Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-07; City Council; 5093; Noise ProblemsCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. /T^^J? Initial:*^*^ Dept.Hd. DATE: Jurie^2L_2977 Atty.Ufy^ DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE C. Mgr. Subject: NOISE PROBLEMS Statement of the Matter The City Council asked for additional information concerning noise problems in Carlsbad. The attached report briefly outlines past City action on certain noise problems, how present noise problems are handled, and suggests possible actions to deal more strongly with existing and future problems. Exhibit Attached, memo dated May 13, 1977. Recommendation See recommendations in report dated May 13, 1977 Council action 6-7-77 The staff was instructed to submit a further report regarding boats on the lagoon. DATE: May 13, 1977 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: NOISE PROBLEMS As with most cities, the City of Carlsbad has its share of complaints regarding noise. In Carlsbad, the majority of the complaints concern barking dogs, operation of motorcycles, power boats on the lagoon, noisy parties, and noise from construction activities. Over tl.e past few years, the City has spent considerable time and effort dealing with noise problems. This report will briefly outline previous actions the City has taken regarding the control of noise, as well as indicate present noise problems and recommend actions for handling those problems PREVIOUS ACTIONS REGARDING NOISE PROBLEMS In June 1972, the City Council appointed a five-member committee to study a proposed noise abatement ordinance. At that time, the primary source of noise complaints was from residents who were being bothered by noise from off-road vehicles and from power boats operating in Agua Hedionda Lagoon. A report by the Noise Ordinance Committee was prepared April 17, 1973. The report contained a copy of a proposed noise ordinance. In September 1973, information was presented to the City Council on a survey of other cities, which had noise control ordinances. At that point, the Council instructed the staff to identify those areas of particular concern and to return to the City Council with specific recommendations for corrective action. In October 1973, the City Attorney recommended to the Council that noise problems be dealt with on an individual basis, and that certain noise controls could be tied in with building and planning procedures. In June 1975, as part of the revision of the Carlsbad General Plan, a Citizens' Advisory Committee was appointed to assist in the preparation of the Noise Element. The Noise Element was adopted by the City Council September 9, 1975. The Noise Element is the most significant statement concerning the City's policy on noise and its control. The Noise Element contains seven policy statements and a series of action programs designed to implement the policies. (See Attachment) In order to accomplish the action programs, a substantial work program would have to be developed. A considerable amount of staff time and funds would be needed to accomplish all the action programs outlined in the Noise Element. The policies and action programs outlined in the Noise Element represent an optimum planned approach for handling noise issues in the community. As various noise problems come before the City, NOISE PROBLEMS May 13, 1977 Page 2 one must look to the Noise Element for guidance in handling the problem. As a jpolicy and planning document, the Noise Element outlines the basic policy approach, which the City intends to follow in dealing with the various noise problems. The one factor that the Noise element doesn't address is the timing of the implementation of these policies in action programs. Some of the action progreuas should be viewed as long-range projects that would be accomplished as the noise problems become apparent. However, other action progrcuns outlined in the Noise Element, if developed and implemented now, might serve to mitigate future noise problems or prevent the problem from developing. Programs outlined under the General Requirement Section A of the Noise Element such as Action Program 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and Section B, Transportation Noise, Action Program 2.1 may now deserve consideration. The development of these Action Programs may serve to mitigate or eliminate noise problems in the future, and this may be an opportune time to consider the adoption of these programs while much of the City is still undeveloped. PRESENT NOISE PROBLEMS The various operating departments of the City of Carlsbad indicate that today the most frequent sources of noise complaints concern the operation of off-road vehicles, (motorcycles in particular), barking dogs, noisy parties, and construction noise. It is interesting to note that in the City of San Diego the types of complaints are quite similar as to those in Carlsbad. San Diego estimates that barking dogs account for 85% of their complaints, loud music 5%, motorcycles 2%, roosters 3%, noise of vehicle repairing 3%, and chanting 2%. San Diego also experiences problems with motorboat noise but, due to the size of Mission Bay and the geography of the area, is able to minimize these noise complaints by scheduling noisy motorboat activities in areas away from residential developments. The Police Department indicates that it has fairly effective tools to deal with the problems of noisy parties and off-road vehicles. The recently initiated off-road vehicle patrol utilizing a motorcycle has proven to be quite effective in dealing with illegally equipped motor- cycles and unauthorized use of private property. The department's enforcement efforts have been aimed mainly at voluntary compliance and the department is of the opinion that this has been very effective. In regard to noisy parties, the department feels that it has adequate tools available, under the state law, specifically Penal Code Section 415, to deal with this type of disturbance. NOISE PROBLEMS May 13, 1977 Page 