GPAC advances draft noise element with directions for labeling, tables and construction language

The General Plan Advisory Committee on Wednesday reviewed a subcommittee draft refresh of the city’s noise element and voted to forward the document to the steering committee, while asking staff and the subcommittee to clarify figure labels, restore or relocate CNEL tables to the municipal code, and soften construction best-practice language from mandatory requirements to encouragement.

The committee’s subcommittee chair, Jim Mosier, told members the draft is intended as a refresh of a noise element last amended in 2023 and that the subcommittee had met repeatedly to produce the current third draft. "This is not the city's first noise element. It actually will be the fourth," Mosier said, summarizing the element’s history and the subcommittee’s rationale for keeping policy numbering consistent with earlier documents.

Why it matters: The noise element directs how the city evaluates compatibility of land uses and responds to transportation and stationary noise sources, including contour maps for traffic and airport noise, construction standards, and measures for emerging aerial technologies such as drones and air taxis. Committee members argued that unclear figure labels and a confusing set of tables could undermine public understanding and implementation if not fixed now.

Key details: Staff and the consultant explained that traffic noise contours use city-supplied traffic inputs tied to general-plan buildout assumptions, while the airport contours presented were drawn from a 2014 settlement agreement and represent a 2030 projection. Mosier urged adding existing airport contours (the most recent annually published contours) alongside the projection so readers can see both current and future conditions. "I do think there is a need to update the label on figure n2," Mosier said, urging clearer captions and numbering for the foldout maps.

Tables and code alignment: The most contested portion involved two companion tables. One (compatibility table) uses letter codes (A–D) to indicate whether land uses are clearly allowed or require scrutiny under CNEL thresholds; the second attempted to summarize enforcement intervals and short‑term standards. Mosier argued the enforcement-level details belong in the municipal code, not the general-plan element, and recommended restoring the prior interior/exterior CNEL table (which matches building-code guidance) or otherwise referencing the municipal code for enforceable standards.

Construction policies: The draft proposes new language on vibration standards, an eight‑hour average noise limit for some construction activities, and a list of construction best practices. Several members, including Mosier and others, favored making the best-practice list an "encourage" item rather than a mandatory requirement, noting that short‑term construction impacts differ from long multi‑year work. Staff agreed these provisions can be softened to allow the city council and municipal-code processes to adopt any binding limitations.

Interagency coordination: Committee members asked that boating/noise enforcement language not single out only the police department; Paul Watkins and Mosier recommended explicit coordination with the harbor department and the sheriff's harbor patrol for marine enforcement responsibilities.

Process and next steps: Staff offered options for moving forward: the GPAC could send the draft to the steering committee while directing the subcommittee and staff to prepare a cleaned red-line (strikeout) version that addresses the tonight’s clarifications. The committee voted in favor of moving the draft to the steering committee with direction for clarifying edits; the transcript records "Motion passes" but does not provide a roll-call tally for that motion. Staff also said they will circulate the supplemental technical appendix (noise modeling methodology) and consider more zoomable/dynamic mapping online for public use.

Outreach and schedule: Staff reported about 13,000 unique visitors to the project site since the project began, 67 unique online comments for the posted draft elements, and additional open-house engagement. Deadlines cited: staff will compile comments received by Nov. 17 and expects to discuss implementation-program redlines in December, with a target of returning a more complete draft to the GPAC by mid‑January.

What remains open: Committee members requested explicit fixes — clearer figure labeling (existing vs. GPHE/buildout vs. future projection), restoration or municipal-code relocation of interior/exterior CNEL tables, and softening best-practice language — before the steering-committee review. The technical noise study (methodology appendix) will be posted as supplemental material for committee review.

The GPAC adjourned after a brief discussion of scheduling and other committee announcements.