Residents Organize to Turn Down the Noise

By Mark McGuigan

July 1 -- In an effort to lower the ever-increasing volume of urban life, members of a fledgling movement are urging City officials to adopt and enforce stronger laws to combat noise pollution.

The Citizen Task Force on Noise Abatement (CTFNA) met Monday evening to discuss the Proposed Noise Ordinance draft the Planning Commission will consider Wednesday, the first step in a quest some feel may prove as controversial as the 1998 ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

"Noise pollution is where second-hand smoke was 15 years ago," resident Dan Stuart announced to the clutch of "tired and weary residents" gathered at Ken Edwards Center.

The current update to the City’s Noise Ordinance is intended to "clarify the existing ordinance, address concerns raised by both the community and the City Council and improve the City’s ability to enforce the provisions of the Noise Ordinance," according to the staff report.

Stuart, who is an attorney, contends that staff’s proposal simply "looks and smells like sloppy drafting."

In its own document, the task force identified eight potential problems with the current City draft and requests that up to 18 amendments be considered prior to the City adopting any new noise ordinance.

One such amendment requires businesses -- bars and restaurants in particular -- to better control excessive noise on their property and to designate an employee "to take reasonable proactive steps to cause patrons to leave the area promptly and quietly."

This would hopefully prevent, in the words of one fed-up resident, "drunk people in parking lots screaming into their cell phones" in the wee early hours of the morning.

Another amendment calls for the adoption of "Maximum Noise Levels similar to those in many Southland communities," which would better define loud noise that continues for periods of less than 15 minutes and noises "perceived indoors," such as those heard within the confines of one’s home.

Both of these provisions have already been adopted by cities such as Irvine, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana and Manhattan Beach (see table below), but remain conspicuously absent from the Proposed Noise Ordinance in Santa Monica.

"Santa Monica only has two standards; instead of having a 0, 1, 5, 15 and 30 (minute duration like other cities), we only have a 15 and a zero (minute duration)," Stuart told the audience.

"Because there’s no 5 minute or 1 minute standard, in order for a sound that persists for 5 minutes to be a violation in Santa Monica during the day, it would have to be 80 decibels (dB)," he continued.

Eighty decibels is roughly equivalent to the noise made by a passing snowmobile and, according to Stuart, is a figure that is "way, way higher than any other city standard."

"The main problems I found with the ordinance is what it doesn’t do," said Stuart, citing parts of the draft that had removed the noise protection for schools, places of worship and libraries and the weakening restrictions on the noise levels of construction sites next to residential areas.

The task force proposal already has the blessing of Planning Commissioner Kelly Olsen, who opened the meeting by saying that it is "so on the mark, much closer to the truth and realities of what cities need to do."

He urged the task force to work with the Planning Commission, which he said was on the side "of doing the right thing."

The Citizen Task Force for Noise Abatement intends to present its proposal to the Planning Commission at the Wednesday meeting in City Hall. If nothing else, their voices will be heard.

*Because Santa Monica has no 1-minute or 5-minute standard, in order for a nuisance of less than 15 minutes to be a violation, it would have to exceed 70dB during the night and 80dB during the day.