Palmer NOLA Soundscape Appendicies OA 11-01883-01

APPENDICIES for NEW ORLEANS SOUND ORDINANCE AND SOUNDSCAPE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA Appendix
A New Orleans Health Department Information.......................................... Appendix B General Information on Sound, Selected New Orleans Sound Walks and Sound Level Measurements................................................................................... Appendix C Residence and Business Information on Annoyance and Sound Control Appendix D Documents................................................................................................ 311 Noise category memo. OSHA 1983 nightclub sound level enforcement position statement Merchants of Royal St. Letter to CM Palmer 3-15-12 Sample touring band contract sound level requirements Charles Berlin letter on Ambient Measurement Intention 1994 Analysis of Recommended VCE Measurement Procedures by Arno Bommer, CSTI, David Woolworth 2012 Sound Ordinance Working Group notes, July 14, 2010 Sound Ordinance Working Group notes, March 8, 2012 Meeting with neighborhood associations/Bourbon Business Alliance (BBA) handout. Appendix E Papers on New Orleans Soundscape investigation for Internoise 2012....... Appendix F City of New Orleans Related Zoning and Ordinance Documents................ Loudspeaker Placement Ordinance CZO Section 10.13- Arts and Culture Overlay (Frenchman St.) Excerpts of Chapter 34 of New Orleans Municipal Code Sound Ordinance- Chapter 66 of New Orleans Municipal Code Appendix G Listing of organizations, meetings and interviewed persons...................... ... 1 29 51 61
82 99
120
Appendix H - Resources for Sound Ordinance Creation Guidelines, Information on the Structure of Single Person Sound Enforcement Program, and Brazil's Noise Education Program........................................................................................................................... 123 Appendix I- Proposed phases for development of sound enforcement and awareness program 125
APPENDIX A HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOISE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION A1: Health Department organizational hierarchy and planning documents (Louisiana Division Archives New Orleans Public Library) A2: Estimated costs and revenue of noise officer employment (Courtesy David Gavlinski Assistant Fiscal Officer New Orleans City Council) A3: Synopsis and relevant excerpts from available health department annual reports (Louisiana Division New Orleans Public Library Courtesy Michael L. Martin Tulane University Law School) A1: Health Department organizational hierarchy and planning documents
NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01
Appendix Page 1
Appendix Page 2
Appendix Page 3
Appendix Page 4
1974-1978 Strategic Planning for Health Department

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013 Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 5
A2: Estimated costs and revenue of noise officer employment The information below was provided by David Gavlinski to help assess cost and revenue associated with semi-dedicated noise officers as employed by the health department (these health officers previously had multiple responsibilities). The discussion revolves around the employment of 4 officers. Taking note of New York City having 33 full time noise enforcement officers, it might be advised that the initial effort to initiate changes for noise be more extensive, and some of the other approaches in the report be considered to reduce the burden on enforcement. Also note item 4 immediately below that indicate the issues related to the schedules of those charged with enforcement.
From: David S. Gavlinski Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:43 PM To: Kristin G. Palmer Cc: Nicole Webre; Calvin J. Aguillard; Barbara T. Avalos; Evelyn F. Pugh; Stacy Head; Jackie B. Clarkson Subject: RE: Budget
Councilmember Palmer: Apologies for the slower response on this, but some of your questions required a little bit of rooting about.
1.
Your first question regarding the environmental specialist is difficult to answer. I suggested that position as a response to your original question about cost. It was merely to be illustrative of a potential budgetary impact of staffing an office today in a manner similar to that of 1985. As you can see, the civil service job description for the position would likely not be an exact match for your purposes: Class Code 3085 Environmental Technician I: Kind of Work: Responsible sub-professional engineering work of moderate technical difficulty in the investigation, inspection and control of all water quality factors ; and related work as required . I think that it is safe to say that any new positions in the civil service, or cross training of additional positions would require coordination with both the Administration and the civil service commission and staff. Research into your second question bore little fruit as well, though knowing about which fruit are lacking may prove helpful going forward. Apparently, neither 311 nor NOPD tracks noise/sound violation complaints. 311: Since there is no enforcement mechanism in any of the departments plugged into 311, the 311 complaint system (a new computer program called Llama) does not track this particular complaint. I believe Deputy Mayor Thomas would be the one to be approached to include noise complaints in the complaint system. NOPD: Additionally, a conversation with Chief Landry of NOPD revealed that noise/sound complaints are not tracked, but are likely contained within the complaint category of Miscellaneous, which comprised 25.53% of all calls, according to the rolling 52 week average from 6/26/11 to 6/23/12 in the City Wide Percentage of Total Calls For Service report presented to the Council on 8/15 in the joint Budget/CJ hearings. I informed the Chief that the Council would like to see tracking of that variable, but follow up to her would be wise. Moreover, with Miscellaneous comprising nearly a quarter of all calls, it seems that several more currently un-tracked variables could be parsed from that greater whole. Having no idea what the complaint call rate is, and no basis for how many of those cases would lead to assessment of fines, it is difficult to tell how much the of costs could be offset by the fines associated with a successful adjudication. As each violation carries the maximum fine of $500, there would have to be some 800 violations assessed at that level to raise $400,000. As there are 507 ABOs of all kinds (many of which are restaurants, groceries, etc. and seldom would be guilty of violations) in and around the FQ, that would require each ABO getting a guilty citation more than once per year in order to break even. That may be an ambitious, if not an unrealistic goal, if the unit were expected entirely to pay for itself.
2.
3.
In addition to the back-of-envelope cost calculations that I performed in the previous email, I think it is safe to say that additional costs for measuring equipment and adjudication hearing officers should be added to the personnel costs below. Ive been told that an adjudication officer would cost around $30,000 per annum, and sound measuring equipment which generates records would also likely carry a sizable cost.
4.
Additionally, from what I can tell from conversations with people who were around at the time that the switch was made from the Health Department to the NOPD Quality of Life Officers, enforcement by the Health Department was difficult since their work schedules did not coincide with the bulk of noise violations occurring. In closing, I have to admit a high level of ignorance concerning the history of noise enforcement. Likewise, once again, I would like to stress the back-of-envelope nature of this analysis. This is not meant to be authoritative, and I am reluctant to give recommendations of any kind. However, I have attempted to answer your questions to the greatest extent possible, and to add a little more understanding to the issue. As always, do not hesitate should you have additional questions. Best, David
David S. Gavlinski Assistant Fiscal Officer New Orleans City Council From: David S. Gavlinski Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:03 AM To: Kristin G. Palmer; Nicole Webre Cc: Calvin J. Aguillard; Barbara T. Avalos; Evelyn F. Pugh Subject: RE: Budget
CM Palmer: The best I can tell, the last time that the Health Department operated a noise abatement program was in 1985. The program was cut in 1986, partially in part due to the heavy cuts enacted at the time, as 1986 saw widespread furloughs and layoffs. The program, called the Noise Control Program, consisted of three classified employees, "Environmental Specialists I-III." Its last two years of funding (prior to being zeroed out in 1986) were:
2010*
1984 $38,718 $80,121
1985 $74,121 $145,500
1986 $0 $0
*Represents the funding levels in 2010 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
The inflation adjusted values would not quite get the office where it would need to be since the classified pay plan has been amended to provide higher more livable salaries within the classified service. Though the Environmental Specialist has been eliminated in the classified pay plan, I have chosen todays Environmental Enforcement Technician I and II, and Environmental Enforcement Superintendent to tease out a rough cost estimate for staffing up an office similar to that of 1985. The Enviro Enforcement Techs I and II have pay ranges in todays revised pay plan from $34,368 to $51,144, and $37959 to $56,488, respectively. The range for the Superintendent is $59,366 to $97,575. Thus, and accounting for fringes and benefits, a similarly staffed office in todays dollars, and with todays pay plan would carry a price ranging from $196,676 to $288,211 for personnel only.
I am certain that some costs could be recouped through citations, but I would have to familiarize myself more with the associated fines for violating that chapter, and have a better idea of what the violation rate would be. This is my best effort to show a side-by-side cost comparison between a program that existed 28 years ago going from the little data I can pull together on it. Few people around here today have anecdotal (or any other kind of) evidence to speak to the efficacy the program. Im afraid that it would take a much deeper level of analysis to ascertain an estimate of the operating costs, what kind of costs could be recovered through fines, and the political will to implement such a program in the Health Department. I hope this satisfies your request at least in part, and please do not hesitate to get in touch. Best, David David S. Gavlinski Assistant Fiscal Officer New Orleans City Council Office number: (504) 658-1101
Appendix Page 8
A3: Synopsis and relevant excerpts from available health department annual reports Synopsis of CNO Health Department Public Archives Relating to Noise Control Efforts According to records, the Health Department began thinking about noise pollution (focusing mostly on mechanical and construction noises) in 1973. The City Archives do not pick back up until 1980, but according to the Departments 1980 Report, it got only as far as placing noise pollution control under the purview of its Division of Environmental Services. In 1981, a Task Force composed of citizens and local government officials drafted and presented a model Noise ordinance to the City Council. The ordinance was passed by the Council and signed into law on August 28, 1981. Enforcement of the ordinance was tasked to the Health Department and the Council upped the Departments budget accordingly to effectuate enforcement. The Department established a Noise Control Coordinating Committee made up of members of the Health Department, Department of Safety & Permits, and the NOPD. The group met and discussed how to develop specific procedures to handle noise violations. This included creating the Community Noise Control Unit. However, the group was unable to procure working sound measuring equipment to enforce the ordinance, so enforcement basically involved the Health Department either calling or sending a written notice to the alleged violator with instructions on how to mitigate or eliminate the offending noise. RECORD OF NOISE COMPLAINTS (August 28, 1981 December 31, 1981) 48 Total Complaints Live Music (14) Barking Dogs (13) Loud Speaker (9) Chickens (3) Motor Vehicle (2) Children Playing (2) River Traffic (2) Garbage Collection (1) Other (3) In 1982, the Health Department created an official Community Noise Program. The Program successfully obtained seven working sound level meters and facilitated training for its staff and NOPD sergeants to help enforce the ordinance. As part of its enforcement mechanism, the City Council also granted the Noise Control Staff Special Police Status, along with blank citation books whereby staff members could issue tickets to violators. Those getting tickets were subject to fines, arraignment, and or trial in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. Of particular legal importance, an Orleans Parish Criminal District Court judge rejected a pre-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of the noise ordinance both as written and applied. These changes were effective as the Noise Control Staff received over 300 complaints, 200 of which generated field visits, and 154 lead to violation notices being sent to alleged offenders. The staff also proposed amendments to the Community Noise Control Ordinance specifying certain sound levels for specific areas. It also set up plans for future enforcement efforts, including a compliance call-back system, stepped up patrols in violation-prone areas, and public information efforts.
RECORD OF NOISE COMPLAINTS (January 1, 1982 December 31, 1982) 300 Total Complaints Loudspeakers/Stereo (100) Barking Dogs (80) Live Music (40) Chickens (30) Industry & Machinery (20) Vehicles (10) Other (10) In 1983, the Community Noise Control Program got electronic sound level meters that also provided printouts of the analyzed sound levels. This capability significantly enhanced the Departments ability to enforce the ordinance. It also led the Department o file twenty-one court cases against violators. The program was also provided with portable police band radios, which greatly enhanced program response time to complaints. These developments, along with significant public information efforts led to a 95% increase in total complaints in 1983. RECORD OF NOISE COMPLAINTS (January 1, 1983 December 31, 1983) 570 Total Complaints Barking Dogs (185) Loudspeaker/Stereo (143) Live Music (86) Industry & Machinery (57) Fowl/Roosters (51) Vehicles (26) Other (22) Additional Information Provided Field Visits (150) Permits Issued (40) Notices Issued (240) Court Charges Filed (21) In September 1984, the City Council amended the noise ordinance, which expanded enforcement of the ordinance to both the Health Department and NOPD. The City Archives do not pick back up again until 1986. For the calendar year 1986, the Health Department did not issue any specific information related to noise control efforts. In 1987, the Health Department again did not provide specific information on its efforts, but did indicate that it had welcomed interns from Dillard University and local high school students to assist the Division of Environmental Services. The trail goes cold again until 1988, when the City Council established an internal Bureau of Administrative Adjudication to handle adjudication of Health Department violations. The Department beings listing the number of Complaints, Fines, and Court Cases within its reports, but they are not broken out by type of violation. In 1989, the Division of Environmental Services was changed to the Bureau of Environmental Enforcement. In 1990, the City Council, in lieu of the Health Departments successful attempts at adjudication, expanded the Departments adjudicatory hearing procedures and powers. In 1991, the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication handled its first noise violation hearing which ended following voluntary mitigation efforts undertaken by the violator.
Prepared by: Michael L. Martin March 19, 2012 NOLA Soundscape Oxford Acoustics 8/5/2013 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 10
Appendix Page 11
Appendix Page 12
Appendix Page 13
Appendix Page 14
Appendix Page 15
Appendix Page 16
Appendix Page 17
Appendix Page 18
Appendix Page 19
Appendix Page 20
Appendix Page 21
Appendix Page 22
Appendix Page 23
Appendix Page 24
Appendix Page 25
Appendix Page 26
Appendix Page 27
Appendix Page 28
APPENDIX B GENERAL INFORMATION ON SOUND, SELECTED NEW ORLEANS SOUND WALKS AND SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS General information provided by Doug Price from Quest Technologies and other sources BBA Field Tests- Bourbon St. 1-25-13 Sound Walk French Quarter 10-15-11 Sound Walk Marigny 3-31-12 Sound Measurement Data Bourbon/Frenchman 5-25-12, 5-26-12 Daytime ambient measures of neighborhoods 4-26-12
Appendix Page 29
Appendix Page 30
Appendix Page 31
rock group maximums
Outdoor concert at Lafayette Park

motorcycle at 25'
Heavy truck passing at 50 ft.
Shouting at 3ft.
Average street traffic
inside a car at 50 mph
Active business office
quiet living room
rustle of leaves
breathing
Appendix Page 32
Amplified kick drum frequency range (typical)
Flat response (no weighting)
typical frequency range for compressors and cooling fans
Above the chart shows the weighting curves applied to raw data (flat response) for A and C weighting. These curves are applied to the measurement before the octave band levels are summed to the single number we read as "dBA" or "dBC". The typical predominant frequency ranges are shown for air conditioning equipment and amplified kick drum. The emphasis range for kick drum is often chosen so it can be "felt" by the listener; in field measurements 63Hz is commonly encountered, and sometimes it is tuned to the human chest cavity resonance (target 80hz88Hz, although the chest resonance range can be 50Hz to 100Hz).
Appendix Page 33
Exposure Limits as established by NIOSH and OSHA
Appendix Page 34
Appendix Page 35
356 CR 102 Oxford, MS 38655 662-513-0665 www.oxfordacoustics.com
February 18, 2013 From: David Woolworth, Oxford Acoustics, Inc. To: Robert Watters, Bourbon Business Alliance Re: Bourbon St. Sound Tests 1-25-13
Summary: Field tests to determine the normal operating internal sound levels and the behavior of emanating sound were performed at three Bourbon St. entertainment venues with the cooperation of the owner and management. The data collected was compared to a compilation of studies performed for the upcoming New Orleans soundscape and noise ordinance report, and the feasibility of a sound level cap was evaluated. It was determined that acceptable internal and external sound levels (full bar conditions and a reduction of impact on neighbors respectively) are achievable, and it is recommended that venue operators use self-monitoring in their own self-interest. Field Tests: Three Bourbon St. open facade entertainment venues were studied: Funky 544, Old Opry House, and Famous Door. All venues have live and DJ'd music. The tests were performed on the afternoon and evening of January 25, 2013. The first study consisted of afternoon tests (~1pm-2pm) in the presence of light foot traffic, automobile traffic, and delivery trucks before the venues on Bourbon St. began operation for the day. This included exaggerated sound levels to minimize confusion with background sounds. The second study consisted of evening tests with full bars and full street conditions (see pictures) considered to be normal operating conditions and sound levels. The club general manager Anthony D'Arensbourg indicated that the observed conditions were acceptable in regard to business operations. In both cases, for every venue the same song was DJ'd on the house system (Wobble) which contains heavy bass and shouted vocals. The song was long enough and consistent enough throughout to get sufficient repeatability for these measurements. The measurements included the metrics dBA and dBC (decibels A-weighted and decibels Cweighted). dBA is the common metric for measuring sound levels, and is currently used by New Orleans. dBC was included, as it also takes into consideration the low frequency content of the sound. A follow-up check was made at one venue (544) the next night (1-26-13) with random music programming conditions and crowded streets.
Appendix Page 36
Results: Daytime ambient conditions (trucks and cars): 71dBA/83dBC Night time ambient conditions (620 Bourbon with crowd): 79dBA/86dBC The following are some sample measurements from the tests. The goal is to not exceed 85dBA/95dBC in the middle of the street (MOS). Measurements are made at the doorway as recommended in the upcoming report, and then checked in the middle of the street. Yellow indicates exceeding recommended sound level limits at that location (at doorway or MOS). Green indicates sound level limit recommendations are met.
Daytime 544 Door 3 544 MOS 544 in club Night Time 544 Door3 544 Door3 MOS 544 Inside (crowded) dBA 101 80 107 dBA 89 85 93 dBC 107 89 111 dBC 100 93 103
Day tests sound levels exceed recommended doorway limits but street levels appropriate. Night tests dBC meets recommended doorway limits and street levels appropriate. Funky 544 during night measures
Daytime OOH Door 2 OOH Door2MOS Night Time OOH Door 2 OOH Door2MOS OOH inside (crowded)
dBA 97 83 dBA 89 81 98
dBC 105 90 dBC 104 88 108
Day tests sound levels exceed recommended doorway limits but street levels appropriate. Night tests dBC exceeds recommended doorway limits but street levels appropriate. Old Opry House during night measures
Appendix Page 37
Daytime FD Door1 FD Door1MOS Night Time FD Door 1 FD Door 1MOS
dBA 89 79 dBA 91 81
dBC 107 94 dBC 110 96
Day tests sound levels exceed recommended doorway limits but street levels appropriate. Night tests dBC is exceeded in the street by 1dB.
Famous Door during night measures.
Appendix Page 38
Frequency content from the field testing: This is provided for primarily conceptual purposes. It is important to note each venue is unique and the way the sound attenuates over distance is specific to the venue and the sound system. It is also interesting to note that the different sound systems and architecture produce different source curves for relatively consistent program: for instance, Famous Door has a much lower mid-high frequency content at the door due to loudspeaker placement and layout, and the frequency curves reflect this. Daytime tests utilized louder than normal sound levels.
Famous Door sound attenuation curves. MOS = middle of street

