Council Tables Noise Ordinance

By Jorge Casuso

Nov. 26 -- After a politically charged debate, the City Council voted 4 to 3 Tuesday night to table a new noise ordinance, with supporters charging the council majority with selling out to business interests.

The proposed ordinance -- which was backed by residents fed up with the din from neighboring commercial districts -- would have measured the level of noise from the point of reception, instead of its origin, and set up a transitional zone between businesses and residences.

Four years in the making and the subject of numerous hearings before the council and planning commission over the last six months, the ordinance also limited loud construction noise during early morning and late afternoon hours and banned certain commercial activities after 11 p.m., including deliveries and garbage disposal.

But Council members Michael Feinstein, Bob Holbrook, Herb Katz and Pam O'Connor opposed the main provision, arguing that not enough data had been gathered and that the potential impacts of the new ordinance on businesses had not been adequately gauged. They voted to revisit the ordinance without the transition zone and new method of measurement.

"It is very difficult to go with a one-size-fits-all," said Councilman Michael Feinstein, who made the successful motion to delay the ordinance until further studies could be done. "This will miss some people and be harsh on other people.

"We're talking about a massive radical shift in City policy and most of it has been done without council input… with almost a complete absence of data," Feinstein added. "It would be the height of irresponsibility to make the shift without data."

"The motive here is to work with the businesses to seek compliance to reduce negative impacts," O'Connor said.

Proponents argued that the measure was "moderate" and that every other city in Southern California with a noise ordinance used a method of measurement similar to the one under consideration.

"I feel really confident that these are reasonable standards," said Councilman Ken Genser. "I think if (Feinstein's) motion passes, it's an affront to the residents. This is a paradigm shift from a community where it's good to live to a community where it's good to make a buck."

"If the goal is not to have a noise ordinance, let's be frank with our constituents," said Mayor Richard Bloom. "We've spent four-and-a-half-years gaining input from the public.

"If we don't do it tonight, it's going to be a long, long time before we see a meaningful noise ordinance," Bloom said. "We owe it to our community and we owe it to ourselves."

While the dozen residents and business leaders who testified were divided over the new ordinance, many agreed that a key will be enforcement, which has been lacking under the current law.

"None of this will mean anything at all if there is no enforcement," said Anita Holcomb, who lives on 2nd Street behind the bustling Main Street commercial strip.

"The real problem seems to be enforcement," said Kathy Dodson, president of the Chamber of Commerce.

"I'm very concerned about enforcement," said Pier board member Elllen Brennan, who suggested that police should be trained in sound monitoring. "If you don't do that, this will be wind in the trees."

The proposed ordinance would add a planning staff member charged with proactively searching for noise violators. But most of the enforcement would remain on the shoulders of the City's police department. According to staff, 3,500 noise complaints were filed in 2002-2003. In about half of those cases, the noise had stopped by the time police arrived.

"Police will continue to respond to noise complaints," said Planning Director Suzanne Frick. "The (proposed ordinance) is not perfect, and it will not solve all of the problems that exist in this city, but it will provide a balance between the needs of businesses… and residents."

But opponents of the measure argued that there was not enough data to support the ordinance. They noted that according to staff, the number of complaints ranged from 3,500 in a year to 10,000 during the course of a year and a half.

What's more, it is unclear where the noise is coming from. Is it from noisy bar patrons, barking dogs, loud stereos, live music, sidewalk drunks?

"The noise complaints are scattered all over the city," Dodson said. "Music complaints mostly come from apartments and cars driving by."

Of the 306 complaints lodged on Main Street, 281 were "loud people on the sidewalks and parking lots" and only 25 were "directed at businesses," said Gary Gordon of the Main Street Merchants Association.

The 15 tests conducted for the proposed ordinance by the City -- none of which were taken on Main Street, the focus of the debate -- was "anemic," said Feinstein.

"What is the reality today, and what are the real impacts?" Feinstein said. "There is just no information. I'm not sure this (the ordinance) even deals with the complaints. Maybe it's some drunks on the sidewalk."

"I don't have enough information," said Councilman Herb Katz. "Until we do more research, I'm not prepared. What are we doing? Are we going to be shutting down nightlife?"

Proponents countered that main provisions of the ordinance struck by the majority would not be a burden on businesses. If fact, by creating a transitional zone of 55 decibels between the maximum 60 decibels for commercial areas and 50 for residential districts, the measure was more business-friendly than the current law.

"It extends an extra measure of caution to allow businesses to continue operating," Genser said. "Let's try it. If we find we've gone too far, then we could remove the transition zone."

The problem with the existing ordinance, proponents argued, isn't simply that it's not being enforced. Many of the most vocal complaints, they noted, have been lodged by neighbors who are kept up nights by a Main Street establishment that is complying with the law.

That's because the roof reverberates, amplifying the sound so that it is actually louder in the neighboring residences than outside the walls of the club.

"We are enforcing the ordinance," Genser said. "The ordinance is deficient. We have to fix it."