HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial 2023-11-27 Item 2 - Ordinance - Noise RegulationsCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
11/27/23
LH
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
4.F. &
Spec 2
STAFF SPONSOR: LAUREL HUMPHREY
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 11/27/23
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Ordinance clarifying noise regulations
CATEGORY ® Discussion
Mfg Date 11/27/23
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
® Ordinance
Mtg Date 11/27/23
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ® Council ® Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY
The City Council is asked to review a draft ordinance clarifying noise regulations as
codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 8.22.
REVIEWED BY
❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC
DATE:
❑ Arts Comm.
❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED
AMOUNT BUDGETED
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
11/27/23
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
11/27/23 Informational memo with attachments
Draft ordinance
99
100
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nora Gierloff, DCD Director
Kari Sand, City Attorney
CC: Allan Ekberg, Mayor
David Cline, City Administrator
Mark Hafs, Public Works EIS Project Director
DATE: November 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Noise Ordinance History and Proposed Ordinance Recommendation
ISSUE
The intent is to follow up on prior discussions and propose noise control ordinance amendments
that better align Tukwila's code with the noise control codes of other cities.
BACKGROUND
In 2010, the Department of Community Development and the Police Department jointly developed
a new noise ordinance, codified in TMC chapter 8.22 ("Noise Code"). One of the motivations was
to provide the Police with an avenue to address noise disturbances without the use of a decibel
meter, something not generally available to patrol officers.
The new Noise Code language provided two enforcement approaches, see TMC 8.22.050 in
Attachment A. One approach continued the prior use of a decibel level table, which requires the
use of sound measuring devices and was intended for ongoing commercial operations and noise
created by equipment such as HVAC units, generators, and trash compactors. These routine,
recurring noise sources would be required to install permanent noise mitigation measures that
would bring the noise below the allowed levels in the table.
The second approach was to include a new "plainly audible" standard that would use the hearing
and judgment of a code enforcement or police officer and was intended to allow enforcement of
sporadic noise created by activities such as loud parties, power equipment, or car audio systems.
These types of noises would be mitigated by stopping the activity or turning down the amplification
of audio systems.
Despite the legislative intent for the two different approaches to be applied to distinctly different
types of noise, the Noise Code language makes no clear distinction for the different types of noise
and allows either enforcement approach to be used, see Attachment A. There is no limitation in
the Noise Code about which approach is appropriate for which circumstance.
A Tukwila resident, Greg Sherlock, continues to express that the plainly audible standard, rather
than the decibel level table, should be applied to his ongoing complaint about noise from the
Sabey Intergate East data center. Staff provided a briefing on the history of this issue to the
Council on August 15, 2022, and Council's direction was to continue to prioritize work to resolve
the noise complaint while also asking the PCD Committee to consider amendments to the
ordinance at a future time, see timeline below.
101
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Mr. Sherlock and representatives from the Sabey Corporation met with the King County Dispute
Resolution Center in November 2023 and had follow-up discussions, yet the noise issue remains
unresolved.
DISCUSSION
On July 28, 2023, the Mayor and City Council President sent a joint letter to Mr. Sherlock
(Attachment C) asking that he participate in a noise study to identify and correct the noise at the
source of his complaints. While some discussions took place no agreement was reached.
In September 2023, the City began the process of hiring an acoustical consultant to study the
effects of noise on Mr. Sherlock's property and identify measures to reduce those effects. Staff
reached out to local consultants who are qualified to conduct such a noise study and found several
who had not worked with either the City or Sabey Corporation. We asked Mark Hafs from Public
Works to lead the project, as Mr. Hafs has experience with noise studies, which are often part of
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) studies, similar to the one he is leading for the Truck
reroute project EIS in Allentown.
Based on this experience, we suggest the following approach:
• Rewrite the City's noise ordinance to distinguish sporadic nuisance noise from
routine, recurring noise sources (such as those generated by the Sabey Intergate East
data center) and provide a greater level of detail about how sporadic nuisance noise
should be regulated and resolved.
• Using the rewritten code as a starting point, restart talks with Mr. Sherlock as a
good -faith effort to reach a solution to his noise concerns. Include the services of a noise
consultant as needed to help understand — in the context of the rewritten ordinance - how
Mr. Sherlock's property is being affected by noise from the Sabey data center and identify
methods for reducing the effects of that noise.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City plans to conduct an independent noise study utilizing the new noise ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Amend the noise ordinance as shown in Attachment B to clarify the different regulation and
treatment of sporadic nuisance noise. Codifying the legislative intent that the plainly audible
standard is to be used for "in the moment" enforcement of short-term events while the decibel
level table is appropriate for ongoing or reoccurring noise generation by equipment or commercial
activity would provide clarity for Code Enforcement, Police Officers, and the community at large.
