Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso. 1985 - 118 - Amending the general plan of the city of redding by adopting a new noice element •
O 111
,
RESOLUTION NO. ' ` ''
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF REDDING BY ADOPTING
A NEW NOISE ELEMENT.
WHEREAS, following the required public hearings therefor,
the Planning Commission of the City of Redding has recommended to
the City Council that the Noise Element of the City ' s General
Plan be amended by adopting a new Noise Element; and
WHEREAS , following the required notices in accordance with
law, the City Council has held public hearings on said recommen-
dations and has carefully considered the evidence at said hear-
ings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1 . The City Council has reviewed and approved the Negative
Declaration on the plan, finding that there was no significant
impact on the environment.
2. The City Council does hereby delete the existing Noise
Element of the General Plan of the City of Redding and adopt the
new Noise Element as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was intro-
duced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Redding on the 17th day of June , 1985 , and
! .
0 0
was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Fulton, Gard, & Pugh
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Demsher & Kirkpatrick
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Al 0 i
� r 4.
BARBARA' 'LLEN ' •I , Vice 'ayor
City of Redding
ATTEST: j
ETHEL A. NICHOLS, City Clerk
FORM APPROVED:
RAN ALL A. HAYS, City/ Attorney
-2-
s i i
t t
NOISE ELEMENT
OF THE REDDING GENERAL PLAN
(1980 — 2000)
K \'''''
<<"4
_i--4,,T77:-•_-----.40,4 ,
\O,I4,
TilfWi I
I fi
v0(�me ==!
PREPARED BY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAY 1985
o
I . INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Noise Element of the Redding General Plan is to provide
a basis for comprehensive local programs to control and abate excessive
noise levels , and to protect people from excessive noise exposure. The
Noise Element is a guideline for use in the administration of the "Land Use
Element" to achieve compatible land use and also to provide base line
levels of noise for local noise enforcement.
B. AUTHORITY
The Noise Element was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(g) of the Govern-
ment Code and the "General Plan Noise Element Guidelines ," prepared by the
State Office of Planning and Research. The Noise Element was also prepared
in accordance with the Airport Noise Standards of California outlined in
the California Administrative Code, Title 21 and the Noise Insulation
Standards of California Administrative Code, Title 24.
C. SCOPE
Of all the nine State-mandated general plan elements , the scope of the
Noise Element, as set forth by the Government Code, is the most specific in
content and method of preparation. To make the Noise Element readable, the
analysis , noise data and noise studies have been separated, consolidated
and placed in the appendix of the Noise Element. The Noise Element itself
specifies goals , objectives and standards to be implemented through zoning
and other land-use control tools. The Appendix of the Noise Element
includes an environmental noise analysis of the following:
1. Highways and freeways.
2. Primary arterials and major local streets .
3. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid-
transit systems .
4. Commercial , general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport
operations , aircraft overflights , jet engine test stands, and all other
ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport opera-
tions.
5. Local industrial plants including, but not limited to, railroad
classification yards.
6. Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as
contributing to the community noise environment.
The Appendix of the Noise Element also includes a community noise exposure
inventory, which identifies the degree to which people are exposed to
excessive levels of noise throughout the community. In addition, the
Appendix recommends measures and possible solutions to mitigate existing
and foreseeable noise problems.
• I
S t [
S S
C. RAILROAD OPERATIONS NOISE
1. Noise contours for specific projects are not always field checked with
a noise monitor at the time actual railroad operations are occurring.
2. Noise-mitigation standards for railroad operations have not be adopted
by the City.
D. AIRCRAFT NOISE
1. The noise impact of air traffic associated with Benton Air Park on
Shasta High School should be evaluated to see if flight patterns can be
modified.
2. 1982 noise contours for the Redding Municipal Airport show that 2
churches , 59 single-family dwellings and 15 mobilehomes are within the
65 CNEL contour. This is currently not a significant noise problem,
but it could result in noise complaints and affect future FAA funding
for Airport expansion.
3. The City has applied for grant funds from FAA to acquire noise impacted
properties; but according to FAA officials, Redding is low on their
priority list.
4. The City has not adopted guidelines or building standards to assist
residential developers in dealing with noise from aircraft.
E. NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USE
1. The noise impact on Shasta High School from overhead aircraft traffic
associated with Benton Air Park should be evaluated to see if any
modifications in air-traffic patterns can be made to reduce the noise
levels.
2. A 15-foot-high earth berm may be needed to lessen the existing and
projected I-5 noise levels for Parsons Junior High, Rother Elementary
and Grace Baptist Schools.
3. Traffic-noise-level impacts on Cypress Elementary, Live Oak and
Enterprise High Schools , and Shasta Convalescent Hospital probably can
only be mitigated by building insulation, and window and door
reorientation.
3
• •
8. Highway noise to be controlled and prevented through combinations of
site/route location and design, land-use controls , building-insulation
requirements , screening measures and speed limits.
9. Provide necessary policy statements so that property owners and
developers may reasonably predict community-development decisions.
10. Establish quiet noise zones in the form of comprehensive noise ordi-
nances for noise sensitive uses such as hospitals, schools, and rest
homes.
B. OBJECTIVE: LAND USE NOISE STANDARDS
Adopt noise standards that are reasonable to attain and reflect what the
community wants and meet all State and Federal requirements .
1. Exterior Land Use Noise Standards
a. Adopt the land-use noise standards in the table below along with
the land-use criteria.
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS
Land-Use Category CNEL Day Leq Night Leq
(7am -10pm) ( 10pm-7am)
Single Family Zoning District 60 60 50
Multiple Family Zoning District 60 60 50
All Commercial Zoning Districts 65 65 55
All Industrial Zoning Districts 70 70 60
2. Criteria for Application of Noise Standards
The determination of which noise metric to apply, CNEL or Leq, should
be based on the metric that produces the most restrictive condition.
The maximum noise level standards above are applicable to the property
lines of uses within the following zoning districts:
a. Single Family Zoning District: Includes any zoning district
regardless of density in which single-family home ownership is
encouraged. This includes planned developments and attached
5
•
i . Determination of Noise Compliance with Standards: The determina-
tion of compliance with the noise standards of this section should
be based on a 15-minute Leq day and night measurement assuming no
unusual noise conditions exist which would tend to make such a
short period of monitoring invalid in terms of not approximating an
Leq for one-hour periods. Where this occurs a longer monitoring
period of 1-, 8- or 24-hours may be necessary.
j . Acoustical Analysis Requirement: New residential structures to be
located within a existing or projected CNEL contour interval of 60
db or greater should require an acoustical analysis showing that
the structure has been designed to limit interior intruding noise
levels to the interior noise level standards discussed in Section
2-L below:
k. Noise Contours: The determination for which areas of the City may
be subject to the requirement of a noise analysis under Section
B-2j . , above should be based upon the noise contour interval data
provided in the technical appendices of the Noise Element. If a
developer chooses to disagree with the contour data of the tables
then he may provide independent noise monitoring data using the
same noise metric and following procedures outlined in Title 24 of
the California Administrative Code.
1 . Interior Dwelling Unit Noise Standards: Exterior noise levels
outside of any dwelling unit (located within a zoning district
intended for such use) should not be the principal cause for the
interior noise level to exceed a 15-minute Leq of 40 db in sleeping
areas and for other habitable areas of the dwelling unit, the noise
level should not exceed a CNEL of 45 db. In both instances. it is
assumed that all windows are closed.
m. Noise Standards For Sensitive Uses: The exterior noise levels
outside of any noise sensitive land use including hospitals , rest
homes , clinics, schools and libraries should not cause the interior
levels to exceed an Leq of 45 db except in sleeping areas , the
maximum CNEL should not exceed 40 db with all windows closed.
n. Site Plan Review Criteria: For those areas that may be impacted
with excessive noise as determined by the projected noise contours
of the Element, site plan review criteria should be attached to the
zoning district of the area to implement the requirement for a
noise analysis and mitigations.
o. Noise Mitigation Devices: The noise mitigation devices of the
Noise Element including barrier design , building setbacks and
materials in structures should be applied in planning residential
developments when the units will be impacted with noise.
C. OBJECTIVE: REDDING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE POLICIES
Incorporate the following policies of the Redding Municipal Airport Area
Plan into the Noise Element and develop a five-year action program to
implement the policies:
• •
I •
D. OBJECTIVE: BENTON AIR PARK
Study and evaluate the noise impact of air traffic of Benton Air Park on
schools and residential areas to he sure that the 1976 and 1995 noise
contours reflect accurate measurements for existing projected conditions.
E. OBJECTIVE: ENTERPRISE SKY PARK
Maintain the present level of airport activity for Enterprise Sky Park
through land-use planning so that noise levels do not increase to the point
of impacting residential areas.
1. Standard
Recognize Enterprise Sky Park as a nonconforming use on the General
Plan by establishing a land-use pattern that will not conflict with the
current activity of the airport and will not permit the airport to
expand its air-traffic operations.
F. OBJECTIVE: SKY RANCH AIRPORT
Classify the airport property as "Industrial " or "Commercial " with a
provision that aircraft activity should be limited to on-site industrial or
commercial activities or reclassify the property to a residential classifi-
cation and seek termination of the airport activity.
G. OBJECTIVE: RAILROAD OPERATIONS
Classify areas adjacent to railroad tracks with land-use patterns that are
compatible; and where no other alternative exist, require a noise analysis
and mitigation measure if needed to satisfy the following noise standards.
1. Standards :
a. For developments within the 60 CNEL Contour or within 620 feet of
the railroad tracks , require a noise analysis as stipulated under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. The analysis
should specify any necessary noise mitigations to produce an
interior noise level specified for the use in the Noise Element.
b. The noise mitigation standards presented in the Noise Element
should be employed when applicable to new development projects.
H. OBJECTIVE: TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
Existing and projected traffic noise impacts of highways , Interstate 5 and
major four-lane streets on land use should be mitigated when possible.
1. Standards and Policies
a. The recommended noise mitigations and standards of the Noise
Element should be incorporated into noise impacted developments as
determined by noise monitoring and for projects that are within the
9
i
J. POLICY: RESOLUTION OF NOISE COMPLAINTS
Adopt a noise ordinance similar to the one on panes 102 to 133 of the
Appendix that will address maximum permissible peak noise levels and will
permit the Police and Planning departments to deal effectively with noise
complaints and budget the necessary funds to purchase one additional noise
meter for the Police Department and two noise level graphic recorders, one
for each department.
K. POLICY: NOISE IMPACTED DEVELOPED AREAS
In those urbanized noise-impacted areas that are considered to be blighted
in terms of the State and Federal redevelopment criteria, the City could
include such areas as part of a redevelopment project. This policy may
permit the construction of earth berms or sound walls within the right of
way of Caltrans when there is insufficient privately owned land.
L. POLICY: INDUSTRIAL NOISE COMPLAINTS
In general , it is the City' s policy that "the developer of industrial uses
must build noise mitigations into his project based on the anticipated
noise levels to be generated. " In the past, the City has received noise
complaints from newly-developed residential areas near established
industrial areas and many times residents insist that the City impose
additional noise requirements on the operator of the existing industrial
use. In an effort to protect their investment, industrial operators and
developers argue that they were there first and at the time they developed
they met all City requirements.
To clarify the City' s policy and to offer staff guidance in dealing with
industrial noise complaints, it is the City' s policy that residential
development projects , newly developed residential areas , and noise
sensitive projects should be responsible for noise mitigations to lessen
the noise impact from nearby existing industrial uses and urban activities
when the following conditions exist:
A. At the time of development, the industrial use complied with all the
noise mitigations based on anticipated noise sources and noise levels .
B. The noise level as measured at the residential property line exceeds
the residential noise standards due to the cumulative effect of nearby
existing industrial and new industrial noise sources and increased
noise levels of urban activities (i .e. , traffic, trains , aircraft,
etc. ) .
C. The industrial use emitting the noise conforms with the land-use
classification of the general plan, zoning district, and all conditions
of City permits.
D. The industrial use has not added additional noise-producing equipment
or substantially changed its hours of operation from what has been
approved by the City.
11
I •
4
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
FOR E NOISE ELEMENT
OF THE RED }iy l G GENERAL PLAN
(1980 - 2000)
AND PROPERTY OWNERS
x v7
DISE ABATEMENT MA UAL �
.6-,7,--;-7-::-..z-40 41,
iii
hl��/FOa
PREPARED BY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAY 1985
•
Table of Contents
Page
2. Existing Noise Mitigation Programs 26
3. Public Concerns 26
C. Commercial , General Aviation Helistop and Aircraft
Overflights 27
1. Redding Municipal Airport 27
2. Benton Air Park 29
3. Enterprise Sky Park 29
4. Sky Ranch Airport 29
5. Existing Airport Noise Mitigation Programs 30
6. Public Concerns 30
D. Existing Land Use Noise Problems and Abatement 35
1. Commercial and Industrial Noise Sources 35
2. Residential Noise Sources 36
3. Existing Mitigation and Abatement Programs 37
4. Public Concerns 38
E. Noise Impact on Sensitive Uses 39
1. Existing Noise Programs 39
2. Projected Noise Problems 40
3. Public Concerns 41
F. Noise Barriers 42
1. Noise Barrier Design and Effectiveness 42
2. Noise Barriers Within the City of Redding 45
3. Public Concerns 46
VI. OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE CITY' S NOISE ENVIRONMENT 56
A. Maintain the Adopted 1974 Noise Element 56
B. Modify the Proposed Noise Element to be Less Restrictive . . . 56
C. Modify the Proposed Noise Element to be More Restrictive . . . 56
Table of Contents
Page
E. Model Noise Ordinance (Separately Attached) 102
TABLES
No. 1. "Noise Level of Common Sounds" 5
2. "Effects of Noise on People" 13
3. "Comparison of County, State and National Residential Noise
Standards to Recommended Residential Noise Standards" . . . . 14
4. "Comparison of County, State and National Commercial and
Industrial Noise Standards to Recommended Noise Standards. . 15
5. "Recommended Land-Use Noise Standards" 19
6. "Existing and Projected Noise Levels (1980-2000) for
Highways & I-5 84
7-11. Existing and Projected Noise Levels for Major Streets
(1980-2000) 85
12. Projected Noise Impacts for Undeveloped Street Links
(Year 2000)" 90
13-22. "Noise Monitoring Data" 92
23. Projected Noise Impact on Quiet Residential Areas
(1980-2000) 21
24. "Residential Corridors of Streets and Highways that Should
Require a Noise Analysis for New Residential Projects to
Determine if Mitigations are Needed" 22
25. "Noise Contours in CNEL for Train Traffic Through Redding" 25
2.6. "Adjustments to CNEL Noise Contours for Train Operations" 26
27. "Chart for Estimating Complaint Response of Residential
Neighborhoods to Aircraft Noise" 28
28. "Institutions Affected by Existing Noise Sources" 39
29. "Institutions Affected by Projected Increase in Noise
Levels" 41
30. "Approximate Noise Reduction of Various Walls" 44
31-38. Recommended Residential Building Standards for Exterior
to Interior Noise Reduction 76
•
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Noise Element of the Redding General Plan is to provide
a basis for comprehensive local programs to control and abate excessive
noise levels, and to protect people from excessive noise exposure. The
Noise Element is a guideline for use in the administration of the "Land Use
Element" to achieve compatible land use and also to provide base line
levels of noise for local noise enforcement.
B. AUTHORITY
The Noise Element was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(g) of the Govern-
ment Code and the "General Plan Noise Element Guidelines," prepared by the
State Office of Planning and Research. The Noise Element was also prepared
in accordance with the Airport Noise Standards of California outlined in
the California Administrative Code, Title 21 and the Noise Insulation
Standards of California Administrative Code, Title 25.
C. SCOPE
Of all the nine State-mandated general plan elements, the scope of the
Noise Element, as set forth by the Government Code, is the most specific in
content and method of preparation. The Noise Element must include an
environmental noise analysis of the following:
1. Highways and freeways.
2. Primary arterials and major local streets.
3. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid-
transit systems.
4. Commercial , general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport
operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other
ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport opera-
tions.
5. Local industrial plants including, but not limited to, railroad
classification yards.
6. Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as
contributing to the community noise environment.
The Noise Element also includes a community noise exposure inventory, which
identifies the degree to which people are exposed to excessive levels of
noise throughout the community. The Element also recommends measures and
possible solutions to mitigate existing and foreseeable noise problems. In
addition, the Noise Element further specifies goals, objectives and stand-
ards to be implemented through zoning and other land-use control tools.
r 411
RESOLUTION NO. gjcia
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF REDDING BY ADOPTING
A NEW NOISE ELEMENT.
WHEREAS, following the required public hearings therefor,
the Planning Commission of the City of Redding has recommended to
the City Council that the Noise Element of the City' s General
Plan be amended by adopting a new Noise Element; and
WHEREAS , following the required notices in accordance with
law, the City Council has held public hearings on said recommen-
dations and has carefully considered the evidence at said hear-
ings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1 . The City Council has reviewed and approved the Negative
Declaration on the plan, finding that there was no significant
impact on the environment.
2. The City Council does hereby delete the existing Noise
Element of the General Plan of the City of Redding and adopt the
new Noise Element as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was intro-
duced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Redding on the 17th day of June , 1985 , and
I . 411 410 .
. -
, . ,
was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Fulton, Gard, & Pugh
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Demsher & Kirkpatrick
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
grak
* ' 4 il 1'
BARBARA' ALLEN ,7P , Vice 'ayor
City of Redding
ATTEST:
, { l,/ //
ETHEL A. NICHOLS, City Clerk
FORM APPROVED:
RA46,,,, o. 7,,e4",,,_N
rALL A. HAYS, City/ Attorney
-2-
s • 0
NOISE ELEMENT-
OF
LE ENTO THE REDDING GENERAL PLAN
(1980 -- 2000)
\``
.0
U•
I@
:s.ti.
\4411
vo k m e VT
PREPARED BY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAY 1985
i •
� T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I . INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose 1
B. Authority 1
C. Scope 1
II . SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC CONCERNS WITH EXCESSIVE NOISE 2
A. Traffic Noise 2
B. Land Use Noise 2
C. Railroad Operations Noise 3
D. Aircraft Noise 3
E. Noise Sensitive Land Use 3
III . GOALS , OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS 4
A. Overall Goals 4
B. Land Use Noise Standards 5
C. Redding Municipal Airport Noise Policies 7
D. Benton Air Park 9
E. Enterprise Sky Park 9
F. Sky Ranch Airport 9
G. Railroad Operations 9
H. Traffic Noise Impacts 9
I . Noise Sensitive Uses 10
J. Resolution of Noise Complaints 11
K. Noise Impacted Developed Areas 11
L. Industrial Noise Complaints 11
IV. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THE CITY SHOULD TAKE 12
V. TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO NOISE ELEMENT, PAGES 1-92 (BOUND SEPARATELY) . .
I
I . INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Noise Element of the Redding General Plan is to provide
a basis for comprehensive local programs to control and abate excessive
noise levels , and to protect people from excessive noise exposure. The
Noise Element is a guideline for use in the administration of the "Land Use
Element" to achieve compatible land use and also to provide base line
levels of noise for local noise enforcement.
B. AUTHORITY
The Noise Element was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(g) of the Govern-
ment Code and the "General Plan Noise Element Guidelines ," prepared by the
State Office of Planning and Research. The Noise Element was also prepared
in accordance with the Airport Noise Standards of California outlined in
the California Administrative Code, Title 21 and the Noise Insulation
Standards of California Administrative Code, Title 24.
C. SCOPE
Of all the nine State-mandated general plan elements , the scope of the
Noise Element, as set forth by the Government Code, is the most specific in
content and method of preparation. To make the Noise Element readable, the
analysis , noise data and noise studies have been separated, consolidated
and placed in the appendix of the Noise Element. The Noise Element itself
specifies goals, objectives and standards to be implemented through zoning
and other land-use control tools. The Appendix of the Noise Element
includes an environmental noise analysis of the following:
1. Highways and freeways.
2. Primary arterials and major local streets.
3. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid-
transit systems .
4. Commercial , general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport
operations , aircraft overflights , jet engine test stands , and all other
ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport opera-
tions .
5. Local industrial plants including, but not limited to, railroad
classification yards .
6. Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as
contributing to the community noise environment.
The Appendix of the Noise Element also includes a community noise exposure
inventory, which identifies the degree to which people are exposed to
excessive levels of noise throughout the community. In addition, the
Appendix recommends measures and possible solutions to mitigate existing
and foreseeable noise problems.
II . SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC CONCERNS WITH EXCESSIVE NOISE
The following significant public concerns with noise are based on noise studies
in the Appendix.
A. TRAFFIC NOISE
1. .The traffic volumes on many major four-lane streets in Redding will
double in the next 20 years. This , in turn , will cause noise levels
for residential areas abutting these streets to exceed the recommended
exterior sound level standard of 60 CNEL. By the year 2000, this will
cause a 30-percent increase in urban noise levels.
2. The current Police Department vehicle-noise-abatement program of not
using a noise meter for noise violations should be evaluated in terms
of its effectiveness.
3. Noise barriers and site-design criteria have been aimed at either
screening the noise source for psychological benefits or only reducing
the noise from automobile traffic and not truck traffic.
B. LAND USE NOISE
In reviewing past history of the City's efforts of reducing land-use noise
levels through development controls , it appears that the City could play a
much more significant role. The following summarizes the major areas of
concern:
1. Noise mitigations have only been imposed on projects that require 'a use
permit, parcel map or subdivision map. This results in inconsistent
walls and fences , and lessens the effect of well -designed sound walls
unless they are wrapped around the project.
2. Property owners have constructed block-wall-noise barriers that do very
little in reducing noise impact because they are not properly con-
structed or because they do not extend high enough to block out the
line of sight of the noise source.
3. A great deal of money could be saved in future noise-wall construction
if site-design considerations were incorporated into projects at the
construction phase (e.g. , using continuous garage walls as a noise
wall ) .
4. Noise complaints from residents near commercial and industrial uses are
increasing in number as the City urbanizes .
5. For 1981-82, the Redding Police Department investigated 3,500 noise
complaints , most of which originated at night from within residential
neighborhoods.
6. The Police Department does not have an efficient code enforcement
procedure for quickly dealing with noise complaints .
2
• •
C. RAILROAD OPERATIONS NOISE
1. Noise contours for specific projects are not always field checked with
a noise monitor at the time actual railroad operations are occurring.
2. Noise-mitigation standards for railroad operations have not be adopted
by the City.
D. AIRCRAFT NOISE
1. The noise impact of air traffic associated with Benton Air Park on
Shasta High School should be evaluated to see if flight patterns can be
modified.
2. 1982 noise contours for the Redding Municipal Airport show that 2
churches , 59 single-family dwellings and 15 mobilehomes are within the
65 CNEL contour. This is currently not a significant noise problem,
but it could result in noise complaints and affect future FAA funding
for Airport expansion.
3. The City has applied for grant funds from FAA to acquire noise impacted
properties; but according to FAA officials, Redding is low on their
priority list.
4. The City has not adopted guidelines or building standards to assist
residential developers in dealing with noise from aircraft.
E. NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USE
1. The noise impact on Shasta High School from overhead aircraft traffic
associated with Benton Air Park should be evaluated to see if any
modifications in air-traffic patterns can be made to reduce the noise
levels.
2. A 15-foot-high earth berm may be needed to lessen the existing and
projected I-5 noise levels for Parsons Junior High, Rother Elementary
and Grace Baptist Schools.
3. Traffic-noise-level impacts on Cypress Elementary, Live Oak and
Enterprise High Schools , and Shasta Convalescent Hospital probably can
only be mitigated by building insulation, and window and door
reorientation.
3
110
III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS
Compared to other urban communities , Redding 's overall noise environment is
quieter; but by the year 2000, it is anticipated that the average daily traffic
volume on almost all major four-lane streets throughout the plan area will more
than double. This , in effect, will cause existing noise levels along these
street corridors to be one-half to one times louder. Unless noise mitigations
are built into new residential projects as they develop, the deferred cost of
noise mitigations may be beyond affordability.
Other sources of noise-level increases that are anticipated will result from
increased human activity. For example, it is believed that by the year 2000
the population will more than double, which means that there will be twice as
much residential urban activity including loud stereos, lawn mowers , and home
operation of power tools. Noise levels from industrial and commercial land use
will also intensify and add to the overall noise level of the community.
These anticipated conditions can only be dealt with through a comprehensive
noise element that is based on realistic goal policies, objectives and stan-
dards and action programs of implementation.
A. OVERALL GOALS
In anticipation of increased urban noise levels , the goals of the Noise
Element are to:
1. Anticipate noise problems before they occur and mitigate them as the
community urbanizes.
2. Educate the public through the planning process about the adverse
characteristics of noise so that they will understand the need to avoid
excessive noise.
3. Adopt attainable and enforceable land-use noise policies and standards
that reflect what the community wants .
4. Assist property owners in noise mitigation by identifying economical ,
efficient, and esthetically pleasing ways of meeting City, State and
Federal noise standards.
5. Safeguard the two public airports from intrusion by uses that limit the
expansion of air service to the Northern California region by recogniz-
ing the vital service provided by these airports and the need to
maintain a level of operations necessary to satisfy existing and future
aviation requirements of the user communities.
6. Permit persons who live, work, and own property in or near high airport
noise areas to enjoy a maximum amount of freedom from noise without
compromising the functions of the airports.
7. Lessen the noise impact of railroad operations on nearby residential
areas through land-use planning and noise mitigations .
4
• •
t
1
8. Highway noise to be controlled and prevented through combinations of
site/route location and design, land-use controls , building-insulation
requirements, screening measures and speed limits.
9. Provide necessary policy statements so that property owners and
developers may reasonably predict community-development decisions.
10. Establish quiet noise zones in the form of comprehensive noise ordi-
nances for noise sensitive uses such as hospitals , schools, and rest
homes.
B. OBJECTIVE: LAND USE NOISE STANDARDS
Adopt noise standards that are reasonable to attain and reflect what the
community wants and meet all State and Federal requirements.
1. Exterior Land Use Noise Standards
a. Adopt the land-use noise standards in the table below along with
the land-use criteria.
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS
Land-Use Category CNEL Day Leq Night Leq
(7am -10pm) ( 10pm-7am)
Single Family Zoning District 60 60 50
Multiple Family Zoning District 60 60 50
All Commercial Zoning Districts 65 65 55
All Industrial Zoning Districts 70 70 60
2. Criteria for Application of Noise Standards
The determination of which noise metric to apply, CNEL or Leq, should
be based on the metric that produces the most restrictive condition.
The maximum noise level standards above are applicable to the property
lines of uses within the following zoning districts:
a. Single Family Zoning District: Includes any zoning district
regardless of density in which single-family home ownership is
encouraged. This includes planned developments and attached
5
• •
f r
dwellings. When a Single Family Zoning District or property
boundary abuts a Commercial or Industrial District or property
boundary, then the noise standards for the Single Family District
should prevail at the property boundary.
b. Multiple Family Zoning District: Includes any zoning district in
which occupancy is largely limited to renters regardless of den-
sity. When a Multiple Family Zoning District or property boundary
abuts a Commercial or Industrial Zoning District or property
boundary, then the noise standard of the Multiple Family Zoning
District should prevail at the property boundary.
c. Commercial Zoning Districts : Includes all Commercial Zoning
Districts (C-0, C-1, C-2, C-4 and C-5) with the exception of the
"C-3" Heavy Commercial Service District, which for the purpose of
this element is included in the Industrial Zoning District Noise
Standards category.
d. Industrial Zoning District: Includes all manufacturing and indus-
trial uses within the "P-I" Planned Industrial District and the
"M-2" Industrial District. Also included is the "C-3" Heavy
Commercial Light Industrial District. When any industrial district
abuts another zoning district with more restrictive noise stan-
dards, then the noise standards of the more restrictive district
should prevail at the zoning district boundary.
e. "U" Unclassified Districts: For areas zoned "U" Unclassified, the
noise standards should be applied to the property boundary of the
specific use. The noise standards to be used should be based on
the General Plan land-use descriptions in which the use would be
permitted.
f. Consistency of Noise Standard with General Plan Classification: In
no case should the noise standards be applied to a use or project
where an inconsistency between the land-use classification of the
General Plan and zoning district in which it is located is created.
g. Peak Noise Standards : Except for peak noise or impulsive sound
from within a residential area , no peak noise levels for any
commercial or industrial use should spill over into a residential
area which would cause the residential noise standards to be
exceeded by more than 3 db for a 15-minute Leg monitoring period.
Peak noise levels from within a residential area should be estab-
lished by a City Noise Ordinance.
Peak noise standards for vehicles on any public street are set
forth in the California Vehicle Code and enforced by the Redding
Police Department and California Highway Patrol .
h. Motels , Hotels , and Apartments : In specific land-use projects
dealing with motels , hotels and apartments , the residential inte-
rior noise standards should prevail regardless of the zoning
district in which they are located.
6
• •
i . Determination of Noise Compliance with Standards: The determina-
tion of compliance with the noise standards of this section should
be based on a 15-minute Leg day and night measurement assuming no
unusual noise conditions exist which would tend to make such a
short period of monitoring invalid in terms of not approximating an
Leg for one-hour periods. Where this occurs a longer monitoring
period of 1-, 8- or 24-hours may be necessary.
j . Acoustical Analysis Requirement: New residential structures to be
located within a existing or projected CNEL contour interval of 60
db or greater should require an acoustical analysis showing that
the structure has been designed to limit interior intruding noise
levels to the interior noise level standards discussed in Section
2-L below:
k. Noise Contours: The determination for which areas of the City may
be subject to the requirement of a noise analysis under Section
B-2j . , above should be based upon the noise contour interval data
provided in the technical appendices of the Noise Element. If a
developer chooses to disagree with the contour data of the tables
then he may provide independent noise monitoring data using the
same noise metric and following procedures outlined in Title 24 of
the California Administrative Code.
1 . Interior Dwelling Unit Noise Standards: Exterior noise levels
outside of any dwelling unit (located within a zoning district
intended for such use) should not be the principal cause for the
interior noise level to exceed a 15-minute Leg of 40 db in sleeping
areas and for other habitable areas of the dwelling unit, the noise
level should not exceed a CNEL of 45 db. In both instances. it is
assumed that all windows are closed.
m. Noise Standards For Sensitive Uses: The exterior noise levels
outside of any noise sensitive land use including hospitals , rest
homes , clinics , schools and libraries should not cause the interior
levels to exceed an Leg of 45 db except in sleeping areas , the
maximum CNEL should not exceed 40 db with all windows closed.
n. Site Plan Review Criteria: For those areas that may be impacted
with excessive noise as determined by the projected noise contours
of the Element, site plan review criteria should be attached to the
zoning district of the area to implement the requirement for a
noise analysis and mitigations.
o. Noise Mitigation Devices : The noise mitigation devices of the
Noise Element including barrier design , building setbacks and
materials in structures should be applied in planning residential
developments when the units will be impacted with noise.
C. OBJECTIVE: REDDING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE POLICIES
Incorporate the following policies of the Redding Municipal Airport Area
Plan into the Noise Element and develop a five-year action program to
implement the policies:
•
1. Designate certain land developed with incompatible uses within the
south Inner Approach Zone, as shown on the Area Plan, for Airport
acquisition as availability of funds permits. The designation of
"Acquisition" is made based on the concerns of noise impact and safety
and the potential for conflict between airport operations and future
users of the affected properties .
2. Designate land within the 1981-2000, 65 CNEL contour, as shown on noise
contour Map Exhibits B and C on pages 31 and 32 of the Appendix for
nonresidential uses in order to attain consistency with State Noise
Standards which become effective in January 1986.
3. Notify owners of developed residential property within the designated
Airport acquisition and industrial areas , which are within the 65 CNEL
contour, of the City' s willingness to purchase, subject to availability
of funds , requesting first refusal purchase opportunity.
Priority: a. Residential units on Skyway Street and Fig Tree Lane
sites designated to be acquired and retained as Airport
property and Anderson Grange.
b. Residential units within the Inner Approach Zone.
c. Residential units within the 1981 65 CNEL contour.
d. Vacant and nonresidential property designated to be
acquired and retained as airport property.
4. If the number of owners wishing to sell exceeds the funds available, a
priority list should be established and should remain in force until
all properties receiving priority a, b, c, or d on the initial list
have been acquired or converted to a compatible use, or the request to
purchase has been withdrawn.
5. Property acquired that is not designated for retention as Airport
property should be resold or leased for a compatible use, subject to
limitations established by the source of funds with which it was
purchased.