Funky 544 sound attenuation curves. Note the inside level and street ambient levels are shown.
Appendix Page 40
Old Opry House attenuation curves. Note that the inside sound differs from 544 due to the sound system and architecture.
Appendix Page 41
The average of the sound attenuation measurements are shown in the table below:
dBA inside to door afternoon test evening test spot check night 544 range afternoon range evening 8dB 7dB 7dB N/A N/A door to @5' Door to MOS 7dB 5dB 10dB 2 to 10dB 4 to 7dB 14dB 10dB 12dB 9 to 21dB 0 to 17dB inside to door 5dB 5dB 1dB N/A N/A dBC door to @5' door to MOS 8dB 7dB 8dB 6 to 10dB 5 to 9 dB 14dB 10dB 11dB 12 to 18dB 6 to 16dB
The table shows the average decibel drop over distance from inside to outside, and from the doorway of the building to 5' away, and from the doorway to the middle of the street (MOS). While there is little variation between the dBA and dBC averages, the range of measurement values for the dBA measurements is greater than the dBC measurements, pointing to less variability in the use of the metric dBC for this purpose. Discussion: One dBA measurement revealed that the doorway (facade) sound level was equivalent to the MOS (middle of street) measure, making dBA a less accurate measure for certain circumstances. dBC did not have this complication. While this is important to note, the dBA measure still has value in identifying unusually loud venues or in measuring conditions in which the ambient crowd noise is below 88dBA, which will be typical conditions. The spot check with random music programming agrees with this study as well as with the previous study of multiple venues with random programming on Bourbon St. The measurements in this report under the given conditions show that the suggested sound level cap is achievable with minimal or no changes in the venues studied, while maintaining the same level of tourist traffic. It will be up to all entertainment venue owners to ensure compliance with the proposed regulations if adopted through the use of appropriate sound system engineering and sound treatments. It is also recommended that the city aid in the process of evaluation for compliance. Based on conversations and observations, it appears that during quieter or less crowded nights, louder music is sometimes used to attract patrons, and these nights also anecdotally have the most complaints. Selfmonitoring is recommended to avoid exceedance of the sound level limits for all cases. Additional Data collected: Street dancers with portable music systems were observed at 87dBA at 30' (calculated from 20' measurement due to the limitations of space) on Bourbon St. 500 block. This is in violation of Sec 33-22.1 of the city code (85 dBA at 30'). Religious hawkers with amplification were measured at 89dBA and 92dBA at 30' east and west of their loudspeakers along Bourbon St. This is in violation of Sec 33-22.1 of the city code.
356 CR 102 Oxford, MS 38655 662-513-0665 www.oxfordacoustics.com
October 22, 2011 From: David Woolworth, Oxford Acoustics, Inc. To: Nicole Webre, NOLA City Council Re: French Quarter Sound Walk 10-15-11 Public Letter Nicole: I have enclosed below a two graphs with notes that give an idea of the levels we encountered on the soundwalk survey on 10-15-11; the first graph is as we approach Bourbon and look at amplified street musicians, and the second is Bourbon going west to east. It is important to note that this is a sample that is not representative of any time but when the measure was taken, and is not recommended for use as a reference for the revision of the NOLA noise code; the purpose is to get a reference point for deciBel levels. The lines graphed are as follows: LAeq: The A-weighted equivalent level (slow average) as measured by my meter. A-weighted measurements disregard low frequency content and focus on annoyance due to mid and high frequency noise. NOPD LAeq: The A-weighted equivalent level (slow average) as measured by NOPD. Note that both meters were in a agreement for the most part and were calibrated by the same reference. LAPKmax: The instantaneous A-Weighted peak level during any one measurement, looking at all impulses over the measurement period; some examples of impulses include a door slam, a kick drum on a sound system, a traffic whistle blast, a dog bark(ing), etc. While we may see a fair amount of it, if it is brief or constitutes a small portion of the overall time it does not have a large effect on the slow Aweighted average (LAeq), which looks at things averaged over 1 second intervals. The peak-max is put in here to get an idea of what are the maximum levels we are hearing?. The differences between Leq and peak are not unusual for a variety of everyday activities. LCeq: The C-weighted equivalent level (slow average) which takes into account the low frequency content. This can be compared to LAeq to look at how much low (bass) are you getting relative to the higher frequencies. How boomy or rumbly is it?
Appendix Page 43
French Quarter Sound Walk 10-15-11

Sound Levels Approaching Bourbon St. 12:20am
110 100 90
dB
80 70 60 12:23AM St. Louis x Royal 35'-40' from guitar amp 12:27AM St. Louis x Royal 10' from guitar amp 12:25AM St. Louis x Royal 35'-40' from guitar amp 12:33AM Royal x Tolouse 15' from guitar amp 12:38AM 739 Toulouse 20' from Bourbon 12:19AM Conti x Royal ambient
LAeq NOPD Laeq LAPKmax LCeq
Time and Location
Approaching Bourbon: 1) Ambient traffic and activity is in the 60's (dBA). The current code revision needs to be examined regarding street buskers, due to evening street levels. 2) Low frequency (5dB higher) and peak-max levels (18dB higher) are consistent relative to the A-weighted levels. 3) Both meters are registering similar levels.
Appendix Page 44
French Quarter Sound Walk 10-15-11

Sound Levels Bourbon St. 12:30am to 2:00am
120
magnitude (dB)
110 100 90 80 70 60 01:55AM Bourbon x Bienville middle 01:01AM Bourbon x St. Ann at north curb 12:40AM 600 Bourbon middle (music break) 01:09AM Bourbon x Dumaine on NW corner 02:00AM 135 Bourbon middle 01:59AM 201 Bourbon middle 01:57AM 216 Bourbon middle 01:50AM Edison Park middle 01:47AM 327 Bourbon middle 01:46AM 333 Bourbon middle 01:44AM 405 Bourbon middle 01:35AM 441 Bourbon middle 01:32AM 500 Bourbon x St Louis middle 12:39AM 600 Bourbon middle 12:41AM 600 Bourbon middle 12:44AM 630 Bourbon middle 12:46AM 641 Bourbon middle 12:48AM 700 Bourbon middle 12:51AM 711 Bourbon middle 12:55AM 734 Bourbon middle 12:59AM Bourbon x St. Ann middle 01:02AM Bourbon x St. Ann middle 01:04AM Bourbon x St. Ann middle 01:12AM Bourbon x St Phillip NW corner 01:07AM half block from St Ann north sidewalk 01:15AM Bourbon x St Phillip SW corner LAeq NOPD Laeq LAPKmax LCeq
time and location
Bourbon St: Here the street is laid out on the graph with Canal to the left and St. Phillip to the right. middle indicates middle of Bourbon St. 1) Both meters are in good agreement. 2) The 600 block appears to have the highest sound levels on this evening when the measurements were taken. 3) Bourbon x St Ann you can see lower dBA levels, but very high dBC levels: This is evidence of considerable low frequency content in the signal. 4) Edison Park is an example of the ambient street sounds on this particular night. 5) The sound levels fall off as you move toward Dumaine from St. Ann to levels found on Royal. 6) At St. Phillip the noise level is higher due to the presence of Lafitte's, but note the low dBC rating, indicating that the sound system (at least at this time) does not employ a lot of bass.
Appendix Page 45
Appendix Page 46
Sound Level Measurements-Evening 5-25-12 and 5-26-12 In-club measures made in audience seating area
frenchman dBA 86 84 72 90 94 86 90 94 91 90 82 98 104 97 86 83 81 86 89 96 86 93 96 89 97 88 94 93 90 98 102 85 97 95 91 95 77 88 85 92 81 91 95 100 95 dBC 92 91 83 96 98 87 93 98 96 92 88 104 109 103 91 89 91 96 98 101 97 103 105 96 98 98 107 104 98 105 108 94 103 102 96 99 83 92 92 101 87 100 100 105 99 descriptor 000 jazz band @dBA 20' from stage 001 ellis @snug lower 002 ellis @ snug upper lynn drury (2 guitars) @ cafe negril lynn drury (2 guitars) @ cafe negril 5' from doorway 3 muses door plane 3 muses In 3 muses in spotted cat (cottonmouth kings) plane of door 5' from door spotted cat doorway cafe negril inside cafe negril dance floor dba Eric Lindell door plane dba 5' from door dba MOS OZ (@St Ann) MOS Napolean (@ St Ann) MOS 727 Bourbon fritzel/funky p MOS 635 Bourbon mybar/KrazyC MOS 615 Bourbon turtle plane of doorway turtle in the turtle MOS 544 Bourbon (@Tolouse) MOS Preacher loudspeaker @8' MOS 511 Bourbon Razoo/swamp/preacher plane of window swamp plane of door razoo MOS 438 Bourbon FC/BSBC plane of door BSBC plane of door fat catz MOS 339 Bourbon famous door plane of door famous door plane of door famous door MOS 333 Bourbon voodoo vibe plane of door voodoo vibe MOS Legends park MOS Bourbon Cowboy +crowd MOS 216 Bourbon Live plane of door bourbon live MOS 201 Bourbon Jester/mango MOS street bucket drummer on sidewalk 5' from door Maison 508 Frenchman plane of door of Maison inside Maison
Bourbon
frenchman
Appendix Page 47
Bourbon
dBA 59 65 85 71 65 85 80 82 66 56 84 85 70 64 83 89 83 75 82 87 86 69 64 85 99 93 68 85 93 84 93 92 97 99 103 93 65 58
dBC 70 81 94 83 77 93 90 88 76 73 94 103 82 76 98 96 92 81 89 97 93 80 74 94 104 98 86 99 108 95 102 101 106 108 110 102 80 72
st peter x dauphine 1 block street traffic 1/2 block MOS St Peter x Bourbon 1/2 block 1 block royalxst peter taxi traffic MOS 706 Bourbon cats meow MOS 711 Bourbon (heat) MOS Napolean (@ St Ann) 1/2 block 1 block royal x st ann no traffic MOS Opera house/trop Isle @Tolouse MOS 504 Bourbon 1/2 block tolouse x dauphine lblock traffic MOS swamp/Razoo MOS BSBC/fat cats MOS 339 Bourbon (@conti) MOS musical legends park MOS bourbon cowboy MOS catz/BSBC MOS St. Louisxbourbon (center) 1/2 block @royal 1 block light traffic MOS St. Louisxbourbon (center) @ plane of door BSBC 5' from door BSBC 1/2 block MOS razoo/swamp plane of window swamp MOS 615 Bourbon turtle plane of door turtle MOS 635 Bourbon mybar/KrazyC plane of door my bar in my bar plane of door MOS 635 Bourbon mybar/KrazyC 1/2 block @dauphine 1 block
Appendix Page 48
Frenchman
dBA 86 84 72 90 94 86 90 94 91 90 82 98 104 97 86 83 95 100 95
dBC 92 91 83 96 98 87 93 98 96 92 88 104 109 103 91 89 100 105 99
descriptor 000 jazz band @dBA 20' from stage 001 ellis @snug lower 002 ellis @ snug upper lynn drury (2 guitars) @ cafe negril lynn drury (2 guitars) @ cafe negril 5' from doorway 3 muses door plane 3 muses In 3 muses in spotted cat (cottonmouth kings) plane of door 5' from door spotted cat doorway cafe negril inside cafe negril dance floor dba Eric Lindell door plane dba 5' from door dba 5' from door Maison 508 Frenchman plane of door of Maison inside Maison
Middle of Street (MOS) Summary-Bourbon