In addition, the proposal is to delete the definition of noise sensitive unit in TMC 18.22.020. The
only place this term was used was for nighttime noise received by residences, schools, religious
institutions, libraries, and hospitals. In Tukwila, few of those institutional uses operate during
nighttime hours anyway. Sporadic noise within residential zones will continue to be subject to
TMC 8.22.050.3.b, which will limit plainly audible nuisance noises at all times of the day and night.
In all zones plainly audible sporadic noise from motor vehicles and commercial music will continue
to be unlawful. Residential uses in commercial or mixed -use zones will continue to have the
protection of the decibel table against unwanted noise.
102
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Future Possible Actions
November/December 2023 — City Council could review and adopt more streamlined and
defensible noise ordinance
City Work Plan Item for 2024 — City could conduct independent third -party noise study under
revised noise ordinance to ensure compliance to clear standard.
ATTACHMENTS
A. TMC 8.22.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels (section of current code) (Note: The
maximum permissible sound levels codified in TMC 8.22.050 are consistent with those
adopted in state law. See WAC 173-60-040.)
B. Proposed Draft Ordinance
C. July 28, 2023 Letter to Mr. Sherlock from the City Council and Mayor's Office
D. Comparable noise control regulations
E. Kitsap Sun newspaper article, dated February 9, 2020
103
104
Attachment A — Section of Existing Code
TMC 8.22.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels
It is a violation to produce sound in excess of the permissible sound levels established by this
chapter.
1. No person may produce or permit to be produced sound that exceeds the following
maximum permissible sound levels when measured at or within the boundary of a receiving
property:
District of
Sound
Producing
Source
District of
Receiving Property
Residential
Daytime
Residential,
Nighttime
Commercial
industrial
Residential
55 dB(A)
45 dB(A)
57 dB(A)
60 dB(A)
Commercial
57 dB(A)
47 dB(A)
60 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
Industrial
60 dB(AI
50 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
2. At any hour of the day or night, the applicable noise limitations above may be exceeded
for any receiving property by no more than:
a. 5 dB(A) for a total of 15 minutes in any one -hour period;
b. 10 dB(A) for a total of 5 minutes in any one -hour period; or
c. 15dB(A) for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one -hour period.
3. The following also exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels:
a. In all districts of the City, no sound from a sound -producing source is permitted
that is:
1) plainly audible from a motor vehicle sound system at a distance of at least 50
feet from the vehicle itself; or
2) plainly audible commercial music at a distance of at least 50 feet from the
property line of the commercial establishment; or
3) plainly audible during nighttime hours from within a noise -sensitive unit of the
receiving property; and
b. When the receiving property is in a residential district, no sound from a sound -
producing source is permitted that is plainly audible at a distance of at least 50 feet from
the exterior of a sound -producing source, including sounds created by any motor vehicle
operated off public highways.
(Ord. 2293 §6, 2010)
105
106
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 2293 §2, §3, §5, AND §6, AS
CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC)
CHAPTER 8.22, "NOISE," TO CLARIFY NOISE
REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC") Chapter 8.22 —
Noise to regulate the impacts of noise on the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to address the legitimate public concern of noise pollution
in a thoughtful and targeted manner; and
WHEREAS, the legislative intent of the adoption of TMC Chapter 8.22 was to have two
different approaches to regulate ongoing verses sporadic nuisance noise; and
WHEREAS, despite this legislative intent, TMC Chapter 8.22 makes no clear distinction
for the different types of noise and allows either enforcement approach to be used; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend TMC Chapter 8.22 to clarify the different
regulation, treatment, and enforcement of different noise types; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments set forth herein are in the
interest of the public's health, safety and welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the
foregoing recitals and incorporates them herein as support for these amendments.
Section 2. TMC Section 8.22.010 Amended. Ordinance No. 2293 §2, as codified
at Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 8.22.010, "Purpose," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
CC:\Legislative Development\Clarify Noise Code 11-21-23
K. Sand
Page 1 of 4
107
8.22.010 Purim wTpvsePolicy and Application
and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwisc establish or dcsignato
any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or
benefited by the terms of this chapter.
A. It is the policy of the City to minimize the exposure of citizens to the physiological
and psychological effects of excessive noise and to protect, promote and preserve the
public health, safety and welfare. It is the express intent of the City to control the level of
noise in a manner which promotes commerce; the use, value and enjoyment of property;
sleep and repose; and the quality of the environment.