6. Require noise agreements as a condition of use permit, subdivision, or
parcel map approval within the 1981-2000, 60 CNEL contour (shown on the
Airport Area Plan map) and within the Traffic Pattern Zone (shown on
Figure 5 of the Airport Report) . The agreements should preclude suits
for damages or to enjoin Airport operations to limit noise and should
run with the land.
7. Require construction of walls and/or berms (as depicted on Figure 17 on
page 64 of the Appendix) adjacent to freeways and expressways in resi -
dential areas to mitigate noise impacts where CNEL noise levels will
exceed prescribed State standards.
8
• •
D. OBJECTIVE: BENTON AIR PARK
Study and evaluate the noise impact of air traffic of Benton Air Park on
schools and residential areas to be; sure that the 1976 and 1995 noise
contours reflect accurate measurements for existing projected conditions.
E. OBJECTIVE: ENTERPRISE SKY PARK
Maintain the present level of airport activity for Enterprise Sky Park
through land-use planning so that noise levels do not increase to the point
of impacting residential areas.
1. Standard
Recognize Enterprise Sky Park as a nonconforming use on the General
Plan by establishing a land-use pattern that will not conflict with the
current activity of the airport and will not permit the airport to
expand its air-traffic operations .
F. OBJECTIVE: SKY RANCH AIRPORT
Classify the airport property as "Industrial " or "Commercial " with a
provision that aircraft activity should be limited to on-site industrial or
commercial activities or reclassify the property to a residential classifi-
cation and seek termination of the airport activity.
G. OBJECTIVE: RAILROAD OPERATIONS
Classify areas adjacent to railroad tracks with land-use patterns that are
compatible; and where no other alternative exist, require a noise analysis
and mitigation measure if needed to satisfy the following noise standards.
1. Standards:
a. For developments within the 60 CNEL Contour or within 620 feet of
the railroad tracks , require a noise analysis as stipulated under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. The analysis
should specify any necessary noise mitigations to produce an
interior noise level specified for the use in the Noise Element.
b. The noise mitigation standards presented in the Noise Element
should be employed when applicable to new development projects.
H. OBJECTIVE: TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
Existing and projected traffic noise impacts of highways , Interstate 5 and
major four-lane streets on land use should be mitigated when possible.
1. Standards and Policies
a. The recommended noise mitigations and standards of the Noise
Element should be incorporated into noise impacted developments as
determined by noise monitoring and for projects that are within the
9
• •
projected 60 CNEL contour interval of all streets and highways
including those listed in Tables 7 through 12 on pages 85 through
90 of the Appendix.
b. The Noise barrier designs presented on pages 47 through 50 should
he utilized based on their applicability in terms of cost, effi-
ciency and aesthetics.
c. The noise reduction standards for dwellings presented on pages 76
through 83 should be utilized when applicable and when recommended
under State and Federal laws in Title 24 of the California Admini-
strative Code.
d. Encourage the police department to reestablish an on-going policy
of vehicle noise abatement program through the use of noise meters
and issuance of citations for faulty mufflers. Such a program
should be modified so that it doesn' t include trucks or cars with
snow tires or mud tires. The program should also depend on the
availability of police department personnel .
I . OBJECTIVE: NOISE SENSITIVE USES
Adopt a land-use and circulation pattern where feasible that will minimize
impacts on noise sensitive uses such as schools , libraries , hospitals,
clinics and rest homes; and develop noise mitigation recommendations for
noise sensitive uses.
1. Policies
a. Discourage the development of land-use noise generators adjacent to
noise sensitive uses through the establishment of compatible zoning
districts.
b. Advise the following noise sensitive uses that they may experience
much higher noise levels from projected traffic volumes on existing
streets so that they can build into their long-term capital-
improvement program, the cost of noise mitigation measures and
assist these agencies and institutions in applying for Federal or
State aid to mitigate the impacts with the recommended mitigation
measure of the Noise Element.
- Shasta High School - Grace Baptist Elementary Sch.
- Parsons Junior High School - Cypress Elementary School
- Cypress Elementary School - Live Oak School
- Grace Baptist School - Enterprise High School
- Monte Vista School for the - Rother Elementary School
Handicap
- Shasta Convalescent Hospital
- Parsons Junior High School
10
i
J. POLICY: RESOLUTION OF NOISE COMPLAINTS
Adopt a noise ordinance similar to the one on pages 102 to 133 of the
Appendix that will address maximum permissible peak noise levels and will
permit the Police and Planning departments to deal effectively with noise
complaints and budget the necessary funds to purchase one additional noise
meter for the Police Department and two noise level graphic recorders, one
for each department.
K. POLICY: NOISE IMPACTED DEVELOPED AREAS
In those urbanized noise-impacted areas that are considered to be blighted
in terms of the State and Federal redevelopment criteria, the City could
include such areas as part of a redevelopment project. This policy may
permit the construction of earth berms or sound walls within the right of
way of Caltrans when there is insufficient privately owned land.
L. POLICY: INDUSTRIAL NOISE COMPLAINTS
In general , it is the City' s policy that "the developer of industrial uses
must build noise mitigations into his project based on the anticipated
noise levels to be generated. " In the past, the City has received noise
complaints from newly-developed residential areas near established
industrial areas and many times residents insist that the City impose
additional noise requirements on the operator of the existing industrial
use. In an effort to protect their investment, industrial operators and
developers argue that they were there first and at the time they developed
they met all City requirements.
To clarify the City' s policy and to offer staff guidance in dealing with
industrial noise complaints, it is the City's policy that residential
development projects, newly developed residential areas , and noise
sensitive projects should be responsible for noise mitigations to lessen
the noise impact from nearby existing industrial uses and urban activities
when the following conditions exist:
A. At the time of development, the industrial use complied with all the
noise mitigations based on anticipated noise sources and noise levels.
B. The noise level as measured at the residential property line exceeds
the residential noise standards due to the cumulative effect of nearby
existing industrial and new industrial noise sources and increased
noise levels of urban activities (i .e. , traffic, trains , aircraft,
etc. ) .
C. The industrial use emitting the noise conforms with the land-use
classification of the general plan, zoning district, and all conditions
of City permits.
D. The industrial use has not added additional noise-producing equipment
or substantially changed its hours of operation from what has been
approved by the City.
11
i
IV. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THE CITY SHOULD TAKE
The following are a list of specific actions for the City to accomplish within
five years after adoption of the Element:
1. Initiate the inclusion of site-plan-review criteria of the Noise Element
into zone change requests for those areas that are projected to be
impacted by noise.
2. Adopt a noise ordinance within one year of the adoption of the Noise
Element, which includes maximum peak noise level requirements.
3. Set aside funds to purchase an integrated noise level meter for the Police
Department and two noise level graphic recorders (one for the Planning
Department and one for the Police Department) .
4. Develop City ordinances guidelines for the Police Department so they can
once again use noise meters in the issuance of vehicle noise violations.
5. Provide property owners with a list of consultants and designers who have
the noise equipment and expertise to fulfill the requirements of the Noise
Element.
6. Where appropriate include the standards and mitigation devices in develop-
ment projects which require discretionary City approval .
7. Do not encourage Enterprise Sky Park to expand beyond a "basic utility
one" airport or increase the number of aircraft based at the Airports .
8. As FAA funds become available, acquire the noise-impacted properties
recommended by the Redding Municipal Airport Area Plan.
9. Designate a member of City staff to work with property owners and consul-
tants in meeting the requirements of the Noise Element.
10. Set aside funds or apply for F.A.A. funding to evaluate the noise impact
of Benton Airport on nearby schools and residential areas .
12
• •
•
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
FOR THEN ISE ELEMENT
OF THE REDDING GENERAL PLAN
(1980 - 20 00)
A1
PROPERTY OWNERS
NOISE A� 'TE E T UAL \��
F'= R\���ii�.
U/���i�C- i!Saa
I
44111,4/
PREPARED BY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAY 1985
7...�,a 5"'RS.d�,x ,.',v .. 1""�v^,`.'Yt:.'"�'^`ry.°k^'a^..__:YEukT„�ST.B"m"'"., .��..n ♦.:... ..JfG.. .:.ASSt.'�".c'S':'..,ST^."'.^k.�i'9! TN" B�.•..5^i9f�'�.p.•^.?^Y:nh i..,,:Y.iuu"41X. '.?SK4C.F..^.,'aW.^LSXsAIIffivJR'.2F`•;T.vF.^.'tMIC�!rtrth_......_
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I . INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose 1
B. Authority 1
C. Scope 1
D. How to Use Appendix as a Guide to Noise Abatement 2
II . NOISE CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFINITIONS 4
III . HUMAN RESPONSE TO NOISE 7
IV. SELECTION OF LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS 8
A. Maximum Residential Standards 8
1. State Residential Noise Standards 8
2. Federal Residential Noise Standards 9
3. Interior Residential Noise Standards 9
4. Community Reaction to Various Residential
Noise Levels 9
5. Existing Residential Noise Levels for Redding 10
B. Commercial and Industrial Standards 11
C. Recommended Land-Use Noise Standards and Their Criteria . . . 11
1. Recommended Noise Standards 11
V. EXISTING AND PROJECTED NOISES ENVIRONMENT 20
A. Highways , Freeway, and Four Lane Streets 20
1. Projected Noise Impact on Quiet Residential Streets . . . 20
2. Projected Noise Impact on Residential Corridors Along
Highways Major and Streets 21
3. Existing Vehicle Noise Abatement Programs 21
4. Public Concerns 25
B. Passenger and Freight On-Line Railroad Operations 25
1. Existing Land Projected Noise Levels 25
• •
Table of Contents
Page
2. Existing Noise Mitigation Programs 26
3. Public Concerns 2.6
C. Commercial , General Aviation Helistop and Aircraft
Overflights 27
1. Redding Municipal Airport 27
2. Benton Air Park 29
3. Enterprise Sky Park 29
4. Sky Ranch Airport 29
5. Existing Airport Noise Mitigation Programs 30
6. Public Concerns 30
D. Existing Land Use Noise Problems and Abatement 35
1. Commercial and Industrial Noise Sources 35
2. Residential Noise Sources 36
3. Existing Mitigation and Abatement Programs 37
4. Public Concerns 38
E. Noise Impact on Sensitive Uses 39
1. Existing Noise Programs 39
2. Projected Noise Problems 40
3. Public Concerns 41
F. Noise Barriers 42
1. Noise Barrier Design and Effectiveness 42
2. Noise Barriers Within the City of Redding 45
3. Public Concerns 46
VI. OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE CITY'S NOISE ENVIRONMENT 56
A. Maintain the Adopted 1974 Noise Element 56
B. Modify the Proposed Noise Element to be Less Restrictive 56
C. Modify the Proposed Noise Element to be More Restrictive . . . . 56
• •
Table of Contents
Page
D. Adopt the Recommended Noise Element 58
VII. RECOMMENDED GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS 59
A. Overall Goals 59
B. Objective: Land Use Noise Standards 60
C. Objective: Redding Municipal Airport Policies 62
D. Objective: Benton Air Park 65
E. Objective: Enterprise Sky Park 65
F. Objective: Sky Ranch Airport 65
G. Objective: Railroad Operations 65
H. Objective: Traffic Noise Impact 65
I. Objective: Noise Sensitive Uses 66
J. Policy: Resolution of Noise Complaints 67
K. Policy: Noise Impacted Development Areas 61
VIII . RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THE CITY SHOULD TAKE 68
IX. APPENDICES, TABLES, FIGURES AND MAP EXHIBITS 69
A. Glossary of Terms 69
B. Sources Consulted 71
C. Questionnaire Survey Results of Noise Sensitive Uses 73
D. Tables Included in Appendix
Tables 31 - 38, Recommended Residential Building Standards
for Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction 76
Table 6, Existing and Projected Noise Levels (1980-2.000) for
Highways 84
Tables 7 - 11 , Existing and Projected Noise Levels (1980-2000)
for Major Streets 85
Table 12, Projected Noise Levels for Undeveloped Major
Street Links (Year 2000) 90
Tables 13 - 22, Noise Monitoring Data 92
• •
Table of Contents
Page
E. Model Noise Ordinance (Separately Attached) 102
TABLES
No. 1. "Noise Level of Common Sounds" 5
2. "Effects of Noise on People" 13
3. "Comparison of County, State and National Residential Noise
Standards to Recommended Residential Noise Standards" . . . . 14
4. "Comparison of County, State and National Commercial and
Industrial Noise Standards to Recommended Noise Standards. . 15
5. "Recommended Land-Use Noise Standards" 19
6. "Existing and Projected Noise Levels (1980-2000) for
Highways & I-5 - 84
7-11. Existing and Projected Noise Levels for Major Streets
(1980-2000) 85
12. Projected Noise Impacts for Undeveloped Street Links
(Year 2000)" 90
13-22. "Noise Monitoring Data" 92
23. Projected Noise Impact on Quiet Residential Areas
(1980-2000) 21
24. "Residential Corridors of Streets and Highways that Should
Require a Noise Analysis for New Residential Projects to
Determine if Mitigations are Needed" 22
2.5. "Noise Contours in CNEL for Train Traffic Through Redding" 25
2.6. "Adjustments to CNEL Noise Contours for Train Operations" 26
2.7. "Chart for Estimating Complaint Response of Residential
Neighborhoods to Aircraft Noise" 28
28. "Institutions Affected by Existing Noise Sources" 39
29. "Institutions Affected by Projected Increase in Noise
Levels" 41
30. "Approximate Noise Reduction of Various Walls" 44
31-38. Recommended Residential Building Standards for Exterior
to Interior Noise Reduction 76
• •
Table of Contents
Page
FIGURES
No. 1. EPA Survey of Fixed Noise Levels Allowable at Residential
District Boundary 12
2. Redding Survey of Nighttime Noise Levels 16
3. Redding Survey of Daytime Noise Levels 16
4. Allowable at Industrial District Boundaries 17
5. EPA Survey of Fixed Source Noise Levels Allowable at District
Boundaries 18
6-7. Transmitted Path and Diffracted Path 42
8. "Combine Effect of Transmitted and Diffracted Path" . . . 43
9-16. Typical Details of Noise Barriers 47
17. Alternative Buffering Required for a Commercial or Indus-
trial Use Adjoining an "R" District Near the Redding
Municipal Airport 64
MAP EXHIBITS
A. "Corridors Along Streets and Highways Which Require a
Noise Analysis for Proposed Residential Projects" 24
B. Municipal Airport Noise Contour Impact Area (1981) 31
C. Municipal Airport Noise Contour Impact Area (2000) 32
D. Benton Airpark Noise Contour Impact Area (1976) 33
E. Benton Airpark Noise Contour Impact Area (1995) 34
F. Noise Sensitive Land Use 72
• •
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Noise Element of the Redding General Plan is to provide
a basis for comprehensive local programs to control and abate excessive
noise levels, and to protect people from excessive noise exposure. The
Noise Element is a guideline for use in the administration of the "Land Use
Element" to achieve compatible land use and also to provide base line
levels of noise for local noise enforcement.
B. AUTHORITY
The Noise Element was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(g) of the Govern-
ment Code and the "General Plan Noise Element Guidelines," prepared by the
State Office of Planning and Research. The Noise Element was also prepared
in accordance with the Airport Noise Standards of California outlined in
the California Administrative Code, Title 21 and the Noise Insulation
Standards of California Administrative Code, Title 25.
C. SCOPE
Of all the nine State-mandated general plan elements, the scope of the
Noise Element, as set forth by the Government Code, is the most specific in
content and method of preparation. The Noise Element must include an
environmental noise analysis of the following:
1. Highways and freeways.
2. Primary arterials and major local streets.
3. Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid-
transit systems.
4. Commercial , general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport
operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands , and all other
ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport opera-
tions.
5. Local industrial plants including, but not limited to, railroad
classification yards.
6. Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as
contributing to the community noise environment.
The Noise Element also includes a community noise exposure inventory, which
identifies the degree to which people are exposed to excessive levels of
noise throughout the community. The Element also recommends measures and
possible solutions to mitigate existing and foreseeable noise problems. In
addition, the Noise Element further specifies goals, objectives and stand-
ards to be implemented through zoning and other land-use control tools.
• •
11, j
D. HOW TO USE APPENDIX AS A GUIDE TO NOISE ABATEMENT
The Technical Appendix to the Noise Element is designed to aid developers
and City staff in determining if a noise problem exist for proposed pro-
jects ; and if so, what type of noise mitigations may be needed. The
checklist procedure below should be helpful in quickly finding specific
noise information in the appendix based on the land use of the project,
location and the project' s noise characteristics:
1. Will the project be exposed to excessive noise or will the project
cause excessive noise for residential or noise sensitive uses?
Step 1: Determine the maximum recommended noise-level standard based
on the applicable land-use category of the project. If the
project may cause excessive noise levels for adjacent resi-
dential - land use or noise sensitive uses , then the appropriate
category for these should be responded to.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
COMMERCIAL: The maximum recommended noise level is CNEL
(Refer to Table 5, page 19 and Section VII B (2)
c, e, and h on page 61. )
INDUSTRIAL: The maximum recommended noise level is CNEL.
(Refer to Table 5, page 19 and Section VII B(2)d. )
RESIDENTIAL: The maximum recommended noise level for the exterior
is CNEL and for the interior CNEL.
(Refer to Section VII , B(D) Table 5, and Section III
B (2-L) .
NOISE SENSITIVE: The maximum recommended noise use (i .e. hospi-
tals , schools , and rest homes) level for the
exterior is CNEL and for the interior CNEL.
Step 2: Estimate existing and projected noise contour levels according
to the following applicable noise sources :
TRAFFIC & : Write in the closest noise contour interval to the
LAND-USE property line of the project.
ACTIVITIES Estimated Existing CNEL
Estimated Projected CNEL
Refer to Tables 6 - 12 on pages 84 to 90. )
TRAIN: Write in the closest noise contour interval to the
OPERATIONS property line of the projects .
Estimated CNEL
Refer to Table 26, page 26. )
AIRPORT: Write in the closest noise contour interval to the
OPERATIONS property line.
CNEL
(Refer to Map Exhibits D & E on pages 33 & 34 for
Benton Airpark and Map Exhibits B & C on pages 31 &
32 for Redding Municipal Airport. )
• •
NOISE LEVEL: If the Appendix provides no noise data to estimate
NOT QUANTI- the existing or projected noise level then a noise
FIED IN monitoring may be needed.
APPENDIX (Refer to Section 2-K, page and Table 24, page 24. )
Step 3: To estimate the existing and projected noise level at the
property line of the project or other land-use affected by the
project using the estimated noise contour interval information
of Step 2, you should apply the noise characteristic adjust-
ments listed on page 5. Write in the adjusted noise levels
below:
Estimated Adjusted Existing CNEL
Estimated Adjusted Projected CNEL
Step 4: To determine if the project will be exposed to excessive
existing or projected noise levels, you should compare the
recommended maximum noise level of Step 1 to the estimated
noise level of Step 3. If the maximum recommended noise level
is exceeded, then further noise analysis is needed along with
possible noise mitigations . To determine if the project will
cause excessive noise levels for residential noise sensitive
uses, you should perform the same comparison as noted above
using the appropriate maximum recommended levels from Step 1.
Write in the amount of noise level that exceeds the recom-
mended levels.
Existing:
CNEL, exterior CNEL, interior (if applicable)
Projected:
CNEL, exterior CNEL, interior (if applicable)
Step 5: If it is determined from the previous procedure that noise
mitigations are necessary, then proceed to the following
section on noise mitigations:
2. HOW TO SELECT NOISE MITIGATIONS.
1. If the projected exterior noise levels of Step "A" exceed the
maximum interior recommended noise levels identified below by more
than 15 db then refer to Tables 31 to 38, page 76.
_ For sleeping areas of dwelling unit or noise-sensitive use,
the maximum level is 40 db.
_ For habitable areas of dwelling unit or noise-sensitive use,
the maximum level is 45 db.
The engineered application of the noise reductions of these tables
should be verified by the procedures published in "Evaluation of
Noise Reduction of Building Facades and Outdoor Noise Barriers"
prepared by the State Office of Noise Control .
3
• •
If the S.T.0 classifications are used in determining noise
reductions of materials , then the calculations shall be verified by
the formulas set forth in the Handbook of Noise Control , second
edition, New York (McGraw Hill ) 1979.
Both of these documents are available from the Redding Planning
Department.
2. If, in addition to the building-noise mitigations of Tables 31 to
38, it is desirable to provide greater-noise attenuation by sound
walls , then refer to the Table 30, page 44, and Figures 11 - 16 on
pages 48 to 50.
4
71111
•
II. NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Noise is simply an unwanted sound. It can be measured by various types of
monitoring equipment, which are based on the fact that noise and other forms of
sound are caused by vibrations in the air pressure around its steady state
atmospheric value. It is these vibrations that the human ear receives and
translates to the brain.
Such vibrations in the case of noise are characterized by rapidly changing
frequencies from about 20 cycles per second to 20,000 cycles per second. The
decibel (db) is the unit of measure used to plot sound pressure. The sound
pressure level in db is mathematically defined by the relationship:
Sound Pressure Level (db) = 20 log P
PO
Where P is the measured pressure and PO is the reference pressure.
For example:
If P0 = 0.0002, then for P = 0.0002, the sound pressure level of 0 db.
If P = 2,000, then the sound pressure level is 140 db.
Zero db corresponds to the threshold of hearing and 140 db is typical of the
noise produced by a large aircraft jet engine. Most community noise is between
these two extremes.
The decibel scale is a base ten logarithmic scale ranging from 0 to 140. Each
increase of ten decibels increases the sound-pressure level ten times. Thus,
at 20 db, the sound intensity is ten times that of ten decibels. The faintest
whisper of a sound that can be heard by a healthy, young human being is equiva-
lent to zero decibels. Normal conversation is generally in the 60 db range.
Since the human ear is not as sensitive to the sounds of the lower frequencies
as to higher, a scale has been developed that filters out these frequencies and
perceives noise in much the same way the human ear does; this is the "A"
decibel scale.
4
• 117
Following is a chart listing various sound levels that can be encountered
within the community.
TABLE 1
NOISE LEVEL OF COMMON SOUNDS
Relative
Sound Level Loudness Relative
Sound (A) (Approximate) Sound Energy
Jet Plane, 100 feet 130 128 10,000,000
Rock Music with
Amplifier 120 64 1,000,000
Thunder, Danger of
Permanent Hearing
Loss 110 32 100,000
Boiler Shop, Power
Mower 100 16 10,000
Orchestral Crescendo
at 25 ft. , Noisy Kitchen 90 8 1 ,000
Busy Street 80 4 100
Interior of Department
Store 70 2 10
Ordinary Conversation
at three feet 60 1 1
Quiet Car at Low Speed 50 1/2 .1
Average Office 40 1/4 .01
City Residence 30 1/8 .001
Quiet Country Residence 20 1/16 .0001
Rustle of Leaves 10 1/32 .00001
Threshold of Hearing 0 1/64 .000001
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Aircraft Noise
Impact, Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, November, 1972
5
•
The characteristics of noise presented below are important in that they suggest
ways that mitigation measures can be applied to control noise propagation or
considerations that should be looked for when dealing with existing and poten-
tial noise sources and problems.
1. Noise can best be shielded by or reflected by barriers with a minimum mass
of four pounds per square feet.
2. Noise gets quieter with increasing distance from the source, but not at a
linear rate. Doubling the distance only decreases the sound level 4 db on
collector roads and 6 db on major arterials , not by one-half. (Source:
Caltrans. )
3. Doubling the sound power will cause the sound pressure to increase by 3
db, and vice versa. (Source: Caltrans. )
4. Noise is not perceived in direct proportion to the sound level . A 10 db
change is perceived as twice as loud or half as loud depending on the
initial noise level .
5. In general , for every doubling of the average daily traffic volume a 3
db(A) increase in the Community Noise Equivalent level (CNEL) will occur.
(Source: State Department of Health. )
6. For every foot increase in height above the blocked line of sight of a
noise source, a 1 db reduction will occur. (Source: Buntin and Asso-
ciates , Acoustical Consultants , Carmichael , California. )
7. Conventional single-family construction with some windows open will
provide approximately 15 dh noise reduction and with the windows closed a
reduction of 20 db may be achieved. The latter assumes either a forced
ventilation or air-conditioning system. (Source: State Office of Noise
Control . )
8. To be effective, green belts of trees must be at least 50 feet tall ; must
be a continuous strip 75- to 100-feet wide; must have dense foliage down
to the ground; and must be evergreen so that the protection is effective
year-round. This type of stand takes 2.0 years to mature, is extravagant
in terms of required land area , and is useless against elevated sources
such as aircraft or for protecting multiple-story dwellings. (Source:
Caltrans , District 2 Office, Redding. )
9. The sound transmission class (SIC) for the evaluation of traffic noise is
assumed to be equal to the ambient "A" weight noise level minus 4 decibels
(Source: State Office of Noise Control . )
6
• •
DEFINITIONS
Ambient
Noise Level : The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this
context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or
existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive
Noise: That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient
noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a
sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time
of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as
the prevailing ambient noise level .
A-Weighted
Sound Level : The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound
level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The
A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high
frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the
response of the human ear and gives good correlation with
subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent
Energy Level
Leq: The sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level
containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over
a given sample period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8,
and 24 hour sample periods. When there are no unusual noise
conditions , such as infrequent peak noise, then the leg must he
approximated by a 15-minute monitoring period.
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent level . The average equivalent
A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound
levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
• •
III. HUMAN RESPONSE TO NOISE
Noise that permeates our environment to the extent that it irritates the
general public may be termed "noise pollution." The Environmental Protection
Agency has reported that 80 million Americans are affected in some adverse way
by noise pollution. Hearing damage starts at 85 db depending on duration and
frequency of exposure; however, some authorities believe damage begins as low
as 70 db. Noise is known to cause errors in observation and impair time
judgment at the 90 db level . According to many medical and legal sources cited
in the Noise Element of Los _Angeles County, the effects of excessive noise can
be place in four categories each of which is discussed below:
1. Physiological
Exposure to sufficient levels of noise for long periods of time can produce
temporary or permanent loss of hearing. In general , sound levels must
exceed 80 db for sustained periods before hearing loss occurs. The greater
or longer the exposure, the greater the potential for hearing loss. Other
physical effects of noise may be rapid heart beat, blood vessel constric-
tion, dilation of the pupils , paling of the skin, headaches, muscle ten-
sion, nausea, insomnia, and fatigue. If the noise is of sufficient level ,
the stomach, esophagus , and intestines may be seized by spasms.
2. Psychological
Noise can interfere with sleep. Excessive exposure to noise may also cause
symptoms of anxiety, anger, vertigo, hallucinations, and, in extreme cases,
has even been blamed for homicidal and suicidal tendencies. It has not
been scientifically proven, however, that noise is the primary cause of
these symptoms.
3. Sociological
Adaptions to noise intrusions may adversely affect group interrelation-
ships. The intrusion of noise can effect every facet of human existence--
from one' s family life to one' s occupational , educational , recreational ,
and religious activities. The possible adverse effects of man' s individual
reactions to noise, his physical and emotional maladies, may be compounded
in the group situation. More importantly though, noise may threaten the
ability to communicate and to comprehend. For example, children who live
or attend school near sources of excessive noise can be handicapped not
only in their learning process but also in their socialization process.
4. Economic
The costs of adverse noise impacts and mitigation are appreciable and
include medical care, loss of efficiency and production , reduction of
property value, avigation easements , litigation, abatement measures , and
increased vacancies.
7
• •
IV. SELECTION OF LAND USE NOISE STANDARDS
Before a discussion of community noise goals and objectives can occur, a
determination of the maximum allowable land-use noise standards must be made.
Noise standards are typically divided into three land-use categories: ( 1)
residential , (2) commercial , and (3) industrial . The following discussion
addresses each of these categories based on State and Federal requirements,
community reaction to excessive noise and the City's existing noise environ-
ment. The selected noise metric for the noise standards is "Leq" or "equiva-
lent energy level . " This noise metric essentially adds up all of the noise
levels during a 1-, 8-, or 24-hour period and spreads the cumulated noise level
evenly over the duration of the monitoring period. The Leq noise metric was
principally selected because, through mathematical conversion, it is approxi-
mately comparable to State and Federal noise metrics (CNEL and Ldn) and because
it can be easily checked for compliance with the City' s noise monitoring
equipment.
A. MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
1. State Residential Noise Standards
a . The Base-line criteria used by the State in determining when a
local agency must require an acoustical noise analysis is the 60
CNEL or Ldn noise contour. This criteria , as it pertains to the
City, is discussed in the following excerpt from Title 24 of the
Housing and Community Development Building Regulation:
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TITLE24'
(Register 78,No.26-7-1-78)
(1) Location and Orientation. Consistent with land use;
standards, residential structures located in noise critical areas,such
as proximity to select system of county roads and city streets (as
specified in 186.4 of the State of California Streets and Highways
Code), railroads, rapid transit lines, airports, or industrial areas
. shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noises beyond
prescribed levels with all exterior doors and windows in the closed
position. Proper design shall include, but shall not he limited to,
orientation of the residential structure, set-backs, shielding, and
sound insulation of the building itself
(2) Interior Noise Levels. Interior community noise equiva-
lent levels (CNEL) with windows closed, attributable to exterior
sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dll in any habitable
room.
(3) Airport Noise Source. Residential structures to be locat-
ed within an annual CNEL contour (as defined in Title 4 Subchap-
ter 6, California Administrative Code) of 60 require an acoustical
analysis showing that the structure has been designed to limit in-
truding noise to the prescribed allowable levels. GAELS shall be
as determined by the local jurisdiction in accordance with its local
general plan.
(4) Vehicular and Industrial Noise Sources. Residential
buildings or structures to be located within annual exterior com-
munity noise equivalent level contours of 60 dB adjacent to the
select system of county roads and city streets (as specified in Sec-
tion 186.4 of the State of California Streets and highways Code),
freeways, state highways, railroads, rapid-transit lines and indus-
trial noise sources shall require an acoustical analysis showing that
• the proposed building has been designed to limit intruding noise
to the allowable interior noise levels prescribed in Section T25-
28(e)(2). Exception: Railroads, where there are no nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 700 a.m.) railway operations and where daytime
(7:1X7 a.m. to IO:IX)p.m.) railway operations do not exceed four (4)
per day.
• •
b. The California Administrative Code (Title 21) also stipulates the
maximum allowable noise exposure for residential areas near air-
ports as 65 CNEL.
2. Federal Residential Noise Standards
a. The noise contour interval used by U. S. Department of Housing and
Community Development (HUD) in determining the maximum allowable
level for Federally assisted projects that may affect residential
uses is 65 CNEL, as noted below:
Federal Site Acceptability Standards
For Housing Projects
Acceptable Not exceeding 65 db(1) None
Normally Unacceptable. . Above 65 db but not exceeding 75 dbSpecial Approvals
Environmental Re-
view, Attenuation
Unacceptable Above 75 db Special Approvals
Environmental Re-
view, Attenuation
3. Interior Residential Noise Standards
One of the principle reasons why the State has chosen a maximum exte-
rior noise level of 60 db as being reasonable standard for residential
areas including multiple family is because most conventional dwellings
(with some windows open) under California building codes will reduce an
exterior 60 db noise level to an interior level of 40-45 db. Except
for sleeping areas, this is a typical interior noise level for most
dwellings.
According to the State Office of Noise Control , exterior noise levels
of 65 db and above require special construction standards to achieve an
interior noise level of 40-45 db even with all the windows closed. It
is for these reasons that most communities have selected 60 db as the
maximum exterior daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m. ) noise level .
For the nighttime exterior noise level (10 p.m. - 7 a.m. ) , most commu-
nities have selected 50 db because it can be reduced to an interior
noise of 35 db, which is the desired noise level for sleeping areas.
4. Community Reaction to Various Residential Noise Levels
In an attempt to further clarify what is an acceptable residential
noise standard, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) con-
ducted a survey of 104 cities to determine what noise land-use stan-
dards are most commonly used. Figure 1 plots the results of EPA' s
survey and illustrates that the majority prefer a maximum exterior
daytime Leg of 55 db. Both of these standards satisfy the State and
Federal standards presented above.
9
• •
In another survey conducted by the Federal Interagency Committee, as
shown on Table 2, on Urban Noise, only 9 percent of the population
would object to an Ldn of 60 db; and 15 percent would- object to an Ldn
of 65 db. The survey also notes that at 70 db hearing loss is likely
to occur and 37 percent of the population would object to this volume
of noise.
Aside from being unhealthy, community reaction to excessive noise
levels may result in long-term public controversy, and in some cases,
lead to expenditure of public funds to construct sound walls or possi-
ble forcing the relocation of some business if the noise mitigation is
too costly.
