarios

Based on the reference sound levels provided for the Modatek impulse sources, soundlevel excesses are predicted at the existing dwellings in the immediate vicinity. TheAcoustic Assessment Report (AAR) dated November 4, 2009 prepared by JacquesWhitford in support of the Certificate of Approval (C of A) application for Modatekconsidered these impulse sources to be infrequent. As a result, a much less stringentnoise limit of 100 dBAI was used. Modatek and the Town have indicated concern thatthese impulses may become frequent at some point in the future and have thereforerequested they be assessed as being frequent for this environmental assessment review.The current C of A for Modatek requires the facility be in compliance with the sound levellimits of NPC 205 at all times. If the impulse noises due become frequent, the industrywould no longer be in compliance with NPC 205 or the terms of their C of A. Appendix Goutlines specifics of the C of A and AAR. Control measures would be required to bring thefacility back into compliance.

Also, further clarification on the origins of the reference sound levels provided for theimpulse sources has been requested. As of the writing of this report no clarification hasbeen provided. The reference sound levels, as provided, have been used for the noisepredictions. The results and conclusions of this assessment may be subject to clarificationof these reference sound levels, with an expectation that the predicted impacts at thesubject site will be less onerous. As such, this assessment may need to be updated onceclarification is obtained.

As an additional note, we have recently become aware of a newer amended C of A forModatek dated July 17, 2012. This document updates the noise mitigation for the facility,relative to the requirements previously provided to us by Magna’s Acoustical consultant(RWDI) and incorporated as part in this assessment. The July 17, 2012 C of A alsoreferences a newer supporting AAR study dated January 13, 2012. We have not beenprovided a copy of the July 17, 2012 AAR. Copies of both C of A documents are providedin Appendix G.

3.3.4 Sound Level Prediction Results

Figures 3, 4 and 5 summarize the results. Note, in the figures the coloured octagonsaround the building facades indicate the maximum excess (at any storey) occurring at thatparticular building facade location. Where no number or octagon is shown, there are nosound level excesses predicted.

Figure 3 summarizes the sound level excesses at the proposed residential uses for thenon-impulse scenario. As can be seen from the figure there is one location on the southernfacade of one single family dwelling where a slight excess (about 1 dB) occurs. Theexcesses is primarily due to the scrap metal bin at Modatek.



Figure 4 summarizes the sound level excesses at the proposed residential uses for theModatek impulse future 2 scenario. As can be seen from the figure, there is one locationwhere a slight excess (about 1 dB) is predicted on the southern facade of the townhouseblock fronting onto Street E.

Other than the two minor sound level excesses mentioned above, the predicted soundexposures comply with the applicable guideline limits at all buildings within the developmentfor all scenarios. Figure 5 shows the combined sound level excesses from all scenarios.

3.3.5 Compliance Status

Minor excesses of 1 dB are predicted at two locations on the site. Other than these, thepredicted sound levels on site are within the applicable guideline limits at all buildings.Thus, compliance can be achieved.

The sound level excess in the non-impulse scenario is primarily due to the scrap metal binon the Modatek lands. Modatek will be implementing mitigation for the scrap metal bin.The required attenuation is 6 dB in each octave band. However, any noise attenuationmeasure applied will likely provide greater than this minimum requirement. As such the 1dB excess on site will likely be eliminated.

Regardless of the source, any minor excess can also be mitigated using on-site mitigationmeasures such as special house designs that eliminate the noise sensitive windows at theaffected facade location. Another option could be to relocate the garage to the front sideof the dwelling to provided screening for the front face, at least for the few locations whereneeded. It is expected that during the detailed design phase, design measures can beformulated and compliance can be shown.

The sound level excess in the impulse scenario is primarily due to the impulse sources onthe Modatek lands. On-site mitigation measures can be incorporated into the design of thedwelling to eliminate the excess, similar to as discussed above (no noise sensitive windowsat the facade with an excess, or using front garages to provide screening). It is expectedthat during the detailed design phase, design measures can be formulated and compliancecan be shown.

4.0 GROUND VIBRATION

The CPR rail line and the stamping presses at Karmax are potential sources of groundvibration. There are no stamping presses or other sources of ground vibration at theModatek plant.

4.1 CPR

The railway is far enough away that ground vibration will not be an issue at the subject RPNsite.



4.2 STAMPING PRESSES (KARMAX)

The potential for ground vibration from the stamping presses at Karmax was reviewed inour November 2006 report and were not found to not be problematic at the closestproposed residential. This included a review of the potential for stamping presses in thenew warehouse, should that area ever be considered for production uses.

The proposed residential uses for the subject RPN site are well removed from the existingor possible future stamping presses at Karmax. Ground vibration will not be an issue.

We are not aware of any fundamental changes to the stamping presses at the Karmaxplant that might affect the ground vibration levels at off site areas. The original assessmentand conclusions are expected to still be applicable. For convenience, the sectionaddressing the ground vibration assessment from the November 2006 report are includedhere in Appendix H. It must be noted that the Appendix H discussions regarding theclosest proposed dwellings are in reference to the Century Grove land parcel to the southof the subject RPN parcel. The Century Grove parcel has proposed dwellings much closerto the Karmax plant compared to the subject RPN site. The ground vibration levels willtherefore be much less at the RPN site due to the greater distance separation.

5.0 APPLICATION OF D-1 AND D-6 GUIDELINES TO PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN

The Karmax and Modatek plants are automotive parts manufacturing, and can be classifiedas Class II industries under D-6. This classification is helped in part by the substantiveplanned or currently installed noise control measures in place and acoustical buffering ofmany of the noise sources at both industries due to the existing residential uses nearby.Further, the plants do not appear to be or have been a source of major annoyance at theexisting community, as evidenced by the general lack of documented noise complaints bythe surrounding residential uses. The minimum setback would be therefore be 70 m on thebasis of a Class II grading.

The industries due east of the site can classified as belonging to Class I or II, with minimumseparation of 20 or 70 m, respectively.

The draft plan shows non-residential blocks at the eastern portion closest to existingindustrial uses to the east, including Business Park Block 30, and Stormwater PondBlock 32.

The largest minimum separation distance of 70 m to the closest proposed residential uses,as recommended by D-6, is achieved in all cases. Actual separations are much greater,and in the order of at least 355 m (Modatek west property line to closest residentialproperty line, west side of New Tremaine Road). This increases to 375 m if consideringthe closest portion of the Modatek building (future expansion at the southwest corner of theplant).



As noted previously, compliance with the numerical limits of LU-131 is considered anadequate indicator of land use compatibility by itself. The additional noise controlmeasures noted in Section 3.3.2 above will be sufficient to show compliance with thereference guideline limits. This excludes the upgraded mitigation noted for the Modatekscrap metal bin in Section 3.3.2.

5.1 FUTURE USES AT MI DEVELOPMENT LANDS

The issue has been raised regarding possible future uses at the MI Development lands.This includes possible expansions assuming the Karmax and Modatek plants remain, orother uses assuming both plants cease operations.

For the case where the two plants remain, the presence of the new residential at thesubject site will not adversely affect either plants ability to obtain or update theirEnvironmental Compliance Approval (ECA) certificates (previously Certificate of Approval– C of A). This is due to the presence of existing residential at the same setback as theproposed residential, and with a lower guideline limit that must be respected by the plantoperators as part of their environmental compliance requirements. The proposed threestorey townhouse dwellings at the east side can result in slightly higher sound exposuresat the top floor, but this is offset by the higher ambient sound levels due to closer proximityto Highway 401, as well as greater exposure to New Tremaine Road (due to a greater viewof the elevated portions of the roadway). In addition, the planned expansion at theModatek facility has been considered as part of this assessment. For Karmax no specificexpansion plans have been provided. In either case, additional expansions by MIDevelopments can be considered and addressed when specific details of the expansionplans are provided.

The same argument holds true for any possible future alternative uses at either site, interms of the presence of the proposed residential uses not affecting the type of uses at thesite, considering the closer proximity of the existing residential development to theseindustrial lands. Further, any change in use triggering a change to a Class III operationwith 300 m separation, is currently satisfied.