Bourbon dBA 85 85 80 82 84 85 83 89 83 75 82 87 86 85 85 84 92 93 dBC 94 93 90 88 94 103 98 96 92 81 89 97 93 94 99 95 101 102 MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS MOS St Peter x Bourbon 706 Bourbon cats meow 711 Bourbon (heat) Napolean (@ St Ann) Opera house/trop Isle @Tolouse 504 Bourbon swamp/Razoo BSBC/fat cats 339 Bourbon (@conti) musical legends park bourbon cowboy catz/BSBC St. Louisxbourbon (center) St. Louisxbourbon (center) razoo/swamp 615 Bourbon turtle 635 Bourbon mybar/KrazyC 635 Bourbon mybar/KrazyC
Appendix Page 49
Appendix Page 50
APPENDIX C RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS INFORMATION ON ANNOYANCE AND SOUND CONROL
Appendix Page 51
New Orleans Sound Makers' (including Clubs, Events, Parties, Construction) suggestions to reducing sonic footprint This document is intended as a general guide and the intention is to provide tools for the New Orleans homeowners and business owners to reduce their sonic footprint in the city. Each situation is unique, so certain solutions may not apply. The City of New Orleans assumes no responsibility for design and construction of sound abatement treatments; it is suggested that homeowners hire a qualified consultant and/or contractor for appropriate sound abatement procedures. What you should know about Unwanted Sound: 1) Sleep can be affected by unwanted sound, the effects include stress and fatigue, which can lead to other illness if unchecked. Many people report an inability to perform work normally when experiencing sleeplessness due to unwanted sound. It is important to note that lack of sleep may make negotiations about unwanted sound heated, and it is recommended that one ensures good sleep before entering into problem solving about unwanted sound. 2) Annoyance: It has been shown that once a sound has been identified as annoying, over time the perceived loudness goes down but it will continue to grow in annoyance.1 Once people are locked into detecting a type of sound, they can still detect it even when the level is reduced. *This would point to taking measures to avoid introducing loud sounds if you plan on starting a new establishment or changing programming at an existing establishment. 3) Sensitivity: 20% of the population is considered sound sensitive, with an emphasis on children and the elderly. It is normal for individuals to become more sensitive to low frequencies as they age. *Just because you cannot hear it or are not bothered by it does not mean that a complainant's case is invalid; it is very real to them. 4) Low Frequencies: Low frequencies contain more energy than middle or high frequencies at the same sound level (low frequencies are typically considered below 250Hz or cycles per second). Low frequencies tend to travel further outdoors, diffract around buildings and walls, and penetrate building envelopes more effectively than middle and high frequencies. An easy example of this is if a car with a loud sound system drives by your residence and the doors/windows are closed, what you hear is the boom of the bass drum. Sometimes low frequency sound can be created by vibrations traveling through the ground or a building and exciting a structure; vibration by itself can also be a source of annoyance and is a legitimate source of complaint if it can be felt. 5) Weather: The weather and meteorology can have an effect on sound propagation across the city. A common difference is seen between day and night: during the day, sound may travel upward due to the hot ground; at night, a warm layer of air above the city may direct sound back downwards great distances away, nowhere near the source. For instance, hearing a Jazzfest stage clearly on your back porch even though you are not adjacent to the fairgrounds. Other factors include wind direction and some residents report that they hear the highway or railroad differently in different seasons of the year.
Appendix Page 52
How can I improve my business or residence to reduce my sonic footprint? New Orleans has over 40,000 buildings on the historic register, many of them 100-230 years old. The buildings were built during a quieter time in history, and the world's cities are noisier than ever.2 The typical weak points of any structure are the doors and windows in regard to sound; in a lot of cases they contain a single pane of 1/8 glass-- this is the only thing between you and the outside sound. With a typical building, over time the building develops cracks, or air leaks, which translate into sound leaks. These air gaps manifest themselves along doors and windows as well as any seams in the building construction. A small crack can let a considerable amount of sound in; think about sitting at the kitchen table with someone cutting the grass outside, and just cracking the window- it also can let sound out. Entertainment districts are embedded in these historic districts and most of the buildings that are home to these clubs were not intended for the purpose of containing high sound levels, especially low frequencies (for instance bass drums, piano, and bass). Most of the following applies to music, but some can be applied to construction sounds. 1) Be aware of the sound levels you are producing: Type 2 sound level meters with A-weighting are a good investment to make sure you are operating at responsible sound levels. It has been shown that club interior levels of 95-100dBA are plenty loud and do not cause patrons to leave; compared to higher sound levels, this range produces less fatigue and less hearing damage of workers and patrons. When you decide it is important to exceed these levels it makes sense to close the windows and doors of your building to reduce the effect on the community. Some New Orleans clubs are already having success with reduced interior levels. 2) Seal the perimeter of the building (helps on energy costs): all seams around windows and doors, all penetrations through the building (floor, ceiling, walls), and building siding; where a draft or light can get through, you have a path for sound. Use weather seals or a resilient, nonhardening caulk such as silicone. Eave vents must be left open. 3) The use of insulation in the walls and attic (helps on energy costs): If you are working on your home or business and can afford to insulate the walls with fiberglass or cellulose, it will help. Insulating the attic keeps the building cool in the summer and warmer in the winter, and reduces sound that travels through the eave vents. 4) The use of an internal or external storm window (helps on energy costs): An internal storm window meets the expectations of the historical restrictions of the city. You can purchase internal storms from professionals or make them yourself (i.e. 1/4 plexiglass or acrylic sealed to the window outer frame with weatherstripping or non-hardening caulk. Note to make holes in plexiglass a milling bit is recommended instead of a drill bit). 5) If you have a problem with bass frequencies reaching other people/places, consider the following: 1. Changing the equalization of the system to notch out or reduce the offending frequencies that may be the source of complaint. 2. Isolation of speakers (and personal stage amplification such as bass cabinets) from the structure via resilient pads or springs (one can figure this out or get a consultant). 3. Repositioning subwoofers in the room where they may sound louder in the listening area without turning them up louder. 4. There may be a need to improve the sound isolation construction of the building, which may
include adding mass, insulation, and/or larger airspaces in the building shell as well as creating shielding or vestibules at the entrances. 5. See Low Frequency Hearing Sensitivity (audible sound) (Section 3 of the report) above for more information. 6) Consider moving the central entertainment area to another part of the building, away from the openings or immediate neighbors. The buffer created by the building and a room can provide some relief (you may need to experiment with this option). 7) For solutions specific to your case, consider hiring a qualified consultant. Strategies for those that are likely to be making sounds that affect others:3 1) Be aware of using sound as a weapon against people who irritate you- they may decide to retaliate with resources that will make your life difficult or impossible. 2) Knowing your neighbors is an effective tool to keep communication open and mitigate complaints; they can be honest with you, and you will be aware if they have a new baby, someone is sick, or other conditions that may tailor your behavior out of consideration. 3) If you are having an event or are planning work related sounds: letting the neighbors know ahead of time is critical; they should know when to expect a start and end to the sounds. This reduces the anxiety related to unwanted sound annoyance. You can also invite them if it is an event as a courtesy. 4) Be honest about sound levels if you are starting a new operation (i.e. Music or Dance Club) with your new neighbors; the credibility you achieve from working together and listening to their needs will mitigate complaints. 5) Studies show that unwanted sound annoyance is reduced whenever people (a) feel that a permitting process has been fair, (b) retain some control over the the sound source, and (c) derive benefits from the sound source (employment or other generosity). To the extent that you allow a community to have an investment in your operating procedures and benefits, you reduce the sound they hear. 6) Effective self policing of the immediate area of an event or establishment in regard to crowd sounds and garbage is important to your neighbors. Your vigilance in this matter reduces street sounds and annoyance on many levels. See below Self-Monitoring and Policing. 7) Consider investing in a sound level meter or monitor for your venue: 1. You can help make sure that you are within the law. 2. You can help ensure the health of your employees. 3. Some sound monitors have traffic light features to help your sound operator monitor the sound levels; additional features include logging sound levels for remote online/phone observation or for review later. 8) All of the above items are some of the parts of being a good neighbor. Being a good neighbor makes a big difference in New Orleans. The Big Easy has a Small Footprint.
Also see the NOLA document: New Orleans Homeowners' Guide to Reduction of Intrusive Sound Additional information at the Sound Advice Control of Noise Book (free online): http://www.ata.org/sites/ata.org/files/pdf/Sound%20Advice%20Control%20of%20Noise %20book.pdf Self-Monitoring and Policing If you are a business or resident that regularly produces higher level sound, the following are a set of potential methods and materials to use to make sure that you are within the law in terms of sound levels. Self monitoring is in your self interest, as it keeps you within the law, and with good records kept, can help protect you. The resources below are intended to show that such products exist and how they work; we do not guarantee the efficacy of the products themselves. Where to start: making sure you are within the law 1) Type 2 sound level meter and a calibrator : A Type 2 meter has the same accuracy as those used by law enforcement. The meter should be calibrated before every use, and should go for an annual checkup with a certified calibration technician. The annual checkup is important to ensure your meter is working properly and to protect yourself if you are relying on it. 1. Suggested features: 1. Make sure the meter can measure the sound level metric in the code that applies to youdBA? dBC? Leq? Lmax? And so on. 2. A meter that can log data can be valuable in terms of keeping a continuous record for every night that you are creating sound. 2. Good Type 2 meters with features such as logging can cost ~$300 and up. 3. Make sure you know how to use the meter and get training as needed. Companies such as Quest-3M have training personnel. If the city creates a sound officer position, this may also be a resource. 4. Sharing between businesses may be an option if money is an issue. Noise is a common concern for everyone. 5. KEEP IT OUT OF THE RAIN. Protect your investment and treat it with care. It is a somewhat delicate piece of technology. 2) Monitoring systems: Monitoring systems can be used to keep records of each night of operation of a sound source; if set up correctly it can be a good indicator of exceedance of sound level limits outside even when placed inside the venue. They also can be tied to a traffic light to alert the sound operator to his/her approaching level limits. 1. How do they work? 1. The sound level monitor collects sound levels over the course of a set time frame, typically 10 minutes, and records the data for those 10 minutes. It then moves on to the next ten minutes and makes a record again, and so on. These meters typically provide an instantaneous readout which can be observed by an employee or sound operator. Other monitors are instantaneous display, but do not log the data. Some monitors allow the microphone to be remote from the readout so you can place the microphone in a desired location, and can be tied to a stoplight or alarm that turns red above a given sound level so that several people can see overages simultaneously. More advanced monitors can actually cut the sound level down or off for a set time when the threshold is exceeded (also see limiters below).
2. Resources for SPL monitoring system 1. Any Type 2 SPL meter with logging capability 2. Monitor with limiter built in: http://www.dateq.nl/index.php?paginaNaam=spllimiters 3. Stoplight monitor with external alarm relay: http://www.extech.com/instruments/product.asp?catid=18&prodid=231 4. Software logging and alarm monitor: http://www.acopacific.com/slarm.html 5. Advanced software based monitoring system: http://www.sgaudio.com/ 3. How to calibrate to meet code? 1. The monitor will need to be placed at a given location (typically inside the venue) and the sound level inside is correlated with the sound level outside. This will need to be done with various configurations (DJs, bands) so that a safety factor can be applied. The inside limit will correlate with the outside allowed limit by law. 3) Limiting systems 1. How do they work? 1. An electronic limiter (or governor) is placed in line between the mixing board and the amplifiers such that the system is set not to exceed a certain input voltage to the amplifiers, with the amplifiers at a locked output gain; most digital signal processors (DSP) have them built in. This is often used to protect the speaker components from being blown, and can be used as an aid to keep sound levels in check, but does not give an indication of sound levels, nor can it control the sound level produced by personal amplification of a band member. Limiters can be used in tandem with monitoring to reduce the chances of exceeding sound level limits, especially with operators that have a heavy hand. 2. Resources 1. In addition to the basic limiter found in most DSP's some limiters are more advanced so they can control the output across the frequency spectrum (spectral limiter); this would custom fit the venue and the neighbors so that it could address specific frequency related problems. (i.e. outboard and software based: Spectral limiter: http://www.sistemasynkro.com/limitadores.aspx, Lock out basic limiter: http://www.transaudiogroup.com/sp2120-spaker-protector Limiter with monitor: http://www.dateq.nl/index.php?paginaNaam=spllimiters Software spectral limiters: http://www.crysonic.com/spectraphy.html, http://www.proaudiodsp.com/products/dsm/) 3. How to calibrate to meet code? 1. The limiter is set so that the maximum sound level produced by the house sound system inside is correlated with the outside allowed limit by law.. This will need to be done with various configurations (DJs, bands) so that a safety factor can be applied. Once set, it can be left alone, but should be checked from time to time. References: 1. Green, Fidell, Chapter 23 Noise induced Annoyance of Individuals and Communities, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill 1998 2. Noise News International and Chepesiuk, R, Decibel Hell: The effects of living in a noisy world, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005 January; 113(1): A34A41. 3. Adapted from Keizer, G, 'The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want, Public Affairs, New York, 2010
Appendix Page 56
New Orleans Sound Receivers' Guide to Reduction of Intrusive Sounds This document is intended as a general guide and the intention to provide tools for the New Orleans resident or business owner to reduce intrusive sound. Each situation is unique, so certain solutions may not apply. The City of New Orleans assumes no responsibility for design and construction of sound abatement treatments; it is suggested that homeowners hire a qualified consultant and/or contractor for appropriate sound abatement procedures. What you should know about Unwanted Sound: 1) Sleep can be affected by unwanted sound, the effects include stress and fatigue, which can lead to other illness if unchecked. Many people report an inability to perform work normally when experiencing sleeplessness due to unwanted sound. It is important to note that lack of sleep may make negotiations about unwanted sound heated, and it is recommended that one ensures good sleep before entering into problem solving about unwanted sound. It is also noted that some sounds such as trains, boats, traffic, and streetcars can be a comfort to people; some people on St. Charles have reported having difficulty sleeping after Katrina until the streetcars resumed service. 2) Annoyance: It has been shown that once a sound has been identified as annoying, over time the perceived loudness goes down but it will continue to grow in annoyance .1 Once people are locked into detecting a type of sound, they can still detect it even when the level is reduced. This would point to taking measures to avoid introducing loud sounds if you plan on starting a new establishment or changing the programming of a venue. 3) Sensitivity: 20% of the population is considered sound sensitive, with an emphasis on children and the elderly. It is normal for individuals to become more sensitive to low frequencies as they age. 4) Low Frequencies: Low frequencies contain more energy than middle or high frequencies at the same sound level (low frequencies are typically considered below 250Hz or cycles per second). Low frequencies tend to travel further outdoors, diffract around buildings and walls, and penetrate building envelopes more effectively than middle and high frequencies. An easy example of this is if a car with a loud sound system drives by your residence and the doors/windows are closed, what you hear is the boom of the bass drum. Sometimes low frequency sound can be created by vibrations traveling through the ground or a building and exciting a structure; vibration by itself can also be a source of annoyance and is a legitimate source of complaint if it can be felt. 5) Weather: The weather and meteorology can have an effect on sound propagation across the city. A common difference is seen between day and night: during the day, sound may travel upward due to the hot ground; at night, a warm layer of air above the city may direct sound back downwards great distances away, nowhere near the source. For instance, hearing a Jazzfest stage clearly on your back porch even though you are not adjacent to the fairgrounds. Other factors include wind direction and some residents report that they hear the highway or railroad differently in different seasons of the year.
Appendix Page 57
How can I improve my home to reduce sounds from the outside? New Orleans has over 40,000 homes on the historic register, many of them 100-230 years old. The buildings were built during a quieter time in history, and the world's cities are noisier than ever.2 The typical weak points of any structure are the doors and windows in regard to sound; in a lot of cases they contain a single pane of 1/8 glass-- this is the only thing between you and the outside sound. With a typical home, over time the building develops cracks, or air leaks, which translate into sound leaks. These air gaps manifest themselves along doors and windows as well as any seams in the building construction. A small crack can let a considerable amount of sound in; think about sitting at the kitchen table with someone cutting the grass outside, and just cracking the window. Everyone has a different expectation in regard to their level of quiet. No matter what regulations are put on entertainment establishments, the traditions and sounds of the city will continue: parades, jazz funerals, 2nd lines sirens, trains, trash trucks, trolleys, riverboats, etc. If sleep or peace and quiet is an issue in regard to these items consider the following options as you look at your residence: 1) Seal the perimeter of the building (helps on energy costs): all seams around windows and doors, all penetrations through the building (floor, ceiling, walls), and building siding; where a draft or light can get through, you have a path for sound. Use a resilient, non-hardening caulk such as silicone. Eave vents must be left open. Improvement in performance (outdoor to indoor) can range to up to 1/4 as loud depending on the original condition of the building.3 2) The use of insulation in the walls and attic (helps on energy costs): If you are working on your home and can afford to insulate the walls with fiberglass or cellulose, it will help. Insulating the attic keeps the house cool in the summer and warmer in the winter, and reduces sound that travels through the eave vents. 3) The use of an internal or external storm window (helps on energy costs): An internal storm window meets the expectations of the historical restrictions of the city. You can purchase internal storms from professionals or make them yourself (i.e. 1/4 plexiglass or acrylic sealed to the window outer frame with weatherstripping or non-hardening caulk. Note to make holes in plexiglass a milling bit is recommended instead of a drill bit). Improvements have been measured up to 1/2 as loud (ref 3). 1. Start with the rooms of the house that are most important: typically sleeping and living areas, and/or those windows closest to the source(s). 4) If you have a problem with bass frequencies, consider changing the end of the bed you sleep on; low frequency sound will be stronger on the edges and in the corners of the room, so moving your head toward the middle of the room can in some circumstances provide some immediate relief (you may need to experiment with this option). 1. In some cases, it is seen that sealing off the building from the high and middle frequencies emphasizes the bass so much that people must OPEN their window to get relief. 5) Consider moving the sleeping area to another part of the building, away from the sound source. The buffer created by the building and a room can provide some relief (you may need to experiment with this option). 6) For other solutions in regard to unwanted sound, consider hiring a qualified consultant.
The figures below are intended as a graphical aid in reducing sounds from the outside to the inside of homes.
Figure 1: Sealing the shell of the house for unwanted sound. The goal should be weather tight and free of light leaks and drafts. Sketch adapted from Vogt (ref 4).
Figure 2: Sound penetration of the building facade. Note that building penetrations such as pipes and electrical wires should be sealed. Insulation suggestions shown in green (under the floor will benefit as well).
Appendix Page 59
Strategies to those who are suffering from unwanted sound and wish to make a change on the end of the sound source:4 1) Always consider, and as much as possible respect, the degree to which someone (the soundmaker) is personally invested in their sound. Is it the way they make a living? Is it part of their identity (i.e. Vehicle or musical instrument) or a family member? If you take issue with the someone's sound in a negative manner, it may be construed as a personal attack. Find out about it beforehand. 2) If the sound is amplified music, focus on the loudness of the music as opposed to the type of music. If you like the type of music, say so! 3) Get to know people before entering into a discussion about sound and a potential dispute. Knowing your neighbors will determine not only how you hear their sound but how the neighbors will hear you if you complain about it. In addition to the likelihood of being ineffective, confronting a perfect stranger about sound has the potential to become dangerous. It is noted that some people in the city have experienced a level of success in dealing directly with club or restaurant owners. 4) Know the sound ordinance (city code) if you decide to complain to the police or other enforcement authority. The police may or may not know the code or consider it worth action on their part; repeated calls from a complainant may be just as annoying to the police as you are annoyed by a given sound source. Clearly outline your complaint to the authority and how it ties to the code if you can. 5) Some unwanted sound is harder to fight than to avoid; if the source is occasional or lasts for a short time consider getting away for the time being. Also see the NOLA document: New Orleans Sound Makers' (including Clubs, Events, Parties, Construction) suggestions to reducing sonic footprint References: 1. Green, Fidell, Chapter 23 Noise induced Annoyance of Individuals and Communities, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill 1998 2. Noise News International and Chepesiuk, R, Decibel Hell: The effects of living in a noisy world, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005 January; 113(1): A34A41. 3. Woolworth, D, Sound transmission testing of historical facades of New Orleans, Internoise 2012, New York City. (See Appendix E). 4. Adapted from Keizer, G, 'The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want, Public Affairs, New York, 2010
Appendix Page 60
APPENDIX D DOCUMENTS
311 noise category memo. OSHA 1983 nightclub sound level enforcement position statement Merchants of Royal St. Letter to CM Palmer 3-15-12 Sample touring band contract sound level requirements Charles Berlin letter on Ambient Measurement Intention 1994 Analysis of Recommended VCE Measurement Procedures by Arno Bommer, CSTI, David Woolworth 2012 Sound Ordinance Working Group notes, July 14, 2010 Sound Ordinance Working Group notes, March 8, 2012 Meeting with neighborhood associations/Bourbon Business Alliance (BBA) handout.
Appendix Page 61
Appendix Page 62
(Date Unreadable) Mr. Alfred H. Wilson Star Route - Box 54 Gore, Virginia 22637 Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1983, regarding high noise levels in night clubs and similar establishments. Please accept my apology for the delay in responding. OSHA's regulations for occupational exposure to noise are applicable to all workplaces in the private sector, including night clubs, dance halls, and other places of entertainment. Employers are expected to take appropriate measures to protect their employees who are exposed to excessive levels of noise. Due to limited inspection resources, however, OSHA normally conducts inspections only in "high hazard" industries, in workplaces where occupational safety and health violations are likely, and in response to formal employee complaints alleging specific workplace hazards. In addition, certain budgetary and statutory restrictions preclude the Agency from scheduling inspections in workplaces where there are only a few employees, except in response to formal complaints. Night clubs and dance halls are not classified as high hazard industries, and they usually have a limited number of employees. OSHA would give due consideration, however, to any formal complaint filed by an employee of such an establishment alleging a serious noise hazard. Public exposure to loud music in places of entertainment is largely a matter of choice; patrons may complain to the management or take their business elsewhere if they object to noise levels. The exposure of musicians to noise in such establishments is also usually a matter of choice, as in the loudness of the music they play. OSHA's standard for occupational noise exposure in general industry allows a level of 90 decibels (dBA) for an eight-hour exposure, with higher levels permitted for shorter periods of time. Although sound levels in night clubs and concert halls may sometimes exceed 90 dBA, most musicians and other employees of entertainment establishments are exposed to loud music less than eight-hours a day. As you may know, the Commonwealth of Virginia administers its own program for workplace safety and health regulation, subject to Federal monitoring, under the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. If you would like information about Virginia's regulation of occupational noise exposure, you may contact: Azie Taylor Morton, Commissioner Virginia Department of Labor and Industry P.O. Box 12064 Richmond, Virginia 23241-0064 Telephone: (804) 786-2376 We appreciate your concern about this problem, and hope that this discussion is helpful to you. Sincerely, Bruce Hillenbrand Acting Director Federal Compliance and State Programs Source: Department of Labor Website http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=19093
Appendix Page 63
Appendix Page 64
Typical Musician Contract Rider excerpts with dB levels These are a sample of sound system capability requirements for touring bands. Note for the pop band the dBC-dBA being in a range of 14 to 18, indicating the increased low frequency content of this music. FOH=Front of house position, ~50' to 100' from the stage depending on the venue. If the system is placed on stage instead of flown from above, halving the distance from the FOH to the stage is +6dB, halving that again is another +6dB, and so on until you reach the speakers. Country Band
Pop Band
Popular Rap
Appendix Page 65
Appendix Page 66
Appendix Page 67
The following is an analysis of the recommended VCE Noise measurement procedures submitted by Arno Bommer of CSTI; his recommendations follow and clarify established procedures starting in 1986. These same procedures have been the basis of NOPD officer training as verified by Doug Price of Quest Technologies, the supplier of the print-logging meter used for New Orleans noise enforcement. Recommended VCE Noise Measurement Procedures 1. Calibrate the sound meter. Set the sound meter on A-weighting and "slow" response. 2. Pick a good sound measurements location that is at least 25 feet from the sound system of the club and preferably less than about 40 ft from the sound system. The location should be exposed primarily to the sound from the club being investigated with as little sound as possible from other clubs or area sound sources. Depending on the site, the best measurement location may be on the side street and not Bourbon Street. Step 2 of the procedure does not rule out measuring inside the club, which would control sounds inside the venue; sound levels inside the club are private property and are not an indicator of the degree of trespassing sound; the same holds for section 66-202b of the municipal code. Comparing indoor and outdoor sound levels at the same distance from a sound source is inappropriate. As shown in the field investigations of sound propagation from clubs (Section 5), the difference from the doorway to 5' from the door is ~5dB, and to the street ~7dB: 25' to 40' can be a large difference in the reading, and will not provide consistent information. This also makes self policing difficult if it is to be compared with the individual judgment of each enforcing officer. Attempting to ensure the absence of extraneous sound from other clubs is indeed challenging, and a side street is not always available, so a bar in the middle of the block may or may not be fairly measured and compared. Once again, one should ask how to self police; does each club have it's ideal location? Does the ideal location change depending on the situation? 3. Make a 10-minute measurement. Look at the sound meter throughout the measurement and note the highest sound level that is clearly coming from the club (music, emcee, or crowd noise) and not from other clubs, street pedestrians, cars, etc. The maximum sound level clearly from the club is the level that will be used for determining compliance with the noise ordinance. An officer making a 10-minute measurement undetected and without the club noticing and turning down appears to be a rare case based on sound walks with the police. Due to the number of extraneous sounds encountered in a 10 minute period including people on the street walking up to inquire about the meter, the maximum level may or may not come from the club. Re-starting the measurement after an interruption almost certainly will include detection by the club and reduction in sound level. It is apparent that for self policing, asking an employee to leave their post (security or other) for 10 minutes to attempt to get a (good) measurement is unrealistic. The club would have to take snapshots of sound levels and cannot directly compare their measurements to the enforcing party. 4. The above steps should be taken without the club being notified and ideally without the sound measurer being noticed by club employees. It will probably be useful to have the meter ready to go and the measurement position preselected so that at least the first moments of sound measurement are
made before the band can "turn it down". See above comments. 5. Following the 10-minute measurement of the club noise, ask the club to turn off the sound system so that the ambient sound can be measured. Make a 10-minute measurement. If the meter has an L90 reading, use this for the ambient. If not, estimate the L90 by determining the typical sound level reading that occurs when there are as few sounds as possible from the club being investigated (crowd noise) and no loud noises from the general area. If there is continuous crowd noise from the club being investigated, then the minimum sound level will probably be the best measure of the ambient. If sound from the club is not significant, then use a typical low sound level during the 10-minute sample as the ambient but not the absolute lowest sound level. Asking the club to stop the party for 10 minutes will likely cause people to leave. In the event that the club is within the law, is this fair? The procedure for making the judgment between the use of L10, L90, Lmin, or a typical low sound level is confusing and not consistent. If the procedure does not yield an immediate result, more than 10 minutes are are spent attempting to establish ambient. 6. If the maximum sound level of club noise exceeds the ambient by more than 10 dBA, then the club is in exceedance of the noise ordinance. See Section 2 on enforcement history and the experiences of David Holtsclaw on his attempts to enforce this ordinance. Submitted, David S. Woolworth Oxford Acoustics, Inc. November 26, 2012
Appendix Page 69
Sound Ordinance Working Group Notes Notes on Sound Ordinance Working Group Date: July 14, 2010 Time: 6:00 PM-8:00 PM Location: City Hall, City Council Conference Room, 2nd flr. West Wing Notes1
Sound is a quality of life issue, a health issue, an environmental factor. Sound is more appropriate than noise as terminology for this ordinance as what the group is going to work with here are a variety of sounds such as music that should not be negatively cast as noise. The need is a sound ordinance that applies to the whole city and is successful and will not need to be revisited. There are a variety of concerns with the current ordinance including those for equitable application of the law, enforcement issues, and consistency. Definitions section (Sec. 66-133) of draft ordinance: o Ambient sound level: Discovering the ambient sound level of a particular place (like Bourbon or other louder areas) can be difficult. This can cause a potential issue for sound regulations that allow 10 dBA above the ambient sound level as no baseline can be established. Would it be possible to gather data from measurements recently taken or take new measurements to attempt to get an idea of various ambient sound levels in and around the city at different times of day? Some of this data has been gathered. o Authorized administrator: It seems that there may be too many administrators. Also, perhaps it should not include organizations that are not city wide like the Vieux Carre Commission. Is there any concern with simply having the Health Dept. and the NOPD as administrators? One potential issue with that is the argument that the police have higher priorities than sound ordinance enforcement. MORE DISCUSSION NEEDED o Plainly audible sound: this term is too vague and subjective
The group at this point changed gears to examine the body of the draft ordinance, leaving issues with the Definitions section for another time
Temporary permits (Sec. 66-176) o These permits would be for special events
Please note that the current ordinance in the city code will be referred to as the current ordinance or the noise ordinance. The product and drafts of this working group will be referred to as the draft ordinance or the sound ordinance. NOLA Soundscape 7/15/2010 8/5/2013 Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 70
Sound Ordinance Working Group Notes
o Currently, this permit is not being issued nor is the process outlined in the current ordinance for these permits utilized. In fact, current city departments are not aware of these permits. Therefore a system will have to be established/created for this process as part of a wider special event permitting streamlining effort that the Administration is undertaking. o The perception is that police abuse the current ordinance and permit process to disrupt community activities in certain neighborhoods such as the 7th ward/Treme. Police enforcement is seen as patchy (inconsistent), biased. How do we ensure even and fair enforcement city-wide, across the diverse communities and neighborhoods of the city? NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION o The City offers a permit for charging or not charging admission for live music. This is handled in the Revenue department. Lots of confusion as to who needs this and who has this. The Mayors Cultural Economy office is currently working on getting a new process in place to assist in permitting. MORE DISCUSSION NEEDED The conversation moved towards some more general issues with both the current and draft ordinances. .
A new/revised ordinance should take into account the varied places that music and culture take place in New Orleanson streets, in parks, in clubs, restaurants, festivals, etc. This type of consideration is important to create opportunities for culture and neighborhoods to flourish. From the NOPD perspective, citizen complaints are the primary reason that they respond to sound violations. It is not a raid mentality. Often, these citizens wish to remain anonymous and therefore the officer on the scene cannot tell the house/musician/band/business who complained or sometimes even that there was a complaint. This anonymity is part of the community trust building the NOPD practices to encourage cooperation with the police. It can however create conflict in sound violations cases because it feels like the enforcement is police initiated. o There could be another mechanism in place that would designate first responders besides the NOPD. This could ease community/police relations and create an outlook that presumes the primacy of culture.
There need to be exceptions/considerations for permits or in the sound ordinance in general for Mardi Gras Indians and other traditional cultural events. These involve spontaneous, secret cultural rituals that must be preserved as part of the community and culture traditions.
NOLA Soundscape 7/15/2010 8/5/2013
Appendix Page 71
In general and based on the data, the majority of street musicians without amplification devices are unlikely to go over the current ordinance Daylight Hours dBA limit or the draft ordinance limits. It was discussed that since brass instruments are by their nature louder, some measurements may have to be taken to determine an appropriate level for brass. o Another possibility is the creation of districts that are designated as music districts or music zones that let residents, visitors, police, etc. know that music will be played here in public and on the streets. Possible issues with that may include resistance from residents and neighborhood associations, the possibility of excluding communities by not including them in the original naming of these zones, isolating these zones and the musicians that play within them from a wider community. NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION o Why not a brass band designated area? What is often overlooked is that musicians play on the street to make money. They therefore play where there is foot traffic and therefore profit to be had. Isolating them in a park or other places without steady foot traffic will adversely affect their income and does not respect the fact that musicians deserve to be paid for their work and skill. Tourists are also attracted to the spots that these musicians play in; it is part of the charm and allure of this city. o Zones would need to be designed equitably and with consideration for all involved. Designed not so much for a particular type of music or musician, but as music in general. NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION
Division 3-REGULATIONS, Sound level measurement (Sec. 66-200) o Police or other administrator should be allowed to measure sound levels at door (property line) of the establishment that has received a complaint as well as at a distance and from the residence or property line of the complainant to provide equitable comparisons. o The orientation of speakers for amplified music should be taken into account when measuring or when enforcing any sound ordinance. There is the potential for more of a nuisance with amplification that is at the street or with any exterior amplification.
o
There is a need for an objective, standardized measure (such as ANTSI or WHO) that cuts out the need for subjective judgments of individuals; this includes not only subjective judgments of the dBA level, but also on whether something is music or not, noise or not, etc. The expense and maintenance of high-quality meters is a concern. However, using less expensive meters is problematic as they tend to err on the high side of dBA measurement and therefore will increase violations
Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 72
needlessly. On the other hand, if high-quality meters are going to be used, then we need to have a funding mechanism in place to ensure their maintenance as well as assign clear individual responsibility to those who keep and use the meters for basic maintenance.
Maximum permissible sound levels (Sec. 66-201) and Table 1, Maximum sound level by land use category o Some want to include the current ambient noise levels of specific, different neighborhoods in the city and base the maximum permissible on this specific neighborhood measurement as opposed to having it across brand land use categories o Also could take into account age and permeability to sound of various houses, buildings, modes of living in different neighborhoods in determining maximum sound limit. This level of specificity can lead to difficulties as well for enforcement and for musicians, businesses, and residences attempting to comply with the draft ordinance as it will be confusing and possibly contradictory. NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION o Another possibility is defining different kinds of musicians/music and setting a level for that type. However, this segments a particular class of people based on what they do for a living and could be unconstitutional or open for loopholes.
Appendix Page 73
Sound Ordinance Working Group Notes Notes on Sound Ordinance Working Group First Meeting Date: March 8, 2012 Time: 5:30 PM-7:00 PM Location: City Hall, City Council Conference Room, 2W16 Notes Summary: The Group has endorsed the draft ordinance that would set rules on speaker placement and orientation. Speaker Placement/Orientation Ordinance: re-ordain sections 66-136 and 66-209 of current noise ordinance o Issue: including other areas such as DDD or other historic districts/entertainment districts/Marigny Arts and Culture Overlay in addition to the VCC Clubs/Venues/Retail establishments in other parts of the city have also caused a nuisance with speaker volume and orientation. Frenchmen has a closed door rule already, but certain establishments are still putting speakers too close to the door or outside or orienting them outwards, particularly newer businesses. Older Frenchmen music venues are pressuring these businesses to respect these rules and quality of life issues. Applying the standard city-wide ignores real differences between these neighborhoods and Frenchmen already has a closed door rule as part of the AC Overlay. It may be premature to try to apply the standards set in this draft for the VCC city-wide. o Issue: responsible parties/issuing citations/authority to comply Allowing a greater number of parties to be cited creates a stronger incentive for compliance However, not all parties listed in the ordinance really have the authority or the ability to comply/move speakers/turn down volume. Is it fair to cite those that have no authority? Burden of fines and compliance should be on the owner or his designated authority (manager, employees) instead of musicians. Problem with tracking repeat violations for a venue when multiple parties can receive violations at a single venue. Need to tie violations to address. Does city system have this capability? Health Dept. not sure. Fine should/can go to holder of occupational license and the cited responsible
3/9/2012 Sound Ordinance Working Group Notes parties could become a notified party not the ultimately responsible party for fines and compliance. Is this an option? Is there a way to separate the initial person cited from the citation itself? Option: only list #1, 2, 7, and 8 as responsible parties. All of these people are connected directly to/employed by/own the premises, unlike musicians and DJs who may not be. o Issue: Compliance Costs/Incentives To improve compliance, could speaker orientation be made a condition of either/both ABO and Live Entertainment permit? Some places in the Quarter are too small to comply/cannot close doors as an alternative because of Fire Code, etc. Should allow these venues to get a variance from some city body that has a board, permitting authority, enforcement/inspection abilities. Costs could be high for some clubs if the orientation rule results in the stage having to be moved. Barriers or other lower-cost, simple solutions could be a solution for clubs in this position. o Issue: Different Standards for ABOs and Non-ABOs that use speakers Is this a good precedent to set? How/Could this effect other permits and regulations that affect both types of establishments? Key West distinguishes between ABOs and Retail Establishments. "Retail establishments" is a narrower category than non-ABO. Music, whether live, recorded, or mixed by a DJ, is appropriate to places and businesses of entertainment, and is less appropriate to other types of businesses such as retail establishments. These types of businesses are using music for solicitation, not entertainment or as part of the ambience of the establishment. This is why there should be different standards of speaker placement and orientation between ABOs and retail. Other Topics: o Overall, we must remember that sound levels and harm caused by exposure to excessive levels is an issue of public health, public safety, and has a ripple effect on quality of life. o The Health Department is a possible authority for issues like sound levels because it affects public health. The department is researching its authority in the law for
a variety of issues, including noise. 3/9/2012 Sound Ordinance Working Group Notes o Right now, the Health Dept. does not have enforcers or the employees necessary to create enforcers for the noise ordinance. o The current noise ordinance and speaker orientation addition still does not designate a governmental authority that has the ultimate responsibility. There are multiple enforcers named in the law, but no one person or department that tracks everything to do with the noise ordinanceviolations, inspections for compliance, sound level measurements, single log of music venues, etc. Designation or creation of this administrator or authority that can deputize enforcers and be a single source of information and accountability for the noise ordinance is needed. o Sound measurement should be done at the door or curb immediately outside the door to determine sound level from an establishment. Residents want a flat decibel level measured at the door because it is more enforceable than the current sliding scale based on the ambient sound level that benefits violators, encourages volume escalation, and complicates enforcement, which in turn causes enforcement of the noise ordinance to not be a priority. The source of sound simply cannot be identified at a distance. The noise level of a sound source cannot be separated out from other sound sources at a distance. Therefore measuring levels at the property line of a complainant or inside a complainants residence or building does not allow an enforcer to truly determine the source that is in violation and causing the problem. However, to set the maximum allowable sound level in the law at the door or curbside for ABOs and other establishments, we need to take distant residential and other properties into account. For example, what does 90 decibels at the door of a club mean to a residence down the block? What level of sound will that resident experience in their home? Bass and sound are not measured the same way and maybe should have two sets of standards in the noise ordinance.
Appendix Page 76
Note: The presentation below is nearly identical to the presentation to the Bourbon Business Alliance (BBA) on 1-10-13 with modifications based on feedback from the 1-10-13 meeting.
Presentation to Neighborhood Associations on the New Orleans Soundscape and Noise Ordinance Investigation 1-25-13 Overview: The report examines the soundscape of the city, the ordinance, previous efforts to improve/change the situation, and related cultural and economic issues. It contains analysis and recommendations that are achievable and provide relief, and the city will consider my recommendations as it moves forward to address the issue(s). It also provides a road map and information to help make informed decisions for the future. The report is based on measurements, interviews, and research on the history of sounds of the city, the noise ordinance, and enforcement. I have come today to explain what I have found and intend to recommend, and to get your feedback. We will cover briefly the items that directly affect residents; there are many other parts to the report and we can open a discussion at the end as needed.
I was asked by the city to focus on Bourbon and Frenchman entertainment noise primarily, as these areas were the most problematic; the study also included other areas and other types of sources. The approach is to take each part one at a time. The interconnectedness of the noise issue to all other aspects of the culture and economy is considerable.
Sound is like the table cloth in this picture. It is everywhere and if you want to change it, everything is affected. Here the kittens represent all of the concerned parties (residents, clubs, restaurants, musicians, etc.); they are crammed together similar to the people in the footprint of the French Quarter.
NOLA Soundscape Oxford Acoustics 8/5/2013
Residents Oxford Acoustics Presentation 11-01883-01
Appendix Page 1 of 77 5
Problem and complaints: Overall the sound levels have increased due to a number of factors over the last decades (low priority of enforcement, accessibility to speakers, and changes in the music). Too loud is the general complaint. Too long and too late are also concerns. DJ'd music doesn't need a rest, but people do. DJ'd music runs continuously all day. Some of the music is loud on the street late at night or early in the morning, when there are no patrons. The low frequency (LF) pulsing has been ID'd as a problem; note that the area was not originally constructed to accommodate and contain these sound signatures and sound levels. Complaints come from neighborhood associations, longtime residents, musicians, restaurants, and nightclubs. Noise affects the health and safety of the community; this must be addressed and the regulations need to minimize any negative effects. The loudspeaker placement ordinance was considered successful.
Pre and post loudspeaker placement ordinance sound levels on Bourbon St. Shown are Aweighted and C-weighted measurements (dark blue and dark green) taken on a police soundwalk before the loudspeaker ordinance. The spot checks are an average of three follow up measurements without a police presence. The yellow and orange lines are the average of two sound walks after the loudspeaker ordinance without police presence; from these observations it appears that the loudspeaker ordinance reduced the sound level on Bourbon Street.
NOLA Soundscape Oxford Acoustics 8/5/2013 Residents Oxford Acoustics Presentation 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 2 of 78 5
Logistics: The music tourism economy is significant, with it comes a lot of activity and sound.
A bigger picture of the noise code and how it works (or doesn't). It is clearly no ones fault specifically if things don't work, and all of these things need to be improved upon to make a workable system.
Measurements: Soundwalks to measure sound levels around the city Clubs inside, outside, down the street, and into other buildings. The results are averaged to arrive at recommendations.
Average sound attenuation measured from the source typical for the Vieux Carre Entertainment district and average reduction through a closed facade to a receiver. Limits and Recommendations We have recommended a sound level limit dBA/dBC that are to be measured at the doorway plane. (91dBA/101dBC) dBC addresses the low frequency content. This should permit 100dBA inside the club about 10' in from the door. It is possible to achieve higher levels with appropriate sound baffling and sound system engineering, or by going further inside the venue. If this is unacceptable then the alternate compliance would be to shut the facade, and meet 85dBA /95dBC at 5' from the building, which permits louder in-club sound. Provisions have been made for LF complaints in a residence. At this writing the recommended method is to identify the problem, identify the source, and then require appropriate abatement at the source. One person should be put in charge of noise to manage a comprehensive program that includes proactive measures, education, good recording keeping, permitting, equipment and training, enforcement, etc.
Help in Meeting Code and Self Regulation We have recommended a proactive approach to the problem where the city can visit clubs to help make sure that people are within the law. There is an appendix to help club owners and residents understand complaints and negotiations, and it also provides general resources and recommendations for sound control. The guide will also provide resources and general approach to self regulation to avoid violations. A hearing conservation program is recommended for all entertainment venue employees, and resources are provided. What do the residents get? Relief from sound wars and high sound levels, and as a result a more predictable environment. A means to register complaints and dedicated responders. The dedicated noise officer(s) help insure compliance with the law and troubleshoot. What do the residents give? Cooperation with noise officers to help identify the problems and solve them, if they exist after the clubs are in line with the regulations. This means the most progress can be made by not being anonymous. A tempered expectation of activity and sound must be adopted
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, feel free to contact me to discuss them. Respectfully submitted, Dave Woolworth Principal, Oxford Acoustics January 25, 2013 356 CR 102 Oxford, MS 38655 O: (662)-513-0665 C: (662)-701-7534
APPENDIX E PAPERS ON NEW ORLEANS NOISE INVESTIGATION FOR INSTITUTE OF NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING
Appendix Page 82
Revision of New Orleans' noise ordinance: efforts toward simplification and enforceability
David S. Woolwortha) Oxford Acoustics, Inc. 356 CR 102 Oxford, MS, 38655 USA New Orleans may be one of the most complex cities of the country in terms of the city recovering from Katrina and its burgeoning music and tourism scenes in tandem with the re-development of residential areas, historical preservation, and efforts to retain identity from before the storm. The current noise code is considered unenforceable, and the current revised draft suffers from similar problems. Residents, businesses , musicians, law enforcement, and government all have a stake in the final revision and the challenge is to have a simple, objective noise ordinance that is enforceable. This paper reports on the complexity of the problems, city sound mapping, historical issues, socio-cultural issues, and suggested numerical (dBA and dBC), legislative, and community self regulating approaches being considered at this time. 1 INTRODUCTION
The city of New Orleans has taken to revising their noise ordinance in an effort to address an escalation of sound levels in the entertainment districts in recent years. The city's health department handled enforcement from 1972 (at the introduction of the EPA's Noise Control Act) until 1982 according to the Health department records, possibly 1989 according to anecdotal evidence. Since then the police department has since been in charge of enforcement through the quality of life officers, who's main function is to address community needs, sound being among them. The challenges they face include staffing, equipment, funding, and a host of other concerns that trump noise control due to more immediate needs. The city's largest and primary industry at this time is festival and entertainment (especially food and music) tourism. The entertainment districts provide approximately 30% of the city tax base, and the tourism promotional materials usually feature parades and street musicians, who have been an integral part of the city soundscape for 200 years. World famous Bourbon Street has gradually gotten louder over the years, and with the advent of more efficient amplification and boom music being housed in 200 year old structures that also house residents, the issue has (again) come to the forefront. 1.2 Current Ordinance The current ordinance employs two limits, L10 and Lmax (dBA) for areas outside the entertainment
a) Email: dave@oxfordacoustics.com NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013 Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 83
districts; the entertainment districts have a limit of 10dB(A) above ambient, requiring the officer to approach the offending facility, have them turn off the music to get a 10 minute ambient level, turn on the music for a 10 minute measure, and then turn off the music again to check the ambient, at 25 feet from the establishment facade; 25' from the facade puts the measurement location approximately in the middle of the street where all of the surrounding sources donate to the ambient sound (including people), and all sources are highly transient. Requiring the operator to turn on and off music and expect the level to be identical to the time of the complaint is not realistic, and the use of A-weighted measures does not address the low frequency pulsing content of the music1. In addition Bourbon Street district currently has primarily open building facades, and recorded and live music are permitted; the Frenchman Street district has only live music permitted, and the openings to the establishment are (supposed) to be closed during performances. 1.3 Noise Ordinance Revisions Full revisions to the ordinance have been evaluated, but the criticisms have been overwhelming, forcing the City Council to overhaul it incrementally. 1.4 Cultural issues, tourism and entertainment establishment concerns New Orleans has had a 200 year history of musical parades and processions (and related complaints)2,3; pictures of street musicians with brass instruments are an integral part of tourist information for the city. Brass bands and marching bands have become a vehicle to create opportunities for the youth of the city to escape cultures of guns and drugs that permeate low income neighborhoods, and their development is advocated by the city and other organizations4,5,6. These burgeoning brass bands (high sound levels) need places to play within a limited footprint of the tourist sections of the city, shared with restaurants, other music venues, and residents. Bourbon Street is world famous as a destination that is known for a party atmosphere; many bar owners and shop owners are of a philosophy that loud music will attract a crowd, and express concern that lowering levels with effect the atmosphere and business. Currently the city hosts over 400 festivals a year inside the city that include (typically) outdoor music. 1.5 Annoyance, low frequency sensitivity, and source variability. The increase in pulsing low frequency sources (subwoofer loudspeakers for music) is one of the larger concerns at this time to be addressed. The challenges include the high variability, transience, and human element of the sources, the wide range of human low frequency sensitivity and annoyance thresholds1, low frequency propagation in city geography, the difficulty in establishing a simple metric for measuring low frequency pulsing, and that some residents have already expressed severe dissatisfaction regarding sound levels adjacent to the entertainment zones7. 2 INVESTIGATION 2.1 Interviews An interview program was implemented that included residents and resident associations, musicians, business associations, lawyers representing musicians and residents, bar owners, police officers, the health department, community development leaders, experts in local historical architecture, Louisiana historians, and others. The goal was to find common ground between the parties that could be used to
couch proposed solutions. Most people agreed that there is loud and too loud, and late and too late. The difficulty was to objectively determine on the average what was too loud or too late. It was also revealed during the investigation that the city had only 2 sound level meters and limited number of trained enforcers, who already had numerous responsibilities as quality of life officers. 2.2 Soundwalks Soundwalks were performed with the police department to insure an agreement on the normal field conditions and to assess the conditions surrounding enforcement. Figure 1 below shows a typical walk on Bourbon street. Note that to measure 25' from the facade of the establishment would be equidistant or potentially closer to a venue across the street. If both clubs are producing the same levels, the increase from one club would be 3dB-6dB above ambient by the regulations of the current ordinance (making it allowable), even when the levels are in the 90dBA+ range as shown. It is also important to note that the presence of police with sound level meters was telegraphed up and down the street between owners, so this would be considered best behavior; in the graph single points (covert spot checks) are shown for comparison, which are louder.
Figure 1: Bourbon St soundwalk with police presence. The points shown in light green and light blue are covert spot checks at a later date, which are for the most part higher sound levels. It is noted that the presence of a sound level meter and police is communicated among the establishments, making any formal measures that capture typical levels difficult; also the number of people on the street pose a challenge to getting measurements without interference. The spot checks are an average of 3 different measurement dates.
2.3 City Sound Mapping The soundwalks were included in some rudimentary sound mapping of the city, as a snapshot of the current state of affairs for reference. It was quickly revealed that with the large number of events spread through out the city on a regular basis and fluctuating crowds in the entertainment districts, that there was no normal sound levels, only varying levels of activity based around events. As a result, a range of ambient sound levels were documented for day and night. 2.4 Measures at bars Bar owners expressed concern that business would be lost due to lowering of sound levels inside the establishments; this has been shown in other studies to not necessarily be true(8, 9, 10) and verified by measurements of existing businesses in the French Quarter and Marigny, although embedded beliefs can be hard to change. Determination of a lower limit inside the club was as much of interest as trying to determine a cap on the external noise. Marsten8 suggests no lower than 85-90dBA, based on observations of crowd flow/sound levels and the competing noise levels of crowds; he also estimated up to a 10dB desensitivity due to inebriation, putting acceptable levels at roughly 95-100dBA inside the club for loud music (i.e. rock/pop/discotheque); this100dBA cap was also suggested by Sandell9 in order to reduce hearing damage and maintain listener/musician satisfaction. On the same project, positive feedback by musicians and audience on such a measure verified by Khri10 for punk music. It is noted that outdoor crowd noise levels have been measured on Bourbon St. exceeding 100dBA on certain occasions (i.e. Saints winning the Superbowl). Measures of music sound levels inside the bars varied considerably from venue and location in the establishment: 72 LAeq/ 83 LCeq to 108 LAeq/ 111 LCeq+ . It is noted that discotheques were generally louder than live music, and operator behavior varies venue to venue, evening to evening. A set of measures were made to examine sound levels inside the venues, at the plane of the facade openings on a public street, and either 5' from the opening or to the middle of the street. Table 1 represents a set of measures of bars in the entertainment districts over two nights averaged, in an effort to evaluate sound emanating from venues relative to source sound level, using real sources. Table 1: Reduction in sound level (1) from inside venue to plane of facade, (2) from plane of facade to 5' from facade, and (3) from plane of facade to middle of street (MOS).
2.5 Measures of propagation in the city geography Sound level at the street level was measured fifteen times to get an approximation of source propagation along a city block; care was taken to begin the measure at the first verse or chorus of a song in the middle of the street near a source and attempt to measure 1/2 block and 1 block away before the end of that song, listening for the same content, while avoiding extraneous noise. The results of the approximations are shown in Table 2, where high variability in dBC reduction is seen and expected in
the 1/2 block distance: Table 2: Drop in sound level 1/2 block and 1 block from source. Propagation in French Quarter, source level measured at center of intersection.
2.6 Evaluation of typical building facade OINR Nine historical building facades representative of the entertainment districts' adjacent housing were evaluated for OINR and dBA/dBC reduction using pink noise as a reference source11; the average result is shown below, which includes an outlier facade in disrepair. Table 3: Reduction of sound level through historical facades measured using pink noise11
dBA avg reduction through facade range 24 20-28 dBC 18 16-22
2.7 Chart of city sounds. Figure 2 below is a chart to roughly summarize the soundscape/soundmarks of the city as it exists today. On the upper right, the louder and more continuous sounds are of the largest concern at this time; all of these sounds will be heard as you move through the city. It can be seen from this chart that there are a variety of sounds, and it is provided for reader prospective of the larger picture.
Figure 2: Chart of soundmarks and sound levels at closest distance encountered . Note that ambient levels in some neighborhoods at night have been measured as low as 43dBA. A Second Line is a brass band with drums (~5-12 pieces) that moves through the city, followed by a second line of revelers that can number in the hundreds.
Appendix Page 87
SOLUTIONS ENACTED, IN PROGRESS, AND PROPOSED
Looking at the factors encompassing too loud and too late, the priority was put on too loud. Note that festivals have a cutoff hour on the permit, street musicians have an enforceable curfew, and other measures are available to the city to manage time. As this is an incremental ordinance change, managing sound level would have the largest immediate impact outside of actively enforcing cutoff hours, which does not require special training. Improvement of the existing conditions will be attempted through multiple approaches: 3.1 Loudspeaker ordinance A loudspeaker ordinance was introduced in April of 2012, eliminating all external loudspeakers and mandating that no loudspeakers in a commercial establishment could be pointed toward an open door or window, and must be 10' inside the facade of the building for entertainment venues, otherwise the doors or windows within 10' had to be closed. Other businesses (i.e. T shirt shops, go-counters for drinks, etc.) were required to have all speakers 20' from any opening. This was a simple, incremental step that any police could enforce with a pair of eyes and if needed, a measuring tape. 3.2 Proposed sound level limits and methods. 3.2.1. Measuring at the opening plane of any entertainment establishment.
Due to the nature of close quarters, crowd noise, and potential additive mixing of sound sources in the entertainment districts, measurement of sound level at the plane of the openings to the building is proposed for venues with open windows and/or doors. Based on the investigation in Section 2 and putting the receiver indoors at 1/2 block, we can expect a ~50 dBA reduction from facade plane to receiver. Current intra-dwelling limits are (L10) 45dBA; we are proposing 45dBA expected internal levels, putting the facade plane sound level limit at 95dBA. The final recommendation will incorporate the variability of the Type 2 meters and any concerns expressed by the city. It is important to note that this criteria are the starting point based on averages and best estimates, in tandem with an expectation of clubs re-evaluating sound levels and making adjustments; it is expected that facades of establishments continuing to have high sound levels will need to be closed to meet the criteria if this is enforced. Criteria will be developed for closed facades as needed. 3.2.2. Measure of sound inside of a residence.(inter-residence and from external sources)
The use of dBC is proposed to measure sound inside residences for complaints; there will be a dBCdBA limit (LCeq-LAeq) set for inside residences to establish grounds for a complaint/ticket/further investigation; we are suggesting 20dB, using minimum 45dBA. This is following some conventions, including that of pulsing low frequency sources, however LCeq is not optimized and requires further study6,12. The intention is to address club to residence noise as well as inter-residence noise. 3.3 The education of residents and bar owners Literature on annoyance and low frequency noise is being compiled and summarized (including references 6,7) as a resource for both residents and club owners to help the understand this issue is real and valid. Included with this information are general noise control measures for both residences and clubs, and best practice for negotiating and problem solving withing the community13.
Specific to businesses: additional summary of business and sound level studies will be provided to ease apprehension that reduction in sound levels will ruin business for the entertainment districts. Note that several establishments already adopt this philosophy with excellent results (Section 2.4) 3.4 Save New Orleans Sounds or Safe Sounds movement It is of interest that the New Orleans Musician's Clinic is actively promoting a safe sounds movement to educate musicians, club owners, and sound technicians on dangerous sound levels and recommended procedures for hearing conservation in light of job security and employee health. This is also being advocated by the local radio and entertainment papers (among others14) to continuously advocate for clubs that are conscious of keeping sound levels lower via a loudness rating system, radio spots and promotional events. The idea is to shift the collective consciousness of the general public about hearing conservation and acceptable sound levels through musician and music industry advocacy. 4 RESULTS
Figure 3: Evaluation of post loudspeaker ordinance sound levels on Bourbon St. It appears that post ordinance is comparable to the police walk; it is important to note that the follow up data was taken covertly, and that it nearly matches the bars' best behavior in the presence of police with sound level meters. Varying amounts of improvement from an average of other covert measurements can be seen, especially in the LCeq measures. The loudspeaker ordinance has been enacted at the time of this writing; preliminary discussions with residents find opinion that the sound level on Bourbon Street has been lowered. One of the major differences is the reduction of the sound directly onto the sidewalk by loudspeakers, and the author found the difference subjectively noticeable.
Two (covert) follow up sound walks yielded sound levels similar to those measured with the police present with sound level meters, indicating that there was potential reduction of ~2-10dBA, and ~610dBC. Both nights the bars and streets were more than 50 % full. Further studies should be performed to provide more averages (see Figure 3). 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It is apparent from the information presented that New Orleans is a unique, vibrant, and active city in terms of its soundscape, local customs and environmental sound level expectations. Residents and entertainment owners agree that there is loud and too loud, and the loudspeaker ordinance has been a successful first step in putting loud continuous sources in check, reducing sound levels and keeping enforcement simple. While dBA and dBC have shortcomings in terms of evaluating the annoyance of a noise, the city wide sound levels require a cap (based on district) for ease of enforcement. In this paper we specifically address the entertainment districts' revisions. It is hoped that low frequency pulsing noise nuisance can identified for correction through the use of the dBC-dBA metric. The human element of the sound sources will continue to pose a challenge, introducing transients that escape and elude enforcement, while continuing to be an annoyance to residents. As stated previously is intended with the sound level cap to minimize this annoyance, however this will require a renewed effort in regard to enforcement. While not being mandatory or an enforceable law, the safe sounds movement encourages awareness and sensibility in regard to sound levels in entertainment. Operator and musician consciousness of hearing conservation will hopefully take root, inspiring self regulation and creating a safer and quieter environment, thereby reducing the need for enforcement. 6 REFERENCES 1. Leventhall, Geoff, A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects A Report for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (England), May 2003. 2. Kmen, Henry, Music in New Orleans, The Formative Years, 1791-1841, LSU Press, Baton Rouge, 1966. 3. Sublette, Ned, The World that Made New Orleans, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, 2009. 4. Class got Brass: A School Brass Band Competition held by the Jazz an Heritage Foundation, http://www.jazzandheritage.org/what-we-do/high-school-brass-band-competition 5. Promotional press for Class got Brass featuring New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu playing trumpet: http://www.nola.com/music/index.ssf/2012/03/watch_high_school_brass_bands.html 6. Trumpets Not Guns non profit organization: http://www.trumpetsnotguns.com/ 7. Fidell, Sanford, Noise Induced Annoyance, Chapter 25 of Handbook of Noise and Vibration
Control, ed. Crocker, John Wiley and Sons, 2007. 8. Marston, Brian, personal correspondence with the author on summary of work performed in Australia on minimum club sound levels and alcohol desensitization to sound. May 2012. 9. Sandell, J, et. al., Acoustic Intervention in a Live Music Club, Acta Acustica, Vol. 93 (2007) 843 849. 10. Kahari, Kim, An acoustic intervention of a live music club for a safe and good music environment, Music-Safe and Sound 2007. 11. Woolworth, David, Sound transmission testing of historical facades of New Orleans, Internoise 2012, New York. 12. Kamperman, George, and James, Richard, The How To Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks, October 28, 2008, prepared for Goodhue, MN hearing. 13. Keizer, Garret, The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want, Perseus Books Group, New York, 2010. 14. Save New Orleans Sounds website: http://www.neworleansmusiciansclinic.org/medicalresources/hearing/ see link under Partnering Advocates.
Appendix Page 91
Sound transmission testing of historical facades of New Orleans