5. Existing Residential Noise Levels For Redding
Existing day and nighttime residential noise levels for the Redding
area were graphed from the data listed in Tables 13 through 22 on pages
92 through 101. Figures 2 and 3 on page 16 illustrates that most
daytime Leq noise levels at 100 feet from the edge of the pavement fell
between 50 and 65 db with an average of 60 db. Most of the nighttime
Leq noise levels fell between 44 and 62 db with an average of 53 db.
The day and nighttime averages of 60 and 53 db are representative of
what single-family and multiple-family residents are exposed to along
most major four-lane streets in Redding. Interior day and nighttime
neighborhood noise levels for these same uses are about 7 to 10 db
quieter. Even though this is the case, it is believed that the land-
use noise standards should be developed around the noise levels of
major streets because of the community-wide noise impact of vehicular
traffic on major streets.
Table 4 on page 15 provides a comparison of County, City, State and
Federal standards. The Table briefly summarizes the foregoing discus-
sion and points out that the City' s existing noise environment is in
general quieter than the standards of most urbanized cities. Based on
the existing noise environment of the City, it is recommended that the
maximum daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m. ) Leq noise level for single-family
and multiple-family zoning districts should be 60 db and the maximum
nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m. ) Leq noise levels should be 50 db. Both of
these noise standards should not be exceeded at a distance of 100 feet
from the edge of the pavement. Beyond the 100-foot point the noise-
level standards should not be exceeded at the property boundary adjoin-
ing commercial or industrial uses.
It should be noted that the recommended standards cannot he compared to
the Noise Element Standards adopted in 1974, because those standards
are based on an ambient noise level metric which by definition excludes
the consideration of peak noise levels. This noise metric is no longer
acceptable by the State General Plan Noise Element Guidelines.
the recommended standards were reviewed by the Office of Noise Control ,
State Department of Health and are consistent with State and Federal
requirements for highways and airports. They generally reflect what
most people expect in a noise environment and they are not likely to
10
• •
evoke community controversy. The standards also represents the first
line of defense in protecting the quieter residential neighborhoods
removed from the noise levels of major streets and from industrial-
commercial noise sources.
B. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS
The consideration of noise standards for industrial and commercial zoning
is less critical because noise levels for these land-use types can be much
louder without generating public objection. The exception to this is when
residential uses are intermixed with commercial or industrial uses, or when
the noise levels spill over into residential zoning districts. Hotel and
motel uses in commercial areas may be affected, but occupants usually
accept higher noise levels for these uses as a temporary nuisance.
Figures 3 and 4 on pages 16 and 17 graphically summarize a survey of over
100 cities by E.P.A. of maximum allowable noise levels for industrial and
commercial uses. Figure 4 suggests that for industrial land use, most
cities prefer a maximum day and nighttime Leq of 70 db. For commercial
land use, Figure 5 suggests that most cities prefer a maximum daytime Leq
of 60 db and maximum nighttime Leq of 55 db.
The Noise Element of Shasta County Draft General Plan recommends a maximum
Ldn noise level for commercial uses of 60 db. This is equivalent to a
daytime Leq of 60 db and a nighttime Leq of 50 db. For industrial uses,
the County' s draft plan recommends a maximum Ldn of 65 db. This is equiva-
lent to a daytime Leq of 65 db and a nighttime leg of 55 db. Based on an
analysis of a City-wide survey presented in Appendix D, the measured noise
levels for commercial and industrial uses are not much different than the
County' s proposed noise standard.
Table 4 on page 15 provides a comparison of the noise levels discussed
above and recommends noise standards for industrial and commercial uses.
Where the zoning-district boundaries for these uses adjoin residential
zoning districts then the noise-level standards for residential zoning
districts should prevail . The recommended noise-level standards are
referenced to property lines and at a point 100 feet from the edge of
pavement. The standards were reviewed by the Office of Noise Control ,
State Department of Health, and are in keeping with State and Federal
standards, and reflect the existing noise environment of the City.
C. RECOMMENDED LAND USE NOISE STANDARDS AND THEIR CRITERIA
1. Recommended Noise Standards
The foregoing discussion establishes the basis for the recommended
land-use standards which are summarized in Table 5. Before the stan-
dards can be applied to any specific land-use pattern, they should be
further defined so that their application is clear, equitable and
easily administered. This should be provided as part of the section of
the Noise Element dealing with goals , objectives and standards.
11
• i
•
11:1 0 VI.
4.1
CI
•
O g
---0 °
W • ..
JN 0 .Ur
Oa W
Q E
a
o
JZ Q
Z
J m v ❑®a
W 7 U
Q
La W O H
LL ® ! •'C7
• N
• O ❑ p m
Z Q to --o_ �/
UH Z F�•t
2 Z �+
W J (d
U >N ` a
W ')
0 fd
`LL
- � {�
-, L
. ® o o
0
W Q
2 V1
U
W UJ ;
• s
— c — J c ca v
7 v L
O C au, c u CZ ,_ C t- v
C "I > .: 0. L O C v a.
r
R > 73 C N.0 c0 Z O It
c v v v C ' _ Cl.
>, 6. T C c > c y A o .r V o0', II-, O
C c
C 9 E 'C cVr. 0 A O` 'fl a0 L 3 u O v v
c L
E c E E ac, ac, `E o C �, .c
0ccs
E r a0°, E E T T -o co v o c a oo
�. 0 ° �. O C s u '-
v V _ V 0 v
- . Q 5 a, Eo o E 0 v"> E E o v v
E - -3 C o o A ou °
.. v . v E v E v c = u n 3
C " o o t E - c o 0 r ° L
a' Q �.. v u u c v o f m v >
T c j O v 0 v v 0 v u .n ..
vL '0 V :7 0 v V
yc n v c >, E H t ° �0 00.�
c O v
° 0 ° `o E o 0 0 � c. Asa v
y L v V v U v L v 0 O N c L ,,
> 'J
Z mi Z a Z i Z. 0 o Z > c n
ro 0
a
E C C 'O
a E . v c O
W r. u v:
c E a ° L
OFav y Q, m e E u v �, +,
(s] e O T L. t O .0 t y - '°
A, u > > v c .v O
�. �.- O m = c v �- U
OJ E u > v 4.!
= o o r v cd L v c
Z . EC° n v - , c �, v ov, n
Q ,,--. J CX f ro 0 a v .- i 7 C
C r Od i s 0. r0 v
N
w = cy k: C7)•r
- . ,.,' O= O
Z 4 0 c (0 r0
G1, 'fl c O. 0 E e c
0
0. Q Y., a v
CL L_OC �, M
V] ►4 C O L C — v c M Q 7
C _
H Q Q - - .v 1° n c = 0
V °S s Z e = o
c CU
W mi r �L c ` `u v c N
kr 'C oo u - Y o c r0 4-)W v, v T c J _ a' v 0 _1 4-)
Cg L.
N .D v C ..r, a ,n O vi O r� G Z E v n• '- u ~ O
a u N - pc c
N U= O
_ 0 — c ° coW v » v 0 v , v :,1 O v
N
to
L e v, .. • — C o c O U
v a c
u E - v v c m C ,. C � c
F y w C C C T u▪ «+ �M Q1
O. u. V _ O ° �, c Cr)Cr:
v C 0 '., c7 C G.V r0
C •
v j L Q1
v O ._ J 0� ca 0 m
v CD 4-)r• cO O
'fl v v — a O. O O 8 ` s c c O c r .-
•n v E c. 3 c E to
^C, C v O — `u v c r-
- p v
S .. b .. b L c v > O r0
-0 0 — U > v 0. °' v N
v ? E :i1 C o c . a s_ -0
v C c : E `0 c c ca va V ° O a1
i o - a u _ ` 0 ' Q v v04 LL Li_
c ,,, a v = Z ->' o = o = c = c c o > a o u ° °
•Cc NO .I. QJ O u °1 u 0 u _ O u ? O u Z c c in I'd 6-• RI 4] C�
v ..7 740 H :° O 10 :-.7 -7
j Z0 L0 `v O ao 0 5 00 >-.
T= CCO
G 3 - O ,y -C r a,
L C C .- C C ca L u r I-
G o0 ` c L •_ Z7 QJ
v -o '`v C '0 v -0 C
V ,. a, Y V n V +OQ v • •= =
tea.'. C 75 > 73 c j n< v o n v L C .c v C3 7
co o
/// — N M U
aQ c
13
• • .
I ^ V
• x Q E m C
• V 0 D. CD in O in o in o r"1 O O CI 0 o
•--,J O I-- Ln Ln In U) U) in in In U) N N U
z c
Ls) v c ro 0 a;
J Y C - C-
0-J N
F- I ^ C L__- ¢ E -
0
+- >- Q E CO¢ N ro O in CD cc In Ln O C In o I,O Jr--...CD Il0 tO IO lD in I-- t0 in in ID 0
2.
J C1
>.
- L
L +' C
O 0 V
U a
I-- E r L u
2 E U t N
cc C' 0. CD in O in O cc O M cc CD ^J
L
•--• 111 CD I- Ill U) n U) Ln IL In LC) r1 n = .J In
Z J-• 0 V 1.•
W> v N.4- C >
J J N C L
• _ ro i
U) Z CD C :J L
c •-¢ I E U) L :;
cc V)W Ct .-J C N.
d >- C'E .0•c) ~ 7
O < a/ ro CD CD U) CD in U) U) CD O CD CD al._ 0
Z CD J n•--- l0 l0 SD SID U) I. IO •..0 U) SO C - ✓+
4 .� 0
cc `
w LL
N c >
C V) • O V
CI 4- 7 L'
Z s Cr i ro r 'U 4• •r I 0 •
_ C i i
J¢ a1 0 ro V•r N X i J C C' ro +`
CC o C)J L 7 N L 0 R) r0— Cr W N L C)
C 0 E N N 3 E E m a E v ro C c E
V¢ r 0 4- r a) Y L > 0 J V L _ ro
z F- r It) X U U- +' ro •_ C) E • 4' C)
W VI ro ro a) C) ro ro +-•I- O • O 0 t^ L N
G 0 4 0 E C 'n > L-0_J C X In >, lc i- 7 4-
L--.w O > 0 0 1' C w CJ C) ro a) ro ro C - c
in V) a) C- C1 • N C1 L L ro Z C N E + > 1-+ II 7.L C) C
w.. CLI ,- L a s 'C c.:, ro•r L c +-' c >
0=10 J - D' O ro 0_ C)4 E 0 •o a-• 0 a) 0- .c C.' a G) >.
Z (I) a) a) C) - ro N L LO L C a) v) E C) c c - c
J >C N_IE Na) OCD • aJ N_' C) J C U)
C•J<J Cl.)l0 E 4' 4-'•- I- 0.ro V a) C)
0)¢ .- O in O C N U) V O U) C O N U.) C 4- ci O
W O- II C U) V CJ N U) 1-• 0 C)IL U) 0 _ 0
J•--•F- al J a E N U • •r II ro -4) E C a)• C) C u
CD F-Z N W a) + L (1) N a)^ 'C 4- L E 11 Z N + J ^ C C
<<W •.-Z L ro CL C T 0 C' 4-' a) 0 _ C i
F-Z c O U LU CT I N C) N C) i U C Ni 0 Q4-) r'
C as C) r- 0 >, J U r J CD 0 C)V ^J Z C; C 0.E.1::- C—
O in CD 3 J O Q - 4-' r C) a) N L J Cl J ro C C U) C
Z W C)LO 0 L CJ r- 0 LO 4' >O 4- 0 •-• C
I
-. 1--In 4' L ro 0 Ln r If/ ro d C CD C1 CD >•ro 0 �
<0_ L0 +'
N .-lD C L L U- 4' X ro l0 C 4- LO ru-
W o N ro 0 C ()+' + + N N 0 O. V 7 ro r
F-W Y•r II V 0 V• n a) 0_ O
<o ro N E CJ 3 D- I\ N Cr C) E -D CD L C) ro
F- Z L >l 7 J C)1' Ll. CU .--/ al N L C a) r0 Q1
NW 4'.- EW NU JJ ~ 0J •ra) ro-0 N ,i _. , ro
u
ro •r Z •r 0 LU 4- C 0 4-' L_ ro ro Cl/
C)
N C X V 0 L •Z U) O U) Z I C) -0 C C C Cr r, +'
Y O C1 ro ro Z 4' N V l0 a)U) C) C O N +-I C C) .- L
F-V +' E U) N 'D >l E— C C a)UJ C) 4' 'D ••-J —
Z W ro C) LO 4- C L In II N r rt) 0 ci C NI L O N _
0) r- N 0 0 no 10 >4'^ 0- N ro V L L
O 7•r C)v U C J L +'4 i 4-'4- V X V J CU 0 0 C
V O a 0 4-'J C) C D)W 0.0 J L • 4- CD a) z >,4- l)
i F- V) •r C ro W V C) . 43 C Z V) O 4-'^ ro a) C) ro -c C
LU- CD 4' r C 4-)•r V 4-_C) C•r- C" L- s4- 4' C O N C C
C CL N U 7 V 4-•- N V >)CCD 0 3 al -0L' 0 N ro L.,-C a 1'
4 d 4-'C a)U) U J rC i C =
Z CD 0) N r in C.- 4' C)cc C E in C) L N 4' 0 N a) J 0•r- U)
, Oz 17 C) +'ID •r C U�-_ CJ 7 U) a) 7 U) - O. 4- L:'.0 U .-.y
V) 4 0 L N ^ 7 • a) X C)E 4-' U LO >.a) L -- C) W L
- F- V•r N L.0—. 0 C) C ¢•r-4- 4-' U 4' U ro 0 V I 0.
CC U) 0 U•r 4I CT C. O X O r 0 + to C U -0 0 c^ aJ
• 4 • C" - a) O N•r C CC E O O ro C/ C
0- V CI O N )0 ro J •- +' 0 E.- E 0 C" s 0 > r0 0 N C
4 L V+' a) 7 CJ C) N C1 0 1' a) < V >. a) 4-4 ro C 0-
C L 2 N CD > > 7 -I-i r0 > V J C V) - N ci 7 i -
✓ ro J • 0 7 to Cl a) C U C1 >l 10 C)- CD 1' CZ C 1'
•.-w V Q 4- C V.- a) N'D- >)-U) d L U) 0) U) C c V ..' C C
C Z ¢ L O 7 + +' 4' C1 V Cl I- F- 4' 0 <L N a) CJ 11 C C
S-U C 0.1 1' O N a) C.]C 11) L CD >
O • U) 1' a) CT ro N ro L Cl N a)•r II 4- 0 - 0 4) L L C L N
4-O 4- C L 01 .O 0_ 0•r C)- W 0 C d C - N C) ro 0 CD 4-
r l0 •r L C) 0 J L 0 N -0 0 r0 C in F- U) > C
r- ro E 4- U) 7 C a) - ITS C i N 4-' N V) C a) L z C aJ s +-
ro CT ro C) 4-' C)CD CD 'D ro C)•r-J C C•- ro N C CJ L •-
VI U C V C i L LO 0' -0 (I) 7 4' C) (1) 4' Z C/ 0 ClV U L a'
o ro ¢ C U -. c > 0 C a)L!') E+' E CJ C) C
0) ^V 0 N O.0 II o r0 7 V C) ro•.- .---. C)I- >- Cl ro _ C V L ' 1' •
3 d Cl) C) .-• CT C1-0 Z V C E L Y ro.— F- .-L o C' C •r- +' rC >.L
O CD CV Cl CV CC J C ¢ 0)0.- C >, ,- 0 Z al 4-) o C 4' 0 0.L +' U-
U -0 F- C L O N r0 ro ro C O W •- C L 1' U)
N ¢ a) X a)r- N U)J Cl) •r 0_.0 L a)-0 L-0 0 O 0 0: 4) a) CJ 1' V
cc F- .- a) -- 1'LD N U •r•r- a) J V N a1 N 4r 0 0 v C
UI 4' 4-' 41 rt) Ll) J 7 1'•r- >4-I E l C: .- > Li_ .D U N C) L ro
N r L •r 3 1.'4-cc ¢ 0 0L C•.- 7 C) C cc 4 0 C) O X EE a Cr- C a' 4'
Ls) F- 0 F-'C V) 0'— s 2 C 3 W V E Lr_ I- F- Z w Q 0_ N C) 7 1' N
C F- w Co-, >- .- c.
¢ O d F- C 1 C C
IC) V) d CO U U-. ¢ CO V in d V d 00 V •0 J
O 0
V •• C) V
W L
ti U F- H
r •-• C
14
• • •
E O
+ �, Q I r 111 to to O a) 0
J C7 C)O r\ to 1 v
VI tr,
to
Q J•--I p 10 4,-,Z C
I- -0 N> +-
til
C C.r .-V)
I E ro a) 4,
C d y• J� V C
2 >-QE I O N to ID 1:Y
a) '0 O r-- r- CC) In to O T
C J -r •--i t0 I-. r---. Y r •- 1)
C c L .0
L 7 i ✓ ,-
c ra O Y
al n L C 0.
O C O
I ^ E u r00 u
0 < i u
F-
G-E ro O to U CO O -n < c -o
V) J C C) C1 to to CJ t0 to O to to CU
C Q •-I J O N- i to to In C C
CC Z EL i
N J C)
d C 10 In .0.)a-,
C CO 10 S.- _
LU 0
d I E Y a) -0Y
V) O >- Cr n. O J .7..'V d CU E O O to to O
Lc, O to _0 W
W C J ro O to CO n l0 to t0 tD O Z i
V) r-.-+ 0 V L •O•-, O -•L
• N • ..
O ro n
` C Q 0
L.r- -
J R
d C r re.> ,
L
F- 0",J I II i C- Y' 0•r I
F_ C E O 4 v,
to YL •r to Or II C) V 7 L 0- O
C 10 CJ 10 r--. V 10 Cl L N a: >
C L Y Ca C)•r 0C J >L + C V
Z Y r0 01 4-0 i V L i i C
C
C L••- C a) U) L LI C i • co I-
I C) as L Y•- ro E CO C CIJ O C) 0 i 0 T
Q N C C Cl) r E t0 + C roI 4- i,-- 7 •r ..
J O O•r C) > d 0 C 4-,:L0 ro ro C O C
' Q Z ,- C C) V G' L )
00 J .0 7 C
✓.•Q J C) N 10 r r ^ C) "--` Y C
V F_ 10 i G' J Y N t C) C
C.to Z •r ro • i C) L 0 a) � Ing L U 0' C N
111 U L In. - Q) V1 C)4-J to rl C) .- I C ..; CO
V,t LI) ,-_J Cl•r C LC i 01-0 C l
N a)Ill o 0) C O Y CI QJ "
laU O•N-• t0 C) >Z Y C CO L to to .o O C CO _ _
J U O •r Q)U 10 J > .r it V ^ CD CT 1 Y
CO Z 0 Y r L r0 Y + C) L CIX J 23 E +-•
to Y 4-C) > 0 II C1 7 r0 i
F-C C V C) • 0 10 10 Cr" i co CI C E -)
Z LU In E N -0 Y i C) 7 C C:N Q C C In >
OC O•r t0 C) L InJ to •r L:i Q) 10 0 C
C-
•-•Z • C C:I 21__I ti'C
Ql O Y Y Q
F_W Y Y II ' 0 r O C) 0 u >,10 E ._ ..
Q 0 L +) 0 0 C)t0 N >J,Y C -occ, o
i as C) In N r •r C Y. V o T
`Q Q)•r C) O Y_ II 0 ,75 C C.,r
C U L > C J Q) nC C C - C I-' + C i
c
Z CC C O N X Y C CL Y I Y C) 0 0
CCC r1,21 L in •r QE C - C\I CN J V- ra
4- CIS0 al C)J CC rY C)
w o In o ro to E u Cr, 21 ro ;L J 0 Cr-
F- _
F- r
d C1 T T+ C N LU 1uo,...0CL ) ate-,.-;,-I V V o Q)
H Y 0) r0 Cr 10 Y • a C • C 1 0 r` C In C
V) 0 >L C) In Tv 0 C) L YI.' L i i- w C
= L J i O)Q J V' C) C./1 V J a) C
7 E 10 C Q) O.- C) L LU -o'rl i >IC- Cl Y
>- i to 7 0 0 J 2 0 In a)Z 4- •r iI C) • L' C ^
C • O
Fo O- tEto cr E 7 Into o > YIE c o v+
4- T' v i 1
0 to 0 0 InI Ear 10 V L C
Xr
CO V L t0 • 0 .0 to Y i•r C ro 0
C r0 r^ C)Y to C 10 t0 C L CI•r J C)'r
0 d N
r
V O • L • CI)V E L C) + L •r L E V w L i Os
z 0 01 w Y 3 i to i '0 II E Z 0 C.
C'C i ._ Y QI C u
F- V Q Q r0 Y r r0 C) I•r N U G
O F- cu U C C)C) '0 r0• n C L CC .a) -i•C I t G` L.-..
C)LI-
l/7 •J C L E C J '0 +) C C Cl C) ,caO OI 0:+-+ )- C C^ L
Z E O CJ d' E V rt1 b L N J L r 0 O 0 C- C c_' •
O L O 4r Y • 0 0 in Y_C C Y CJ C NI 3 V 3 L 'C.
In d In Y O LC,N- U 0 n V)Y C N CO ro In 4-
V O r� C CO Y In VII i C 0 '0
CC '- + -,L >,0 II In.- 0 CC C) 0 In I C).0 0 L ^ 0 C
d •C Y r0 II C Y N Cl 0 Q N + C CI 4-C •r C: _
CL C G' 0 C J •r >4- • C •r Cl Q);C In Z C >-C"
i Q) iCll Cr TW 0 ,1) Z 0 CT C) . IJ i L C
0 J CL > Q) OTr ZZ r C T Q C C) QJ •
r- C.Q. toJ 0 rV 4- 21 J 21 C)U 0 Cl F- J Y O•r 1
>!z >
,__
•r(7 V) r L i.Y T E J J to C Cl C I•r;U' 0 C C'
r t0 C ro O Ql•r kr, In Y C roto 0 QJi'�-r 0 d'L 1' •
Io 21 CC Y In 1\ r 1` Cl C E CO O t7 to L 'V N•r'to V t -4-• C)J Io
C V II d C v C CO 0•r t0 In 1'- E•---- 10 O N t0 3 a
CO C Q) + In II C O X C C'C V +0 CL 0
d to J - E Y •r C V 10 + C 0,--� G, C C:C) IIV
r Y 9 0=
C N W d r r 0
'r C• CT C E C C C J C `L N, L ro C C •,-' C
Z Z F- O V CJ 10 C)'G d r0 ro C) W •r 00 r - to l Cr U_C Y 10 •..)
Q C)U V) i J i 10 I- Y In CJ CC Y: N E arI a):CJ C)Y C C`
F- r •r In C) r0 In N L In J In V V, 0 01 N J % O C`+'G
V) Y C) J > O L E to CI C C) 11 ••r •r V r In CO C
•r t0 C C 0 O r. aJ ro n T .G N CO O X•7 X C•, C CO C)r- = •r C'-
w I- CO w E 11 10 F- In E E C t0 W Ir w Cl) 171,c 10 In C) _ .-, -
F- LU > •r V1 .. i
d O C) F- O C) ) r r C,
I- LU O X I-t'
to d U.. Q a) U d U i 0) C CI ro u'
LI_
C' E
LU .t 0 i
> F-
.. •-• C)
15
• •
13 •
I
12-
11-
10--
9—
1---10--
9_
8- -
7-
6--
-
5-
4
L.1 3 - -
Z2-- — --
1 r—i
, I F .
(> 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
0
REDDING SURVEY OF NIGHT—TIME NOISE LEVELS FIG. 2
0
ALONG MAJOR STREETS 119821 SEE APPENDIX>-
U ( MEAN L.E.Q. = 53dba AT 100 FEET FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT)
z
w
a
W 13-
CL '--
• 12 - --
11- -
10--
9--- - - - - --
8. - — —
-
6. . _-
5 - - --- - —
- - -
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
REDDING SURVEY OF DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS FIG 3
ALONG MAJOR STREETS 119821 SEE APPENDIX
( MEAN L.E.Q.= 60dba AT 100 FEET FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT)
16
•
I • • •
•
. 0
H
v
el
'D
K in C
- El O
CCI
U
N El
2 -- ❑ ®❑ N I
Q 0 LJ o
.Z
J
OU ��J
Q
J0
ULCnQ
V
W _ 9 CC
U 0 0 ?
O j ® W CJ
N
0 U
W Q
X 0 0 +.1+
IT j iv Z v 03
z ® 00 D .F
- �❑O❑ e7; ¢ °
oaLIJ
r ¢
cv
Z.
U
N 1--.
N~ 7
� O
O J W
C' W 2 U
N ' Z 2 H
J - 1- X
J w . 1- f Z
> Z Y Vtav
w J Q ° O Z -
J W Z
W 2 W W N W .� �r cZt
.� — ^W
W
• H
R Z W X U U
Q > > ry ° GQ
0 Z Q <
U-
0
r u. o • O -----..---C). {:}o
OM R (-4 ,4,
S311.1010 k138W(1N '
17
• •
• O
v
y
1)
6.
n
e C
5041 0
O
Pa .
. —
❑ U
p 0 o b"
�,.w El N N
Q 2 Q .
H
I O DO7
U
<.y
- W H
W ,, O
etwo C.)
tiwa *'• �,
p n
LL O 2 .. - '1P' Q Q)
•
W •
z —•
rn
W W +,
W Z ..
N 3 0
-.
o
. r -
0 3
til
0
4]
. • a
U
4,
N O
J co•
'13
®O N J W El a
N T W _ X
fn ,n i H I•
. J W b Fel - �.. = W
W > ›- = Q f)
(7
w J Q 2 O Z I
W0 O Z
W WW W N CO L.
1 S F- Q Q /- F-
H F- Q Q U RU /r•�.
›- U. W W O O W
Q J J .
O 2 Q
Cii O
O N pp N O ^ O N
O PI l'1 N N O
S31110 JO 83ewnN
18 .
• •
TABLE 5
RECOMMENDED LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS
Land-Use Category CNEL Day Leq Night Leg
(7am -10pm) (10pm-7am)
Single Family Zoning District 60 60 50
Multiple Family Zoning District 60 60 50
All Commercial Zoning Districts 65 65 55
All Industrial Zoning Districts 70 70 60
The reader will note that the noise standard for single-family and
multiple-family are identical . It should not be construed that
people living in multiple-family structures are willing to accept more
noise than those who live in single-family structures. The problem is
that they lack a choice of noise environments.
19
• •
V. EXISTING AND PROJECTED NOISE ENVIRONMENT
A. RESIDENTIAL STREETS, HIGHWAYS, FREEWAY, AND MAJOR FOUR-LANE STREETS"
In August, 1982 , the City completed a noise survey in preparation for the
development of noise contours along all highways, including Interstate 5
and four-lane streets. The noise data is presented in Tables 13-22 on
pages 92 to 101. The noise metric used is the Leq from which the CNEL was
calculated with the aid of the conversion formula below:
Leq night + 10
CNEL = 15 (Antiloq Legday) + 9 Antiloq .10 log 10
24 24
Noise data for all State highways was cross checked for consistency with
noise monitoring data prepared by Caltrans. Noise data for future unde-
veloped four-lane streets was estimated with aid of nomographs and pro-
jected traffic volumes. The tabulated results of all the data in the form
of existing and projected noise contours is provided in Appendix D on page
76 in the following order:
NOISE DATA TABLES
Table 6 "Existing and Projected Noise Levels Page 84
(1980 - 2000) for Highways & I-5"
Tables 7-11 "Existing and Projected Noise Levels Page 85
for Major Street (1980 - 2000)"
Table 12 "Projected Noise Levels for Undeveloped Page 90
Major Streets"
Table 13-22 "Noise Monitoring Data" Page 92
As might be expected, the data indicates that I-5 and all highways through
Redding including Market Street (Route 273) are the major sources of
traffic noise. Of these, I-5 is the biggest source because of the heavy
truck traffic. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
large and medium trucks contribute more to traffic noise than any other
type of vehicle (76-81 db) ; next are motorcycles (76-81 db); then buses
(73-71 db); and finally, automobiles and light trucks (64-71 db) . This
relationship seems to be especially true for highways and major streets in
Redding.
1. Projected Noise Impact on Existing Quiet Residential Streets
The noise contours indicate that some quiet residential areas today
will be much noisier if the projected traffic volumes become a reality.
It should be noted that very little increase in truck volume was
anticipated so the projections from this standpoint are conservative.
Although the noise level increase relative to the recommended noise
standard for residential areas (60 CNEL) may not be excessive, the fact
that the increase may be so dramatic could generate noise complaints.
The following table list three street-link intervals that could be most
affected.
20
• •
TABLE 23
PROJECTED NOISE IMPACT ON QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREAS (1980 - 2000)
Noise Increase Noise Level Rela-
at 100 Feet tive to Recommended Relative Loudness
From Pavement Residential Noise to Existing Noise
Street Link in CNEL Standard of 60 CNEL Levels
Cedars Road
(Howard Drive to
Bonnyview Drive) 11 db(A) plus 1 db(A) 1 times louder
Bechelli Lane
(Echo Road to
Loma Vista Drive) 6 db(A) plus 1 db(A) 1/4 times louder
Oasis Road
(I-5 to Oasis Road) 7 db(A) plus 5.4 db(A) 1/2 times louder
2. Projected Noise Impact on Residential Corridors Along Highways and
Major Streets
Another way of analyzing the noise contours is the requirement for a
noise analysis to determine if noise mitigations are necessary as
stipulated by Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. Table 24
list those street links along residential corridors which should
require a noise analysis and possible noise mitigations. Recommended
standards for noise-mitigation standards for barriers and dwelling-unit
designs are provided on pages 10 to 16 and 76 to 83, respectively.
3. Existing Vehicle Noise Abatement Programs
Vehicle noise abatement programs are programs aimed at reducing the
noise level at the source. According to Redding Police Department
Officials, the police no longer vigorously enforce vehicle noise laws
because of a recent case law which stipulated that it is illegal to use
a noise meter to site drivers for noise violations under certain
conditions. The case-law finding only pertains to vehicles with mud
tires (mainly trucks) which cause a noise meter to register a noise
violation; however, the Police Department has taken a safe conservative
legal position by not using the meter under any circumstances.
The current noise-abatement procedure used by officers is strictly
subjective. For example, if it is obvious to an officer that excessive
noise is being caused by a modified engine or a broken muffler, the
officer will issue a citation to the driver. The California Highway
Patrol policy on noise abatement is very similar in that officers use
the subjective tactic of if you can hear the exhaust over the engine
then there is probably a noise violation of the vehicle code.
21
• •
TABLE 24
CORRIDORS ALONG STREETS AND HIGHWAYS WHICH SHOULD
REQUIRE A NOISE ANALYSIS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
TO DETERMINE IF MITIGATIONS ARE NEEDED.
(1980-2000)
(SEE MAP EXHIBIT "A" ON PAGE 24)
Affected corridor width from edge of
pavement where the noise level exceeds
Street Link 60 CNEL by more than one decibel .
Victor Avenue (Highway 44 to Old
Alturas Road) 150 feet
Airport Road (Argyle Road to Meadow
View Drive) 250 feet
Old Oregon Trail (Highway 44 to
Highway 299 East) 150 feet
Lake Boulevard
*(Route 2.73 to Clay Street) 580 feet
*(Clay Street to Tamarack Drive) 500 feet
*(Tamarack Drive to Oasis Road) 300 feet
*(Oasis Road to Ashby Road) 150 feet
Hartnell Avenue
Bechelli Lane to Cypress Avenue 600 feet
*(Churn Creek Road to Victor Avenue) 400 feet
*(Victor Avenue to Argyle Road) 270 feet
Argyle Road to Airport Road 100 feet
Bechelli Lane
Cypress Avenue to Hartnell Avenue 300 feet
Hartnell Avenue to Dana Vista Drive 270 feet
Loma Vista Dr. to So. Bonnyview Rd. 150 feet
Churn Creek Road
*(Highway 44 to Cypress Avenue) 600 feet
*(Cypress Avenue to Loma Vista Drive) 600 feet
Loma Vista Drive to Rancho Road 200 feet
* Already exceeds the 60 CNEL by one decibel for 1982 at 100 feet from the
pavement edge.
22
•
Affected corridor width from edge of
pavement where the noise level exceeds
Street Link 60 CNEL by more than one decibel .
