HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-12-12 #E
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 12, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
TIIRU: JohnB. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY
STATEMENT EVALUATION OF SHORT-TERM
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS'-.. - 'IN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
e
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) is recommending that the City Council
adopt a proposed "Policy Statement" regarding Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts.
Please refer to Attachment 1 to review proposed "Policy Statement 600-11, CEQA
Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts", as recommended by the
EQCB.
BACKGROUND:
The issue of temporary, construction-related noise impacts has been raised rather
consistently over the past few years by interested citizens within the community.
City Staff has had several discussions with an interested citizen who has concerns about the
City's approach to dealing with construction-related noise impacts in CEQA documents
prepared by the City (Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and
Environmental Impact Reports).
Summary of Citizen Concerns:
The main issue is a beliefby the interested party that construction-related noise impacts should
be identified by the City as "Potentially Significant Impact' for the following environmental
checklist categories:
[J "Would the project result in exposure ofpersol18 to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?"
.
e
Agenda Item :
Z:\My DocummllICity Council\Short-term Construction Noise Policy S_CC S1lIffRcport.doc\LWlll-07.oS
C01lSideration of City Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term C01lStruction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council St'flf Report
December 12, 2005
CJ
"Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic i17C1'ease in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity abuve existing levels without the project?".
e
His belief is that the City should evaluate noise impacts in such a manner that temporary,
construction-related noise impacts should be determined to be "Significant, but exempt" and
then the City should prepare an EIR conmining a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"
for these temporary noise impacts.
A summary of the position and concerns of the interested party and the City regarding this
issue is provided in the EQCB Staff Report on this matter, dated September 28, which is
provided as Attachment 2.
City Staff and the City Attorney reviewed the issues set forth above and prepared information
for presentation to the EQCB. Provided below is the discussion that was provided in the
September 28,2005 EQCB Staff Report on this matter from the position of the City Attorney.
Please note that the EQCB did no~ discuss this matter on September 28; it was continued to
November 2 for EQCB consideration.
"Summarv of City Attornev Response:
Although the language of the City's current threshold of significance could use
revision, the courts have upheld the use of mitigated negative declarations
when short-term noise impacts are present. Revising the City's threshold of
significance for short-term noise impacts so that it includes a sliding scale of
acceptable noise thresholds, rather than simply "exempting" the impacts,
would more closely track the CEQA requirements and recent case law. With
these revisions, and the appropriate conditions added to a project, the City
would be able to appropriately make a finding of "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated."
e
The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on
the environment does not turn on whether an impact would be permanent
or temporary. 14 C.C.R. ~ 15126.2(a) ("Direct and indirect significant
effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and
described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term
effects."); 14 C.C.R. ~ 15064. Nevertheless, CEQA distinguishes short-
term and long-term impacts, and the primary focus of CEQA is on the
long-term effects. Pub. Res. Code ~ 21001 ("[1]t is the policy of the state
to . . . (d) Ensure that the long-term protection of the
environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions."
(emphasis added)); Id. ~ 21083(b) ("[A] project may have a 'significant
effect on the environment' if... (1) [the] proposed project has the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the
environment, or to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals." (emphasis added)).
2
e
Short-Imm Construction Noise Policy s__ CC Sta11'Roport
e
Consideration of City COUllcil Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term COl'IStruction-Related NOise Impacts
City COUllcl1 StcdJ Report
December 12, 2005
The.courts have recognized that the short-term status of an impact reduces
its significance. Apartment Ass 'n of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los
Angeles, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1162, 1169 (2001) ("[A] comparison of the
interim and pennanent programs shows they are not the same. The very
fact one was temporary and the other is permanent is enough to distinguish
them because the environmental impact of a short-te,.,;. program lIUly be
much less significant than a program of indefmite duration. " (emphasis
added)). Moreover, given that all construction involves some degree of
noise, logic dictates that it must be possible to draw some line between
"acceptable" and unacceptable short-term noise impacts, or a city could
never use a negative declaration for any development involving
construction, and every project would require an EIR. An overview of
several court discussions on this issue is provided as Attachment 4.
e
As currently worded, the threshold "exempts" short-term noise impacts
from compliance with the City's noise ordinance. However, noise may
have an impact depending on the setting or the time in which the noise
occurs. Thus, we recommend establishing a sliding scale similar to the
standards upheld by the courts. The threshold should recognize that
people are more sensitive to noise impacts during the nights and
weekends, and that the impact of a noise heard during the day is less
significant than the same noise heard at night. Accordingly, a more
appropriate wording of the threshold would be:
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above the levels existing without the
project For purposes of this analysis, a substantial temporary or
periodic increase is defined as a continuous noise, of more than
_ dB or an intermittent noise of more than _ dB resulting
from construction that occurs between _ a.m. and _p.rn.
The corresponding mitigation measures should then read:
To reduce noise impacts, construction shall be limited to periods of
reduced noise sensitivity and thus reduce sleep disturbance and
other noise nuisance potential. Specifically, construction activities
shall be limited to _ a.m. to _p.m. Monday-Friday, and_
a.m. to _p.m. Saturday.
All construction-related noises will cease upon completion of the
project.
e
3
Short-tcnn Co_on Noiso Policy Srtatomont.CC StaffRoport
Consideration of City Cauncil Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
e
Some cities also use multiple levels of significance for the type of
construction noise - one maximum for continuous sounds, and a higher
maximum for intermittent sounds - and the courts have upheld such
standards. Particularly severe sound sources, such as pile driving, could
have further restricted hours:
The applicant shall restrict pile driving, ifrequired, to the hours of
9 a.m. to 4 p. Tn. on Mondays through Fridays.
If there is a concern about the noise from vehicles traveling past
residences, a condition could be added as follows:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit a construction haul route plan that avoids the use of
residential streets to the City for review and approval and shall
implement the approved construction hauling plan.
The City should also include conditions to respond to noise complaints:
In the event construction activities exceed noise levels projected in
.the negative declaration, City staff may suspend, eliminate, or limit
the activities.
City staff will monitor noise levels on an irregular basis,
unannounced and during periods when noise levels would tend to
be at their highest.
e
For more substantial projects, the developer would bear the expense of
monitoring:
Applicant shall hire a consultant, who meets the approval of the
City, to perform weekly noise level monitoring. Monitoring at
other times may also be required by the City.
Other common conditions to help mitigate short-term noise impacts
include:
Information shall be disclosed to residents about the type of noise
produced by the project. Residents shall be given a number to
contact City staff if noise levels become excessive.
Stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far as
practical from sensitive noise receptors, and in no event shall
construction staging be performed less than 500 feet from
occupied dwellings. Stationary equipment shall be placed in such
e
4
Short..."" Constru<:tioo Nois. Policy SrtBlolllODt.CC StaffRoport
e
e
e
Consideration of City Cauncil Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA. Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
receptors.
Construction equipment with internal combustion engines shall be
equipped with properly operating mu.fJlers and tuned to alleviate
backfires.
In extreme cases, where the short-term noise impacts will sti11 be
excessive even with all of the above conditions, the City could require
something more significant, such as acoustical fencing and barriers, or
insta1lation of double-paned glass windows ~t surrounding properties."
EQCB Recommendation:
The EQCB considered this matter on November 2,2005 and determined to recommend
that the City Cbuncil adopt the proposed "Policy Statement" with the additional
amendments that were discussed in 2 supplemental EQCB Staff Reports and at the EQCB
meeting. The EQCB Supplemental Staff Reports are provided as Attachments 3 and 4
respectively. The ECB draft minute excerpt of November 2, 2005 regarding this matter is
provided as Attachment 5 for the information of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Minimal. Implementation of the proposed Policy Statement may result in a slight
increase in costs if verification noise measurements are required to be undertaken by
Staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt "City Council Policy Statement 600-11 - CEQA Evaluation - Short Term
Construction-Related Noise Impacts", as recommended by the Environmental Quality
Control Board, or as determined to be revised after City Council discussion.
,
Attachments: (5)
5
Short-term ConstructiDD Noise Policy SrtatomODt.CC StaffReporl
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Consideration of City Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQ.4. Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staif Report
December 12, 2005
e
Proposed Policy Statement 600-11, CEQA Evaluation -
Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re:
Consideration of Proposed Policy Statement. Evaluation of
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts in Environmental
Review Documents, dated September 28, 2005 .