David S. Woolwortha) Oxford Acoustics, Inc. 356 CR 102 Oxford, MS, 38655 USA dave@oxfordacoustics.com New Orleans was settled by French traders starting around 1690 and was built primarily out of wood until the fires or 1788 an 1794 destroyed most of the structures; after that, the city at that time (now known as the French Quarter) was built out of brick. As the city developed the surrounding area over the next 200 years, regions of the city were developed with different architecture and construction methods. This paper examines the different historical structures and the sound transmission testing of their facades in light of the modern noise levels encountered across the city. It will include reporting of dBA and dBC reduction, Outdoor Indoor Transmission Class, and effects of modifications to reduce sound transmission.
INTRODUCTION
New Orleans was founded in 1700 by the French, and currently has over 40,000 buildings on the historic register, primarily in the French Quarter and Marigny/Fauborg-Marigny districts; the entertainment districts are drawn in the middle of these 100-200 year old neighborhoods with no buffer zone, creating effectively a mixed usezone in the entertainment district. None of the buildings were designed with the intended purpose of amplified music; they were primarily residences and storage or shops. As part of an effort to establish allowable sound level limits for the city of New Orleans, a study was undertaken to determine average noise reduction of different historical building facades. The intention was to establish an allowable facade-incident level, and reverse engineer over the geography (propagation loss) to the sound sources (nightclubs in this case) to establish an allowable source level, as well as provide residents with information about the benefits of sound insulation measures such as building renovation and maintenance. This paper outlines the investigation and results of the sound transmission testing. Additional information on the empirical investigation regarding sound sources and propagation can be found in a parallel investigation.1
a)
Email: dave@oxfordacoustics.com NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013
Appendix Page 92
INVESTIGATION 2.1 Research in to the thickness of walls and historical construction techniques
Examination of archived drawings from the Louisiana Division at the New Orleans Public Library, the Tulane University architectural archives, and discussions with restoration experts yielded that the specific building details are based on the period, builder, and the local resources (such as clay or barge board) that were available at the time of the building.2 Correlation of as-built to blueprints is limited at best as wood was cut and fitted to need on site.3 The only sure way to verify construction technique (layers and material thickness ) was to open the walls or core them; this was not practical for our purposes. It is noted here that the widespread standardization of building codes and the graduation from actual to nominal dimensions in construction materials did not occur until after 1900, and the buildings investigated are built before that time.3,4 2.2 Types of Buildings Nine building facades were tested, and broken down in general classification according to Vogt5; the first was the Creole Cottage (1790-1840), with a French and Spanish influence, the second being the Antebellum or Greek Revival Style (1830-1865), and finally the Victorian Period (1862-1900). The Creole Cottages were for the most part brick or brick and post construction, and the remainder of the buildings were made from wood, with plaster or gypsum interior walls and lap-sided externally. The buildings were in various states of restoration to understand the range of potential conditions typically encountered. Table 1: General information on building construction Type Greek Revival Victorian Openings Door with transom, 6 over 9 pane double hung window Door with transom, 6 over 9 pane double hung window Construction brick/brick & post wood/plaster wood/plaster
Creole Cottage French doors, 6 over 6 or 6 over 9 pane double hung window
2.4 Experiments Field experiments were carried out based on ASTM E966-106; a loudspeaker sound source generating pink noise was placed at 0 degrees in front of a window (in some cases 45 degrees to an adjoining window or door), and the external measures were taken with the outdoor microphone location 15mm from the facade surface (flush method). The internal sound levels were measured using the survey method, and checked against internal background levels taken before the test.
Appendix Page 93
2.5 Field conditions. Large single glazed windows are typical for all construction, and would be considered the weak point in the composite construction, alongside with front entrance doors with a transom or french doors (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Facade appearances. Left, a version of the Creole cottage with french doors. Right, a Victorian shotgun double with typical proportioned windows of 6 x 9 panes simplified. Maintained condition of the buildings varied considerably, from painted shut to well maintained opening seals to visible air gaps in the building siding or at the openings' perimeters. Certain homes employed 1/4 acrylic magnetically sealed internal storm window(s); due to the restrictions on the appearance of the historical external facade. They functionally attenuate noise in addition to providing thermal insulation. These facades were tested with and without the internal storm. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Experimental results: OINR The highly variable internal residence conditions, lack of control over flanking, and the time constraints at each location led to simplification of the calculated results to exclusively OINR (Outside Inside Noise Reduction). The graphs in Figure 2 represent the spread of the experimental results.
Appendix Page 94
Figure 2: OINR results of historical facade testing The following items are noted regarding Figure 2: 1) Creole Cottage 3 is considered the worst case, and Creole Cottage 4 considered among the best. Creole Cottage 3 has clearly visible air gaps in between the window framing and the brick structure, as well as under the door. Creole Cottage 4 is recently renovated (but not fully weather sealed). 2) All facades suffer from a coincidence dip around 3150Hz-5000Hz from the window glass. 3) The facades' OINR are all unique, reflecting the variability of the composite construction, wall types, and flanking properties due to the condition of the building. 4) No obvious differences were observed when the building types were broken out and compared to one another. 3.2 Internal storm windows. 3 of the 9 residences evaluated employed a magnetically sealed internal storm window made of 1/4 acrylic sheet. The results are shown in below in Figure 3:
Appendix Page 95
Figure 3: Comparison of OINR of facade with and without an external storm window. The following items are noted regarding Figure 3: 1) A mass-air-mass resonance is apparent in the 200Hz 1/3rd octave band (also seen in Haugen, Olafsen)7 2) Behavior below 200Hz varies, which is likely due to a combination of factors including receiving room resonances and other facade element resonances. 3) The sealed storm window has exhibits a noticeable improvement for OINR above 250 Hz. Specific site conditions and limited data do not provide sufficient information for an expected performance. 4) Interviews with residents revealed they expressed satisfaction with the internal storm window solution and experienced less disturbance from outside noises, resulting in a higher quality of life and/or better sleep. 5) Subjective evaluation of the internal storm window performance was a decrease in the distinctiveness of outside sounds or speech. 3.3 Experimental Results dBA/dBC reduction using Broadband (Pink) noise source The dBA/dBC reductions through the facades were evaluated based on the broadband (pink noise) source, as sound sources in the city vary considerably (transportation to music), so targeting a specific source for performance evaluation is not practical.
Appendix Page 96
Table 2: dBA/dBC reduction through measured facades using a pink noise source
dBA avg reduction through facade range 24 20-28 dBC 18 16-22
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The historical facades of New Orleans tested in this study vary in construction materials, thicknesses, and physical upkeep; included are samples of better and worse maintained buildings, giving us a modest expectation of the average facade sound reduction. (Table 2). The results shown in Figure 2 indicate that OINR improvements of up to 10 dB in the midrange frequencies and 20dB in the high frequencies are possible by renovating an existing structure in poor condition, although a 5dB/10dB (respectively) expectation may be more pragmatic when starting with a structure in average condition. The use of an internal storm window (Figure 3) provides OINR benefits of 5-10dB in the midrange and high frequencies. Further investigation in this area is warranted to get a better average. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the residents of New Orleans who participated in the study for their time and use of their residences. 6 REFERENCES 1. Woolworth, David, Revision of New Orleans' noise ordinance: efforts toward simplification and enforceability, Internoise 2012 Proceedings, New York City. 2. Conversations with Dr. Keli Rylance of the Howard-Tilton memorial library, Tulane University and Robert Cangelosi, Koch and Wilson Architects, April 2012. 3. Smith, LW, and Wood, LW, History of Yard Lumber Sizes, Forest Products laboratory, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, September 1964. 4. Cote, Arthur, and Grant, Casey, CHAPTER 3 Codes and Standards for the Built Environment, National Fire Protection Association, http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/codesfph.pdf 5. Vogt, Lloyd, New Orleans Houses, Pelican Publishing Copany, Gretna, 1997. 6. Standard Guide for Field Measurements of Airborne Sound Attenuation of Building Facades and Facade Elements, ASTM E966-10, ASTM International, April 2010. 7. Haugen, Olafsen, Analysis of low frequency resonances in facade sound insulation spectra, Internoise 2008 proceedings, Shanghai, China, October 2008.
Appendix Page 98
APPENDIX F CITY OF NEW ORLEANS RELATED ZONING AND ORDINANCE DOCUMENTS
66-209 LOUDSPEAKER PLACEMENT ORDINANCE MARCH 15, 2012 CZO SECTION 10.13 ARTS OVERLAY DISTRICT EXCERPTS CHAPTER 34 CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS CHAPTER 66 SECTION 4 CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Appendix Page 99
1 ORDINANCE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS CITY HALL: March 15, 2012 CALENDAR NO. 28,967 NO. ____________________ MAYOR COUNCIL SERIES BY: COUNCILMEMBER GISLESON PALMER AN ORDINANCE to amend and re-ordain Article IV, Sections 66-136 and to ordain 66209 of Chapter 66 of the Code of the City of New Orleans in order to provide a definition for commercial enterprises with respect to noise-related ordinances and to establish placement of loudspeakers in commercial enterprises within the Vieux Carr Historic Districts and the Central Business Districts, and all subdivisions related thereto. 1 SECTION 1. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY
2ORDAINS, That Article IV, Section 66-136 of Chapter 66 of the Code of the City of New Orleans 3is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: 4Sec. 66-136 Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, 5shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a 6different meaning: 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 8/5/2013
NOLA Soundscape
*** Commercial enterprise means any privately owned enterprise that sells goods or provides services, including but not limited to, selling or providing novelties, t-shirts, food, or beverages. * * * SECTION 2. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY
1
Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 100
13ORDAINS, That Article IV, Section 66-209 of Chapter 66 of the Code of the City of New Orleans 14is hereby amended and ordained to read as follows: 15Sec. 66-209 Placement of Loudspeakers. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 4 5 8/5/2013
NOLA Soundscape Oxford Acoustics 2 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 101
(a)
These regulations govern the placement of loudspeakers by commercial enterprises operated within the Vieux Carr Historic Districts and the Central Business Districts.
(b)
Each of the following is a responsible party for assuring compliance on the premises of a commercial enterprise governed by these regulations:
(1) (2) (3)
An owner of the premises; A manager of the premises; Any person controlling the volume of a sound amplification device on the premises, including but not limited to disc jockeys;
(4) (5) (c)
Any person named in the occupational license for the premises; or The commercial enterprise. A responsible party for any commercial enterprise governed by these
regulations must assure compliance with the following requirements regarding placement of loudspeaker operated by the enterprise or any person described in Section 66-209(b):
(1)
In commercial enterprises, loudspeakers shall not be located beyond the interior walls of the building and shall not be oriented in such a way that the face of the loudspeaker points in the direction of any exterior door, window, or other opening to the exterior of the building. Loudspeakers shall not have any openings on the back or side that project sound. In the event the building
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 6 7 8/5/2013
NOLA Soundscape
lacks, in whole or in part, exterior walls, then the requirements of this section shall be satisfied if loudspeakers are placed under such area covered by a permanent roof structure constructed of weather resistant material such as steel, plywood plus roofing material, and other permanent outdoor materials and the structure has receive approval by the Department of Safety and Permits and the historic district commissions in the area where the commercial enterprises is located. The face of any loudspeakers under the permanent roof structure shall point to the interior of the building.
(2)
For commercial enterprises that hold a Class A alcoholic beverage permit so that they are lawfully permitted, whether a permanent or temporary permit, to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises:
a.
Loudspeakers or any person playing a musical instrument must be
located in the interior of the building and must be located at a distance greater or equal to ten (10) feet from any exterior door, window, or other opening to the exterior; or
b.
If a loudspeaker or any person playing a musical instrument is located
less than ten (10) feet from any exterior door, window, or other opening to the exterior of the building, then such windows, doors, or openings must remain closed during the hours of operation. In the event that a door subject to this section constitutes an emergency fire exit that is required to remain open during hours of operation then the Fire Marshal, pursuant to city and state law, may exempt such door from the operation of this section. Written
Oxford Acoustics 3 11-01883-01
Appendix Page 102
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
(4) (3) (d) (3)
documentation issued by the Office of State Fire Marshal of such authorized exemption must be located at the commercial enterprise and must be available upon request. For commercial enterprises that do not hold a Class A type alcoholic beverage permit so that they are not lawfully permitted to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises:
a.
All loudspeakers must be located in the interior of the building at a
distance greater or equal to twenty (20) feet from any exterior door, window, or other opening to the exterior of the building. Penalties. A responsible party is subject to the following penalties upon a finding of a violation of these regulations at the commercial enterprise:
(1) (2)
For a first violation, a fine of up to $250. For a second violation within 12 months of the first violation, a fine of up to $500. For a third violation within 12 months of the first violation, a fine of $500, a two-day closure of the premises, or both. For a fourth violation within 12 months of the first violation, a fine of $500, and a two-day closure of premises, one day of which shall be a Friday.
8 9 8/5/2013
NOLA Soundscape Oxford Acoustics 4 11-01883-01 Appendix Page 103
Arts & Cultural Overlay District
Section 10.13. AC Arts & Cultural Overlay District
10.13.1. Purpose of the District.
The purpose of the Arts & Cultural Overlay District is to sustain established and to promote new arts and cultural uses including a limited number of small-scale (up to 4,000 square feet) live entertainment venues in neighborhood business or mixed use areas that are compatible with the character of nearby residential neighborhoods. The Arts & Cultural Overlay District seeks to maintain and reinforce small-scale uses, a balance of daytime and night-time uses, and a ratio of approximately twenty (20) percent cocktail lounges and eighty (80) percent other uses. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.2. Areas of Applicability.
This district is intended for application to a commercially-zoned, minimum two (2) contiguous block area, when initiated by City Council motion, and when the area proposed for application is designated as an Arts & Cultural Corridor in the Arts & Culture Element of the Citys Master Plan. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.3. Regulations of the Underlying Zoning District.
Unless otherwise noted in the Arts & Cultural Overlay District regulations, the regulations of the underlying zoning district shall apply. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.4. Permitted Uses Authorized in the District.
The following uses of land are authorized as permitted uses in the Arts & Cultural Overlay District, subject to the standards of Section 10.13.7. 1. Any use authorized as a permitted use in the base district(s), except that t-shirt shops, novelty shops, gift shops and souvenir that specialize in t-shirts, novelties, gifts and souvenirs shall be prohibited. 2. Art galleries without limitation as to size. 3. Coffee shops. 4. Museums. 5. Theaters up to 6,000 square feet in floor area.
Appendix Page 104

(Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.5. Conditional Uses Authorized in the District.
The following uses of land are authorized as conditional uses in the Arts & Cultural Overlay District upon approval of a conditional use permit under the standards and procedures contained in Section 16.6 of these zoning regulations: 1. Any use authorized as a conditional use in the base district(s). 2. Theaters over 6,000 square feet in floor area. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.6. Live Entertainment as an Accessory Use Authorized in the District.
Live entertainment is authorized as an accessory use to the following main uses within an Arts & Cultural Overlay District, subject to the standards in Section 10.13.7: 1. Cocktail lounges. 2. Standard restaurants. 3. Theaters. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.7. General and Special Standards for Uses Authorized to Provide Live Entertainment.
The standards set forth in this section apply to the designated uses whether such uses are authorized as permitted, conditional, or accessory uses in the underlying zoning district or AC Arts & Cultural Overlay District. For Conditional uses, the City Council may impose standards on a particular use in addition to standards contained in this article as conditions to approval of a conditional use permit under the procedures of Section 16.6 of these zoning regulations. The City Council may also vary the standards contained in this section for a particular use according to such procedures, unless expressly prohibited by Article 16. When considering a conditional use application, the City Council shall consider the factors listed in Section 16.6.5, including consistency with the Master Plan, general purpose statement of the Arts & Cultural District, and any Supplemental Regulations. 1. General Standards for All Uses Providing Live Entertainment: a. All establishments providing live entertainment shall hold the appropriate Live Entertainment Permit (Mayoralty Permit). b. All establishments providing live entertainment shall be subject to a closed doors/windows policy during any performance. c. All establishments providing live entertainment shall be subject to the applicable noise, litter, and other laws of the City, including the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, City Code, and Life Safety Code. 2. Special Standards for Cocktail Lounges:
Appendix Page 105

