Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV(b)_Additional Materials Received_StaffAttachment No. 2 Noise Subcommittee Memo with Enclosures 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, Principal Planner Date: July 26, 2024 Re: Updated GPAC Noise Subcommittee Efforts ________________________________________________________________ The GPAC Noise Subcommittee met on June 18, 2024, to receive updates on Dudek’s support for the Noise Element, review noise complaint data, and to determine next steps. The GPAC Noise Subcommittee also met on July 25, 2024, to primarily review Dudek’s Memo prepared by Senior Acoustician Dana Lodico evaluating the current Noise Element and identifying possible areas for improvement. Subcommittee Chair Mosher will provide an overview of the Subcommittee’s discussions and any actions. Enclosed for your reference are the following materials: 1.Action Minutes from the Subcommittee Meeting on June 18, 2024; 2.Dudek’s Memo regarding the Noise Element; 3.Action Minutes from the Subcommittee Meeting on July 25, 2024; and 4.The PowerPoint deck displayed at the July 25, 2024, meeting. The information contained in the enclosed action minutes, Dudek’s Memo, and the PowerPoint can be used as a tool to seek community input through Phase Two of the outreach and engagement efforts, into General Plan Update Development. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. Action 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. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. 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. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. 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 General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. 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. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. 15443 1 JUNE 2024 MEMORANDUM To: Ben Zdeba, Principal Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Elizabeth Dickson, AICP, Senior Project Manager, Dudek Dana Lodico, PE, INCE Bd. Cert., Senior Acoustician, Dudek Subject: Review of City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element Date: June 27, 2024 Noise is one of eight topics required by California Government Code 65300 et al to be addressed in General Plans. Noise Elements aim to quantify current and projected noise levels from various sources to help inform land use compatibility and identify ways to reduce existing and potential noise impacts. One of the primary tools used to implement the Noise Element is the California Building Code which enforces maximum allowable interior noise levels for new multifamily residential development. Dudek is currently supporting the City of Newport Beach (City) in preparing a comprehensive update to the General Plan. As part of this effort, we have reviewed the City’s adopted Noise Element for relevance, completeness, and consistency with the Municipal Code. As a result of this review, we offer the following recommendations and suggestions. Background Section The information included in the Background Section is relevant. We agree that use of the Leq and CNEL metrics are appropriate for a Noise Element. However, language should be added to clarify that the sound levels described in the Background Section (after the definitions of the Leq and CNEL metrics) are meant to be exterior sound level exposures and not interior levels. This includes the statement that sound levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. The World Health Organization recommends a sound level of 30 dBA or less inside bedrooms; assuming a standard exterior to interior sound reduction with modern construction and open windows of 15 dB, an exterior sound exposure of 45 dBA would equate to an interior exposure of 30 dBA. Also, we recommend clarifying that the noise levels stated, other than those in second sentence are Leq levels. See suggested text updates in the Summary of Recommendations Section. Context The Context Section is also relevant and thorough. We recommend that the City review the sections describing noise sources within the city to identify any new noise sources that may have been developed since the release of the adopted Noise Element. In addition, depending on the extent of new noise sources, the Community Noise Contour Maps may need to be updated with the current Existing and Forecasted traffic volumes and aircraft contours from John Wayne Airport (JWA). Goals and Policies The noise standards provided are consistent with the Municipal Code limits. We have the following observations and recommendations with regard to completeness and consistency. Text suggestions are provided in the Summary of Recommendations Section of this memorandum. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: REVIEW OF NEWPORT BEACH NOISE ELEMENT 15443 2 JUNE 2024 ▪ Tables N2 and N3: Due to the differences in metrics being used between the two tables (CNEL in Table N2 and Leq in Table N3), we recommend adding a footnote to Table N3 that newly developed residential uses must also meet the interior Building Code requirement of 45 dBA CNEL / DNL. ▪ Table N3: For land uses that do not include nighttime use, such as schools, museums, and most commercial and industrial uses, nighttime noise limits are unnecessary. We recommend that these are removed or footnoted to only apply to land uses with nighttime use. ▪ Table N3, Footnote a: Note that if the standard is raised to meet the ambient, then the standards are essentially allowing a proposed project to increase the ambient sound level by as much as 3 dB. This is in agreement with the Table under N 1.8 for the 55 dBA CNEL sound level, but