APPENDICIES for NEW ORLEANS SOUND ORDINANCE AND

Transcription

APPENDICIES
for
NEW ORLEANS SOUND ORDINANCE AND SOUNDSCAPE
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Appendix A – New Orleans Health Department Information..........................................
1
Appendix B – General Information on Sound, Selected New Orleans Sound Walks and
Sound Level Measurements...................................................................................
29
Appendix C – Residence and Business Information on Annoyance and Sound Control
51
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.
61
Appendix E – Papers on New Orleans Soundscape investigation for Internoise 2012.......
82
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
99
Appendix G – Listing of organizations, meetings and interviewed persons...................... ...
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 2
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 3
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
2.
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 6
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. I’ve 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 today’s 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 today’s 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
today’s dollars, and with today’s pay plan would carry a price ranging from $196,676 to $288,211 for personnel
only.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 7
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. I’m 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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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 Department’s 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
Department’s 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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 9
RECORD OF NOISE COMPLAINTS (January 1, 1982 – December 31, 1982)
300 Total Complaints
 Loudspeakers/Stereo (100)
 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
Department’s 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
 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 Department’s successful
attempts at adjudication, expanded the Department’s 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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 11
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 12
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 13
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 14
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 15
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 16
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 17
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 18
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 19
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 20
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 21
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 22
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 23
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 24
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 25
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 26
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 27
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 29
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 30
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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).
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 33
Exposure Limits as established by NIOSH and OSHA
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 34
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
Night tests dBC exceeds recommended doorway
limits but street levels appropriate.
Old Opry House during night measures
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
Night tests dBC is exceeded in the street by 1dB.
Famous Door during night measures.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 39
Funky 544 sound attenuation curves. Note the inside level and street “ambient” levels are shown.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 40
Old Opry House attenuation curves. Note that the inside sound differs from 544 due to the sound
system and architecture.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
dBC
door to @5' Door to MOS
inside to
door
door to @5' door to MOS
8dB
7dB
14dB
5dB
8dB
14dB
7dB
5dB
10dB
5dB
7dB
10dB
7dB
10dB
12dB
1dB
8dB
11dB
N/A
2 to 10dB
9 to 21dB
N/A
6 to 10dB
12 to 18dB
N/A
4 to 7dB
0 to 17dB
N/A
5 to 9 dB
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 42
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?”
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 43
French Quarter Sound Walk 10-15-11
Sound Levels Approaching Bourbon St. 12:20am
110
100
LAeq
NOPD Laeq
LAPKmax
LCeq
dB
90
80
70
12:38AM 739 Toulouse 20' from Bourbon
12:33AM Royal x Tolouse 15' from guitar amp
12:27AM St. Louis x Royal 10' from guitar amp
12:25AM St. Louis x Royal 35'-40' from guitar amp
12:23AM St. Louis x Royal 35'-40' from guitar amp
12:19AM Conti x Royal ambient
60
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 44
French Quarter Sound Walk 10-15-11
Sound Levels Bourbon St. 12:30am to 2:00am
110
LAeq
NOPD Laeq
LAPKmax
LCeq
100
90
80
70
01:15AM Bourbon x St Phillip SW corner
01:12AM Bourbon x St Phillip NW corner
01:09AM Bourbon x Dumaine on NW corner
01:07AM half block from St Ann north sidewalk
01:04AM Bourbon x St. Ann middle
01:01AM Bourbon x St. Ann at north curb
12:55AM 734 Bourbon middle
12:40AM 600 Bourbon middle (music break)
01:32AM 500 Bourbon x St Louis middle
01:50AM Edison Park middle
01:55AM Bourbon x Bienville middle
60
magnitude (dB)
120
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 45
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 46
Sound Level Measurements-Evening 5-25-12 and 5-26-12
In-club measures made in audience seating area
frenchman
Bourbon
frenchman
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
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
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
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 47
Bourbon
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
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
plane of door my bar
in my bar
plane of door
1/2 block
@dauphine 1 block
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
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
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 49
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 50
APPENDIX C
RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS INFORMATION ON ANNOYANCE AND SOUND CONROL
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 53
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 54
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).
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 55
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): A34–A41.
3. Adapted from Keizer, G, 'The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want”, Public Affairs, New York,
2010
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 58
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).
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
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).
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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): A34–A41.
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 61
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 63
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 65
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 66
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 68
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 69
Sound Ordinance Working Group Notes
1
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
1
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
2
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 Mayor’s 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 Orleans—on 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
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 71