Environmental Quality Control Board Supplemental Staff
Report re: Consideration of Proposed Policy Statement -
Evaluation of Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts in
Environmental Review Documents, dated September 28,
2005
Environmental Quality Control Board Supplemental Staff
Report 2 re: Consideration of Proposed Policy Statement -
Evaluation of Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts in
Environmental Review Documents, dated November 2, 2005
Environmental Quality Control Board Draft Minute
Excerpt - November 2, 2005
e
-.
Shorl.tenD CDDSlIUcdon Noise Policy S_ot.CC StaffRepDrt
6
e
Consideration of City Cauncil Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council StqIJ Report
December 12, 2005
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL POLICY 600-11
- CEQA EVALUATION - SHORT TERM
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE
IMPACTS
e
e
1
Short-1enn CoostructiDD NOIs. PolIcy S_t.CC StaffReporl
e
e
e
Consideration of City Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
PROPOSED
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT
CEQA EVALUATlON-
SHORT TERM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE IMPACTS
SECTION INDEX NO. ISSUE DATE REVISION COUNCIL CM APPROVAL
DATE APPROVAL
600 11 12/1312005 12/1212005
1. SCOPE
Planning Department - Environmental Review Documents
2.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
To establish procedures for conducting environmental analysis of short-
term construction-related noise impacts and establish standard mitigation
measures.
3.
POLICY
The following policies, procedures and standard mitigation measures shall
be utilized by the Planning Department and its consultants when preparing
. CEQA environmental review documents that identify short-term,
construction related noise impacts as being "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated".
Revision of CEQA Environmental Checklist:
Item "d" under the "Noise" section of the CEQA Environmental Checklist
shall be revised to read as follows:
"d.
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the
levels existing without the project. For purposes of
this analysis. a. substantial temporary or periodic
increase is defined as a continuous noise of more
than 70 db(A) for 15 minutes or more or an
8
Short-tonn CDDStructiDD Nois. Policy SrtaIomODt.CC StaffReporl
Consideration of City Cauncil Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Cauncil Staff Report
December 12, 2005
intermittent noise of more than 75 db(A) for between 5
and 14 minutes resulting from construction that
occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m."
e
Area for Required Analysis:
For purposes of this analysis related to Section d of the Noise Section of
the CEOA Environmental Checklist, a substantial temporary or periOdic
increase is defined as a continuous noise of more than 70 db(A) for 15
minutes or more or an intermittent noise of more than 75 db(A) for
between 5 and 14 minutes resulting from construction that occurs between
7:00. a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The appropriate analysis to determine potential
impacts to sensitive land uses shall at a minimum evaluate impacts to said
sensitive land uses which are within a distance of 250 feet from the
property boundaries of the subject project.
Standard Mitigation Measures:
The Planning Department and its environmental consultants shall utilize
the following mitigation measure language to address specific temporary
construction-related noise impacts:
o To reduce construction-related noise impacts, construction shall be
limited to periods of reduced noise sensitivity and thus reduce
sleep disturbance and other noise nuisance potential. Pursuant to
the City's Noise Ordinance, the construction contractor shall ensure
that general construction activities (which includes construction
vehicle staging and idling engines) be conducted only between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and do not take place at any time on
Sunday or local, State, or Federal holidays.
o Prior to {Building/Grading Permit} issuance, the {Building/Grading
Plans} shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department to ensure compliance with the following:
o All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the
satisfaction of the Building Official;
o During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
noise receptors, to the satisfaction of the Building Official; and
o During construction and to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located
as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during
construction activities.
e
e
9
Shorl-torm ConstructiDD No... Policy SrtalomODt.CC Staff Report
Consideration olCit)! Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
e
IJ All construction-related noises will cease upon completion of the
project.
Particularly severe sound sources, such as pile driving, shall have further
restricted hours: .
IJ The applicant shall restrict pile driving, if required, to the hours
of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays.
If there is a concern about the noise from vehicles traveling past
residences, the following mitigation measure shall be imposed:
IJ Prior to the issuance of {Building/Grading Permit}, the applicant
shall submit a construction haul route plan that avoids the use of
residential streets to the City for review and approval and shall
implement the approved construction hauling plan.
The following mitigation measures shall be imposed to respond to the
potential receipt of noise complaints from adjacent sensitive land uses:
e
IJ In the event construction activities exceed noise levels as set
forth in the CECA Environmental Checklist, Noise, section "d" or
as projected in the negative declaration, City staff may suspend,
eliminate, or limit the activities.
CJ Trained City staff will monitor noise levels with properly certified
equipment on an irregular basis, unannounced and during
periods when noise levels would tend to be at their highest.
For more substantial projects, the developer would bear the expense of
the required mitigation monitoring:
CJ Applicant shall hire a consultant, who meets the approval of the
City, to perform weekly noise level monitoring. Monitoring at
other times may also be required by the City.
Other mitigation measures that may be imposed to help mitigate short-
term noise impacts should include:
CI Information shall be disclosed to residents about the type of
noise produced by the project. Residents shall be given a
number to contact City staff if noise levels become excessive.
e
10
ShorI-teml ConstructiDD Noise Policy s_cc Staff Report
CoruideratilJn of City Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA. Evaluation -Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
e
(J Stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located a~ far
as practical from sensitive noise receptors, and in no event shall
construction staging be performed less than 500 feet from
occupied dwellings. Stationary equipment shall be placed in
such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
receptors.
(J Construction equipment with internal combustion engines shall
be equipped with properly operating mufflers and tuned to
alleviate backfires.
In extreme cases, where the short-term noise impacts will still exceed the
noise levels as set forth in the CECA Environmental Checklist, Noise,
section "d" even with all of the above conditions, the City shall require
something more significant, such as acoustical fencing and barriers, or
installation of double-paned glass windows at sensitive, noise-impacted,
surrounding properties.
4. ISSUANCE
Approved by City Council on December 12, 2005
... * * *
e
e
11
Short-lmm ConstructiDD NolS. Policy _cc StaffRoport
e
Consideration ofC;ty Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Stqff Report
December 12, 2005
ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD STAFF REPORT RE:
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY
STATEMENT - EVALUATION OF SHORT-
TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
DOCUMENTS, DATED SEPTEMBER 28,2005
e
e
12
Short-torm ConstructiDD Noise Policy SrtatomeDl.CC Staff Report
e
_.
e
September 28, 2005
STAFF REPORT
To:
ChAinrllm and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
From:
-
Lee Whittenberg, I?irector of Development Services
Subject:
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY
STATEMENT - EV ALVATION OF SHORT- n;RM
-- . - eONSTRlleTI6if----N()fSE- --~'fM.=.p;A:eTS- ---IN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
After discussion among Board, review draft policy statement and provide direction to Staff as
determined appropriate.
DISCUSSION.
.-
. C.ONCI .TImON BY r.rrv A 'T'TORNF.V~
The City is in compliance with state law. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the City revise its
threshold of significance so that instead of ~imply "~~~mpting'~'~ort-temi co~ction noise, it
Iecognizes that the impact of noises are less' sign#:icant dUring dRylight hours and the thre.sholds
of significance are correSpondingly higher. With these revisions, the sl;1ort:temi. nature .of the
impact, combm.ed with appropriate conditions on construction activities, woUld allow th!l City to
make findings that short-term. noise impacts are less than si~cant. with .Il!itigation
incorporated, and the City may continue toO-use Mitigated Negative DecI8rationS (MNDs)' for
projects with short-term co~~~n nois.e ~~acts. '. .
~TA'FF STIGGESTF.D AM'TON nEVF.T,OP Pour.v STAn.MENT' 'RE~ r.RQ.A.
l?V A T ,ITA nON OF ~HORT- TERM r.ONSTRTICnON NOTSF. TMPA(~S'
Based on discussions with interested parties, City Staff and the City Attorney, it is .recommended
thai the EQCB Review and provide direction to Sta:ff ri:ga!dmg a proposed "Policy Statement"
regarding Short-Term. Construction Noise Impacts. Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the
proposed ''Policy Statement". .
Z:\My DocumooIs\EQCIl\Short-tmm COIISIrII<:tioolWise Imp8cls owJu,,"~ "QC"'R SIllffRq>ort.DCICILWI09-22-llS
Corrsideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
.ft.>aluation t?fShart-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts (.,
Environmental Quality Control Board .
September 28, 2005
OvP'rv1P."W nfTHn~.
The issue of temporary, construction-related noise impacts has been raised rather consistently
over the past few years by interested citizens within the community.