not for sound levels exceeding 55 dBA CNEL. We recommend that this footnote is updated to be consistent with this table. ▪ N 1.8: We recommend that language be updated for clarity. It is unclear whether the CNEL column refers to the existing of future ambient level. N 2.6: The City may want to include mention of other alternative methods, such as quieter pavement, use of solid safety barriers, and other methods. See https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182634.aspx for a list of some strategies and associated costs and context that may be appropriate for the City. Summary of Recommendations The following is a summary of our recommendations to the City for updates to the Noise Element: • Background Section: The following is a suggestion of revised text for the last paragraph on page 12-3 (suggested changes are in blue): Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the exterior CNEL is below 55 dBA, moderate in the 55 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime Leq exterior levels are isolated natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA, and quiet suburban residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Exterior noise levels above 45 dBA Leq at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate exterior level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA Leq) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA Leq). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA Leq) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA Leq). Additional examples of sound levels and loudness in indoor and outdoor environments are shown in Table N1. • Context Section: We recommend that the City review the sections describing noise sources within the city to identify any new noise sources that may have been developed since the release of the adopted Noise Element. In accordance with California Government Code 65302 (f), the Noise Element shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels. To meet the intent of State law, the City should consider if there are new noise sources that may influence adopted contours. Given the extent of new noise sources, the Community Noise Contour Maps may need to be updated with the current Existing and Forecasted traffic volumes and aircraft contours from John Wayne Airport (JWA). Assessing changes to the adopted noise contour maps can be approached in a General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: REVIEW OF NEWPORT BEACH NOISE ELEMENT 15443 3 JUNE 2024 number of ways depending on the availability of data and as noted in State law, “to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body.” • Goals and Policy: We recommend the following changes be made: o The following updates to Table N3 are recommended: ▪ A footnote added stating that “In addition to the standards given in Table N3, newly developed residential uses must also meet the California Building Code Title 21 requirement of 45 dBA CNEL / DNL inside homes. This standard may be met with windows in the closed position if the residences is supplied with forced-air ventilation, so as to allow residents to keep windows shut.” ▪ For land uses in Table N3 that do not include nighttime use, such as schools, museums, and most commercial and industrial uses, nighttime noise limits may be removed or footnoted to only apply to land uses with nighttime use. ▪ Footnote a be updated to “If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard, so long as the resulting sound level increases do not exceed the standard in the Table under Policy 1.8.” o N 1.8 Significant Noise Increases (text) be updated as follows: ▪ Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise increase is identified. A significant noise increase occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL due to sound produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase that would be considered an impact is shown in the table below for exterior use areas or exterior façades of residences or other existing sensitive uses. ▪ The table heading should be updated to either “Existing Ambient CNEL (dBA)” or “Future CNEL (dBA)” depending on the City’s intentions. o In Policy N 2.6, The City may want to include mention of other alternative methods, such as quieter pavement, use of solid safety barriers, and other methods. See https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182634.aspx for a list of some strategies and associated costs and context that may be appropriate for the City. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. Action Minutes: GPAC Noise Subcommittee Meeting Date: Thursday, July 25, 2024, at 3 p.m. Location: Newport Beach Meeting Room at City Hall and Teams GPAC and GPUSC Members in Attendance: Amber Snider, Anthony Maniscalchi (Remote), Charles Klobe, David Guder (Remote), Jim Mosher, and Nancy Gardner City Staff in Attendance: Ben Zdeba, Dana Lodico (Consultant, Dudek), and Elizabeth Dickson (Consultant, Dudek) Others in Attendance: Virginia Anders-Ellmore 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. Noise Measurement Terminology Chair Mosher led an overview discussion that focused on ensuring Noise Subcommittee members understand flve noise-related terms used in both the Dudek Review Memo and the current Noise Element: • dBA (A-weighted decibels): The human ear’s sensitivity to sound amplitude is frequency- dependent and thus a modiflcation is usually made to the decibel to account for this; A-weighted decibels (dBAs) incorporate human sensitivity to a sound’s frequency as well as its amplitude. • Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level): the loudness averaged over a specifled interval of