B. The following environments have been identified and approaches adopted:
1. Use of Property. The different zoning districts of the City establish lawful
uses which can be anticipated to produce noise at certain reasonable levels associated
with these uses. The provisions of TMC Section 8.22.050 utilize thresholds consistent
with those set forth in Chapter 70A.20 RCW entitled "Noise Control" and Chapter 173-60
WAC entitled "Maximum Environmental Noise Levels." Regulation of noise due to the use
of property for commercial and industrial purposes or operation of fixed equipment in any
zone is appropriate for the use of noise measuring devices and a decibel -based
approach. Properly trained and certified City staff or a certified consultant trained in the
field of sound level measurement can be utilized in these situations when warranted.
2. Sporadic noise that is loud and raucous, such as noise due to social
gatherings, car repair, landscape maintenance, or amplified music, and noise generated
for the purpose of annoyance, is more episodic in nature and subject to the plainly audible
standard. The provisions of TMC Section 8.22.050(3) are aimed at those situations that
are difficult or impossible to address through measurement pursuant to TMC Sections
8.22.050(1) and (2). In administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter, the City
desires to coordinate the application of these two (2) approaches.
3. Similarly, public uses of the rights -of -way, such as parades, and First
Amendment speech such as a lawful demonstration should be differentiated from pure
commercial speech. Pure commercial speech has been defined by the U.S. Supreme
Court as speech "which does no more than propose a commercial transaction." Such
speech while protected is susceptible of regulation; provided, that the City address the
legitimate public concern of noise pollution in a thoughtful and targeted manner. The
content of the speech shall not be considered against any person in determining a
violation of this Chapter.
4. Finally, the City recognizes that the use of bells, chimes, carillons, and drums
may constitute a call to worship and accordingly such a use is protected as religious
speech under the First Amendment. These noises are appropriate when limited by
reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Section 3. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2293 §3, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code
(TMC) Section 8.22.020, "Definitions," subparagraph 17, is hereby repealed, thereby
eliminating this subparagraph and renumbering the list in this section:
CC:\Legislative Development\Clarify Noise Code 11-21-23
K. Sand
Page 2 of 4
108
17. "Noise sensitive unit" means real property used as a residence, school,
Section 4. TMC Section 8.22.040 Amended. Ordinance No. 2293 §5, as codified
at Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 8.22.040, "Measurement of Sound," is hereby
amended to read as follows:
8.22.040 Measurement of Sound
A. The use of a sound level meter is not required to verify a plainly audible noise
complaint for sporadic noisevielatien.
B. If the measurement of sound is made with a sound level meter, it shall be an
instrument in good operating condition and shall meet the requirement for a Type I or
Type II instrument, as described in American National Standards Institute Specifications,
ANSI S1.4-1983. If the measurements are made with other instruments or assemblages
of instruments, the procedure must be carried out in such a manner that the overall
accuracy shall be at least that called for in ANSI S1.4-1983 for Type II instruments.
Section 5. TMC Section 8.22.050 Amended. Ordinance No. 2293 §6, as codified
at Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 8.22.050, "Maximum Permissible Sound
Levels," is hereby amended to read as follows:
8.22.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels
It is a violation to produce sound in excess of the permissible sound levels established
by this chapter.
1. No person may produce or permit to be produced sound that exceeds the
following maximum permissible sound levels when measured at or within the boundary
of a receiving property:
District of
Sound
Producing
Source
District of
Receiving Property
Residential
Daytime
Residential,
Nighttime
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
55 dB(A)
45 dB(A)
57 dB(A)
60 dB(A)
Commercial
57 dB(A)
47 dB(A)
60 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
Industrial
60 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
65 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
2. At any hour of the day or night, the applicable noise limitations above may
be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than:
a. 5 dB(A) for a total of 15 minutes in any one -hour period;
b. 10 dB(A) for a total of 5 minutes in any one -hour period; or
c. 15dB(A) for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one -hour period.
3. The following sporadic noise also exceeds the maximum permissible sound
levels and is not permitted:
CC:\Legislative Development\Clarify Noise Code 11-21-23
K. Sand
Page 3 of 4
109
a. In all districts of the City, no sound from a sound -producing source is
permitted that is:
1) plainly audible from a motor vehicle sound system at a distance of
at least 50 feet from the vehicle itself; or
2) plainly audible commercial music at a distance of at least 50 feet
from the property line of the commercial establishments.
3) plainly audible during nighttime hours from within a noise sensitive
unit of the receiving property• and
e
b. When the receiving property is in a residential district, no sound from a
sound- producing source is permitted that is plainly audible at a distance of at least 50
feet from the exterior of a sound -producing source, including sounds created by any motor
vehicle operated off public highways.
