Considering Noise Through Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances - DfH USA - 2008

8/14/2019 Considering Noise Through Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances - DfH USA - 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/considering-noise-through-comprehensive-planning-and-ordinances-dfh-usa- 1/11

DESIGN FOR HEALTHUniversity of Minnesota | June 2008

Planning Information Sheet:

Considering CommunityNoise Issues Through

Comprehensive Planningand Ordinances

Version 1.0

DESIGN FOR HEALTH is a collaboration between the University of Minnesota and BlueCross and Blue Shield of Minnesota that serves to bridge the gap between the emerging

research base on community design and healthy living with the every-day realities of local

government planning.

M e t r o p o l i t a n D e s i g n C e n t e r



Planning Information Sheet: Considering Community Noise Issues Through Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances

2

www.designforhealth.net

Design for Health

Design for Healthwww.designforhealth.net

© 2008

University of Minnesota

Permission is granted for nonprot education purposesfor reproduction of all or part of written material or images,

except that reprinted with permission from other sources.Acknowledgment is required and the Design for Health

project requests two copies of any material thus produced.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy

that all persons shall have equal access to its programs,facilities, and employment without regard to race, color,

creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status,disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual

orientation.

Design for Health is collaboration between the University of

Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.

The following people were involved in the development of

the Planning Information Sheet Series:

Series Editor: Dr. Carissa SchivelyContributors: Dr. Ann Forsyth, Dr. Kevin Krizek, Dr. Carissa

Schively, Laura Baum, Amanda Johnson, Aly Pennucci

Copy Editor: Bonnie Hayskar

Layout Designers: Anna Christiansen, Tom Hilde, KristenRaab, Jorge Salcedo, Katie Thering, Luke Van SistineWebsite Managers: Whitney Parks, Aly Pennucci, Joanne

Richardson

Suggested Citation: Design for Health. 2008. Planning

Information Sheet: Considering Community Noise Issues

through Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances. Version1.0. www.designforhealth.net




3


Design for Health

Overview

The Design for Health (DFH) PlanningInformation Sheet Series provides planners withuseful information about opportunities toaddress important health issues through thecomprehensive planning process and plan

implementation. The series addresses a rangeof health issues that are relevant to manycommunities and can be integrated into localplans and policies. This information sheetdiscusses a number of opportunities that plannershave to address community noise issues throughplanning and policy approaches.

Key Points

•Dependingupontheintensity,community

noise (also referred to as environmentaland neighborhood noise) can cause noisepollution. Harmful and unsafe noise pollutionis where noise levels are greater than 70decibels adjusted (dBA).

•Themainsourcesofcommunitynoiseincluderoad,rail,andairtrafc;industries;construction;andneighborhoodactivities,such as recreation and lawn care.

•Mitigatingtheeffectsofharmfulnoise

pollution involves the collaboration of federal,state,andlocallevelsofgovernment.There are a variety of policy and planningapproaches used for dealing with noise-relatedissuessuchasnoiseordinances,noiseassessments (models for forecasting andassessingsourcecontrolaction),noiselimitsandregulations,noise-compatiblelandusecontrols,noisebarriers,andenvironmentalimpact assessment.

•Researchismixedandinconclusiveregardingtheinuenceofnoisepollutiononhumanhealth.Todevelopwell-denedcontrolsonnoise,futureresearchisneededtoaddressthedifferenttypesofnoise,howitismeasured,wherenoisecomesfrom,anditseffectsonpeople.

