HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 GEN PLN AMEND 86-2B 4-7-86m--A !mmm ~) ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING
~ /t_ 7= j~_. · NO. 1
DATE: APRIL ?, 1980
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE PAYOR AMD CXTY O)UIlCIL EMBERS
COiqqlJ#TTY DEVELOPREMT DEPARllqEk'T
GENERAL PLAN AHE#I)HENT 86-2b: REYISZONS TO THE NOISE ELEHENT Oi~
THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN
RECOHBqENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 86-2b
by the adoption of Resolution No. 86-45.
BACKGROUND:
In May 2975, the existing Noise Element of the Tusttn Area General Plan was
~ adopted. Pursuant to State Planning Law, the legislative body may, if it deems
it to be in the public interest, amend the various elements of the General
· Plan.
On March 10, Z986, the Planning CommissiOn reviewed revisions to Noise Element;
and with a few minor changes to the document, recommended that the Council
approve General Plan Amendment 86-2b.
DISCUSSXON:
In accordance with State planning law, the revised Noise Element addresses
several distinct areas of concern. Generally, the Element identifies present
and potential noise sources, noise sensitive areas, and establishes policies and
objectives on how the city should deal with noise related matters.
Information collected for this document came from a variety of sources; but some
specific sources should be noted. Definitions contained in the Element are
those used by the Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health.
Noise contours established for arterial highways within the city were developed
in cooperation with Orange County Environmental Health, as was the 24 hOur study
of the Browning Corridor. Finally, noise contours projected for transportation
systems in East Tusttn were prepared as a part of EIR 85-2 by Michael Brandman
Associates.
Ctty Counctl Report
Notse Element
page t~o
COIICLUSZO#S:
In that the revtsed edttton of the Notse Element more accurately reflects
extsttng and potential notse relatad conditions than does the previous edttton,
and stnce tt has been drafted tn conformance wtth applicable State law, tt ts
recommended that the Counct1 adopt Resolution No. 86-45 approving General Plan
Amendment No. 86-2b.
OD: pef
attacmeflt$:
Resolution No. 86-45
Revtsed ,otse Elemant
Report to Planntng Commission, March 10, 1986
Community Develooment Deoartment
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
22
23
25
26
9.7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 86-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ARENDHENT 86-2b
AHENDING THE TEXT OF THE NOISE ELEMENT OF THE
TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN
The City Council of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of
California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public
interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General
Plan.
De
That upon direction of the Clty Council the Noise Element of the
Tustin Area General Plan is to be amended to reflect present
noise conditions impacting the City of Tustin.
That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a publ)c hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly called,, noticed and held for the purpose of
amending the Noise Element of the Tusttn Area General Plan
considering the following changes:
1. The Noise Element of the Tustin Area General Plan s~ll be
amended to read as presented in the attached Exhibit "A"
attached to Commission Resolution No. 2310.
That the Planning Commission has by the adoption of Resolution
No. 2310 recommended to the City Council approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 86-2b.
That in accordance with Section 66358 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a public hearing before the City
Council was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of
considering General Plan Amendment 86-2b as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been
prepared in conformance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and is hereby approved.
That General Plan Amendment No. 86-2b would be in the public
interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the
surrounding property owners based upon the following:
1. Existing and potential noise sources that impact, or may
impact, the City of Tustin have been identified.
2. Noise sensitive areas and land uses have been identified.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution 80-45
Page t~o
3. That an implementation program as outlined in Exhibit "A"
will assist in accomplishing the stated objective of
reducing,-to all extent as practical, any negative impacts
associated with noise.
4. That the revised Noise Element as drafted is consistent
with all other elements of the Tustin Area General Plan.
II.
The City Council does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 86-2b
amending the Noise Element of the Tustin Area General Plan identified
in Exhibit "A' attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of , 1986.
FRANK H. GREINKE, Mayor -
MARY WYNN, City Clerk
CZTY COUNCTL
Frank Gretnke, Mayor
Richard Edgar
Donald Saltarellt
Ronald Hoestery
Ursula Kennedy
ACKNOM. EDGDIENTS
PLANNING CO~ISSION
Kathy Wetl, Chairperson
Charles Puckett
John McCarthy
Alden Baker
~"rAFF
William Huston, City Manager
Donald D. Lamm, Community Development Director
Prepared By:
Edward M. Knight, AICP, Senior Planner
Jeff S. Davis, Associate Planner
Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
Craig Hensley, Planning Intern
Donna Orr, Administrative Secretary
Corn munity Development Depart ment
CHAPTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................... 1
A. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS ........... 1 - 3
B. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ELEMENTS ......... 3 - 4
C. OEFINITIONS ............ ....... 4 - 6
II. GOALS AND POLICIES .................. 7 - 8
III. IDENTIFICATION OF NOISE SOURCES ............ 9
A. EXISTING SOURCES ................. 9 - 10
B. POTENTIAL SOURCES ..... 10 - 11
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS ........ 12
A. INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES ............. 12
B. SCHOOLS .........
C. PARKS ..........
D. CHURCHES ........
V. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ....
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. . .
VII. APPENDICES ..........
A.
B.
......... 12 - 13
......... 13
......... 13 - 14
......... 15 - 16
......... 1.7
SUPPORT DATA FOR CONTOUR MAP ........... 19
24 HOUR NOISE STUDY IN BROWNING CORRIDOR,
CNEL CONTOURS FOR MCAS(H) ....... 20
LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBITS
1. NOISE CONTOUR I~P (Exh~btt 1) .............. 9.a.
2. PROJECTED CONTOURS FOR EAST TUSTIN AREA (Exhtblt 2)... 11.a.
3. PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS FOR EAST TUSTIN AREA (TABLE I).. ll.b.
NOISE Et. ET~NT
CHAPTER I. XMYRODUCTXON
A. PURPOSE AND R£qtlXRElqENTS
As requtred by Sectton 65302 of the Government Code, a ~totse
Element shall be incorporated, as a mandatory element, tnto a
ctty or county Genera] Plan. Genera] purposes of such an element
are to provtde sufficient Information concerning the Community
Noise Environment and to develop stratogtes to reduce adverse
impacts of noise related factors. Specific requirements are ~o
ldenttfy notse related problems and i'sSues; to 1denttfy
particular noise sources; to provide a standardized mechanism for
the measurement of noise generated within, or what would have an _.
impact upon the study area; to establish and tmp]ement speciftc
policies that address noise conditions that may adversely affect
the inhabitants of this ~turtsdtctton; and final]y, to coordinate
ail of this information into a document that shall be a guideline
for use in the development of the land use element of the Genera]
Plan. In this manner, noise compatible ]and uses can be
established as well as creating a base upon which subsequent
noise control ordinances are to be adopted, tlolse control
measures are to be applied to extstlng conditions as we]] as in
conjunction with future planning and development processing.