Placer Street
*(Court Street to Almond Street) 270 feet
Almond to Buenaventura Boulevard 270 feet
Buenaventura Blvd to City Limits 200 feet
Hilltop Drive
Lake Boulevard E. to I-5 300 feet
I-5 to Cypress Avenue 580 feet
Parkview Avenue (Market Street to
Park Marina Drive) 150 feet
Park Marina Drive (Highway 299 E. to
Cypress Avenue) 150 feet
Cedars Road (Howard Drive to South
Bonnyview Road) 120 feet
Cypress Avenue
*(Market Street to Sacramento River) 580 feet
*(Sacramento River to Victor Drive) 300 feet
Rancho Road (Churn Creek Road to
Alta Mesa Drive) 270 feet
Alta Mesa to Airport Road 210 feet
State Route 299 E. and Eureka Way
*(Old Shasta to Redding City Limits) 600 feet
*(Buenaventura Blvd. to Orange Avenue) 500 feet
*(I-5 to Hawley Road) 900 feet
*(Hawley Road to Old Oregon Trail ) 410 feet
State Route 44
*(Victor Avenue to Old Oregon Trail ) 370 feet
*(Canby Road to Victor Avenue) 370 feet
State Route 273 (Market Street)
*(Eureka Way to Anderson City Limits) 1 ,100 feet
*(Eureka Way to Benton Drive) 900 feet
*(Benton Drive to I-5 Connection) 900 feet
Interstate 5 (through Redding) 2,000 feet
* Already exceeds the 60 CNEL by one decibel for 1982 at 100 feet from the
pavement edge.
23
• •
1 \ 1
r/
/ • •-• ';a' �.
J •
A.! , .. .
(;.� ,-....:. \..„:_, .
`,
a \ f
I \
1( ! !c''''' %. 1 \ / ..-- ,''',--:\ --. N, ''';,... l• \_....1 '
).j I\ .,
) :
.„.::•.1,
A w
'
1[
� '
l} S Y .: te —, -
1 .. ,
\
I
k \< \,
51
- --(--/X-‘ .____ -----\
Gam-,
— . : :/
„ N
= MAP EXHIBIT A
CORRIDORS ALONG MAJOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS WHICH MAY REQUIRE NOISE
ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.
24
• •
Both of these approaches are probably adequate for abating the worst
case situations, but they do not address the borderline problems of
excessive vehicle noise which can only be accomplished with a noise
meter.
4. Public Concerns
a. The traffic volumes on many major four-lane streets in Redding will
double in the next 20 years. This, in turn, will cause noise
levels for residential areas abutting these streets to exceed the
recommended standard of 60 CNEL.
b. The current Police Department vehicle-noise-abatement program of
not using a noise meter for noise violations should be evaluated in
terms of its effectiveness and public liability.
B. PASSENGER AND FREIGHT ON-LINE RAILROAD OPERATIONS
1. Existing Land Projected Noise Levels
The Southern Pacific main line bisects the City in a north-south direc-
tion. The noise generated by train traffic is of a longer duration
than that generated by aircraft and combines both engine and track
noise. Occasional switching movements create intrusive peak noises. A
typical freight train at 50 feet from the track produces a daytime CNEL
of 86 db for three minutes while the engine produces a peak of 100 db
tor five seconds.
The development of noise contours for train traffic requires the
evaluation of many variables along the tracks route. These are noted
in Table 25.
In general , the existing rail noise contours through Redding are a
function of the number of day- and night-time train trips and whether
or not the train traffic is freight or passenger. Incorporating these
factors in the train-noise model developed by the State Office of Noise
Control produces the following noise contour intervals.
Table 25
NOISE CONTOURS IN CNEL FOR TRAIN TRAFFIC THROUGH REDDING
Noise Level 70 65 60 55
Distance
From Track 180' 330' 620' 1 ,300'
Since Southern Pacific Officials do not project any increase in train
operations over the next ten years, these generalized contour intervals
represent both existing and projected levels. They are based on an
average of 17 train trips per day, 7 nights and 10 days. Specific
noise contours for each location along the track may be estimated by
applying the adjustment factor shown in Table 26.
25
• •
TABLE 26
ADJUSTMENTS TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS
(Source: State Department of Health)
Correction to Desired
Variables Affecting Noise Output CNEL Value, db
a. Passenger trains only -1
(If combination of passenger and
freight -- assume all freight. )
b. Presence of helper engines:
1. Level grade or descending grade 0
2. Ascending grade +2
c. Mainline welded or jointed track 0
d. Low speed classified jointed track +4
e. Presence of switching frogs or grade
crossings +4
f. Tight radius curve
1. Radius less than 600 feet +4
2. Radius 600 to 900 feet +0.5
3. Radius greater than 900 feet 0
g. Presence of bridge work
1. Light steel trestle +14
2. Heavy steel trestle +5
3. Concrete structure 0
2. Existing Noise Mitigation Programs
Whenever a developer proposes a residential project near the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks , the project is reviewed to determine if
building noise standards are needed to achieve an interior noise level
of 45 db in living areas and 35 db in the sleeping areas of the units.
This requirement is reinforced by the State under Title 25 of the
California Administrative Code, which stipulates that residential
projects within an annual CNEL noise contour of 60 db require an
acoustical analysis showing that the structure can be designed to limit
intruding noise levels.
In some cases , the City may impose development conditions to reduce the
interior noise levels similar to those listed on page 37.
3. Public Concerns
a. Noise contours for specific projects are not always field checked
with a noise monitor at the time actual railroad operations are
occurring.
b. Noise-mitigation standards for railroad operations have not been
adopted by the City.
26
• •
C. COMMERCIAL, GENERAL AVIATION, HELISTOPS AND AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHTS
Since the Redding area includes four airports, two publicly owned and two
privately owned, aircraft noise is . a significant issue. Noise complaints
are only occasional ; but as urban densities increase, aircraft noise could
become a major nuisance for some residential areas near the airports.
Noise Standards for California airports are set forth in Title 21 , Sections
5000 of the California Administrative Code. This title establishes the
level of noise acceptable to a person residing in the vicinity of any
airport as community noise equivalent level (CNEL) value of 65 db. Section
5005(c) states that "This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable
persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical
California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been
selected with reference to speech, sleep, and community reaction."
Other noise insulation standards set forth in California Administrative
Code, Title 25, Section 28 are applicable to new hotels, motels, apartment
houses and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. These
standards require interior CNEL with windows closed to be 45 db or less in
any habitable room. They also require new residential structures (exclud-
ing single-family detached units) within the 60 CNEL contour to have an
acoustical analysis showing that the structure has been designed to limit
intruding noise to the prescribed level .
Federal Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control
discourage residential use within the 65 CNEL contour, stating that "The
absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and
an evaluation indicating that a demonstrated community need for residential
use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones should
be conducted prior to approvals."
All of these government standards are important considerations in the
evaluation of airport noise contours. Noise contours were developed for
Redding' s two publicly owned general aviation airports. The other two pri-
vately owned airports are classified as utility and do not represent a
significant noise problem. The significance of the noise contours can be
better understood by referring to Table 27 on page 28.
1. Redding Municipal Airport
The Redding Municipal Airport is a general aviation and commercial
airport located southeast of Redding' s City limits off Airport Road.
Of the three airports, Redding Municipal Airport is the most critical
in terms of community investment and service. Currently, the Airport
does not pose a significant neighborhood noise problem for nearby
residents , but airport expansion coupled with surrounding urbanization
could cause discontent for existing and future residential neighbor-
hoods.
The City has adopted an Airport Area Plan for the 11-square-mile area
around the Airport. The 20-year plan includes airport noise projec-
tions and discusses the noise impacts of the Airport. The plan also
sets forth goals, objectives , and standards relating to noise impacts.
27
.
According to the Area Plan, within the 65 CNEL contour for 1981 of Map
Exhibit B on page 31, there currently are 2 churches; the Anderson
Grange; 59 single-family homes on foundations; and 15 mobile homes.
Although the area of impact will be less in the year 2000 than it is in
1981 , significant changes are not expected until near the end of that
period when virtually all of the older, noisier aircraft have been
retired. (See Map Exhibit C on page 32. )
Airport owners elsewhere have found the argument "the airport was there
first," to have little meaning to vociferous residents who built or
purchased homes in aircraft noise patterns. The U. S. Supreme Court
has recognized severe airport noise as a legitimate reason for award of
damages. In some instances where noise levels are in violation of
Federal levels, a 24-hour noise monitoring station may be required to
alert the owner and the Federal government to noise conditions so the
air traffic can - be lessened to reduce the noise level . The only real
way to protect the public investment in a major airport is to keep the
problems from arising by preventing incompatible development.
TABLE 27
CHART FOR ESTIMATING COMPLAINT RESPONSE
OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
CNEL Noise Contour
Rating for
Takeoffs and Landings Description of Expected Responses
Less than 65 CNEL Essentially no complaints would be expected.
The noise may, however, interfere occasionally
with certain activities of residents.
65 to 75 CNEL Individuals may complain, perhaps vigorously.
Concerted group action is possible. Locations
of places of public assembly in this, as well
as Zone 1 , should be carefully studied and,
if required, provisions made to cope with
expected noise levels.
Greater than 75 CNEL Hearing loss may occur, individual reations
would likely include repeated, vigorous
complaints. Concerted group action might be
expected.
Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. , Land Use Planning Relating to
Aircraft Noise October, 1965. CNEL noise zones estimated based on
CNR equivalents.
28
• •
FAA grants may be used to acquire land within the current or projected
65 CNEL contour. Redding is not be high enough on the priority list to
qualify, given current funding levels; however, the FAA would agree to
the sale of 110 acres of surplus airport property west of Airport Road
if the revenue were used for grant-eligible airport improvements within
five years. Assuming sale at $25,000 per acre, $2.75 million could be
raised. Land purchased with these funds could be leased to compatible
uses , but approval for sale may be difficult to obtain.
2. Benton Air Park
This airport facility is operated by the City primarily for general
aviation. The airport is located west of the downtown area off Placer
Road. Topographic conditions prevent it from being expanded. Poten-
tial noise problems exist at the north and south ends of the airport
runway. At the north end of the runway, the projected 1995, 65 CNEL
encircles nine residential lots located on Shasta Street west of Almond
Avenue. At the south end of the runway, the same noise contour encir-
cles two residential lots located off Starlight Boulevard. The City
recently acquired the two parcels at the south end. (See noise contour
map Exhibits D and E on pages 33 and 34. )
Aside from aircraft overflights being source of complaints, the Cali-
fornia Highway Patrol helicopter, which is based at the Airport, has
also caused several residents to complain.
The principal of Shasta High School , which is located .7 of a mile
north of the runway, has stated that aircraft noise from overflights
interferes with school activities sometimes even with the windows
closed. Principals at Nova Junior High and Manzanita schools indicated
no noise problems.
3. Enterprise Sky Park
This facility is a basic utility airport located on the north side of
Highway 44 west of Old Oregon Trail . The major issue with this airport
is its close proximity of residential structures on the south side of
Highway 44. Noise contours have not been developed for this airfield
because of its limited use. Although the airport operators have a long
term lease of the land for Airport purposes , they have no plans for
expansion.
4. Sky Ranch Airport
This private field is located south of Clear Creek and west of Rt. 273.
The amount of air traffic presently using the field does not present a
noise problem to residents located north and south of the runway.
Noise contours have not been developed for this field, and it is
expected that the facility may soon be phased out in favor of another
land use. The Cascade Neighborhood General Plan did not recognize the
Airport as a long-term land use.
29
i S
5. Existing Airport Noise Mitigation Programs
About the only program available to the City in dealing with airport
noise is to acquire those properties which are adversely affected by
noise. FAA Funds have been used for this purpose; but as previously
stated, these funds are issued on a competitive basis and Redding is
not listed as a high priority area for funding.
Should noise levels become extremely bothersome to residents then
aircraft operations could be modified somewhat by shortening the
take-offs and altering landing patterns.
6. Public Concerns
a. The noise impact of air traffic associated with Benton Air Park on
Shasta High School should be evaluated to see if flight patterns
can be modified.
b. 1982 noise contours for Redding Municipal Airport show that 2
churches, 59 single-family dwellings and 15 mobilehomes are within
the 65 CNEL contour. This is not a significant noise problem, but
it could result in noise complaints and affect future FAA funding
for Airport expansion.
c. The City has applied for grant funds from FAA to acquire noise
impacted properties; but according to FAA officials, Redding is low
on their priority list.
d. The City has not adopted guidelines or building standards to assist
residential developers in dealing with noise from aircraft.
30
• I
, •:, ,
...• ... ,.....„..„..__.__,, ,
_ 7
.,
. ..i
/ _ . , ..1 "1•_ 1 -
'E 11 0 '
•
i . _s \ _ t X
= �
i
P., > c mm.Niet. as les Mg ® _
.4' /� \
• / u- - - I -
_
• \
i l Tc
I C2er
�i AVE
Aircraft ulx
DC-9/737
Business or Military Jet
4-engine propeller
2-engine propeller: heavyv
2-engine propeller: light NOISE IMPA r AREA - 1981
. 1-engine propeller
i'-\
MAPS B
III' !L
o 4000
0 •
i G:.:- :. —Y 1 -.1- k r�
j
a �-. r c 1j---/ ' o f
� 1:
Zi-
- ( . -
• i - f
- ,icer t.. _ ....r 4z`
•
.:
I's _ - -- K _
^_
idAircraft MIX
DC-9/737 ige
Business or I.
!-30.
4-engine pro;
2-engine pro;n
2-engine pro;
1-engine pro; NOISE IMPACT AREA - 2000
(/7:- ,)
MAPS C III. III' r-- -i
a 4000.
.11511...r. / 'f' 44' ;/. -OF' --5, k, '\\-'
/ .
/ / 4 7 ---4 I , k, --.
•
/
':r ‘ \ , n '
•
:---,,, , ,. , ,-,,,,, \
, •, 0 ' . Omer
41„....
OWN vill,W i I ,r--;
/40(ic AN=,1311 \ , 111111**,104iS%
‘-,--
v• 444„. i ,yz
.1/
,,,, • / / i o - sm11.
I s.....\
"r ,7!. .
." (QC] , , ___:‘,. . 01140 ,../ •
N
\ \ M ,Y il 011110,c--
, ---/-1
ok., , /
wir..!..7.7.-
A \. 7 '
/
OaOP
t. I.IWO
i i 1 II. ib '•*, siofrot.
man ,
1.--
I 1 I
! ; ( /
L.- < LI
12 0 1 1
-r- 1
'IC)C)
V- .
r i
' 1 I , I
___ -_,.:___ i
i 1 ' I 1011 1 *Ljr ' \,,
.01.004 ' '''''\\._
--771--->:------ --
/r - : I
f' .M11 I I
1 I
0 st,-. 7•1001111.111.
• / IIIIIIIIM 1111 —Zt
- 1
I
. 4.1
lip 411 ,1
1.---- \ r-
fi 1 ri
) -1
_.-------
,-,
ogi'l, .
VI
I ,,,,
1' ----
- to a w , . .
sr r wig. \ \ .....----_,4i....._77_ , (-7-----) ,
.iff 1 1.ai nor I 1 \
i
„_. k
. .
I , A
/
C...
'---7
1
r
,
/4. , civet_ eat/roue
..1
im icili 1 /
1 ) Foe
456A/rov04,,eppwe,
...... .,,...„ \ .......0- ii. /475/76 oPeziaTtooths
,
\ \ \, c MAPS D
*a • T---
\ \ / , t STEM' ' /97
. . _ .
.
•
..
/
.„....----- / I .
. • ...— '' . . •,-.
• - '
• . 1 ,-,-.: -, , • 2./
/, .' '.• --.4' _...,-
.,
- -• ' - • .._..___.
,•
.;•,-,..;=_-_---_,,..'• , - .
/ , I. • - - .,- - . • ,,, -
,,,.. . . .. .
1 -,
' , .---.4-,:--,`-, •
I . .
. ,
'',.'• . •-• , •
—.•
• .- - • ,
•
/ * r':•/ --, \.,;,-' .--• --' _ ..?r, • . , . ,.... _ - • '-'i
''...• - _, • - • -*7,1i, .- ,,.••‘..,
. ,„ ,. • - •
'
•
. . ..-...-±.1;'• _2,'
— 1 ' :-.•
. • -...---- ,_ _ .
- ,.. , .: 1•/:-"(,:.• ‘, , Z
.- ----:- ..:.„-:;• •.-..-__„.. _ • .. ,r- ,- e,
• ,.- -. - . .
;',•--;- ,--. --'
N-- ', 2r.------1 • .
.
._,...,,,..•
_.....„..
2 ;.--.,-,,,-.,,,-----•:. -„ .
•
, • •
•.
. .
. ,._
• •
-- . ...
'1 •
--....,.,-,
,
, .-_.
, . . _
. , 1 i •
• • , . -1/4, ' • .. ,...._--_,--i--- -------- . .
. . • , .- , , _-----___ '-1-`--------- -- -,•:..., - „...-
, • r---• ;; •/ t_-___ _ --:_-_;,.-7-',--- ----
.
- • „1--- Lit- . ,
;-. c—.---c,--.;(•%• • •• ' i ,' •••;•77,•,. • '-'
'.---'' • .• \•-'! ••'-- .•
. -. •
. . ,
. •
• I• .
,--•‘, ',-. ,, .,•- , .
- .
. .
'LI'•'-• -;•• y•-1 ''•-•i ,••,.-' • .
•
. . .
--,
. .
i .
•.-..i
. . ..
.... 1 /
'--J ;., ••• • .
= \
•
. i i- • , .....:..- .
. .-• _ ..
I' •
. .
. . .
•
...... ..._ ' . • . • - -,"- •L. '
, .. , ...
-....., -......•--.... ' . . .1 . - -;-- -
•; . ,
% . ,, •
. .
. . ..
- • 1 . ; .
----•
i. •••••. 7.7,, — i : -,
. • --...4-• cfi - 7'; 'i'-' ' .
7' • *, . "•!....3`,„,:•, --, : ,
— ''''.."44.444111.1111111111111111111114111i / .
‘.). , . . ..
, .-.6.'v . •
• ....„
- _ ,-.: . .... • .
.•
':- - ."-2------ s',.- ..t1- - : 1•' - ..:„,
•
. • 141
. ;•', ---)
-. .
. , • • ,
.. .
. V. . .
/ ‘f)
•_. 'N, /- ,
. '-\\. •
: ----)
• -.:. ..•• . -
.. _.„-- .• ' :,. . ..,,.. .:,./...,/
.‘....
,. .
. . : _•
• • - . .
. _. .,
•
'w• --.:--- , .- t . . N ,--_,..y• .
- .ii \_-:*,. ''.- ..• ' . ,
, .
, , : i , •
• . .
' •-'-----' ;,.- . - . . , .
N.N.................----- ----- . .
.. _ .
- - .
-..
- . .
. . •
' .
• • '. ___
. ,
• ..
• - . -____. . , .
.• . ,
.. . , .
. . .
. !
. ., .. . . .
' ---- -;-..a...-.--------— .--------'. ''• •
. .-- • ..
.. , .,
. --'-* 11- -±•ci ia., --'4-- •4'. • Ez c
ecA/ oxi7ou
; ii,
. • -ti •- ,! ., , - _______,,
. .... , ,
.., .-,. .. - --,•,,,,,.,.• , , ; rode
,,,,:-.....„ .,• ‘--,--0,-----,---„---„,1 ,, ,A, . , , --.... ,. . .,
,•-,,.,..i ,,,-,..,,,..,,,-..:...„,
,,,,_ ..
___ _. _ ....... , •
..• ..
13E/t/ToAl iiev.ezek•
. .
_ •,..
.____ __- _.,
14145 oREe,77-/o/v6
.....,
. . ..
. .
.
MAPS E
.. .
. .. . ,, .•
._ .
. 1
ocro/36:e..
. /4,4:32
. . . ... !
__....._
• •
D. EXISTING LAND USE NOISE PROBLEMS AND ABATEMENT
Probably the most controversial noises produced in the community are from
land-use activities. This includes industrial , commercial and, to a lesser
degree, residential noises from lawn mowers; air conditioners; barking
dogs; and loud parties.
1. Commercial and Industrial Noise Sources
Over the past five years , the Planning Department has compiled a record
of noise complaints from nearby residents concerning commercial and
industrial land use as noted below:
a. Mountain Lakes Industrial Park along Woggon Lane and along Redwood
Boulevard and along the southerly property of the industrial park
adjacent to the mobilehome park subdivision.
b. Industrial and manufacturing uses on Canyon Creek Road, Eastside
Road and Moore Road.
c. Isolated incidences of refrigeration air compressors from neighbor-
hood grocery stores throughout the City.
d. Sand and Gravel operations on the east bank of the Sacramento River
west of Knighton Road.
e. Sand and Gravel operation and sawmill on the east bank of the
Sacramento River south of Cypress Avenue.
f. Redding Industrial Park (Larkspur Lane area) .
g. Heavy commercial and industrial uses along Twin View Boulevard.
h. Auto wrecking on Hartnell Avenue and on Girvan Road.
i . Gravel-removal operations within the planning area.
j. Scattered drinking and dance-hall establishments.
k. Loud stereos from vehicles cruising the downtown areas and from
portable stereos transported by pedestrians to the downtown area.
In several instances, the industrial noise complaints from the sources
above were forwarded to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City
Council for mediation. In general , the complaints are the result of
residential areas developing adjacent to existing industrial areas or
visa versa.
Each category of land use has different noise-nuisance characteristics.
For example, intrusive industrial noise is generally associated with
the banging of pipes with forklifts or peak noise levels produced by
mechanical equipment such as a shear press, saws, grinders, or riv-
eters. Of these, the most intrusive to local residents appears to be
forklift and shear-press operations.
35
• •
Complaints concerning intrusive industrial noises focus on nighttime
operations between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. During this period, background
noise levels such as traffic and other urban activities are at a
minimum; consequently, impulse noises become more obvious. It is
difficult for residents to isolate themselves from impulse noise
levels, particularly during the warm summer evenings when windows are
left open for ventilation. This condition is worsened by the fact that
garage doors of industrial buildings are usually left open for ventila-
tion.
Commercial noise complaints from residents are almost solely limited to
live entertainment for dance halls and the congregation of patrons in
the parking lots of the dance halls. Noise monitoring indicates that
the peak noise levels of high frequency can be economically mitigated
by conventional construction techniques , but low-frequency, peak noise
levels emitted by base instruments are difficult to reduce.
A more recent type urban noise that has become a problem during the
evening hours is attributed to cruising the downtown by young people on
Friday and Saturday nights. The noise caused by cruising is generally
confined to racing of automobile engines and loud intrusive music from
automobile stereos. Portable stereos carried by pedestrians have
become very popular.
Cruising the downtown area has been in occurrence since the 1950s, but
with increased affluence and population, and with advancement in stereo
technology for automobile and portable stereos, the noise problem from
cruising has caused many residents to demand that cruising be pro-
hibited. According to the police chief, the cruising problem is
generally limited to an area bounded by California, Tehama, Pine and
Gold Streets. These are essentially the streets that encircle the
Downtown Mall .
Cruisers often park in parking lots (public and private) and open the
car doors which have speakers mounted in them. The volume is then
cranked up, which in turn attracts other cruisers and pedestrians.
Some cities have passed ordinances to control or prohibit cruising, but
the ordinances have been held unconstitutional on the basis of
restricting freedom of travel . The City does have an ordinance which
prohibits excessive noise from sound trucks; however, the ordinance
would have to be modified to deal with this modern day problem. Other
noises from vehicles such as horns, yelling from vehicles, drag racing
and loud exhaust systems can be controlled through the vehicle code.
2. Residential Noise Sources
Complaints about excessive noise within residential areas noise are
generally limited to loud parties, loud stereos , barking dogs or a
neighbor who repairs cars or boats as a hobby. This type of complaint
is almost impossible to enforce by the City because of the lack of an
noise-control ordinance and staff to conduct monitoring during nonwork-
ing hours.
36
• •
In 1981-82, the Redding Police Department investigated over 3,500 noise
complaints, most of which deal with noise within residential areas.
The complaints are generally limited to the hours of 7 p.m. to 1 p.m.
3. Existing Mitigation and Abatement Programs
a. Land-Use Mitigation Programs
Unless the City has imposed a noise standard as a condition of
project approval , it is not possible to resolve a noise problem.
Typically, the City will stipulate as a condition of project
approval that "On-site noise sources are not to increase the
ambient noise level on adjoining property by more than 3 db or
cause the ambient noise level to exceed the recommended day-night
levels of the City' s General Plan Noise Element."
The problem with this standard is unless the preexisting on-site
ambient noise level is documented, the noise standard is not
enforceable. Also the existing ambient noise level may already
exceed the recommended ambient standard of the General Plan, in
which case the addition of three more decibels may be more than the
"Straw that broke the camel 's back."
In situations where there is an obvious violation of this standard,
then the City has added a condition to require the installation of
one or a combination of the following:
- Installation of site screening and/or landscaping.
- Closing of garage doors to confine the noise source.
- Modifying the hours of operation so as not to disturb sleep.
- Additional noise insulation.
- On-site security officers to control the noise level caused by
patrons.
- Reduce the noise level to an acceptable level .
- Elimination of certain nuisances such as loud yard
horns, buzzers, or intercoms.
When the City is aware of an existing noise problem and a residen-
tial project is proposed near the noise source, then as a condition
of approval , the developer is required to demonstrate that the
dwelling unit can achieve an interior ambient noise of 45 db in
living areas and 35 db in sleeping areas. Both of these standards
are in the City' s 1974 Noise Element. If the residential project
does not consist of single-family detached units and it is located
near a major transportation system (e.g. airport, railroad or
highway) then a noise analysis and noise mitigations are mandated
if the exterior noise level exceeds 60 CNEL or an interior CNEL
level of 45 db as stipulated in the California Government Code,
Title 25.
37
• •
One of the difficulties with the local requirements of the City and
State is that there are no designers who have acceptable noise
monitoring equipment or who are trained in this specialized field.
Compliance is further compromised by the fact that the City pro-
vides no guidelines or standards or how it might be possible to
satisfy the standards on mitigate a noise problem.
One major concern with the City' s existing noise problems is that
there is no way to deal with peak noise levels which are generally
the major source of nighttime annoyance. The adopted 1974 Noise
Element recommends the adoption of noise zones, noise ordinances
and series of other measures to provide guidance, but these tasks
have not been accomplished.
The current procedure for dealing with a nighttime noise complaint
by the Police Department is as follows:
- The complaint is investigated and if the officer subjectively
believes the noise is disturbing he will ask the owner or
occupant to quiet the noise source.
- The officer will then reinvestigate a short time later for
compliance. If the noise source has not quieted down or if
additional complaints are received, he will once again inform
the owner or occupant to quiet down or be cited for disturbing
the peace.
- If subsequent noise complaints are received then the officer
may observe the property (particularly if it is a loud party)
to see if other laws are being broken. After a while, the
officer may make an arrest for disturbing the peace. If no
other laws are being broken and neighborhood reaction is not
overwhelmingly significant then the complaint may go
unresolved.
- If the complainants are unwilling to sign a complaint then the
officer must have another basis for the arrest or it will not
stand up in court.
4. Public Concerns
a. Noise complaints from residents near commercial and industrial uses
are increasing in number as the City urbanizes.
b. For 1981-82 , the Redding Police Department investigated 3,500 noise
complaints most of which originated at night from within residen-
tial neighborhoods.
c. The Police Department does not have an efficient code enforcement
procedure for quickly dealing with noise complaints; hence, some
complaints go unresolved and others are resolved indirectly through
other code violations.
38
• •
d. Vehicle-cruising and car-stereo noise in the downtown area is
intensifying.
e. The City does not provide enough guidance to developers and build-
ing designers who are required to comply with noise standards and
mitigations.
E. NOISE IMPACT ON SENSITIVE USES
1. Existing Noise Problems
These uses include hospitals, clinics, rest homes, schools and libra-
ries. The location of all noise sensitive uses is illustrated on Map
Exhibit F on page 72 and the results of a questionnaire survey are
provided on page 73. The survey was conducted to determine if the uses
are experiencing any noise problems and of the 29 institutions , only
five responded with noise complaints.
TABLE 28
INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED BY EXISTING NOISE SOURCES
Shasta High School Noise from aircraft overflights Unknown
2500 Eureka Way associated with Benton Air Park (See text comment
disturb classes sometimes even below)
with the windows closed.
Parsons Junior High Noise from Interstate 5. 74 db(A) 100 feet
School 750 Hartnell Traffic disturbs classes and east of I-5 pave-
Avenue students cannot hear teacher. ment.
Cypress Elementary Truck noise from Cypress Avenue. 69 db(A) 100 feet
School 901 W. Cypress Traffic disturbs classes and edge of pavement.
Avenue students cannot hear teacher.
Grace Baptist School Noise from traffic on Interstate 74 db(A) 100 feet
3782 Churn Creek Road 5 makes it difficult for students east of I-5 pave-
to hear teacher, merit.
Monte Vista School For Noise From I-5 causes children to 74 db(A) 100 feet
Handicapped Children loose interest in outdoor activi- east of I-5 pave-
3200 Adams Lane ties and the students tend to ment.
gravitate toward the I-5 fence to
watch traffic.
The noise impact on Shasta High School is the result of aircraft
overflights associated with Benton Air Park. The 1976 Noise Contour
indicates that the school is well out of the 60 CNEL Noise level , but
since the noise contours were developed, the aircraft traffic pattern
may have changed to cause the CNEL contour to he extended outward.
Perhaps the best way of evaluating this problem is to study traffic
patterns and determine if overflights can be modified.
39
•
The noise impact on Parsons Junior High School and Grace Baptist School
is verified by the high CNEL noise levels of I-5 traffic. Outside the
classrooms, the CNEL level is approximately 67- db. In terms of-loud=
ness, this is about double the acceptable noise level . The exterior
noise level should be approximately 55 CNEL. For classroom lectures,
the interior level should be 35-40 db. (Source: Office of Noise
Control , State Department of Health. )
In dealing with this noise impact, the only effective solution would be
a 15-foot-high earth berm. Since there is plenty of undeveloped land
between the schools and the freeway, on-site fill could be utilized to
reduce the cost which is estimated to be about $37.50 a lineal foot.
The exterior noise reduction would be about 10 db.
In the case of Cypress Elementary School , there are not many reasonable
options. There is insufficient land for an earth berm and the only way
of reducing truck noise is with a 10- to 15-foot-high block wall . One
partial solution would be to orient some of the doors and windows away
from Cypress Avenue. A more efficient mitigation would be to refit all
windows with three-inch airspace panes and provide double entry doors
with a vestible. The air conditioning system would have to also be
revamped.
2. Projected Noise Problems
The projected (1980-2000) noise conditions for Parsons, Cypress and
Grace Schools will only worsen. For Parsons and Grace Schools, the
exterior classroom level will increase from 67 db to 70 db, which is
primarily due to a doubling in traffic volume on I-5. This impact will
make the previous earth berm recommendation more imperative if the
schools are to function properly.
For Cypress Elementary School , the projected noise level will increase
from 69 db to 70 db. The noise mitigations mentioned under Section F-1
would reduce some of the interior noise levels. A six-foot-high block
wall would reduce the noise impact from automobiles but not trucks.
Live Oak School will experience a 4 db increase, which translates to
about a 65 decibel level , just outside the classrooms. It should be
possible to reduce this to a 35-45 interior level with window and door
reorientation away from traffic noise on South Bonnyview Road. The
projected impacts on other on other institutions are noted in Table 29
on page 41.
Enterprise High School and Shasta Convalescent will both experience a
noise level increase of 64 db to 70 db caused by Churn Creek Road
traffic. The noise level just out side the buildings will be about 67
db. Window and door reorientation will reduce some of the noise
impact, but noise mitigations such as those recommended for Cypress
Elementary School may be necessary.
40
• •
TABLE 29
INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED BY PROJECTED INCREASE IN NOISE LEVELS
Estimated 1980-2000 CNEL Noise Level
(Source: 1982 Noise Survey)
Institution 1980 2000
Shasta High School Unknown Unknown
2500 Eureka Way (should be (should be
reevaluated) reevaluated)
Parsons Junior High School 74db(A) at 100 77db(A) at 100
750 Hartnell Avenue feet east of feet east of
I-5 pavement I-5 pavement.