•Basedonourcurrentknowledge,healthoutcomes associated with noise pollutioninclude: hearing impairment and hearing

loss;interferencewithspeechcommunication;disturbanceofrestandsleep;physiological,mental-health,andperformanceeffects;effectsonresidentialbehaviorandannoyance;andinterference with intended activities. Specialpopulationssuchastheyoung,elderly,blind,and people with certain medical conditions

face even greater potential health effects

Understanding the Relationshipbetween Noise, Health and Planning

Community or neighborhood noise is emittedfromavarietyofsourcesincludingroads,rail,airtrafc,industries,constructionandneighborhoodactivities(Babisch2006;Wende&Ortschcield2003). The health consequences of harmful levelsofnoisecanbesignicant,includinghearingimpairmentandloss,interferencewithspeechcommunication,disturbanceofrestandsleep,as well as the potential for physiological (e.g.heartrate,bloodpressure),mental-healthandperformanceeffects(Bronzaftetal.,1998).Ithas beenshown,mainlyforworkersandchildren,

that noise can adversely affect performance of cognitivetasks.Althoughnoise-inducedarousalmay produce better performance when doingsimpletasks,cognitiveperformancesubstantiallydecreasesformorecomplextasks.Taskssuchasreading,problemsolvingandmemorizationare among the cognitive activities most stronglyaffectedbynoise(WHO1999).Inadditiontothesehealtheffects,noisecanbeanannoyance

Housing located near freeways and rail lines is susceptible to

trafc related noise.





4


Design for Health

and interfere with one’s day-to-day activities(WHO1999).Table1belowshowstheaveragesoundlevels,indecibels,oftypicalnoisesources.Hearing impairment or loss can occur at decibellevels of about 70.

Vulnerable subgroups of the general population

should also be considered when recommendingnoise mitigation or regulations. These groupsinclude:theelderly;youngchildren;personswithexistingdiseasesormedicalproblems;personsdealingwithcomplexcognitivetasks(e.g.learningtoread);andpersonswhohavesight,hearing,orlearningimpairments.Becausepeoplein these groups may be less able to cope withnoiseexposure,theymaybeathigherriskforthehealtheffectsnotedabove(WHO1999).

Intermsofregulatingtheeffectsofnoiseto

protectpublichealth,effortshavebeenhampered byinsufcientknowledge.Inordertoestablisheffectivenoisecontrolstandards,thereneedsto be a better understanding of the different typesofnoiseandhowwemeasureit,wherenoisecomes from and its effects on individuals andcommunities(WHO1999).

Noisecontrolisafederal,stateandlocalissuein the United States and ensuring “reasonable”levels of noise is the responsibility of a numberof agencies at the different levels of government.However,whatisconsidered“reasonable”or appropriate can differ by community and

individual. Health noise levels depend on theaudience and include dimensions related tovolume,predictabilityandperceivedcontroloverthenoisesource(Kryter,1994).

ThefederalNoiseControlActof1972(NCA)was established “to promote an environment for

all Americans free from noise that jeopardizestheir public health and welfare.” The NCAprovides for a division of powers between thefederal,stateandlocalgovernments.Inthepast,the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)coordinated all federal noise control activitiesthroughitsOfceofNoiseAbatementandControl;however,in1982,theEPAofciallyshifted the primary responsibility of regulatingnoisetostateandlocalgovernments.Exceptionsinclude transportation noise sources includingaircraft and railroad operations and commercial

motorvehicletrafcinvolvedininterstatetransport,whichhavesomefederaloversight(U.S EPA 2007).

Another means of addressing noise impactsat the federal level is through the NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),whichrequires the documentation of environmentalimpacts of federal agency actions and federallyfundedprojects.WhiletheNEPAstatutedoesnotspecicallyaddressnoise,variousfederalagencies provide guidance related to identifyingandmitigatingnoiseimpacts.Forexample,theFederalHighwayAdministration’s(FHWA)

Table 1: Common Outdoor and Indoor Noises

Source: Corbusier 2003




5


Design for Health

guidance related to the format and content of EnvironmentalImpactStatements(EISs)requireanoiseanalysis(FHWA1987).Furthermore,theysuggestthatEISsshouldcontainadescriptionofnoisesensitiveareassuchasresidences, businesses,schoolsandparks,aswellastheextentofimpact(measuredindecibels)foreach

sensitivearea(FHWA1987).

