I recently moved my family here after being stationed in Albuquerque New Mexico. I had 2 small children (now 4) that I wanted to raise in a neighborhood that would benefit their development so I specifically chose to move to Provo. Unfortunately there is a house in the neighborhood who will regularly play music with an extreme base component (infrasound) that could be heard / felt in every room in our home. We have called the city several times about this but was told that the noise didn't break any ordinance (dBA counts low frequencies less in its reading) . It came to the point where my family was crying because we couldn't escape the noise. We have considered moving several times. I appreciate the city reconsidering the sound ordinance. I am disappointed that specific terms are not written for bass/low frequency. I understand that typical microphones are not able to pick up these sounds, but a quick search on amazon shows devices for less than five hundred dollars that are capable of detecting these sounds. With a device to measure infrasound, I don't understand the complexity in prosecuting a infraction of low frequency sound limit than a break of the dBA sound ordinance. Please reconsider adding a infrasound component to the sound ordinance, possible using the dBC sounds scale.

Please help Provo residents live more peaceful lives by strengthening noise ordinances. My family and neighbors are consistently tortured by another neighbors constant and incessant playing of loud music with even louder bass. We live in an extremely quiet (except for this one neighbor) single family home neighborhood. Currently the noise ordinance only addresses decibel levels while bass is measured in hertz leaving a painful loophole in the ordinance and no discourse for the pursuit of peace. Such high levels of bass shake our walls and foundation making it inescapable since it vibrates our bones. No earplugs or fans stand a chance against bass. The bass is so intense that my children get frightened and think it is an earthquake. What is arguably worse than the bass episodes is living day to day life not knowing when it will come on and torture us and just simply have to wait until our. neighbor deems fit. This leaves a nonexistent level of control over our lives and peace since there is no way currently in the ordinances to address this. When the police are called by us and our neighbors over and over again, they sometimes turn the decibel volume down but the bass reigns supreme therefore never addressing the issue. I can see the ambient noise suggestion helping with this issue if it is written in a way to include bass hertz levels and not just decibel levels. Please consider including more inclusive verbiage on what a noise disturbance could entail so that bass can be addressed. After reading the staff memorandum bass component section I implore you to reconsider. Pursuing a disturbance of the peace violation is much more difficult than if bass fell under the noise ordinance keeping it more simple for officers to enforce and citizens to complain. If not, please suggest a way to get these issues with bass addressed. It is inhumane to live this way with our walls shaking and our children terrified all because one person wants to play their subwoofer. For context, below is a 3 month snapshot of how often we have experienced the bass torture. While none of these go past the 10 pm curfew, they disturb the peace and need a way to be addressed by the city. Thank you.

May (15)
5/2 Monday 5:20 pm - 5:57 pm 6:02 off at 640
5/3 Tuesday 6:37 - 6:42 pm
5/6 Friday 5:37 - 6:00, 7:28 - 7:43
5/7 Saturday 11:30 - 1230, 208 - 445 off? Back on at 530 - 7:35
5/8 Sunday 11:05 - 9:00
5/9 Monday 5:15 - 6:40, back on at 8:07 - 9:10
5/10 Tuesday 2:55 - 4:12
5/19 Thursday 5:02 - 9:37
5/23 Monday 4:00 - 10
5/24 Tuesday 7:23 - 10
5/25 Wednesday 3:45 - 5:00
5/26 Thursday 7-9
5/27 Friday 2:30 - 3:50 415- 440
5/29 Sunday 5:26 - 5:33 - 8:00
5/31 Tuesday 11:00 - 1120 1245 - 2 450 - 520

June (15)
6/3 Friday 8:30 pm - 11
6/4 Saturday 12:45 5:45
6/5 Sunday 4:55 - 7:30 back on at 815 -9
6/6 Monday 12:40 - 3:13
6/7 Tuesday 5:15 - 10
6/9 Thursday 5:30 - 751, 830 - 915
6/10 Friday 2:45 - 8
6/11 Saturday 10:50- 2:04 6:05- 8:10
6/12 Sunday 9:18 - 11:00 3:17 - 9
6/13 Monday 2:14 - 7:31
6/14 Tuesday 505- 8
6/22 Wednesday 515- 10
6/23 Thursday 645- 735, 805- 851, 901-935
6/25 Saturday 3:30 - 404 416- 804- 850
6/26 Sunday 8:46 am - 9 am 855 pm - 10