Grace Elementary School 74db(A) at 100 77db(A) at 100
3782 Churn Creek Road feet east of feet east of
I-5 pavement I-5 pavement
Cypress Elementary School 69db(A) at 100 70db(A) at 100
901 W. Cypress Avenue feet north of feet north of
pavement pavement
Live Oak School 64db(A) at 100 68db(A) at 100
South Bonnyview from pavement from pavement
Enterprise High School 64db(A) 100 feet 70db(A) 100 feet
3411 Churn Creek Road from pavement from pavement
Rother Elementary School 74db(A) at 100 77db(A) at 100
795 Hartnell Avenue feet from I-5 feet from I-5
pavement pavement
Shasta Convalescent Hospital 64db(A) at 100 70db(A) at 100
3550 Churn Creek Road feet from pave- feet from pave-
ment ment
Monte Vista School 74db(A) at 100 77db(A) at 100
3200 Adams Lane feet from I-5 feet from I-5
pavement. pavement.
The impact of I-5 traffic on Rother Elementary Junior High School and
Monte Vista School will be the same as Parsons Junior High School . The
recommended 15-foot-high earth berm should be effective in reducing the
noise level . For all three schools, the cost of an earth berm could be
financed as part of a redevelopment project involving tax increment
financing.
3. Public Concerns
a. The noise impact on Shasta High School from overhead aircraft
traffic associated with Benton Air Park should be evaluated to see
41
1111 •
if any modifications in air-traffic patterns can be made to reduce
the noise levels.
b. A 15-foot-high earth berm may be needed to lessen the existing and
projected I-5 noise levels for Parsons Junior High, Rother Elemen-
tary and Grace Baptist Schools.
c. Traffic noise level impacts on Cypress Elementary, Live Oak and
Enterprise High Schools , and Shasta Convalescent Hospital probably
can only be mitigated by building insulation, and window and door
reorientation.
F. NOISE BARRIERS
1. Noise Barrier Design and Effectiveness
When the exterior noise level is so high (e.g. , Leq of 70 db or
greater) that it is difficult to reduce to an interior level of 45 db
or when it is desirable to reduce the exterior noise level to enjoy
outdoor activities, a noise barrier is necessary. To be effective, a
noise barrier should incorporate the following design principles:
a. Be airtight (no holes) and five feet above the line of sight of the
noise source.
b. Have a mass weight of two to four pounds per square foot. For more
massive materials such as earth berms or concrete walls, this is
not important. (Source: FHWA)
c. Visually opaque all portions of the noise source to the observer.
Another important principle is that noise barriers must be effective in
reducing both transmitted noise through the barrier and diffracted
noise which spills over the barrier. The diagrams below illustrate
both of these physical properties.
Transmitted Path
• \\1
Figure 6
Diffracted ////N\
Path •
Figure 7
•
42
• �►
60 dBA
60.4 dBA
I I 11 5n dRA
COMBINED EFFECT OF TRANSMITTED AND DIFFRACTED PATH
Figure 8
The effect of diffracted noise depends largely on the height of the
noise barrier. For example, for every one foot of height above the
line of sight of the noise source, a one decibel reduction may be
achieved. The amount of transmitted noise through the barrier depends
on the density of the barrier.
Figure 8 above, illustrates the combined effect of both these factors
and shows that if the observer experiences a 75 db noise level from a
truck, then the noise level may be reduced to 60, due to a 15 db loss
in diffraction plus a 20 db loss in transmission.
Table 30, on the following page, illustrates the effectiveness of
different types of noise barriers. As might be expected, the most
reliable noise barrier is the earth berm which has the advantage of
being able to deflect noise upward with the side slopes. In most
cases, an earth berm that extends five feet above the line of sight of
the noise source will provide a noise reduction of 10 decibels.
The disadvantages of the berm is the amount of fill and land required
due to cross slopes and the overall cost which varies between 15 to 30
dollars per lineal foot for ten-foot-high berm, depending on the source
of fill material . (See Figure 11 on page 48. )
When land right of way is limited, an earth berm with a block wall is
also effective or a block wall by itself is effective. Both of these
alternatives yield about a seven decibel noise reduction. Again, this
disadvantage is the cost per lineal foot (See Figure 12 on page 48).
The least effective noise barrier is a standard six-foot-high, cedar
fence or landscaping. Both of these solutions only visually screen the
noise source; in effect, they provide a psychological barrier, but do
not physically lessen noise levels.
An eight-foot-high, solid-wood fence (e.g. , T & G planks) may be
effective in reducing automobile noise levels by as much as ten deci-
bels, but it has little effect on truck noise. Where truck traffic is
very low, this may be a desirable and cost effective alternative over
other barrier designs. Various design standards for six to eight feet
high wall designs are presented in Figures 9 - 16 on pages 47 - 50.
43
•
• •
TABLE 30 '
Approximate Noise Reduction of Various Walls
(Compiled by Redding Department of Planning & Community Development)
Sources: Fundamental and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise Volume 2, Cal Trans
Noise Reduction in dhA
(includes transmission loss and deflected loss)
Material Height Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Earth berm 13 : 1-75, Madison Heights, Michigan 41
Earth berm (landscaped) 10 ' 1-94, U.S. 131 Interchange,
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49
Earth berm (landscaped) with
five-foot-wide shelf 10-15 I-84, West Hartford, Connecticut 41
Earth berm (landscaped) with
four-foot-wide shelf 7 State Rt. 157 Boulder, Colorado Auto Wise Only® No Effec. On Trurls
Earth berm, (landscaped) 9 I-495, Montgomery County, Maryland 41
Earth berm, 3:1 slopes 10 1-182, Pasco, Washington 40
Earth berm, 3:1 slopes 10 South Madison Beltline, Nob Hill,
• San Francisco
Earth berm; 2:1 slopes 7-11 Southeastern beltway, Columbia, South 41
(landscaped) Carolina
Cedar post fence 6 ; Southfield interchange, Lincoln Park,
Michigan Little Effect On toise; Survey Shcws Food Psy hol l Eefe,t.
2 x 8 wood T & G planks 131 1-75 Goddard Rd. Allen Park, Michigan
Timber wall (71 timbers) 10-15 1-205, East Portland, Oregon 41
Boxed in double cedar fence
1 x 8 hoards w 4" x 4" post.
(has one-foot-wide air gap.) 8 U.S. 59, Houston, Texas A.itos Only No Effect Cn Tr,icks® 50 fee, f-om fen:e.
Concrete hlockwall 8 x 8 x 16 10-15 1-205, E. Portland, Oregon 40
Masonry Block 6 • i-10, Lordshurg, New Mexico Altos Only 0 No Eff"ct On Tru'ks.
Precast concrete panels 10-23 I-94, Prospect Park, Franklin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 41
Earth berm and concrete block overall '
wall 8 Nevada 40
+ Earth berm and wall varies 1-35w, Roseville, Minnesota — ylrie4-- T—-b
Earth mound and wall varies Rt. 3, South —Varies--------w)
_ 1
Earth berm and precast poly-
40
ester panel acoustic wall varies . 1-95, Howard County, Maryland
Landscaped earth berm with
six-foot-high steel panel 35 1-95, Baltimore City, Maryland
Wooden wall with earth moun.4s
12" x 12" post with 2" x 8"
pineboards nailed to both
sides 5-19 I-35 West, Minnehaha Ck, Minn. Varies
Plywood 3/4-inch thick with
earth mound 15 Calculated (not tested) 40
Landscaping 33-foot-wide
(dense forest, cannot see Requires excellent soil, climate and ®
noise source) 5" : maintenance
Row of buildings 40 - 65 per-
40
cent solid row occupancy 12-15 --
Row of buildings 65 - 90 per-
cent solid row occupancy 12-15 --
Continuous garage wall made of
of 2 x 4 studs and stucco 15 40
* Tops of trees must be Five Feet above line of sight of noise source.
•
44
• •
2. Noise Barriers Within the City of Redding
Over the years, the City has imposed development conditions on residen-
tial , commercial and industrial projects to lessen the noise impacts on
residential areas. In many instances, property owners have incorpo-
rated noise considerations in the preliminary design stage on voluntary
basis. In other situations, City staff has encouraged redesign to
include noise mitigating such as building set backs , orientation,
landscaping and six-foot-high noise walls. In general , the types of
noise mitigative conditions are dependent on the economic scale of the
project. The economic consideration has been given more consideration
than the effectiveness of noise mitigations as evidenced by the noise
barriers in the City. A photographic noise survey of how some noise
barriers and site-design techniques have been used by developers in
Redding is provided in on pages 51 - 55.
In the case of a residential project where it is desirable to lessen
the noise impact of automobile traffic, property owners have been
required to install a six-foot-high block wall . See Photographs 8 and
10. This device is effective on automobile traffic when the grade is
flat between the noise source and the noise receiver, and when there is
substantial building setback to lessen the effect of deflected noise,
which spills over the wall .
Where varying grade conditions exist and it is not economically practi-
cal to install a noise barrier (e.g. , 10- to 15-foot-feet high wall or
berm) , the City has generally required developers to install a block-
post-with-wood-insert fence, which provides some psychological benefit
in reducing the overall effect of noise, but it has no physical effect
in lessening the noise level .
The City' s Land Use Element of the General Plan recommends landscaped
corridors between residential and commercial -industrial uses to provide
visual screening of noise sources. This recommendation has been
incorporated into the conditions of approval on some projects. It
should be noted that landscaped buffers are very difficult to adminis-
ter and enforce by the City because they require constant maintenance.
In some instances, owners of residential projects have (either by
design or accident) incorporated significant noise mitigations into
their projects. A good example of this is illustrated by Photograph
No. 1 , which shows a substantial building setback from Lake Boulevard
and minimal window exposure. An added bonus is the noise-softening
devise of the lawn strip along Lake Boulevard. The net result of these
mitigations is an overall reduction of traffic noise for the occupants
of the apartment complex.
One very effective site-design device used by local developers is the
placement of continuous garage walls along the freeway exposure, as
shown in Photographs Nos. 5 and 6. This device is probably the most
cost effective, but it is too infrequently used.
45
• •
In the case of commercial or industrial projects adjacent to residen-
tial areas, the. City has usually required a block-post fence with wood.
inserts or a chain-link fence with wood inserts. Both of these devices
only provide psychological screening of the noise source.
Where visual security by passing police patrolmen is not necessary,
then a more substantial opaque fence such as six-foot-high, block-post
fence with the planting of evergreen trees may be installed. The
evergreen trees provide the added benefit of eventually blocking out
night parking-lot lights and security-yard lights.
The most effective noise barrier in the City is a 14-foot-high earth
berm constructed along the south edge of a portion of Mountain Lakes
Industrial Park, adjacent to a mobilehome subdivision (See Photograph
No. 4). Even with the berm, the noise spills over the wall as evi-
denced by the fact that the City has received noise complaints from
mobilehome residents. The berm could be made more effective by the
placement of a five-foot-high block wall along the top.
3. Public Concerns
In reviewing the past history of the City' s efforts of reducing resi-
dential noise levels through development controls , it appears that the
City could play a much more significant role. The following summarizes
the major areas of concern:
a. Noise barriers and site-design criteria have been aimed at either
screening the noise source for psychological benefits or only
reducing automobile-traffic noise.
b. Noise mitigations have only been imposed on projects that require a
use permit, parcel map or subdivision map. This results in incon-
sistent walls and fences and lessens the effect of well designed
sound walls, unless they are wrapped around the project.
c. The project owners have constructed block-wall noise barriers that
do very little in reducing noise impact because they are not
properly constructed or because they do not extend high enough to
block out the line of sight of the noise source. In general , this
is because of the high cost of sound walls.
d. A great deal of money could be saved in future noise-wall con-
struction if site-design considerations (e.g. using continuous
garage walls as a noise wall ) were incorporated into projects in
the design phase.
46
4111 • .
/ //C'/.'-/ ,SE /.-/ I4'7/,l?el E!.
H la"---8`VARIES
Vt
I I /fes
/G/-Z") ' V 0/E5
SOURCE OF DECIBEL REDUCTION
FILL MATERIAL COST PER LIN. FT. dbA (FOR AUTOS ONLY)
(Hydro-Seeded) (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION PER LINEAL FOOT COST
On Site 6 feet high: 6.00 6 1 .00
8 feet high: 15.00 8 .53
Off Site 6 feet high: 10.00 6 .60
8 feet high : 25.00 8 .32
FIGURE 9
&OCi' A( (.C_ E4f? ,01-.--k'n4 EA2,22 L:i''
__ ___ A
Mil
Mr
L4'
` In ,3' \/A 1?i 15
SOURCE OF DECIBEL REDUCTION
FILL MATERIAL COST PER LIN. FT. dbA (FOR AUTOS ONLY)
(Landscaped) (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION PER LINEAL FOOT COST
On Site with 4' 6 feet high: 14.00 6 _ .43
high blockwall 8 feet high: 23 _
_00 _ 8 _.35 _
Off Site with 4' 6 feet high: 18.00 6 _ .33
high blockwall 8 feet high: 33.00 8 __.24_
47 FIGURE 10
• 0
EARTH 9ERM
SOUND
I.:ABRIER
1
n c
m �
O A
r, '71 '
/
NO , N
SCALE try O Q ,
v
b 1`"-
-< 1
j
l
— VARIES 35' 50'
SOURCE OF DECIBEL REDUCTION
FILL MATERIAL COST PER LIN. FT. dbA (FOR AUTOS & TRUCKS)
(Hydro-Seeded) (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION PER LINEAL FOOT COST
On Site 10 feet high: 15.00 7 _ .46
15 feet high: 37.50 10 .26
Off Site 10 feet high: 30.00 7 _ .23
15 feet high: 70.00 1007 _
FIGURE 11
BLOCK WALL AND EARTH �5+ 1
BERM BARRIER "1
El In -r
s ►
_ 1_
NO ,,
-
..
SCALE
'1 \\ [. -- - - � � - -
vr,elEl7' - 32' i
SOURCE OF DECIBEL REDUCTION
FILL MATERIAL COST PER LIN. FT. dbA (FOR AUTOS & TRUCKS)
(Hydro-seeded) il982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION PER LINEAL FOOT COST
On Site with 4' 10 feet high: 23.20 7 _ .30 _
high block wall 15 feet high: 32. 20 _1a_ .31
Off Site with 7' 10 feet high: 40. 10 7 _17_
high block wall 15 feet high: 55. 10 10 . 15 _
48 FIGURE 12
o • .
tI I 6 0
`e
X •
I I I I I w BOLTS
N �`J 3':PG4.
1. �''� ;) 7'XL• i$C
1 4 - ',-;.V7----
� Y
/'f"/�/Z„BOLT !//
0 ° ° G'YG'Cc�ti'._
1:..1. ;,' :_e.\ 1 PosT
--- _., _} jo
•
1 I , ,LSOLT/. I , , 1 i
DECIBEL REDUCTION
- • COST PER LIN. FT. dbA • (FOR AUTOS ONLY)
MATERIALS (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION •. PER LINEAL `FOOT COST
6 X 6 post @ 8' 6 feet high: 32°° 8. . .25 ,
on center --'
2 X 6 T & G• Cedar 8 feet high: 41°° 10 .24
#3 or better Notes add 3°° ./_ Lin. Ft. for paint
-__ __ �_ FIGURE 13
z"x/o"cf, • .
iI I G•'Y(
T 4L0 —]
P)!O0D /G"XG'PO ST ----_--__ . /6.3C '
- . /G"x "Pos7
�
PA,irL
D/:L,rT. /I r'!CL-;.ki6 t �f �
. PF 'UIL5 </�I .-�'1 -(r'P)
-7-
FnliEL
Ei:ci/ CCU I Noretvi,l//A/E (10 UrlE- kJ
iii_7 -/J/rrrilq / Por IY?,JCL „ D.j �Roul I E7[� OF
slow "7 -P /Cn. /;,,
FeJ^i,, EXT. PLV. 6"X b"Pn•yT`-")
2"/8-Grnv.4Heo/Jr, 1, I- !:�,oL •
-:i)!
i .
eOJcrETr � 1
/2'I,MLC 1'/)/ X41
•
DECIBEL REDUCTION
COST PER LIN. FT. dbA (FOR AUTOS ONLY)
MATERIALS (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION PER LINEAL FOOT COST
6 X 6 post @ 4'
on center
fee
6 t high: 25°0 8 . 32
1 1/8 Douglas Fir
Plywood decking . 8 feet high: 28°° 10 . 36
parcels
49 _ FIGURE 14
III
a.-, �Ta/:� - ',,, )C� 7/L,4s771---L.."4"
} lo` -: :,,,,,,,,--.;,%:0 JB 261-/.4,(14er= (0 C!zzaoAL) ,
D CIO C�
2 XL.".o.F .GAIL
l�GED4t Of:. ,CEC4-'000 •, -
14. _I 1 I i I I 1�� 1- 1_1_11 I-Ii 1 i l! Its aL ' 2- i,- V�"T/C4e.
_.Y-T! l ' i�. i' 1 I (ALT. fico f"�
71 11 III ' �
14
i ( I I f
1 I +
I •
Il_1-I I i=y_;�ri124:L -itia ;-
1/,4,514 .--%Z.
..4,—;"1.771-71'` •//ii///,t.---;////:.I--/<,//. "/ /`�Y -�. - -/.'. // "^�:7: , , r
–,– e 3-"4 Ebt
f4li
NOT RECOMMENDED -
DECIBEL REDUCTION
COST PER LIN. FT. dbA - —(FOR AUTOS ONLY)
MATERIALS (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTIONPER LINEAL `; OOT COST -
6X8X16Slump
•
. Block
Cedar orlRedwood rs
6 feet high: 20°° hone
Railing W/2 X 6 • .
Latteral bracing 8 feet high: EJA _ 0 • ' NnnP
FIGURE 15
BOND BEAMS TOP & BOTTOM /1 T JT. FILLER
COURSES AND ? 4' MAX. -- N EXP.ALL PILASTERS)
, ) M7. CTPS.. - LAP BOTTOM BOND BEAM
--7— I -- 3 LLOCK-SIT(P. EXCEPT AT I
! 7 5/3" C BOND BEAM PILASTERS) 1
::ALL LOL
�8 X G X 16 ) /I ) -
- CONC. BLOCK • --- 1.--_1-'11'';'.:1--- 1-t —
x4c2,2 J --
`r-.-%S CONT. TOT. 2 \
o /)
�A EACH f;OD!U ISEA:VI
17 COGC. LEVELING COURSE
LTEe anrE l:ooxs It' 4 2'•G MIN. LAP TOT. 2 ALTERNATE
_`_"1` -_.�,�___ B,. flAX HOOKS TYP. ALL PILASTERS EXCEPT
I" J t- __ LLVELING AS NOTED'
CUUI:SE
LLE
:r,; CONT. TOT.1a�'I� 3'.G•' \,..,2:L., ;> .a FILLER les
EXP. JT.
NOTE:
Ell L ALL BEINFOItCLD •
CIiLLS V.'1711 GL,Cur PILASTER -
DECIBEL REDUCTION
COST PER LIN. FT. dbA (FOR AUTOS ONLY)
MATERIALS (1982 Cost Estimates) REDUCTION PER LINEAL FOOT COST
6 X 8 X 16 Slump
Block
(grouted & 6 feet high: 43°° 8 19
reinforced) 8 feet high: 55°0 10 . 18
50 FIGURE 16 I
• .
A. es` �w
.:: e., "..,,,....=,0 k ;., �, r tato ^fit Y x; •t, ! r:ms's
tfin u 1*'-`r° t '"t' , • VI v / „ tet r'.as a ,, b"N` - !> bow Aa '1 k ; s
_. I�t, K'x s y, a
',-,---;.:•,..9...,,z,-,:e4. r r k ` .
ems i. k , tilf i , • a }
,tz4 ,t 3 i it
m 'e2� `.am-p
---=' c .
er.
I •
':-.:.7...244,1-(2..i...;,17jx ' ,{ `.1ktes- 4.�da'' -.. - '_,e14- rck-
-�7.:1r ,ru- .i '�'¢ ..: _ .
,
.. ; a e,a*• j ^*, ..f r +c "a '� rr .yea • ,.' at t':
�* ..�n� -+..� ''� ��-iq '�.•*-. ate u�.ri...'TY,.a'z „sJ` '+Fc��
�k'��t'�tX"'z��'""`.kwaX'�4�"t..3i a^ `^��y3.'2 ."r4 -.y 7::,,,-111:,6 +"c `^*''z'cv�S x�^i3
� t4" a.-, ,h.. .iFxt" -y :', 4T'r` y '-fb ,�i.1-1.- ^ -'} z
1
Photograph # 1
Location: Apartment complex is located on the north side of Lake Boulevard.
Effectiveness: This is an excellent example of how a building setback and site design can be used
to reduce noise level. Also notice that the window exposure on the front elevation is minimal. A
rule of thumb to remember is that for every doubling of the distance from the noise source a 3-4
decibel reduction possible.
i
•
te,
4 xt rw ` t Jfycr a. , r:, t.7 lir•"' +nLt ,_,. J + .t-4,3r
7„.,:,, ,. ....IFgfir,
�
-IV
(f;G. �!11 t�P!''��` '^f 11 ?Y'�� uF }+ }�t �LP '�fT.� ‘'''''-::,`:;--.761 .: ,'�'a'ac�
4.
T:..-I;
-I r. • �� t,. > , ' V ru , „,,4•,,-,-;v6-17,:!!4,, it, ;u �. ' ro+�. �:. ,
s'1t Y,,.'i' '� f J 1tI�,ir t K..1S S2”' X+� r .,�..
iir3�4. „aj ` . f• t (AkP �, „�y * r i,+1,r�1 r`,�p•.11-,''' ' ,
t b',' i 4 . t 1. qtr , , 7 ,-- fJ i-. L'slfd (t. ..-,� , `
. ' ' a k" tl1r C
1t
�,> � Y+ ' #'' , Ie yi ,e 1a � , ; + ,I. : H„j
' � ” " -ew \
Ptt-' " Nk '"ir 1aI � 4 G'�� w k >ti Tik i '�'Lktt� �!!� ' +y` le � , f .iN „ r :N k �, tC � ` , ,1i�P3f. � .0 7 yy Y ��. ii 144'A t Y..h ` " . ;3 -'? .a .. r _.r ' 8 ' . 3 -i1 .'-'.r
i.
gi4
Photograph. ; 2
Location: Earth Berm South end of the Mountain Lakes Industrial Park adjacent to the Mobilhome
Subdivision.
Effectiveness: This earth berm is very effective in reducing industrial noise sources in the
Mountain Calus industrial Park. It is appromimately 14 feet high, 40 feet wide
51
•_,-------- -----
r�_x . 3 'yam _ ra '' 1
lr s
I �- 3 �� i r t^�+r` 4�4 t 4.,7i-,14.- i,'-'-'.7,:r-,' tr "'.��. >'.�
it. r 1 �. "',f, r'f ,�}`I.7 L ,i.Al: -...P 1> inns" ,
... {\ 4;..14- 'l K0'—i' ,..Tom, ' ' T,-,a
{
rF r %''''''':".;,•• 'lir +�
f 1 , §,� 'Yl ,�1'' is irY�, . 4.> '
•g 4 . r,e :, fl t ;X:i' '�to,,Yi. 'r j ' nr �k x'4 � ?";-• `•�•eo°r"
T. i4�1'zh r?..Y s Y ?
�. l� hey x>> t,�'xi 'a7 x 1 Y • -
r `\ �;.�'r �ra,.z ,p � �3�'s'� 4 � ��7 �� J)k �t�".t v
,.sw�.��y�,��t 5��i lr � 5� ,. �.� ; �,5� f� s-a. ,g +�(si >�r. J�
.,t . / 7 1 r fP N 49 +fi)-y,t •c+ � }"11k s} nk f j?� "r`F
7 s r� ;7'i'' ek i,41, ,,Y, �f k4I�' {1 *.. ', : ��k� Twp` 'i^{ VI' •
��j`x;.f/�rah �.�i/.•. IL 'it.O �t,C,{ FI }7 ff,', ."ki�.,+ 'j.�i-'fir " Vt.':
l :t,t, � �- t z'-f ke t-y
r .,,1,, r ,;,1 , .,, , tF.?., ,, '/til.,,: \t 14,,,1y ,, r:li:� J t , t:f3Z �h:P.
Photograph #3
Location: West side of I-5, north of Cypress Ave. This four year old cedar fence
was installed to visually screen an apartment complex from auto traffic on I-5.
Effectiveness: Although cedar itself is a durable wood product, the method of
fence construction is faulty. This fence could have been made durable with proper
anchor post and latteral bracing. The fence provides no noise attenuation but it
does provide some visual screening; however unless frequent maintenance occurs,
the fence will collapse.
•
1
q�Via., '.i,:e-,4
. • 4',c:or vary,
:y
! el: ` A3wd ; i 4.4}'i I �%} t 4.,,,l, q , fr f 41,11:, s ik
,.'
41 4,,...1.:-,,,,ii-A-3 ,+ g r � " it� 1`gill # 41 " ' 4.15,-,F.t ` ` o!� di e � .r pp,4$y Z' -Y;;'4 a 1-; f tNtVA `Li ; . f v
} Y ? fb\'� id :;?..:>.,
Kyy ? X i.t\ s:C
(
•
y N�Z Xk0.k y Y> A rrVv\ J 9' 4 v } 9 \3 � XA/ ,.tv1 � • x4.r\hIi } r {; 4t ,,,. Y 2ii \r�5 Y � ' r> }'si -a ' :VieKtYY * . „„',0%.;?, ti f. cr2-.4„0; ,;;;: r ,W�r Ixr+ Fa NY; 1X';•.7 'i , ,t k �'y ;.4 F� y 14 �fisv W^S\ & 1, sXVK0 � h
�
"r ( y ' kA �� � � f ` �`�� YI '��g� � �� � .'� � �'s.✓1t � j4yhhF ° 'i'8;
.ti < . 4it akw;,kr 'li a'1 . . • 1t4- i �� 1#, ([Ai4i):4 *i � :ili1' rc:i.iiJ r1,t SSYWg "�Ft .1k ‘.4
s 0y� , � '- qSF < .� ! ` .4o4..r. fi' _ v, r
a !, ,
Photograph 2i4
Location: Same location as photograph above. This photograph furtherillustrates
the ineffectiveness of cedar fencing without anchor post and lateral support.
Also the poor Quality grade of cedar is evidenced by the vertical split cracks and
holes.
Effectiveness: The fence provides some visual screening, hut the same screening
could have I)-en accomplished with vegetation with the advantage of having more
visual api,eal.
52
z
. .
. .
t t.
tta,�
i, a*% el. t U
' .1'3` y� ,,. +dpi ` Y i `
vet l q7a t h • s
rpm „ / .;« "., _� ti ,� ,r,' *` r
.„.„.,...„.„........,
..,,..„.„,...„=„0,,,,, ...,R3,4 -,,,:
}., •
y ..g411 'i-^} ' �(r14 '''''''t.1.,• '4'.41 `\� '' t•ty yyF ty 1 T e ='r14- 'i.t0
. r'i4.1 -ri , C y J ,,,..,%.i a ., I= 4 �,� j ,-- Fr �`,-t • �+k'S� i
4•.t y i(,x1 f�4�1. vy, ='1: •••kt h,;1. -.r, 1: .a.,.'rY t`,*� •: .t-'t'
r. ,y'4t .1: i}+4 ;,a j 'R{ ++q, - 7" + 7;+•,�„rt:♦'Li`'♦ `1 ti e j..,; `� c
. t `,S. r �, '3`-t z .e.v„`''ah
.,*.N.,4,..,-„,r.„k"-..--,-.4,--4., *.r !a�'� •” 9-..4`' c* �•b f }r
�'"vr., ye• k, ; S, rry, yam. -e �,f :,t . ..i,"t' g
rr-,'.q...,,
�}'{t�'i(`�L �2t.1'> 'as,. ',4,V.�+.'�i �� r i j6 q,.d. "fib 1.•A
. '...,, .,tL�- • ,N-A,:-..,y-t i s 'e4t .,-A.3:74 Z, p S,,',.r
q ,z- '+ � oo ` '�...;,'N'..;•-•.-..-',.. ..4... 4..:.-
; .ty` tiJ4ytiti.- sti;:.fit::
riv--' i t'. :..f -3-:-.4:,S 173' / T'' p''q. 4 + i = "• —1;.;- `
_,z ,-.4 Y.`,}`.'�1^4=:;, � (.tit t N`..•!-^..-�4 y'yi j ..s4*,
♦ T �rriC�.' w•
1
Photograph #5
Location: Eastside of I-5, 2 miles south of Hartnell Avenue bridge.
Effectiveness: This continuous garage wall is a very effective means of dealing
with noise, visual screening and provided covered parking. It also eliminates the
added cost of a noise wall.
::
4r/or
y
4w Y2
54 3�,.c s'a
, . .. • , -• • . ,...,...,i • ,1
ti r', •
,•
'-...t4,
-.. ` _ 11l��, r1 &i s 1,\t rr]]r,.�'ti .'4 $#,tu
a(•+'
^n . r v zr S ,
e,,....„„_.?,,^� Z.$ , :6. ..� ,t'` "r' s....,"0..,,- -;-_-._,s.,.,.....,„5,..,4-,t,. 13�a#' �, j,� htu!.
--9+.C. C 4,e112' -..gym +yv� > ,v ♦ w 4`r�-s a''A .w' :14 ",,
140'.a s h, ,�,,T ��yy.��{{.:?-J .. 5? , ``b ._to.f ' �y Vj d ,
r4d
• ,, . _,,, J NN11,, 2 lryspr,•` „tet ?J.-,t.,1,1:41-4.4-1 !�
°, reAmirol+t� r �r,,,t A T..�i.� t r `r,'t, '+t-1-.: ,,,-
,-, -7.iV,lr: r' „ },-
4.
r:�./.” i=sem:v4,...:0—,-417viii,i
# :r ,s...7 ai 43" i:,.t...,...,-41,'.-,,-z-.`,e. 6 y
Photograph #6
Location: Same as above.
Effectiveness: Although the continuous garage wall is effective as noted above, it
------------
was not employed properly here. Through good site planning, toe garage wall could
have been used to screen the apartment units.
53
i •
-1 '
1
' s Si:, ?^`r, .,'`.'.7.'kis 1 1.? j
„,,,,,,,---
'/2--,,e1},,-;
� f . L
:sk �' i— � �fSz $ + . l;"4".&''''% �G.,
' '"',, C,It-s f ii w �7y - t ar
"'AV
ti ,� 7H .t 1i •t; f}v� v� r(,�(} r�`L �' I .....,-;,,,s,,,-:.,,.,,....
e 33,;,-;::%\
� f,v, -oi yPr` ' " 1�sk,�,r, €,e-.51.t.VYS '•i F"' "y11 • x'S �+* z.4-.7j. jt
F y( a•1. 'f N ' *5 vet
-
v i •'. F a
y-'--- 5 st-"" � 5 " -' - a r ,-,-'2 « ' C .• t-rrr 4-b7i ;L s : , ,r1� , ,l ,rr { i .i'`
a : 4 .. a .. ..
'
Photograph #7
Location= Along the west side of I-5 north of the Cypress Avenue bridge.
Effectiveness: The row of garages along the I-5 right of way provides an
excellent visual screen but the noise reduction effectiveness is lost due to
the exposure of the southend. The blockwall provides no noise reduction
qualities and the same security and visual screening could be accomplished
with wood slates in a chain link fence.
I {N 17 ,1
V. ' '...'V'''.1,1. r J .� Y4 7.
st
•
q,,-.,..'.-
� x ".' te Z 1 „r +►�
� `t �" i4,'''4,''''33, fkS4 *� 4t �t;0,1e ,a a „:. t Y ,
.., tx'4,"r •: �� ; rt4 Vtot ,-ua
,,
:,,,+. ter *-,',"- P'' 1.. 4 «•.y
ii
INA
V Trow" �r''' • ' 'k ice
t — t .. v."4'.2.'
'.2 .NL'..
- a '" kij '4t� .i is + .:
• ';',.1,, '." _`,. « Z ,.,. !f4 •., -• :. F? .9 ,n, .✓fiy1
.f -� ''° Sf '',. ,°b,Y.Y. <� wit,; ilVI a i� ndafi
r* '^ra...'
t '
,
c.
wr •er ° '- c - , a i°a' i 333,4
r , �. �s f.?n x �3 , As4 . ri,4r
Y n y 5 ).er
tcr r'+S r '4 .s r-t
•
v f F @ R }i ��0_g�3i. it
x k d*4 " sem.. i„f yn--c ,�•
Photograph #8
Location: Along Mountain View Drive , east of I-5.
Effectiveness: This five foot high blockwall was installed as a noise barrier,
but the insufficient height leaves the windows exposed and the forshortened
length leaves one entire unit completely exposed.
54
1 .
,\
„.ti....4ri... 41 _,,....1
, , N0,4„44.i.„7 , _
..„....,..7..., .