Inadditiontothefederalgovernment’sroleasdescribedabove,stateandlocalgovernmentscan be responsible for controlling noise sources andthe levels of noise emitted into the environment.There are a number of tools employed by localagencies to minimize the harmful effects of noisepollution.Forexample,municipaljurisdictionshaveadoptednoiseordinances,whichserveasenforcement mechanisms for controlling noise.Some communities include noise elements in

theirlocalplans,whichsetgeneralplanningguidelines to ensure compatibility and minimalimpacts among nearby land uses (California StateWaterResourcesControlBoard,1999).

Inaddition,localplannersworkingcooperativelywithotherpublicandprivateagenciescanplan,design and construct development projects androadways that minimize the adverse effectsof noise. Effective land-use planning anddevelopment may discourage sensitive land usesnearhighwaysandothernoisesources,promotethe use of open space separating roads fromdevelopments and require special constructiontechniques or time of day requirements thatminimize the impacts of road-related noise(FHWA2006,1995).Moredesign-specictools for limiting roadway noise may include buildingbarriersorberms,establishingtrafccontrolssuchasspeedlimits,alteringverticalorhorizontalalignmentfornewroadways,establishing buffer zones along a right-of-wayandusingquietpavement(Miller,2005).

Planning for Noise Prevention andMitigation

This section provides a number of practicesthat communities might use to more effectivelypreventand/ormitigateexistingandfuturesources of noise. This section addresses bothplanning and regulatory options related to noiseprevention and mitigation.

Addressing Noise in Community Plans

Insomecases,localcityandcounty

comprehensive or general plans are required toaddressnoisethroughincludingaspecicnoiseelement.Forexample,theStateofCalifornia’sGovernmentCode§65302requiresthatanoiseelement be prepared to “identify and appraisenoise problems in the community.” The noiseelement must address various noise sourcesincludingroadways,railroads,transitsystems,aviation,industrialfacilitiesandotherstationarysources such as military installations. Noiseanalysis is intended to inform the pattern of landusesspeciedinthelanduseelement.

Wall barriers can help reduce roadway noise for residential

areas adjacent to freeways.





6


Design for Health

Illustratingtheimplementationofthisrequirement,theCityofSalinas,withanestimated2006populationof145,000andlocated justeastofCalifornia’scentralcoast,includeda noise element in its general plan. The elementstatesasitspurpose(CityofSalinas2002,pageN1):

Toidentifyandappraiseexistingnoiseproblems in the community and to provideguidance to avoid noise and land useincompatibility problems in the future. Thiselementaddressesexistingandprojectednoisesourcesinthecommunityandidentieswaystoreduceexistingandpotentialnoiseimpacts.Inparticular,theNoiseelementcontains policies and programs to achieveand maintain noise levels compatible withvarious types of land uses. These policies

and programs emphasize the need to controlnoisethroughlanduseregulation,aswellasenforcement of other City ordinances.

Thissectionoftheplanspecicallyacknowledgesthe potential physiological and psychologicaleffectsofnoise,aswellasthepotentialforstressand irritation caused by loud noise sources (Cityof Salinas 2002).

TheCityofSalinasalsomakesthedirect

connection between noise and land use andtransportation issues in the general plan. Thenoiseelementspeciesseveralgoalsandpoliciesthat address these connections (City of Salinas2002):

GoalN-1:Minimizetheadverseeffectsofnoisethrough proper land use planning.

PolicyN-1.1:Ensurethatnewdevelopmentcan be made compatible with the noiseenvironment by using noise/land usecompatibility standards and the NoiseContoursMapasaguideforfutureplanningand development decisions.

PolicyN-1.2:Requiretheinclusionofnoise-reducing design features in development andreuse/revitalization projects to address theimpact of noise on residential development.

PolicyN-1.3:LocateonlyurbandevelopmentwithintheSalinasMunicipalAirport“areaofinuence”thatiscompatiblewiththeairportnoise environment and meets the guidelinesoftheCaltranshandbook.

PolicyN-1.4:EnsureproposeddevelopmentmeetsTitle24NoiseInsulationStandardsfor

construction.GoalN-2:Minimizetransportation-relatednoise impacts.