5.2 EXISTING U-NEED STORAGE FACILITY (75 PERU ROAD)

The site has been visited on several occasions, and negligible activity was observed, aswell as a general absence of noise emissions at locations very close to the site. Thepotential noise sources only appear to be that due to truck arrivals and departures, whichseems minimal based on the site observations, as well as aerial imagery showing whatappears to be a small operation.

The presence of several residential dwellings in much closer proximity to this the 75 PeruRoad site relative to the subject site, is noted, including dwellings at the west side of Peru,and not on the industrial zoned lands as is the case for the land immediately north thatincludes a residential dwelling within metres of the 75 Peru Road operations. Thepresence of the existing dwellings and the obligation by the operator of 75 Peru Road to



comply with the environmental noise requirements is sufficient to ensure there will be noadverse impacts at the subject site.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The proposed development is considered as being feasible, relative to demonstratingadequate compliance with the applicable noise guidelines.

In summary

1. Construction above the minimum requirements governed by the minimum OBCrequirements should be expected at the dwellings closest to Highway 401, and therealigned New Tremaine Road.

2. Brick veneer (or STC 54 equivalent) exterior wall construction is recommended fordwelling along the north periphery closest and/or with exposure to Highway 401.See Figure 2.

3. The bedroom windows in the townhouse dwellings closest to Highway 401 requiredupgraded STC ratings: STC 39 in the worst case, but must be checked once houseplans are available.

4. Mandatory air conditioning is required for the dwellings on the northen, western andeastern periphery of the site.

5. Beyond the first rows requiring mandatory air conditioning, subsequent rows willrequire the provision to allow the future installation of air conditioning, by theoccupant. For low density development, the provision normally takes the form of aducted ventilation system suitably sized to accommodate the addition of central airconditioning.

6. Sound barriers (acoustical screening) are required for certain areas, primarily thedwellings/lots at the western, northern and eastern periphery. This includes wingwall sound barriers with along the side of the second floor decks of several end units(with top covered), as well as grade level sound barriers at a few lots. The reversefrontage townhouse dwellings along the northern periphery and use of well shieldedsecond floor decks above the garages dramatically reduces the need for largesound barriers commonly seen for developments this close to major 400 seriesHighways. In all cases the 55 dBA guideline can be met with reasonable barrierheights, and/or special site control techniques such as the covered second floordecks, or the special sited dwellings where the dwelling itself (and associatedstructures such as garages/connecting breezeways) act as the sound barrier.

7. Warning clauses advising the occupants of the potential noise from the roadwaysare required at several lots.



8. A detailed noise impact study will be required once final site grading and dwellingsitings becomes available. This should also include an update for the exteriorwindow and wall requirements, based on the proposed floor plans.

9. Noise from the nearby industrial plants at the east side of Peru Road has beenupdated based on the source reference information provided in the Reference 7 to 9materials, and with some small changes to some of the information as discussed inAppendix E and F.

10. The update assessment for the industrial plant sources confirms:

• the daytime and nighttime sound level limits are met at all but two dwellings,where minor 1 dB excesses occur;

• it is anticipated that the minor (1 dB) excesses can be dealt with throughspecific dwelling design measures, which can be determined at the detaileddesign stage of the project;

11. Warning clauses advising the occupants of the sounds from the nearby industrialuses may sometimes be audible, are recommended.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. PC STAMSON 5.04, “Computer Program for Road Traffic Noise Assessment”,Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

2. Building Practice Note No. 56: "Controlling Sound Transmission into Buildings", byJ. D. Quirt, Division of Building Research, National Council of Canada,September 1985.

3. "Environmental Noise Assessment in Land-Use Planning 1987", Ontario Ministry ofthe Environment, February 1987, ISBN 0-7729-2804-5.

4. "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing", Canada Mortgage and HousingCorporation, Publication NHA 5156, 81/10.

5. "Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning", Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment, Publication LU-131, October 1997.

6. "Environmental Noise Feasibility Assessment ", Milton Heights Neighbourhood,November 28, 2006, Valcoustics Canada Ltd (Project 102-286).

7. November 11, 2011 Memorandum, RWDI Air Inc.

8. December 23, 2011 Memorandum, RWDI Air Inc.



9. February 4, 2012 email transmission with attachments (01 120203 UpdatedTable 1A - Modatek, 02 120203 Updated Table 2A - Karmax,03 120203 UpdatedTable 1D - Modatek, 04 120203 Table 2D), RWDI Air Inc.

10. “Environmental Noise Feasibility Assessment, Draft April 06, 2012 Report &September 20, 2012 Update Letter, Milton Heights Neighbourhood”, September 20,2012, Valcoustics Canada Ltd (Project 102-286-200)

ML\TH\hdJ:\2002\102286\200 (Royal Park North)\Reports\Milton Meadows _RPN_Feasibility_Fnl.wpd



TABLE 1

FUTURE ROAD TRAFFIC DATA (1)

Roadway AADT(2)% Trucks(3)

Speed Limit (kph) % GradeMedium Heavy

Highway 401 217600 5 14 100 < 2

Tremaine Road (Realigned) 29, 990 6 6 80 2

Tremaine Road (Existing) 3, 500 1 1 80 < 2

Notes:

(1) Highway 401 data obtained from the MTO for the Year 2021. Tremaine Road data obtained from the Region of Halton for theultimate condition. See Appendix A.

(2) AADT - Annual Average Daily Traffic.(3) Heavy/Medium ratio is assumed for Highway 401.

TABLE 2

PREDICTED SOUND ENERGY EXPOSURE OUTDOORS(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE – NO MITIGATION

Location(2) Source Distance (m)(3) Leq Day (dBA) Leq Night (dBA)

Block 1414A

(North Facade)

Highway 401 Westbound 92 70 71

Highway 401 Eastbound 63 72 74

TOTAL – 74 76

Block 1414A

Westerly Unit(2nd Floor Deck – OLA)

Highway 401 Westbound 105 62 –

Highway 401 Eastbound 76 64 –

TOTAL – 66 –

Block 1414L

(North Facade)



Highway 401 Ramp 105 58 59

New Tremaine Road Northbound 228 51 47

New Tremaine Road Southbound 218 51 47

TOTAL – 66 68

Block 1414Q

Easterly Unit(2nd Floor Deck – OLA)



New Tremaine Road Northbound 81 57 –

New Tremaine Road Southbound 71 58 –

TOTAL – 65 –

..../cont’d



TABLE 2 (continued)

PREDICTED SOUND ENERGY EXPOSURE OUTDOORS(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE – NO MITIGATION

Location(2) Source Distance (m)(3) Leq Day (dBA) Leq Night (dBA)

Block 17(East Facade)



New Tremaine Road Northbound 63 61 56

New Tremaine Road Southbound 51 63 57

TOTAL – 66 63

Block 18(Southerly Unit - OLA)



TOTAL – 61 –

Block 1414AA

(North Facade)



TOTAL – 62 63

Block 1414AA(OLA)



TOTAL – 58 –

Block 1414V

(OLA)





TOTAL – 58 –

Block 42(West Facade)



TOTAL – 62 63

Block 13(North Facade)



TOTAL – 54 55

Notes:

(1) Daytime sound exposures apply to 1.5 m high Living room window and in the rear yard OLA. Nighttime sound exposures applyto the top floor bedroom window (4.5 m above grade for laneway singles and towns; 7.5 m above grade for deckedtownhouses).

(2) See Figure 2 for receptor locations.(3) Distance indicated is from the centre line of the noise source to facade.