City Staff has had several. ~ons with an interested citizen,.who has concerns about the City's
approach to de-...Hng with eon$'lJl:liop.-relaied noise impacts m CEQA documents prepared by the City
(Negative DeC~ons, ~tigated NegatiVe Declara1ions., and Enviionmenta1 Impact Reports).
. ' .' '-. : ~ ~
Presented. below: is a snminJny of the position and concerns of the interested party and the City
regarding this issue., .
Summa'1/" nf rifi7p.n rnnl"ern!l:
The main issue is a belief by the interested party tliat construction-related noise impacts should be
identified by. the qty as "poterzti.ally Significant Impact' for the following environmental checklist
~~ri~:' '.
o "Would the project result in l!Xposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?"
'EI "Would the project result in a substantial temporary o~ periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing levels withoUt the project?".
HiS beliet is . thiIt"the City s40uld eV~~ noise impacts in such Ii manner that temporary,
Construction-related noise iinPacts shOuld be 4etermined to be "Significant, but exempt" and then the
City shciuld pfePaie".an .EIR cont;.ining Ii ."Statement of Ove1:riding Consideiations" for these
~po~noisellD.ji~. : "',' " " , .
ce
. '
Sli"m'inary- hfT~~n~~Rp..ql.1~t~ fo... ClilrifirAtinn-
" ,.,'" .' .
1. Is the City in compliance with the CEQA Provisions and CEQA GuiCleliDes that require it to
recognize, 4e~, and (when feasible) to mitigate real noise impacts z$.ted to construction
activities because consp:uction aCtivities are exempt from. the City's Noise 0rdiJiance?
~ . . . . , , . ,'. '. . .'
2. What is '1he legal authority supporting the City's current threshold of significance, or
~'the Use ofaltemat!: thresholds of!rigni1i('~~.e?
'. -'. . .
2
ce
Short-torm coostrucliDD Noise lmpICIIeval_.EQCB S1ll!fRoport
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Emironmental Quality Control Boord
September 28, 2005
3.
CEQA documents are supposed to provide, among other 1hings, information on and
clarification of environmental matters to the ordinary citizen - reader. The cmrent City
practice is to provide clear evidence of signiD.cant construction impacts on sensitive receptors
and then to cl$1 that the impacts are not significant J..-J....ll." they are exempt from the Noise
Ordinance.
Both City staff ar.P the interested citizen have requested that the City Attorney suggest an alternative
method to address this issue in a WI1'J that conveys the necess~ry information and appropriate
conclusi!JDS, based on CEQA law, the CEQA Guidelines, and local Municipal Code provisions..
Reqllp.!Ii2t fnr.Dp.vip.w~
This party has requested that City Staff 'review our genera1 CEQA :review process regarding
temporary, construction-related noise impacts in light of provisions of the CEQA laws or Guidelines.
The pertinent sections of the CEQA laws and Guidelines are provided as Attachment 2.
Current City Position regllrrling Citi'7.en Conl'erns:
",
-
It has consistently been the position of City Staff that the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code (Chapter
7.15) exempts construction activities from adhering to City noise standards, and therefore do
not result "in exposure of persons' to or generation' of noise levels in excess of starufmds
:i!StDblished in the local 'general plan or noise ordinance" nor "in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the
project" as long as construction is liIi:1i.ted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.rn. on weekdays,
between 8:00 am. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays or when tlie City Building inspector approves special
provisions for construction activities. '
.' ,
The City Code, Chapter 7:15, Noise; establishes the above refurenced exemption to the adopted noise
standards of the City, and is also consistent with the Noise Element of the Genera1 Plan. The NQise
Element of the Genera1 Plan primarily focuses on transportation noise impacts within the community
that are projected to exist in the year 2025 based on ariticipaied inCieases in traffic flow volumes on
the major circulation'routes within the City. The only disCussion in the Noise' Element regarding
"non-transportation noise sources" is found on pages N-26, N-28 and N-30-31 and is as follows:
e Short-usm COllSInIction Noise ImpocIs eva1uatloo,EQCll StaffRoport
"NoiselLand Use Compatibility
The most effective method to control comniunity, noise impacts from non-
transportation noise sources is through' application of the Community Noise
3
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts liA
Environmental Quality Control BoO/'d ..
September 28, 2005
Ordinance. The City of Seal Beach currently has a noise ordinance. Continued
eriforcement of the ordinance will provide noise control for nolse-sensitive land uses."
(Page N-26)
"Objectives
The city shall ensure the effective enforcement of city, 'state and federal noise level
standards by all appropriate city divisions. The city shall provide quick response to
complaints and rapid abatement of noise nuisances within the scope of the city's
police powers." (Page N-28)
"The Plan for Control and Management of Noise
. Issue 3 - Community Noise Controlfor Non-Transportation Noise Sources.
The focus of control' of noise . from non-transportation sources is the
Corpmunity Noise Ordinance. The ordinance can be used to protect people
from noise generated on adjacent properties.
The purpose of tJie ordiruince is to protect people from non-transportap.on-
related noise so~s such as m~sic, mll"hinery and pumps, air conditioners,
- 1an~ping ~d gardening activities, and ~k traffic on private property. The
Noise Ori!inllnC'.e does n!)t apply to motor vehicle,noise on public streets, but it
doe~ apply~. vehic;:les, on private property. The Noise Ordinance is designed to
protect quiet, res,identia!, arel!8 . from stationary noise sources. The noise levels
encouraged by the ordinance are typical of a quiet residential area.
-
Continue to enfo~ce the community Noise Ordinance. The most effective
method to control community noise impacts from non-transportation
noise sources" is through application of the community noise ordinance.
~:!,hasis' add.ed)
. .
, ....r...-,....:___ _._--=-_____ _ _--...:.__. __ __._. _ ---- - - -
----- --- RequiIetliat ne:w commercial proJects proposedJor development near existing,
resiqential'land use demonstrate compliance with tb,e City Noise Ordinance
prior to approval of the project.
All new residential proj ects to be constructed neat existing non-transportation
noise sources (including but not limited to commercial facilities, public parks
with sports activities) must demonstrate via an acoustical study conducted by a
Registered Engineer that thl? indoor noise levels. will be consistent with the
limits contained in the noise ,ori!in"""e.
4
ce
Shorl-4mD oonstructicm Noise Impaats ovollllllioo.EQCB StaffRoport
:
--
e.
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Enviromnental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
Require construction activity to comply with limits established in the City
Noise Ordinance. (Emphasis added)
Designate one agency in the City to act as the noise control coordinator. This will
ensure the continued operation of noise enforcement efforts of the City." (page N-
30andN-31)
It has been the position of City staff that, based on the above regulations, that construction-related
noise impacts are determined to be less than significant for the response categories listed under
"Noise" in the Environmental Checklist Form for: .
[J Item a - "Would tM project result in expoStD'e of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of stfIlUiards established in tM local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?" and
[J - Item d - "Would, tM project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the projectvicinify above existing levels without the project?"
Provided as Attarhment 3 are several comments and City responses regarding 'the construction noise
impact issue from previous environmental documents that have been adopted by the City.:
!ilnmmary- of c:itf A. ttnrnp.f Re.<Ipnnlile:
Although the language of the City's current threshold of significaD.ce could use revision, the courts
have upheld the use of mitigated negative declara1ions when short-term noise impacts are present.
Revising the City's threshold of significance,for short-term noise impacts so that it includes a sliding
scale of acceptable noise thresholds, rather than simply "exempting" the impacts, would more closely
track: the CEQA requirements and recent case law. With these revisions, and the appropriate
conditions added to a project, the City would be abl~ to appropriately make a :finding of "Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated."
The determination of whether a project may have a'significant effect on the environment does not
turn on whether an impact would be permanent or temporary. 14 C.C.R. ~ 15126.2(a) ("Direct
and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and
described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.''); 14 C.C.R.
~ 1~064. Nevertheless, CEQA distinguishes short-term and long-term impacts, and the primary
focus of CEQA is on the long-term effects. Pub. Res. Code ~ 21001 ("(l]t is the policy of the
state to.. . (d) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment. . . shall be the guiding
criterion in public decisions." (emphasis added)); Id. ~ 21083(b) ("[A] project may have a
'significant effect on the environment' if... (1) [the] proposed project has 1:he potential to
5
Sbort-tOrtD CDDBlNction Noise Imp_ ovalua1iDD.EQCB StaffRoport
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQ.4.