-1-
The sources of environmental notse to be considered tn thts
element as required by Section 65302f of the Government Code
shall include the following:
. ~tghways and freeways;
. Primary arterials and major local streets;
. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and rapid
transit systems;
Commercial, general aviation, heliport, heltstop, and
military airport operations, aircraft overflights, Jet
engine test strands and all other ground facilities and
maintenance;
Local industrial plants, t~cluding but not limited to,
railroad classification yards;
Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local
agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
Section 65302f further states that certain formula shall be used
to present noise exposure information identifying noise levels
generated from the above listed sources. For the purposes of
this element, noise contours identifying exposure levels shall be
shoWn in terms of Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL).
These contours will be used as a guide for establishing a pattern
of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure
of communitY residents to excessive noise.
-2-
Finally, th~s element shall include implementation measures and
possible solutions thaC address existing and foreseeable noise
problems. This element shall also serve as a guideline for
compliance with the state's no~se insulation standards.
Bo RELATIONSHTP TO OTHER ELDIENTS
As required by the State Government Code, tn the preparation of a
single element to a city's General Plan consideration must be
given to the relationship of that element to the remaining
components of the plan. Since no element of the General Plan may
supersede or replace any other mandatory element, an internal
consistency among elements must also be demonstrated. The other
elements most relevant to the Noise £1ement are the Land Use and
Housing Elements.
By addressing type, locatton and denstty of land uses within the
city, the Land Use Element recognizes the need for orderly and
compatible development patterns. In this broad policy document,
tssues relattng to noise sources and noise exposure are
Incorporated in general terms. Additionally the Land Use Element
addresses notse compatible land uses.
More specifically related to the Noise Element, the following
goals established in the Housing Element demonstrate consistency
between those two elements.
-3-
1. The provision of decent, safe and suitable houstng
accommodations for all persons who reside in the city.
2. The provision of quality living environment with protection
and preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the city.
3. The encouragement of development reducing dependency upon
the automobile (thereby reducing associated noise) for
transportation by locattng housing facilities convenient to
service and employment centers thereby enabling walking or
bicycling.
As to the relationship between the remaining elements of the
General Plan, where policies provide: buffer zones between
transportation systems; where permanent open space ts mandated;
and/or references are made to the enhancement of the general
welfare of the community resulting from the improvement of
environmental conditions. This Noise Element is considered to be
consistent with those elements.
C. I)EFI#ITIO#$
For the purposes of this Noise Element, the following definition of
terms'shall be used.
Decibel, db: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal
to 20 times the logartth of the base 10 of the ratio of the
pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which
is 20 mtcropascals {20 micronewtons per square meter).
-4-
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level tn decibels as
measured on a sound level meter usfng the A-weighting filter
network. An A-weighting ftlter de-emphasizes the very low and
very htgh frequency components of the sound tn a manner slmtlar
to the response of the human ear and gtves good correlation wtth
subjective reactions to notse.
CNEL: Community Notse Equivalent Level. The average equivalent
A-weighted sound level durtng a 24-hour day, obtatned after
addttton of ftve dectbels to sound levels tn the eventng from 7
p.m. to l0 p.m. and after addttton of l0 dectbels to sound levels
tn the nlght before 7 a.m. and after 10.p.m.
Equivalent Energy Level~ LEq: The sound level corresponding to a
steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a
ttme varytng stgnal over a gtven sample pertod. Leg Is typically
computed over l, 8 and 24 hour sample periods.
Notse Exposure Contours: Ltnes drawn about a notse source
Indicating constant energy levels of notse exposure. CNEL and
Ldn are the metrtcs uttllzed heretn to descrtbe community
exposure to notse.
Ambtent: The composite of notse from all sources near and far.
In thts context, the ambtent notse level constitutes the normal
or extsttng level of environmental notse at a gtven ~ocatton.
Intrusive Notse: That notse whtch tntrudes over and above the
extstlng ambtent notse at a gtven location. The relative
Intrusiveness of a sound depends upon 1ts multitude,duration,
frequency and ttme of occurrence, and tonal or Informational
content as wel; as the prevailing ambtent notse level.
Equal Noisiness .Zones: Deftned areas or regtons of a community
~heretn the ambtent notse levels are generally stmtlar (~tthtn a
range of 5 db). Typically, al1 sttes ~t~htn any gtven notse
sources.
-6-
CHAPTER [[o GOALS AND POLZCIES
Ultimately, tt ts the goal of the Notse Element to establish a
standard by whtch an environment for the people that 11ye and
work wtthtn the Ctty of Tusttn. may be created mfntmlztng the
detrimental effects associated wtth notse. The Importance of
thts goal ts magntfled when tt Is taken tnto consideration that
according to the Environmental Protection Agency, approximately
80 mtllton people are s~gntftcantly tmpacted by notse~ 40 m1111on
of whtch are exposed to levels that can damage thetr heartng or
otherwise affect thelr health.
No~se ts not only detrtmantal to well-be~ng, but also costly.
The gorld Health Organization has estimated Sat over $4 btll~on
ts spent by Untted States Industry each year for noise-related
absenteeism, reduced effJc~ency, workman's compensatfon clatms,
and mental 111ness.
In addtt~on to heartng loss, no~se also can have a considerable
.effect on human actfv~t~es such as communication, sleep and task
performance, thereby contributing to annoyance and ~nd~rectly
affecting the general state of an ~nd~vtdual's health and
we11-be~ng. (Source: County of Orange, No~se £1ement)
-7-
Real~ztng such problems, tt ts the spectf~c objective of thts
element to establish the basts from whtch future development
wtth~n the Ctty of Tusttn shall be approached, at least tn part,
tn terms of reductng negattve Impacts resulting from noise.
Additionally, by Identifying major notse producing sources, and
determining an acceptable notse level conducive to the orderly
and compatlble development of the Ctty; and gtvtng proper
consideration to extsttng land uses, thts element seeks to reduce
tn the most appropriate manner overall no~se levels as they
currently extst.
-8-
CHAPTER III. IDENTIFICATION OF MOISE SOURCES
As required by Sectton 65302f of the Government Code, the following
notse sources havng an tmpact on the Communfty Notse Environment have
been Identified.
A. EXISTING SOURCES
The north/south Costa Hesa Freeway (Interstate 55) from Fatrhaven
Avenue to Warner Avenue. (A stgntflcant portton of thts freeway
ts recessed, whtch contributes favorably toward notse control.)
The dtagonal northwest/southeast Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate
5), from Wtlllams Street to Myford Road.
Prtmertly seven major arterial streets; Seventeenth Street,
Irvtne Boulevard, Ftrst Street, McFadden Avenue, Newport Avenue,
Red Ntll Avenue, Edtnger Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Exhtbtt 1
shows the notse contours for these selected street systems.
The Santa Fe Ratlway 11ne tn the southern sector, runntng
northwest/southeast commencing at the Intersection of the Newport
Freeway and Edtnger Avenue, paralleling Moulton Parkway to Myford
Road.
