HomeMy WebLinkAboutIVb_Noise Subcommittee MemoAttachment No. 2
Noise Subcommittee Memo
Community Development Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Memorandum
To: Co-Chairs Evans and Greer, and GPAC Members
From: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: October 31, 2024
Re: GPAC Agenda Item IV(c) for November 6 – Noise Subcommittee
________________________________________________________________
The GPAC Noise Subcommittee met on October 28, 2024, primarily to review the
draft scope of work for additional support and services from Dudek regarding
updating the Noise Element. The Subcommittee also reviewed noise complaint
and citation data from the Police Department and determined next steps.
Subcommittee Chair Mosher will provide an overview of the Subcommittee’s
discussions.
Although it is included as an enclosure to this memo for reference, the GPAC is
not being asked to provide any form of clearance or acceptance of the additional
scope of work prepared by Dudek. The Noise Subcommittee’s feedback from
October 28 will be taken into consideration prior to finalizing the additional scope
for City Council consideration.
Enclosed for your reference are the following materials:
1. Action Minutes from the Subcommittee Meeting on October 28, 2024;
2. Dudek’s additional proposed scope of work; and
3. The PowerPoint deck displayed at the meeting.
Action Minutes: GPAC Noise Subcommittee
Meeting Date: Monday, October 28, 2024, at 12 p.m.
Location: Newport Beach Meeting Room at City Hall and Teams
GPAC and GPUSC Members in Attendance: Amber Snider, Anthony Maniscalchi, Charles Klobe (Remote),
David Guder (Remote), Jim Mosher, Nancy Gardner (Remote), and Thomas Meng
City Staff in Attendance: Ben Zdeba, Dana Lodico (Consultant, Dudek), and Elizabeth Dickson (Consultant,
Dudek)
Brief Discussion Recap and Action Minutes
Subcommittee Chair Jim Mosher initiated the meeting at 12:00 noon and referenced the agenda and
supporting materials he had prepared and distributed.
Dudek’s Proposed Additional Scope of Work
Planning Manager Ben Zdeba prefaced the item and stated that City staff is not looking for the Noise
Subcommittee to approve or provide clearance on the proposed scope of work, rather it is being provided to
the Subcommittee to help set expectations and to allow for the opportunity to seek clariflcation.
Chair Mosher reiterated the importance of using the meeting to ensure that the Subcommittee members
know what to expect from Dudek in terms of support for updating the Noise Element. He then led a
discussion regarding the four subtasks under Task 1 (Noise Element Update).
Task 1.1 (Establish Baseline Conditions)
• Chair Mosher noted this subtask is related to the Noise Subcommittee’s desire to conduct a
community noise survey and would help to establish the new baseline conditions for noise. He
asked for clariflcation on the quantity and types of sound monitoring surveys. In response,
Acoustician Dana Lodico conflrmed that the primary source of noise for the community noise survey
is roadway noise and discussed the methodology for mapping out contours related to roadway
noise. She also shared an overview of the sound monitoring survey’s proposed twenty short-term
and up to three long-term measurements and how they would be used for validation of the mapping
methodology.
• Chair Mosher revisited this subtask later in the meeting and questioned whether there is any
intention to use the new baseline conditions to see how we have done as a community with respect
to noise since the 2006 General Plan. In response, Acoustician Lodico noted that the comparison
of the new baseline and the former baseline is not currently included in the proposed scope of work.
Task 1.2 (Sound Propagation Modeling and Sound Contour Mapping)
• Subcommittee Member Anthony Maniscalchi asked Chair Mosher whether there are any roadway
segments of particular interest that he was looking to be studied.
• Chair Mosher inquired about the distance of the contours from the major roads. Acoustician Lodico
described how the predictive model works and clarifled that most of the time, jurisdictions are
looking for a worst-case or conservative analysis.
GPAC Noise Subcommittee
Action Minutes for October 28, 2024
• Subcommittee Member David Guder commented on the short-term duration (15 minutes)
measurements and expressed concern on the accuracy since that may not include peak hour traffic.
He also questioned whether the models would be using Newport Beach traffic data or national
traffic data. In response, Acoustician Lodico noted the 15 minutes is supposed to be a
representative sample, described the robust technology available to create predictive models for
noise using algorithms, and indicated most of the technology is recently updated. She also shared
how survey data is extrapolated to cover peak hour scenarios and how different nuances are
accounted for, including type of vehicle (e.g., electric vehicles, trash trucks, etc.) and type of
pavement (e.g., rubberized asphalt, etc.).
