The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPublic Comment from Lucy Jackson- RedactedALMOND Ave. SOUND WALL Problem 1: freeway expansion has caused noise levels that violate Seal Beach Municipal Code and Housing and Urban Development st WMe inadequate sound wall (51162) Aster St. to Jasmin Cir. Problem2: Poor outdoor quality oflifeforCPEfamilies L.Jackson 09MAR26, 8 pages Problem 3: Future housing developments will exasperate noise pollution and air pollution caused by the further increase of traffic. REQUESTS Ask 1: City to perform sound studies, including backyards. Add to the budget planning 26/27. Ask2: Public city works engineers to define properwalt design to reduce levels at least 10 dBA per FH WA Design Handbook. Provide design and budgetary estimates for 26/27. Ask 3: Plant adult trees on Almond wall side. Ask 4: Request Cattrans to set Rubberized Asphalt on the next maintenance campaign. Ask 5: Update seal beach fence height allowances for residences to 15'. Ask 6: Get ahead of future developments (Lampson, Westminster) and preform studies for traffic increase, noise and air pollution. Work with other cities to measure range of impact across communities. Ask 7: Has the city of seal beach held OCAT/Caltrans responsible for 23 CFR 772.13 that states that "the highway agency shall re -analyze the allowable cost for abatement on a regular interval, not to exceed 5 years"? CURRENT STATE •Regulatory Violation: My independent study confirms a violation of 24 CFR Part 51. Our neighborhood has been pushed into a "Normally Unacceptable" noise zone without the federally mandated abatement. •Engineering Failure: The 2015 EIR recommended a new sound wait for Alternative 3, yet the implementation is a failure. A 12-foot recommendation was already insufficient; the current wall fails to break the line -of - sight to 14-foot semi -trucks, rendering it acoustically useless per the FHWA Noise Barrier Design Handbook. •Lack of Accountability: The decision to abandon wall improvements based on a "low ROI" for a handful of homes is a failure of equity. Seat Beach has neglected its dutyto enforce city noise codes for its most impacted residents. PLEA Urban development is essential but also is quality of life and health. We must engineer ways to do achieve both! Noise control is a health requirement defined by federal law. If the wall doesn't break the line of sight, it doesn't break the sound. I am asking the City to demand a post - construction actions! I am asking this Council to not treat federal noise standards and wall design regulations as suggestions'. Instead, eo rsist and use this as leverage to advocate for the wellbeing of your residents. 13 Preliminary Independent Noise Study CODES Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.15: 7am-10pm = 55 dBA,10pm-7am = 50 dBA HUD 24CFR Part 51: Permanent operational noise >65dBA (DNL) "Normally Unacceptable" (51.103) Noise Data: Wednesday 3/4/26 Location: Logger on my 2nd story bedroom window. Study Timeframe: 6:38AM - 7:50PM 24 hr Temp range: 52 F - 66F 24 hrs RH range: 69%-94% 90 95 - tlo .-. 75 70 05 60 55 Zaada %Sd F2 fdc dd3d £affff�i`a `uiiiiff ii� 04 March 2026 [dBA] mnr�.�immm �-�—^A^.. Q.rvN rvmdii�v Nnn �MeOnwl �9eal-pchM dsA �XVDAppioxM1�ry MaatlDAaS uo 08 March 2026 night [dBA] n w OV �R.-Irli [[1� ItX II 1 tee£€sigEs�2 2€;:8c3:a2§ .za:a33§.<5<55 a8ST��..s�V nRAY.. 4 S�,M 3G �N...,.� �G.. X. a,XXa.OW �NUC Xuvo�.nMNn.ueAM1a Notes: • Temp/RH/Thermel Inversion le average for Seat Beach. These conditions do not represent the worse elate(cotder conditions) • dBA: dBA is a more forgiving measu re than dBC. This data exc W des night-time car racing on the freeway. • 3/8 add l hr(sp ring find) Ley Equivalent Continuous Sound Levels Data Logger for day & early evening Timeframe: 04MAR26 6:38AM - 7:50PM Data Points: 43,156 Min = 53 dBA Max= 85.3dBA Data evening Timeframe: 08 MAR26 8:38 PM - 6:49AM Data Points: 36,665 Min = 51.9 dBA Max= 90.0dBA Ley Results Leq = 1OLog10[Average 10dBA/10� Ley = 70.0 dBA Sm AfcV..'LItt S..DAR05 pe,1111 wraRM1mMlwNlln RM1XYIM1ppnW rJ AaeptXMe 'Mm n«wn,R Bs Mme. 75O wtose'ebi. AWn 75 eB F.nmm 'e Roi—(3). "urvnie, (5). Breakmias Line of Sight - FAIL Under 23 CFR 772.13(d)(1), a noise barrier is only considered 'acoustically feasible' if it achieves a minimum reduction of 5 d8. According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) and the FHWA Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook, a barrier only begins to provide that baseline 5 dB reduction when It is tall enough to break the Une of sight between the receptor and the noise source. For heavy trucks, the primary noise source is the exhaust stack, which Cattrans defines at 11.5 feet above the pavement. From my property, I have a clear, unobstructed line of sight to the rooftops and exhaust stacks of every semi -truck on the 405. Because wall fails to break that line of sight due