-9-
CITY OF
TUSTIN
NOISE CONTGUR
M~P
~ MAJOR ARTERIAL
U PRIMARY ARTERIAL
· t~ SECONDARY ARTERIAL
PROPOSED CO~SEPTUAL
ALIGNMENT
.... CITY BOUNDARY
--,~-- CNEL CONT(Z.JR
--,: ~ CNEL CONTOUR
.... CNEL CONTOUR
The Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter) on the southern-most
edge of Tusttn. In addition to the facility itself, the
"Browning Corridor" must be considered as a noise source. The
corridor is used as restricted a~rspace for helicopter
operations. This airspace covers an area 1,000 feet on either
side of the center line of Myford Road and extends ~nauttcal
miles north of the air station boundary. A 24 hour noise study
of this corridor is included in Appendix VII B of this Element.
Information also contained in this appendix, as it pertains to
the Browning Corridor, were compiled for the Master Plan for
MCAS(H) Tusttn.
The major air approach pattern to the John Wayne Airport, which
traverses the city from Irvtne Boulevard at Prospect Avenue to
Warner Avenue at the Newport Freeway impacts the City.
The light industrial area contained within the southwestern-most
sectors of the City.
B. POTENTXAL SOURCES
In addition to listing existing noise sources, potential sources are
also t-dentifted.
-10-
Now sources in conjunction with and resulting from, the
development of Mixed Land Uses in the presently undeveloped area
bounded by Irvtne Boulevard and Interstate 5 between Myford Road
and Browning Avenue. These uses may include, but are not limited
to, residential units of varying density, a 50 acre auto center,
and traditional commercial/retail uses.
Noise that will be generated by ne~ automotive transportation
systems in the East Tusttn (Peter's Canyon) area including but
not limited to: The Eastern Corridor, the Foothill Corridor, the
Portola Parkway, the extension of Jamboree and Myford Roads, and
the reconstruction of the Myford Road/Interstate 5 interchange.
Projected CNEL contours for major circulation systems within the
East Tusttn area are listed tn Table I and Exhibit 2.
The Sante Fe Railway line listed as an existing noise source was
at one time considered as a path for a proposed high speed rat1
system (Bullet Train).
Expansion of the number of flights from 41 to 55 at John Wayne
Airport has been approved. Additionally, a proposal to increase
the number to 7! has been suggested. However, the increase in
flights is currently involved in litigation proceedings, so the
precise number of future flights is undetermined. None the less,
any expansion increasing the number of flights would increase the
number of noise incidents impacting the community noise
environment.
-11-
CNEL Noise Contour5
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT
2
TABLE !
* FUllJRE NO!SE LEVELS
EAs"r TUST!N*
Roadway
Lower Lake
Foothi 11
Portola
Racquet Hill
La Coltna
Irvtne Blvd.
Bryan Avenue
Jamboree Road
Myford
Distance to CNEL Contour
From Centerline of Roadway (feet)
North of Foothill
West of Lower Lake
East of Lower Lake
Jamboree to Myford
East of Myford
West of Jamboree
West of Jamboree
West of Jamboree
Jamboree to Myford'
Browning to Jamboree
Jamboree to Myford
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL
RW 42 91
RW 38 82
RW 91 195
79 169 365
117 251 542
RW 70 151
RW 82 177
96 208 447
76 - 164 353
51 110 237
51 110 237
Santa Ana Fwy to Bryan 84 180 388
Bryan to Irvine Blvd. 77 167 359
Irvtne Blvd. to La Colina 88 190 410
La Colina to Racquet Hill 93 200 431
Racquet Hill to Portola 87 188 404
Portola to Foothill 72 156 335
Foothill to Myford 56 120 258
Santa Ana Fwy to Laguna 101 217 468
Laguna to Bryan 84 180 388
Bryan to Irvtne Blvd. 86 185 399
Irvine Blvd. to Portola 87 188 404
Portola to Jamboree 77 167 359
North to Jamboree 64 138 298
RW - indicates contour falls within road right-of-way
* - Projected noise contours were established as if no mitigating
noise reduction measures would be utilized.
CHAPTER IV. IDENTIFICATION OF NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS
As important as it ts to tdentffy sources of notse generation, areas
that are sensitive, by nature of thetr particular land uses to the
impacts of notse, must also be 11sted. Such areas are:
A. IIISTITUTIO#AL FACILITIES
Health Care Medtcal Center (Hospital) at 14662 Newport Avenue.
Tusttn Hactenda (rest home) at 240 East Thtrd Street.
Nestern Neurological Care Center at 165 Myrtle Street.
Tusttn Manor (rest and care home) at 1051 Bryan,Avenue.
Tustln Gardens (senior ctttzen houstng) at 275 6th Street.
SCHOOLS
Footht11 High School at 19251 Dodge Avenue
Htllvtew High School at 19061 Foothtll Blvd,
Tusttn Htgh School at 1171Laguna Road
Columbus Tusttn Intermediate at 17952 Benta Nay
Currte Intermediate at 1402 Sycamore Avenue
'Hewes Intermediate at 13232 Hewes
Gutn Foss (Adult Education) at 18492 Vanderltp Avenue
Arroyo Elementary at 11112 Coronel Road
Estock Elementary at 1474! N. "B" Street
-12-
Hetdeman Elementary at 1557! Wt111ams Street
Loma Vista £1ementary at 13822 Prospect Avenue
Nelson Elementary at 14392 Browntng Avenue
Thorman Elementary at 1402 Sycamore Avenue
Tusttn Memertal Elementary at 12712 Browntng Avenue
Veeh Elementary at 1701 San Ouan
Utt School Stte (presently leased to a private school however may
be re-opened as a publlc school site)
C. PARIS
Peppertree Park at Ftrst and "C" Street
Ptne Tree Park at Redhi11 and Bryan Avenue
Centennial Park at Sycamore and Devonshire
Frontier Park at Mitchell and Utt
Utt Park at Nisson and Pasadena
Magnolia Tree Park at Alder and Fig Tree
North Tustin Parkette at Santa Clara and Fatrmont
McFadden Park at McFadden and Pasadena
Columbus Tusttn Park at Prospect and Irvine 81vd.
O. CHURCHES
1st Christian Church of Tusttn at 1362 Irvtne Blvd.
1st Advent Christian Church at S55 W. Main Street
Tusttn Presbyterian Church at 225 ~. Main Street (wtth preschool)
-13-
Jehovah's Witnesses at 170 Pasadena
Church of Christ at 16481W. Main
1st Southern Baptist Church at 13841Redht11 (with private
school)
Church of Sctentology at 14511rvtne Blvd.
1st Church of Christ Scientist at 140 £. Math
St. Cecelta's Catholic Church at 130! Sycamore (w~th private
school)
B'Nat Israel at 655 "B" Street
RedhJll Lutheran Church at 13232 Redh~11 (with private school)
St. Jeanne de Lestonnac Convent (with private elementary school).
-14-
CIIAPTER VI. ~PLDIENTAT~OII PROGRA#
These Implementation pollctes suggest general prtortty pollctes for
the ctty of Tusttn to follo~ tn Implementing th~s Element of the
General Plan.
The ctty shall:
Revtew development to avotd extsttng notse tmpact areas unttl
operational changes or other notse abatement measures are
Implemented.