3
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.
o
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
NOLA Soundscape
7/15/2010
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 72
4
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.
NOLA Soundscape
7/15/2010
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 73
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 74
3/9/2012
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 75
a variety of issues, including noise.
3/9/2012
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 ordinance—violations, 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 complainant’s 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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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 of77
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 of78
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.
NOLA Soundscape
Oxford Acoustics
8/5/2013
Residents
Oxford Acoustics
Presentation
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page
3 of79
5
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.
NOLA Soundscape
Oxford Acoustics
8/5/2013
Residents
Oxford Acoustics
Presentation
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page
4 of80
5
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
NOLA Soundscape
Oxford Acoustics
8/5/2013
Residents
Oxford Acoustics
Presentation
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page
5 of81
5
APPENDIX E
PAPERS ON NEW ORLEANS NOISE INVESTIGATION FOR INSTITUTE OF NOISE
CONTROL ENGINEERING
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 82
Revision of New Orleans' noise ordinance: efforts toward simplification
and enforceability
David S. Woolwortha)
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: [email protected]
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 84
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 85
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 Kähäri10 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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 86
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
avg reduction through
facade
range
dBA
dBC
24
20-28
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 87
3
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 88
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 89
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 90
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”.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 91
Sound transmission testing of historical facades of New Orleans
David S. Woolwortha)
356 CR 102 Oxford, MS, 38655 USA
[email protected]
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.
1
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 use”zone 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: [email protected]
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 92
2
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
Openings
Construction
Creole Cottage French doors, 6 over 6 or 6 over 9 pane double hung window
brick/brick & post
Greek Revival
Door with transom, 6 over 9 pane double hung window
wood/plaster
Victorian
Door with transom, 6 over 9 pane double hung window
wood/plaster
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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:
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 96
Table 2: dBA/dBC reduction through measured facades using a pink noise source
avg reduction through
facade
range
4
dBA
dBC
24
20-28
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 97
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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 66-
209 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 Carré 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:
4“Sec. 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
Commercial enterprise means any privately owned enterprise that sells goods or
9
provides services, including but not limited to, selling or providing novelties, t-shirts, food,
10
or beverages.
* * *”
11
12
SECTION 2. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY
2
1
NOLA Soundscape
3 8/5/2013
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:
15“Sec. 66-209 – Placement of Loudspeakers.
16
(a)
operated within the Vieux Carré Historic Districts and the Central Business Districts.
17
18
These regulations govern the placement of loudspeakers by commercial enterprises
(b)
Each of the following is a “responsible party” for assuring compliance on the
19
premises of a commercial enterprise governed by these regulations:
20
(1)
An owner of the premises;
21
(2)
A manager of the premises;
22
(3)
Any person controlling the volume of a sound amplification device on the
premises, including but not limited to disc jockeys;
23
24
(4)
Any person named in the occupational license for the premises; or
25
(5)
The commercial enterprise.
26
A responsible party for any commercial enterprise governed by these
(c)
27
regulations must assure compliance with the following requirements regarding
28
placement of loudspeaker operated by the enterprise or any person described in
29
Section 66-209(b):
30
(1)
In commercial enterprises, loudspeakers shall not be located beyond the
31
interior walls of the building and shall not be oriented in such a way that the
32
face of the loudspeaker points in the direction of any exterior door, window,
33
or other opening to the exterior of the building. Loudspeakers shall not have
34
any openings on the back or side that project sound. In the event the building
4
NOLA Soundscape
5 8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
2
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 101