. • .4
,,,,r,-;,..' .•G'p`t •
-
.CKs
',":,t F 1 %� Y -::,;:„.','•
rry �. � T {
..=.t „,;,: t: 0
r`F ,,. `t I /e,/t'/ r£`r sr ru. r r .4 } 1-1 r 3 ter! f'
e,.. .' I- / Ir s a rRi '?"-^• �v H'l.y,Br Y ? :i
tv•
s.Mctrit. ;Sa w'' r. 1.4•,' ', .P .,re ' t {... __. _�
tir
. r te' ' .:, -,,,..,4.•-•-•••A v� hx, y *ry- ; }
S �
..4! ,.• ; .),‘,.-;,..,,r„,•,,,,..y"k�?1/4 ayr .1 • t •..•p r. . _. .
,;;t 5 �`:. .5y atp x t .7') f y a�`,,t _
s s
Photograph #9
Location: This wall was installed along the south side of Lake Blvd. as a noise
barrier against Lake Blvd. auto traffic.
Effectiveness: Although the fence is constructed of excellent noise attenuation
mate7ial—Tconc. block), its effectiveness is greatly lessened by the decorative
open blocks. The fence is a good long term solution to screen auto traffic, but
has no effect on screening truck traffic or reducing truck noise.
t 7 h
-
w a
x Yzv kl r L ,0 g
_ -r"' +s ' a#P+ T�t�x" .,2' b .7.. va., , ,i.,rZO'', Ott r-
"�-t+'s.�� .��, ".ac 3 c t
•
..r.. d..t r'e { v 4' a •4''5.42''
C.
°:f id liwrl t 4 „,, ..
-r,„r y,:-„,„/.7„..!:•,.... .-.••••,,t 'su3�',.----”- .Fi:1 u'i7' *Ms,,,,,,..4-V....,--••=‘,.- • -1:,.i4--,�L.,
t
ti.
,!,4K,J+
';;da*,z..ss.15(+i.;o.,r,,r71`^_.:�.�.L....A"�t7.A. •�_.salslaet....a
Photograph #10
Location: This wall was installed along the east side of I-5, south of the Hartnell
Avenue bridge.
Effectiveness: This five foot high slump block wall has no effect on reducing the
noise level of even auto traffic and it provides very little screening effect be-
cause of the di{r;enished height relative to the windows.
;F
• •
VI. OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE CITY'S NOISE ENVIRONMENT
A. MAINTAIN THE ADOPTED NOISE ELEMENT
The current Noise Element was adopted in 1974. New State laws have made
some of the goals unnecessary. One of the major criticisms of the Element
is that it does not comply with the State requirement of basing noise
contours on either the CNEL or Ldn noise metric.
A second weakness of the present Noise Element is that it doesn't consider
the updated noise contours and policies of the draft 1982 Municipal Airport
Plan. To maintain the 1974 noise contours could cause an economic hardship
on the community because the contours encompass more noise impacted prop-
erties that would have to be purchased to protect the Airport. The reason
for the reduction in the limits of noise contours of the proposed Element
is the development of quieter aircraft engines. Another criticism is that
the Element does not provide any guidance to developers, City staff or the
Planning Commission on what are efficient, economic and reasonable noise
mitigation standards.
The land-use noise standards of the 1974 Noise Element are based on ambient
noise levels for day and night. The ambient noise, according to the
Element, is the lowest background noise level exclusive of occasional peak
levels. Although this measurement is satisfactory for most residential
neighborhoods, it does not consider that noise complaints generally are
because of excessive peak noise levels.
The goals of the 1974 Noise Element, as depicted on the following page,
were reasonable at the time of adoption; but since then, conditions have
changed along with State and Federal standards. An overall critique of the
goals is provided on the following page.
B. MODIFY THE PROPOSED NOISE ELEMENT TO BE LESS NOISE RESTRICTIVE
To modify the proposed Noise Element to be less noise restrictive would
mean that the data base of the Element is in error or that the proposed
noise standards and noise mitigations are too restrictive.
This option would provide a liberal approach to the noise environment. It
would also allow more flexibility in terms of enforcement and noise mitiga-
tion.
One great disadvantage is that it would permit exterior residential noise
levels to be louder, which would in turn mandate more costly building noise
mitigations to maintain the maximum interior noise levels of the State and
Federal governments.
C. MODIFY THE PROPOSED NOISE ELEMENT TO BE MORE NOISE RESTRICTIVE
This option implies that the noise environment could be made even quieter
than the proposed noise element suggest. The goals themselves would not
have to be modified, but the noise standards would have to be more restric-
tive than recommended in the Land Use Noise Standards in Table 5 on page
19.
56
•• . .
s
a)
L � 0 >, T
C •r L
7 4-, • ,�.Y. _ C r-
CT rd C _' L O t0
C C 4-) O 4, 1:1 0 S.-
L.
i i N O al V 4- C E C •
N >, O L C • C
4) N .0 C 4, U N Cr, C
U.- > C L C O
C O o•.- 0 T O r- 0 01
•.-.L C)- .r .0 4- U >
0 4, .0 r0 4-, C•r ro N
L C N L Cl C L L .,-
0...
p,0 r 4) O C C L
U r I -o 7 > N 4-)
O 0_•.- co N C 4-,
4) C E C L i 0 U
N 0-r C 7 C•.- C C
17 U E
L
C O u 0 4-) E 0 4-
4„ )C r0 Q >,rtC L L N
>, r L C C .r
E C C co L N U 4-)
L C•r 7 N >, • r0
.-4-, C C 0 O co C 4-,4-) N
C L L C O L O U E C
O C 4- 0
C C 0 N4- • 4- 01C N > •
C C.r - N •r N L C C r0 'Cl
4) L N L r-- C •r > r0 C O C L C
N r0 4-, 4-, . 0 4-, C 4-,
L N C r U C C N C N L N C
N to 4-) E a) a) a)
U L a) O C E3 L L N L E
> ani C C 0 C 0 r0 0 C
4- C r O N 17 L '0 r
C 4-) N C) 4-, C r0 U•r C C C.
o u •r-4- C a) .0 • O o U r- 0 E
C L O E N 014-) C O r0 0
4- 4-, >,L C L O L
N4_ • 1.0 C C r 0 N C4- 0101 01 C
•r C-0 4-N C C r 0 •r U O a)
L C o C a) ro 4, L a) 3 N 3 C
4, C.1 C .C] .0 •r C 4-) L C C•r C L
L 0 0. V O N r L ,--
4-
r4-H C C 4) 4-) 4-r L U 4- r0 0 >4-, > 4-)
C L O O 0 O C C O
U 4)1- C C 0_al 4-, a, L N L C
• VN C 7 L I t0 I
0 r 4-1 4-) L N N N•r O 1]4) r L .- N
•
• re.- CO C (1../ C rc C o ro 4-) ro C
4-, > G C 0 L L L 0 Y .01 Y 4) .0
as O E c ro 4-) C c-0 C
4-. L >> C O r ,- r 1:1 4- C•r C a) C ,-
C
C a.- ro to ro C C a)4-) E C E ro
C Cl r C1 C 0 0 0 4.) C E O C N C O
E ro C E 4-) m Cr, 01 0 E 4-)•r 0 C O o1
a) L •r r0 C C L L L r0 L
>,C '0 N N N•C) r 13 4-) r i •r N
C14-) 0 C C r 0 d d N > C > ,-
E•r C r r0 L L L L E C 0 C 0 C L
.--.c..) 0) I- E I-- I- I- C. •-•C) L w (0 LU F-
U
0
N C 4-
C r-4- U 4-
0000 • 0 0 a)
N In C t0 O C N -0 L U
C C C L C >L C • C 4-) 0
O I U C E C u N r 4-) 0 0 C L C
r 0 C N f- > N 0 N C•r N N 4-, C
4-) C • r0 •r O C 0 3 r0 N C N S.-
M,
r0•.- N E 0 4- r >, C O a) E O
C 0 4-, L C L L N.0 .0 0 N U c C r•n O
0 C U C C C L C L 0.0 4J
.G'- E 4- L a C U N L 44 C'0 C r0
E 7•r L O C L Cl C C > N E 01
o_c.-- a) ••)C o a) co E 3 4-, r C 0 C
U 01 r0 0 4,12 Cl 0 U 0 C N L 0 4- .r •
..a E•r u 0 C N 4- 4- >,
L N C C 4)-0 N C N >>E C C '0 O 4-,
0.- C O L 25 C C•r 4- N 4, C1 U N N C O.r-
0
r0 0 0- >, 4-1.- >,L O t0 L O X E r0 L U
O L N 4-, U O C L C.- C O C C.
L 4-) a0 r0 3 N Y O 0 E 4-) C.C C 4- N '0 C
.0 C 17 .- > C +) L C 0 > 0 N 4-) • C.0
N 4) 0 C 0•r -0•r ^ >> 0-.- L C 4-, 4-, >,L In 0 4-,
U r0 N L C -c C r 4- 7 0.-0 r0 co r0 ,0 O
r0 13 C Q 4) C C C Cr N L 4-r C N 0
0C C N r0 N L > O C N >> C 4, 3 V1 L 4-)
(0 4- N C r C •r•r•r•r-t L L r0 4) O C 12
C 7 L C > 0 0 0 m 3 4-) 0 L•r r- C 3) C 4-)
4) C I 7 N•r O C 0 4- 4-) C CI. L 4- C r CO C
C >.0 N r 01 N 0 C b C 0 0. 0 I C r0 C
a) a) c C O N4- L L C •r-0 O E r0 N U U 01U
E L ,c 0 C 0 C 0 4.) C N E c N•r c ro
(1) a.- E 4) C 0 u In C 0 4) C 4- 0.+) •r
>• N E.0 4) 0 a) C N U •r 4- O C 17
0,) 13 ••(0 4- • C C L C 4-) O r0 4- L O co
C C C •r N C -10 C 4J O 0 C 4) N 4J L N U N
C .p CT.,- 0 m O N.- O N N L C U C 4-, v1
N •r C C C N >,0.r C 4-, E.r N L L L C
12 N C C1•r N 04-, O C C'0 C C 0101 O O C
O C C C N r- L 3 C U N O 4-) C •r o
Co7 4- L
L r O-0 C •r )4 •13 L O 4-r O.-
- U O C 4- C N 4-) N O +) C1 U C 4-) L r0 N
4J 4) Cr, C 01 N > N L> r ♦, C
n L. c N 4-) 3 C rD.- r0 C 1 C >, C C) •r 4-)4- C C .
(0 4) ro ^ N 0 0 C •r 4-)•r >> - 4-1.- X C C
C N 4-) >> 0 L >,0) C'0 • U L U U C 10 C E N
O C 4J C r 4) ,o N L.- C L >> r r0 •.- C C C-0 C C
0 0 C C C L N.r •r O L .- C L r- C N•r C•r
r C C E C 01 L E D .O U 0 0 0 C 10 d 4-) r0 N L 4-
C 4-, G '0 ro 0, 0•r 17 E U Cr, O.N (0 C•r co L C 0,..-
..0
1.rL 21 (1) C 4- •r r0.r L ro r0 C N V N 7 C L aa r
L r0 N .- C
O C..- C•
4-)_ C L C Cl.- 4- N C L L 0 L O r0 C E .-.0
4).- D r0 r '0 U 4) •.r0 O C U r0 4-, C Ca. > 01 0 r0•r
0 0 •r X 4, U N >> 0 C. C L C 4)
C C C C E r0 L C•r 17 • 4-, C C N r0 7 0 4) C C 4- O C
N C) L -0 C 3 E c N C r0 N C E I N L N •r Cl
r 0 0 C i 0,•r r0'O C C 0 U C >,C •r >, O1 E
0 0 0 (u•r r0 C C r- C E•r 1 C N t 4, 3 '0 O C C O
C L 0 Ir N 0 L'0-0 C - 4 r( -) • 0 C C 3 L U
0',0 0 L r 4- VI L C C L.).- r0 r0 C
>>0 4-, C C rp N r• O r0 •r 0 CO C Cl C U C.•r
r0 Y ro •r L U C-r 4-, U r- '0_0 U 3 L 3 4- C 0
3. C
r -0- •
.- •r U 7 L•r•r .0 C r
t in 7 0 4) L.0 0 01.- r0 N L > C O •r 4-, •r 4- 4) C N
0 N 0 0 4-, N.0 4-)-r U 0 > 4- > > r0 7 >.r
4- C 7 C UCCCOO N O r0 L C C C O C L O C O
0.r CO L U N•r•r L C. W C C CL-0 LU CC 4) 01 4-) L C] C
.-4 (4 ("1 V In (D f- CO 01
57
• •
The recommended noise standards were based on existing noise levels and
noise_ studies and comparisons of other communities. To make, the noise,.
standard more restrictive would mean that City-wide the existing noise
environment is far too loud. This in turn would mean that the noise
survey presented in Tables 13 through 22 on pages 92 to 101 would have to
be redone to include longer periods of monitoring because the standards and
the noise ordinance would be scrutinized by the courts more carefully due
to their greater restrictive nature. This action may involve more staff
time, additional noise recording equipment including a graphic recorder and
overall a great deal of expense. It may also create unnecessary public
controversy and long-term legal expense.
A more restrictive noise element could also be accomplished by making the
noise mitigations for sound walls and buildings mandatory on all noise
impacted projects. The proposed noise element recommends that the noise
mitigations be used only as implementation guidelines to developers, City
staff, and the Planning Commission.
To mandate more stringent noise mitigations may impose excessive economic
hardships on certain projects and adversely effect the affordability of the
City' s housing stock.
To suggest that a quieter noise environment is a greater priority than
proposed by Option 3 implies that the overwhelming benefits merit more
staff time, public expense, public controversy and higher housing cost.
D. ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED NOISE ELEMENT
The justification for this option has been presented in the text of the
document itself. The selection of this option initially involved many more
alternatives than presented above.
The noise standards were modified numerous times by staff to reach what is
considered reasonable noise levels. They were tested against the existing
noise environment and were reviewed for adequacy by the Office of Noise
Control , State Department of Health.
The draft goals, objectives and policies are the result of staffs under-
standing of the Community' s noise problems. In effect the Noise Element
has been sculptured to meet the needs of the City.
58
VII . GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS
Compared to other urban.. communities, Redding' s overall noise environment is
quieter; but by the year 2000, it is anticipated that the average daily traffic
volume on almost all major four-lane streets throughout the plan area will more
than double. This, in effect, will cause existing noise levels along these
street corridors to be one-half to one times louder. Unless noise mitigations
are built into new residential projects as they develop, the deferred cost of
noise mitigations may be beyond affordability.
Other sources of noise-level increases that are anticipated will result from
increased human activity. For example, it is believed that by the year 2000
the population will more than double, which means that there will be twice as
much residential urban activity including loud stereos, lawn mowers, and home
operation of power tools. Noise levels from industrial and commercial land use
will also intensify and add to the overall noise level of the community.
These anticipated conditions can only be dealt with through a comprehensive
noise element that is based on realistic goal policies, objectives and stan-
dards and action programs of implementation.
A. OVERALL GOALS
In anticipation of increased urban noise levels, the goals of the Noise
Element are to:
1. Anticipate noise problems before they occur and mitigate them as the
community urbanizes.
2. Educate the public through the planning process about the adverse
characteristics of noise so that they will understand the need to avoid
excessive noise.
3. Adopt attainable and enforceable land-use noise policies and standards
that reflect what the community wants.
4. Assist property owners in noise mitigation by identifying economical ,
efficient, and esthetically pleasing ways of meeting City, State and
Federal noise standards.
5. Safeguard the two public airports from intrusion by uses that limit the
expansion of air service to the Northern California region by recogniz-
ing the vital service provided by these airports and the need to
maintain a level of operations necessary to satisfy existing and future
aviation requirements of the user communities.
6. Permit persons who live, work, and own property in or near high airport
noise areas to enjoy a maximum amount of freedom from noise without
compromising the functions of the airports.
7. Lessen the noise impact of railroad operations on nearby residential
areas through land-use planning and noise mitigations.
59
• •
8. Highway noise to be controlled and prevented through combinations of
site/route location and design , land-use controls , building-insulation
requirements, screening measures and speed limits.
9. Provide necessary policy statements so that property owners and
developers may reasonably predict community-development decisions.
10. Establish quiet noise zones in the form of comprehensive noise ordi-
nances for noise sensitive uses such as hospitals , schools, and rest
homes.
B. OBJECTIVE: LAND USE NOISE STANDARDS
Adopt noise standards that are reasonable to attain and reflect what the
community wants and meet all State and Federal requirements .
• 1. Exterior Land Use Noise Standards
a. Adopt the land-use noise standards in the table below along with
the land-use criteria.
TABLE 5
MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS
Land-Use Category CNEL Day Leg Night Leq
(7am -10pm) (10pm-7am)
Single Family Zoning District 60 60 50
Multiple Family Zoning District 60 60 50
All Commercial Zoning Districts 65 65 55
All Industrial Zoning Districts 70 70 60
2. Criteria for Application of Noise Standards
The maximum noise level standards above are applicable to the property
lines of uses within the following zoning districts :
The determination of which noise metric to apply, CNEL or Leq, should
be based on the metric that produces the most restrictive condition.
60
• e
• Tree row
A
7.
( Planted berm
8' min.
•
4
Wall or fence optional, max. 8'.
0
c
L Tree row
0
c
o '
a
•
1
F:
t8' masonry wall
Tree row
4'-8' masonry wall
8' min. - planted berm plus
Planted berm
I masonry wall
tFence optional, max. 8'.
Figure.17 ALTERNATIVE I3UFFERING REQUIRED FOR A COMMERCIAL
OR INDUSTRIAL USE ADJOINING AN "It" DISTRICT
•
64
• •
D. OBJECTIVE: BENTON AIR PARK
Study and evaluate the noise impact of air traffic of Benton Air Park on
schools and residential areas to be sure that the 1976 and 1995 noise
contours reflect accurate measurements for existing projected conditions.
This objective would be achieved by setting aside funds or applying for FAA
funds to do the study by 1985.
E. OBJECTIVE: ENTERPRISE SKY PARK
Maintain the present level of airport activity for Enterprise Sky Park
through land-use planning so that noise levels do not increase to the point
of impacting residential areas.
1. Standard
Recognize Enterprise Sky Park as a nonconforming use on the General
Plan by establishing a land-use pattern that will not conflict with the
current activity of the airport and will not permit the airport to
expand its air-traffic operations beyond the 1982 level of operations
which includes 60-based aircraft.
F. OBJECTIVE: SKY RANCH AIRPORT
Classify the airport property as "Industrial" or "Commercial" with a
provision that aircraft activity should be limited to on-site industrial or
commercial activities or reclassify the property to a residential classifi-
cation and seek termination of the airport activity.
G. OBJECTIVE: RAILROAD OPERATIONS
Classify areas adjacent to railroad tracks with land-use patterns that are
compatible; and where no other alternative exist, require a noise analysis
and mitigation measure if needed to satisfy the following noise standards.
1. Standards:
a. For developments within the 60 CNEL Contour or within 620 feet of
the railroad tracks, require a noise analysis as stipulated under
Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. The analysis
should specify any necessary noise mitigations to produce an
interior noise level specified for the use in the Noise Element.
b. The noise mitigation standards presented in the Noise Element
should be employed when applicable to new development projects.
H. OBJECTIVE: TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
Existing and projected traffic noise impacts of highways, Interstate 5 and
major four-lane streets on land use should be mitigated when possible.
1. Standards and Policies
a. The recommended noise mitigations and standards of the Noise
Element should be incorporated into noise impacted developments as
65
• •
determined by noise monitoring and for projects that are within the
projected 60 CNEL contour interval of all streets and highways
including those listed in Tables 7 through 12 on pages 85 through
90.
b. The Noise barrier designs presented on pages 47 through 50 should
be utilized based on their applicability in terms of cost, effi-
ciency and aesthetics.
c. The noise reduction standards for dwellings presented on pages 76
through 83 should be utilized when applicable and when recommended
under State and Federal laws in Title 2.5 of the California Admini-
strative Code.
d. Encourage the police department to reestablish an on-going policy
of vehicle noise abatement program through the use of noise meters
and issuance of citations for faulty mufflers. Such a program
should be modified so that it doesn' t include trucks or cars with
snow tires or mud tires. The program should also depend on the
availability of police department personnel .
I. OBJECTIVE: NOISE SENSITIVE USES
Adopt a land-use and circulation pattern where feasible that will minimize
impacts on noise sensitive uses such as schools, libraries, hospitals,
clinics and rest homes; and develop noise mitigation recommendations for
noise sensitive uses.
1. Policies
a. Discourage the development of land-use noise generators adjacent to
noise sensitive uses through the establishment of compatible zoning
districts.
b. Advise the following noise sensitive uses that they may experience
much higher noise levels from projected traffic volumes on existing
streets so that they can build into their long-term capital-
improvement program, the cost of noise mitigation measures and
assist these agencies and institutions in applying for Federal or
State aid to mitigate the impacts with the recommended mitigation
measure of the Noise Element.
- Shasta High School - Grace Baptist Elementary Sch.
- Parsons Junior High School - Cypress Elementary School
- Cypress Elementary School - Live Oak School
- Grace Baptist School - Enterprise High School
- Monte Vista School for the - Rother Elementary School
Handicap
- Shasta Convalescent Hospital
- Parsons Junior High School
66
• •
J. POLICY: RESOLUTION OF NOISE COMPLAINTS
Adopt a noise ordinance similar to the one on page 102 that will address-
maximum permissible peak noise levels and will permit the Police and
Planning departments to deal effectively with noise complaints and budget
the necessary funds to purchase one additional noise meter for the Police
Department and two noise level graphic recorders, one for each department.
K. POLICY: NOISE IMPACTED DEVELOPED AREAS
In those urbanized noise-impacted areas that are considered to be blighted
in terms of the State and Federal redevelopment criteria, the City could
include such areas as part of a redevelopment project. This policy may
permit the construction of earth berms or sound walls within the right of
way of Caltrans when there is insufficient privately owned land.
67
• i
VIII. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THE CITY SHOULD TAKE
The following are a list of specific actions for the City to accomplish within
five years after adoption of the Element:
1. Initiate the inclusion of site-plan-review criteria of the Noise Element
into zone change requests for those areas that are projected to be impacted
by noise.
2. Adopt a noise ordinance within one year of the adoption of the Noise
Element, which includes maximum peak noise level requirements.
3. Set aside funds to purchase an integrated noise level meter for the Police
Department and two noise level graphic recorders (one for the Planning
Department and one for the Police Department) .
4. Develop City ordinances guidelines for the Police Department so they can
once again use noise meters in the issuance of vehicle noise violations.
5. Provide property owners with a list of consultants and designers who have
the noise equipment and expertise to fulfill the requirements of the Noise
Element.
6. Where appropriate include the standards and mitigation devices in develop-
ment projects which require discretionary City approval .
7. Do not encourage Enterprise Sky Park to expand beyond a "basic utility one"
airport or increase the number of aircraft based at the Airports.
8. As FAA funds become available, acquire the noise-impacted properties
recommended by the Redding Municipal Airport Area Plan.
9. Designate a member of City staff to work with property owners and consul-
tants in meeting the requirements of the Noise Element.
68
•
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
A-Weighted
Sound Level : The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound
level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-
weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes
the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in
a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives
good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.
Ambient
Noise Level : The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this
context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or
existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level . The average equivalent
A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound
levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
Decibel , db: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times
the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of
the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20
micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter) .
Equivalent
Energy Level ,
Leq: The sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level
containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over
a given sample period. L is typically computed over 1 , 8,
and 24 hours sample periodsq
Intrusive
Noise: That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient
noise at a given location. Therelative intrusiveness of a
sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time
of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as
the prevailing ambient noise level .
Ldn: Day-Night Average Level . The average equivalent A-weighted
sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10
decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after
10 p.m.
Note: CNEL and L represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged
on an annum basis, while L represents the equivalent energy
noise exposure for a shorterciime period, typically one hour.
Noise
Disturbance: Any sound which after being monitored is determined to:
(a) endanger the safety or health of human beings , or (b)
annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities ,
69
• •
or (c) endangers personal or real property, or (d) violates the
noise land-use standards of the Noise Element. Compliance with
the quantitative standards as listed in the Noise Element shall
constitute elimination of a ,noise disturbance.
Noise
Exposure
Contours: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant energy
levels of noise exposure. CNEL and L are the metrics uti-
lized herein to describe community expo'ure to noise.
L10: The A-weighted sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample
time. Similarly L50, L90, Loo, etc. (L10 is almost
equivalent to the Ldn + 3 db. ) Note: The Ldn approximates the
Ldn + 3 db.
70
• •
APPENDIX B
SOURCES CONSULTED
1. California Laws and Regulation Relating to Noise Control , Office of Noise
Control , State Department of Health, 1980.
2. Noise Element of the Shasta County General Plan, draft 1982.
3. Redding General Plan Noise Element, 1974, Redding Department of Planning
and Community Development.
4. State of California General Plan Guidelines Office of Planning and
Research, January, 1980.
5. Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General
Plan, Office of Noise Control , February, 1976.
6. Estimation of Community Noise Exposure in Terms of Day-Night Average Level
Noise Contours, Office of Noise Control , State of California, May, 1975.
7. Gatley, William S. and Frye, Edwin E. , Regulation of Noise in Urban Areas,
August, 1971.
8. Gay, Robert E. , Community Noise Study, Inglewood, California, City of
Inglewood 'Planning Department, August, 1972.
9. Kaiser, Edward J. et al . , Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban
Planning and Controls. Chapel Hill , North Carolina, Center for Urban and
Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, June, 1973.
10. League of CAlifornia Cities , Quiet City Committee, Quiet City Report. Los
Angeles, California, League of California Cities.
71
• •
•
4
t ,,
W
y
m OO g \ V
PO 1
Lss
OP
r -'' i
o' sas L_
I I\ i --1 r
OpM RD.I I 1 29q Ep'T
514 f 9 -iEw F.
OUARTZ f�O I. 1� COLLEGE
M(f • A•\_'
-
J2z 1 ___
I l'
I OPo Io
2
I-- PENTON OP ,R
Ir s
N 00. apt 'y ^
, ¢J RL• Apia. I _— 02
�
EUREKA ` 513 S¢ (�
J
• a, X512 S23 H1 -
wAY
EUREF\
It
:� OLD ALTO./ PO.
� DeNA
zPBGs :o °'.'t 511.,® e __t Ir inits --_1
P
Sl �e n
o, P° _ S9 $19 �NroNb-� ,`1 rt"„ ,EroE LN.
I R AIRRa RK 1 'A,� srifi -
HS SSr } 0. ri
510 I i
A �R+I, .► @-521 j-j _J
a Ey AN �� R55 Av L_
h
�-- r- H2 � ] � 5J15 L �
t. S7 4 ✓r 0.517 S22•
P•
i ,- 520 ° S16
<�'544, H3' A".,,, Av. �`.
OL wY\ O
PO' • CANYON CREEK '�.. ``
v 'a H4 w I 9O 1 _ •, $6 AA
.er MKT
� w
Nasolr'Ln.L. -fir-J 7o518
�PoARo w +,A
LI 0 04O,O IN
_ 0 �s \5 J n
0
F_____� W J 1 I .
�- N O 401
_ 000 y 00 R0.
L_ R
STAR „R.
--i f Swi TN
RO
/'
MvaN RD / —
ii
fj--7 F; <^ RMDD,Na
\ iC !..L
GREEK PD '�—- KN.GNTON \
AiR c
CLEPR 0 44 m w
PO_
^fin/
S\
SYMBOL <,„ :1.--
H - Hospitals (including rest homes and convalescent hospita J
S - Schools (including elementary, one junior high, high schoo , i
mentally handicapped and Christian schools)
vim, V5V1 Nva .$ 1 ..,
• •
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY= RESULTS OF NOISE SENSITIVE USES
(IS YOUR INSTITUTION EXPERIENCING A NOISE PROBLEM?)
*SYMBOL
See Map Exhibit , page for location of symbols.
H - Hospitals (inclucing rest homes and convalescent hospitals)
S - Schools (including elementary, one junior high, high schools, mentally
handicapped and Christian schools)
INSTITUTION *SYMBOL RESPONSE
1. Memorial Hospital H1 No Response
1450 Liberty Street
Redding, California 96001
2. Mercy Hospital H2 No
Clairmont Heights
Redding, California 96001
3. Shasta Convalescent Hospital H3 No Response
3550 Churn Creek
Redding, California 96001
4. Shasta General Hospital H4 No
P.O. Box 6050
Redding, California 96001
5. Crestwood Convalescent H5 No
2490 Court Street
Redding, California
6. Beverly Manor H6 No Response
1830 Gold Street
Redding, California
7. Live Oak School S1 No
1644 Magnolia
Redding, California 96001
8. Bonnyview Elementary S2 No
P. 0. 2418
Redding, California 96099
9. Alta Mesa Elementary S3 No Response
2301 Saturn Skyway
Redding, California 96002
10. Buckeye Elementary S4 No Response
3707 Hiatt Drive
Redding, California 96003
11. Cypress Elementary S5 Yes
901 W. Cypress
Redding, California 96001
73
• •
INSTITUTION *SYMBOL RESPONSE
12. Enterprise High School S6 No
3411 Churn Creek Road
Redding, California 96002
13. Juniper Elementary S7 No
3005 Anita
Redding, California 96001
14. Lassen View Elementary S8 No
Loma Vista Drive
Redding, California 96001
15. Manzanita Elementary S9 No
1240 Manzanita Hills_ Avenue
Redding, California 96001
16. Mistletoe Elementary S10 No
1225 Mistletoe Lane
Redding, California 96002
17. Sequoia Junior High S1l No Response
1805 Sequoia Street
Redding, California 96001
18. Nova High School S12 No
2.200 Eureka Way
Redding, California 96001
19. Shasta High School S13 Yes
2500 Eureka Way
Redding, California 96001
20. Buckeye Junior High S14 No
Tamarack Drive
Redding, California 96003
21. Parsons Junior High S15 Yes
750 Hartnell Avenue
Redding, California 96002
22. Rother Elementary S16 No Response
795 Hartnell Avenue
Redding, California 96002
23. Shasta Meadows Elementary S17 No
2825 Yana Avenue
Redding, California 96002
24. Grace Baptist Church & School S18 Yes
3782 Churn Creek Road
Redding, California 96002
74
• •
INSTITUTION *SYMBOL RESPONSE
25. St. Joseph' s Elementary S19 No
2460 Gold Street
Redding, California 96001
26. Montevista Mentally Handicapped S20 Yes
3200 Adams Lane
Redding, California 96001
2.7. Redding Seventh Day Adventist School S21 No
1356 East Cypress
Redding, California 96002.
28. North Valley Christian School S22 No Response
2960 Hartnell Avenue
Redding, California 96002
29. Shasta County Library No Response
1855 Shasta
Redding, California 96002
TOTAL SURVEYED - 29
Yes - 5
No - 15
No Response - 9
7�,
•
TABLE 31
RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION
(Compiled by Redding Department of Planning and Community Development)
Source: Farm Home Administrative Noise Standards
United States Air Force Noise Standards
California Administrative Code Title 25 Noise Standards
Criteria 15 db 20 db 25 db 30 db 35 ,B
I. GENERAL STANDARDS
A. Brick veneer, masonry blocks or stucco exterior walls
should be constructed airtight. All joints should be • • •
grouted or caulked airtight.
B. At the penetration of exterior walls and ceiling by pipes,
ducts, conduits, electrical or mechanical devices, the •
space between the wall or ceiling should be made airtight
by caulking or filling with mortar.
C. Window and/or through-the-wall ventilation units should
not be used. • • • •
D. Through-the-wall/door mail boxes should not be used • ® •
E. Standard building construction practices pursuant to the
uniform building code with some windows open (swamp coolers •
or exterior fans are satisfactory).
F. Conventional construction standards of the uniform building
code with windows closed and with forced ventilation or air •
conditioning.
G. Operational vented fire places or wood stoves should not be
used. ® •
H. All sleeping spaces should be provided with either a sound
absorbing ceiling or a carpeted floor. ® •
I. No glass or plastic skylight should be used •
J. Only forced air or air conditioning should be used with all
ducts caulked. ® • • O
K. California Administrative Code (Title 25) noise standards
for new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other • • ® •
than detached single-family dwellings.
1. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units
shall meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50 (45, if Unle<s not required wrier Titl, 25
field tested), and an Impact Insulation Class (IMC) of 50 • • • • CP
(45, if field tested).