Act to reduce notse levels and encourage development of
noise-reducing materials and equipment tn 1ts purchasing poltcy.
gotse should be made a consideration tn ctty purchasing decisions
for equ¶pment producing notse levels greater than 65 dB(A) at 50
feet under normal operating conditions. Recommended poltcy ts
that purchase of less notsy 1rem should be requtred tf reduction
ts 5 dB from notster 1rem and cost ts no more than 1.! t~mes
greater, or notse reduction ts 10 dB over competitive Item and
cost ts no more than 1.25 t~mes greater.
Discourage regional, s~ate or federal acttons whtch tncrease the
noise levels ~n the c~ty, and take a strong stand on actions
whtch Increase the noise levels beyond acceptable 11mtts.
-15-
Aid in, and strongly encourage, the enforcement of federal and
state standards for noise-producing equipment including cars,
motorcycles, trucks, etc.
Work with the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in
developing a plan for compatible use in airport noise and crash
hazard areas.
Discourage actions by private developers which increase noise
impact or do not account for noise impact already existing when
feasible alternative actions exist.
Encourage the use of circulation systems which do not produce
high noise levels, including bicycle and pedestrian systems.
Not allow credit for open space areas in developments in
zones with a.CNEL 65+ except when shielded from noise sources by
appropriate noise barriers.
Maintain and revise as necessary a comprehensive noise ordinance
relating to noise sources and requiring sound insulation in
building construction in all noise impact areas proposed for
r~stdential or other noise-sensitive development.
-16-
CIIAPTER VZ. E#VI'RON~IENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Noise Element as drafted will have no adverse impact on the
environment and in fact is designed to enhance the quality of living
within the city of Tusttn. Oocumentatton supporting the finding of no
adverse impact is found in the initial study questionnaire completed
for the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact prepared in
conjunction with this project.
-17-
VII. APPENDICES
-18-
A. SUPPORT DATA FOR CORTOUR gAP (Exhtbtt 1)
-19-
FHWA ,, ~q{WAY TRAPFIC NOISE PREDICTIOb
First Street between Centennial& Prospect
ADT - 22500
S Speed in mph 30 30 30
NX Traffic Volume (per hour)
A - Automobiles 1413 922 233
M ~ Medium trucks 29 19 4
H - Heav~ trucks 14 9 2
c~ Site descriptor (Soft - 0.§) .5 .S .5
(~ard - 0.0)
D Distance co Roadway in ~eeC , ,, 50 50 50
An~le Co Segment (I~shC) -90 -90 -90
Anzle to Se~nenc (Left) 90 90 90
Leq Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (dBA)
A - Aut~mobiles 64.8 62.9 57.0
~ - )de~ trt~ks 56.7 54.8 48.9
~.y Hea~-/ trucks 60.1 58.3 ~2.3
T - Combined Total (dEA) §6.5 64.7 58.7
LEq - 64'.67
CNEL - 67.97
LDN - 67.37-.
79.
· 60,
l?O.
~', 55.
307.
50.
792.
45,
1707.
PKOO~&',I 425-D
6-4-84
A-1
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAI~I¢ NCISE PRI~DIC'flON
First Street between 55 Frwy. & Prospect
Speed in mph 30 30 30
Tra/fic Vo~uma (per hour)
' I - lu=~obil~ 1372 895 226
M - Medi~ =rucb 28 18 4
H -HeaW ~ruc~ 14 9 2
Site d~cripcor (Soft - 0.~) .~ .5 .~
Distance Co Roadwa~ ~n feec .... 50 50 }0
~gle =o Se~en: (~gh:) q
~la :o Se~ent flare) 90 ~0 ~0 "
Hourly Eq~vale:: Sound L~el (dBA)
A - AuC~obil~ 64,7 62,8 56,8
M- ~di~ :r~ 56,6 54,7 ~ .48,7
H - llea~ :ruc~ 60,0 58.1 52.2
T - Combine4 Total (dBA) 66,4 64.6 }~,6
LEQ = 64,54
CNEL = 67,84
LDN = 67,25
69.
';,5.
P P,O~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-2
50.
76~,
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
First Street between Centinnial & Newport~Ave.
~T m 1620~ : DAYTIME EVENIN, NIGHTTI~
.~ Speed in mph 30 30 30
NX T~affi¢ Volu~e (per hour)
' A - Automobiles 1017 664 167
H - Medi~ Cruc~ 20 13 3
H - He~ =ruc~ 10
~ Site d~cr~cor (Soft - 0.5)
D Distance co Ro~a7 ~ feec
Antls co Seine
~le to Se~ent (~9~) q~ qa qn
Leq Hourly J~valen= Sound L~el (dBA)
A - Auc~bll~ 63.4 61.5 55.5
M- ~ Cr~ 55.3 53.4 47.4
T - C~bined To=al (dBA)
~q - 63.24
CNEL = 66.§~
LDN - 65.95
135.
'55.
292.
629,
45.
1356.
P~O~A~ 425-D
6-4-84
FHWA HIGh"WAY TRAFFIC NOISE PP~u£CTION
Irvine Blvd. between 55 Frwy. & Prospect
32050 YTIME
Speed in mph 35 35 35
Traffic Volu~e (per hour)
' A - Automobiles 2012 1314 331
H m Heal~, trucks 20 13 3
Sita d~cr~to= (Sof~ = 0.5) .5 .S .5
Dis=ance ~o ~oadway in fee= 50 50 50
~le =o Se~n= (~hc) -90 -90
~le to Se~ent (Left) 90 90 90
Ho~ly ~val~ Sound ~el (dBA)
A - Auc~bil~ 68.0 66.2 60.2
M - ~ Cr~ 59.8 58.0 52.0
H - Hea~ C~c~ 62.6 60.8 5~.8
T - C~b~ned To=al ~dBA) -' 69.6 67.8 61.8
L~Q = 67.74
CNEL = 71.04
LDN - 70.44
70.
125.
PROORAM 425-D
6-4-84
A-4
60.
270.
55.
50.
1255.
2705.
FHWA..~IGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ~REDICTIO~ .
Irvine. Blvd. between Prospect & Holt
ADT - 24400
S ~ Speed ia mph 35 35 35
" NZ T~ra~fic Volume (par hour)
· I - Au=o~obiles 1532 1000 ] 252
~ H - Hedi~ =~c~ 31 20 ] 5
.::l H - Hea~ cruc~ 15 10 ] 2
~ ~ site d~cripCor (Sol= - 0.5) .5 .5
~: (~ard - 0.0)
DisCan~9,u Co Roadway in feec 50 50
~81e co Seine
L~ Ho~ly ~val~= Sound L~el (dBA)
A - Au=~obil~ 66.8 65.0 59.0
M - ~ :r~ 58.6 56.8 50.8
T - Combined Tq~al (dBa) ~8,4 66.6
LEq - 66.55
CNEL - 69.86
LDN - 69.~6
65.
1U'/' .
232.
95.
499.
50.
1077.
A-5
45.