July (6)
7/2 Saturday 6:35 - 700
7/7 Thursday 5:08 - 10
7/10 Sunday 5:58- 701
7/11 Monday 1:12 - 2:47
7/12 Tuesday 6:07 - 624
7/16 Saturday 712 - 830

Neil Hinckley, 1343 North 2710 West, Provo, Utah.
Hi, Am I understanding the new sound pressure levels correctly? 55 dbA average sound pressure level, with 5 dbA for a peak measurement of 60 dbA ? My situation, nobody seems to understand what I've been putting up with for 14 winters! Starting November 2010. The individual moved a camper trailer, in to his brothers back yard. Southeast corner of the property. 2677 West 1390 North, Provo. From November to May, I've had to put up with his stereo playing, all hours of the night and day! Usually starts after the 10 PM curfew! When I contacted Officer Brough at Community Oriented Policing, he managed to get the volume turned down, but not the bass! A few years ago. Problem not solved! Yes he may be staying close to 59 dbA, but the bass still carries into my house! The bass is 3-4 dbA above my tinnitus! That makes sleep difficult!
By May of this year, that works out to 7 years of poor or non existent sleep, which is causing health issues!

The easiest way for me to explain my situation is, you're sitting in a quiet movie theatre, the theatre next-door has a loud action scene, all you hear is bass rumble! No mid or high frequencies, they don't readily travel through walls! The bass is affecting my sleep! If I stand against my Eastern neighbors' fence, facing the camper trailer, all I hear is bass coming out of it! in a residential setting, it's very upsetting! Trying to mask it with a radio or white noise generator, I can't compete with his bass! Milliwatts vs high powered stereo, with bass settings on max!
The same situation with apartments/townhome/condo situation! The bottom line, if any bass can be heard at property lines, someone will be affected! It's an issue! I made comments, that were forwarded, to the study meeting last year!

I have been in contact with community development, and community oriented policing, in the past. I'm still gathering evidence; to prove he's living in the trailer. Sound logs, I hear bass, he's in the trailer. And at various times of the night, he turns it up! Security camera screen shots, with date time stamps. And infrared thermal imaging, the trailer is warm, there for occupied! Trailer door being slammed at all hours of the night!
Any questions? Please text me at (801) 372-7699, I will return the call.

Thanks, Neil Hinckley.
I

Where is the noise level measured? Distance has a lot to do with perceived loudness. Will police be measuring at the neighboring property line? This should be specified so citizens know what to expect.

Personally, the 55dB limit at night sounds great. I think 65dB during the day is too low. A lawnmower is 90dB standing next to it. Under this ordinance, everyone in the city could waste the police's time every time someone got close to their property line with a mower. Something more reasonable like 75dB or 80dB seems practical while containing the sound.

I lived in a city where there wasn't a specific dB limit. Instead, citizens could call in a noise complaint whenever they were bothered. This is far more practical, as decibels have little to do with how loud we perceive sound. For example, if I played 100dB of low frequencies, no human would think it was that loud. On the other hand, if I played 100dB of high-frequency content, everyone would cover their ears.

If you do want to use a scale, I recommend LUFS over decibels as LUFS integrates how humans perceive sound, a far more accurate measurement of annoyance.

Also, who will be responding to complaints? If the answer is cops, I'm opposed to the entire ordinance. Police are violent, they bring violence to our neighborhoods and our city council needs to be a check on their power not giving cops more reasons to bother citizens.

I met John while taking a community course through UVU. Stand up guy! Just the kind of person we need representing the neighborhood!

