Municipal Noise
Attenuation Policies
(K. Leibovici)
Recommendation:
That the November 11, 2008, Planning
and Development Department/
Transportation Department/Deputy City
Manager’s Office report 2008PDD054 be
received for information.
Report Summary
This report provides information on
municipal internal building noise
attenuation policies.
Previous Council/Committee Action


At the December 2, 2008, Agenda
Review Committee meeting, the
November 11, 2008, Planning and
Development Department/
Transportation Department/Deputy
City Manager’s Office report
2008PDD054 was postponed to the
January 14, 2009, Executive
Committee meeting.
At the September 10, 2008,
Executive Committee meeting,
Councillor K. Leibovici made the
following inquiry:
Recently I received information
regarding municipal noise
attenuation policies which include
interior noise levels of houses
within mature neighbourhoods.
A review of Calgary’s noise
policy indicates that there is
consideration of interior DNL
(Design Noise Level) and that
their policy is based on the
Federal Government guidelines.
I have also attached a document
which outlines suggestions for
dealing with increased interior
noise levels as a result of an
expanded arterial road in Davis,
California.
Can the Administration provide
information on the following:
1. How Washington State’s
State Environmental Policy
Act of Washington and
California’s Environmental
Quality Act deal with the
impact of new roadway
projects on existing
residences.
2. What the Federal Government
requirements are regarding
internal noise attenuation.
3. Information on a potential
building retrofit program that
would address internal noise
attenuation, especially for
areas where noise mitigation
is not feasible, like the
Whitemud.
4. Whether these retrofit
measures would provide a
benefit to our environmental
footprint.
5. Whether these retrofit
measures would be of benefit
to individuals in reducing
pollution in their homes from
the adjacent roadway.
6. The ease and ability to adopt
these retrofit measures which
would be considered nonconforming in neighbourhoods
with Mature Neighbourhood
Overlay zoning.
ROUTING – Executive Committee | DELEGATION – M. Garrett/B. Latte
WRITTEN BY – D. Mullen/L. Ochocki | November 11, 2008 – Planning and Development Department/Transportation
Department/Deputy City Manager’s Office 2008PDD054
Page 1 of 4
J
1
Municipal Noise Attenuation Policies (K. Leibovici)
We would like this inquiry to return to
the December 10, 2008, Executive
Committee meeting.
2. What the Federal Government
requirements are regarding
internal noise attenuation.
Report

In terms of internal noise attenuation,
the National Building Code has
provisions such that minimum Sound
Transmission Class ratings are
required within buildings of multiresidential units between each unit,
service shafts and public corridors.
Sound transmission from the exterior
to the interior of buildings is not
considered in the National Building
Code. The Alberta Building Code is
based on the National Building
Code, and is therefore consistent
with these provisions.

The City of Calgary’s Surface
Transportation Noise Policy refers to
whether there is existing or potential
problems within outdoor rear leisure
areas around the home and not
interior design noise levels within the
house. This Noise Policy prescribes
the conditions under which noise
barriers are constructed adjacent to
residential properties using
guidelines established by the
Federal Government.

Although interior noise levels of
45 dBA are referenced within the
City of Calgary’s Surface
Transportation Noise Policy and in
the City of Edmonton’s Urban Traffic
Noise Policy, this is intended only for
new residential developments and
not retrofit situations. Furthermore, if
exterior noise levels of 65 dBA are
achieved, it is understood that
current minimum construction
standards should typically provide a
minimum reduction of 20 dBA
between the exterior and the interior
of a residence.
1. How Washington State’s State
Environmental Policy Act of
Washington and California’s
Environmental Quality Act deal
with the impact of new roadway
projects on existing residences.



Both the State Environmental Policy
Act of Washington (SEPA) and the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) are statutes that require
state and local agencies to identify
the significant environmental impacts
of their actions and to avoid or
mitigate those impacts, if feasible.
Noise attenuation requirements
within both the states of Washington
and California are in accordance to
the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) Noise
Abatement Criteria (NAC). This set
of criteria considers both exterior and
interior noise levels which, “when
approached or exceeded, require
consideration of traffic noise
abatement measures”.
Washington State Department of
Transportation does not maintain a
program to provide interior noise
mitigation measures for private
residences due to lack of funding.
Within the state of California, the
implementation of interior noise
mitigation measures for private
residences has been undertaken, but
only under extreme circumstances,
such as in the Davis, California
example.
Page 2 of 4
Municipal Noise Attenuation Policies (K. Leibovici)
3. Information on a potential building
retrofit program that would
address internal noise
attenuation, especially for areas
where noise mitigation is not
feasible, like Whitemud Drive.