2 3 '>
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
IrvinelBlvd. between Holt Ave. and Myford
~- 22050 DAY~
S Speed tn mpb r 35 3~
NX Traffic Volume (per hour) ,
' A - AuCo~obiles 1384 904 228
H - Medium trucks 28 18 4
I, H - Hear7 trucks 14 9 2
o~ . S~ce descriptor (Soft - 0.5) .5
<~ard - o.o)
D Distance .Co Roadway in feeC 50
~[ ~ ~,. co S.~.n, <=,h,) -~0 -~0 -~0
An~le ~o Segment (Left)
Leq ~ Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (dBA)
A - Auco~obil~s 66.4 ~4.5 58.6
H - Hed~um trucks 58.2
1t - tloavy Crttck~l ~1_O
,] T - Comb~ed T0Cal (dBA) __ . fi~.fl ~.l
L~Q m 66.11
CN~L m 69.42
LDN - 68..82'
~0,
211.
55.
496,
90,
9E2,
PROOR,~2$ 425-D
~-4-s~
2116.
FHWA BiGHWAY TP, AFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
McFadden between Lyon & Williams
18~50
35 35
S Speed in mph
NX Traffic Volume (per hour) 1158 756 191
' A - AuCo~obiles 23 16 23 3
~ -~adtum =rucks 11 7 1
H - Heav~ =tucks
(Tc,,.rd - o.o2
50 50 50
D Di{tan,c{ ,~ Roa,4~e~, in feet
z -90 -90 -9O
Am{lm ~ Seine (]~L~hC) 90 90 90
Anzle Co Seamen=
Leq Hourly ~quivalen~ Sound Level (dBA) 65.6 63.8 57.8
A - Au=cmob~les 5.7.4 55.6 49.6
M - Mec~um =tucks 60.2 58.4 52.4
H -'Heavy =tucks
67.2 65.~ 59.4
? - Combine4 Total
· ' LEQ - 65.34
CRKL - 68.64
LDN - 68.05.
I b'l,
5.5.
PKDG~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-7
45.
1871.
~n%/A :HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE P~UI~TION .
McFadden between Williams & Walnut
25500
Speed in mph 35 35 35
~f~ Vol~e. (pe~ ~ou~)
, A - AuC~b~l~ 1601 1045 26~
S'~=e d~c=~o= (Soft - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
D~sCance ~o Roa4w~ in feet 50 50 50
~Ble co 8e~c (~h=) -90 -90 -90
~-le =O S-~ent (Left} 90 90 90
Ho~ly ~val~C Sold ~el (d~)
I - lu~bil~ 67.0 65.2 59.2
H - liea~ ~c~ 61.7 59.8 53.8
T m C~ned TgSa% ~dBA) 68.6 66.8 60.8
LEQ m 66.74
C~1]~ = 70.05
LDN = 69.45
107.
'PJ2GP. AM 425-D
~-4-84
dO.
232.
499.
lO??.
45°
2320.
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
McFadden between Walnut & Newport
AZm-
S Sgee~ in mmh im
NX Traffic Volume (per hour)
' A -Aucomobiles ?34 479 121
H = Hea~ C~c~ ._ 7 a 1
~ Site d~cr~=o= (Soft = 0.5) .5 .5
D D%sCaa~, ~o Eoadwa7 in ~ee= 50 SO 50
~a ~o Se~nC (~b=) -gO
~ela ~o Se~t fLaft)
L~ He=17 ~v~= Sound L~el (dBA)
T - C~bined T~ai (dBA)
~ -' 63.36
CNEL = 66.66
LDN = 66.07
65.
64.
60.
139.
55.
301.
P~ 6,25-D
6-4-84
649.
139B~.
A-9
~{WA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Wa]nut. Ave. @ ~tersection of Newport
14150
Speed in mph 40 49 40
A - .*.uComob/Le. 888 580 146
H -Hedtum trucks 18 1~ 3
H - HeaW Cruc~ 9
Site d~cripcor (Soft - 0.5)
( erd - 0.0)
O~s~anc~ ~o ~oadwa~ in fme~ 50 50 50
~le to g~ent (La~) 90 90
Ho~iF ~val~c Sound ~el (dBA)
H - Hea~ c~c~ 59.9 58.1 52.1
T - C~i~ed Toga1 (4~) 67.4 65.5 ~,~
LEQ - 65.53
CNEL - 68.8~
LDN - 68.2~
65.
60.
19:~.
55.
~15.
50.
895.
PRDGRA~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-10
45.
1930.
FEWA HIGHWAY TRAFPIC NOISE PREDICTION
Walnut'Ave. @ )ntersection of Red Hill
AI~ - 1/800 pAYTI~ E~NING NIGHTTE,
s SPeed in mph .... 40 40 40
~X T~i¢ Volu~ (pe~ hour)
' A - AuCo~obiles 803 524 132
.. . ~ - Eea~ truc~ 8 5
~ Si~e d~crip[or (So~ m 0,5)
(~rd ' 0.0} _
D Distanca to Roadway ~ ~eet 50 50 50
~&le ~o Seine (~sh=) -90 -90 -90
~la to Se~ent flare) 90 90 90
L~ Hou=ly ~val~t Soun~ ~el
A - Aut~obil~ 65,5 63,7 57.7
M m ~) tr~ 57.2 55.4 49.4
H - Hea~ =~c~ 59.5 57.7 51.7
LEq = 65.10
CNEL = 68.4Q
LDN = 67.80
~4.
60.
181,
55.
" ~91,
PO.
842,
PR0~R~I 425-D
6-4-84
A-Il
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOIS~. PP, EDICTION
~lnut Aye, between Bro~ni. ng& Franklin :
18700
S Speed in mdb 35 35 35
NX Tr~fic Volume (per hour)
' A - AuCamob~les 1174 766 193
M -~edtum :z~aks 24 15 3
H - Heav~ trucks 12 7 1
~ S~Ce d~cr~pCor (SofC - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
( re- 0.0) .....
D D~sCanqe =o Koadway ~n fee= 50 50 50
~le Co Se~uc (~hC) -~0 -~0
~zle =o Se~en= (Lef~ 90 90 90
Leq Ho~ly Eq~val~c Sou~ ~vel (dBA)
A - ~C~bil~ 65.7 63.8 57.9
M- ~ =r~ 57.5 55.6 49.7
H - Hea~ c~e~ 60.3 58,.5 52.5
T - C~b~ne4 To=~% ~dBA) 67,3 65.4 59.4
IZQ - 65.40
~ - 68.70
LDN - 68.10'
88.
60.
190.
409,
50.
862.
pp~op, e~f 425-D
6-4-84
A-12
45,
1900.
FHT~A &"~IT~AY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTIO~
Walnut Ave. between Red Hill & Browning "
ADT m l~.~.~n : DAYTIME EVENIN~ N~GHTTIME
S Speed in mph 35 35 35
Nx ~Xaf~c Volume (par hour)
, A - Automobiles 907 592 149
H ' Mod:Lure =tucks 18 12 3
H - Hea~. =~c~ ....9 6 1
~ S~:e d~c=~co= (Sol: - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
D D~sCance =o Ro~way ~ feec .... 50 ., 50 50
~le co Se~nc (~Shc) -90 -90 -90
~le to Se~t (Lmft) 90 90 90
L~ Ho=ly ~val~: Sold ~el (4~)
A - AuC~bil~ 64.6 62.7 56.7
H - Hma~ c~c~ .. 59.2 57.3 51.4
T - Combined Total (~BA) 66.1 64.3 58.3
LEQ - 64.28
CN~L .. 67.58
LDN -. 66.98~
65,
74.