Evaluation of Short-Term, COl'/Struction-Related, Noise Impacts ( ..
Environmental Quality Control Board .-
September 28, 2005
degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment, or to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals." (emphasis added)).
The courts have recognized that the short-term status of an impact reduces its significance.
Apartment Ass 'n of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1162, 1169
(2001) ("[Al comparison of the interim and permanent programs shows they are not the same.
The very fact one was teIIiporary and the other is permanent is enough to- distinguish them.
because the environmental impact of a short-term program may be much less signifICant than
a program of indifmite duration." (emphasis added)); Moreover, given that all construction
involves some degree of noise, logic dictates that it must be possible to draw some line between
"acceptable" and unacceptable short-term noise impacts, or a city could never use a negative
declaration for any development involving construction, and every project would req~ an ElR.
An overview of several court discussions on this issue is provided as Attachment 4.
As currently worded, the threshold "exempts" short-term noise impacts from compliance with the
City's noise ordinance. However, noise may have an impact depending on the setting or the time
in which the noise occurs. Thus, we recommend establishing a sliding scale similar to the
standard~ upheld by 1f!.e courts. The.threshold should recognize that people are more, sensitive to
noise impacts during the nights and weekends, and that the impact of a noise heard during the
day is less significant than the same noise heard at night. Accordingly, a more appropriate
wording of the threshold would be:
~
q,
A substantial temporary ~ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above :the levels existing witho~t the project. For purposes of this
analysis, a substantial temporary or, periodic increase i,s defined as a continuous
noise of more than dB or an intermittent noise of more than dB
resulting from coIi.struction thatoccurs between _ a.m. and _ p.m.
The corresponding mitigation measures should then read:
To reduce noise impacts, coll,Struction sha11 be limited to periods of reduced noise
sensitivj.ty and thus reduce sleep disturbance and other noise nuisance potential.
Specifically, construction activities shall be limited to _ a.m. to _ p.m.
Monday-Friday, and _ a.m. to _ p.m. Saturday.
All construction-related noises will cease upon completion of the project.
Some cities also use multiple levels of significance for the type of construction noise - one
maximum for continuous sounds, and a higher maximUIIl for intermittent sounds - and the courts
6
(-
Short-torm ccmstructiDl1 Noise Impacts ewluBli<m.EQCB StaffRoport
e
e--
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation olShort-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
have upheld such standards. Particularly severe sound sources, such as pile driving, could have
further restricted hours:
The applicant sha11 restrict pile driving, if required, to the hours of 9 a.m. to
4 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays.
If there is a concern about the noise from vehicles traveling past residences, a condition could be
added as follows:
Prior to the issuance of building pepnits, the applicant sha11 submit a construction
haul route plan that avoids the use of residential streets to the City for review and
approval and sha11 implement the approved construction hauling plan.
The City should also include conditions to respond to noise complaints:
In the event construction activities exceed,noise levels projected in the negative
declaration, City staff may suspend, eliminate, or limit the activities.
City staff will monitor noise levels on an irregular basis, nnAnnounced and dUring
periods when noise levels would tend to be at their highest.
:for more substantial projects, the developer would bear the expense of monitoring:
, - ,
Applicant sha11 hire a consultant, who meets the approval of the City, to perform
weekly noise level monitoring. Monitoring at other times may also be required by
the City.
, Other common conditionS to h~p mitigate short-term nqise impacts include:
-' ,
Information sha11 be disclosed to residents about the type of noise produced by the
proj ect. Residents shall be given a number to contact -City staff if noise levels
become excessive.
Stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far as practical from
sensitive noise receptors, and in no event sha11 construction staging be performed
less than 500 feet from occupied dwellings. Stationary equipment sha11 be placed
in such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors.
7
Short-tam _on NoilOlmpBcts ova1uatiDD.BQCB StaffRoport
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA. ,
Evaluation of Short-Term, Constructirm-Related, Noise Impacts /A
Environmental Quality Control Board I .,
September 28, 2005
Construction equipment with internal combustion engines sha1l be equipped with
properly operating mufflers and tuned to alleviate backfires.
In extreme cases, where the short-term noise impacts will sti1l be excessive even with all of the
above conditions, the City could require something more significant, such as acoustical fencing
and barriers, or installation of double-paned glass windows at surrOlltllling properties.
RECOMMENDATION
After discussion among Board, review draft policy statement and provide direction to Staff as
determined appropriate.
ce
Attachments: (4)
Attar-hm...nt 1:
Proposed City Council Policy - CEQA Evaluation - Short Term
Construction~Re1ated Noise Impacts
. ,
Attachment 2:
Pertinent CEQA Laws and Guidelines
Attachment 4:
Comments and City Responses Regarding Construction Noise
Impact Issue from Previous En:vn-onmental Documents
Overview of Court Decisions
Attachment 3:
g
(-
Short-tonn CClIlSttuaian Noise Impacts ovalllB!iou.EQCB Staff Report
,
e-
e~,
e
Constderation of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short. Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CITY COUNClL POLICY - CEQA
EVALUATION SHORT TERM
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE IMPACTS
9
Short-tmn CODStrucIiDD Noise Impocls OYlI!ualion.EQCB StaffRoport
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
-- --- --- PROPOSED
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT
CEQA EVALUATION-
SHORT TERM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED
NOISE IMPACTS
SECTION INDEX NO. ISSUE DATE REVISION COUNCIL CM APPROVAL
DATE APPROVAL
600 - 11 I 12005 -1' 12005
1. !;:COPF
., ,
Planning Department - Environmental Review Documents
, .'
It,.:
2.
PlJRPO!;:F ANn INTFNT
, ,
, . '
To establish pro~dures for Coriducting environmental analysis of short-term
construction-related noise impacts and establish standard m~gation measures.
3. POI ICY'
The following policies, procedures and stand;m:l mitigation measures shall be
utilized by the Planning' D~partment and its consultants w~en preparing CECA
environmental 'review documen:ts that id~ntify short-term, construction related
noise impacts as.being "Potentially Signiflcant.Unless Mitigation Incorporated".
. \",.. .
Revision of CECA Envir'9nmental Checklist:
Item "d" under the "Noise" section of the CECA Environmental Checklist shall be
revised to read' as follows:
"d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above the levels existing
without the project. For purposes of this analysis, a
substantial temporary or periodic increase is defined as a
10
. Short-1om1 ooostruotion Noise lmplClS O'Ill!uatiDD.EQCB StaffRcport
:
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts (A
Environmental Quality Control Board 1_
September 28, 2005
continuous noise' of more than 70 db(A) or an intermittent
noise of_ more than ?5 db(A) resulting from construction that
occurS Detween 7:'00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m..
Standard Mitigation Measures:
The Planning Department and its environmental consultants shall utilize the
following mitigation. measure language to address specific temporary
construction-related noise impacts:
v . "
[J To_reduce construction-related noise impacts, construction shall be limited
to periods ot'reduced noise sensitivity and thus reduce sleep disturbance
and other noise, nuisance potential. Pursuant to the City's Noise
Ordinance, the construction contractor shall ensure that general
construction activities (which includes construction vehicle staging and
idling engines) be condLicted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 ~.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday,
and do not take place at any- time on Sunday or focal, State, or Federal
~~~ '
ce
"
[J Prior to {Building/Grading Pe~it} issuance, the {Building/Grading _~Ians}
shall be reviewecf'and approyed by the J:'lanning D~partment to ensure
compliance with the follow.ing:' "
[J All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with
properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the
Building Official;
[J During !Dnstructio'n, s!ationa_1Y constn,l~on equipment shall ~e placed
such that emitted noise is direCted away from. sensitive noisl1l~ceptors,
to the 'satisfaction of the Building Official; and . _
[J During construction and- to the satisfaction of the 'Building Official,
stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be ,_Io,cated as far ,as
practical from noise 'sensitiVe receptors i:iu~ng constfUction activities.
[J All construction-related noises will cease upon completion of the project.
Particularly severe sound sources, such as, pile driving, shall have further
restricted hours:
11
ce
Short...."" coostructiOll Noise rmpBCls ..a1ustloo.EQCII StaffRoport
--
e
e.-,:
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQ.4
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
CJ The applicant shall restrict pile driving, if required, to the hours of 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays.
If there is a concern about the noise from vehicles traveling past residences, the
following mitigation measure should be imposed:
CJ Prior to the issuance of {Building/Grading Permit}, the applicant shall
submit a construction haul route plan that avoids the use of residential,
streets to the City for review and approval and shall implement the
approved construction hauling plan.
