Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNoise Subcomittee Notes_06182024Action Minutes: GPAC Noise Subcommittee Meeting Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. Location: Newport Beach Meeting Room at City Hall and Teams GPAC and GPUSC Members in Attendance: Amber Snider, Annie Clougherty (Remote), Anthony Maniscalchi (Remote), Charles Klobe, David Guder (Remote), Jim Mosher, Thomas Meng, Nancy Gardner City Staff in Attendance: Ben Zdeba and Monique Navarrette Brief Discussion Recap and Action Minutes Subcommittee Chair Jim Mosher initiated the meeting at 3:32 p.m. and referenced the agenda and support materials he had prepared and distributed. Recap of the April 23 Noise Subcommittee Meeting Chair Mosher led the discussion on the previous meeting and recounted that the Subcommittee accomplished the following: • Identifled and selected a chairperson. • Reviewed the revisions that the City Council approved to the Noise Element in November 2023. • Discussed topics and policies that should be covered as part of the Subcommittee’s efforts. • Introduced the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines to help provide guidance on updating the Noise Element. During this discussion, Chair Mosher posed two questions. In response to the flrst question, Principal Planner Zdeba noted that the action minutes should have been posted online in the GPAC’s repository. He committed to making a better effort to ensure minutes and materials are uploaded in a timely manner. In response to the second question, Principal Planner Zdeba stated that there is no single “noise coordinator” for the City. Instead, he indicated that it is a shared responsibility across multiple departments. GPUSC Chair Gardner, Subcommittee Member Charles Klobe, and Chair Mosher discussed the potential of providing a policy recommendation that the City identify a noise coordinator. GPUSC Chair Gardner noted that most of the Subcommittees have expressed a desire to have a dedicated staff person for their respective elements. Update of Dudek’s Support Efforts for the Noise Element Principal Planner Zdeba provided a brief overview of Dudek’s efforts related to the Noise Element. He stated that a senior acoustician with Dudek is working to review the current Noise Element. He clarifled that there will not be a full existing conditions and background analysis report and instead, there will be a brief memo that discusses the current Noise Element and identifles any signiflcant gaps to possibly address. He assured the Subcommittee that there will be consultant support, especially if it is found that there are items to update for compliance with current standards and best practices. Subcommittee Member Klobe commented on the importance of this element since it is a required element and, in response to Subcommittee Member David Guder’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba shared that the memo should be delivered to the Subcommittee soon. GPAC Noise Subcommittee Action Minutes for June 18, 2024 In response to Chair Mosher’s question, Principal Planner Zdeba expressed that it is too early to identify the scope of the update for the Noise Element. He opined that it would be best for Dudek’s memo to be released flrst and then the Subcommittee can help guide the work. GPUSC Chair Gardner added that it will be important for the full GPAC, GPUSC, and Council to support the additional work. ✓ Action: While no action was taken by the Subcommittee, Principal Planner Zdeba committed to sharing Dudek’s memo the week of June 17, or early in the week of June 24. Update on Existing Noise Element Implementation Matrix Subcommittee Member Tony Maniscalchi referenced the Implementation Matrix prepared by Principal Planner Zdeba and asked about the activeness of the City’s Aviation Committee. It was commented that the Aviation Committee only meets quarterly and is generally lacking items for review or input. GPUSC Chair Gardner shared that the GPAC could suggest more involvement from the Aviation Committee if it would be seen as beneflcial to the Noise Element’s implementation. Chair Mosher noted that it may be premature for the Subcommittee to make comments on the matrix at this stage of the review. Review of Noise Complaint Data Principal Planner Zdeba stated that the City’s Code Enforcement Division is important when it comes to noise, as they are charged with enforcement in the fleld. He introduced Senior Code Enforcement Officer Monique Navarrette to provide some perspective. The key takeaways from Officer Navarrette’s presentation were as follows: • There are a number of classes of noise complaints that may be received by other departments (Police, Harbor, Recreation and outside agencies like the airport) and that are not normally seen or logged by the Code Enforcement Division (loud animals, loud vehicles, loud boats, special events, aircraft and more). • The Code Enforcement