TABLE 3

NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES

Building Air Conditioning(1) ExteriorWall(2)

ExteriorWindow(3)

SoundBarrier(4)

WarningClauses(5)

Transportation Noise Sources

Block 14A (west unit),Block 14F (east unit) Mandatory Brick

Veneer Up to STC 39 See text &Figure 2 A, B, C

Blocks 14B to 14E,Remaining units in Block 14Aand 14F (interior units)

Mandatory BrickVeneer Up to STC 36 No A, B, C

Block 14G (north unit) Mandatory BrickVeneer Up to STC 35 See text &

Figure 2 A, B, C

Blocks 17, 18 (end units),Block 14Q (east unit),Block 14R ( east unit),Block 14AA (east unit),Block 14Z (north unit),Block 14J (west unit),Block 14K (east unit),Block 14L (west unit),Block 14N (south unit),Block 14O (west unit)

Mandatory BrickVeneer OBC See text &

Figure 2 A, B, C

Block 14H, 14I, 14M, 14P, 14X,14Y, 14AB, 42, 43,2nd to 5th easterly units in 14Rand remaining units in 14G,14J,14K, 14L, 14N, 14O, 14Q,14AA, 14AZ, 17, 18

Mandatory BrickVeneer OBC No A, B, C

14S (north unit), 14T (end units),14U (end units), 14V (end units),14W (east unit)

Provision for adding OBC OBC See text &Figure 2 A, B, D

Blocks 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15,16, 19, 20, remaining units in14R to 14W and Blocks 1, 13and 21 (adjacent to Street A)

Provision for adding OBC OBC No A, B, D

All other residential lots/units no specialrequirements OBC OBC No B

Industrial Noise Sources

Residential uses along the southperiphery of the site

Noise control measures proposed by operators of the Modatek and Karmax plants forrooftop and grade level plant sources and as part of environmental compliancerequirements for existing residential uses are considered to be adequate.

Some additional measures may be necessary at a few locations (no noise sensitivewindows at some facades, and/or laneway garages).

For notes to this table, see the following page.



NOTES TO TABLE 3

1. Central air conditioning allows windows to remain closed for noise control purposes. Provision foradding air conditioning typically takes the form of a ducted ventilation system sized to accommodatethe addition of central air conditioning by the occupant.

2. Masonry or acoustically equivalent construction to brick veneer meeting minimum STC 54.

3. STC: Sound Transmission Class Rating. OBC means the minimum non-acoustical requirementsgoverned by the Ontario Building Code (typically about STC 30). A sliding glass walkout door shouldbe considered as a window and be included in the percentage of glazing.

4. Earth berms, acoustic fences or combinations of berms and fences may be used, provided a minimumface density of at least 20 kg/m² is maintained, and the barrier is free of cracks, gaps and openings.

5. Standard example warning clauses to be registered on title and be included in Offers of Purchase andSale and Leases on designated units:

A. “Purchasers are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in thisdevelopment and within the building units, sound levels from increasing road traffic mayoccasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound level mayexceed the noise guidelines of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment.”

B. “Purchasers are advised that sounds from the area industrial uses may occasionally beaudible”.

C. “This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which will allowwindows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levelsare within the Municipality’s and the Ministry of the Environment’s noise criteria.”

D. “This dwelling unit has been fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting, etc. wassized to accommodate central air conditioning. Installation of central air conditioning by theoccupant will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that theindoor sound levels are within the Municipality’s and the Ministry of the Environment’s noisecriteria.”

6. Conventional roof construction meeting Ontario Building Code requirements is satisfactory in allcases.

7. All exterior doors shall be fully weatherstripped.

1

Exi

stin

g R

esid

entia

l

Exi

stin

g R

esid

entia

l

6.0m high Berm

7.2m High Berm

New

Tremaine R

oad

17586600

17586600

17586650

17586650

17586700

17586700

17586750

17586750

17586800

17586800

17586850

17586850

17586900

17586900

17586950

17586950

17587000

17587000

48

18

95

0

48

18

95

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

05

0

48

19

05

0

48

19

10

0

48

19

10

0

48

19

15

0

48

19

15

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

25

0

48

19

25

0

48

19

30

0

48

19

30

0

48

19

35

0

48

19

35

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

45

0

48

19

45

0

Exi

stin

g R

esi d

ent i

al

Exi

stin

g R

esi d

ent i

al

Highway 401

New

Tre

main

e Road

17586400

17586400

17586600

17586600

17586800

17586800

17587000

17587000

17587200

17587200

17587400

17587400

17587600

17587600

17587800

17587800

17588000

17588000

17588200

17588200

48

18

00

0

48

18

00

0

48

18

20

0

48

18

20

0

48

18

40

0

48

18

40

0

48

18

60

0

48

18

60

0

48

18

80

0

48

18

80

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

60

0

48

19

60

0

48

19

80

0

48

19

80

0

48

20

00

0

48

20

00

0

Overall View

Legend

Receptor

Point Source

Line Source

Vert. Area Source

Grid Legend:

Facades with Excesses

Title

Karmax + Modatek Future 2 + Hypothetical New Industry Non-Impulse Excesses

Project Name

Milton Meadows/Royal Park North

Date

Feb 26, 2013

Project No.

102-286.200

Figure

3

J:\2002\102286\400 (OMB)\Analysis\Cadna\2013-02-25\2013-02-26 RPN Refl 1.cna Date Plotted: 27.02.13

1

Exi

stin

g R

esid

entia

l

Exi

stin

g R

esid

entia

l

6.0m high Berm

7.2m High Berm

New

Tremaine R

oad

17586600

17586600

17586650

17586650

17586700

17586700

17586750

17586750

17586800

17586800

17586850

17586850

17586900

17586900

17586950

17586950

17587000

17587000

48

18

95

0

48

18

95

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

05

0

48

19

05

0

48

19

10

0

48

19

10

0

48

19

15

0

48

19

15

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

25

0

48

19

25

0

48

19

30

0

48

19

30

0

48

19

35

0

48

19

35

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

45

0

48

19

45

0

Exi

stin

g R

esi d

ent i

al

Exi

stin

g R

esi d

ent i

al

Highway 401

New

Tre

main

e Road

17586400

17586400

17586600

17586600

17586800

17586800

17587000

17587000

17587200

17587200

17587400

17587400

17587600

17587600

17587800

17587800

17588000

17588000

17588200

17588200

48

18

00

0

48

18

00

0

48

18

20

0

48

18

20

0

48

18

40

0

48

18

40

0

48

18

60

0

48

18

60

0

48

18

80

0

48

18

80

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

40

0

48

19

60

0

48

19

60

0

48

19

80

0

48

19

80

0

48

20

00

0

48

20

00

0

Overall View

Legend

Receptor

Point Source

Line Source

Vert. Area Source

Grid Legend:

Facades with Excesses

Title

Modatek Future 2A Impulse Excesses

Project Name


Date

Feb 26, 2013

Project No.

102-286.200

Figure

4

J:\2002\102286\400 (OMB)\Analysis\Cadna\2013-02-25\2013-02-26 RPN Refl 1.cna Date Plotted: 27.02.13

1

1

Exi

stin

g R

esid

entia

l

6.0m high Berm

7.2m High BermNew

Tremaine R

oad

17586700

17586700

17586750

17586750

17586800

17586800

17586850

17586850

17586900

17586900

17586950

17586950

48

19

00

0

48

19

00

0

48

19

05

0

48

19

05

0

48

19

10

0

48

19

10

0

48

19

15

0

48

19

15

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

20

0

48

19

25

0

48

19

25

0

48

19

30

0

48

19

30

0

48

19

35

0

48

19

35

0

Legend

Facade with Excesses

Title

Sound Level Excesses (dBA) for All Scenarios

Project Name


Date

Feb 26, 2013

Project No.

102-286.200

Figure

5J:\2002\102286\400 (OMB)\Analysis\Cadna\2013-02-25\2013-02-26 RPN Refl 1.cna Date Plotted: 27.02.13



APPENDIX A

ROAD TRAFFIC DATA CORRESPONDENCE

1

Terry Harding

From: Jakaitis, Alicia [[email protected]]Sent: June 6, 2011 10:12 AMTo: [email protected]: Krusto, Matt; Green-Battiston, Melissa; Mark LevkoeSubject: RE: RFI RE: Request for Ultimate Traffic Data - Tremaine Rd Realignment

Hi Terry, I can follow up on the speed limit reduction in the future, however, please use 80km/hr for your analysis as the volumes provided do not include the updated modeling work the Region is currently undertaking as part of our Transportation Master Plan, Road to Change (2031). Tremaine Road will be 6 lanes post 2021 and much higher volumes are expected. Alicia

Alicia Jakaitis

Transportation Coordinator Transportation Services Public Works Halton Region (905) 825-6000 ext. 7556 [email protected]

From: Terry Harding [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:04 AM

To: Jakaitis, Alicia Cc: Krusto, Matt; Green-Battiston, Melissa; 'Mark Levkoe'

Subject: RE: RFI RE: Request for Ultimate Traffic Data - Tremaine Rd Realignment

Thanks Alicia

Previous correspondence from Lise Zinkewich in 2006 indicated future speed limit for Tremain realignment would be

reduced to 60 kph from current 80 (noted below). I just want to make sure this is this not the case anymore, as per

your update data?