PolicyN-2.1:Ensurenoiseimpactsgenerated by vehicular sources are minimized throughthe use of noise control measures (e.g.earthenberms,landscapedwalls,loweredstreets).

PolicyN-2.2:Controltrucktrafcroutingto

reduce transportation-related noise impactson sensitive uses.

Policy N-2.3: Ensure new developmentwithin the vicinity of the airport does notresult in a land use/noise compatibilityconictorhazard.

GoalN-3:Minimizenon-transportationrelated noise impacts.

PolicyN-3.1:EnforcetheCityofSalinas

NoiseOrdinancetoensurestationarynoise sources and noise emanatingfromconstructionactivities,privatedevelopments/residences and special eventsare minimized. (City of Salinas 2002).

InanotherCaliforniacity,SanDiego,thegeneralplangoesfurther,specifyingpoliciesrelatedto a number of different noise types includingmotorvehicletrafc;trolleysandtrains;aircraft;

commercialandmixed-useactivities;industrialactivities;construction,refusevehicles,parkinglotsweepersandpublicactivities;andevents(CityofSanDiego2007).Inadditiontothesepolicies,thecityspeciesnoisecompatibilityguidelines for various types of land uses. Futuredevelopmentofvarioustypes(e.g.parks,agriculturalresidential,ofces,institutional,industrial)isratedascompatible,conditionally




7


Design for Health

compatible (pending an acoustical study) andincompatiblebasedonthelevelofexteriornoiseexposure(indecibels)presentinthatlocation(City of San Diego 2007).

Regulating Noise Impacts

Inadditiontoaddressingnoiseinlocalplans,communities can establish a range of regulationsintendedtodocument,preventandmitigatenoise impacts. The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse(2008)provideslinkstoanumberofordinancesestablished in communities across the U.S. Thissectionsummarizesanumberofthese,aswellasother approaches to regulating noise impacts.

Forexample,theCityofMinneapolis,Minnesota,hasanextensivenoiseordinance.Oneuniquefeature of the ordinance is its approach in

identifying the characteristics and conditionsof a noise that can be used to determine if it is anuisance under the code. The characteristics andconditions include:

•Whetherthenatureofthenoiseisusualorunusual.

•Whethertheoriginofthenoiseisnaturalorunnatural.

•Theproximityofthenoisetosleepingfacilities.

•Thelanduse,natureandzoningoftheareafrom which the noise emanate and the areawhere it is received.

•Thetimeofdayornightwhenthenoiseoccurs.

•Thedurationofthenoise.•Whetherthenoiseisrecurrent,intermittent,

or constant.•Whetherthenoiseisproducedbya

commercial or noncommercial activity.

•Whetherornotnoiseabatementmeasuresare possible and whether or not they areused to reduce the sound level.

•Thenumberofpeopleandtheiractivitiesthat are affected by the noise.

•ThesoundpeakpressurelevelofthenoiseontheAscale,ifknown.

•TheAscalelevelofambientnoise,ifknown.(CityofMinneapolis2008)

Inanotherexample,theCityofWichita,Kansas,addresses noise in the public health section of itsCodeofOrdinances(2008).Thecodeprohibitsloudandunnecessarynoises,statingthat:

Itisunlawfulforanypersontomake,continue,orallowtobemadeorcontinued,anyexcessive,unnecessary,unusualorloudnoise which creates a nuisance or injures

orendangersthecomfort,repose,healthorsafetyofothers,orwhichinterfereswiththeuse or enjoyment of property of any personof reasonable sensibilities residing in oroccupyingtheareaunlessthemakingandcontinuing of such noise is necessary for theprotection and preservation of property or thehealth and safety of some individual” (City of Wichita2008).

