Laserfiche WebLink
events that were happening during that timeframe, and frankly, since that time there <br />haven't been a high number of complaints. The police haven't been involved. Those <br />kinds of things were really serious concerns in 2008 and 2009 haven't happened since. <br />So, I'm not disagreeing with your point but there's a riff that happened around that time <br />and since then things have been not cordial between the neighbors. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: I do have to disagree with you a little bit. I don't know that I <br />recall a blip when they had several of these parties. Even when the City asked them not <br />to hold them when they found out about them and they continued to move forward, it <br />was pretty.... <br />Beaudin: Yes, I wasn't meaning to diminish the severity of those events. I was speaking <br />more about the timeframe, the nearing 40 years. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: I was getting more at the attitude that they didn't even comply <br />with what the City was asking. <br />Beaudin: Understood. I was speaking about the timeframe. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: So I had a question a few years ago when I thought we were <br />going to have a meeting and Adam brought up to me that the noise ordinance doesn't <br />include human voices, and when I read the noise ordinance, it's clear to me that it says <br />that no person "shall" and there's no comma to separate that we're talking about the <br />same item. "No person shall or any mechanical, etc., etc." To me, I read that it includes <br />both, and one of the issues I remember —I forget how many years back it was, not that <br />long —we had the use come before us to put in a children's playground in the back of <br />Raley's that was limited to only 16 children which was much further away from the <br />property line and we were concerned about the noise that it might create for a few <br />houses on the back side, and we denied that project because we thought those <br />16 voices would be disturbing to the adjoining neighbors. So I don't understand why we <br />would today say that voices don't count. And if I could yell and scream as loud as I want <br />and it's not a noise violation, but if Nancy records me yelling and screaming and Nancy <br />plays my voice back on a recorder, now I've violated the noise ordinance. It doesn't <br />make a lot of sense to me. <br />Weinstein: So let's take the question about human - generated noise first and then we'll <br />talk about the Raley's example. We've had a long- standing interpretation here at the <br />City that the noise ordinance does not apply to human - generated noises and we <br />acknowledge there's different ways to read the residential property provision in the <br />noise code, but this is a consistent interpretation that we've been employing for the last <br />couple of years and probably more than several years as well, and it's based on a <br />couple of things. One is that it's not really practical to regulate human noise. Human <br />noise happens all over the place in our community. There are people having parties in <br />residential backyards, there are kids playing in backyards. So from a practicality <br />standpoint, it's just not practical to account for human noise. <br />And secondly, in a community like this, there's going to be people living in close <br />proximity to others so humans are going to generate noise all over the place in our <br />community. The third point is that human noise changes over time. When kids play <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 6 of 52 <br />