to the freeways increased elevation and lane proximity, it is effectively providing zero acoustic shielding for the loudest vehicles on the road. This wall is a ptaceholder, not a protector. I am formally requesting a re-evaluation of the barrier height to meet the federal 7-10 dB Noise Reduction Design Goal, as the current structure fails the basic feasibility test mandated by federal law Wall is Less than 14' on the fwy side 14' 3.5.1 Baffler Beslrn Goals and insertion Loss. The first step In barrier design is to establish the design goals. Dell, goals may net be limited simply to noise reduction at receivers, at mogalso Include other co,eiderstions of sorely and mainumar. as welt These omer censMenuons are discussed later In sections Numbllls, Net each)IL addl�tional expectedn be off bbarrier Migh abovvee� One-of-sight sle of slgM1 hb ool me wll provili aboust ut 11.55 d8(A) of de the ainonel Attenluation� (see Figure 13). rla,e... Y.o.oe.wln .I Prop¢dy-designed noise banters should attain an IL approaddrg 10 dB(A), whiN Is equivalent to a pertelved bahAng In loudness ter the first row of homes directly behind Me harder. For We. nbudenrs no: directly behind the bard., a noise nductim of 3 to 5 da(A) can typically be provided, which Is just slightly perceptible m the human ear. Table 4 shows file relationship between bonier IL and design feaslbiilty.abl Ta a.WIenYNy a.. bern'In xmo..—aad dr4^he.IWYry. aard.r Maarten Lai ...Is. 1—lbllity l Reduction In SduM lettpy aided. Redaction In Lead... _SdB(A) sl.cle :fin% keenly,.—Plol ._..._._..._ ._ _..__.. _.... __. _.___... Ill tlO(A) prWlnaG<. '90% ryalrM bud uupu.�nnn.Twa...lwim.n va_wnleM.dnm ,,'m 3/�' jai lucy jackson ummary cy jackson Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 2:23 P is Patty Senecal <psenecal sealbeachca. ova David Spitz Gdspitz@sealbeachca.gov> ;: Robert Jackson Mello Patty, Per our discussion this morning. Here is a summary of my investigation. 1 will send a separate email once I have a proposed agenda to share. Recap: in October 2024 we moved to College Park East in Seal Beach CA. We love our new home but over the last months we have experienced a variety of 405 freeway noise levels, sometimes making it very uncomfortable to be outside or even open doors and windows (specially on the 2nd floor). I truly believe that my entire community has been placed at an unfair disadvantage, depleting us of the right to enjoy our homes, backyards and parks. Area The affected area (in red below) is between the north bound 22W and Seal Beach Blvd exit. Almond avenue has an aged and thin wall that does not deflect the noise properly. In this section the freeway is higher than the residences making this wall even less effective. In the various reports, this area will be referred to as "Valley View Street to Seal Beach Boulevard" and/or Soundwall "51162". You may also see references to "Blue Bell Park", "Almond Ave", "Daisy Cir", or "College Park East"_ Summary. of Facts (as I understand them), See link and table below to access the reference documents. �� ;s f `Qj r .3SUd%3 — — 4338dk3 m c p - _ _ N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ V N V lescription of the alternatives. -.PA 4.pdf (summary section), also explains that Alternative 3 would increase noise levels up to 80db B. These situations are generally caused by some construction feflmre such as an ovcrerossine inbankrnent or a retaining wall that would provide traffic noise shielding in the f rrive case that unently floes not etist. The range of predicted future traffic noise levels with project tinder LIternative 1 is 52 to 79 dBA. Alternative i predicted fatnre traffic noise levels range fioni 53 a'80 dBA. and the range for Alternative 3 is 52 to 80 dBA. >. There are several reports going back and forth about noise abatement decisions but the last one I found is from Mach 2015 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EPA 8.pdf). this document states that the construction of a sound wall is recommended for Alternative 3 for SC1162 (pg. 44) . Y-aller Viea- Street to Seal Beach Bonlerard Soundwall S1162: Sotndwall S116_2 would be Iocated at the edge of the shoulder along the northbound side of I405 and woidd extend an existing sotmdwall 700 ft alone the northbound side. The total consnuction cost of this 12-tt-Inch \rill is estimated to be $225,000. which is less than the reasonable allowance of $270.000. With consideration of the acoustic benefit, constnuction of Soltadwall S1162 is reasonable and reconm eluded to k a 12-ft-high masonry wall, as shotru in Fietire 23 and Table 3 in Appendic Ns. 3.The city of seal beach has policies of no more than 55db, at any time, for single family residences. See doc SB 1.pdf. CMany reports go back and forth clamining that wal ROi was not met because it only affects 1 or 2 residences. I was not able to make sense to any of that. Our strategy needs to drive us