Wichita,withapopulationof358,000,prohibitsnoise nuisances emitted from radios and otherelectronicequipment,steamwhistles,musicalinstruments,motorvehicles,peddlers,loadingand unloading (e.g. trash) and construction noiseduringspecictimeperiods(CityofWichita2008).Wichita’scodealsospeciesdecibel(dBA)limits based on the prevalent type of land use inan area. Table 2 below provides a summary:

Table 2: City of Wichita Excessive Noise Limitations

Source: City of Wichita 2008




8


Design for Health

TheCityofMesa,Arizona,asuburbofPhoenix,alsoputslimitsonvehiclenoise,requiringthatthefollowinglimitsbemet,whenmeasuredat50feetfromthenoisesource(CityofMesa2008).These regulations are included in the policeregulations section of the City Code. Table 3 below provides a summary.

Recognizingthesensitivityofsomenoisereceptors,Mesaalsolimitsconstructionactivitieswithin500feetofresidentialzones,exceptduringspecieddaytimeandweekdayhours(CityofMesa2008).Inaddition,noiseregulationsprohibit“offensiveorexcessivenoiseonanystreet,sidewalk,orpublicplaceadjacenttoanyschool,institutionoflearning,orchurchwhilethe same is use or adjacent to any hospital whichinterfereswiththeworkingsofsuchinstitution”(CityofMesa2008).

Inadditiontothetypicalcontentseeninothernoiseregulations,TakomaPark,Maryland,hasestablished an additional organizational structuretoaddressnoiseissues.Thiscity,asmallsuburbofWashington,DC,hasestablishedaNoiseControl Board charged with administering andenforcingtheCity’sNoiseControlOrdinance.The Board holds open hearings related to noisedisturbancecomplaints,withpartiesprovidingsworn testimony and presenting and rebuttingevidenceprovided(CityofTakomaPark2008).

Oneothercommonly-usedapproachtoabateandmitigatenoiseimpacts,beyondnoiseandnuisanceregulations,isairportoverlaydistricts.

Whilethesezoningdistrictshaveabroaderfocusonsafety,noiseisanadditionalissueaddressedintheseregulations.Forexample,HighPoint,NorthCarolinahasestablishedsuch an ordinance with a particular focus onnoisefromthePiedmontTriadInternationalAirportintheGreensboro-Winston-Salemarea

incentralNorthCarolina.Specically,oneofthepurposes of the ordinance is to “Ensure land usecompatibility by protecting noise sensitive landuses from objectionable aircraft noise impacts”(CityofHighPoint2008).Theoverlaydistrictconsists of four zones based on the noise impactsexperiencedinthevicinityoftheairport,withlanduseslimitedincertainzones.Inaddition,theordinance requires noise reducing constructionpractices for residential development in certainzones.Onezonerequiresanindoornoisereduction of at least 30 decibels accomplished

throughbuildingdesign,buildingmaterialsandconstruction standards. Another zone requiresthat a “windows closed environment standard” be met through the installation of mechanicalventilation systems that enable windows to beclosed in all climate conditions (City of HighPoint2008).

Transportation corridor overlay districts mayalso be used to mitigate noise impacts from majorroadways.Forexample,theTownofGilbert,aPhoenix,Arizona,suburbanwithapopulationof200,000,hasestablishedtheSantanFreewayCorridorOverlayDistrict.Oneofthestatedpurposesofthedistrictisto,“Mitigatetheeffectsof freeway noise impacts on noise sensitive uses

Table 3: City of Mesa Sound Pressure Limits for Motor Vehicles

Source: City of Mesa 2008




9


Design for Health

andprotectthepublichealth,welfareandsafety by establishing noise reduction requirementsapplicable to development of noise sensitiveuses” (Town of Gilbert 2007). The overlay districtapplies to noise sensitive uses that are locatedon parcels fully or partially within 300 feet of the edge of the right-of-way for the freeway.

Toreducenoiseimpactsonsensitiveuses,theordinancelimitsbuildingheightsto150feetandrequires developers to construct noise barriersthatreducenoiselevelsbyatleast5decibels(Town of Gilbert 2007).