Section 6. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make
necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of scrivener's errors;
references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance
numbering and section/subsection numbering.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2023.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Allan Ekberg, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney
CC:\Legislative Development\Clarify Noise Code 11-21-23
K. Sand
Ordinance Number:
Page 4 of 4
110
Attachment C - July 28, 2023 Letter
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Mayor's Office - David Cline, City Administrator
July 28, 2023
Sent via email to pacific12435@yahoo.com
Greg Sherlock
12435 Tukwila International Blvd
Tukwila WA 98168
Re: Sabey Data Center Noise Complaints
Hello Mr. Sherlock,
We are interested in addressing your ongoing noise concerns through a sound study conducted by
an independent, qualified third -party consultant, hopefully with your support and within your home.
The sound study is necessary to establish a baseline against which to capture and track the
effectiveness of any noise mitigation measures taken to ensure a noise reduction occurs.
As the sound study is conducted, we will engage with the Sabey Corporation to explore steps
towards mitigation as they have expressed their willingness and cooperation to resolve the matter.
The results of the noise study will be used to identify effective noise mitigation measures, which are
intended to reduce noise in and around your property and other adjacent residential areas.
As it's been a few weeks since the Council's letter, again we would like to express our interest in
knowing if you are willing to participate with us in the noise study.
Sincerely,
Allan Ekberg
Mayor
Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson
Council President
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
111
112
Attachment D — Comparable Noise Control Regulations
Renton - Chapter 7 Noise Level Regulation
Renton utilizes a similar two -prong approach to noise regulation:
For maximum environmental noise levels, Renton adopted WAC 173-60-20 through 173-
60-90, which include the same decibel chart included in Tukwila's code.
For public disturbance noises, Renton does not require a decibel reading, but prohibits
"unreasonable noise that disturbs another."
o Renton prohibits sounds from motor vehicles that interfere with conversation or
cause vibrations to be felt from a distance of 75 feet.
Kent - Chapter 8.05 Noise Control
Kent also utilizes the two -prong approach:
8.05.090: Maximum permissible environmental noise levels — this section uses the same
decibel chart taken from the WACs referenced above. The decibel levels are measures
by a sound level meter from the receiving property.
8.05.180 — Public nuisance noises prohibited — this section is vaguer than Renton or
Tukwila's public disturbance rules. It allows community members to file complaints for any
noise that "annoys, injures, interferes with or endangers the comfort, repose, health or
safety of an entire neighborhood or community." There is no radius for the public nuisance
rule.
Burien - Chapter 9.105 Public Peace, Crimes Relating to
Burien prohibits "public disturbance noises," but does not maintain a rule on environmental
noise levels:
9.105.410: Public disturbance noise prohibited — this section provides a list of public
disturbance noises, such as yelling, audio systems, motor vehicles, etc. This section
prohibits noises emanating from audio equipment or motor vehicles that are audible from
greater than 50 feet from the source.
Bellevue - Chapter 9.18 Noise Control
Bellevue uses the two -prong approach:
9.18.030: Maximum permissible environmental noise levels — this section uses the same
decibel level chart taken from the WACs referenced above. The decibel levels are
measures by a sound level meter from the receiving property.
9.18.040: Noise disturbances — this section contains a list of noise disturbances including
playing of audio equipment, human voice, construction, any sound amplification, etc.
o Bellevue's noise disturbance section uses a 75-foot radius for any noise
disturbance, not limited to motor vehicle/audio equipment noise.
Kenmore - Chapter 8.05 Noise
Kenmore uses the two -prong approach:
8.05.015: Maximum permissible environmental noise levels — this section adopts the decibel
level chart contained in WAC 173-60-040.
8.05.025: Public nuisance and disturbance noises — this section contains a list of public
nuisance noises that is very similar to those referenced above.
113
o Kenmore prohibits noises emanating from motor vehicles or audio equipment than
is audible greater than 75 feet from the source.
114
Attachment E — KITSAP SUN article, dated February 9, 2020
Brother Don's: Kitsap County judge rules Bremerton's noise ordinance unconstitutional
Christian Vosler
Kitsap Sun
Feb 9, 2020
BREMERTON — The music will play on at two Kitsap Way bars involved in a noise dispute with
neighbors after a Kitsap County District Court judge ruled a section of Bremerton's noise
ordinance unconstitutional.
In an 82-page decision, Judge Jeffrey Jahns ruled that a provision in Bremerton's noise ordinance
used to cite both Brother Don's Bar & Grill and the Dugout Sports Bar & Grill for noise violations
is unenforceable because it infringes on freedom of speech and is "unconstitutionally vague."
