Attachment #6—Flyers the Millers handed out at Political Meetings (2 of 2)
<br />PROTECT PLEASANTON'S RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
<br />STOP THE SUFFERING--ENFORCE THE NOISE CODES!
<br />Here's a riddle for you — what's the difference between:
<br />(1) Singers singing a cappella (without instruments and voices only) at 80 dba
<br />(2) The same singers recorded on a CD being played on a stereo and loudspeakers at 80 dBA
<br />The answer is that the first one does not violate Pleasanton's noise codes, and the second one does —even though your
<br />ears cannot tell the difference.
<br />That is, the City has decided that human voices do not violate the City's noise codes, even though they are noises like any other
<br />noise. Therefore, your neighbor can shout, scream or sing opera all they want, and you would receive no help from the City.
<br />If this doesn't make sense to you, as it doesn't to us, then please read on to discover yet another way in which Pleasanton's
<br />Planning Department is not protecting Pleasanton's residential neighborhoods and is not pro- neighbor.
<br />Pleasanton has noise codes to protect the peace in residential neighborhoods. Specifically, noises that exceed 60 dBA (or
<br />70 dBA during daylight hours) create a noise code violation. Specifically, code 9.04.030 states,
<br />"No person shall produce or allow to be produced by any machine, animal. device. or any combination of
<br />the same, on residential property, noise level in excess of 60 dBA at any point outside of the property plane,
<br />unless otherwise provided in this chapter." (Also see code 9.04.070 for "daytime exceptions" which
<br />increases the dBA from 60 to 70 during day Tight hours.)
<br />According to the City's Code Enforcement Officer, Walter Wickboldt, "The code specifically prohibits noise created by
<br />'machine, animal, device, or any combination of the same' but does not set any limit on non-amplified human voice noise.
<br />As such. children's voices measured in excess of 70 dba does not violate the noise ordinance."
<br />First, let's defer to experts in this field called "acoustical and vibration consultants." Mr. Derek 1. Watry, Principal, WILSON,
<br />IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. states the following,
<br />"However, in Wilson Ihrig's 48 nears of operation in the San Francisco Bay Area, we have never heard of a city
<br />taking the position that non - amplified, human voices are exempt from noise ordinance limits.... In our opinion,
<br />the City's skewed interpretation is technically unsupportable, and in our experience it is out of step with the
<br />poise ordinance interpretation of other cities in the Bay Area. ... Noise is unwanted sound ... The actual source
<br />of this noise level should be irrelevant in the City's determination to provide you protection.... speech and music
<br />tend to be more annoving than other types of noise. The City's polity, as interpreted by Mr. Wickboldt, not only
<br />ignores this well- established tendency, it flies in the face of it by exempting speech noise altogether.
<br />Second, noise code 9.04.010 states, "It is declared to be the policy of the City that the peace, health, safety and welfare of
<br />the citizens of the City require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in
<br />the community." Therefore, "any and all sources" would include voices.
<br />Third, as a matter of English language and logic, Mr. Wickboldt's comment misinterprets the basic noise ordinance language by
<br />ignoring the key conjunction, "or." The ordinance does not say, "No person shall produce by any machine ... ", rather, it says,
<br />"No person shall produce or allow to be produced by machine ..." [emphasis added]. In logic, the conclusion is true if either of
<br />the premises is true. If you drive over the speed limit or drive recklessly by weaving too much, you get a ticket.
<br />The peace of Pleasanton's residential neighborhoods is at risk due to actions by the current Planning Department.
<br />We must deliver an overwhelming wave of opposition to the City's misguided interpretation of the noise codes.
<br />Please read Mr. Watrv's entire letter on www.SavePleasantonNeighborhoods .Coal
<br />31
<br />
|