Final Thoughts

This document summarizes many of thesalientconnectionsamongnoise,planningandhealth. Planners can employ a variety of meansthrough planning and regulatory tools to abateand mitigate noise impacts for general andspecialized populations. Effective plans andpoliciesrequireextensiveknowledgeofnoiseconditions and a means of assessing the impactsof future development.




10


Design for Health

References

Babisch,W.2006.Transportationnoiseandcardiovascularrisk:Updatedreviewandsynthesis of epidemiological studies indicatethat the evidence has increased. Noise and Health8(30):1-29.

Bronzaft,A.L.,Ahern,K.D.,McGinn,R.,O’Connor,J.,&Savino,B.1998.Aircraftnoise:Apotential health hazard. Environment and Behavior 30(1):101-113.

CaliforniaStateWaterResourcesControlBoard.1999.General Waste Discharge Requirements forBiosolids Land Application Draft Statewide ProgramEIRChapter11,Noise.AccessedNovember21,2007. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/programs/ biosolids/deir/chapters/ch11.pdf

CityofHighPoint,NorthCarolina.2008.Codeof Ordinances. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10918&sid=33

CityofHonolulu,Hawaii.2008.RevisedOrdinances of Honolulu. http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/refs/roh/

CityofMesa,Arizona.2008.CityCode.http://cityofmesa.org/clerk/CodeBook/Table_of_Contents.aspx

CityofMinneapolis,Minnesota.2008.Codeof Ordinances. http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=11490&sid=23

CityofSalinas,California.2002.General Plan.http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/CommDev/GenPlan/GenPlanFinal/GPindex.html

CityofSanDiego,California.2007.Draft GeneralPlan. http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/

genplan/index.shtml

CityofTakomaPark,Maryland.2008. MunicipalCode. http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/code/Takoma_Park_Municipal_Code/index.htm

CityofWichita,Kansas.2008.Code of Ordinances. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=14166&sid=16

Corbusier,C.2003.Livingwithnoise.Public Roads 67(1):22-25.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).2007. Noise Control Act.Retrievedfromhttp://www.epa.gov/history/topics/nca/index.htm.

FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).1987.Guidance for Preparing and ProcessingEnvironmental and Section 4(F) Documents–FHWATechnicalAdvisoryT6640.8.http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/impTA6640.asp

FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).1995.

Highway Trafc Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance.Retrievedfromhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/polguide/polguid.pdf

FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).1997.SubchapterH-Right–Of–WayandEnvironment.PART772–Procedures for Abatement of HighwayTrafc Noise and Construction Noise. Sec. 772.3Noisestandards.Retrievedfromhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0772.htm.

FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).2006. Highway Trafc Noise in the United States: Problemand Response.Retrievedfromhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/usprbrsp.pdf.

Knauer,H.2005.Transportation News Measures andCountermeasures,TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies.Number240.pp.13,27,32UpdatedGuidesforControllingHighwayNoise.Retrievedfromhttp://onlinepubs.trb.

org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews240.pdf

Kryter,K.D.1994.The handbook of learning effectsof noise. San Diego: Academic Press.




11

www designforhealth net

Design for Health

Miller,N.2005. Addressing the Noise fromU.S. Transportation Systems: Measures andCountermeasure.TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies,Number240.Retrievedfrom http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews240.pdf

NoisePollutionClearinghouse.2008.Law library:Noise Regulations and Ordinances of U.S. Cities,Counties, and Towns. http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/cities/cities.htm

Polcak,K.2005. Highway Trafc Noise and Land UseDevelopment; Coordinating Federal, State and Local Authorities.TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies.Number240.Retrievedfrom http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews240.pdf

TownofGilbert,Arizona.2007.Land DevelopmentCode. http://www.ci.gilbert.az.us/planning/ldc.cfm

Wende,H.andJ.Ortscheid.2004.Requirementsfor the protection against aircraft noise. Noise and Health6(24):9-19.

WorldHealthOrganization(WHO).1999,Guidelines for Community Noise.Retrievedfromhttp://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html.