• Subcommittee Member Charles Klobe commented on the proposal including both work speciflc to
the Noise Element and work more broadly shared among the various Subcommittees and topics.
He also commented on the need to study the SR 73 Freeway, especially considering the new
residential projects proximate to it. He expressed support for the proposal. Planning Manager Zdeba
conflrmed that there is work being proposed to provide support at additional GPAC-related
meetings, which were not contemplated as a part of the original scope. Chair Mosher provided
additional context regarding the SR 73 Freeway and Planning Manager Zdeba clarifled the question
for Acoustician Lodico. In response, she conflrmed that the intention is to include the SR 73 Freeway
as a roadway noise source for the purpose of this additional scope of work.
• Chair Mosher discussed the proposed noise modeling and commented on its sophistication. He
noted he had just spoken with a City staff member who helps maintain the City’s GIS database and
the City does not have comprehensive building height data beyond a LIDAR survey from 2016. In
response, Acoustician Lodico discussed the pros and cons of providing detailed building footprint
and height information, and shared that some jurisdictions choose to forego including buildings
since they may not be considered permanent. In response to a question from Chair Mosher,
Planning Manager Zdeba stated that the updated baseline and projections would help inform
policies and described how the Planning Division uses the exhibits in the Noise Element. He
supported the idea of excluding building information from the model.
• Subcommittee Member Maniscalchi described the importance of having updated baselines over
time and Planning Manager Zdeba stated that the new baseline could be compared with the
projected baseline to 2025 to see how the community has been progressing regarding noise.
• Chair Mosher discussed future noise contours and wondered how the projections would be made
for 2050 when the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Cycle is only an eight-year outlook.
In response, Planning Manager Zdeba noted the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM)
was recently updated to project traffic volume to 2045.
• GPUSC Chair Gardner noted it is not possible to predict the future of noise, especially considering
oncoming technologies like air taxis, but encouraged the group to refresh the Noise Element policies
to require revisiting for changed conditions.
Task 1.3 (Update Noise Element Policies)
• Chair Mosher sought clariflcation on how Dudek intends to update the Noise Element’s policies. In
response, Planning Manager Zdeba assured the process would be no different than what had been
occurring with the various subcommittees and the GPAC. He stated that Dudek would not be
updating policies on its own and that the Subcommittee would be involved in reviewing the current
Noise Element Goals and Policies and fiagging those that need to be revisited. Consultant Elizabeth
GPAC Noise Subcommittee
Action Minutes for October 28, 2024
Dudek reiterated the approach shared by Planning Manager Zdeba and supported it by using Task 2
(GPAC Subcommittee Coordination) from the additional scope of work. Acoustician Lodico pointed
the Subcommittee to the memo she prepared, which provided some recommended updates.
• Planning Manager Zdeba reminded the Subcommittee of the matrix he prepared to inventory the
Goals and Policies of the current Noise Element and suggested it be used as the main topic for the
next Subcommittee meeting.
Task 1.4 (Noise Element Amendment)
• Chair Mosher sought clariflcation on the updated narrative, including how the community noise
survey results and contour mapping methodology would be included. Consultant Dickson shared
the intention for the General Plan Update to be an online document that is streamlined with an easy-
to-use search function and linked documents. Planning Manager Zdeba echoed Consultant Dickson
and emphasized that the flnal deliverable can link any supporting documents in a single repository
for each element.
Some additional key takeaways from the discussion were:
• Chair Mosher and Subcommittee Member Thomas Meng expressed a desire to better understand
to what extent noise from the John Wayne Airport affects the community. Although it was
acknowledged there are existing noise contours for the airport, they shared an interest in
understanding the reach beyond those contours. In response, Acoustician Lodico conflrmed that is
not in the proposed scope of work. GPUSC Chair Nancy Gardner expressed concern and provided
guidance to the Subcommittee suggesting it steer clear of exploring additional scope of work for
airport noise. She distinguished airport related noise from roadway noise in terms of mitigating it.
Subcommittee Member Guder expressed support for keeping the scope of work narrow.