35
lacks, in whole or in part, exterior walls, then the requirements of this section
36
shall be satisfied if loudspeakers are placed under such area covered by a
37
permanent roof structure constructed of weather resistant material such as
38
steel, plywood plus roofing material, and other permanent outdoor materials
39
and the structure has receive approval by the Department of Safety and
40
Permits and the historic district commissions in the area where the
41
commercial enterprises is located. The face of any loudspeakers under the
42
permanent roof structure shall point to the interior of the building.
43
(2)
For commercial enterprises that hold a Class A alcoholic beverage permit so
44
that they are lawfully permitted, whether a permanent or temporary permit, to
45
sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises:
46
a.
47
located in the interior of the building and must be located at a distance greater
48
or equal to ten (10) feet from any exterior door, window, or other opening to
49
the exterior; or
50
b.
51
less than ten (10) feet from any exterior door, window, or other opening to
52
the exterior of the building, then such windows, doors, or openings must
53
remain closed during the hours of operation. In the event that a door subject
54
to this section constitutes an emergency fire exit that is required to remain
55
open during hours of operation then the Fire Marshal, pursuant to city and
56
state law, may exempt such door from the operation of this section. Written
Loudspeakers or any person playing a musical instrument must be
If a loudspeaker or any person playing a musical instrument is located
6
NOLA Soundscape
7 8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
3
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 102
57
documentation issued by the Office of State Fire Marshal of such authorized
58
exemption must be located at the commercial enterprise and must be
59
available upon request.
60
For commercial enterprises that do not hold a Class A type alcoholic
(3)
61
beverage permit so that they are not lawfully permitted to sell alcoholic
62
beverages for consumption on the premises:
63
a.
64
distance greater or equal to twenty (20) feet from any exterior door, window,
65
or other opening to the exterior of the building.
66
(d)
All loudspeakers must be located in the interior of the building at a
Penalties. A responsible party is subject to the following penalties upon a finding of
67
a violation of these regulations at the commercial enterprise:
68
(1)
For a first violation, a fine of up to $250.
69
(2)
For a second violation within 12 months of the first violation, a fine of up to
$500.
70
71
For a third violation within 12 months of the first violation, a fine of $500, a
(3)
two-day closure of the premises, or both.
72
73
For a fourth violation within 12 months of the first violation, a fine of $500,
(4)
and a two-day closure of premises, one day of which shall be a Friday.”
74
8
NOLA Soundscape
9 8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
4
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 103
1
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 City’s 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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 104
2
(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:
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 105
3
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 City’s Master Plan.
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)
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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, §§ 1—3, 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—
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 107
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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)
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 110
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
(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)
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 111
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
(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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 112
(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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 113
(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
Time
L 10
dBA
L max
dBA
Resident, public space
7:00 a.m.--10:00
p.m.
60
70
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00
55
a.m.
60
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.
60
55
Business and commercial
7:00 a.m.--10:00
p.m.
65
75
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00
60
a.m.
65
At all times
75
85
SHD/VCE districts
At all times
10 decibels above the ambient
noise level; or
60 decibels, whichever is
higher.
SHD/VCR
7:00 a.m.--10:00
Industrial
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
* 75
* 80
Appendix
Page 114
p.m.
SHD/VCC
SHD/HMR
SHD/HMC
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00
a.m.
* 55
* 60
7:00 a.m.--10:00
p.m.
* 75
* 80
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00
a.m.
* 60
* 65
7:00 a.m.--10:00
p.m.
60
70
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00
55
a.m.
60
7:00 a.m.--10:00
p.m.
65
75
10:00 p.m.-- 7:00
60
a.m.
65
* 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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 115
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
period shall not exceed one year.
3. Installed and operating sources under five years of age, shall comply with the provisions of this
period shall not exceed two years.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 117