Regards

Terry Harding

Valcosutics

905.764.5223 ext 227

From: Jakaitis, Alicia [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: June 6, 2011 9:45 AM

To: [email protected] Cc: Krusto, Matt; Green-Battiston, Melissa


Hi Terry,

2

Please see the below noted traffic data for Tremaine Road.

TREMAINE ROAD

AADT 29,990

Speed (km/h)80

Trucks (%) 12

Medium/Heavy (%) 50/50

Day/Night (%) 90/10

Please let me know if you need anything further,

Alicia

Alicia Jakaitis

Transportation Coordinator Transportation Services Public Works Halton Region (905) 825-6000 ext. 7556 [email protected]

From: Terry Harding [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:28 PM To: Jakaitis, Alicia


Hi Alicia, following up my confirmation request, per the forward to you from Matt Krusto (I’ve cut out the nonrelevant

stuff, and show my original request to Lisa Zinkewich for clarity)

regards

Terry Harding

Valcoustics

905.764.5223 ext 227

From: Terry Harding [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May 24, 2011 2:38 PM

To: 'Zinkewich, Lisa'

Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: RFI RE: Request for Ultimate Traffic Data - Tremaine Rd Realignment

Hello Lisa

3

We’re doing another update to our noise study for the same site in Milton, affected by the Tremaine Rd realignment,

immediately south of Hwy 401

Can you again please confirm if the latest data (including your edits in blue) is still applicable.

Thanks

Terry Harding

Valcoustics Canada Ltd

905.764.5223 ext 227

From: Zinkewich, Lisa [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: August 28, 2006 9:32 AM To: [email protected]

Subject: FW: Request for Ultimate Traffic Data - Tremaine Rd Realignment

Terry, Please see below for responses to your request for confirmation of data. Changes have been highlighted in blue. Regards,

Lisa Zinkewich, B.E.S Transportation Co-ordinator Halton Region

1151 Bronte Road

Oakville, Ontario

L6M 3L1

tel: (905) 825-6000 ext. 7556

fax: (905) 825-8822

email: [email protected] From: Terry Harding [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:37 PM

To: Duyvestyn, Chris

Subject: Request for Ultimate Traffic Data - Tremaine Rd Realignment

Chris As follow up to my Aug 23/06 voice mail, please confirm the ultimate data as provided in 2004 (by Eric Hakomaki at Region of Halton) is still applicable, or update as appropriate, for the Tremain Rd realignment, immediately south of Hwy 401. This is for an update to our environmental noise assessment study for the Milton Heights neighborhood, which butts up against the south side of the 401, at the west side of Peru rd. The realigned Tremain Rd will bisect our site, and we need to look at the noise control measures that will be needed. Data as provided by Halton Region in 2004 for realigned Tremain Rd:

Ultimate AADT: 25, 800 Trucks: 13% (8 % medium, 5% heavy) Speed: 80 kph future speed - 60km/h

4

# lanes : 4 ROW: 35 m ROW - 40 m (+/- more required at intersections) Day/Night split: 85/15 Please confirm, or update this data, as soon as possible. Thank you Terry Harding Valcoustics Canada Ltd

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for

the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or

personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the

Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution,

copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us

immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and permanently delete the original

transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy.

Thank you

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for

the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or

personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the

Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution,

copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us

immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and permanently delete the original

transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy.

Thank you



APPENDIX B

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE GUIDELINES



APPENDIX B

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE GUIDELINES

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MOE)

Reference: MOE Publication LU-131, October 1997: "Noise Assessment Criteria in LandUse Planning".

SPACE SOURCE TIME PERIOD CRITERION

Living/dining areas of residences,hospitals, schools, nursing/retirementhomes, day-care centres, etc.

RoadRail

Aircraft

07:00 to 23:0007:00 to 23:0024-hour period

45 dBA40 dBA

NEF/NEP 5

Sleeping quarters RoadRail

Aircraft

23:00 to 07:0023:00 to 07:0024-hour period

40 dBA35 dBA

NEF/NEP 0

Outdoor Living Areas Road and Rail 07:00 to 23:00 55 dBA

Outdoor Point of Reception Aircraft

Stationary SourceClass 1 AreaClass 2 AreaClass 2 Area

24-hour period

07:00 to 23:00(1)

07:00 to 19:00(2)

19:00 to 23:00(2)

NEF/NEP 30#

50* dBA50* dBA45* dBA

Plane of a Window Stationary SourceClass 1 AreaClass 2 Area

07:00 to 23:00(1)

07:00 to 19:00(2)50* dBA50* dBA

Plane of a Bedroom Window Stationary Source 23:00 to 07:00 45* dBA

# may not apply to in-fill or re-development.* or the minimum hourly background sound exposure Leq(1), due to road traffic, if higher.(1) Class 1 Area : Urban(2) Class 2 Area : Urban during day; rural-like evening and night

....../cont'd.



Reference: MOE Publication ISBN 0-7729-2804-5, 1987: "Environmental NoiseAssessment in Land-Use Planning".

EXCESS ABOVE RECOMMENDEDSOUND LEVEL LIMITS (dBA)

CHANGE IN SUBJECTIVELOUDNESS ABOVE

MAGNITUDE OF THENOISE PROBLEM

NOISE CONTROLMEASURES (OR ACTIONTO BE TAKEN)

No excess (<55 dBA) — No expected noiseproblem

None

1 to 5 inclusive (56 to 60 dBA) Noticeably louder Slight noise impact If no physical measures aretaken, then prospectivepurchasers or tenantsshould be made aware bysuitable warning clauses.

6 to 10 inclusive (61 - 65 dBA) Almost twice as loud Definite noise impact Recommended.

11 to 15 inclusive (66 - 70 dBA) Almost three times as loud Serious noise impact Strongly Recommended.

16 and over (>70 dBA) Almost four times as loud Very serious noiseimpact

Strongly Recommended(may be mandatory).



APPENDIX C

SAMPLE CALCULATIONROAD TRAFFIC SOURCES



STAMSON 5.04 NORMAL REPORT Date: 27-02-2013 18:07:56MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT / NOISE ASSESSMENT

Filename: 14A_nf.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hoursDescription: Block 14 - 14A - North Facade

Road data, segment # 1: Hwy 401 WB (day/night)----------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 58755/29373 veh/TimePeriod *Medium truck volume : 3446/1722 veh/TimePeriod *Heavy truck volume : 10337/5167 veh/TimePeriod *Posted speed limit : 100 km/hRoad gradient : 0 %Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)

* Refers to calculated road volumes based on the following input:

24 hr Traffic Volume (AADT or SADT): 108800 Percentage of Annual Growth : 0.00 Number of Years of Growth : 0.00 Medium Truck % of Total Volume : 4.75 Heavy Truck % of Total Volume : 14.25 Day (16 hrs) % of Total Volume : 66.67

Data for Segment # 1: Hwy 401 WB (day/night)--------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -90.00 deg 90.00 degWood depth : 0 (No woods.)No of house rows : 0 / 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface)Receiver source distance : 92.00 / 92.00 mReceiver height : 1.50 / 7.50 mTopography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier)Reference angle : 0.00

Road data, segment # 2: Hwy 401 EB (day/night)----------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 58755/29373 veh/TimePeriod *Medium truck volume : 3446/1722 veh/TimePeriod *Heavy truck volume : 10337/5167 veh/TimePeriod *Posted speed limit : 100 km/hRoad gradient : 0 %Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 2: Hwy 401 EB (day/night)--------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -90.00 deg 90.00 degWood depth : 0 (No woods.)No of house rows : 0 / 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface)Receiver source distance : 63.00 / 63.00 mReceiver height : 1.50 / 7.50 mTopography : 1 (Flat/gentle slope; no barrier)



Reference angle : 0.00

Results segment # 1: Hwy 401 WB (day)-------------------------------------

Source height = 1.94 m

ROAD (0.00 + 69.56 + 0.00) = 69.56 dBAAngle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -90 90 0.65 83.96 0.00 -12.97 -1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.56----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Segment Leq : 69.56 dBA