Status of Noise Complaint Data Compilation
Chair Mosher discussed noise complaints as an important piece of information to help inform the updated
Noise Element. He stated that the far largest number of complaints is related to aircraft noise but clarifled
that the sources of those complaints appeared to be attributed to only a small number of households. He
asked Planning Manager Zdeba to share an update on retrieving data for complaints received by City
departments. The following are key takeaways from the presentation shared:
• Planning Manager Zdeba shared there are two main departments or divisions that handle noise
complaints: the Newport Beach Police Department and the Code Enforcement Division. He
displayed a heatmap showing the frequency of calls for service to the Police Department related to
noise disturbances but distinguished calls for service from actual citations issued. He highlighted
the Balboa Peninsula and attributed the more frequent noise complaints to a denser residential
area. He referred to police citation data provided in the agenda email from Chair Mosher and
highlighted that many of the citations issued were for proactive enforcement of loud vehicles.
• Chair Mosher and Subcommittee Member Maniscalchi shared thoughts on the heatmap and
described the Balboa Peninsula as denser with a propensity for partying. Subcommittee Member
Klobe observed that there are hot spots at the Coronado Apartments (now “Eight 80 Newport
Beach”) and at Park Newport.
GPAC Noise Subcommittee
Action Minutes for October 28, 2024
✓ Action: While no action was taken by the Subcommittee, Planning Manager Zdeba indicated he would
follow up with some data from the Code Enforcement Division.
Next Steps and Future Meeting
The Subcommittee discussed next steps and agreed it would be most appropriate to begin to review the
current General Plan Noise Element’s Goals and Policies while the Dudek amendment is being prepared for
consideration and authorization by the City Council.
✓ Action: The Subcommittee will aim to hold its next meeting in November. Planning Manager Zdeba will
send a Doodle Poll to coordinate the next meeting date and time.
The Subcommittee meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
October 11, 2024
Ben Zdeba
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Add Service for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update
Dear Ben Zdeba:
Dudek is pleased with the opportunity to continue and expand upon our work with the City of Newport Beach on
the General Plan Update. As part of this update, Dudek has reviewed and provided a summary of our
recommendations to the City for updates to the Noise Element (NE). Further, the original scope of work only
anticipated meetings with the full General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), but did not include meetings and
coordination with the GPAC Subcommittees. Below describes additional services to be added to the General Plan
Update. The Dudek team proposes an update to the City’s General Plan Noise Element as well as additional
coordination with the GPAC’s various subcommittees.
Scope of Services
TASK 1 NOISE ELEMENT UPDATE
The following services are proposed for the update of the NE component of the GP. We understand that
development of the Noise Section of the EIR has already been completed and is not needed within this scope.
Task 1.1 Establish Baseline Conditions
Dudek will conduct a sound monitoring survey that includes sound pressure level measurements and concurrent
traffic volume counts, as appropriate, to determine the existing sound levels at representative locations
throughout the City and to validate the sound model developed in Task 1.2. The sound monitoring survey will
include up to twenty (20) short-term (15-minute duration) and up to three (3) long-term (24+-hour duration)
measurement locations. Candidate survey locations will be selected in consultation with City planning staff.
Sound pressure levels (SPL) will be measured using instruments that satisfy the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standards for a Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meter (SLM).
Task 1.1 Cost………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$8,640
Task 1.2 Sound Propagation Modeling and Sound Contour Mapping
a. Existing and Future Roadway Traffic Noise Levels – A City-wide traffic sound model will be developed
using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model algorithms, as implemented within
TO: BEN ZDEBA, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADD SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
OCTOBER 2024 2
the CadnaA software. CadnaA is a three-dimensional sound mapping software that takes into account
varying terrain, source spectral content, and a number of other factors that have an effect on sound
attenuation and propagation. Inputs to the model will include roadway centerlines, terrain, ground type,
and buildings, if desired. The sound model will be validated with data gathered from the sound monitoring
survey conducted in Task 1.1. Following model validation, 24-hour Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) contours will be developed for the 104 roadway segments included in the EIR for two scenarios:
Existing and General Plan Buildout conditions. The sound level contours will be available for import into
the City’s GIS system and will be provided graphically within the Noise Element document. Traffic noise
levels along these roadways will also be provided in tabular form. Traffic volumes, speed, and mix
information will be utilized from the traffic study. This task assumes that the City will provide roadway
centerlines, topographical information, and buildings, if desired, in a format suitable to be imported into
the sound modeling software (i.e., ArcGIS or dxf format).