60.
160,
.55.
345.
~0o
745,
PRO~I 425-D
6-4-84
A-13
45.
1605
Flora HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Wa] nut .Ave. betwee. Fra.k]~n & Myford
~ 9500 EVEN
Speed in mph 45 4~ 45
,Traffic Vol~ (per hour)
A - Automobiles 596 389 98
H - Hed~um trucks 12 8 2
H - Heavy trucks 6 4 1
S~te descriptor (Soft - 0.5) .5 .5' .5
(~,rd - 0.0)
Distance to Roadway in feeC
~le Co Se~n~
~le Co Se~enC (Le~)
A - ~c~bil~ 65.5 63.7 57.7
M- ~ Cr~ 57.2 55.3 49.3
H ~ Hea~ Cruc~ 59.0 57.l
T - C~b~ned Total (dBA)
LEq - 65.00
CNEL - 68.30.
LDN - 67.70
65.
82,
PROOILaJI 425-D
6-4-84
A-lq
60,
50.
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PKEDICTION
Ed~nger. between 55 Fr,~,y, & Del Arno
~. ~ph 40
Volume (pm=
~C~b~l~ 1475 963 243
Hea~ t~c~ ,. .'
d~c=~co= (Sol= - 0.5)
.... ~d. 0.0) .....
O~scance co ~o~way ~ ~ee~ .
co Se~c (~Shc)
co Se~c (~fcl 9n
~v~= So~ ~el (dBA)
~ C~ 59.9 58.0 52.0
C~ined Total, (dBA). ~.~
LEQ - 67.73
CNEL - 71.04.
LDN - 70.44
P P.~'~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-15
60.
270.
45.
270~.
FHWA HIGHWAY 'TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Edinger between Del Amo & Red Hill
13450
S S=eed in mph 40 40 40
Nx T~afft~ Volume (pe~ hou~)
, A - Aucoo~btles 844 551 139
H -Med~u~ Crucks 17 11 2
H - He~ C~c~ 8 5 1
~ 'S~ce d~cr~cor (Soft - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
D D~cance co ~vay ~ ~eeC . 50 50
~le co Se~c (~ShC) -90
~fle Co San~C (t.fc) 90 90
A - ~C~b~ 65.7 63.9 57.9
H - Hea~ C~c~ sg,7 57.9 51.9
T - C~b~ned T~Ca% (dBA) 67.2 65.3
LEq = 65.31
CNEL = 68,61
LDN - 68.02-.
86.
1 8? ·
55.
40~,
PKOGV.,~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-16
50.
45.
18'71.
FItWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Moulto.n Pkwy. between Red Hill & Harvard
6700 DAYTIME N2GH'
S Speed in mph 50 .., 50 50
Nx T~af~ie Volum~ (per hour)
' I - Auc~obtl~s 420 274 69
~ ~i~e d~crip~or (Sof~ - 0.3) .5 .5 .5
- 0.0} ,,.
D Dts~a~ca,,,~o Roadvay ~ fee~ 60 60 60
~1~ Co Se~n~ (~h~) -90 -90
~ele co Se~en~ ft4~) 90
L~ Ho~ly ~vai~ Sold ~vel (d~)
A - ~b~ 64.0 62.~
H - ~ Cr~ 55.6 53.7 47.7
H - H~a~ =~c~ 56.9 ~.1 69.1
T - C~ined TgCal (dBA) 65.2
LEQ - 63.37
CNEL - 66.67.
LDN = 66.08
77 .
1~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-17
60.
107.
55,
361.
~0,
77bo
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
17th.b~twee. Tust~n & 55 Frwy.
= 41900 ~
Nx Traffic Volu~e (per hour)
' A - Auco~obiles 2631 1717 433
H -l~ditm trucks 54 35 8
H ~ He~ C~c~ 27 17 4
~ 'S~c~ d~cr~cor (Soft - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
D Distance ~o Roadwa~ in feec 60 60 60
L~ Ho~ly ~val~= Sound ~el (dBA)
A - Aut~b~ 70.8 ~8.9 62.9
T - C~bined To~al fda,} 72,1 70.]
LEQ - 70.26
CNEL - 73.$6:
LDN = 72.96
~.
224.
40.
55,
1042.
PROGRAM 425-D
6-4-84
A-18
~0.
2246.
4 5~.
4839.
'I~WA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
17th betwee. 55 F~wy. & Yorba
. 36900
$ ~ Spee~ in ~p~ 45 45 45
' A - ~C~bil~ . 2317 ~ll 382
:. H - He~ ~c~ 23 ~ 3
~ ' SiCa d~cr~co= (Sof=- 0.~) .~ .~ .~
<~rd - o.0)
D Dls~a~a _co Ro~way ~ fae~ · 60 60 60
~le =o Se~C (~hC) -90 -90 -90
~=le ~o Se~ (Lef~) 90 90 90
L~ ~=17 ~v~c Sold ~el (~)
A - ~C~b~ 70.2 68.~ 62.4
M - ~ ~ 61.9 60.0 54.0
H - Hea~ ~ 63.7 61.8 55.8
T - C~ined Tocal ~dBA) 71.6 69.7 63.7
LEQ = 69.70
CNEL = 73.01
LDN = 72.4~ .
7Uo
21J~.
60.
441.
55.
?EOG'EA~ 423-D
6-4-84
50.
204~..
.'
· FHI4A HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
17th between Yorba & Prospect
:.
......... UAYTll~E ~-vF. NING NIGHTTIME
:_; Speed in ~ 45 45 45
~X ~fic Vol~ (per hour) .
, A ~ ~1~ 2053 1340 338
M - ~i~ ~c~ 42 27 6
H - He~ C~c~ 21 13 3
~ Site d~cr~cor (Sof~ - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
~d = 0.0)
D D~sCance ~o Ro~w~ ~ feet 60 60 60
Leq Ho~ly ~v~c So~ ~el (d~)
A g ~C~b~ . 69.7 67.8 61.9
H- ~ cr~ 61.3 59.5 53.5
I~EQ - 69.18
C~l~'. m 72.4&
70.
lb'y,
40G,
90.
1~97.
PROGRAM 425-D
6-4-84
A-20
· I;HT. dA ,~GHWA¥ TRAFFIC NOISE PREDTCTTON
17th bqtween Prospect & Holt
27350
,'.; S~e~d ~ mph 45 45 45
~1x 1~£tc VoZume (per hour) .
~ D~uce. co ~o~v~ ~ ~ee~ 50 ~0 ~0
A - ~g~b~ 70.1 68.2 62.3 ·
61.8 59.9 53.9
H - He~ c~e~ 63.5 61.7 , 55,7
T u C~tned Total (4B~} 71.5 69.6 63.6
T~Q - 69.59
". CN'EL - 72.89
LDN - 72.~0
70°
7~.