The following mitigation measures should be imposed to respond to the potential
receipt of noise complaints from adjacent sensitive land uses:
CJ In the event construction activities exceed noise levels projected in the
negative declaration, City staff' may suspend, eliminate, or limit the
activities.
[J City staff will monitor noise levels on an irregular basis, unannounced
and during periods when noise levels would tend to be at their highest.
For more substantial projects, the developer would bear the expense of the
required mitigation monitoring:
[J Applicant shall hire a consultant, who meets the approval of the City,
to perform weekly noise level monitoring. Monitoring at other times
may also be required by the City.
Other mitigation measures that may be imposed to help mitigate short-term noise
impacts should include:
CJ Information shall be disclosed to residents about the type of noise
produced by the project. Residents shall be given a number to contact
City staff if noise levels become excessive.
CJ Stockp,iling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far as
practical from sensitive noise receptors, and in no event shall
construction staging be performed less than 500 feet from occupied
12
Short-lolDl_cticm Noise Imp_ OV1llWl1iDll.BQCB Staff Report
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluatioll of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Naise Impacts I a
Envirollmental Quality Control Board l ..
September 28, 2005
dwellings. Stationary equipment shall be placed in such a manner as
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors.
D Construction equipment with internal combustion engines shall be
equipped with properly operating mufflers and tuned to' alleviate
backfires.
In extreme cases, where the short-term noise impacts will still be excessive even
with all of the above conditions, the City may require something more significant,
such as acoustical fencing and barriers, or installation of double-paned glass
windows at sensitive, noise-impacted, surrounding properties.
4. ISSIIANCE
Approved by City Council , 2005
... ... ... ...
c_
n.
13
ce
Short-totm coostructioD Noise lmpooIs ovoIur.tion.EQCB SIBlfRoport
e-
e,
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQ.4.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related. Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28. 2005
ATTACHMENT 2
PERTINENT CEQA LAWS AND GUIDELINES
14
Short-tmD constructiDD Nail. Impacts ova1ualicm.EQCB StaffRoporl
It-
Consid8ration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
PERTINENT CEQA LAWS AND GUIDELINES
Public Re:murces rode:
Section 21061.1. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful II11!..,ner
within a reasonable p~riod of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors. " -
--'
Section 21064. "Negative declaration" means a written statement briefly describing
the reasons that a proposed project.Will not have a significant effect on the environment and does
-not requir~ the preIlaration of an environmental impac~ report. '
Section 21064.5. "Mitigated negative' declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a
proj ect when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on: the environment, but
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposalS made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would. occur, and (2) there is no substantial' evidence in light of the whole record before the
public ligency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 21068. "Significant ejfef?t on the' environment" meims a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.
Section 21080(d). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead
agency, that the project:may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental
impact report shall be prepared.
Section 21080(e)(1). For the purposes of this section and this division, substantial
evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon faCt, or expert opinion
supported by fact. -, ' \
' (2) Substantial-evidence is not argument, -speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or
narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic
impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.
1S
e Shorl-torm construction Noise JmpIllls OYIiuatioo.EQCB StaffRtoporl
,
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQ.4.
Evaluation ofShort-Terrn, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts (".
Environmental Quality Control Board _
September 28, 2005
f71?QA {;uiJ",l~ 11.11,] Ap?-tlrr G~
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7. Thresholds of Significance
(a) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the
agency uses in the detemrination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of
significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular
environmenta1 effect, non-comp1iance with which means the effect will ~y be
determin...n to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect
normally will be detetmined to l;le less than signifie:ant- '
(b) Thresholds of significance to, be adopted for gen.era1 use as part of the lead l!genCy's
environmental review process must be a9cPted by QItlinRn....e, resolution, rul!; or regulation,
and deve1op"ed through a public revieW 'process and be supported by substantial evidence.
NOTB
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections
21082 and 21083, Public Resources Code. '
HISTORY
1. New section filed 10-26-98; operative 10-26-98 pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21087 (Register 98, No. 44).
ce
rEQA Gublplbt'-\ Al1J"-'fdfr: G _ Rn..virn,"'lnplttnl Chlll!1di~1 F'nnH
1f':unl'lntinM of R'l'nJirnrlJ'I'IP'1'Ifnl TWlA,7'Jflr.t!;!.
1) A brief explanatio~ is required ~ all answers except "No Inipact" answer.! that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced infoImation sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. (e.g., the project
fails outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it i~
based on project-specific factOrs as well as gimeraI standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level., indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
16
(e
Short-lotm ccmstructiDD Noise Impacts ..a1uati...EQCB StaffRopmt"
e-
-.-,
e
.4)
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
EnviTonmenta/ Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
ElR is required.
''Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
,
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant.Impact." The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (. . . (text not applicable to discussion)).
5)
6)
7)
8)
. . . (Not applicable to discussion)
. . . (Not applicable to discussion)
. . . (Not applicable to discussion)
This is only a suggested form. and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should norma11y address the questions from this checklist that are
relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of eacli issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
... ... ... ...
17
Shorl-torm COlIStructiDD Noise Impacts ova1U81icm.EQCB StaffRoporl
e
-,
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
ATTACHMENT 3
COMMENTS AND CITY RESPONSES REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT ISSUE FROM
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
18
Short-torm ocmslnlctiDD Noisolmpocts ovaluaDDD.EQCB StaffRoport
-
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board.
September 28, 2005
COMMENTS AND CITY RESPONSES REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT ISSUE FROM PREVIOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
provided below is a snmmary of the citizen =ents on this issue lind the City responses to those
comments as contained in previous eJ?-vironmental documents:
A Negative Declaration 05-3, Cominent and Response to Comment (City of Seal Beach
Pier Groin Repair Project):
1. : Comment 5-5: .
Reference - Page 5-21
2.
'''The number 75 dBA is wrong. Using'the - 6 dBA for each consecutive
doubling of distance, the number Would aCtually' be 81 at 300 fci:t and 75 at
600 feet, not 400 f~ 7~..dBA is stiiI. 20 dBAs above the City Standard."
Response to Cci~t 5-5:
5-5 The comment from a board member indicated the noise rating of 75
dBA is incorrect as stated on page 5-21. He noted the' 75 dBA
calculation is 20 dBAs above the City standard. The concern of noise
in.excess of the City stilndard is addressed on pages 5-17 through 5-21
and noise imPactS are" indiCated in the llrltial Study on page 6-9.
During,'autliiirized cOnStrUction hours of MondaY through Friday 7:00
am to 8:00 pin aDd' satUrdays. 8:00 'am. to 8:00 pm, temporary
construction npise is' exemP.t from City noise Standards according to
the Se8l M~clpai"~ 'Chapter' 7.15. Also, according to the
Negative Declara1iail document page 5-21; all construction vehicles or
. equipinent,' fixed 'or rnol:1ile, operated. witliin 1,000 of a dwelling sha11
be . equipped 'with properly operating and ma,intained muffiers, and
stOckPiling' and/or Vehicle staging areas must be located as :filr as
praCticilble, 'frorii dwe1lings".' MandatoIy adherence to the City
Municipal Code would ensure that any potential noise impacts 'WOuld
, be leSs tblin significant' Since const:riJcti.on activities are exempt from
19
e',
e ShcJrt..lo<m CDDStNction Noise Imp_ _lllIIion.EQCB StaffRopcrt
:
Consideration of Policy Statement- CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts (_
Environmental Quality Control Board .
September 28, 2005
the Noise standards of the City, there is no adverse envir9mnen1al
impact.
B. Responses to Comments for Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 05-2: Surfside
Colony Maintenance Facility and Residential Development (General Plan Amendment
05-1, Zone Cliange 05-1 and Tentative Parcel Map 2004-106:
1. Comment 7-2:
''I believe that the facts of the enVironment and the facts of the construction
noise, as well, described on pp. 43 to 46, indicate clearly that there will be a
substlintial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. For example,
I'f"'irl""r.es on 3 sides of the project are less than 100 feet away, have no noise
barriers, and according to Table 2 on p. 45, could very well be subjected to 86
dBA; it's not unreasonable to suspect that, even when ayeraged out under
CNEL, there would be a substantial increase in ambi~t noise levels.
Furthermore, the, existing traffic noise environment already exceeds 65 qmr..