b. John Wayne Airport (JWA) – Sound levels from the John Wayne Airport will be evaluated based upon
sound level contour mapping from the corresponding Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Sound
level contours provided in the ALUCP will be reproduced for use within the Noise Element in a separate
map than the ground transportation sources due to differences in mitigation strategies needed for these
different types of sources.
c. Other Sound Sources – Dudek will assess any major newly identified (by the City) sound sources that may
have been developed since the release of the adopted NE to determine the level to which these sources
should be included in the sound modeling or measurement (Task 1.1) efforts. It is anticipated that sound
levels generated from localized sources, such as water vehicles, recreational activities, mechanical
equipment, landscape maintenance, etc., will be discussed qualitatively within the background section of
the NE only, similar to how they are discussed in the adopted NE. However, Dudek’s approach to newly
identified sources will be on a case-by-case basis, depending on the source.
Task 1.2 Cost……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$14,690.00
Task 1.3 Update Noise Element Policies
Dudek will update the NE goals and policies following the previously made Dudek recommendations for
relevance, completeness, and consistency of the NE with the Municipal Code and any recommendations made
within the Nosie Section of the EIR to mitigate any identified significant impacts. This task assumes one 2-hour
virtual meeting with the City to discuss City objectives, the development of draft updated goals and policies, and
the response to one round of City comments. The Final updated goals and policies will be provided within the
Updated Noise Element document.
Task 1.3 Cost………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$5,370.00
Task 1.4 Noise Element Amendment
Dudek will draft an updated noise element document to include background information on sound, a narrative
describing existing background sound sources throughout the City that includes any newly identified noise
sources that may have been developed since the release of the adopted NE, updated Community Noise Contour
Maps for existing and future General Plan Buildout conditions for ground transportation sources, sound contour
maps from the ALUCP depicting John Wayne Airport (JWA) sound contours, and updated goals, policies, and
TO: BEN ZDEBA, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADD SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
OCTOBER 2024 3
implementation procedures following previously made recommendations. Sound levels generated from localized
sources, such as water vehicles, recreational activities, mechanical equipment, landscape maintenance, etc., will
be discussed qualitatively within the background section of the document only, similar to how they are described
within the adopted NE. This task assumes our response for two total rounds of consolidated comments from the
City, the GPAC, or other interested parties.
Task 1.4 Cost…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………$14,330.00
TASK 2 GPAC SUBCOMMITTEE COORDINATION
As the General Plan Update progresses and with the addition of the Noise Element Update, it has become
apparent that additional coordination with the GPAC and its subcommittees is needed. The original scope of work
anticipated 34 GPAC meetings up to 1-hour each, with Kearns and Wests participation at 6 meetings. However,
to-date, the Dudek team has attended a total of 23 GPAC and subcommittee meetings, all of which have lasted
between 1.5-2.25 hours. Further, Kearns and West has been in attendance at 12 of these meetings. To continue
to engage with the GPAC and subcommittees throughout the General Plan Update process, the following scope of
services is proposed as an add service to the existing contract.
Task 2.1 GPAC Subcommittee Meetings and Support
To support coordination with the various GPAC subcommittees, the Dudek team will attend 12 GPAC
Subcommittee meetings including attendance by the Dudek project manager and up to 2 additional members of
the Dudek team at each meeting. Additionally, in support of these meetings, Dudek will develop PowerPoint
presentations, as well as meeting minutes following each meeting. Of the 12 GPAC subcommittee meetings,
Dudek anticipates 8 will be in-person and 4 will be virtual. Staff attendance is anticipated in accordance with the
following:
Project manager attendance at 12 meetings (virtual and in-person)
One Kearns and West representative attendance at 5 meetings (in-person)
One Dudek Technical Representative (i.e. Coastal Planner, Acoustician, or similar role) at 12 meetings
(virtual and in-person)
Task 2.1 Cost .................................................................................................................................................... $35,450.00
TOTAL COST....................................................................................................................................................... $78,480.00
Our team looks forward to discussing the proposed add service. Should you have any questions, feel free to
contact me at edickson@dudek.com or (760) 479-4846.
Sincerely,
____________________________________
Elizabeth Dickson, AICP
Planner/Senior Project Manager