Results segment # 2: Hwy 401 EB (day)-------------------------------------




Total Leq All Segments: 74.13 dBA

Results segment # 1: Hwy 401 WB (night)---------------------------------------




Results segment # 2: Hwy 401 EB (night)---------------------------------------





TOTAL Leq FROM ALL SOURCES (DAY): 74.13 (NIGHT): 75.68



STAMSON 5.04 NORMAL REPORT Date: 27-02-2013 19:12:05MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT / NOISE ASSESSMENT

Filename: Blk18_o.te Time Period: Day/Night 16/8 hoursDescription: Block 18 - Southerly Unit - OLA

Road data, segment # 1: NewTremaine1 (day/night)------------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 11876/1320 veh/TimePeriod *Medium truck volume : 810/90 veh/TimePeriod *Heavy truck volume : 810/90 veh/TimePeriod *Posted speed limit : 80 km/hRoad gradient : 3 %Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)



Data for Segment # 1: NewTremaine1 (day/night)----------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -10.00 deg 90.00 degWood depth : 0 (No woods.)No of house rows : 0 / 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface)Receiver source distance : 81.00 / 81.00 mReceiver height : 1.50 / 1.50 mTopography : 2 (Flat/gentle slope; with barrier)Barrier angle1 : -10.00 deg Angle2 : 90.00 degBarrier height : 0.00 mBarrier receiver distance : 3.00 / 3.00 mSource elevation : 0.00 mReceiver elevation : 0.00 mBarrier elevation : 0.00 mReference angle : 0.00

Road data, segment # 2: NewTremaine2 (day/night)------------------------------------------------Car traffic volume : 11876/1320 veh/TimePeriod *Medium truck volume : 810/90 veh/TimePeriod *Heavy truck volume : 810/90 veh/TimePeriod *Posted speed limit : 80 km/hRoad gradient : 3 %Road pavement : 1 (Typical asphalt or concrete)





Data for Segment # 2: NewTremaine2 (day/night)----------------------------------------------Angle1 Angle2 : -10.00 deg 90.00 degWood depth : 0 (No woods.)No of house rows : 0 / 0 Surface : 1 (Absorptive ground surface)Receiver source distance : 69.00 / 69.00 mReceiver height : 1.50 / 1.50 mTopography : 2 (Flat/gentle slope; with barrier)Barrier angle1 : -10.00 deg Angle2 : 90.00 degBarrier height : 0.00 mBarrier receiver distance : 3.00 / 3.00 mSource elevation : 0.00 mReceiver elevation : 0.00 mBarrier elevation : 0.00 mReference angle : 0.00

Results segment # 1: NewTremaine1 (day)---------------------------------------


Barrier height for grazing incidence------------------------------------Source ! Receiver ! Barrier ! Elevation ofHeight (m) ! Height (m) ! Height (m) ! Barrier Top (m)------------+-------------+-------------+-------------- 1.57 ! 1.50 ! 1.50 ! 1.50

ROAD (0.00 + 57.24 + 0.00) = 57.24 dBAAngle1 Angle2 Alpha RefLeq P.Adj D.Adj F.Adj W.Adj H.Adj B.Adj SubLeq---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -10 90 0.66 73.22 0.00 -12.14 -3.84 0.00 0.00 -0.20 57.03* -10 90 0.66 73.22 0.00 -12.14 -3.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.24----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Bright Zone !


Results segment # 2: NewTremaine2 (day)---------------------------------------




* Bright Zone !





Results segment # 1: NewTremaine1 (night)-----------------------------------------




* Bright Zone !


Results segment # 2: NewTremaine2 (night)-----------------------------------------




* Bright Zone !



TOTAL Leq FROM ALL SOURCES (DAY): 60.86 (NIGHT): 54.33



APPENDIX D

MODATEK AND KARMAXPLANT DESCRIPTIONS

��

��

��

��

�� !"#�$��%��% ��&�� '%��(�

� )�� *��* �� $ �'�%�� '�

��% � �'�*�� '�� % �'&�� '��*�� '(��% �� '

�� )�� %�� '��+�*�� '��

��$�% ��%��

��

�� )��% �� '�%��

&�� (�� %�*��*��

�%��%�� ,�� % ��*%��

�%�� $�% ��

'� ��%�$�� '-%��&.��/�'�(��

&-%�$��0� ��1��(��

� 2�� %*��

�� 3�� #��45��*%��*��!6��$��'� ��%��

� ��+�� !%�� *��6��

�� 2��'��$��%��%��%��%�� '�$ �

��7��/� $��

��

�� 8��

�� 8��9��$�1�� ' �� :��6;�� %��

�� '�� %�*��%��

�� 6 5��

�� !"#�$��%��% ��&�� '%��(�

� )�� $ �'�� '<�%�� '�� '�*�� '<

��% �� '

�� )�� '�� '*��

&��(�� $�% ��%��

*%��%�� '�� '� ��&�% � ��%�� $�� (��%�$�5�

��' �' �� =��

�� % �� '�%��

��*��'��%��%��%��&��'��(*��

�� 2%�� '�� % ��*%��%��

��$�% ��,�� '�"�� *��% ��%��

$ � ��&��%��(��%�� '�

'� ��%�$�� '>��-%��.��/�'��

9��

� 2�� %*��

�� 3�� #��4��*%��*�� $��'� ��%��

� ��,�� ?��%�� *��#��5��+�� !%�� *��

5��

�� %�$�� '��'� �'�� '�%��%��'%

��%�%��'��*��$ ��7��0��%�� /� $��



APPENDIX E

UPDATED INDUSTRY INFORMATION



CHANGES TO INDUSTRY INFORMATION

Since the time of our November 2006 report, some changes have occurred at the Karmax and Modatekplants. Most of these changes, it understood, have occurred at the Modatek plant, in terms of new sourcesadded at the rooftop. There may also have been a small addition to the Modatek building along a portion ofthe south side.

There have been a few noticeable changes to the rooftop equipment types and/or locations at the Karmaxbuilding, but these are minor. The warehouse building at the west side of the Karmax site is now constructed,but is smaller than that originally contemplated in our original November 2006 report (it appears that only thenorth portion of the warehouse was built). The number of rooftop fans atop this warehouse is also less thanthat originally assumed for our November 2006 report.

This updated assessment accounts for the current building forms and massing, as well as roof heights asprovided via the industry’s acoustical consultant(s) (RWDI) and summarized in the Reference 9 materials.The Reference 9 information also included an update to the noise source data (including the sound emissionlevels as well as other pertinent information) used for this noise modelling update, with exception of thefollowing:

• The information from RWDI indicates base grades for both industries as 209.5 m. Data provided viathe Region of Halton indicates the Modatek site at about 212.2 m +/-, and at the Karmax site about211.0 +/-. It is noted that the topographical information for the Karmax site is only for a small sectionat the east side, but inferring from that, the grade would not appear to be at 209.5 m as best can bedetermined. Our analyses is based on the 212.2 m and 211.0 m base grades as noted above. Thesource height and roof height information provided in the Reference 9 materials has been adjustedaccordingly.

• For impulses at the Karmax site, the Reference 9 sound levels for coupling/uncoupling events areeither 105.8 or 99.4 dBAI. The reference sound level for unloading/loading is either 112.8 or 106.4dBAI. Our standard reference levels for coupling/uncoupling is 120 dBAI and unloading/loading is 110dBAI. Each reference level is then prorated based on the number of occurrences of each event andthe number of source locations used to represent each event. Clarification of the data provided hasbeen requested and as of the writing of this report no response has been received. The origins of thisdata need to be resolved in order to accurately model the noise emissions from this activity. Thisclarification will be required prior to the detailed design submissions. However, in the meantime asrequested by the Town, the Reference 9 sound levels have been used.

• For impulse sources at Modatek” Existing Scenario/Future Scenario 1 conditions, two sources aregiven in the Reference 9 tables (Imp_MI_ImpA and Imp_MI_ImpB). It is understood the referencesound level for these sources is representative of a total LLM from multiple activities occurring in theyard. This total LLM was then spatially averaged between the two sources (i.e. -3 dB per source).This is not entirely consistent with how we would model impulses from different sources. The dataprovided is also not consistent with the data provided at the Karmax site, although the activitiesgenerating the noise are essentially the same. As above, clarification on the origin of this data isrequired. This clarification will be required prior to the detailed design submissions. However, in themeantime, the data as provided in the Reference 9 materials has been used in the modelling.