.Accoi'ding to a study quoted, !p. an ea.r:lier Environm""tlIl Impact Report
(Boeing, p. 5.5-1,2), if'the existing' ambient noise level is grea~ than 65
CNEL, a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT is assuIned to occur if the project increases
, the AN.L. by ONLY 1.0 dBA. So, the increase in AN.L. would not have to
be more than 1.0 dBA for it to constitute Ii significant impact.
~
2. Response to Comment 7-2:
7-2 The C<?=en~ ip.dicates that construction related noise impacts
CoUld result in noise exposures to adjacent properties in excess of
,the noise requiremen~ of the City iWI that the current traffic
reli~ed no~e levels cUrren~Y' ~ceed 65 CNEL. Both of these
concerns are Bddressi;-q hi ~e inj.tial Study in Section 3.11, on
pages 44 ~ 47., As indicated on page 46, '':The City of Seal
B~ Municipal C~de ,(Chapter ,~.15) eI,empts construction
activities fro,~_ adhering to City noise standards as long as
construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00-p.m. on
~ys, between:li,:OO a.m. and 8:00 p.~ on Saturdays or when
the ,City Buililliig inspector approves special provisions for
cons~on aC#vlti.~S.';' ,(Emphasis ~l. The City is also
imposing Mitigation Measure 1:'1'-1 as an additional action to notify
20
(e
Short...."" _aD Noise ImpBCls ovallllllion.EQCB StaffRoport
e-
COMideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
neighbors of the proposed construction schedule to provide
additional notice. Since construction activities are exempt from
the Noise standards of the City there is no,adverse environmental
impact
e,
Regarding ambient noise levels, the proposed project will not impact
the current noise level, adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, as the
proposed project is anticipated to generate between 30-36 daily vehicle
trips from the proposed. 3 new residences that could be constructed.
The c1ll7ent daily number of vehicles utili7ing Pacific Coast Highway
is approl<imAtP.'y 41,900 vehicles. The Boeing Integrated Defense
Systems Speci:fic Plan- EIR, previously certified by the City of Seal
Beach in 2003, indicated that ambient noise impacts along
Westminster Avenue were less than significant when the average daily
traffic volume increased by 28%, from 23,200 to 29,700 vehicles per
day, resulting in an ambient noise level increase of 1.1 dBA at 100 feet
from the roadway centerline (page 5.5-11)
The increased number of vehicles trips is less than 0.08% of the
number of vehicles using Pacific Coast Highway, and therefore no
1ong-temJ. increase in ambient noise levels is expected.
3. Comment 7-3:
"Despite the above :filets, the Neg. Dec. on p. 46 claims that impacts will be
less than significant because of minor factors (e.g., mufilers and placern"11t of
equipment), the limitation of construction hours under the City's Noise
Orclinan.cei the imposition of Mitigation Measure N-l, and BECAUSE the
impacts are short-tetm.., Again, it is not unreasonable to suspect that,
considering the size of the impacts, limiting them to 13 hours on weekdays
and 12 hours on Saturday will not be sufficient Mitigation Measure N-1 (see
p. 41) is not a real mitigation measure; it merely provides notice of not
mitigation of ~ign;fi"-lInt noise impacts. With regard to the short-term nature
of the impac1ll making them less than significant, you only have to look at p.
47, subparagraphs c) and d) to see that the significance criteria for both
P"""Anfmt increase and temporary increase are the same. Subparagraphs c)
and d) are derived from CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G." ,
21
e Short-tonn constructiao Noise lmpaOll"-cm.EQCB Staff Report
:
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
4. Resp.onse to Comment 7-3:
7-3 This continent reiterates the previous comments and Conclusions of
the co=enter. The commP.Ilt presents no new information on the
issue of construction noise impacts and no other environmental
issues regarding the proposed project ate raised. No further
response is necessary. Please see Response 7-2, above.
. . . .
"
22
Short-1olm COIIStn1CIion Noise TmpBCts ..a1uatiOILEQCB Staff Report
(e
~
~
e
-,
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related. Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
ATTACHMENT 4
OVERVIEW OF COURT DECISIONS
23
Short-lonn CDDSlnlctiDD Noisolmpacls 0VBI1IIIliDD.EQCB StaffReporl
e-
e-
-
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation ofShort-Tenn, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
September 28, 2005
OVERVIEW OF COURT DECISIONS
The courts have recognized that the short-term status of an impact reduces its significance.
Apartment Ass 'n of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1162, 1169
(2001) ("[A] comparison of the 'interim and permanent programs shows they are not the same.
The very fact one was temporary and the other is permanent is enough. to distinguish them
because the environmental impact of a short-term program may be much less significant than a
program of indefinite duration." (emphasis added)). Moreover, given that all cons1:ruction
involves some degree of noise, logic dictates that it.must be possible to draw some line betWeen
"acceptable" and unacceptable short-term noise impacts, or a city could never use a negative
declaration for any development involving construction, and every project would require an ElR.
Thp. Cnurk' Trp.ntmp.ntqf.'.hnrt-Tp.tm Nni~p. TrrqJn~tJI
With appropriate conditions, an environmental document may properly conclude that short-term
noise impacts are less than significant The courtS have upheld :findings of insigDmcance for
short-term noise impacts when the pl,lblic agency adds conditionS similar to those Seal Beach has
previously imposed. For example, in -Perley 1/. Board' of Supervisors, 137 Cal. App. 3d 424
:(1982), a court of appeal upheld.a county's approval of a negative declaration for a short-term
mining operation, over the plaintiff's claim that the noise impacts would be significant. The
specific conditions attached to the negative declaration related to noise were:
"1. The open pit operation shall be limited to the hours of7 A.M. to 7 P.M. Monday
thru Sun~y. . . .
"4. Noise levels from onsite mining activity shall not exceed 60 dBA from 7 A.M. to
7 P.M., as measured at existing exterior offsite premise residences, 'except that a
level of 75 dBA may be reached for a period not to exceed one minute per
occurrence for a total of 5 m;n'ltes per hour.
"5. Noise levels from onsite mining activity shall not exceed 55 dBA from 7 P.M. to
7 A.M., as measured at existing exterior off site premise residences.
"11. No highway vehicles utilized for hauling of material sha11 be used between 7 P.M.
and 7 A.M., onsite or offsite."
24
Short-tmn cDDStruction Noise Impom ov81UllliDD.EQCB StaffRopart
Consideration of Palicy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts (.
Environmental Quality Control Board .
September 28, 2005
Id at 429 0.1. The cap on noise levels, coupled with the restriction on hours of work, was
sufficient to mitigate the noise impacts. Similarly, in a recent unpublished opinion; a court of
appeal upheld a city'.s approval.of an MND for a street improvement project, ,despite the short-
term noise impacts, becaUse the documen~ "acknOWledged that noise levels would increase
during construction on a temporary-basis" but that adherence to City construction periods would
ensure that the impact is not ~ignificant" LaForest v. City of Mount Shasta, 2002 WL 1308800
(Cal. App. 2002) (unpublished).
Note that evidence of prior failures to comply witl). City noise standards can mandate the
preparation of an EIR. In 070 Fjno Gold Mining Corp. v. County of EI Dorado, 225 Cal. App.
3d 872 (1990), a county board of supervisors ~fused to approve a permit for a mining operation
without the preparation of an EIR. The mining company objected, asserting that an MND would
be sufficient if it included a condition that the mining would not exceed the general plan noise
maximum of 50 dBA. However, the court upheld the board of supervisor's determination that an
ElR was necessary, given numerous complaints of prior excesses:
""~
Oro maintains, however, that under the proposed mitigated negative declaration its
dri11ing noise simply cannot exceed. the county standard of 50 dBA measUred from a
point, which is 59 feet froD;l the residence, in question. . . . ,These arguments would carry
weight if the evidence showed. the noise stanc:!afds, were monitored and enforced
vigorously. But numlifOus residents testified a~ the PJ~nn;ng Commission and the Board
hearings that they l11l\Cle multiple complaints to pertinent county officials about the noise
trani the Gold Fields proj~ Otl.1er residents echoed this testimony in letters to ~
Commission and the Board. Relevant personal observations such as these can constitute
substantial evidence.
-
Id at 882. These nuInerous complaints constituted substantial evidence of a potential
environmental impact, m~ntl~1ing the preparation of an EIR. Accordingly, in deciding what
environmental document to prepare, the City. should consider whether any complaints have been
filed against a particular applicant ,If the eity proceeds with a negative dec1aration, it should
include conditions to vigilantly enforce the noise standards.