The indoor noise level will vary from
house to house (even with the same
outdoor noise level) depending on
the design and construction of the
house. Therefore, a building retrofit
program would require interior noise
testing and inspection to be
undertaken for each individual
household to determine the need
and effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
A potential building retrofit program
to address internal noise attenuation
would need to focus on the
upgrading of building envelope
materials that include windows,
doors, building ventilation and walls.
In essentially all residential
construction, the dominant path of
noise transfer from outside to inside
is through the windows. An upgrade
of windows for the purposes of
interior noise mitigation will require
that at a minimum, windows facing a
noise source be replaced. In
addition, it is necessary that all holes
and leaks be completely sealed to
minimize interior noise levels.

Windows are opened in summer. If
windows have to remain closed to
reduce noise it might require
installation of air conditioning.

Based on interior noise levels and
noted areas for improvement, a
potential building retrofit program
may provide a level of funding to
assist residents in the replacement
of windows and doors to high sound
Page 3 of 4
insulating units, and the provision of
additional insulation in exterior walls.
Residents could also be provided
with information on preventative
noise mitigation measures that
include the replacement of building
ventilation ducting along with
caulking and weather stripping to
seal holes and leaks within their
homes.

The estimated cost of implementing
the full range of internal noise
mitigation measures (windows,
doors, building ventilation, insulation
and the sealing of holes and leaks in
combination with the installation of
an air conditioner) within a typical
112 m2 bungalow is in the order of
$35,000 to $40,000.

Research of other major Canadian
municipalities, which included
Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg and
Ottawa, indicates that none of these
cities make use of interior noise
measurements as a means of
gauging the effectiveness of noise
attenuation. Additionally, none of
these municipalities have considered
a program where buildings are
retrofitted with materials (insulation,
windows, doors, caulking and
weather-stripping) that are used as
an alternative to noise barriers in
addressing traffic noise attenuation.

In addition to the funding required to
subsidize interior noise mitigation
measures as part of a building
retrofit program, staff and operating
budget would be required to
administer the program, and
complete the noise tests and audits
of buildings.
Municipal Noise Attenuation Policies (K. Leibovici)
4. Whether these retrofit measures
would provide a benefit to our
environmental footprint.
A complete retrofit including
windows, insulation, and doors
would lower the energy use footprint
of the house but if an air conditioner
were installed this could reduce the
energy use reduction benefit
possibly to the point of negating the
benefit entirely. Windows and doors
designed for energy efficiency do not
necessarily mitigate against noise.
5. Whether these retrofit measures
would be of benefit to individuals
in reducing pollution in their
homes from the adjacent roadway.


The air sealing of building holes and
leaks to reduce interior noise levels
is a cost effective means of reducing
the infiltration of outdoor pollution
such as particulate matter.
However, the overall benefit to
individuals in reducing pollution in
their homes as a result of these
retrofit measures would be
considered minor.
Household energy efficiency
upgrades should be approached with
some caution. Aggressive initiatives
to install new high sound insulating
windows and doors and eliminate air
leaks could potentially reduce indoor
air quality by making a home too air
tight. A home needs to have
adequate outdoor air infiltration to
replace stale indoor air, and in some
cases to act as combustion air for
some appliances. A heat recovery
ventilator may be needed to correct
this problem.
6. The ease and ability to adopt
these retrofit measures which
would be considered non-
Page 4 of 4
conforming in neighbourhoods
with Mature Neighbourhood
Overlay zoning.

The installation of new windows or
other retrofit measures, which may
be considered ‘maintenance’, do not
require a Development Permit
(Section 12.2 of the Edmonton City
Zoning Bylaw).

Non-conforming buildings may
continue to be used, but the building
may not be enlarged, added to,
rebuilt or structurally altered except
to make it conforming, or for routine
maintenance of the building if the
development authority considers it
necessary (Section 643(5a,b) of the
Municipal Government Act). All
additions to non-conforming
buildings would be reviewed against
the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay
and on a case by case basis.
Others Reviewing this Report
 J. Tustian, Deputy City Manager