a. A cocktail lounge may provide live entertainment, including a permanent area for dancing, but shall not provide live adult entertainment, music played solely by a disc jockey, or karaoke. All cocktail lounges shall hold a Class A General ABO Permit and a Live Entertainment Permit (With or Without Admissions), if providing live entertainment. b. Cocktail lounges shall contain noise to levels specified in the Noise Ordinance by soundproofing the live entertainment area. 3. Special Standards for Standard Restaurants: a. A licensed standard restaurant may provide non-amplified live entertainment, limited to a soloist or combos (up to three (3) members). b. Restaurants providing live entertainment shall hold a Live Entertainment Without Admissions Permit. No fee shall be charged for any performance or for entrance into the facility. c. The full menu shall remain available during the performance. d. No performance shall continue after 11:00 p.m., Sunday thru Thursday, or 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. e. No permanent stage shall be constructed. f. A Special Event Permit shall temporarily relieve a restaurant from standards a, b, c and d. Special Event Permits shall be issued to a restaurant no more than ten (10) times a year for a duration not to exceed a total of thirty (30) days a year. 4. Special Standards for Theaters: a. Live entertainment shall be limited to theatrical productions. b. Theaters selling alcoholic beverages shall do so only one (1) hour prior to and during performances. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
10.13.8. Procedures for Establishment of an AC Arts & Cultural Overlay District. 1. Establishment of an Arts & Cultural Overlay District shall be considered a zoning amendment subject to the general procedures in Section 16.2. 2. Proposals for new Arts & Cultural Overlay Districts shall meet the following conditions: a. An Arts & Cultural Overlay District shall be considered only when initiated by the City Council. b. The proposed Arts & Cultural Overlay District shall be designated as an Arts & Cultural Corridor or District in the Arts & Culture Element of the Citys Master P lan. c. The proposed Arts & Cultural Overlay District shall be no smaller than two (2) contiguous block faces. (Ord. 21,813 1 (part), adopted 12/16/04)
Appendix Page 106
New Orleans Municipal Code Chapter 34 Excerpts Sec. 34-1.1. - Task force established. (a) A task force shall be established to advise the [city] council regarding issues concerning the preservation of the Second-Line, Mardi Gras Indians, Social Aid and Pleasure Clubs and spontaneous funeral procession cultural traditions as follows: (b) The Second-Line and Mardi Gras Indian Cultural Preservation Task Force is charged with making recommendations to the council by vote. The Second-Line and Mardi Gras Indian Cultural Preservation Task Force, designed to protect and preserve the cultural institutions of Second-Lining, Mardi Gras Indians, Social Aid and Pleasure Clubs and spontaneous funeral processions in New Orleans, shall be comprised of 11 members chosen by the criminal justice committee of city council and shall include representation from appropriate neighborhood organizations and city departments. A copy of the minutes of all meetings shall be sent to the Council of the City of New Orleans. The Second-Line and Mardi Gras Indian Cultural Preservation Task Force shall have no legislative powers of its own but shall be an advisory body to the Council of the City of New Orleans concerning the matters with which it is charged, and the Council of The City of New Orleans will receive and consider the committee's recommendations regarding the protection and preservation of the cultural institutions of SecondLining, Mardi Gras Indians, Social Aid and Pleasure Clubs and spontaneous funeral processions. (c) The aforementioned task force is subject to the open meeting laws and public records laws as stated in R.S. 42:1 et seq. and R.S. 44:1 et seq. (M.C.S., Ord. No. 22941, 13, 12-20-07)
Sec. 34-22. - Southern Decadence Festival; Bourbon Street; use of amplification equipment. (a) Beginning on the Wednesday of or prior to the Southern Decadence Festival, until Monday, the last day of the Southern Decadence Festival, on Bourbon Street, between Iberville Street and Esplanade Avenue, it shall be unlawful to operate or allow the operation, for personal use, of any personal soundamplification equipment, megaphones, bullhorns or any device or apparatus for the reproduction or amplification of the human voice or other sounds (hereinafter collectively referred to as "soundamplification equipment"), in the public right-of-way, including streets or sidewalks, producing sounds registering more than 85 db(A). (b) The limitations on the operation of sound amplification equipment in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the operation of horns, sirens, or other emergency warning devices actually being used in emergency circumstance. (M.C.S., Ord. No. 21676, 1, 9-9-04; M.C.S., Ord. No. 23668, 1, 8-6-09) Editor's note
Ordinance No. 21676, 1, adopted Sept. 9, 2004, added 34-4 to the Code. Inasmuch as said section already existed and to maintain the organization integrity of the Code, said section has been redesignated as 34-22 at the discretion of the editor. Sec. 34-22.1. - Vieux Carre; use of amplification equipment. (a) In the area bounded by Esplanade Avenue, Decatur Street, Iberville Street, and North Rampart Street it shall be unlawful to operate or allow the operation, for personal use, of any sound-amplification equipment in the public right-of-way, including streets or sidewalks, producing sounds registering more than 85 db(A) at a distance of 30 feet from the source of the sound measured in accordance with section 66-201 of the City Code. (b) The limitations on the operation of sound-amplification equipment in subsection (a) shall not apply to the operation of horns, sirens, or other emergency warning devices actually being used in emergency circumstances. (c) Reserved. (d) In the area bounded by Esplanade Avenue, Decatur Street, Iberville Street, and North Rampart Street, it shall be unlawful to operate or allow the operation, for personal use, of any sound amplification equipment in the public right-of-way, including streets or sidewalks: so as to produce sounds registering more than 95 db(A) at a distance of 30 feet from the source of the sound measured in accordance with section 66-201 of the City Code. (e) The limitations on the operation of sound amplification equipment in subsection (d) of this section shall not apply to the operation of horns, sirens, or other emergency warning devices actually being used in emergency circumstances. (M.C.S., Ord. No. 21676, 2, 9-9-04; M.C.S., Ord. No. 21763, 1, 11-4-04; M.C.S., Ord. No. 22983, 1, 1-24-08; M.C.S., Ord. No. 23668, 1, 8-6-09) Editor's note Ordinance No. 21676, 2, adopted Sept. 9, 2004, added 34-5 to the Code. Inasmuch as said section already existed and to maintain the organizational integrity of the Code, said section has been redesignated as 34-22.1 at the discretion of the editor.
Appendix Page 108
Code of Ordinances, City of New Orleans Chapter 66 Environment