A few thoughts as a property owner in the unannexed northeast neighborhood. The proposed Northeast Neighborhood plan appears to be a bit shortsighted as it pertains to future land use, annexation, and trail access.
- Limiting future land use to RA or A1 limits the growth and expansion of the city. HDR is probably not the best fit but a mix of residential densities from RA to LDR strategically placed through this area would appear to better serve the needs of the city and residents.
-Inaccurately portrays the desires of property owners within the unannexed area. I have had conversations and meetings with actual property owners (neighboring properties) with total land ownership of 170+ acres in the unannexed area that feel the RA/A1 zoning is misguided. Possibly a limited effort has been given to contacting actual property owners in the unannexed area. I believe I received a letter at some point asking about desires regarding annexation. The letter did not include a return envelope, website link, or QR code for providing online feedback. I figured they must not want feedback very badly due to limited ways to respond and never responded. I assume some of my neighbors did the same.
- Provides little incentive for unannexed property owners to annex into the city. When a property owner desires to annex, they are typically (but not always) seeking a change in land use or want to do something not possible within the county. Much of the existing unannexed land in this area is agricultural. If the city's annexation plan is to only bring existing agricultural land in as agricultural but the landowner prefers something different, why would the landowner want to join the city if they received the same land use.
- Limits the diversity and equality of housing. Development in A1/RA zoning would result in properties that only those in the wealthiest demographic could afford. Mixed lower density residential zones would still result in fairly high-cost properties but may open the door to additional demographics.
- Proposed future zoning discourages development which limits additional trail access. Current legal public access to trails in this area is limited to the Indian Road Trail head (IRT) and the BST access near East Lawn cemetery, with the IRT being the primary access point with parking, etc. Both access points are great but fairly limiting due to: limited trail options, significant elevation gain, steep grades, and long distances before reaching other trail options. I served on the Utah Valley Trails association committee that assisted with the development of the Provo Foothills Trail Master Plan. Most of the current and future trails on the trail master plan are in the Kyhv Peak Road area. Development in the northeast area can provide additional legal trail access points. These access points could be at higher elevations than current access points, which will provide less elevation gain, shorter distances to additional trails in the Kyhv Peak Road Area, as well as the possibility for additional trails that would accommodate a wider demographic. These opportunities are much easier obtained by additional development in the Northeast area.
- Some of the maps included in the plan are small and somewhat difficult to determine where boundaries lie as it relates to specific parcels and areas. They also appear to be somewhat inaccurate and misleading as they pertain to developable land within the unannexed area. There is considerable development land some that presents difficulties while some that doesn’t, but it all seems to be lumped together. This can lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Thank you

I am concerned about what high density housing would do to the north east portion of Provo (canyon road and further east). These mature neighborhoods and older infrastructure, including roads, are not suitable for high density housing. Around campus, near major roads and the airport…and the portions of town that need to be revitalized are the neighborhoods that’s make sense for high density housing. Please allow the farm and singles families zoning to remain intact for the north east corner of Provo. This is a unique and beautiful area that has thrived under current zoning.

The establishment of legal ADU's, one by one and interspersed in a neighborhood will result in the unalterable change in the nature of single family home neighborhoods. If the intent of Provo City is to change the nature of a neighborhood, then, change the entire neighborhood so that all know and live in a common land use. Individual changes in land use result in confusion over which homes are legal ADU's and which homes are operating as illegal duplexes. This confusion leads to resignation and steady movement to a different common denominator.

Provo City is recognized as one of the best municipalities in the United States. Why? Identify those strengths and ensure they are maintained. A range of housing types is one of the strengths. Homogenizing all neighborhoods results in the creation of amoebas with no unique multiply diverse structures or identities. Consider the creation by zoning of small subsections of existing neighborhoods providing for approved use for ADU establishment in that "pocket neighborhood." Pocket neighborhoods can be created by changing existing housing stock.

It looks like we have 3 good applicants to represent Grandview South Neighborhood. I do not know Charlayne, and so I cannot speak of her qualifications. I do know Julie Rose well. Julie hosts a radio podcast for BYU Radio called "Top of Mind." She is committed to serving her community and, because of her job, very well-informed on political issues. She is especially passionate about listening to others and understanding their concerns. She is also currently Young Women President in our ward and I have been very impressed with the way she has reached out to the girls and loved them. She is a hard worker and committed to doing her best with everything she does. She has my recommendation. However, I just learned that Melanie Epping has also applied for the position. I do not know Melanie as well, but do know that she has been remarkably willing to serve our neighborhood in a number of ways over the years. She is especially involved in the "Light the Hill" initiative on our hill and has been the driving force to make that happen. I expect Melanie would also be an excellent addition to the board. Wish we could have both!

I would prefer Laura Marre as the representative for the Wasatch neighborhood. She has wonderful experience with working in the community and she is a smart and kind person. She is very good to work with. Thanks.