time, typically anywhere from 1 second to 24 hours. What would commonly be thought of as “loudness” shown on a sound meter, or as the ordinance refers to it, “instantaneous noise level” is the Leq over one second. Most of the City regulations are based on the Leq over 15 minutes. • CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): essentially the Leq over 24 hours, but with extra weight given to the readings in the evening hours (7 to 10 p.m.) and even more to late night hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). It was deflned in California law in connection with aviation noise. • DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level): sometimes abbreviated “Ldn,” is a federally deflned metric like CNEL, but applying the additional weighting only during the late-night hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). • Ambient: can be used to mean the background, or near-minimum noise level. In others, it can mean essentially the average for the location, and in still others the average that would be recorded without a noise source of interest. To help with these terms, he presented a visual snapshot of noise history measuring Leq at a noise monitoring station established at the Newport Dunes over a 30-minute period. He also presented a visual snapshot of noise history displaying CNEL over a full 24-hour period. Some key takeaways from the discussion were: • Ms. Lodico emphasized the importance of the time used for averaging decibels and indicated there are different applications for shortened periods of time, such as measuring a gun shot or even pickleball due to its impulsive sound. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. GPAC Noise Subcommittee Action Minutes for July 25, 2024 • She added that in an environmental setting, an increase or decrease of 3 dB, which represents a doubling of sound energy, is generally considered imperceptible whereas an increase of 5 dB is considered perceptible, and more than that highly perceptible. • Chair Mosher added an example to demonstrate the complicated nature of sound by sharing that having two radios played at the same volume side by side seems barely louder than the single radio, even though the Leq is 3 dB greater – logically, one might expect the two radios make for an easily noticed “twice as loud” sound, but they don’t. Dudek Review Memo Dana Lodico, Senior Acoustician with Dudek, provided a brief overview of her flndings from reviewing the City’s current Noise Element. The key takeaways from Ms. Lodico’s presentation were as follows: • The City’s Noise Element is generally pretty good and comprehensively covers the topic of noise, but there are some considerations for clarifying and updating; • The purpose of the Noise Element is to inform land use decisions; • It will be important for the community and GPAC to identify any potential future signiflcant noise sources, and she clarifled that these noise sources are ones much greater than an individual air conditioning unit installation or other such smaller, more localized sources; • There is an opportunity to consider whether the City’s Noise Contour Maps should be updated, but this should be weighed against the extent of new noise sources, land use changes, and traffic increases; • New noise contours could refiect the current and forecasted future roadway noise levels, as well as John Wayne Airport noise contours; and • For clarity, the Subcommittee and GPAC can look to revise the background section related to exterior versus interior noise levels and the metric Leq – the Subcommittee and GPAC can also look to revise goals and policies to refiect that newly developed multi-unit residential projects must meet minimum California Building Code requirements, which generally attenuate any roadway noise, to remove the nighttime limits for land uses that do not operate at night, to amend the footnote related to ambient noise levels exceeding the standard becoming the new standard, and to specify Policy N1.8’s “CNEL” column as existing or future sound level, and to elaborate on Policy 2.6 to include other alternative methods to noise barriers. Discussion of Future Noise Sources A member of the public, Virginia Anders-Ellmore noted she had heard of new pavement that could lessen noise and commented on the increasing popularity of electric cars and how they should be quieter. Ms. Lodico commented that the best pavement surfaces are a small aggregate of asphalt or open graded, rubberized pavement. It was questioned whether the City had deployed any quieter pavement and whether there is a program for replacement. Principal Planner Zdeba noted that he was aware of stretches of public streets being improved with rubberized asphalt. Ms. Lodico noted such material degrades acoustically over time. Subcommittee Member David Guder noted that there will still be those with luxury gasoline-powered vehicles, such as Lamborghinis – they are unlikely to embrace electric vehicles. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. GPAC Noise Subcommittee Action Minutes for July 25, 2024 As for updating noise contours, Ms. Lodico reported it depends heavily on changes in land use. If there are not signiflcant changes in land uses or any signiflcant projected sources of future noise (e.g., railway or industrial complex), then there's no reason to update. It is important to get a sense of not only land use changes, but related traffic changes where a signiflcant noise generating land use has been built or is being planned. Subcommittee Member Klobe noted that, in the Airport Area, there are office buildings and parking lots that are owned separately. He pointed to a situation where a parking lot was proposed to be redeveloped as housing, and the industrial building owner sued over the prospective noise. Principal Planner Zdeba clarifled there is a difference between construction noise and operational noise when it comes to CEQA. Ms. Anders-Ellmore also identifled climate change and the increased reliance on air conditioning units as a potential increase on ambient noise for Newport Beach. The Subcommittee generally discussed future noise sources in the next 20 to 30 years and identifled the following key takeaways: • Electric vehicles are leading to quieter cars, but with population growth, vehicles will become more numerous – the same could be said for airplanes; • It is important to consider advanced air mobility (AAM) vehicles for air taxis and delivery drones – the Subcommittee can engage the John Wayne Airport Director for expectations on this, as well as Assistant City Manager Tara Finnigan who has been tracking the emerging trend; and • It was questioned whether there is a plan in place to have zones for such AAMVs and identifled that they will be both a potential safety and a potential noise issue. Status of Noise Complaint Data Compilation Chair Mosher noted that Principal Planner Zdeba was still working with the Code Enforcement Division to better quantify and represent noise complaint data. Principal Planner Zdeba then shared calls for service data obtained from the Newport Beach Police Department, and Chair Mosher provided an overview of the early flndings. It was noted that “Disturbance – Party” and “Disturbance – Music” were the two highest categories, followed by “Loud Animal Noise,” “Disturbance – Talking,” “Disturbance – Car Alarm,” and “Loud Vehicle.” The percentage distribution remained very stable on a year-over-year basis from 2023 to 2024 (YTD). Chair Mosher displayed two histogram charts that showed the call distribution by hour. Notably, most calls related to noise were received between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. with exception of “Loud Animal Noise,” for which calls were generally received from 8 a.m. to shortly after midnight. Principal Planner Zdeba displayed a response from the Harbor Department’s Deputy Harbormaster, which indicated about one call per month and further qualifled the likely reasons for a lack of signiflcant complaints: (1) everything is constantly moving so noise from boats come in passing; (2) most boats are out of the water by nightfall; and (3) noise from music is overshadowed by ambient noise during daytime hours. Chair Mosher indicated that one flnal department worth inquiring about noise complaints with is the Recreation and Senior Services Department, which handles parks and special event permitting. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. GPAC Noise Subcommittee Action Minutes for July 25, 2024 ✓ Action: While no action was taken by the Subcommittee, Principal Planner Zdeba indicated he would continue to seek noise complaint data, including conversion of the Police Department data and Code Enforcement data into heat maps. Open Discussion Principal Planner Zdeba asked the Subcommittee for a straw poll to gauge consensus on wanting to document existing noise levels and update the Noise Element’s existing and forecasted noise contours. ✓ Action: The Subcommittee members in attendance all supported exploring the possibility and value of updating the contours. Future Meetings The Subcommittee discussed the next topics and agreed a once-per-month meeting cadence is appropriate. ✓ Action: The Subcommittee will aim to hold its next meeting in August. Principal Planner Zdeba will send a Doodle Poll to coordinate the next meeting date and time. The Subcommittee meeting adjourned at 4:29 p.m. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. GPAC NOISE ELEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE JULY 25, 2024 General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. Noise Element Review Memo General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. Overview •Noise Elements inform land use decisions for compatibility •California Building Code enforces maximum allowable interior noise levels for new multifamily residential development General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. Considerations •Identify any new noise sources •Potentially update Noise Contour Maps •Depending on extent of new noise sources and traffic increases •To reflect current existing and forecasted traffic and JWA noise contours •Revisions for clarity: •Background Section •Clarify exterior vs interior noise levels •Clarify metric (Leq) •Goals and Policies •Newly developed residential uses must meet building code requirements •Remove nighttime limits for land uses that do not include nighttime use •Amend footnote related to ambient noise levels exceeding the standard becoming the new standard •Policy N1.8 should clarify if “CNEL” column refers to existing or future sound level •Policy 2.6 •Can include other alternative methods to noise barriers General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. Click to edit Master title style Contact NAME TITLE NAME TITLE P: Email: Website: P: Email: Website: Thank you! Benjamin Zdeba, AICP Principal Planner P: 949-644-3253 Email: bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov Jaime Murillo, AICP Deputy Community Development Director P:949-644-3209 Email:jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024. General Plan Advisory Committee - July 29, 2024 Item No. IVb - Additional Materials Received *This new attachment updates and replaces the original Attachment 2 as it includes GPAC Noise Subcommittee meeting materials for July 25, 2024.