Division’s complaint data can be compiled on an annual basis, so data regarding noise complaints was compiled for the 2023 calendar year. • The most common noise complaint in 2023 was construction noise. • Other most common complaints stemmed from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems without proper barriers, pool pumps, and short-term rentals. • Each complaint is handled differently, and some are easier to enforce than others. For example, construction noise outside of allowed construction hours is easy since, if construction is occurring after hours, it is an easily founded complaint. Complaints related to equipment are harder and more time-intensive, as they often require sound readings in 20-minute intervals. • Code Enforcement can work to provide quantifled data for noise complaints, as well as a “heat map” showing any possible concentration of noise complaints. Officer Navarrette noted that, with many of the complaints coming from construction projects, there is unlikely to be any concentration since there are construction sites all over the city. • The City maintains two different standards: an interior noise standard and an exterior noise standard to identify the allowable decibel ratings, and complainants can request a sound reading with either the window open or closed. GPAC Noise Subcommittee Action Minutes for June 18, 2024 • Code Enforcement responds to all complaints. They are investigated and can either be founded or unfounded depending on the evaluation of the reported condition in the fleld. • Noise standards are broken down between residential and commercial (i.e., nonresidential) – there is no distinction between different types of residential and nonresidential. • Code Enforcement is available seven days a week and during the late-night hours. • There is no identifled standard for how loud construction equipment can be during construction hours. Chair Mosher commented that some cities, such as the City of Los Angeles, do maintain such standards. Subcommittee Member Maniscalchi expressed that the Subcommittee should be cautious about adding new rules to enforce. He expressed support for the current goals and policies. ✓ Action: While no action was taken by the Subcommittee, Officer Navarrette stated she would provide quantitative data on the number of complaints received and the thresholds used for determining if a violation had occurred, as well as see if it is possible to create a heat map showing where the complaints come from. Looking Ahead Chair Mosher discussed the next steps as outlined in OPR’s guidelines. He reiterated the need to consider new noise contours as a baseline to ensure informed policy decisions that are representative of residents’ concerns. He expressed that the previous two revisions to the Noise Element did not adequately address noise measurement and management. He commented that the consultant for the 2006 General Plan Update only measured noise in 20 different locations for 15 minutes each, which may not have provided as accurate a picture as would a 24-hour measurement. Subcommittee Member Klobe amplifled Chair Mosher’s comments by sharing that roadway noise on Mariner’s Mile and before Mariner’s Mile along Newport Boulevard is very noticeable even from as far away as Newport Harbor High School. He expressed that the existing conditions and projected roadway noise are important considerations that need to be studied and updated. Subcommittee Member Maniscalchi commented on the evolution of airport noise since technology is improving with newer aircraft. He expressed support for Chair Mosher’s recommendation to pursue updated baseline conditions. Subcommittee Member Thomas Meng commented that although there is better technology, there are more fiights from John Wayne Airport than there used to be. GPUSC Chair Gardner suggested that the Subcommittee may be interested in having a representative of the Airport Commission visit to share about the future for John Wayne Airport. There was a discussion on the appropriate horizon for the General Plan as possibly being 2050, and whether there are different levels of concern regarding noise in the various areas of Newport Beach. There was also a discussion about complaints being made to homeowners’ associations instead of the City, such as complaints regarding gas-powered leaf blowers in Newport Coast. Future Meetings The Subcommittee discussed the next topics and meeting frequency. Chair Mosher noted that the Subcommittee should maintain some momentum given its later start in the work program for the GPAC Noise Subcommittee Action Minutes for June 18, 2024 comprehensive General Plan update. He expressed the importance for Subcommittee members to understand some of the more technical noise components. ✓ Action: The Subcommittee will hold its next meeting prior to the July GPAC meeting. The Subcommittee meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m.