65.
dO,
302,
PROG~A~ 425-D
6-4-84
A-21
'TBO,
~0.
1681.
4
~62~,
FHWA H~GHTWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
17th Street between Hewes and Newport
~ S~e~l tn mph 35 35 35
gX '~'a~fl¢ ?olume (7ozhau=)"
(~d - 0.0)
Ho~ly ~v~c Sound ~ml (d~A)
~ ' ~ C~ 56.8 54.9 49.0
LEq - 64.69
C~m'.. 68.0~-
LD~ - 67.~0
7~.
170.
3~7.
70.
792.
r R~GIL~i 6,25-D
6-4-84
A-22
45.
1707.
· FHWA ~--.%I~A¥ TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTI0~
Newport Ave. @ ~ntersection of 0Id lrvine
ADT m 195(
~ Speed ~ ~h 35 35 35
~X ~f~c Vol~ (pe~ hour)
D D~s:an~e Co Ro~w~ ~ feec
L~ Ho~17 ~val~C Sold L~el (dBA)
A - ~C~b~ 65,9 64.0 58,0
H - ~ C~ ' 57,7 55.8 49~8
J_ H- He~ C~c~ 60.5 58.6 ~2.7
LEQ - 65.58
CN~L - 68.g8
LDN - 68.29
65.
90.
60,
196.
55.
422,
50.
909.
?B. OG~. 425-0
~-4-84
A-23
45.
1960.
FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC !tOISE PReDiCTIoN
Newport Ave, between Irv~ne & Byran
...... --r -f wv- ~&z'%'l~. EVENING NIGHTTIME
:;_._ Speed in mph 35 35 35
gx Traffic Volume (pe~ hour)
" A - AuComob~3.e~ 17021 1111 280
H - Hed~um ~ucks 351 22 5
...... .. H - Heav~ t~ucks 17~ 11 2
~ Site d~c~iptor (SoEt = 0.5) .5 .5
D Distance ~o ~adw~ in fee, t 62 62 62
~le to Se~ut (~hc) -90 -90 -90
Leq Ho~i~ ~val~ Sound ~el (dBA)
A - ~t~ob~ 65.9 64.0 58.1
57.7 55.9 49.9
~ ' Hea~ ~c~ 60.5 58.7 52.7
T - C~blqed Total (dBA~ 67-.5 65.6 59.6
LEQ - 65.61
C~ - 68.91
LDN= 68.31"
112.
60.
2~3 .
55.
523.
50.
112~.
PROGRA~ 425-D
6-4-84
24~.
Fl{WA H~IGHWAY TI~AFPIC NOISE PREDICTION
Newport Ave. between Bryan & Main
~,'.; S~ee~ im ,1,ph 35
~X T~:a~ic VoXtme (pe~: hou=) .
. A - ~C~bil~ ~29 998 252
~ - ~di~ ~c~ .. 31 20 5
H - H~ c=uc~ 1~ 10 2
~ Site d~c=ipcor (So~c -0.5) .5
( rd - 0.0
D DSscauce Co Ro~w~ ~ fee~ . 50
~la co Seine (~Shc) -90 -90 -90
~la to S~ent (La~t) 90 90 90
Leq Ho~ly ~v~c Sold ~vel (dBA)
A - ~C~bil~ 66.8 65.0 S9.0
H- ~ c~ ' 58.6 ~6.8 ~0.8
H - He~ t~c~ 61.4 S9.6 53.6
' T - C~hi.~ T~C~i (4~) 6S.~ 66.6 60.6
L~.Q = 66.54
C~EL = 69.85.
LDN ,- 69.25
100.
60.
22g,.
55.
50.
106U,
45.
2285.
PRO~B. AM 425-D
6-4-84
40, e
492~!,
A-25
· ~¢HWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 'NOISE PR~.DlCTION
Newport Ave. between Main & M[tche] !
-~.. r ~f I~ nl . gAYTIMB EVENING' NIGHTTIME
.~;~.. Speed in mph 35 35 35
Nx Traffic Volume (per hour) .
.. H - Hea~ ~c~ 20 13 3
~ 'S~a d~cr~or (Sof~ - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
- o.0)
D D~s~ance to Ro~wa~ ~ feet 50 50 50
-90 -90 -90
90 90 90
Ho~y ~va~: Sold ~e~ (dBA)
~ '. - C b~ e o a dBA . 69.6. 67.~~
LEQ - 67.74
CNEL - 71.04
LDN - 70.44:
50.
1255.
PROGRAH 425-D
6-4-84
A-26
45.
270~,.
. rr~WA t~.G~WAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Newport between Mitchell and Walnut :
.~j. Speed In mph 35 35 35
NX ~Xafftc Volume (pe~ hour).
, A - AuComobLle~ , ].592 1039 262
H ~Hedtum :~ucks : 32 21 5
_.. · H - Hear7 t:uc~a 16 10 2
~ Site 4~c:iptot (Soft - O.~)
: .... (~rd = 0.0)
D Die.nee to ~oad~a7 ~ feet ,,, 50 50 50
Leq ~o~7 ~va~: Sold ~vel (dBA)
A - AuC~ob~ ' 67.0 65.1 59.2
58.8 57.0 51.0
~ - EeaW C~e~ 61,6 59~.8 53.8
T - C~ned Total ~dB~ 68~6 66.7~ 60.8
T.w.Q . 66.72
C~T. - 70.02
LDN - 69.43'
70.
50.
107.
60,
232.
499,
50.
107'/.
P~0~RA~ 425-0
6-4-84
A-27
4 5;.
~z2U.
· ,HWA HIGI{WAY t'I{AFFIC NOISE PIU~D~CTZON
Newport Ave. between Walnut & Southerly Terminus
.......... ., UAX%'[MK ~-VENING NIGHTTIME
.%;. Svaad in mph 35 35 35
~X Traffic Vol~ (pe~ hou=) .
D ~is=anc~ Co Ro~way tn feec· 50 50 ~0
~le to ~e~t (La~) qn 90 90
Leq Ho~i~ ~v~= Sold ~el (dBA)
A ~ AuC~bil~
H- ~ Cr~ 56.1 54.3 48.3
LEQ - 64.05
CNEL - 67.35
LDN ,, 66.75:
65.
PKOGKAM 425-D
~0.
155.
335.
50.
722.
45.
1557.
A-25
~ I~A HIGI~WAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
Red Ht.ll between Irvine Blvd. & Byran Ave.
, & - A~ComobAl~, 860 561
l.~ Ho~ly ~v~c Sou~ ~el (dBA)
A - ~c~b~ 64.3 62.5 56.5 .
56.1 5~.3 ~8.3
t~.q = 64.05
~ = 67.35
;.,Z)N = 66.73
65.
72.
PI~l~f 42.~-D
6-4-84
A-29
335.
50.
722.
45.
1557.