. . . .
25
ie
Short-torm co_on Noise Impoclll OYB!1IIIlion.SQCB StaffRopcnt
:
e
Consideration of City Council Policy Statement 600-11.
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council StqfJ Report
December 12, 2005
ATTACHMENT 3
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
RE: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
POLICY STATEMENT - EVALUATION OF
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE
IMPACTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
DOCUMENTS, DATED SEPTEMBER 28,2005
e
e
13
Shorl-tenn COll51IUctiDD Noi.. POlioy SrlBlomoot CC StaffRopon ,
!
~" November 2,2005
STAFF REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL
To:
Chainnan and Members of the ~vironmental Quality Control Board
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
From:
Subject:
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY
STATEMENT - EVALUATION OF SHORT-
TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
IN ENVm.oNMENTAL REVIEW
DOCUMENTS'
e':,
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
After discussion among Board, review draft policy statement and provide,direction to Staff
as determined appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Board Member Hurley has suggested certain amendments to the recommended ''Policy
Statement" and Staff~ no objections to the proposed amendments.
Provided as Attachment 1 is the "Policy Statement (Amended October 29, 2005)" that
indicates proposed ~e deletions by 8011\11= lllrili.eng'" ten!; and language additions
by l!J!Jd and double-undmined text.
RECOMMENDATION
After discussion among Board, review draft amended policy statement and provide direction
to Staff as determined appropriate.
,
.,,'
e 'ttenberg, Director
velopment Services Department
Attachments: (1)
Att!lchment 1:
Proposed City Council Policy - CEQA Evaluation - Short
Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts (Amended
October 29, 2005)
(e
. ce
\._e
-.-
r
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CITY COUNCn.. POLICY -
CEQA EVALUATION - SHORT TERM
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE
IMPACTS (AMENDED OCTOBER 29, 2005)
e-
"
e--
I
e-,
,
PROPOSED
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COUNCIL POLICY
(AMENDED OCTOBER 29, 2005)
SUBJECT -
CEQA EVALUATION -
SHORT TERM CONSTRUCTION.RELA TED
NOISE IMPACTS
SECTION INDEX NO, ISSUE DATE REVISION COUNCIL CM APPROVAL
DATE APPROVAL
600 11 -1_12005 -1_12005
1.
SCOPE
Planning Department - Environmentall1eview Documents
2.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
To establish procedures for conducting environmental analysis of short-
term construction-related noise impacts and establish standard mitigation
measures. '
3.
POLICY
The-following policies, procedures and standard mitigation measures shall
be utilized by the Planning Department and its consultants when preparing
CEQA environmental review documents that identify short-term,
construction related noise impacts as being "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated", -
Revision of CEQA Environmental Checklist
Item "d" under the "Noise" section of the CEQA Environmental Checklist
shall be revised to read as follows: .
"d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the
levels existing without the project. For purposes of
this - analysis. a substantial temporary, or periodic
increase is defined as a continuous noise of more
than 70 db(A) for 15 minutes or more or an
intermittent noise of more than 75 db(A) for between
5 and 14 minutes resulting from construction that
occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m."
Standard Mitigation Measures:
The Planning Department and its environmental consultants shall utilize
the following mitigation measure language to address specific temporal)l
construction-related noise impacts: .
t' -e
CJ To reduce Construction-related noise impacts, construction shall be
limited to periods of reduced noise sensitivity and thus reduce
sleep disturbance and other noise nuisance potential. Pursuant to
the City's Noise Ordinance; the construction contractor shall ensure
that general construction activities (which includes construction
vehicle staging and idling engines) be conducted only between the
hours of 7;00 a.m. and 8;00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m.
and 8;00 p.m. on Saturday, and do not take place at any time on
Sunday or local, State, or Federal holidays.
CJ Prior to {Building/Grading Permit} issuance, the {Building/Grading
Plans} shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department to ensure, compliance with the following:
CJ All construction equipment, fIXed or mobile, shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to' the
satisfaction of the BUilding Official;
CJ During construction, stational)l construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
noise receptors, to the satisfaction of the Building Official; and
CJ During - construction and to' the satisfaction of the Building
Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located
as 'far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during
, construction activities.
.ce
CJ All construction-related noises will cease upon completion of the
project.
Particularly severe sound sources, such as pile driving, shall have further
restricted hours:
CJ The applicant shall restrict pile driving, if required, to the hours
of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays.
If there is a concem about the noise from vehicles traveling pa$t
residences, the following mitigation measure 81:18\1111i1 W/,l be imposed:
(,..e
e(
--
,
CJ Prior to the issuance of {Building/Grading Permit}, the applicant
shall submit a construction haul route plan that avoids the use of
residential streets to the City for review and approval and sh~1I
implement the approved construction hauling plan.
The following mitigation measures 8R8wls ~ ~ imposed to respond to
the potential receipt of noise complaints from adjacent sensitive land uses:
CJ In the event construction activities exceed noise levels as sm:
fgJjb ia the Cj;.QA Environmenau;hecklJjl flIoise. section
~" or as projected in the negative declaration, City staff may
suspend, eliminate, or limit the activities.
CJ Trained City staff will monitor noise levels with oroDerl)l
certifie,d eauiDmen~ on an irregular basis, unannouncecl and
during periods when noise levels would tend to be at their
highest. .
For more substantial projects, the developer would bear the expense of
the required mitigation monitoring:
CJ Applicant shall h,ire a consultant, who meets the approval of the
City, to perform weekly noise level monitoring. Monitoring at"
other times may also be reqUired by the City.
Other mitigation measures that may be imposed to help mitigate short-
- term noise impacts should include:
,-
CJ Information shall be disclosed to residents about the type of
noise produced by the project. Residents shall be given a
number to contact City staff if noise levels become excess!ve.
CJ Stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far
as practical from sensitive noise receptors. and in no event shall
construction staging be performed less than 500 feet from
occupied dwellings. Stationary equipment shall be placed in
such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitiv~
receptors.
Q Construction equipment with intemal combustion engines shall
be equipped with properly operating mufflers and tuned to
alleviate backfires.
In extreme cases, where the short-term noise impacts will still ~
noise levels as set f2rtbJoJhe CEOA Environmental C;:hecIsUJt. Noise.
section "d': even with all of the above conditions, the City ~ ~
require something more significant, such as acoustical fencing and
barriers, or installation of double-paned glass windowS at sensitive, noise,.
impacted, surrounding properties.
4. ISSUANCE
Approved by City Council
,2005
... ... ... ...
I.-e
(.e
(,e
e
Consideration of City Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
ATTACHMENT 4
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
2 RE: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
POLICY STATEMENT - EVALUATION OF
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE
IMPACTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
DOCUMENTS, DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2005
e
e
14
Short-tonn COostructiDD Noise PolIcy SrtatomODt CC StaffRoport
e
November 2, 2005
STAFF REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL 2
To:
Chairman and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
From:
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject:
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED POLICY
STATEMENT - EVALUATION OF SHORT-
TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
DOCUMENTS
e SUMMARY OF REQUEST
After discussion among Board, review draft policy statement and provide direction to Staff
as determined appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Board Member Hurley has suggested a:further amendment to the recommended "Policy
Statement" regarding setting forth a distance for the evaluation of the short-term
construction related noise impacts and Staff has no objections to the proposed additional
amendment. The new language that is proposed is under the section titled "Area fQ[
Required Analvsi.".
Provided as Attachment 1 is the ''Policy Statement (Amended October 31, 2005)" that
indicates the previously proviqed' proposed language deletions, and the new proposed
additional laIigUage by lillliSll! strililllilln-'g'- 111M and language additions by bold and
dlmble-under)ined text.
RECOMMENDATION
e
After discussion among Board, review draft amended policy statement and provide direction
to Staff as determined appropriate.