2. Entrance doors from interior corridors shall have an STC Unless riot required umder Trtl, 25
rating of not less than 30. ® • • • 0
3. Laboratory tests of walls and floor-ceiling designs having
an STC and/or IIC of 50, may be used to establish an Unless not required wider Title 5
acceptable design. o
Note: Conventional dwelling construction with some windows open will produce a 15-20 db
reduction of exterior to interior noise level . 76
•
• TABLE 33
RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source: Farm Home Administrative Noise Standards
United States Air Force Noise Standards
California Administrative Code Title 25 Noise Standards
Criteria 15 db 20 db 25 dh 30 dh 35 dh
II. EXTERIOR WALLS STANDARDS
•
A. Exterior walls other than as described in this section
shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating
of at least:
1. STC - 39
•
2. STC - 44
3. STC - 49
B. Masonry walls having the minimum surface weight as shown
below do not require a furred (stud) interior wall. At
least one surface of concrete block walls shall be plastered
or painted with heavy "bridging" paint.
1. Uniform Building Code
2. 25 pounds per square foot
3. 40 pounds per square foot
4. 75 pounds per square foot 40
C. Stud walls shall he at least four inches in nominal depth
and shall be finished on the outside with siding-on-
cheating, stucco, or brick veneer.
1. Interior surface of the exterior walls shall he of
gypsum board or plaster at least one-half inch thick,
installed on the studs.
2. Continuous composition board, plywood or gypsum board
sheathing at least one-half inch thick shall cover the
exterior side of the wall studs behind wood, or metal
•
siding. Asphaltic or wood shake shingles are acceptable
in lieu of siding.
3. Sheathing panels shall he butted tightly and covered on
the exterior with overlapping building paper. The top and •
bottom edges of the sheathing shall be sealed.
4. Interior surface of the exterior walls shall be of gypsum
board or plaster at least one-half inch thick, installed on
the studs. The gypsum board or plaster may be fastened
rigidly to the studs if the exterior is brick veneer or
stucco. If the exterior is siding-on-sheathing, the inte-
rior gypsum hoard or plaster must be fastened resiliently
to the studs.
5. Continuous composition hoard, plywood or gypsum board
sheathing shall cover the exterior side of the wall studs
behind wood, or metal siding. The sheathing and facing shall
•
weigh at least four pounds per square foot.
6. rhe minimum thickness of insulation material as shown below
shall be installed continuously throughout the cavity space
behind the exterior sheathing and between wall studs.
Insulation shall be glass fiber, mineral wool or better.
a. Two inches thick
Cs
b. Three and one-half inches thick
78
TABLE •
34
RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source: Farm Home Administrative Noise Standards
United States Air Force Noise Standards
California Administrative Code Title--25 Noise Standards - .
Criteria 15 db 20 dh 25 db 30 db 35 db
III. WINDOW STANDARDS
A. Windows other than described in this section shall
have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of
at least:
1. Conventional window construction STC rating
2. STC - 22
41
3. STC - 33
4. STC - 38
41
B. Glass thickness shall be at least:
2. Double glazed at least 1/8-inch thick with a
three-inch airspace separation.
3. Double glazed with fixed sash, at least 1/8-inch
41
thick panes with three-inch airspace.
C. All operable windows shall he weather stripped and airtight
when closed so as to conform to an air-infiltration test
not to exceed 0.5 cubic foot per minute per foot of crack
length in accordance with ASTM E-283-65-T.
D. Double-glazed windows shall employ fixed sash or efficiently
weather-stripped operable sash. The sash shall be rigid and
weather stripped with material that is compressed airtight
when the window is closed so as to conform to an infiltration
test not to exceed 0.5 cubic foot per minute per foot of crack
length in accordance with ASTM E-283-65-T.
E. Glass of windows shall he sealed in an airtight manner with a
nonhardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. 41 41 0
F. The perimeter of window frames shall be sealed airtight to the
exterior wall construction with a sealant conforming to one of
the following Federal Specification: TT-S-00227, TT-S-00230, or
TT-S-00153.
C. The total area of glass of both windows and exterior doors in
sleeping spaces shall not exceed 20 percent of the floor area. 40 0
79
• •
TABLE 35
•
RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source: Farm Home Administrative Noise Standards
United States Air Force Noise Standards
California Administrative Code Title 25 Noise Standards
Criteria 15 db 20 db 25 db 30 db 35 db
VII. FLOOR STANDARDS
A. Openings to any crawl spaces below the floor of the
lowest occupied rooms shall not exceed two percent of 40
the floor area of the occupied rooms.
B. The floors of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on 40
fill or below grade.
C. The floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall he slab on
fill , below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement. All
door and window openings in the fully enclosed basement 41
shall be tightly fitted.
VIII. VENTILATION STANDARDS
A. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will
provide the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply
requirements for various uses in occupied rooms without the e ® •
need to open any windows, doors or other openings to the
exterior.
B. Gravity vent openings in attic shall not exceed code minimum
in number and size. ® 41
C. Gravity vent openings in attic shall not exceed code minimum
in number and size. The openings shall be fitted with transfer
ducts at least three feet in length containing internal sound 40
absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall have a lined 90 degree
bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight
from the exterior through the duct into the attic.
D. Gravity vent openings in attic shall not exceed code minimum
in number and size. The openings shall be fitted with transfer
ducts at least six feet in length containing internal sound 40
absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall have a lined 90-degree
bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight
from the exterior through the duct into the attic.
E. If a fan is used for forced ventilation, the attic inlet and
discharge openings shall be fitted with sheet metal transfer
ducts of at least 20-gauge steel, which shall he lined with
one-inch thick coated glass fiber, and shall he at least five-
feet long with one 90-degree bend.
F. If a fan is used for forced ventilation, the attic inlet
and discharge openings shall be fitted with sheet metal
transfer ducts of at least 20-gauge steel, which shall be A
lined with 1-inch thick coated glass fiber, and shall be at
least 10-feet long with one 90-degree bend.
80
• •
•
•
TABLE 36
RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source: Farm Home Administrative Noise Standards
United States Air Force Noise Standards
California Administrative Code Title 25 Noise Standards
Criteria 15 db 20 db 25 db 30 db 35 db
V. ROOF STANDARDS
A. Combined roof and ceiling construction other than described
in this section and Section VI shall have a laboratoratory
sound transmission class rating as follows:
1. STC - 39
2. STC - 44
3. STC - 49 •
B. Conventional roof construction with the exception that clay
tile roofs should have continuous 5/8-inch plywood sheathing
underneath tile roofs.
C. With an attic or rafter space at least six-inch deep, and with
a ceiling below the roof sheathing shall consist of one-inch A
x solid, or one-half inch plywood, topped by roofing as
required. The plywood shall be spaced as per code.
D. If the underside of the roof is exposed, or if the attic or
rafter depth is less than six inches, the roof construction
shall have a surface weight of at least 25 pounds per square
foot. Rafters, joists or other framing may not be included in
the surface weight calculation.
1. At least 25 pounds per square feet.
2. At least 40 pounds per square feet. CO
3. At least 75 pounds per square feet.
E. Window or dome skylights should have a laboratory sound trans-
mission class rating of at least:
1. STC - 28
2. STC - 33
3. STC - 49 40
VI. CEILING STANDARDS
A. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least one-half inch thick
shall be provided where required by Section V - E. Ceilings
shall be substantially airtight, with a minimum number of
penetrations. All penetrations shall he caulked.
C. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least one-half inch thick
shall he provided where required by Section V - E. Ceilings
shall be substantially airtight, with a minimum numher of penetra-
tions. The ceiling panels shall be mounted on resilient clips or
channels. A nonhardening sealant shall be used to seal gaps between
the ceiling and walls around the ceiling perimeter.
Valted ceiling with less than 12 inches of dead air space is not
recommended.
81
• •
TABLE 37
RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source: Farm Home Administrative Noise Standards
United States Air Force Noise Standards
California Administrative Code Title 25 Noise Standards
Criteria 15 db 20 db 25 db 30 db 35 dh
IV. DOOR STANDARDS
A. Doors, other than as described in this section, shall
have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of
at least:
1. Conventional Door Construction
2. STC 28
3. STC 33
GO
4. STC 38
B. All exterior side-hinged doors should he solid-core wood or
insulated hollow metal at least 1 3/4 inch thick and should
be fully weather stripped.
C. Double-door construction separated by minimum four-foot-wide
vestibule door openings to the exterior. The door should be
side-hinged and be solid-core wood or insulated hollow metal, ® e
at least 1 3/4-inch thick. Both doors should be tightly
fitted and weather stripped.
D. Exterior sliding doors shall be weather stripped with an
efficient airtight gasket system with performance as specified 10
in Section III - C. The glass in the sliding doors shall be at
least 3/16-inch thick.
E. Glass in doors shall be sealed in an airthight nongardening Glass
sealant, or in a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. ® ® dr ors nut
r et ummend,!d
F. The perimeter of door frames shall he sealed airtight to the
exterior wall construction as described below:
1. Section III - F
2. Section III - D •
G. The glass or double-glazed sliding doors shall be separated by Glass
a minimum "4" airspace. Each sliding frame shall he provided duors nn
with an efficiently airtight weather stripping material as re,eminelWrd
specified in Section III - D. Sec. IV -
•
82
TABLE 38
C111
riteria 15 db 20 db 25 db 30 db 35 iib
VII: VENTILATION STANDARDS (Continued)
G. Duct lining shall be coated glass fiber duct liner at least
one-inch thick.
41 0
H. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors,
excepting domestic range exhaust ducts, shall contain at least
a five-foot length of internal sound absorbing duct lining.
Each duct shall be provided with a bend in the duct such that
there is no direct line of sight through the duct from the
venting cross section to the room-opening cross section.
I. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors,
excepting domestic range exhaust ducts, shall contain at least
a 10-foot length of internal sound absorbing duct lining.
Each duct shall be provided with a lined 90-degree bend in the ® •
duct such that there is no direct line of sight through the duct
from the venting cross section to the room opening cross section.
J. Building heating units with flues or combustion air vents shall
be located in a closet or room closed off from the occupied
space by doors. 41 40
K. Doors between occupied space and mechanical equipment areas
shall be solid-core wood or 20-gauge steel hollow metal at
least 1 3/4 inch thick and shall be fully weather stripped. 40
L. Domestic range exhaust ducts connecting the interior space
to the outdoors shall contain a baffle plate across the
exterior termination which allows proper ventilation. The
dimensions of the baffle plate should extend at least one
40 40 41
diameter beyond the line of sight into the vent duct. The
baffle plate shall be of the seine material and thickness as
the vent duct material.
M. Fireplaces shall be provided with well-fitted dampers.
CP
83
• • -
c C)
J ,UI
LJ 7 O
L.•N _ _
w r. r.
J In O 4 4 4 4 4 a `L 4 4
J' 21 a
wig n n n n I I n n n
vl p v v v vi v o o v v
t<
el N4.0 l0 CO M' el N r•,
U
CD O O L. I O O V O CD
O O C p O O
J u-1I M O p , OD co N N N
C ni . V •
O .
C Q I • ( n p O
_ O I I _ O I p O C C0
.N.. r`I O I 0 C O .C-- r. CT N
1 � U) rn V ( el r-1
O I L ', r 1 O
O O
1- , '0_ VI, r- 0 - c j I o C, 0
O O 4] N N C <{ Cr.
C)
rL , p p CD O ( 0 O O N
p CD
W O v 1[1 U' N C
N N ea
1 •
rn
J- N.C- ` 10 r. N. C-
w
111
>-
44
L O
.-. r- O O O O O o 1 p p C O '
_.� CCD'/ O O O O O I C::'•
O O O O
C O O O p •-,
O-4- ,--4 N N C ,0 N CDO C C (4 cr
VI
l+..-, to l
L...
O n-
0
O O
l
O 0.
. N In
C
1 N I
L O O C
Cr 1-- J . . n C I VI p I N N O
C O O •
11- 4 I CJ CO CO N N .- N
rr
W N C. O A O O O •.O O N
J J J O r` ^ r-.... O p C CO �J _
O O to i ^ O N N cvO
LO C3Q j . .
OL •tsC O O I O O O O al cel lV N 0
1. t`I i N ICI Ill �, N N ^ ^ N
• p L
O.,- O i I +
'7 q CT
O. •• 1 r. .- ,-CD cl
: : : :
f I 3 3N. 1,__I I! , r1 el CO r•: C7
r` N 0
La 4. J. 10 11 M i N N
l..;•-•U I -
G. 1
? I I 2 b ( O 0 CD
i3 b
'L V 0
i
.. r. n0 �, I •- I N N CV
,..: ul 1,11 1 to
ttf,. i un i v, n I to
1-________.4I I c .1, y
L T C 7 •'-
I W' { C O I U y I •.• v L
CD
Ii I rn Ci ^t t) II ct- y 1vl
C
I O 3..
Cal .l
C.
r J n.(%
r t n :�
It y '.f•c ,
J., ' V.
. iy � •+ I r
., . cr. rrr r
, • ` n
-1 l- C-
t 1
0 ,_
I I L-2,`,--,_"i7-.',I • .. .
•
�v ° i a •._ Q a '1 ! !
•• I f ♦ i
I I I
i I • I i
03 •ct
r--; o p I i q
J' O' O O^ 1 O O i O O O
1 0 L I.W I V N I I N I ( .D ID N 1 N N NO
L U ^^ _ i I I 1 p p
v O 2 In O I O I I O O 4 0 O d
�' 8 N S �D
p I I ! .- I N N
WI_ '
O
W u _ I 8 pp
^ ' O In O 0 IA O .-
O IN
W
i I f
Do 1
to O O M
W O h I+
pp D IO IO .O
IO
U
I
O
‘n isl
W o Cs
S § 8 8 § § o
OC ^C In p p •. In O O ^
N OI
H I W I J l sr 71 P/ N N N
1 I I
ce
0 - -
O N 8 p p p
I Io M N
C
U N N
O OC —^ I O .. O O O _
O W J O O
O
ID I ^ 0 C.1 r/ ^
0 CO O
N zVI. N _ N N N ^
IR2 UY 0 - -
^ ID 0 •1 O O O
co O ^ CO CO R CO 0 a
CO• a C
OI z I�—i
2
^.... 0 .0
IA CO O CO ./1 N O In O O
N CS N N N
W J
J W
C>
Q W
I.+ B• I ID O O I O O O O O ^ O.
Vf J O I p tn 1,1 _ _ O ^_
Ia.i p I I.~ID IO ID IA to � ID sO IO to
Z z
c
u
W
I-
I.3 o
W CO
0 I - Z W I
O v W LL f
CC V U=
a CD uCC 0 N N N N N N N N N N
O O.I-•>
2
Q Les 1
1
_ I 0 Q • 0
Qa
... W O 0 OpO 8 p
aN
)- I-I O. N COu+ W
^ O N
C h ^ ID CO O at d .1.^
W
•
a d 0 0 O O O I In In O
W I I p � I I v. Q d O to In C.) .I{
a.
NI
1 I I j
2 2
N..�, i I In N N V) IA CO P1 h h
^O Q I 1 N N •-• N N N N
Z i
cS NI
I I
Co I II
I/
as M g CC
M Q! q
as I t- J O p O Y
L N CO • 0
a d vII
W,
w «vq do., I ( ✓ •
Q, 4J41 > I I ✓ 6.
o oO. A
01
I C al a'o q .+ c O .+ ✓61.-. ✓
KI Q) Q) N QJ i C I >d d q d Q.r O v y -•-
•-,03 .....-i
C d 1 L Q d A d^ •^ Net
1 Y i N L ^ 0 CU ' N C
• j _ •
• V L L I I v. N Q1> I Y IO Q' N o > O ✓ N✓ V L >N •
I ^ I C O O • I .- I 6: C C I L ! 3 .0 QI q .0 V) ✓ W C J IO'..
I Q) L. •-• ..-+.0 I ^ i L i R I..) .0 : L q U L QJ u•4.1 C U
C ] T q Q) J L E 1 .- > Cl N E C L E C 6!
J = \ t� q Ql O 61 J O
L V> S•p' I U I U S 2 J 1 L 1 2 4 U> J O C Uei U N d Y f D✓
iCO 1 ‘.5 L"
• .
• fi
• w c'-! v
W.; ICI . I I A A A A p ,
v,�G' I v v _ a v o
Ito M M
(8
O.
O
W t—' -
40 G O o , o S 8^WI N1 2 cvG G I i •a•
I v I c V�l r , r - I
7 C a, 0. 1 O O Q
rG-�! �! I d I NCV h0 O v
O
0
W V ^O 1 i
C 0 1 8 N S 0 0
C- I N
I
C cD
W O .O n �O 1p ID ..O
2.-•
V
O
N W
Qw O0 o o b c)E O
OC -Q SAO• 0 O 0
• -
•
V1 N A p 01 0 R ICV
K W0.
O
7
Q
O gO
OC▪ I O O N b b
C> N 01 O O O
C- J N N
Q
> .�..
_o Wo O 0 0
b b
O I '-'' �D 0 � ^ O
N
CC z• 1i-n• O I 1.0cn O O b
O -+ ..13N N RI
CO O C 01
CON u ^O) 0 03 O N O 0
W J
J W
C}
Q W
I-J
W @. N 0 In lb
0 0
I., .
J O ChI 01 O en0
O W O' Q lC to 73 1.O
2 2^I
V
O
W
1- .�.
. I-) O
aD I-
") rn z WI
ac -. V V 0, N en el @ N
O_ OC 0JI
I.7 WCC0I
O 2 dF-}I
z
Q I-VI
I
Q p
W0 00 "' O O O
I-.• H I N N �: O .O
..-. O
RC N .- 1!1 N
x
W {
II
0 i 0 PY R Q O
W <
W
�� i 1
(5
22;
W-O'
via- 0 .O
O Q 0 n N N N
2^ N
2✓1'
O
X
•+ O
0 L
N V M o
O 8
WI I I O L C O L .O �-
O 43 N ,O 0 Q
N' >K I O I 61� Y C
y ~
CI D I L Y I 6. I . y0 6. > >• 0 17 6. A q
"]I 0 I O ... Q> I N C V a C 6. 0 V 6. 61
OX.
I II 1 s
`i cc I 7.. I N NS1 J
L, 0
CO 0
NL ce
0 CL A q
V
! LI f sl
NI Y L
6. L U 7 V ` L 0.—
ICO I Cl. N V} J qN V Q Q OCV6 0 U I
L.
N d'
1 1 1
0 1 • —1 . — .1
L.,r.. C-I' 0
• ,.
V.mac.! 2.0 v a
1,; I CJ N
O7:C`.
! 8 ^ ^ O
O '.WO-, 2
0 G: Ch Cu
C. V
CC ~yI
,
o o o _
�i N
i
taJ 2,7
r---I
G I 1
v v o o
I ^. N 8 t ! oort
0 I N ... 1 j I en
IC-
O I i
W O �c O I O O r
✓ 10 1s .0 10 1D
N
0N W O
I- I- 8 pO C �D O
-
w __~ 0 0 •
O . ..+ O
CJ 0 Y 40 9.• ..
Ce .....4 N OS ^ CT . . L L. in L.>
F- H f'7 N AI CO 0 3 0 Y.-...-
N N ✓ N V L... ..l
> > C c q u
4JCC .-V•-Ca. I. .0
0
i
CC 0 8 o .
O •
1n, 1... 1....
C. J Yl: N 1... N CV
_ 4
O O --WOO O O
NO
_ , O 0 O O
N ;'.7.:2
—u
1
.
o G^
I�1 0 o O
NW G f1 N 1'1
.-
^ r . ,
2
My c.) O^I O 0 10
N O O O
N
W J
J W
C Y
4 W
1-J
O W O� 10 10 N O. N
2 2 r ) 1.0
V
O
W
W CO 1...-
-)
•-) al W
K v V U O
d ¢» N eN N 10 .
L7 W CC C3
O 2 d F-3
4 l-
N
p O
2
.0.. x i O O O I O O O
W I O I O 10
l- 1- O 0 0 O O•
.N.. O v r
Is. PA Ch N V
x
W I ,
GN N N N N
O.
N
O
2 2
W O Ill O
O O Q 1 N
2'—1—1
N
O
S
1
I L L
O
N C Q N
N O
WI V sC O
. I
O
r A W
W C
CC
1 1-
.0
N 61 I d .., Li N
y I > L 1 C N > O 1 O. d N
ccI Y G1 D I N j L Q. > A
i >, > ..+ L C N 4
In
O i m O I z .. .o .. .e N O
IIi
N
..., Y 10 L, > L L . /
Y
r 2 L S VI H
iS � .-+ 1.o a 1 qO
O.
1 J=CD 1 • i TAD— i �—
I W▪ W CSI
W I b
vlrc ^l v
I AD
0.:1,.1
O 1:P 7 4. +
1
I .
O
N Oal
I a .1' _� 'l
1 W
Ill
er. ill
O •--C, 101 N N Ii
J I n I ^
c^ �fl� v o
O r x
_moi 1
u O �1 t 1 o O
W �I i CD
C. --
1 1
a. I
.
Z o I el u+
u `O IO LO
0
N W
W , so ul 8 $ <
I- 1- .-
N N ^ 1
W
Y
O
7 _ -
C
O p
U.O •J �I N N 8
C
r17 M
a I $ o g
O W J 01
O r W 7 10'
N Z 2 I ^
r-u ,
ccz v+
o •- u0 0 0
(A O O v N
C)„y
I—
.... O O) '
u
M O O O
W J
J W
W
1..J -
W
rNO
J O I� el
4.1
2 Z O^ 01 .O
C u 141
W
t- .. 1
u I O 1
W c0 1
.., QSZ WI
CC vu�l n .
• , C7 W CC Ca O•
O I373
dr>rI • LC) Z
Q 1-
2
WO 8
r ti I N v 1
ac V. ¢� i
W , { ^
0
W7 0 M
o
�
I I ,
Z Z
W-O
I OO ri
Z V1'
O_
0o
0 • $31 er
J U q C= .
N
d .0.-, 2 N
W', • , i v v O r
.,• vl O
vl _o vv z
1 N I N
N d
C.I I I
I I
tw /
qI ¢ •
NL L a'^L u OrH
^ aiaV
iz
1 I I a 6.
L T= 1 3T O I L o
v
I O v C -+
4.-
Lo+= H a-1 •".
I RI I a0 I. 13 0 N U
I - Z S N0
10 r
% 1 L1 4 I 0 d
IoC
a
1
.
7 ,, I
J -
I I I ../ I I `` • a
I r. r+ n
• I, I W i 7•�, I .- n 1 { ......
.CI
V v v
• I .r t�.. v I •n *° 'r '°
I i I 1
I •
1J I �'., l o -
$ 8 8 8
i d .n• N el 1 - h i of
1 I cc
1—j I I-- I
�J, c 2 1 8- I { Q . g
I ; Ii ! `� M i I 7i
u.
I K ~- i
1_-' I
{ �IvI i
I
I
: a O C O CO
N
i 0 i Q I N •A N N
, oi0 I ib -i O o w 0 g oIC I I N
CO N
C
�`, ii 1
I e I I .
JOI I
L.O
" 10 40 I 40 40 n 40 b
00
^I I
an aa.4
w 4ai 8 § i 8 § 0§ 25•
r t-cc - I 04 I N N N
4A 4A i i"� N
K
'
K 1 L!] o o 0 O
anC
h O ' .-OI N N 40
O
•a J
I -NIo K 0 40 -
0
O 1 W J( Oi 40 I g 1A
O 1�N I �u 40 c" N
• 1 �{ O OI r O o
O =^ M N N O
CO 0
4TI I
r O 0
r O O O O O
N I O O '1
W J I
J W
G
4 W
1-J
^ O 0
r-.
Cun Itr) CV
00I 0 4P 1 .0 40 40 40
Lc. an
2 2-�j
T
W I u I
I
W 18 I 0-
K -4. O V I N N N N N
Na. C J N N
c7 WCO
O ( 1
S 4-•
Q VI
H p
. II
_ 6.0
p O Q p O O O
`-. I r- O g I O O O co O
N,1 0
. OI 4
x 4 r b 4A N .- CO
W1
4A 0 0
OW10 v a U) U)
w I
N
0I
W OIan
O tiN N
O.. 4I .
' I
X 1 1
l I w
CU
Y 1.0
4v u
ST.
1..
00.
-
A
v j v N N 0 O
t I• I y U O b I. N
I W, C 1 =
I 01
_ U aO+
1 (10
J.
�I y q 1 ! y A N ro U '0 .r L
�' ¢-' vo i v 0:,
r vmE A d 0
K�,. C d V K 1 A C •U O y n L Y
Ci TN d O O TN W N N • A
c(•� Q • d U/ q lO N CI:
W N O y i
C 3 �' I 0 �+i Q
LO LLq 6.6
o,6" I E. Com',N { •
O �'-po IO p ;�'L '9 •
` I S� S4 .I- 4>. v $N Y Y K U C F-
I > I 4 I I O J
I I 1 I l l
1
,
• TABLE 12 •
PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
FOR UNDEVELOPED MAJOR STREET LINKS
(YEAR 2000)
ESTIMATED NOISE DATA
CONTOUR INTERVAL
PERCENT IN CNEL
TRUCK CNEL @
HIGHWAY SPEED ADT VOLUME 100' 70 65 60 55
SHASTA VIEW DRIVE
Oasis Road to 40 5,000- 2 62 11' 50' 150' 350'
Hwy 299 E. 10,000
Hwy 299 E. to 40 6,000- 2 64 25' 80' 230' 500'
Hwy 44 13,000
Hartnell Avenue to 40 11,000- 2 64 25' 80' 230' 500'
Airport Road 15,000
CHURN CREEK ROAD
Hwy 299 E. to 40 . 20,000- 3 65 30' 100' 270' 600'
Hwy 44 28,000
KNIGHTON ROAD
Interstate 5 to 40 17,000 5 65 30' 100' 270' 600'
Airport Road
AIRPORT ROAD BYPASS
Meadow View Drive 45 . 17,000 5 65 30' 100' 270' 600'
to Riverside Avenue
CREEKSIDE DRIVE
So. Bonnyview to 35 21,000 1 64 25' 80' 230' 500'
Girvan Road
HARTNELL AVENUE 7R" L0''='.% l
Bechelli Lane 35 25,000 5-10 70 100' 270' 600' 1300'
to Cypress Avenue •
S. BUENAVENTURA BOULEVARD
Placer Street to 35 11,000- 4-6 62 11' 50' 150' 350'
Railread Avenue 13,800
•
RIO DRIVE
Market Street to 35 8,000- 1-2 62 11' 50' 150' 350'
Hilltop Drive 12,000
90
• • .
iS.S
l_.._. 19 '
ii • 90 -
. .. j r _ .
�___ _ _ ,, „40 4 J =
• --p-
Nir 13
® Q Ei
of
,,,cam /%,` 1 �= .,.r, @, j___
-�
- ,- - ' ti
� 21
© �-
. E X H B T
/ NOISE MONITORING STATIONS
i FOR_LO CA L STREETS
110.4.* NOISE MONITORING FOR HIGHWAYS AUGUST 2 , 1982 -
SUPPLIED BY CALTRANS .
91
• • '
,
TABLE 13 •
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/20/82
STREET STATION 1 DATE DAYTIME(10:30 ) NIGHTTIME(12:00 )
Hwy44 100' from outer lane TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
N/0 Hwy 44 and S/0
Canby Road an Dana 1. 62.5 67 25 58 65 7
Road Intersection
2. 57.5 -- 17 57 68 7
3. 58 67.5 13 54 77 3
4. 62 -- 21
5. 61 73 26 54 3
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ.- 60.5 56.0 J><::
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 63.4
7/20/82
STREET STATION 2 DATE DAYTIME( 2:00 ) NIGHTTIME( 10:20)
Church parkingTRAFFIC TRAFFIC
South Calvery LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Bonneyview lot 1/2 mile E/0
Road Eastside Road 1. 57.5 84. 5 8 55 76 3
2. 54.5 89.0 5 55 75 4
3. 60.0 81 12 57 78 3
4. 65.5 80 15 57 80 4
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 61 4IIIIII
56
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 63.6
STREET STATION 3 ATE/82 DAYTIME( 2.30) NIGHTTIME(10.00 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Placer Willis Street LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Street (No traffic on Willis)
1. 65 76 15 56. 5 6
2. 62 84 15 59.0 77 6
3. 59 80 12 50.0 77 0
4. 64 73 12 57.0 2
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 61 .5 ,-1 56.5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 64.0
92
t
• •
t
• TABLE 14
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/20/82
STREET STATION 4 DATE DAYTIME(10:20) NIGHTTIME( )
Airport Rd 1/2 mile south of'Hwy .44 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
100' from edge of outer LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Lane
1. 54 90 7 51 77 1
2. 54 72 6 49 77 1
3. 55 78.2 5 53 79 2
4. 50 78.2 2 53 77 2
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ: 53.5 "OP' 52
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 58.7
STREET STATION 5 DATE DAYTIME( ) NIGHTTIME( )
Old Oregon 1/2 mile N/O Hwy 44 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Trail LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 52.0 74 5 53 77 1
2. 52.5 3 49 79 3
3. 57.5 6 51 70 2
4. 50.0 1 50 78 1
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 54.0 400. 51
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE
STREET STATION 6 DATE DAYTIME( ) NIGHTTIME( )
Dana Dr 200' E/O Canby Rd. & 100' TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
N00 Dana Dr. LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Note: Hwy 44 is 900' 1 52 2 57.5 85 0
away & has not signifi- '
cant effect on property2 52. 5 63.5 4 56.0 67 3
3. 52.5 5 51 80 0
4. 0 0
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 52 ' 53.5 44111100
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 59,7
93
• • .
TABLE 15 • ..
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/21/82
STREET STATION 7 DATE DAYTIME( 10:00) NIGHTTIME( 10:30 )
Placer St. On Bueaventura TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
(No traffic on LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Bueaventura)
1. 59 80 . 11 37 75 - 0
I
2. 59 81 15 46 78 1
3. 59 81 10
4. 65.5 76 12 55 77 4
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 61 .5 400.. 49.5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 60.85
7/21/82
STREET STATION 8 - DATE DAYTIME( ) NIGHTTIME( 10:37 )
Tehama St. N/S of Memorial Hospital TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
parking lot 100' from LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Tehama St. & 300' from1. 58.5 78 18 57.5 61 7
East St.
2. 60 78 10 51 70 0
3. 56 78 15 51 .5 69 1
4. 58 75 18 50 68 0
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 58 54
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 61 .3
STREET STATION 9 DATE/82 DAYTIME( ) NIGHTTIME( 10:00)
Yuba St. 100' from southern pacificTRAFFIC TRAFFIC
p LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
RR tracks (No train)
36 cars/4 min on Calif 1. 58 78 10 50 61 7
St.
2. 60 75 14 53 62 5
3. 58 75 14 51 64 6
4. 57 82 12 57 74 7
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 58 53
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 60.6
94
.
•
• , TABLE 16
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/19/82 11 :30
STREET STATION 10 DATE DAYTIME( 9 am) NIGHTTIME( )
Cypress Ave. N/E C/O of Akard Ave. '& TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Cypress Ave. LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 65 36 59 84 7
2. 64 80 18 59 79 4
3. 63 23 64 70
4. 64 30 64 4
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 64
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 68.8
7/19/82
STREET STATION 11 DATE DAYTIME( 9:20) NIGHTTIME( )
Cypress Ave. S/W C/O Bechelli Lane TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
YP LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 61 .5 29
2.
3.
4.
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 61 .5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE
7/14/82
STREET STATION 12 DATE DAYTIME( 9:20 ) NIGHTTIME( 1135 )
Bechelli Ln. Riverview Market parking TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
lot LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 58 8 50 1
2. 58 9 49 65 1
3 57.5 8 46 0
4. 51 2
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ.
57.5 44111111 49.5 441110
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ 0 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 58.4
95
• •
TABLE 17 . . ' '
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/21/82 12:10) AM
STREET STATION 13 DATE DAYTIME(3:30 ) NIGHTTIME(
Hilltop Dr. Holiday Inn parking lot TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
1000' N/O Mistletoe Ln. LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 63 80 24 57.5 77 4
2. 62.5 82 31 60 77 4
3. 63.0 84 28 57.5 78 5
4. 60 77
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 63 59
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 66.3
STREET STATION 14 DATE DAYTIME( 3:20) NIGHTTIME( )
Parkview Ave. City Hall TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 57 60 5 53 63 1
2. 56 70 10 52 64 2
3. 50 68 3 55 74 ' 1
4. 59.5 82 54 74
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 54.5 53.5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 59.7
15 7/20/82 3;40 ) 11 ;10
STREET STATION DATrr_ DAYTIME( NIGHTTIME( )
Park Marina Dr. 100' W/0 Olympus TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 60 79 15 48 62 0
2. 56 78 10 51 .5 70 1
3. 58.5 75 52 2
4. 52 2
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ.
