Agoura Hills council directs preparation of business‑license revocation after long-running noise dispute with New Era Performance

The Agoura Hills City Council on Jan. 22 directed staff to prepare a resolution to revoke the business license of New Era Performance and Tuning LLC after a public hearing that reviewed years of complaints and a city‑commissioned acoustical study. The council voted 5‑0 to ask the city attorney and staff to draft a revocation resolution for return at the council’s Feb. 12 meeting.

What the council considered

City prosecutor Eric Marcus presented findings and a legal framework showing the dynamometer (dyno) operations at New Era produced noise that exceeded Agoura Hills’ commercial noise limits. Marcus cited Agoura Hills Municipal Code §93.05 (noise limits) and §68.19 (authority to revoke business licenses) and asked the council to find that the business constitutes a public nuisance under AMC §1,200.

The city’s retained acoustical consultant, Robert Wu of Acoustics Group, Inc., testified that he conducted short‑term and continuous monitoring at locations adjacent to New Era’s site and identified 15 distinct dyno runs. He said roughly 10 of those runs had LEQ values above 65 dBA and that several Lmax values reached the 70s and 80s, with some instantaneous peaks reported in the report up to the 80–90 dBA range. Wu described his equipment as precision, Type 1 instrumentation and said he reviewed WAV audio and waveform data to distinguish dyno events from other engine revving or ambient sources.

Timeline and background presented in the hearing

- Complaints first reported to the city in 2017; city staff and the owner met in 2018, and the owner agreed at that time to operate the dyno with the roll‑up door closed and to pursue sound insulation. - The city received recurring complaints starting about 2021 and later retained Acoustics Group, Inc. to perform focused testing and a long‑term measurement. - Acoustics Group conducted measurements in late August/early September and again Sept. 28, 2024, and summarized results identifying 15 clear dyno runs with many runs exceeding the city’s daytime limit of 65 dBA.

Owner’s response and testimony

Alexander Esparza, owner of New Era Performance, disputed aspects of the evidence and said he received some materials late. Esparza said he installed a heavy insulated garage door on Aug. 1, 2024, at a cost of $15,404 (receipt provided in the hearing record), and said he keeps the door closed when practical. Esparza objected to admitting raw WAV audio files the city’s consultant captured; the council agreed not to admit the WAV files into evidence at the hearing, while allowing the consultant to testify based on processed results.

Esparza and witnesses called by the business owner said the shop’s operations had been modified, that some monitoring had produced readings while the shop was closed, and that the owner attempts to cooperate with neighbors. Several neighboring business representatives testified they had not observed the disruptive noise since improvements were made: Danny Cricca (Danny’s Automotive) said he did not hear disruptive noise after the owner’s modifications; Stacy Poitras (Eastwood Ranch Foundation) and Garrett Petrulla (Precision Concrete Cutting) said they do not consider the shop’s activity a persistent problem in their daily operations.

Council action and direction

At the conclusion of testimony and deliberations the council voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare a resolution revoking business license number 006982 for New Era Performance and Tuning LLC and to return that resolution for council action at the Feb. 12, 2025 meeting. Council members explained the motion does not itself revoke the license tonight but instructs staff to draft findings and a resolution based on the hearing record.

Motion and vote (formal action)

- Motion: Direct staff to prepare a resolution revoking business license number 006982 (New Era Performance and Tuning LLC) and return it to council for consideration at the Feb. 12, 2025 meeting. - Mover: Mayor Pro Tem Wolf - Second: Councilmember Deborah Klein Lopez (the transcript records the second as Councilmember Anderson for the roll call; the mover/second were recorded in the hearing as Mayor Pro Tem Wolf and Councilmember Anderson; council procedure accepted the motion and second) - Vote record: Councilmember Anderson — yes; Councilmember Chris Anstead — yes; Councilmember Deborah Klein Lopez — yes; Mayor Pro Tem Wolf — yes; Mayor Paul Sylvester — yes. - Tally: yes 5, no 0 - Outcome: approved; staff directed to prepare the revocation resolution for Feb. 12 with findings drawn from the hearing record.

Why this matters

Agoura Hills’ municipal code makes any operation that violates the city’s noise limits a public nuisance (AMC §1,200). Councilmembers and nearby business owners described long‑running friction: neighbors told the council the dyno noise had repeatedly disrupted recording studios, offices and customer meetings (testimony cited headaches, interrupted work and anxiety among residents and clients). The city’s consultant reported multiple dyno events above the city’s 65 dBA daytime limit; the council found the record sufficient to direct staff to draft a revocation resolution.

Clarifying details in the record

- Dates of city monitoring cited in the consultant’s report: August 29 — September 1, 2024 and September 28, 2024. - Number of distinct dyno runs identified in the consultant’s table: 15 (the acoustical report summarizes runs and Lavg/LEQ/Lmax values per event). - Run events exceeding 65 dBA: the consultant identified about 10 of the 15 events as exceeding 65 dBA at enforcement locations; some Lmax values were reported in the 70s and 80s and show instantaneous peaks higher. - Owner’s mitigation: receipt of $15,404 for an insulated roll‑up door installed Aug. 1, 2024; owner’s statement that the door is closed during many dyno runs and that he operates roughly “10%” of runs with door open (owner’s estimate given in council questioning).

What the council asked staff to do next

- Prepare a revocation resolution for return and adoption at the Feb. 12, 2025 council meeting and include findings drawn from the official hearing record. - Staff and the city attorney to set an effective date and handling of any interim compliance or enforcement steps as part of the drafted resolution.

Speakers and evidence

- City prosecutor Eric Marcus presented the staff case and legal standard (preponderance of evidence; notice requirements). He introduced the Acoustics Group report and identified the business license and written complaint history. - Robert Wu, Principal, Acoustics Group, Inc., testified about instrumentation, continuous monitoring, identification of dyno events and the resulting LEQ/LMAX results. - Alexander Esparza, owner, disputed parts of the record, produced evidence of the August 2024 insulated garage door purchase and produced witnesses from adjacent businesses who testified they do not perceive ongoing, frequent disruptive noise.

Authorities referenced in the hearing

- Agoura Hills Municipal Code §68.19 (business license revocation authority) - Agoura Hills Municipal Code §93.05 (noise standards for commercial districts: 65 dBA daytime limit, 60 dBA nighttime limit cited by staff) - Agoura Hills Municipal Code §1,200 (violations declared public nuisance)

Proper names in the record

New Era Performance and Tuning LLC; Acoustics Group, Inc.; Venen Clausen and Associates (previous consultant report referenced by parties); Agoura Hills Municipal Code.

Local context

Councilmembers said the matter has been ongoing for years and cited a pattern of complaints and prior meetings. Several adjacent businesses urged the council to weigh the disturbance testimony from music and recording businesses; the owner argued that many common vehicle noises in the corridor can also be loud and that he had already taken mitigation steps.

What to expect next

Staff will draft a revocation resolution with detailed findings based on the hearing record and return it to the council for consideration on Feb. 12, 2025. The council’s initial instruction does not itself revoke the license; further council action at the upcoming meeting will decide whether to finalize revocation or adopt any alternate measure.