Z.\My Dooumc:pts\EQCB\Shorl-term Cooslructioo Nois. Impac1> EvaJUatlDD,EQCB Supp StalIRoport 2 docILWlIo-3 I~S
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term; Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
- Environmental Quality Control Board
Supplemental Staff Report 2
November 2, 2005
e
e Whittenberg, Director
Development Services D
Attachments: (I)
Attachment I:
Proposed City Council Policy - CEQA Evaluation - Short
Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts (Amended
October 31, 2005)
e
e
Short-lenD Construction Noi.. Impacts Evaluatioo,EQCB Supp StaffReporl2
2
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
Supplemental StajJReport 2
November 2, 2005
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL POLICY -
CEQA EVALUATION - SHORT TERM
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE
IMPACTS (AMENDED OCTOBER 31,2005)
e
e
3
Shorl-torm CDDstructiDD Noise Impacts Evaluatioo.EQca Supp SlaffRepor! 2
e
Consideration of Policy Statement- CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Relatsd, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
Supplemental Staff Report 2
November 2, 2005
PROPOSED
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COUNCIL POLICY
(AMENDED OCTOBER 31 J 2005)
SUBJECT
CEQA EVALUATION-
SHORT TERM CONSTRUCTION.RELA TED
NOISE IMPACTS
SECTION INDEX NO. ISSUE DATE REVISION COUNCIL CM APPROVAL
DATE APPROVAL
, -1_12005
600 11 -1-12005
1. SCOPE
e Planning Department - Environmental Review Documents
2. PURPOSE AND INTENT
To establish procedures for conducting environmental analysis of short-
term construction-related noise impacts and establish standard mitigation
measures.
3. POLICY
The following policies, procedures and standard mitigation measures shall
be utilized by the Planning pepartment and its consultants when preparing
CEQA environmental review documents that' identify short-term,
construction related noise impacts as being "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated".
Revision of CEQA Envir~nmental Checklist:
Item "d" under the "Noise. section of the CECA Environmental Checklist
shall be revised to read as follows:
e
"d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the
levels existing without the project. For purposes of
4
Short-tenD eoOStructiDD No... Impacts EvlIlullliDD.EQCB Supp StaffRoport 2
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA.
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control BOOl'd
Supplemental Stqff Report 2 .-
November 2, 2005 _
this analysis, a substantial temporary or periodic
increase is defined as a continuous noise of more
than 70 db(A) for 15 minutes or more or an
intermittent noise of more than 75 db(A) for between
5 and 14 minute-l resulting from construction that
occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m..
A~ea for Reauired AnalYllis:
For ourooses of this anaw.is relatid to Section d of the Nois,
~ection of the CECA Environmental Checklist. a subftantial
temoorarv or oerjQl:lic increase is defined as a COntinuous noise of
more than 70 d~(AUor 15 minutes or more or an intermittent noise of
more than 75 d~tween 5 and 14 mim~tes resultina from
construction that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and tl:OO o.m. The
aoorooriate analX$is to determine ootentia.1 imoacts to sensitive land
uses sh@!1 at a minimum evaluate imoacts to said sensitive land uses
within a distance of 250 feet from t~e orooert)Lboundaries of th~
subiect oroiect.
Standard Mitigation Measures:
e
The Planning Department and its environmental consultants sh~1I utilize
the following mitigation flleasure language to address specific temporary
construction-related noise impacts:
o To reduce construction-related noise impacts, construction shall be
limited to periOds of reduced noise sensitMty and thus reduce
sleep disturbance and other noise nuisance potential. Pursuant to
the City's Noise Ordinance, the construction contractor shall ensure
that general construction activities (which includes construction
vehicle staging and idling engines) be conducted only between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and do not take place at any time on
Sunday or local, State, or Federal holidays.
o Prior to {Building/Grading Pennit} issuance, the {Building/Grading
Plans} shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department to ensure compliance with the following:
o All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped
- with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the
satisfaction of the Building Official;
e
, 5
Shorl-term CoD5lrucliDD Noise ImpIlCfs Evaluauon.EQCB Supp StaffRoport 2
e
Consideration of Policy Statement - CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
Supplemental Staff Report 2
November 2, 2005
Q During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
noise receptors, to the satisfaction of the Building Official; and
Q During construction and to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located
as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during
construction activities.
Q All construction-related noises will cease upon completion of the
project.
Particularly severe sound sources, such as pile driving, shall have further
restricted hours:
Q The applicant shall restrict pile driving, if required, to the hours
of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays.
If there is a concem about the noise from vehicles traveling past
residences, the following mitigation measure &1:I9wls shall be imposed:
.
Q Prior to the issuance of {Building/Grading Permit}, the applicant
shall submit a construction haul route plan that avoids the use of
residential streets to the City for review and approval and shall
implement the approved construction hauling plan.
The following mitigation measures 81l9yls shall be imposed to respond to
the potential receipt of noise complaints from adjacent sensitive land uses:
Q In the event construction activities exceed noise levels as set
mabJn the CECA Environmental Chectslist. Noise. section
lid" or as projected in the negative declaration, City staff may
suspend, eliminate, or limit the activities. '
Q Trained City staff will monitor noise levels wilb DroDerll(
~,d eauiDment on an irregular basis, unannounced and
during periods when noise levels would tend to be at their
highest. '
.
For more substantial projects, the developer would bear the expense of
the required mitigation monitoring:
D Applicant shall hire a consultant, who meets the approval of the
City, to perform weekly noise level monitoring. Monitoring at
other times may also be required by the City.
6
Shorl-It:rm ConstructiDD Noi..lmpaots Evalua1ioo.EQCB Supp StaffRoport 2
Consideration of Policy Statement- CEQA
Evaluation of Short-Term, Construction-Related, Noise Impacts
Environmental Quality Control Board
Supplemental Staff Report 2 _
November 2, 2005 _
Other mitigation measures that may be imposed to help mitigate short-
term noise impacts should include:
o Information shall be disclosed to residents about the type of
noise produced by the project. Residents shall be given a
number to contact City staff if noise levels become excessive.
o Stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be located as far
as practical from sensitive noise receptors, and in no event shall
construction staging be performed less than 500 feet from
occupied dwellings. Stationary equipment shall be placed in
such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
receptors.
o Construction equipment with intemal combustion engines shall
be equipped with properly operating mufflers and tuned to
alleviate backfi,res.
In extreme cases, where the short-term noise impacts will still exceed tbl
noise levels as set forth in the CEOA Environmental !;!hecklist. ~ e
section "et.:: even with all of the above conditions, the City ~ &ball
require something more significant, such as acoustical fencing and
barriers, or installation of double-paned glass windows at sensitive, noise-
impacted, surrounding properties.
4. ISSUANCE
Approved by City Council
,2005
* * * *
e
7
Shorl..."" ConstructiDD NoisolmpaclS Evaluatioo EQCB Supp StaffRoporl2
Consideration of City Council Policy Statement 600-11,
CEQA. Evaluation - Short Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts
City Council Staff Report
December 12, 2005
e
ATTACHMENT 5
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD DRAFT MINUTE EXCERPT -
NOVEMBER 2, 2005
e
e
15
Short-IOrIO Co_~o NolS. Policy SrllIIl:moDI CC StaffRoporl
e
DRAFT MINUTE EXCERPT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOAR I
MEETING, NOVEMBER 2, 2005
2. Consideration Of Proposed Policy Statement -~uation-
Construction Noise Impacts In Environmental Re ': > ocume
From September 28, 2005 Board Meeting) .-
statement and provide direction t
e
.. . e
Mr. Whittenberg stated that two supplementa ff r. ':: rt egarding this item
had been provided to the Board members, an 'ber Hurley has provided
some suggestions for revisions. He referred to S Report Su plemental 2,
Page 5, under "Area for Required Analysis," and not ." , at he d requested
that that th~ last senten~~~ paragraph be revised " . ... sensitive
land uses which are ~P1I~:':':C11llli1nce of 250 feet . . "' The Director of
De~elopment Servi~~lndi~ted that-~S\1Y Attorney's offi has review~d. the
polley language andlrfound ~\to be ac~~t~l~ He" added that the reVISions
provided by the Board prOVide-~~ ~;~fifiCali'O~tle language.
Member Voce referred to Page f!,. ~ asked ~Ch department would monitor
noise Ie ~ nsure that the ~oper certified equipment is being us~d. Mr.
Whitt~ rg stat ~ that the Code ,for ent Officer would be responsible for
thi /...... .
~ 'IQN by HUr...,;. Si::'~~~by.....~l ~'I to approve the draft Policy Statement and
dlrec ~f:: It to"'G~1i(guhcll for final approval.
~_ , MOTION 6 I RIED: 5 - 0
. . ;YES: Voce, Barton, Hurley, Neal, and Vineyard
~S: . ,:' one
ABSE:\: /' :. -, None
Mr. ~enberg indicated that this item would be heard at the December 12,
2005 C Council meeting.
e