ARTICLE IV. NOISE* __________ *Cross references: Sound trucks prohibited, 54-482; playing of audio or video equipment on public transit vehicles prohibited, 122-9. __________ DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 66-136. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: A-weighted sound pressure level means the sound pressure level as measured on an ANSI-SI.4-1971 Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meter using the A-weighted network. It is the approximate noise level as heard by the human ear, measured in decibels, and denoted as dBA. Ambient noise level means the sound pressure level of the all encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources and excluding the specific noise under investigation; also the A-weighted, sound pressure level exceeded 90 percent of the time (L 90 ). Business and commercial district includes the following districts from the comprehensive zoning ordinance (Article 5, Sections 8 through 13 and Sections 22 and 27): RO, general office district; B1 and B2, neighborhood business district, SC, shopping center district, C1 and C2, general commercial district, and CBD1 through CBD8, central business district. Construction means any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repairs, alterations, or similar action, for or of public or private rights-of-way, structures, utilities, or similar property. Daytime hours means 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. weekends, unless otherwise stated in this article. Decibel means logarithmic unit of measure used in describing the relative intensity of sound; denoted as dB. Demolition means any dismantlings, intentional destruction or removal of structures, utilities, public or private rights-of-way surfaces, or similar property. Domestic power tools means power tools used for the purpose of completing hobby projects, home improvements projects, and any other projects which are not used or sold for profit. Emergency means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or eminent physical trauma or property damage which demands immediate action. Emergency vehicles means authorized publicly or privately owned ambulances, or motor vehicles belonging to a fire or police department, or to any federal, state, parish or municipal agency provided such vehicles are in use as emergency vehicles by one authorized to use such vehicles for that purpose. Industrial area includes the following districts from the comprehensive zoning ordinance (Article 5, Sections 14 through 16): SI-special industrial district, LI-light industrial district, HI-heavy industrial district and BIP-business-industrial park district. L 10 means the A-weighted sound pressure level which is exceeded ten percent of the time period during which the measurement is made.
Appendix Page 109
L 90 means the A-weighted sound pressure level which is exceeded 90 percent of the time period during which the measurement is made. L max means the maximum A-weighted sound level allowed. Land use category means the classification of an area, usually by zoning districts, such as residential, industrial, commercial or public space, according to its use. Any area not otherwise classified shall be considered a commercial area. In case of multiple use, the more restrictive use category shall apply. Motor vehicle means any vehicle or machine having two or more wheels, propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on the public roads and highways in the transportation of passengers or property; or any combination thereof, which is required to be licensed but does not include vehicles, locomotives or cars operated exclusively on rail or rails. Multiple-family dwelling means a building or other shelter that is used to house three or more families. Nighttime hours means 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. weekdays, 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. weekends, unless otherwise stated in this article. Noise means any sound which exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels by land use categories as given in section 66-202, Table 1. Noise sensitive area means posted, designated quiet zones. Power equipment means any machine, tool, or similar device driven or operated by a motor. Powered model vehicle means any self-propelled airborne, waterborne, or landborne model plane, model vessel or model vehicle which is not designed to carry persons, including but not limited to, any model airplane, boat, car, or rocket. Property boundary means an imaginary line at the ground surface and its vertical extension which separates the immovable property owned or inhabited by one person from that owned or inhabited by another person. Public right-of-way means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk, alley or similar place normally accessible to the public which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. Residential area includes the following districts from the comprehensive zoning ordinance (Article 5, Sections 1 through 7 and Sections 22 and 23): RS1 and RS2, single family districts, RD1 and RD3, two-family districts, RM1 to RM4, multiple-family districts, MS, medical services districts, P, park and recreation district, and NU, nonurban district. St. Louis Cathedral noise buffer zone shall be defined as an area around St. Louis Cathedral bounded by and including St. Peter Street from the Chartres Street Mall to Cabildo Alley, Cabildo Alley, Pere Antoine Alley, Pirates Alley, St. Ann Street from a line parallel to Cabildo Alley to the Chartres Street Mall and the Chartres Street Mall to a line parallel with the fence line in Jackson Square. Sound amplifying equipment means any equipment, machine, or device used for the sound amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound. Sound level means in decibels, the A-weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter as specified in American National Standards Institute (SI.13-1971, R1976). Sound level meter means an instrument for measuring sound, including a microphone, amplifier, output meter, and weighting network that is sensitive to pressure fluctuations. Special historic districts are regulated by the following districts from the comprehensive zoning ordinance (Article 5, Sections 18 through 21): Special historic district/Vieux Carre residential (SHD/VCR), VCR1 and VCR2; special historic district/Vieux Carre entertainment (SHD/VCE), VCE; special historic district/Vieux Carre commercial (SHD/VCC), VCC1, VCC2, and VCS; special historic district/historic Marigny residential (SHD/HMR), HMR1 to HMR3; special historic district/historic Marigny commercial (SHD/HMC), HMC and HMC2. (Code 1956, 42A-1; M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,399, 1, 9-4-97; M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,625, 1, 2-19-98; M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,857, 1, 9-3-98)
Cross references: Definitions generally, 1-2. Sec. 66-137. Administration. (a) The noise control program required by this article shall be administered by the director of the department of health and the superintendent of the department of police. In order to implement and enforce this article, and for the general purpose of noise abatement and control, the duly appointed and authorized representative of the department of health or the department of police shall have the power to: (1) Perform noise monitoring on any public place or on receiving property. (2) Make necessary inspections and tests. (3) Execute other necessary action, including variance and permit review, and institute necessary proceedings to prosecute or enjoin violators of the noise control ordinance. (b) All other city agencies and departments shall, to the fullest extent consistent with their authority, carry out their programs in such a manner as to further the policy of this article. (Code 1956, 42A-2) Sec. 66-138. Exemptions from Table 1. The following are exempt from the sound level limits of Table 1: (1) Domestic power tools, lawn mowers and agricultural equipment, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. (2) Noises resulting from any authorized emergency vehicles when responding to an emergency. (3) Safety signals and alarm devices, storm warning sirens or horns, and the authorized testing of such equipment. (4) Noises made during a parade or concert sponsored by the city, or for which a permit has been granted by the city. (5) Any noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration, for which a special permit has been granted by the city. (6) Noises from nonamplified church bells and chimes. (7) Noises from construction and demolition activities for which a building permit has been issued by the department of safety and permits are exempt from Table 1 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., except in those areas zoned as RS, RD, or RM residential districts. Construction and/or demolition activities shall not begin before 7:00 a.m. or continue after 6:00 p.m. in areas zoned as RS, RD, or RM residential districts, or within 300 feet of such residential districts. Mufflers on construction equipment shall be maintained. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7) of this section or any other provision of this Code to the contrary, pile driving activities in the area bounded by Canal Street, North Gayoso Street, Bienville Avenue, and North White Street shall be and are permitted to be conducted only between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, but shall be and are permitted to be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. (9) Interstate railway locomotives and cars. (10) Installation and maintenance of public and private utilities. (11) Mosquito control ground-spraying operations. (12) Street cars. (13) Any outdoor evangelistic endeavor conducted by a bona fide, tax-exempt religious organization or by a duly authorized representative thereof. (14) Jazz funerals. (15) Golf course lawn and maintenance activities at legally permitted golf courses on Mondays through Saturdays, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Code 1956, 42A-6; M.C.S., Ord. No. 19,420, 1, 10-21-99; M.C.S, Ord. No. 22723, 1, 7-12-07)
Sec. 66-139. Miscellaneous exemptions. The following are exempted from the provisions of section 66-203: (1) Noises made during a parade or concert sponsored by the city, or for which a permit has been granted by the city. (2) Any noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration, for which a special permit has been granted pursuant to this article, and which conforms to the limits and conditions stated thereon. (3) Any outdoor evangelistic endeavor conducted by a bona fide, tax exempt religious organization or by a duly authorized representative thereof, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (4) Jazz funerals. (Code 1956, 42A-6) Sec. 66-140. Penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not to exceed that authorized by applicable state law, or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. (Code 1956, 42A-11) Sec. 66-141. Violations; additional remedies; injunctions. As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any business, device, instrument, vehicle, or machinery in violation of any provision of this article, or which operation or maintenance exceeds the limitations of this article may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Code 1956, 42A-12) Secs. 66-142--66-175. Reserved. DIVISION 2. ADMINISTRATION* __________ *Cross references: Administration, ch. 2. __________ Sec. 66-176. Temporary permits. (a) The director may grant a temporary permit which allows noncompliance with the limitations prescribed in this article for the purpose of sound activities of short duration. (b) Permits shall be granted upon application, at a cost of $20.00, provided an investigation assures that the permit will not result in a condition injurious to health or safety. (c) The following factors shall be considered, in the initial investigation, in order to determine whether granting the permit will result in a condition injurious to health or safety: (1) Distance of proposed activities from a residential zone. (2) Number of amplification devices, if any, to be used in the proposed activities. (3) Sound level of amplification devices. (4) Anticipated direction of amplification devices. (5) Anticipated duration of proposed activities. (6) Whether the activity will be held within or outside of a structure. (7) Any other considerations deemed necessary by the director of the department of health.
(d) Upon a determination that the granting of a permit will not result in a condition injurious to health or safety, the permit shall be issued by noise control enforcement personnel specifying place, duration, and any restrictions appropriate to the proposed site of the activities. (e) Permits must be displayed and available for review by police officers or department of health officials upon request. (f) Issued permits will be surrendered to any city police officer or city health official upon request when the restrictions of the permit have been violated. (g) Reapplication for a permit may be denied upon evidence of a complaint by a resident in the locality of the permitted activity or if an applicant has in the past been required to surrender a permit as described in subsection (f) of this section. (h) This section shall not apply to any person who has been granted a variance as prescribed by section 66-177. (i) A permit may be issued for more than one occasion of activity. However, the time of such activity must be indicated on the application and cannot be for more than four occasions, or in excess of a six-week span. (Code 1956, 42A-10) Sec. 66-177. Variances. (a) The director may grant an individual variance from the limitations prescribed in this article whenever it is found, upon presentation of adequate proof, that compliance with any part of this article: (1) Will result in an arbitrary and unreasonable taking of property; or (2) Will not result in a condition injurious to health or safety. (b) Any variance, or renewal thereof, shall be granted within the requirements of subsection (a) of this section and for time periods and under conditions consistent with the reasons therefore, and within the following limitations: (1) If the variance is granted on the grounds that compliance with the particular requirement or requirements will necessitate the taking of measures which, because of their extent or cost, must be spread over a considerable period of time, it shall be for a period not to exceed such reasonable time as, in the view of the director, is requisite for the taking of the necessary measures. A variance granted on the grounds specified in this subsection shall contain a time-table for the taking of action in an expeditious manner and shall be conditioned on adherence to the time-table; or (2) If the variance is granted on the grounds that it is justified to relieve or prevent hardship of a kind other than that provided for in subsection (a) of this section, it shall be for not more than one year. (c) Any person seeking a variance shall do so by filing a petition for variance with the director, who shall investigate the petition and make a determination as to the disposition thereof within ten working days following receipt of the request by the director. (Code 1956, 42A-9) Secs. 66-178--66-200. Reserved. DIVISION 3. REGULATIONS Sec. 66-201. Noise measurement. Sound level measurements shall be made with a properly calibrated sound level meter Type 2 or better using the A-weighted network in accordance and conforming with the noise measurement standards, based on the reference sound pressure, promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and Testing Procedures (ANSI). Instrument response shall be "fast" for motor vehicle measurements and "slow" for all other measurements.
(Code 1956, 42A-3) Sec. 66-202. Maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use. (a) No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth for the receiving land use category in table 1. (b) L10 is the A-weighted sound pressure level which is exceeded ten percent of the time in any measurement period. The measurement period shall not be less than ten minutes when measured at or beyond the property boundary of the receiving land use category (example L10 is the sound level that is exceeded a total of one minute in a ten-minute period). In the SHD/VCE, the measurement may be taken at a minimum distance of 7.5 meters (25 feet) from the source being measured within a minimum clearance of three feet from any reflecting surface. (c) For any source of sound the maximum sound level (Lmax ) shall not be exceeded. (d) In the case of two-family or multiple-family dwellings the sound level shall be measured within an adjacent intrabuilding dwelling. (e) When a noise source can be identified and its noise measured in more than one land use category, the limits of the more restrictive use shall apply at the boundary and within the most restrictive land use category. This provision shall not apply to the SHD/VCE. __________ TABLE 1 SOUND LEVELS BY RECEIVING LAND USE TABLE INSET: Sound Level Limit Receiving Land Use Category Resident, public space Time 7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. L 10 dBA 60 L max dBA 70 60
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 55 a.m. Two-family or multiple-family dwelling (intra dwelling) 7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. 50 10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 45 a.m. 7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. 65
60 55
Business and commercial
75 65 85
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 60 a.m. Industrial At all times 75
SHD/VCE districts
At all times
10 decibels above the ambient noise level; or 60 decibels, whichever is higher. * 75 * 80