• For impulse events in the Modatek: “Future Scenario 2" condition, the Reference 9 informationindicates that four sources are present, two with the same reference sound level as above(Imp_MI_ImpA and Imp_MI_ImpB), and two additional sources representing train impulses(MI_TrainA and MI_TrainB). We are advised these are distinct and separate events, and thus, shouldbe assessed separately. As above, clarification is pending for these sources. However, in themeantime, the data as provided in the Reference 9 materials has been used in the modelling.



APPENDIX F

STATIONARY SOURCE ANALYSISPARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS



The analysis parameters and assumptions used in the assessment were:

• The source reference information as provided in the updated Tables 1A and 2A of Reference 9,except as noted in Appendix E above.

• Building outline locations have been assumed based on “freehand” outlines per the current aerialimages on Google Earth.

• Sound power levels for all rooftop sources are assumed to have been generated using hemisphericalradiation.

• Sound power level for the scrap metal bin is assumed to have been generated using hemisphericalradiation.

• Based on our observations, we have noted some discrepancies with some of the source heightsabove roof as provided, namely the scrubber stacks as well as the cooling towers. Our modelling isbased on the following source heights: Cooling Towers (Modatek) — fan 3 m above the roof and nochange to the 1.0 m source height for cooling tower casing.

• Source Name / ID MAU03/MOD_EX_M3_2 (RWDI ID M3-2) reference sound level was adjusted fromthe 97 dBA to 79 dBA. The 97 dBA reference has been confirmed as a typo in the RWDI update dataset provided to us.

• The site topography is based on the current site grading plans prepared by Urbantech Consultingdated February 2013, including the proposed grade separation of the New Tremaine Road alignment,and existing berms at the west side of both industrial plants.

• For ground absorption, the surface in and around the both plants have been modelled as reflectivewith G = 0, and all other areas absorptive with G = 1 (in accordance with ISO 9613-2), except thelocal roads which are also modelled as reflective with G = 0. Also, at this time, we are showing aproposed storm water detention pond as G = 0.

• The default standard environmental conditions in the CadnaA model of 10EC and 70% relativehumidity have been used.

• Order of reflections = 1 (pertains to the sound reflection characteristics from stationary objects in theCadna/A model). Note, previous models and reports completed after 2006 account for two orders ofreflections. However, when second order reflections are used, several reflected paths from theinterior buildings in the site, are accounted for that are not necessarily true sound reflection paths.This is because the CadnaA prediction model does not accurately account for reflected sound wavesdiffracted over barriers/buildings, as a proper ray tracing algorithm is not part of the software. Theprogram predicts reflections accounting for no screening objects and then applies a screening (orbarrier) adjustment after the fact. These paths are not the diffracted paths over the buildings, andtherefore do not represent a true angle of reflection, or true summation of the reflected sound energyat a point of reception.

• The predictions apply to a top floor receptor of the three-storey dwelling, corresponding to 7.5 mabove grade or 4.5 m above grade for the two-storey dwellings.



APPENDIX G

MODATEK C OF A

SEPARATOR PAGE

Ministry of the EnvironmentMinistère de l’Environnement

AMENDMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE APPROVALNUMBER 1390-7WEQL8

Notice No. 1Issue Date: July 17, 2012

Magna Structural Systems Inc.400 Chisholm DrMilton, OntarioL9T 5V6

Site Location: 400 Chisholm Drive400 Chisholm DrMilton Town, Regional Municipality of HaltonL9T 5V6

You are hereby notified that I have amended Approval No. 1390-7WEQL8 issued on December 19, 2009 forAn automotiveframes manufacturing facility, as follows:

The following Definitions are revoked:

1. "Acoustic Assessment Report" means the report, prepared in accordance with Publication NPC-233 and Appendix A ofthe Basic Comprehensive User Guide, by Jacques Whitford and dated November 4, 2009 submitted in support of theapplication, that documents all sources of noise emissions and Noise Control Measures present at the Facility and includesall up-dated Acoustic Assessment Reports as required by the Documentation Requirements conditions of this Certificate todemonstrate continued compliance with the Performance Limits following the implementation of any Modification.

28. "Noise Abatement Action Plan" means the noise abatement program developed by the Company (detailed in Schedule Bof this Certificate), submitted to the Director and District Manager and approved by the Director,designed to achievecompliance with the sound level limits set in Publication NPC-205 and/or Publication NPC-232, as applicable.

29. "Noise Control Measures" means measures to reduce the noise emissions from the Facility and/or Equipmentincluding, but not limited to, silencers, acoustic louvres, enclosures, absorptive treatment, plenums and barriers, describedin the Company's application, Schedule "B" of this Certificate and in the supporting documentation referred to herein,including the Acoustic Assessment Report prepared by Jacques Whitford, dated November 4, 2009, to the extent approvedby this Certificate.

and replaced by the following:

1. "Acoustic Assessment Report" means the report, prepared in accordance with Publication NPC-233 and Appendix A ofthe Basic Comprehensive User Guide, by RWDI AIR Inc. and dated January 13, 2012 submitted in support of theapplication, that documents all sources of noise emissions and Noise Control Measures present at the Facility and includesall up-dated Acoustic Assessment Reports as required by the Documentation Requirements conditions of this Approval todemonstrate continued compliance with the Performance Limits following the implementation of any Modification.

28. "Noise Abatement Action Plan" means the noise abatement program developed by the Company (detailed in Schedule"B" of this Approval), submitted to the Director and District Manager and approved by the Director,designed to achievecompliance with the sound level limits set in Publication NPC-205 and/or Publication NPC-232, as applicable. It alsomeans the Modatek Systems Noise Abatement Action Plan dated July 5, 2012, prepared by Ben Coulson of RWDI AIRInc.

29. "Noise Control Measures" means measures to reduce the noise emissions from the Facility and/or Equipmentincluding, but not limited to, silencers, acoustic louvres, enclosures, absorptive treatment, plenums and barriers. It alsomeans the Noise Control Measures detailed in Schedule "B" of this Approval.

CONTENT COPY OF ORIGINAL

The following Definition has been added to the Approval:

46. "Approval" means the Certificate of Approval No. 1390-7WEQL8, issued on December 19, 2009.

The following Conditions are revoked:

3.5 The Company shall, at all times, ensure that the noise emissions from the Facility comply with the limits set out inMinistry Publication NPC-205 or Publication NPC-232, as applicable.

NOISE ABATEMENT ACTION PLAN

10.1 The Company shall fully implement the Noise Abatement Action Plan specified in the Jacques Whitford AcousticAssessment Report (dated November 4, 2009) and detailed in Schedule "B" of this Certificate.

10.2 The Company shall ensure that the Noise Control Measures specified in the Noise Abatement Action Plan are properlymaintained to ensure that the acoustical performance of the Noise Control Measures does not deteriorate and complies withthe requirements of the Jacques Whitford Acoustic Assessment Report (dated November 4, 2009).

ACOUSTIC AUDIT

11.1 The Company shall carry out Acoustic Audit measurements on the actual noise emissions due to the operation of theFacility, in accordance with the measurement procedures in Publication NPC-103.

11.2 The Company shall submit an Acoustic Audit Report, prepared by an Independent Acoustical Consultant, inaccordance with Publication NPC-233, to the District Manager and the Director not later than three (3) months after thecompletion of the Noise Abatement Action Plan.

11.3 The Director may not accept the results of the Acoustic Audit if the requirements of Publication NPC-233 were notfollowed.

11.4 If the Director does not accept the results of the Acoustic Audit the Director may:

(a) require the Company to repeat the Acoustic Audit, and/or(b) revoke this Certificate, or(c) in accordance with the EPA, impose additional conditions to the Company’s Certificate of Approval.

and replaced by the following:

3.5 The Company shall ensure, subsequent to the completion of the Noise Abatement Action Plan, that the noise emissionsfrom the Facility comply with the limits set out in Ministry Publication NPC-205 or Publication NPC-232, as applicable.

NOISE ABATEMENT ACTION PLAN

10. The Company shall:

(a) implement the Noise Control Measures as proposed in the Noise Abatement Action Plan and as detailed in Schedule "B"of this Approval;

(b) ensure that the Noise Control Measures are properly maintained and continue to provide the acoustical performanceoutlined in the Acoustic Assessment Report.