58.5 40" 51
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ 0 100' FROf•1 NEAREST LANE 59.6
96
• •
. . TABLE 18
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/19/82
STREET STATION 16 DATE DAYTIME( 4:05) NIGHTTIME(10:57 )
Market Street Across from Spence TVOLUIE TVOLUIE
Street LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 71 83 29 58 79 8
2. 68 87 27 62.5 7
3. 65.5 83 23 62.0 80 8
4. 68. 5 90 28 60 78 4
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 68.5 illipp. 61
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 69.6
7/26/82
STREET STATION 17 DATE DAYTIME( 7:35 ) NIGHTTIME(10:00 ) •
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Lake Boulevard Clay Street LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 63.5 83.5 14 53 70 1
2. 65 80 17 58 77 12
3. 63.5 84 9 59 83 9
4. 63 81 10
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 64 57. 5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 65.7
STREET STATION 18 DATE 82 DAYTIME( 8:07 ) NIGHTTIME( )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
North Market Accross from Littrell LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Street Welding between
Benton Drive and Rio 1. 68 85 13 60 83 8
Drive
2. 71 86 21 62 76 17
3. 70.5 85 21 62.5 70 15
4. 72 87 28 62.5 77 12
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 70.5 4111100. 62
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 71 . 1
97
• •
fI '
TABLE 19 " '
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/28/82
STREET STATION 19 DATE DAYTIME( 9:37) NIGHTTIME( 12:00 )a.m.
Redwood At 2018 Eagle NestTRAFFIC TRAFFIC
LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Mobilehome accross from Master
VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Subdivision Fabricators 100' 1. 50 64.5 0 38.5 57 0
on EagleFrom Earth Berm bird
Nest Court could hear grinder
2. 43 66 1 34 55 0
3. 42 60 0 39 57 0
bird
4. 48.5 64 0
bird
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ.• 47 38.8
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 47.8
7/27/82
STREET STATION 20 DATE DAYTIME( 9:50) NIGHTTIME(12:20 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Oasis Road Woggan Lane near Redding LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Tank
(Could hear shear 1. 54 72 4 45 54 1
press)
car
2. 60 75 4 45 63
car
3. 53 53 4 45 71 0
press
4. 50 50 1 57 57 0
press
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 58.3 52
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 60
7/2/ 8:40 ) 10:00
STREET STATION 21 DATE81
DAYTIME( NIGHTTIt1E( )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Rancho Road N/E 40 of Rancho Road LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
and Victor Avenue
1.
2.
3.
4.
AVERAGE 60 SEC, LEQ. 61 .5 4111010. 44.5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 60.9
98
• 110
� • TABLE 2U
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/19/82
STREET STATION 22 DATE DAYTIME( 9.;30) NIGHTTIME( )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Bechelli Lane C/O Loma Vista LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
1. 54.5 81 6 52 65 1
2. 56 7 49 65 1
3. 60 8 46 62 0
4. 51 .5 2
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 58. 5400" 502;X:
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ 0 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 59
STREET STATION 23 DATE DAYTIME( 9:50) NIGHTTIME(11 :15 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Hartnell Rother Elementary LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Avenue School parking lot
1. 63.5 80 19. 52 70 2
2. 61 .0 13 53 70 3
3. 59.0 10 54 5
4• 59.0 11 52 2
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 60.5 53
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ 0 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 61 .6
STREET STATION 24 DATE DAYTIME(11 :00 ) NIGHTTIME(11 ;23 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Interstate 5 Between Parsons Junior LEO PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Highschool and point
100 E/O I-5 outer 1. 70 87 25 70 75 12
lane (11 trucks)
. 2. 64.5 88 24 66 93 12
( 6 trucks)
3. 62. 5 90 25 65 80 12
4• 71 .5 27 66 10
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 68.5 67
CALCULATED CNEL FROR1 LEQ 0 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 73.7
99
• •
TABLE 21
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/26/82
STREET STATION 25 DATE DAYTIME(10:40) NIGHTTIME'(10:50 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Churn Creek Accross from Enterprise LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Road High School
(School not in 1. 60 10
session)
2. 60 85 16
3. 61 12
4. -- --
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 61
41111111
56
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 63.6
STREET STATION 26 DATE DAYTIME(10:50 ) NIGHTTIME( )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Churn Creek Convalescent Hospital LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
Road lot
1• 58. 5 80 12 53. 5 73 3
58 70 6
2• 59.5 12 54 6
3• 62 10 56.5 75 • 7
4. 53.5 75 4
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ, 60 55.5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 63.0 \
STREET STATION 27 DATE DAYTIME( 9:30 ) NIGHTTIME(10:58 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Cypress Avenue at Lawncrest Cemetary LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
parking lot
1• 52 78 4 44 75 1
2• 60 75 6 52 70 4
3• 62 78 6 48 72 2
4• 66 84 8 52 70
AVERAGE 60 SEC, LEQ. 62 45. 5 1110..
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEO @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE
60.5
100
• •
! .,
TABLE 'z2
NOISE MONITORING DATA
7/20/82
STREET STATION 28 DATE DAYTIME( 9:45) NIGHTTIME( 10:20 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Victor Avenue at Casa Cerina
LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
apartment
100' N/0 Cascade 1. 53.5 81 2 47.5 69 2
Street
2. 58 78 5 50.5 72 5
3. 61 81 8 46.5 75 2
4. 61 77.5 6 48 75 5
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 59 52
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 60.3
8/11/82
STREET STATION 29 DATE DAYTIME( 9:57) NIGHTTIME(10:30 )
Hartnell Between Victor Avenue TVOLUIE TVOLUIE
LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUf-1E
Avenue and Kenco Street
1. 68 82,5 15 54 70 5
2. 65 82 13 54.5 77 8
66
3. 58 77 11 56 75 5
56 9
4. 62 78 13 60 70 7
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 64 51 .5
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE 63.2
7/29/82
STREET STATION 30 DATE DAYTIME(10:40) NIGHTTIME(10:30 )
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
Cedars at 5221 Cedars LEQ PEAK VOLUME LEQ PEAK VOLUME
(Church parking lot)
1. 52 74 2 40 56 0
2. 45 0 40 54 0
3. 45 0 42 54 0
4• 45.5 0 40 56 0
AVERAGE 60 SEC. LEQ. 48, 1 40,6 4111
CALCULATED CNEL FROM LEQ @ 100' FROM NEAREST LANE
49.2
101
•
•
• '.
'�. rw b •-•t2 '4 :-.: 3,.. i.p f;''"v.is 316s -f.:.*:'.'7-5- S'k'. ..4'� :? _
{ .t y^-..:Y+'jayry. �ti Y �5 �w3�' '1{.�, P' �`fr�'.,h.}. 1 arY�� � 4i ;1i:.1.•it - _ f .�.,f. } l M.:"`j 'n''
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r • .
k
L
a
� - ..f � rk1 T �{�, xe �Y Y d
M
µ.
•
•
X. AIRPORTS
While ground-transportation noise is the most prevalent within the
community, aircraft produces by far the most intense noise. Within the
planning area, there are four established airfields - Redding Municipal Airport,
Benton Airpark, Enterprise Flying Club and an airstrip in the Mountain Lakes
Industrial Park.
Except for the Municipal Airport, the basic user of the airfields is the
general-aviation sector of the industry, consisting of single-engine propeller
or light, two-engine planes. The Municipal Airport provides service for
commercial airlines and general-aviation, particularily for large general-
aviation aircraft. Aircraft using the Municipal Airport include the DC-9, DC-6,
F-27, business jets and general-aviation craft.
During 1973, there were 1 ,420 jet operations at the Municipal Airport.
It is expected that the total number of aircraft operations will reach 60,000
events during the current year, 40,000 of them to occur during summer when
residents would be outside or have doors or windows open. There are now three
DC-9 operations a day for passenger traffic. By 1976, the passenger-traffic
load is expected to double that of 1970. Also based at the Municipal Airport
is the Northern California Service Center of the U.S. Forest Service, which
provides a training center for smoke jumpers and serves as the nerve center for
forest fire fighting operations , including support aircraft.
The Municipal Airport and Benton Airpark are owned and operated by the .
City of Redding. The Municipal Airport, however, is located in an unincorporated
area and has been a source of increasing land-use conflicts over the past several
years as pressures for residential development have increased. Recent County
General Plan and Zoning amendments have helped reduce these conflicts somewhat;
however, loopholes still exist for noise-sensitive uses to encroach within the
noise-impact area of the Airport.
The State of California has formulated a form of measurement - Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - in order to assess the magnitude of airport-
noise problems. In Redding' s case, the designated CNEL boundary is 70 dBA until
December 31 , 1985, and 65 dBA thereafter. (See Map 3) The various CNEL boundary
lines were formulated so that the magnitude of the noise problems associated
with airports could be defined to some measured value. The State has designated
-20-
• ! Figure 1 - .
(`r, ~��p j
540 ! fo I � ll � [7► .
(-1 ) \ . x I ,
_s s7o i -‘'6',,DP --)
0,.. , .,•,,c; ..I, .-„ e i . ,
1 ... .) ,--, i , ,. y 1
, ...
Pf ; , . ,
An 1i, 2\ `
` ‘\.-\_.,, p
\ 111 N j / O <
N.. TRANSITIONAL `�s 1� I /
x ZONE, �0,
SLOPE T'i , � ' ' • ° ° .o
oa
5 , I 1 c ‘5oJ �-� A I � ; 26',. rs,\\ J\• ' 1 tCom_
1 \RI~ DJINL
' HORIZONTAL ZONE
t.
JAM ' SURFACE I50 FEET AB
P
H a "}��,a4 I ' �-) \ i ESTABLISHED AIRPORT
•'.va� 1t.P..- 9 0 ?t 1 •:w ELEVATION
65 CNEL•••1 t I , 1
OU tCIPAL f RPORT
\GO
�
\ 1 I
70 CNEL•.•,• , I f 4 7 \ S) •
-
,\. o c
e
• 1.341 JJ �� 3\ II I
•s\ .I
I- Offf ,A
N I P t .jf ."' .1,“,"M �.a,- a;R \ • _. \
i 50991" ` \ s36
34 `t • �I rq , .. 4, �• , i v4, ,
, i i 520
...,/04.,-.„,.\ oy
• 1. • i I I , 9l �` \ � v k •
�1 .1 •
I i � I 1° �\ _
1 sL^ .54O ! .1 I • F • �� t
n,. -Ti1 i .,.. H t. ,
I , • 1 •0 I % 55� •
I T I L L W A T r .4'' w•! •`
o i 1°'�sG \'�
., • � 1Ill. ; :.
zi
It:. ; 1 , /.1 • t1' �I �`.. :. • ESTIMATED CNEL FOR
•t _ • , ' I i i t W .1,' 0 ,1.;: P L 2 REDDING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
- . ,� J I • j '' I • •
.• . .1 . :N_„\\" I` N 620 ' _ . • BOUNDARIES BASED ON:
:%. 1 '/ •�, �' ,;m' 4 FLIGHTS PER DAY BY
' , I DC-9 OR 8-737
. 6 1 '1 2- DAYTIME
,r - �r.�` I- EVENING
„�r _i
~ 1- NIGHTIME
SOURCE' CALIFORNIA
Noise Element DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS
• REDDING GENERAL PLAN AUG. I974
.) ,
•
also a threshold area that is ten decibels below the value of the designated
CNEL boundary. In Redding's situation, the threshold area extends from the
CNEL 70 contour to the CNEL 60 contour.* .This quantification of the noise
problem into CNEL contours has been based on existing evidence from studies of
community noise reaction, noise interference with speech and sleep, and noise-
induced hearing loss.
The CNEL boundaries can be used to mitigate the noise problem by two
legitimate means: The first is to insure that the airport operator will not
exceed a mandated set of operating criteria through control of the variables
associated with aircraft noise. The second method is through the establishment
of encroachment lines to eliminate incompatible development and to protect the
health and well being of the general population from existing noise levels.
The CNEL boundary has been established primarily for residential purposes.
For the purpose of the State of California, the level of acceptable noise to a
reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport is established as a
community noise equivalent level of 65 dB.** Basically, the community noise
equivalent level is the 24-hour average noise level encountered, including ad-
justments for evening and nighttime activities.
Based on these measurements and past experience, the State has found that
the following land uses are compatible with an airport within the designated
CNEL boundary:
1 . Agriculture
2. Airport property
3. Industrial property
4. Commercial property
5. Property subject to aviation easement for noise
6. Zoned open space
7. High-rise apartments in which adequate protection against
exterior noise has been included in the design and construc-
tion, together with a central air-conditioning system.
Primarily, the promulgation of the community-noise-equivalent lines is
*California Administrative Code, Business Regulations , Title 4, Section 5006
**C.A.C. , Title 4, Section 5005
***C.A.C. , Title 4, Section 5014
-22-
• •
to serve as a reference criterion for local jurisdictions , to insure compatible
land uses around the airports. The main focus is the protection of the citizen
in his living habitat, using methods ranging from noise limitations to exclusion
of dwellings. The intent is to insure the protection of residential uses , in-
cluding single-family and multiple-family dwellings, trailer parks , and schools
of standard construction, from noise. The State has determined that adequate
noise protection shall reduce the exterior-to-interior community-noise equiva-
lent in all habitable rooms to a noise level no higher than 45 dBA during
aircraft operations.*
The estimated CNEL contours of 55, 60, 65 and 70 should be prepared based
on a period of 20 years in the future and should consider new engines, retrofit
programs and other changes in aircraft design. The location of the contours
should include consideration of airport operational characteristics such as
flight paths, flight frequency by aircraft type and time of day when operations
occur.
It should be the policy of the City to prevent encroachment of noise-
sensitive uses within the 65 CNEL contour or any rezoning or General Plan
amendment permitting such. The City recognizes that by its very nature, an
airport and its users produce noise, therefore it should be the policy of the
City to minimize increases in existing noise levels and to assure that persons
residing in the vicinity of airports are protected to the greatest possible
extent against intrusions by unreasonable levels of aircraft noise through a
combination of means , including:
1 . Restricting the airports as to aircraft class and
weight limit.
2. Discourage the use of high noise aircraft.
3. Encourage takeoff and landing procedures which will
minimize noise.
4. Require future airport or runway expansions to take
into account adjacent noise sensitive uses .
5. Employ shielding to minimize noise propagation.
*California Administrative Code, Business Regulations , Title 4, Section 5006
-23-
e •
6. Encourage development of compatible uses within the
appropriate CNEL boundary.
7. Acquire land where necessary.
With respect to airports, noise standards should be established early,
as the cost of correcting is almost prohibitive.
-24-
•
XI. IMPLEMENTATION
Only in the past several years has noise been considered to have a
detrimental impact on man' s behavior and performance. The City of Redding
is fortunate in that at this particular point in its development, it still
has the opportunity to insure noise will not become a severe environmental
problem to the residents of the community.
During the past several years, developments which have come before the
City for discretionary judgement have been evaluated for their noise compati-
bility with surrounding uses. Some of these projects have had maximum noise
limits or hours of operation restriction placed on them.
To continue this program of noise alleviation and curtailment, it will
be necessary for the City to undertake a program whereby noise evaluation
will be an essential part of the planning process. To accomplish this, cer-
tain immediate actions can be taken which will alleviate gradual noise
increases within the community, such as;
1 . Opposition to noise levels which will have a substantial adverse
impact upon noise sensitive areas , through regulation of work
periods or equipment used, greater setbacks, special noise
limits, provision of landscaping and/or sound barriers.
2. Require new traffic routes or patterns to be designed to insure
noise levels compatible with existing or planned adjacent
uses.
3. Support and incorporate Building Code Amendments which will
reduce interapartment noise as endorsed by the International
Conference of Building Officials.
4. Oppose development of noise sensitive uses within the CNEL
contour of 65 around the Municipal Airport.
In the long run, it will be desirable for the City to take the following
actions to control noise within the urban area based upon community growth
and developments , fiscal capabilities and staff time:
1 . Undertake a community noise survey to quantify existing noise
levels in order to establish design noise level criteria for
the various land use categories.
—25 -
• •
2. Purchase noise monitoring equipment capable of up to 24-hour
recording- for the statistical calculation of ambient and peak-
noise values and thin frequency components.
3. Map noise critical areas for inclusion into special zoning
districts.
4. Require noise sensitive uses within noise critical areas to
obtain a use permit to insure adequate acoustic design in order
to prevent the intrusion of noise above prescribed levels.
5. Require certain noise producing use to obtain a conditional
use permit.
6. Cooperate with Shasta County in an effort to implement a
reasonable comprehensive noise ordinance for the planning area.
-2 6-
• , •
XII. APPENDICES
-27-
III •
APPENDIX A
LIST OF NOISE SOURCES
I. Transportation
A. Rail
•
1. Train track noise
2. Breaking
3. Squeak of wheels on curves •
4. Whistles
5. Air brakes
B. Trucks
1. Exhaust noise
2. Engines
3. Transmission and differential noise
4. Chain drive. noise •
5. Chassis noise
6 . Brakes
7. Air compressors
8. Sheet metal parts
9 . Tire whine
C. Automobiles •
1. High speed tire squeal
2 . Tire tread noise
3. Rattles
4. Engine noise
5. Exhaust
6. Horns
7. "Cutouts
• D. Aircraft
1. Piston engines •
2 . Jet engines
3. Helicopter blade noise
II. Industrial Noise
A. Out-of-doors processing
1. Air intake
2. Discharge ducts
3. Compressors
4. Engine intakes and exhausts
5. Pump and engine radiation
6. Steam discharge •
B. Enclosed Industrial Plant
1. All of above with open windows
2 . Fans and blowers
3. Punch presser
4 . Machine tools
5. Forging equipment
6. Printing presses
-29-
110 All
C. Out-of-doors operations
1. Warehousing of steel and lumber
2 . Scrap yards
3. Truck and rail freight handling
4 . Transportation .and loading •
a. Freight cars
h. Local yard movements
D. Plant auto traffic
1. Employee shifts
III. Construction floise
A. Diesel engines
1. Generators
2 . Compressors
3. Trucks
4. Shovels
5. Bulldozers
6. Frontloaders
7. Scrapers
8. Power shovels •
9 . Rock drills
B. Electric motors •
1. Whining and groaning sounds
C. Air compressors
1. Intake and discharge
D. Blasting
E. Pile driving
1. Engine
2 . Hammer driven caissons
F. Riveting
1. Hammer
2. Electric or pneumatic nut-setter
G. Materials handling equipment
1. Demolition
2. Scrap material handling
3. Elevators
4. Cement mixers
H. Special equipment
1. Generators
2. Rock drills
I. Interior finishing
1. Residential construction
2. Hammers
3. Power saws
4. Electric drills
IV. Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning
A. Air conditioning
1. Cooling tower
a. Fans
b. Water spray
-30-
411
2. Window units
a. Compressor
b. Pan
c. Rattles
a. Intakes and discharges
4. Draft drums
5. Oil burners
6. Combustion
7. Pumps
8. Attic ventilation fans
V. Non-Environmental Interaction Noise
A. Leisure activities
1. Radios
2 . Stereos •
3. Television
4 . Musical instruments
5. Workshop and home improvement tools
B. Outdoor activities
1. Power mowers
2. Hedge trimmers
• 3. Chain saws
4. Auto repairs or run-up .
C. Talking
1. On street
2. Arguments
3. Parties
D. Vehicles
1. Ice cream trucks
2. Delivery trucks
3. Ambulances
4. Fire vehicles
5. Motorcycles
E. Refuse collection
1. Trash cans
2 . Engine exhaust
3. Loaders and compactors
F. Meeting noises
1. Street meetings
2. Religious meetings
3. Concerts
4 . Church bells
G. Children at play
1. School yard
2. Playground
3. Street
4 . Yards
H. Animals
1. Barking dogs
2 . Cat cries
• I. Sound trucks
Source : League of California Cities , Quiet City Report,
pp. 15-17 .
-31-
• APPENDIX B •
•
RESOLUTION NO. 7.7)-.7.,4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF REDDING
AMENDING TIIE GENERAL PItN• OP TUE CITY OF REDDING BY
ADDING A NOISE ELEMENT TO TEE SAID GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65302 requires the
General Plan to include a Noise Element in quantitative, numerical
terms, showing contours of present and projected noise levels
associated with all existing and proposed major transportation
elements, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared a Noise
Element in order to comply with the above statutory requirements,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on Tuesday,
November 12, 1974, in public hearing and noticed in accordance
with law, and approved the attached Noise Element and recommended
that Council adopt this additional element and incorporate the
Noise Element within the General Plan of the City of Redding, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the said recom-
mendation and considered the said Noise Element and considers the
adoption of same to be in the best interests of the City of Redding,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Redding does hereby adopt the attached Noise Element,
marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference, as the
Noise Element for .the City of Redding.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said Noise Element be
incorporated within the General Plan.of the City of Redding as
an addition thereto and amendment thereof.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Redding on the Gth day of January, 1975, and was
duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Anuerson, Demsher, Fulton, Pugh, anu Denny
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Ilone
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Done
(112A.01,11.4 (Dn tv\
CHARLES F. DENNY
Mayor off the City of Reddin
-32- 4�f�
• ,
T.
• A T ST:
MILDRED L. BRAYTON, City Clerk
FORM APPROVED; �/
EARL D. MURPHY, ,City/Aytgrney
•
-33-
. APPENDIX C
C , y
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OF THE NOISE ELEMENT
The guidelines adopted by the State Resources Agency require that
an environmental impact report be prepared for the adoption or
amendment of a general plan or element thereof , except where the
general plan or element thereof addresses all the points required
to be in an environmental impact report and the document contains
a section or cover-sheet identifying where the general-plan docu-
ment addresses each of the points required.
The guidelines for the preparation of an EIR list nine general
areas to be reviewed. However , since the guidelines are designed
for specific project .proposals , it is not possible to address
each of the areas with the same degree of specificity that would .
be covered for individual projects. With this perspective in
mind, the following environmental assessment is attached to the
Noise Element to illustrate the relationship between the element
and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION I - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
A. Location
Shown on maps supplied in Element.
B. Purpose.
Described in the "Preamble" , Chapter I of the Element.
C. Objectives.
Outlined in Chapter VII , "Noise Control Goals" .
D. Project Characteristics .
Discussed in Chapter IV, "Community Noise Survey" .
SECTION II DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing noise environment is discussed in Chapter V,
"Survey Results , " and Chapter VI , "Problem Areas" .
SECTION III - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action.
The goals and standards of the Noise Element are aimed
at reducing excessive noise to an acceptable level
that does not jeopardize the health and welfare of the
citizens of Redding. Thus , the goals of the Element
will be its impact.
• II/ •
B. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided
if The Element is Implemented.
1. Commitment of energy and time to insure that the
Noise Element goals are maintained and perpetuat-
ed , (Chapter XI , "Implementation" ) .
2 . Introduction of noise reduction measures and fut-
ure noise reduction programs may contribute to
higher costs for goods and services to the consumer.
C. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Impact.
This element recommends positive action programs that
will preserve and perpetuate the community' s resident-
ial-commercial character. Moreover, the benefits of
the suggested noise-control programs are an increase
in efficiency, higher property values , fewer hearing
difficulties , better social group relationships , im-
proved communications and health, and less litigation.
Although it is not possible to place economic and
social values on these benefits , they are worthwhile
achievements which, if pursued , would enhance the
quality of life throughout the community. Thus , the
Element itself is a mitigation factor of adverse envi-
ronmental impacts.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
The alternative of "no action" is in reality not a
valid one. State legislation requires that a noise
element be included in all county and city general
plans in accordance with the State' s noise-element
guidelines .
E. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man' s
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-
Term Productivity .
This element will improve the noise environment in
Redding. The Short-term implications of the Element
will not signigicantly disturb landforms , or disrupt
social-economic systens. The Long-term results will be
better health and improvement in the quality of life
for all residents .
F. Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Invol-
ved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented.
Currently , there are no immediate or projected irrevers-
ible environmental changes associated with the adoption
of this element, nor will there be any hardship placed
on existing development.
-35-
• 'y
-r
G. The Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action.
It is not expected that the Noise Element will serve
as an impetus to growth or act as a detriment ; rather,
it will minimize the adverse environmental impact of
new development.
•
-36-
_ .
. : , • III • ..- • • . . .
r
. ,
. . .
SOURCES CONSULTED .
• • • t
.. 1. California State University, Los Angeles, Second Interim Report of Environ-
• mental Quality, Indicator Study. February 14, 1973. •-
2. Cohen, Eleanor, ed. , Expanding the Environmenmental Resoonsibility of Local . •
Government, Clare.mont'fi Environmental Task Force and its Iveco,,-lendations.
Claremont, California: Center for California Public Affairs, September, 1972.
3. Gatley, William S. and Frye, Edwin E. , Regulation of Noise in Urban Areas ,
August, 1971.
4. Gay Robert E. , Community Noise Study Inglewood, California: City of
Inglewood Planning Department, August, 1972.
5. - Kaiser, Edward J. ct.al. , Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban
Planning and Controls.. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Center for Urban - • .
and Regional .Studies, University of North Carolina, June, 1973. -
6. League of California Cities, Quiet City COiCmittee,- .Quiet City Report. •
Los Angeles, California, League of California Cities. -
7. Livingston and Blayney, City and Regional Planners, Redding General Plan, 1970.
/
8. Sacramento Tegional Area Planning Commission and R. Dixon Speas Associates , -
General Guidelines for the Airport Lana Use Commission of Sacramento, County,
Sutter County, and Yuba County, November, 1973.
- 9. State of California Council on Intergoyerntental Relations, General Plan .
Guidelines. Sacramento, California, September, 1973. - • . -
10. State of California, Office of Administrative Hearings, California Adminis-
� . - Code, Title 4, Subchapter 6. Sacramento, California: Documents Section. •
11. State of California, Office of. Administrative Hearings, California Admi.nistr.a-
tive Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Article 4. Sacramento, California Documents
Section.
12. State of California, Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Goals
and Policy, Sacramento, California: March, 1972.
• 13. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Policy, Federal
Highway Administration. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise.
. . Washington, D.C. •
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Now Hear This! Washington, D.0„ August, 197•
• - 1 .
,. '77.•'''T77-77."g"."..',.,7'".f.,%'..,',
0
i., 1,,..c.k . 4..... •••• II• , ,
, Vlo, { 'Po • 1 i I Hi54° ':! •,,'''' I 1 ',4. -: ::4j3 ''' : , ' -:.: : .
. 1
••••-,
11'.1 '
•i
• ' I . -•.. -
•..., • ....'i' '1 .1,1 i• 1 1\1 IC
\ I '
-• • -..
, 1 1 •4 1 i
i 't'•-1-- ' 4
.q \ BM 50:5 : L''' % :-. ''''' 1`.
-\ •
N i I 'i 4' • , e.
k - \3 • ‘‘`..i. ( °cr.
,..,..0„,
\ . • . l —' -,.../ ---•- --`
TRANStrIONAL c it f : '' .1 .
7 •,:-., . (
,
..II4
. s_
ZONE, • .1. 2P -;,..1 1
1 • c._,:r.).4,21.:.6.
• SLOPE 7-I
i -•
I •
\ (
..-: 4 4')' : 1 -/ 1
_.... , 4• ",'
• , 4.)1. A, :i. i I
"-
'..
• '• .1 • • . . . i'- I ' !. ' q5, DDINLI- 26
I LM. .' •
.....i ' -- PORIZONTAL ZONE
. (\ • '
1-....-1
-4 • — .• 'SURFACE 150 FEET AB
il . , \ , ,- _
....,
1 - • g-- g '49 • \ 1 : . . •4 "'"''- . ESTABLISHED* AIRPORT
.. .. ,,...,-. 0A . 1 ., , - • :,, 1 t4x, ELEVATION . . ,..,... •:2..s..:
\ •-• . . - 1 '.4.5•2 .R.P,-., -.4.
, 65 CNEL-1 , i ,.:.--.-- 1
i ri.. I • r ' qd CIPO, ' ..,'• RPORT • .
,
—
.
70 CNEL.•-•...i I 1-
1 ' -:.;•11-.
:
- ‘. 0 • '
‘ . - -- -- • -
1 -11., . ..... - ' 2 —7.--''..\• ..i s''' - .. .. -. :. - :..
. 1
• 134''V - I • . . ; . 't>.\ • . 3-6\ ,.
1 1\ \ 1 r
I \ 4i.,-, fi.01-1. •\ . . . . :
: , 1
:1 ' - - 1-•--1- I p 4 ; -.4 1 m -- . 17 - 4 • -. '''-• ••-'-7 —•'--• z5- ' .n- \
1 . ., .2
, , a 5-08- - : , •• 360cil . .
.111, 1 I
i! i ; 5 i .s,„_•,,,,_*., ,0-_,, , ,,,,,. , 4,,, - .
. . • .. soA,•3,- ..., . . <, -1-4,-g- .- •. .. .
--•• I.1 i I ' I - •f,11 '• • R. ''''',..-;.,. •,"\ /-,,,,x,e.,,,
•:._ ....
! ! 520 Il 1 4 1 _„'0./,,,•,, ,... . • r„.111,
l' '
. 1 1 ! NI. 1 1 i i
r ,I i ii• l_... 1
il i 2 .
I. ---...... . . .
' <6 \ .-'1, - - . '4 ." ' ' • 2.
• :,; • ...i ll I 40 11.4 ' ` ....---.. - - ..-. . • . .
' •• . • ,\,6P...-.:,.* •..•:;•.,.. .-,:,:a...-..,;.-•,-..-:,- -..-.;,.;. - •>,.---:-.:. ..-•! .- -
-,•4. , .4 - 1 1 i 1 1 14'." . ' . !I :: 1 -..'.:'''''''''': - \ ' . . -.',- ' "i ,.- •..
.i -''''' '.....=.77 ''. ' i i I • i ,, ft*: It .i*1'..7 :f.:r, :.•AI:11' . • - . ..•f'119'4 .' ' -
%. . . I 11 - 5 66‘....._:__ 1,,1 I . rk \ • ', ..' . "iii.,.' -‘
,. . 4. ,.. ' ,., i fp, T , I L L. W A . T E 1,„ •,.. 4.41•• ... , . .. vi. •
•
I'. . --. . • • .
il I . , , ‘.1 . . .1 ,-0<pc, . . \f5._A‘ -_ •
j . I It '' 580 ." 7 .1 , .. i z.
'1' • - 1
111 x , :•,: ;. ik , i. ... . ../.•
1 , 1 .- I \' ' .•:,, . .5,4 .
• 41.
U . 4 I ! 1 1 's \w ,1 "'I.., . i . ,.,... . .. .
liilL Ate • • , 4- I _
14 P L ESTIMATED CNEL FOR
,- _ .
i i f u.,
_ ( :IIE• I. . -: 2 REDDING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
I, • --,
,
BOUNDARIES BASED ON:
I . 1 ' \
. . •
. .., ., 620 ' .
e;,... i 21.. 9: ...""r1;10.nr•Ir : . • :. • • 4 FLIGHTS PER DAY BY
, - G ..
•e•
0 at. - ., ....;`,:,..i. : • ' lj N-.• -7-.---4_:.r,., . •..i _ _ DC-9 OR B-737
,g...,.....
-, ..
L
.. ._ . , ._
• - • --. ., . ' ( .` 6j0 /
i •" - DAYTIME
'-414 ..\\ • r , ..;. *. -
: .
-- fr`47-79,4976771: \ii
SOURCEI- EVENING
I- NIGHTIME
CALIFORNIA
Noise Element .. . . DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS
REDDING GENERAL PLAN . . -. . , . . ..
, .• ..:-.....AUG;1974,
111
ii
N
E
-- w
-T:, UJ
i \\\‘
v_. z
I e\ I
1-4
,‘\ \\1
�''�k_____
w
.......,. .. __ ______„....„,; �
...._________ ____ . __ _.... _ _____. 0,f____::_... ___.....„..,,,
......,,..:... .....:„..,_ ........„.7..._ _
\ v, > P T
L ' Z .- L L.
E - pc,
cn
a c
0 f4 UO O
> z v v .>
r:.-7 '-' >+1 0 2 ! :HI'. !
xCI
- r:--) _ s
I1 'n f > l - L c L
�,,,,i L) `. ul. fel . W
C. n c v 1, t
L)
c
Li;
0
C
/ x�� = EXHIBIT - T
l(
LI
• Noise Contours-
Traffic Circulation