Neighbors living near Brother Don's and the Dugout have called police over 100 times since 2018,
alleging that the noise from live music at both locations was too loud and keeping them awake at
night. Those hundreds of calls resulted in a total of six noise violations between the two bars —
five for Brother Don's and one for the Dugout.
Brother Don's owner Gordon Rinke fought to have the citations dismissed in court. Rinke's lawyer,
former city attorney Bill Broughton, argued that the noise ordinance was too vague and relied on
the subjective opinions of officers that responded to the calls.
Jahns agreed in his decision, ruling that the "catch-all" provision for loud noises in Bremerton's
code violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The code "does not provide adequate notice of what speech is prohibited and authorizes arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement," Jahns wrote.
Broughton called the decision "incredibly compelling" and said he hoped the city would focus on
a solution instead of appealing.
"Here we have a couple of hundred times the police have had to respond to these complaints, it's
just a tremendous waste of resources," Broughton said.
City staff needs to analyze the ruling completely before any decision about an appeal is made,
city attorney Roger Lubovich said.
"We're reviewing it right now, it's obviously very complicated with an 80-page document,"
Lubovich said.
Noise ordinance ruled 'standardless'
Bremerton's noise ordinance breaks its regulations into two categories: "environmental noise,"
which has a maximum decibel limit for noise based on how an area is zoned; and "public
disturbance noises," which are considered a public nuisance and don't require decibel readings.
Examples of "public disturbance noises" include repetitive car horn honking, noises made by the
starting or repair of vehicle engines, or loud sound systems in cars.
The part of the code that officers used to cite Rinke and others outlaws the "creation of any loud
noises which emanate frequently, or repetitively or continuously from any building, structure or
property which unreasonably disturbs the peace, comfort and repose of others."
Sounds produced by "bells, chimes, or carillons" are exempt from the noise ordinance, an issue
Jahns highlighted in his ruling. The decision found Bremerton's ordinance is unconstitutional
115
because it discriminates against types of music — considered protected free speech under the
First Amendment — created using other instruments or vocals.
"The city favors certain loud music it chooses not to regulate while regulating other loud music
the city disfavors," Jahns wrote.
Jahns found the same part of Bremerton's noise ordinance "unconstitutionally vague." Music like
the kind played at Brother Don's and the Dugout is allowed under one part of Bremerton's
ordinance if it doesn't exceed the decibel levels listed — but could be illegal under another section
if someone believes it "unreasonably disturbs" them.
The code could "trap" an innocent person because it fails "to give notice to a possible offender of
when music is unlawful because it is too loud to the person complaining about the volume," Jahns
wrote.
BPD officers who responded to noise complaints at Brother Don's testified at a bench trial in
January. None of the officers who testified had received training in noise enforcement or
equipment, Jahns wrote, and officers' methods of deciding if the music was too loud or not varied
widely.
Using equipment that measures noise levels isn't required under city code, however, officers can
cite a business for noise violation if they can hear the sound 50 feet or more from its source.
Jahns wrote that that subjectivity makes the ordinance "standardless."
"A law which in one section authorizes speech up to a certain noise volume while giving unbridled
discretion to declare the same volume of speech unlawful in another section based on one
person's or one officer's subjective belief the speech is too loud does precisely which the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits," Jahns wrote.
What does this mean for the city's noise ordinance?
Jahns' ruling poses a bigger question for the Bremerton City Council, which has been planning to
review the city's noise ordinance in its entirety. Council President Eric Younger said the council
was waiting for Jahns' decision before moving forward with any changes.
The decision only affects a subsection of the ordinance, not the entire chapter. But if the city
doesn't decide to appeal, it will be up to the council to approve changes that abide by Jahns'
ruling. That process could reveal some trickier questions.
"We have to analyze and see what needs to happen, it might just be removing the section or it
could be a major revamping of the code," Lubovich said.
The city attorney said he couldn't recall another time that a city ordinance has been ruled
unconstitutional. City staff is reviewing the decision and talking with law enforcement to see how
to proceed.
"We're going to address it as soon as possible," Younger said.
Rinke, who spent about $17,000 on noise dampening renovations and equipment for the bar, said
he was happy about the decision. He has changed the times when music plays at the bar to help
accommodate the neighbors, which has hurt his business. Even with the decision, Rinke isn't sure
he'll go back to playing music late at night right away.
"I think financially it would be beneficial to me to change the hours maybe, but it's just something
we need to give some thought to," Rinke said.
116
The complainants in the case did not testify during trial and did not respond to requests for
comment from the Kitsap Sun.
"I do feel that they just didn't do it out of spite, there was a problem, but I tried to do what I could
to correct the problem," Rinke said.
117