ACOUSTIC AUDIT

11.1 The Company shall carry out acoustic audit measurements on the actual noise emissions due to the operation of theFacility. The Company:


(a) shall carry out acoustic audit measurements in accordance with the procedures in Publication NPC-103;

(b) shall submit an Acoustic Audit Report on the results of the Acoustic Audit, prepared by an Independent AcousticalConsultant, in accordance with the requirements of Publication NPC-233, to the District Manager and the Director notlater than August 2014.

11.2 The Director:

(a) may not accept the results of the Acoustic Audit if the requirements of Publication NPC-233 were not followed;

(b) may require the Company to repeat the Acoustic Audit if the results of the Acoustic Audit are found unacceptable to theDirector.

The following Schedules are revoked:

SCHEDULE “A”

Supporting Documentation

(a) Application dated December 11, 2007, signed by Robert Knight and submitted by the Company for a Certificate ofApproval (Air & Noise).

(b) Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report, dated December 16, 2007.

(c) Updated air emissions data submitted by Modatek Systems by E-mail dated December 9, 2008.

(d) Additional air emissions related information and clarifications submitted by Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited onSeptember 23, 2009 and October 2, 2009.

(e) Acoustic Assessment Report dated November 4, 2009, prepared and signed by Deborah Hunt and Benjamin Coulson,Jacques Whitford.

SCHEDULE “B”

Noise Abatement Action Plan

The Noise Abatement Action Plan shall consist of the Noise Control Measures as recommended in the AcousticAssessment Report dated November 4, 2009 prepared by Deborah Hunt and Benjamin Coulson, Jacques Whitford,implemented according to the following schedule:Controls shall be installed by May 2010

1. One (1) acoustic silencer for each of the following noise Sources: HP Scrubber (Source WS-1), HB Scrubber (SourceWS-2), Twist Scrubber (Source WS-3) and Lambda Scrubber (Source WS-4), capable of providing the following valuesof Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:

Centre Frequency (Hertz) 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000

Insertion-Loss (decibel) 2 13 21 29 23 19 11 6

Controls shall be installed by June 2010

2. One (1) acoustic silencer for each of the following noise Sources: Exhaust Fan (Source WE-3A), Exhaust Fan (SourceWE-3B), Exhaust Stack 1 (Source EXS-3) and Exhaust Stack 2 (Source EXS-2), capable of providing the following valuesof Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:


Centre Frequency (Hertz) 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000

Insertion-Loss (decibel) 4 8 12 14 17 15 13 11

and replaced by the following:SCHEDULE “A”

Supporting Documentation

(a) Application for Approval (Air & Noise), dated September 24, 2010, signed by Heather-Ann Niefer and submitted by theCompany.

(b) Acoustic Assessment Report dated January 13, 2012, prepared by Sharon Schajnoha, Benjamin Coulson, MatthewJohnston, RWDI AIR Inc.

(c) Email dated March 13, 2012 from Matthew Johnston of RWDI AIR Inc.

(d) Noise Abatement Action Plan dated July 5, 2012, prepared by Benjamin Coulson of RWDI AIR Inc.

(e) Application for Approval (Air & Noise), dated December 11, 2007, signed by Robert Knight and submitted by theCompany.

(f) Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report, dated December 16, 2007.

(g) Updated air emissions data submitted by Modatek Systems by E-mail dated December 9, 2008.

(h) Additional air emissions related information and clarifications submitted by Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited onSeptember 23, 2009 and October 2, 2009.

SCHEDULE “B”

Noise Abatement Action Plan

Control shall be installed by September 2012

1. One (1) acoustic silencer for the JS Scrubber identified as noise Source WS-2, capable of providing the following valuesof Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:

Centre Frequency (Hertz)63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Insertion-Loss (decibel)-- 7 14 10 8 4 -- --

Controls shall be installed by April 2013

2. One (1) acoustic silencer for each of the following noise Sources: HP Scrubber (WS-1) and Lamda Scrubber (WS-4),capable of providing the following values of Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:



Controls shall be installed by September 2013


3. One (1) acoustic silencer for each of the following noise Sources: Twist Scrubber (WS-3) and Delta Scrubber (WS-5),capable of providing the following values of Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:



Control shall be installed by November 2013

4. Strip curtain to enclose the Scrap Metal Shelter identified as noise Source SM, capable of providing the following valuesof Transmission-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:


Transmission-Loss (decibel)-- 3 3 3 4 5 6 --

Controls shall be installed by April 2014

5. One (1) acoustic silencer for each of the 1 m dia exhaust fans identified as noise Sources EXF-1, EXF-2, EXF-3 andEXF-4, capable of providing the following values of Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:


Insertion-Loss (decibel)-- -- -- 8 9 9 5 --

6. One (1) acoustic silencer for the PEF-20 identified as noise Source EXS-4, capable of providing the following values ofInsertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:


Insertion-Loss (decibel)-- -- 3 8 9 9 5 --

7. One (1) acoustic silencer for each of the following noise Sources: Twin City Fan B (TCF-B) and Twin City Fan C(TCF-C), capable of providing the following values of Insertion-Loss in 1/1 octave frequency bands:


Insertion-Loss (decibel)-- -- -- 9 9 6 3 --

All other Terms and Conditions remain the same.

The reason for this amendment to the Approval is to address changes to the Noise Abatement Action Plan.

This Notice shall constitute part of the approval issued under Approval No. 1390-7WEQL8 dated December 19,2009

In accordance with Section 139 of the Environmental Protection Act, you may by written Notice served upon me, theEnvironmental Review Tribunal and in accordance with Section 47 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993,


c. 28 (Environmental Bill of Rights), the Environmental Commissioner, within 15 days after receipt of this Notice, requirea hearing by the Tribunal. The Environmental Commissioner will place notice of your appeal on the EnvironmentalRegistry. Section 142 of the Environmental Protection Act provides that the Notice requiring the hearing shall state:

1. The portions of the environmental compliance approval or each term or condition in the environmental compliance approval in respect ofwhich the hearing is required, and;2. The grounds on which you intend to rely at the hearing in relation to each portion appealed.

Pursuant to subsection 139(3) of the Environmental Protection Act, a hearing may not be required with respect to anyterms and conditions in this environmental compliance approval, if the terms and conditions are substantially the same asthose contained in an approval that is amended or revoked by this environmental compliance approval.

The Notice should also include:

3. The name of the appellant;4. The address of the appellant;5. The environmental compliance approval number;6. The date of the environmental compliance approval;7. The name of the Director, and;8. The municipality or municipalities within which the project is to be engaged in.

And the Notice should be signed and dated by the appellant.

This Notice must be served upon:

The Secretary*Environmental Review Tribunal655 Bay Street, Suite 1500Toronto, OntarioM5G 1E5

AND

The Environmental Commissioner1075 Bay Street, Suite 605Toronto, OntarioM5S 2B1

AND

The Director appointed for the purposes of Part II.1 ofthe Environmental Protection ActMinistry of the Environment2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12AToronto, OntarioM4V 1L5

* Further information on the Environmental Review Tribunal’s requirements for an appeal can be obtained directly from the Tribunal at:Tel: (416) 212-6349, Fax: (416) 314-4506 or www.ert.gov.on.ca

This instrument is subject to Section 38 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, that allows residents of Ontario to seek leave to appeal thedecision on this instrument. Residents of Ontario may seek leave to appeal within 15 days from the date this decision is placed on theEnvironmental Registry. By accessing the Environmental Registry at www.ebr.gov.on.ca, you can determine when the leave to appeal period ends.

The above noted activity is approved under s.20.3 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

DATED AT TORONTO this 17th day of July, 2012Ian Greason, P.Eng.Directorappointed for the purposes of Part II.1 of theEnvironmental Protection Act

MD/c: District Manager, MOE Halton-PeelBenjamin Coulson, RWDI




APPENDIX H

KARMAX PRESS GROUND VIBRATIONASSESSMENT (FROM REFERENCE 6)



Excerpt from Reference 6 (November 28, 2006 Report by Valcoustics Canada Ltd.)