forward towards permanent mitigations such as: -new wall must be taller than the orginal 2-story homes. Walls need to be thicker using noise ablating material and should be designed with a noise deflector. �/d -City many need to increase permitted fence height in between properties. -Seal beach must have a persistent and strong stance in preventing negative effects of developments that will increase noise and air pollution (among other detriments), ie Lampson development project. Reference documents OCTA's site only has general infor for the 1-405 Project. On Jan 20 20251 found several Noise reports on OCTA's website but today those reports 'no longerfound' in OCTAS site!. ChatGPT helped me find the documents on the EPA's database under EIS#: 20160091 I uploaded all filesthat seemed relevant to me to this google drive: https:Hdrive.google.comidrive/folders/loiL5kYeThhlEJkZt2xO-BTVIOA6 MBs2?usp=sharing Please take the time to review the documents in the table below focusing on my notes. The EPA site has hundreds of more documents, too many for me to read and all very disorganized - difficult to review things chronologically. I trust that the city's staff has history on this project and was involved in the review of such reports which greatly impacted decisions made for residents of this city. File Name Description Link OCTA 1.pdf "When does OCTA deem a sound wall is needed, etc bitps:/Avvvw.octa.net/P-df/j5,,aoundwail101FinaI pdf OCTA 2.jpg 'I-405 Improvement project site stating that new sound walls would https://www.fhwa.dot.govfiipd//ppnject profiles/ca_i405 provement oroject.aspx#•—•text=The%201%2D405% be added 201mprovemgnt2i20Project and%20Transgortation%20Demand% 0 an t°o Ostrate� https://octa.nettpdf/OCTA 1405South faq.pdf#:—:text=The% OCTA 3.pdf See points 6 & 7. These reports need to be provided for the 201%2D405%20South%201mprovement%20Project% 20from%201%2D5%20to%20SR%2D55% community to review. 20is%20a%20proposed%20freeway&text=A%20Noise%20Study% 20Report%20(N SR)%20and%2ONoise%2OAbatement% 20Decision%2ORe ort. 'OCTA4.jpg "see points 10& 11 bttps://m-mocta net/P-Lograms-psgjec s/projggafteewa _projectsA-405-i-5-to- 55/f q s -/ OCTA 5.pdf ROD record of decsion 2015. No wall will be constructed. IZttnsa/drive.google.com/file/d/1 xYvpj uYzBrTYG03UPr36ybQx1 Of334d/view EPA Noise Study Report Jun 2011 Part19 Explains costs for soundwall SC1162 EPA 1.pdf Concern: the ROI calculations use $43k per residence, in some studies they claim that the noise only affects 1 to 4 residences, hence failing the cost/benefit analysis. EPA 3.pdf May 2012 soundwall declined for tennis court area but then offered new option? Not clear Noise report June 2011 part 1 The range of predicted future traffic noise levels with project under Alternative 1 is 52 to 79 dBA. Alternative 2 predicted future traffic noise levels range from 53 EPA4.pdf to 80 dBA, and the range for Alternative 3 is 52 to 80 dBA The project limits of the noise analysis for Alternative 3 are south of Bristol Street including the SR-73 interchange south to Bear Street to the 1-605 interchange including 1-605 south of Katella Avenue. Noise report june 2011 part 3 EPA 5,pdf 7.2.2.5 Pg. 90: Table 7-44, only 1 residence impacted?! Pg. 118: Table 7-69, only 2 residences impacted?! EPA 6.pdf Noise Abatement Decision Report Sept 2011 Part1 pg.20,25,36 s1162 only 1 residence affected? EPA7.pdf 481-405 FINAL EIR-EIS Appendix N Noise Part2 Part2 PG.13 51162 wall is recommended MARCH 2O15 19 1-405 FEIR-EIS V1 Section 3.2.7 Noise SC1162 wall for alternative 2 is not recommended. PG. 44 SC1162 wall for alternative 3 is recommended. PG. 45: Based on the studies completed to date, the Department intends to incorporate noise abatement in the form of (a) barrier(s) EPA 8.pdf at: several locations, with respective lengths and average heights as shown in NADR. Calculations based on preliminary design data show that the barrier(s) will reduce noise levels by 5 to 12 dBA for abutting residences at a cost of $12,850,000. If during final design conditions have substantially changed, noise abatement may not be necessary. The final decision of the noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement processes. Noise Element City of Seal beach. 2002 Study SB 2.pdf Site J was at 67.4 (conditionally acceptable) pg.29 explains plan SB 1.pdf City of Seal Beach Noise Policy,, Chapter 7.16 Zone 1 (residence): no more than 55db at any time CALTRANS 1.pdf The MMRP seems to be embedded in a final environmental https://d iive.google.com/file/d/1hJFw-LmGvj3VOYP8BjB4PXeH6$20f6ux/ document. However when I click on their link the document is titled view "initial study". ? AnnP_nrtix P ss eemfn list tha "Avnidb ance Minimatinn nnri/nr 1 O endix E, pg 239 endix E, pg 251 : decision to build only one sound wall in irvine. i listed in oa 56. Please calllemail me with any questions you may have. Regards, cc: o e "acon, my husband. �g