FHWA H.IGTgJAY TRAFFIC NOISE P~EDICTION
Red Hill between San Juan & Edinger
......... W DAYTIME D'~NING NIGHTTIME
~X Tr~c Vol~ (pe~ ~ur)
, A - ~b~l~ 193~ 1262 319
M - ~i~ ~c~ 39 2~ 6
~ Si=a d~cr~r (Sof~ - 0.5) .5 .5 .5
D D~sCance Co ~o~4w~ ~ feet 50 50 50
· -90 -90 -90
Ho~ly ~v~c Sound ~1 (dBA)
L~ A - ~C~b~ . 67.8 ~.0 ~0.0
M - ~ tr~ ~9.7. 57.8 Sl. 8
~ ' ' i · BA ' ~ ~ 61.6
T~;J~ m 67.56
CEEL" 70.87:'
LDN - 70.27
70,
57 ·
03.
125.
?ROG11AN 425-D
5-4-86,
A-30
60.
55.
57~.
50,
12~6.
49.
2664.
Red Hill between
.FflWA RzGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
£dinger & Warner
26750 EVENIN
:.:__._ Speed in mph I 40 40 40
NX Traffic Volume (per hour)
, A - Aut~m~bilms 1680 1096 277
H - ~di~ =~c~ 34 22 5
.._ H - Hea~ t~c~ 17 11 2
~ Si:e 4~c=ip:o= (Sof:- 0.5) .5 .5 .5
D Dis:amcm ~o Eo~wa~ ~ fee: 50 50 50
~ele tO Se~t (t~) 90 90 90
L HO~ly ~Va~: Sound Level (dBA)
eq A - Au:~b~ 68.7 66.9 60.9
H- ~ :r~ ' 60.4 58.6 52.6
H - Hea~ =~c~ 62.7 60.9 54.9
' T - C~iged Tg=al ~dBA) 70.2 68.3 62.3
LEQ - 68.30
CNEL = 71.60
LDN - 71.00'
70.
~.
65.
137.
60.
296.
55.
639,
PRO~R~I 425-D
6-4-84
A-31
50.
1377,
2966~.
Noise contours
calculated by:
for the following streets are based on
Mestre-Gretve Associates
280 Newport Center Dr., Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
information
Roadway
Irvine Blvd. between Red Hill
and Browning
Myford Rd. South of I-5
Future Jamboree South of I-5
to Moulton Parkway
Distance to CNEL Contour
From Center line of Roadway (feet)
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CN£L
48 103 220
31 67 145
63 135 291
B. 24 HOUR NOISE STUDY IN BROffNING CORRIDOR; CNEL CONTOURS FOR
HCAS(H) TUSTIN.
Cou NTY 01=
-*'s HEALTH CARE AGENCY
RANGE
PUBLIC HEALTH AN[3 MEDICAL SERVICES
ENVIRONMm~NT&&. HEALTH
March 24, 1986
TOM UI~I~M
DIRECTOR
m. REX EHLING,
HEAl. TH OF~
II 725 WEST I 7TH ETREET
SANTA ANA. CA ~Z706
T[&.EPHON [: 754/114-7601
MAIL. IN(~ ADDRESSz le.O. BOX 355
SANTA ANA: CA ~702
Jeff Davis
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Helicoptor Noise Study In the East Tustin Browning Air
Corridor.
Dear Mr. Davis:
At your request a noise study was performed on January 10, 1986 near
the intersection of Myford Road and Irvine Blvd. in the City of Tustin,
to determine what noise exposure could be expected from helicopters
flying the "Browning Corridor" to the Santa Ana Marine Air Station
(ETA). '
Two methods were used to measure the intruding noise. (1) a Digital
Acoustics Type 603 recording sound .level was installed in a City of
Tustin pickup truck. The recording was then continued for twenty four
hours in an attempt to determine the single event (SENEL or SEL} for
each fly by. {2) a Digital Acoustic Type 607 community noise monitor
in conjunction with a Hewlett Packard Type 7155 chart recorder to obtain
a graphical recording as an addition to the digital print out while
visual observations were being made. The Marine Corp assisted in
identifying the different helicopter not only by type but by the individual
aircraft number. This method worked fine as long as visual observations
were being made. The recorded data could not be correlated with the
flight number provided by the airbase.
For the twenty four hour period the numbef of flights using the corridor
were eighty eight, while only fifty two exceeded the noise measurement
system of 65 dB(A). This means that regardless of the type of helicopter
or direction of travel, only slightly more than 50% exceeded the 65 dB(A)
level. This did result in noise exposure of up to a maximum of 85 dB(A)
and interuption in conversations for approximately 30 seconds.
The study did show that when visual observations were being made, accurate
measurements were obtained. When recorded measurements were used the noise
exposure could not be determined.
Jeff Davis
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
March 24, 1986
Page 2
It is recommended that because of the importance of this noise intrusion
additional monitored studies should be made.
If you have any questions please call me at 834-6798.
Very truly yours,
Ellwyn Brickson, R.S.
Noise Control Specialist
Environmental Heal th
EB:bd
pl nnin Commission
DATE:
SUBdECT:
EIIVIROIg~.dlT~
STATUS:
AGI'ION:
RARQI 10, '1986
REVISIONS OF THE NOISE ELEI4ENT OF
A IE6ATIYE DECIJUIATION OF EI~IRONI~:IrrlL 1NPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED
IN CONFORRANCE WTTH THE REQUIREflEN'r$ OF THE CALIFORNIA
TO NqEND THE NOISE EI.EHEST OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN
REC01g4ENDATZON:
It is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of''
General Plan Amendment No. 86-2b by the adoption of Resolution No. 2310.
BACKGiIOUNO:
In May 1975, the existing Noise Element of the Tustin Area General Plan was
adopted. ' Pursuant to State Planning Law, the legislative body may, if it deems
it to be in the public interest, amend the various elements of the General
Plan. Submitted for the Commission's consideration is an amended copy of the
Noise Element which, as a house-keeping item, should be forwarded to the City
Council with a recommendation for adoption.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with State planning l'aw, the revised Noise Element addresses
several distinct areas of concern. Generally, the Element identifies present
and potential noise sources, noise sensitive areas, and establishes policies and
objectives on how the city should deal with noise related matters.
Information collected for this document came from a variety of sources, but some
specific sources should be noted. Definitions contained in the Element are
those used by the Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health.
Noise contours established for arterial highways within the city were developed
in cooperation with Orange County Environmental Health, as was the 24 hour study
of the'Browning Corridor. Finally, noise contours projected for transportation
systems in East Tustin were prepared as a part of EIR 86-2 by Michael Brandman
Associates.
FILE COPY
~ommuniry Development Depanmen:
P1 anning Commtsston
Notse Element
page 1~o
COIICLIIS IONS:
In that the revtsed edttton Of the Noise Element more accurately' reflects
extsting and potential notse related conditions than does the previous edttton,
and since it has been drafted in conformance with applicable State law, it is
recommended that the Commission. adopt Resolution No. 2310 forwarding the Noise
Element' to the City Council for final 'approval.
' A)~6ctate Planner
JD:do
attach:
Resolution No..2310
Revised Noise Element
Community DeveloDmellt DeDartment