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:
Sound Level Limit
Type of Vehicle
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
Any other motor vehicle or any combination of vehicles towed by any
motor vehicles
Speed
limit
over 40
mph
90
Speed
limit
40 mph
or less
Speed
limit
over 40
mph
76
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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 118
(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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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.
Scott
Ethan
Connie
Tom
Mark
Arno
Arline
Bob
Bethany
Marion
Richard
Charles
Kris
Tatiana
David
Lorelie
Anthony
Aiges
Allstead
Director of music
business development
for Ray Nagen
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
Mayor’s Council on the
Bronzaft
Environment
Bruce
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
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
New Orleans
New Orleans
Director of Programs, Marketing
& Communications at New
Orleans Jazz & Heritage
Foundation
Foundation for Louisiana
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
Denton, TX
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
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
Betty
James
Angelo
Dennis
Michael
David
Kristene
Brian
DeCell
Delery
Farell
Farrell
Field
Freedman
Furan
Furness
Coco
Alison
Garrett
Gavrell
Sue
David
Mary
Scott
Hall
Holtzclaw
Howell
Hutcheson
Benjamin
Ashlye
Hannah
Shelley
Kanters
Keaton
KriegerBenson
Landrieu
Aram
Shane
Lief
Lief
Brobson
Linda
Linda
Brian
Michael
Jude
Lutz
Malin
Malin
Marston
Martin
Marullo
Wendall
Robinson
Sue
Mary Lee
McCall
Mills
Mobley
Murphy
Jesse
Charlotte
Paige
Parent
Earl
Freddie
Perry
Pincus
Doug
Price
Wade
Ragas
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
resident
Citizen activist
club owner
Magnetite Rep
NOPD
Radio station owner
NOLA 311
Citizen activist
French Quarter Citizens
Administrative Director
Mayor's Office
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
FQ 1962 to date
Marigny
Bourbon Heat
Magnetite Windows
Lt, NOPD 8th District
WWOZ
City of New Orleans
French Quarter
New Orleans
New Orleans
Resident (1970)
NOPD
attorney
Mayor's Office
Associate Professor
Audio Arts and
Acoustics
Entertainment Lawyer
New Orleans
Metarie, LA
New Orleans
New Orleans
French Quarter
City of New Orleans
FQ 1975-1985, Marigny 1985 to
date
Sound Enforcement 1995-2002
mary Howell attorney
City of New Orleans
musician activist
Executive Director
musicia/Environmental
Scientist
musician/linguist
Director Health Dept
1983-1995
Citizen activist
FQC President
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
MACCNO/SHNO
Garden District Association
New Orleans
New Orleans
UNO (PhD candidate)
Tulane (PhD student)
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
Sydney, Australia
New Orleans
New Orleans
City of New Orleans
FQC President
FQ
BGMA, Ltd.
Tulane University Law School
Funky 544, Fat Catz
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
City of New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
Blue Nile
New Orleans Health Department
New Orleans
New Orleans
City of New Orleans
FQ 1954 to date
Florida
Quest Technologies
Chicago
New Orleans
Columbia College, Hearing
Conservation Workshop
MACCNO/ President SHNO
Uptown
Metarie, LA
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 121
Jan
Ramsey
Owner
John
Stewart
Sinclair
Smith
Marlon
Mimi's
Walter
Stephen
Smith
Staff
Stern
Swain
Dale
Tom
Jeffrey
Jeanne
Thayer
Thayer
Treffinger
Turnipseed
Paul
VanOrden
poet, historian
attorney
Compliance Guidance
Group
venue workers
historian
Business manager
Senior City
Environmental Planner
club manager
Architect
resident
Noise Enforcement
Officer
Alexandre
Irene
Jeffrey
Robert
Justin
Vilaou
Wainwright
Walls
Watters
Winch
Eric
Zwerling
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Citizen activist
Head Louisiana Division
NOPD
Entertainment Owner
Law Clerk
acoustical
consultant/training
specialist
New Orleans
Amsterdam,
Holland
New Orleans
Off Beat Magazine
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
OSHA
Mimi's in the Marigny
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
Portland, OR
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Orleans
New Brunswick,
NJ
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Smith Stag
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
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:
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 123
•
•
•
•
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: [email protected]
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 Ressocialização 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 Ministério Público Estadual de Rondônia state, a body of independent public prosecutors of the
Rondônia state. Lecturers come from órgãos 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.
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 124
APPENDIX I
PROPOSED PHASES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOUND ENFORCEMENT AND
AWARENESS PROGRAM
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 125
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 126
NOLA Soundscape
8/5/2013
Oxford Acoustics
11-01883-01
Appendix
Page 127

APPENDICIES for NEW ORLEANS SOUND ORDINANCE AND

Transcription

Similar documents

MAKE MUSIC NOLA: MAKING MORE THAN MUSICIANS, NEW

Inthis season of reflection, we at The Times

PDF - 1.84 Mo

theBoom "O"

Love_NewOrleans - BBC Destination Management

New Oxford Shopping Center

Landry Wedding - NOLA Wedding Guide

only seven Years Qld,~~~~~n,i,t{~fJ!:i~qg,/iis s

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

30 Free Things To Do Brochure