In case you haven't seen this one...

OFF THE WIRE
www.calaverasenterprise.com/articles/2010/04/09/news/news02_noise.txt

Proposed decibel-based law moves forward after discussion
By Claudette Langley

Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 10:00 AM CDT

Dot and Carl Rasmussen told the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors
Tuesday that a neighbor's constant shooting has severely impacted their
quality of life in the past nine years.

The couple, whose home is off Murphys Grade Road, testified at the
board's study session on a noise ordinance and urged supervisors to come
up with an enforcement tool to help residents like themselves who are
constantly barraged with noise. The outline of the ordinance presented
by Sheriff's Office Capt. Jim Macedo had shooting and motorcycle noise
included with a question mark, and the Rasmussens drove home the need to
include at least one of them.

"Since 2001, we have had a neighbor who decides to shoot every gun
imaginable all day long," Dot Rasmussen said. "I even believe he has
little cannons. He sits on his porch drinking beer and shooting from
sunup to sundown."
The Rasmussens said the pulsing noise echoing across the canyon from the
neighbor has essentially destroyed every family gathering to the point
that they no longer hold them at their home. Dot Rasmussen told the
board that the Sheriff's Office has come out a couple of times, but
there was nothing that could be done for them.

The Rasmussens' plight highlighted many of the distressed pleas the
Board of Supervisors has heard from residents over the past few years.
The complaints range from the incessant whine of dirt bikes to roosters
to the music blasting from boats on Lake Tulloch.

Macedo was before the board Tuesday with a draft outline of an ordinance
and some questions on how to approach creating a law with teeth that his
department can use when it's called to these types of complaints.

Macedo gave a PowerPoint presentation that walked the board the audience
through some of the meat of such an ordinance and also showed the amount
of time the Sheriff's Office has been spending on the calls.

In 2007, the department responded to 517 calls, in 2008 there were 450
and in 2009 there were again 450.

"We are averaging about 473 noise complaint calls a year," Macedo said.
"That averages out to about a total of 17 days or 38 work shifts per
year spent on noise complaints."

Those figures helped highlight why not only the populace, but also the
Sheriff's Office itself said it wants an ordinance to control noise.

"This is time we could spending out dealing with felony crimes," Macedo
said.

He also said that over the course of the past couple of years he has
completely changed his mind about what kind of ordinance it should be.

"At first I was against a decibel-based ordinance, but now I believe
it's the best way to go," Macedo said.

He told the board that a decibel-based ordinance would give the
Sheriff's Office more en-forcement ability and would also stand up in
court better if a citation were challenged. He said that he's done some
initial research on the decibel meters that deputies would need to use
and that they range in price from $119 to $900 and that the department
would likely purchase from six to eight of the devices.

Assistant County Counsel Janis Elliott, upon whose shoulders the
development of an ordinance fell, agreed with Macedo about using
decibels versus subjective approaches to citing people for violations.

She explained that when she was first tasked with developing the
ordinance, the board had made it clear it didn't want a decibel-based
system.
However, Macedo's presentation and argument appeared to change that
thinking, at least initially. The board seemed more amenable to going
with decibel meters at the end of the study session.

Before supervisors gave its direction to Elliott and Macedo for crafting
a law that would be brought back for possible passage, they also heard
many of the specifics that could be included.

Macedo asked the board to give him direction on whether there should be
a fine system involved in the ordinance, how to establish times and
hours of unreasonable noise and whether to include shooting and
motorcycles.

All of the elements appeared to carry with them a host of exceptions
that needed to be looked at before setting them in stone. Macedo pointed
out that with the hours and times that there would have to be
consideration of commercial ventures like bars that are allowed to stay
open until 2 a.m. and special events in the county that might go past,
say, a 10 p.m. "quiet time" requirement.

He also said there would not be interference from his department for
events such as celebrations, parades, etc.

"For example every year during the Calaveras High School homecoming
there are kids beating on drums around the clock," he said. "We get a
noise complaint, check to see if the kids are safe and they continue
beating their drums. We have no intention of interfering with that."
He made a distinction between egregious noisemaking, where someone is
purposely doing something to annoy others, and unintentional noise. He
also said that while it is always preferable that neighbors try and
resolve noise disputes themselves, there are clearly times when that
won't be possible.

He gave the example of an elderly lady in Valley Springs who was making
complaints against what turned out to be a drug house frequented by gang
members and felons.

"In a case like that, I am not going to tell her to talk with her
neighbors or write a letter," he said.

Other aspects of a law include leveraging financial penalties against
property owners for repeated offenses. The penalties could include
reimbursing the county for the costs of Sheriff's Office response if
deputies are called out a second time or more.

In addition to covering the sheriff's costs, the property owners could
also face progressive criminal penalties. The outline stated that the
first violation be considered an infraction and any subsequent
violations could end up being a misdemeanor.

One thing Macedo made clear was that agricultural noise would likely not
be included, as it might interfere with the "right to farm" regulations
in Calaveras County. He also added that there are certain situations,
including shooting and motorcycles, that are already covered by other
county regulations or state codes and that those would supercede the
ordinance.

Tuesday's outline was clearly a document in the making, and Macedo sat
scribbling notes as the board and audience commented. The general
consensus from supervisors was that the ordinance should be
decibel-based and that shooting and motorcycles should be explored as
part of the ordinance, as well as a fine system and reasonable times and
hours requirements.

Only one of the supervisors stated that she was against such a detailed
ordinance.

"I can't say that I support it," Supervisor Merita Callaway said.

She added that there appeared to be too many unknowns, particularly in
the area of shooting and fines.

Despite her concerns Macedo and Elliott were directed to take the input
and discussion and come back at a later date with a draft ordinance that
reflected Tuesday's study session.
Contact Claudette Langley at clangley@calaverasenterprise.com.