3 Another problem for the Police Department is motorboat noise on Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The department indicates that its motorboat patrol, which generally operates from Memorial Day into September or October, has been somewhat effective in reducing noise-related complaints. The department's enforcement efforts ha sre been aimed at obtaining voluntary compliance, cjnd the department feels that this has been somewhat effective. The state has effectively preempted thej field of noise regulation of boats through Harbors and Navigation Code Sections 654, 654.05, and 660. Section 654 provides "the exhaust of every internal combustion engine used on any motorboat shall be effectively muffled at all times to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and as may be necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 654.05. ^ Section 654.05 establishes maximum sound production levels for boats based on the year of manufacture of the engine. Section 660 of the Harbors and Navigation Code provides that the City may adopt measures relating to boats or vessels which pertain only to time of day restrictions, speed zones, special use areas, and sanitation and pollution control; the provisions of which are not in conflict with the provisions of the Harbor and Navigation Code or regulations adopted by the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. Therefore, the City is limited in its ability to directly control the noise of motorboats to the provisions of Section 654.05. In order to effectively enforce the provisions of Section 654.05, sound level measurement must be conducted by the enforcing authority. The City does not own any such equipment, however the City of san Diego is willing to lend the equipment to the City when it is available. In addition to having the sound level equipment available, the individuals making the measurements must be trained in the proper methods of taking sound level measurements in order to achieve a successful prosecution. Another problem area faced by the Police Department is with barking dogs. This seems to be one of those situations that no^amount^of leqislation can prevent. The Police Department feels that adequate tools are available to deal with this sort of complaint, l^o^^ver it is not always easy to obtain the cooperation of complainants needed tl succlssflllY prosecute this sort of violation. Section 7.08.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code adopts provisions of the San Diego county code dealing with the control of dogs by reference. Section NOISE PROBLEMS May 13, 1977 Page 4 62.672 of the County Code is the section used to enforce provisions against barking dogs. This section requires the written affirmation by two persons, having separate residences that violations of the code are occurring. Unless citizens are willing to initiate such complaints, it is not possible to enforce the provisions of this section. Construction noise complaints have been received from time to time by the Building Department. The Building Department indicates that it has, through voluntary cooperative efforts, been able to persuade most contractors to control the starting time of their activities so as not to disturb residents in the neighborhood. In certain areas of the City, which are remote from existing residential developments, contractors are allowed to start early in the morning and work late into the evening without any risk of disturbing residential areas. However, in other areas of the City with nearby residential develop- ments, the department is usually able to persuade builders not to start construction too early in the morning or to work too late into the evening so as not to disturb residents in the neighborhood. As development of the City continues, this may become an increasingly difficult problem to manage on a voluntary compliance basis. One possible solution to this problem is to adopt an ordinance which would establish hours in which outdoor construction or grading could be undertaken. The Planning Department feels that a more comprehensive approach to noise control may be of benefit to the City. At present, the depart- ment deals with noise problems on a ad hoc basis as potent!U problems are pointed out in environmental impact reports when development is proposed adjacent to significant noise generators or the development itself may be a significant noise generator. Although the Planning Staff may be aware of potential noise problems and evaluate development proposals with due consideration given to the issue of noise, the department feels that they are not always able to deal ^s strongly^ and effectively with potential noise problems as they ^'^IJif^^^^Jl^^the City had more specific standards regarding noise. The action programs proposed in the Noise Element would give the department more precise tools with which to evaluate and regulate development P^^PPfals to insure that noise issues are systematically evaluated and handled m a consistert manner. RECOMMENDATIONS At this point, it does not appear that there is f°f^^^^ of a comprehensive noise ordinance for the City o^^^'^^^^^^^^' J higher level of enforcement of motorboat noise problems is desired. NOISE PROBLEMS May 13, 1977 Page 5 the City would need to acquire sound-level measurement equipment and train personnel in the use of that equipment. In regard to construction noise complaints, if the City Council believes that stronger enforcement is needed in this area, it is recommended that an ordinance be adopted to establish time limits for construction activities. The problems of the Planning Department, however, appear to deserve more attention. If it is felt that additional standards are needed to control new developments to deal more effectively with potential noise problems, the staff should be directed to prepare a work program to implement action programs under Section A Requirements 2.1, 2.2., and 2.3, and Section B, Transportation 2.1. FRANK N. MANNEN Administrative Assistant FNM:vm Attachments