2.4 GROUND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

Ground vibration due to the stamping presses at the Karmax plant were measured at several outdoor locationsclose to the press area at the southeast corner of the plant. The measurements were made on July 13, 2004and Karmax staff confirmed this area was operating normally during the measurements, including the largestpresses. Ground vibration was clearly evident at outdoor areas close to the press locations.

The ground vibration assessment was considered in two ways:

• the ground vibration was extrapolated to the closest proposed residential area immediately to thewest, assuming the presses remain at the current location; and

• Karmax has indicated the new warehouse at the west side could potentially be used for productionat some future time, including stamping presses. To address this possibility, the ground vibrationmeasured at the current location was assumed to originate at the new warehouse, and the resultswere extrapolated from this new location to the closest proposed residential area immediately to thewest. The closest future press has been assumed to be at the closest possible distance to the site,which is the extreme northwest corner of the warehouse building. The setback to the closestproposed residential is about 145 m, allowing for the press to be within 5 m of the exterior wall.

In either case, the extrapolation is based on the measured peak particle velocity level of 0.36 mm/sec at 50 mfrom the west facade of the south-eastern press annex. This was the highest vibration level measured at thefurthest distance from the presses and provides the worst case condition for the extrapolations. The resultswill vary slightly based on the assumptions used in regard to the reference distance to the vibration source.Our analysis considered the closest building facade as well as the centre of the press room annex as thereference distance for the measured vibration levels. These two reference distances were considered sincemultiple presses were in operation, and it is not known which press created the highest vibration level. Theground attenuation as a function of distance is based on the methods of Reference 7.

Based on the current location, a ground vibration level of 0.006 to 0.013 mm/sec is predicted at the closestproposed residential areas, which is well below the reference MOE 0.3 mm/sec guideline.

Assuming the ground vibration originates from the closest part of the warehouse building at the west, a groundvibration level of 0.07 to 0.16 mm/sec is predicted at the at the closest residential area, which also is wellbelow the reference 0.3 mm/sec criteria.

The results show that ground vibration from the stamping presses will be well below the reference vibrationguidelines based on the measurements made and assuming the same installation methods for the newpresses.

Appendix G shows a sample calculation of the ground vibration extrapolation.



Appendix H (From Reference 6 Report)

Vibration Prediction Analysis Details

(Presses Assumed to be Located in New Building at West Side)

1. Ground Vibration Attenuation Model

The Construction Vibration Assessment model (ref: US Department of TransportationFederal Railroad Administration, “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and VibrationImpact Assessment”, Final Draft, December, 1998), was used in the analysis, as thefollows:

PPV PPVDDequip refref= ×

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟

1 5.

where: is the peak particle velocity of the equipment adjusted for distancePPVequip

is the reference vibration level at the reference pointPPVref

is the reference distanceDref

is the distance from the equipment to the receiverD

2. Analysis

Two methods were used for the vibration level prediction when determining the vibrationlevel at the closest proposed residential property and assuming that presses couldpotentially be located in the new warehouse at the west side of the Karmax property.Method #1 assumes the measured vibration level at 50 m from the west face of the existingpress annex ( ) originated from the centre of the press annex building (i.eV mm sref = 0 36. /reference distance approximately 84 m). Method #2 assumes the measured vibration leveloriginated very close to west face the press annex building (i.e. reference distanceapproximately 50 m).



2.1 Method #1

Using the measurement at 50 m opposite the west face of the existing press annex,assume the source of the vibration originated at the centre of the existing building (pressannex building at the extreme southeast). The closest proposed residential property lineis approximately 145 m from the west face of the new warehouse building. Therefore,

D mD m

ref =

=

84145

and the predicted peak particle velocity at the closest proposed residential dwelling facadeis:

PPV mm sequip = 016. /

2.2 Method #2

Using the measurement at 50 m opposite the west face of the existing press annex,assume the source of the vibration originated essentially at the closest face to themeasurement point, i.e., the west face of the existing press annex building. The closestproposed residential property line is approximately 145 m from the west face of the newwarehouse building. Therefore,

D mD m

ref =

=

50145

And the predicted peak particle velocity at the closest proposed residential dwelling facadeis:

PPV mm sequip = 0 07. /



APPENDIX I

EXAMPLE WINDOW STC RATINGS



Appendix I

TYPICAL STC RATINGS OF SOME WINDOW CONFIGURATIONS

STCRating

SingleGlazing

Double Glazing Triple Glazing

Glass Thickness Glass Thickness

Thickness(mm)

2 mm&

2 mm

3 mm&

3 mm

4 mm&

4 mm

3 mm&

6 mm

6 mm&

6 mm

3 mm,3 mm

& 3 mm

3 mm,3 mm

& 6 mm

Interpane Spacing (mm) Interpane Spacing (mm)

27 2 6

28 13

29 3 15 6

30 4 to 6 18 13 6

31 22 16 13 6 6 6, 6

32 9 28 20 16 13 13 6, 10 6, 6

33 35 25 20 16 16 6, 15 6, 10

34 12 42 32 25 20 20 6, 20 6, 15

35 50 40 32 25 24 6, 30 6, 20

36 63 50 40 32 30 6, 40 6, 30

37 80 63 50 40 37 6, 50 6, 40

38 100 80 63 55 50 6, 65 6, 50

39 125 100 80 75 70 6, 80 6, 65

40 150 125 100 95 90 6, 100 6, 80

41 150 125 110 100 6, 100

42 150 125

Example:

STC 34 can be met by using:

a) a 12 mm thick, laminated single glazed openable window

or b) a 2 mm glass, 42 mm air space, 2 mm glass openable window

or c) a 3 mm glass, 6 mm air space, 3 mm glass, 20 mm air space, 3 mm glass openable window

or d) a 4 mm glass, 13 mm air space, 4 mm glass window fixed and sealed to the frame.

SOURCE: National Research Council, Division of Building Research.

EXPLANATORY NOTES:

1. STC data listed in the table are for well-fitted weatherstripped units that can be opened. The STC values apply only when thewindows are closed. For windows fixed and sealed to the frame, add three to the STC given in the table.

2. If the interpane spacing or glass thickness for a specific double-glazed window is not listed in the table, the nearest listedvalues should be used.

3. The STC ratings for 9 mm and 12 mm glass are for laminated glass only; for solid glass, subtract two from the STC valueslisted in the table.

4. If the interpane spacings for a specific triple-glazed window are not listed in the table, use the listed case whose combinedspacings are nearest the actual combined spacing.

5. The STC data listed in the table are for typical windows, but details of glass mounting, window seals, etc., may result in slightlydifferent performance for some manufacturers' products. If laboratory sound transmission loss data (conforming to ASTM testmethod E-90) are available, these should be used.



TYPICAL STC RATINGS OF SOME LAMINATED GLASS

WINDOW CONFIGURATIONS

STCRating

Double Glazed – Single Laminated Double Glazed – Double Laminated

Glass Thickness

6 mm(lam.)

+5 mm

6 mm(lam)

+6 mm

10 mm(lam)

+6 mm

13 mm(lam)

+5 mm

13 mm(lam)

+10 mm

19 mm(lam)

+3 mm

6 mm (lam)+

6 mm (lam.)

13 mm (lam)+

6 mm (lam.)

13 mm (lam)+

13 mm (lam.)

Interpane Spacing (mm)

35 10

36 13 13

37 13

39 13

42 25

45 50

46 50 50 25

48 100

49 100 100 100

50 100

51 100

Example:

STC 39 can be met by using:

a) a 6 mm laminated glass, 13 mm air space, 6 mm laminated glass openable window

or b) a 6 mm laminated glass, 13 mm air space, 5 mm glass window fixed and sealed to the frame.

SOURCE: Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories

EXPLANATORY NOTES:

1. STC data listed in the table are for well-fitted weatherstripped units that can be opened. The STC values apply only when thewindows are closed. For windows fixed and sealed to the frame, add three to the STC given in the table.

2. If the interpane spacing or glass thickness for a specific double-glazed window is not listed in the table, the nearest listedvalues should be used.

3. The STC data listed in the table are for typical windows, but details of glass mounting, window seals, etc., may result in slightlydifferent performance for some manufacturers' products. If laboratory sound transmission loss data (conforming to ASTM testmethod E-90) are available, these should be used.

valcoustics canada ltd. - milton, ontario appcilabel gudienile lmi tsi ... september 21, 2012, which...

Documents