Appendix Page 114
SHD/VCR
7:00 a.m.--10:00
p.m. 10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 a.m. SHD/VCC 7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 a.m. SHD/HMR 7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. * 55 * 75 * 60 60 * 60 * 80 * 65 70 60 75 65
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 55 a.m. SHD/HMC 7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. 65
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00 60 a.m. * Adjusted for other, intrusive sounds. (Code 1956, 42A-4; M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,399, 2, 9-4-97)
Sec. 66-203. Specific nuisance noises prohibited. In addition to the general prohibitions set out in this article, the following specific acts are declared to be in violation of this article: (1) Animals. It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any animal or fowl to allow frequent or continuing noise which disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. (2) Horns, signaling devices. It shall be unlawful to sound any horn or signaling device on any street or public place in the city for purposes other than motor vehicle, driver, and/or pedestrian safety. (3) Radios, televisions, musical instruments and similar devices. a. It shall be unlawful to operate or play in any public right-of-way, public park, playground or recreational area, any musical instruments, radio, television, phonograph, tapeplayer, cassette player, compact disc player, or any sound device, including but not limited to loudspeakers or other devices reproducing or amplifying sound in such a manner, or with such volume, as to exceed an average of 80 decibels measured at a distance of 50 feet from the sound source. The New Orleans police department or the department of health shall order any person or persons in violation of this section to immediately cease creating or causing the creation of noise. If said person or persons fail to obey this order, appropriate action shall be taken pursuant to section 66-137. The readings shall be in succession. b. It shall be unlawful to operate or play any radio, television, phonograph, musical instrument, loudspeaker or similar device that is plainly audible to any person other than the operator between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. in parks, playgrounds, or recreation areas unless a permit has been issued. c. Reserved. d. It shall be unlawful between the hours of 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. on the subsequent morning or between the hours of 10:30 p.m. on a Friday or Saturday and 10:00 a.m. the subsequent morning to operate or play in a dwelling occupying a parcel or lot of land or to operate or play anywhere on a parcel or lot of land contiguous or adjacent to another parcel or lot of
land occupied by a neighboring dwelling any radio, television, phonograph, loudspeaker, soundampli-fication equipment or similar device which produces or reproduces sound in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of one foot from any exterior wall of the neighboring dwelling or at a distance beyond the boundary between the parcels or lots, whichever is the lesser distance from the point where the sound is produced or reproduced. e. It shall be unlawful between the hours of 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. on the subsequent morning or between the hours of 10:30 p.m. on a Friday or Saturday and 10:00 a.m. the subsequent morning to operate or play in an apartment, condominium unit or other dwelling unit of a multiple-unit structure occupying a parcel or lot of land or in any common or exterior area of such land any radio, television, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound-amplification equipment or similar device which produces or reproduces sound in such a manner as to be plainly audible within any other apartment, condominium unit or other dwelling unit within the same dwelling structure. (4) Neighborhood businesses. Businesses operating in B-1 or B-2 commercial areas and under nonconforming use zoning within or adjacent to residential areas shall comply with the provisions of section 66-202. a. Upon initial determination of a violation a neighborhood business will be given six months to comply with the terms of the ordinance if insulation or other major structural modifications are necessary for compliance. b. Nothing in this subsection shall relieve the business owner or manager from the responsibility of taking other reasonable actions directed at reducing noise levels upon determination of a noise violation. (5) Loudspeakers. It shall be unlawful to use or operate any loudspeaker, loudspeaker system or similar device that is plainly audible upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park or public property for the purpose of commercial advertising, or attracting the attention of the public to any building, structure, or vehicle. (6) Power equipment. a. It shall be unlawful to operate or permit to be operated any power equipment in residential zones outdoors between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day, and on weekends between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. b. During daytime hours (7:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. on weekends) power equipment rated five horsepower or less shall not exceed a sound level of 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Power equipment rated more than five horsepower shall not exceed a sound level of 82 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. (7) Machinery, fans, and air conditioners. It shall be unlawful to operate or permit the operation of any stationary machinery, air-conditioners, air-handling equipment, fans, or similar devices in such a manner as to exceed Table 1 of the receiving land use categories when measured on receiving property. a. Stationary machinery, equipment, fans, and air conditioners shall have the following replacement schedule: 1. Installed and operating sources, of age ten years or older, shall comply with the provisions of this subsection within a reasonable time period, upon determination of a condition of violation. This time period shall not exceed six months. 2. Installed and operating sources, of age five to ten years shall comply with the provisions of this subsection within a reasonable time period, upon determination of a condition of violation. This time period shall not exceed one year. 3. Installed and operating sources under five years of age, shall comply with the provisions of this subsection within a reasonable time period, upon determination of a condition of violation. This time period shall not exceed two years.
Appendix Page 116
b. Nothing in subsection (7)a. of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to relieve the person responsible for such stationary machinery, equipment, fans, air conditioning apparatus, or any similar permanently installed mechanical devices, from the responsibility of taking other reasonable actions, other than replacement, directed at reducing noise levels from these sources on receiving property. (8) Aircraft engines. a. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, run, or test or cause to be operated, run, or tested an aircraft engine which creates a noise level exceeding Table 1 of the receiving land use category measured at any place within an inhabited zone of the city. b. The intent of this subsection is to regulate noise levels produced in the testing, maintenance, and repairs of aircraft engines and aircraft hours. Any aircraft operating during a landing, takeoff, or while moving upon ground surface of an airport shall be exempted from the provisions of this section. (9) Noise sensitive "quiet" zones. It shall be unlawful to create or cause the creation of any noise, other than those noise exemptions stated in section 66-138, within 500 feet of any noise sensitive zone, so as to exceed the residential land use levels set forth in Table 1 when measured on the receiving property, provided that conspicuous signs are displayed indicating the presence of the "quiet" zone. (Code 1956, 42A-5; M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,399, 3, 9-4-97; M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,625, 2, 3, 2-1998) Cross references: Animals, ch. 18. Sec. 66-204. Additional remedies and penalties for animal or fowl noises. Any person who violates section 66-203 shall be fined or imprisoned in accordance with the following: (1) First offense, $50.00. (2) Second offense, $150.00. (3) Third offense or subsequent violations shall result in a fine of $300.00 or imprisonment of not more than 90 days or both. (4) Notwithstanding any of the penalty provisions of this section, the owner or keeper of any animal or fowl found guilty of violating any provision of section 66-203 shall be required to enroll and attend animal or fowl obedience training classes sponsored by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or any other such competent authority. (Code 1956, 42A-14) Sec. 66-205. Persons playing musical instruments on public rights-of-way. It shall be unlawful for any person to play musical instruments on public rights-of-way between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Persons may obtain a temporary permit as provided by this article. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person who has obtained a temporary permit as provided for by section 66-176 or are specifically exempted from the provisions of this article as provided by sections 66-138 and 66-139 or any noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration, for which a temporary permit has been granted by the city as provided for in section 66176. (Code 1956, 42A-15) Sec. 66-206. Motor vehicles. (a) Vehicles in motion. No person shall operate a motor vehicle at any time or under any condition of grade, load, acceleration or deceleration in such a manner as to exceed the sound level limits for the category of motor vehicle shown in Table 2. The sound level shall be measured at a distance of at
least 15 meters (50 feet) from the center of the vehicle path at a height of at least 1.23 meters (four feet) above the immediate surrounding surface. This section shall apply to the total noise from a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles and shall not be construed as limiting or precluding the enforcement of any other provisions of this article relating to motor vehicle mufflers for noise control. TABLE 2 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES TABLE INSET: Type of Vehicle Sound Level Limit Speed limit 40 mph or less Motor vehicle with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross combination weight rating (GCWR) of 10,000 pounds or more, or 86 any combination of vehicles towed by such motor vehicle Speed limit 40 mph or less Any other motor vehicle or any combination of vehicles towed by any motor vehicles 76 Speed limit over 40 mph 90 Speed limit over 40 mph 82
Motorcycles 82 86 (b) Static tests for motor vehicles. (1) No person shall operate a motor vehicle having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of at least 6,000 pounds which exceeds 93 dBA, measured 25 feet (7.6m) from the side of the vehicle. The sound level shall be observed during the full cycle of engine acceleration-deceleration, and the measured sound level reading shall be the highest value obtained during this cycle, excluding unrelated peaks due to extraneous ambient noise. When there is more than one outlet, the sound level for each side of the vehicle shall be measured, and the reported sound level shall be the average of the two highest readings within one decibel of each other on the loudest side. (2) No person shall operate a motor vehicle having a manufacturer's gross vehicle rating of less than 6,000 pounds, except a motorcycle, which exceeds 95 dBA, measured 20 inches (508mm) from the exhaust outlet. The measured exhaust system sound level of a stationary vehicle shall be the highest reading obtained during the test, disregarding unrelated peaks due to extraneous ambient noise. When there is more than one exhaust outlet, the reported sound level shall be for the loudest outlet. When there is more than one exhaust outlet from a single muffler, separated by less than 12 inches (305mm), measurements shall be made on the outlet closest to the side of the vehicle. (Code 1956, 42A-7) Cross references: Traffic and vehicles, ch. 154. Sec. 66-207. Specific motor vehicle noises prohibited.
(a) Mufflers and sound dissipating devices. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated any motor vehicle equipped with a muffler that exceeds allowable levels in section 66-206. (1) Any modifications to the exhaust system which cause the vehicle to exceed maximum permissible levels is prohibited. Such modifications include: Removal or puncturing the muffler, baffles, header pipes, or any other component which conducts exhaust gases. (2) No person shall remove or render inoperative or cause to be removed or rendered inoperative, any muffler or sound dissipating device on a motor vehicle other than for purposes of maintenance, repair, or replacement. (b) Refuse collection vehicles. No person shall collect refuse with a refuse collection vehicle between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. the following day in a residential area or noise sensitive zone. This provision shall not apply to collection areas requiring greater than normal twice-weekly refuse collection for sanitary/health reasons. (c) Off-road motorized vehicles. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any off-road motorized vehicle off a public right-of-way in such a manner that the sound levels emitted therefrom violate the provisions of section 66-202. This section shall apply to all off-road motor vehicles, whether or not duly licensed and registered, including, but not limited to, commercial or noncommercial racing vehicles, motorcycles, go-carts, amphibious craft, campers and dune buggies, but not including motorboats. (d) Vehicle repair. It shall be unlawful for any person within any zone of the city to repair, rebuild, or test any motor vehicle in such a manner that the noise produced exceeds the land use category in Table 1 when measured at the receiving property line. (Code 1956, 42A-8) Sec. 66-208. St. Louis Cathedral noise buffer zone. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons in the St. Louis Cathedral noise buffer zone to create or to cause the creation of any noise in excess of 78 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source during religious services in St. Louis Cathedral, provided that conspicuous signs are displayed outside of the cathedral during the conduct of such services. The New Orleans Department of Police or the Department of Health shall order any person or persons in violation of this section to immediately cease creating or causing the creation of noise. If such person or persons fail to obey this order, appropriate action shall be taken pursuant to section 66-137 (administration). (M.C.S., Ord. No. 18,857, 2, 9-3-98) Secs. 66-209--66-240. Reserved.
Appendix Page 119
APPENDIX G LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS, MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWED PERSONS

ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY AND MEETINGS
Safe Sounds (sponsored by New Orleans Musicians Clinic with members of National Hearing Conservation Association) Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents, and Associates (VCPORA) French Quarter Management District (FQMD) Music and Culture Coalition of New Orleans (MACCNO) French Quarter Citizens (FQC) Fauborg Marigny Improvement Association Bourbon Business Alliance (BBA) New Orleans Sound Ordinance Working Group Frenchman Street Businesses Sweet Home New Orleans (SHNO) THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INTERVIEWED, PARTICIPATED IN INVESTIGATIONS, OR PROVIDED RESOURCES TO BE EVALUATED FOR INCLUSION IN THE REPORT. THIS LIST IS BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE DISCUSSIONS WITH MUSICIANS, RESIDENTS, AND BUSINESS OWNERS OF NEW ORLEANS ON A MORE INFORMAL BASIS. Director of Programs, Marketing & Communications at New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Foundation Foundation for Louisiana
Scott Ethan
Aiges Allstead
Director of music business development for Ray Nagen
New Orleans New Orleans
Connie Tom Mark Arno
Arline Bob Bethany Marion Richard Charles
Kris Tatiana David Lorelie Anthony
Acting Director of Midlo Center for New Orleans Atkinson Studies Bissel Citizen activist Boline Realtor Bommer acoustical consultant Chair of the noise committee of the Mayors Council on the Bronzaft Environment Bruce acoustical consultant Bultman Safe Sounds Environmental Noise Specialist Burgess Campanella historian/geographer Chamberlain historian Director of the Texas Center of Music & Medicine Chesky Clay resident Clements Bar owner Cropley resident D'Arensbourg Bar Manager
New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Houston, TX
Dept of History, UNO FQC President New Orleans Relocation CSTI
NYC Houston, TX New Orleans
CSTI New Orleans Musicians Clinic School Engineering and Canberra, Australia Information Technology New Orleans Tulane New Orleans Lousiana State Museum Associate Professor University of North Texas College of Music Royal St 8 years, NOLA native Circle Bar, Snake and Jakes Fauborg-Marigny Funky 544, Fat Catz Appendix Page 120
Denton, TX New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans
Betty James Angelo Dennis Michael David Kristene Brian Coco Alison Sue David Mary Scott
DeCell Delery Farell Farrell Field Freedman Furan Furness Garrett Gavrell Hall Holtzclaw Howell Hutcheson
resident Citizen activist club owner Magnetite Rep NOPD Radio station owner NOLA 311 Citizen activist French Quarter Citizens Administrative Director Mayor's Office Resident (1970) NOPD attorney Mayor's Office Associate Professor Audio Arts and Acoustics Entertainment Lawyer musician activist Executive Director musicia/Environmental Scientist musician/linguist Director Health Dept 1983-1995 Citizen activist FQC President acoustical consultant Law Student/research Bar owner Permitting-Bureau of Revenue AV specialist musician activist Citizen activist Frenchman St. Businesses Deputy Director Deputy Attorney 19762006 resident Regional manager and trainer 1987-2012 Real Estate/Economic Analyst
New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Metarie, LA New Orleans New Orleans
FQ 1962 to date Marigny Bourbon Heat Magnetite Windows Lt, NOPD 8th District WWOZ City of New Orleans French Quarter French Quarter City of New Orleans FQ 1975-1985, Marigny 1985 to date Sound Enforcement 1995-2002 mary Howell attorney City of New Orleans Columbia College, Hearing Conservation Workshop
Benjamin Ashlye Hannah Shelley Aram Shane Brobson Linda Linda Brian Michael Jude Wendall Robinson Sue Mary Lee Jesse Charlotte Earl Freddie Doug Wade
Kanters Keaton KriegerBenson Landrieu Lief Lief Lutz Malin Malin Marston Martin Marullo McCall Mills Mobley Murphy Paige Parent Perry Pincus Price Ragas
Chicago New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Sydney, Australia New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Florida Metarie, LA
MACCNO/SHNO Garden District Association UNO (PhD candidate) Tulane (PhD student) City of New Orleans FQC President FQ BGMA, Ltd. Tulane University Law School Funky 544, Fat Catz City of New Orleans MACCNO/ President SHNO Uptown Blue Nile New Orleans Health Department City of New Orleans FQ 1954 to date Quest Technologies
Appendix Page 121
Jan John Stewart Marlon Mimi's Walter Stephen Dale Tom Jeffrey Jeanne Paul Alexandre Irene Jeffrey Robert Justin
Ramsey Sinclair Smith Smith Staff Stern Swain Thayer Thayer Treffinger Turnipseed VanOrden Vilaou Wainwright Walls Watters Winch
Owner poet, historian attorney Compliance Guidance Group venue workers historian Business manager Senior City Environmental Planner club manager Architect resident Noise Enforcement Officer Citizen activist Head Louisiana Division NOPD Entertainment Owner Law Clerk acoustical consultant/training specialist
New Orleans Amsterdam, Holland New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Portland, OR New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans New Brunswick, NJ
Off Beat Magazine
Smith Stag OSHA Mimi's in the Marigny St. Louis Cathedral New Orleans City Planning Commission Frenchman Street Businesses Fauborg-Marigny City of Portland President, Faubourg Marigny Improvement Association New Orleans Public Library Cmdr, NOPD 8th District Bourbon Business Alliance Smith Stag Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center/The Noise Consultancy
Eric
Zwerling
Appendix Page 122
APPENDIX H RESOURCES FOR SOUND ORDINANCE CREATION GUIDELINES, INFORMATION ON THE STRUCTURE OF SINGLE PERSON SOUND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, AND BRAZIL'S NOISE EDUCATION PROGRAM. On Creating a Sound Ordinance Part of the investigation for this report was to examine other cities' sound ordinances to see what they have done to provide for entertainment districts and /or incorporation of dBC to address low frequency sound. The initial investigation examined a number of ordinances from around the country; in most cases they were found to be unique to the place they were written for. Currently the Community Noise Standards committee (Accredited Standards Committee S12 (Noise) Working Group (WG) 41) of the Acoustical Society of America is working on the 1st part of a guideline for creating noise ordinances and regulations (ANSI 12.66 part 1); they have recognized that any sound ordinance must be custom fit to a community's needs, expectations, and resources. The guideline gives the creators of legislation a menu of options to custom fit regulations to the needs of the individual community and weighs the advantages and disadvantages of measurement based and non-measurement based noise ordinances. A summary of the current state of the draft is available: Brooks, Bennett, Proposed standard - Guidance for developing state noise regulations and local noise ordinances, Proceedings of International Congress of Acoustics 2013, Montreal, Canada. Plainly Audible Clause There has also been a common belief that the term plainly audible is too subjective a method for identifying a violation or providing justifiable cause for further investigation. Eric Zwerling of the Noise Consultancy has written a paper1 with legal experts to help understand the legality of such a term, and also determine where it's application is most useful. Some examples that apply to New Orleans are: 1) Transient sources which can be clearly identified but cannot be measured during the pass by (i.e. cars or motorcycles with loud mufflers or stereos) 2) Clear cut cases where enforcement lacks the resources to measure for a violation (i.e. short notice arrival at a late night party other isolated sound source). Such a method may require additional documentation (i.e. video). The paper is of great value in legislative and judicial proceedings, as well as an aid in the training of law enforcement. 1. Zwerling, Eric, Myers, Amy, and Shamoon, Charles, Analysis of the 'plainly audible' standard for noise ordinances, proceedings of Internoise 2012, New York City. Portland Oregon's Sound Enforcement Program Portland Oregon has retained Paul Van Orden as chief sound enforcement officer for 24 years, and he has been the sole enforcer in recent years. This is especially relevant to the New Orleans effort, as such a singular position is being considered. Paul originally worked for a county health commission in New Jersey, so he came to the job with experience in environmental law and with preparing technical documents for legal purposes. He has identified four basic qualities that are critical to the position:
Technical skills: Understanding sound and environmental law, operation of equipment and measurement techniques, and technical documentation for legal proceedings. Social skills: Working to resolve problems and offering appropriate solutions in disputes; negotiation and mediation. Enforcement capabilities: To identify the violation of the law, to follow through on the issuing of tickets, and successfully handle court proceedings. Flexible hours: The ability to work daytime shifts to maintain the office and also night time when most violations occur. This also means that the city will need to provide the funds for overtime hours.
Portland's sound enforcement program also has several features that are of interest to New Orleans to consider in the development of the program: The system for enforcement is complaint based, and uses a set decibel limit to determine most violations. The system employs a five member noise review board of volunteers who meet monthly to review major requests for noise variances and recommend Noise Code changes. The five member board is comprised of three citizen representatives, one person from the construction industry, and a professional working in the field of Acoustics. The noise officer reviews zoning and land use permitting requests. These requests are given to a qualified acoustical consultant for evaluation. When abatement measures are required by a sound source, they are required to hire a qualified acoustical consultant to provide plans for a solution to be approved. The sound enforcement officer is given the authority to handle all issues related to sound and sound violations.
Paul Van Orden may be a valuable resource for New Orleans in terms of identifying the appropriate qualifications for an enforcement officer as well as providing guidance in setting up such a position. Contact: paul.vanorden@portlandoregon.gov Brazil's Noise School In Brazil federal legislation indicates penalties or as an alternative penalty for environmental crimes of minor degree, such as noise pollution, the participation in a workshop on environmental reeducation called Programa de Ressocializao Ambiental started in 2009. The program aims to sensitize the infractor on environmental issues and to invoke a change in behavior. This alternative penalty differs from usual alternative penalties such as community services that might be completely without connection with the environmental crime committed. The environmental reeducation program, which consists of classes given by voluntary lecturers during one week at night, is organized and supervised by the Ministrio Pblico Estadual de Rondnia state, a body of independent public prosecutors of the Rondnia state. Lecturers come from rgos parceiros and lessons consider issues such as flora, fauna, fishing, garbage, pollution, basics of law and environmental responsibility. The part concerning noise pollution is given by audiologists from a local university. Since the creation of this different alternative penalty 20 groups of students totalizing 776 participants completed the environmental workshop. It is of interest that most of the subjects sent to the alternative penalty environmental education program were judged for noise pollution and none of them were amerciable once again for noise pollution.
APPENDIX I PROPOSED PHASES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOUND ENFORCEMENT AND AWARENESS PROGRAM
Appendix Page 125
Appendix Page 126
Appendix Page 127

Palmer NOLA Soundscape Appendicies OA 11-01883-01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Palmer NOLA Soundscape Appendicies OA 11-01883-01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPENDICIES for NEW ORLEANS SOUND ORDINANCE AND SOUNDSCAPE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA Appendix

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

1974-1978 Strategic Planning for Health Department

1984 $38,718 $80,121

1985 $74,121 $145,500

*Represents the funding levels in 2010 dollars, adjusted for inflation.

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

NOLA Soundscape 8/5/2013

Oxford Acoustics 11-01883-01

rock group maximums

Outdoor concert at Lafayette Park

Heavy truck passing at 50 ft.

inside a car at 50 mph

Active business office

quiet living room