The agreement between all parties on August 24, 2007 was that after the soundwall was constructed, there were be a re-evaluation of the noise levels to determine if other measures needed to be taken.
Once again this is being portrayed as an issue of allowing children to play. However, this has never been such an issue, the issue is a design flaw in the current construction of a particular facility, and the failure of the owner of the facility over a 15 year period to adequately resolve the problem.
The bottom line is the design of the layout focuses sound directly at the neighbors as the picture above once again demonstrates. The sound experts who evaluated the site recommended the sound wall but also additional mitigation measures. Indeed the city agreed to these measures.
The sound expert recommended moving the exit doors so that the kids would exit away from the residences, changing the surface of the patio that would reduce the noise from the wheeled toys, changing the tires of these toys to soft rubber, among other changes.
But we can be much more basic here. Right now, the configuration puts a majority of children right against the backyard of many homes and it does so with a covered patio that will amplify and direct the sound right at the neighbors. The simple solution would be, change where the children play. That’s not unavoidable. There is a huge yard and there is no reason that sound needs to be concentrated at the place where the yard is closest to the neighbors in a way that is most certain to amplify the sound.
However, the petition and Facebook page never mention these issues or the agreement in place.
A Facebook page entitled “Davis City Council: Let the Children Play Outside” directs the focus once again at the issue of children playing, rather than an issue of nuisance and noise for the neighbors and potential health impacts to the children of being exposed to high levels of noise over a prolonged period of time. The synopsis omits a number of details from its summary.
For instance, they write:
“The childcare facility has attempted to make several concessions, including limiting the hours the children are outside, building a 10 foot high sound wall and decreasing enrollment at the center.”
This is true but fails to mention that there were other agreed upon steps that were not conducted over a period of time, and that the council back in December agreed to enforce the agreement from August 2007.
It continues:
“the complaints continue by a single neighbor, claiming the decibel level (dBA) of children playing exceeds city noise ordinance limits.”
In fact, it is not a single neighbor, but the entire portion of the block that is impacted by the sound. This statement suggests it is one individual, the Vanguard received a letter signed by multiple individuals complaining of the problem–several of whom came to the Davis City Council meeting in December. Given the design of the building and the amplification though, it is true that only a small number of people would be impacted, but that should not relieve the owner of his duty to comply with city noise codes and state nuisance laws.
“Members of this Group are calling upon the Davis City Council to approve an amendment to the City of Davis municipal code noise regulations (Chapter 24) to exempt schools, preschools and childcare facilities from the noise limits as described in 24.02.020 between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, with respect to the natural noise created by children at play.”
The problem here is not the natural noise created by children at play, the problem here is the noise produced as the result of negligence by the owner who has failed repeatedly to follow and adhere to city code. Moreover, Councilmember Stephen Souza asked the question in December as to how many other schools generate noise complaints, the answer was zero from both the police and the city’s planning department.
“The City of Davis should not be maintaining an ordinance which unreasonably limits children’s playtime hours or exuberance, especially within the setting of facilities providing them a safe and educational environment.”
The question here is what is unreasonable and it seems that the levels of noise are unreasonable and avoidable without going into the hyperbole of the next statement.
“In the current culture of health risks from obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, restricting physical activity and social interaction is not only short-sighted, but potentially harmful to our children. Finally, not protecting these rights allows for future potential complaints being validated and enforced against noise created by children at parks, soccer fields, outdoor sports facilities and even our own backyards.”
From the lay out of the facility, it is clear that the children could be moved away from the neighbors homes and the patio reconstructed to avoid children not being able to play outside while avoiding the production of noise.
It seemed back in December there would be a simple solution to this problem. The neighbors would work with the owners at a resolution. That seemed reasonable given that’s what was agreed to back in August 2007 but neither the owner complied nor the city enforced that agreement.
At this point, attempts by the owner and some of the parents to roll the neighbors seems to violate the spirit of the agreement and the good faith that was supposed to be shown by both sides. We have concerns over the health of children exposed to this level of noise over a prolonged period, although without repeated testing we do not know what the decibel levels on the property are over a sustained period of time. The readings taken by Steve Pettyjohn showed decibels readings in the 90 range.
An amendment to the noise ordinance may not in fact get Mr. Hillis off the hook. Sound engineer Steve Pettyjohn who had examined this site as early as 2005, told the City Council of several cases where cities in making similar changes were forced by a court of law to conduct an EIR. He pointed out that even in the absence of a noise ordinance, there were still State of California nuisance laws on the books since 1850 that protected homeowners from conditions that irreparably harm the quality of life.
Unfortunately what appeared to resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbors is rapidly turning into a political football. Will the neighbors get rolled in the process or will council stand firm in their decision from December? Time will only tell.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Seems ridiculous the owner would spend so much time and effort on *not* fixing the problem.
Hopefully the “sound engineer” wasn’t the brainiac that designed a sound wall that clearly exacerbates the noise situation, both by creating a noise reflecting surface which directs the noise back onto the facility wall, with the resulting effects, as well as creating a sound “funnel.” If his engineering skills are on the level of his lack of understanding of nuisance law, then it’s pretty clear where the most recent problems are coming from.
I’ve heard those kids screaming bloody murder for the 7 years I’ve swum at DAC. If the kids are outside when I swim, I can hear them yelling even with my head underwater. Thank God I don’t live there.
“I’ve heard those kids screaming ‘bloody murder’ for the 7 years I’ve swum at DAC.”
That explains the extremely high rate of unsolved homicides in Green Meadows.
I was a member of the Davis Athletic Club across Picasso Drive from the school for a couple of years. I swam, relaxed on the patio, went swimming again and followed that routine for a couple of hours to de-stress. And that routine worked very well in that regard. In those couple of hours for many days in spring, summer and fall never once did I hear kids screaming bloody murder. Faintly I could hear laughter sometimes and the occasional squeal of delight. If I really listened hard. When I was relaxing listening hard was not high on my list of priorities. If my head was underwater I could hear only the onrush of chlorinated water and my own bubbles. Actually, the kids playing in the Davis Athletic Club shallow pool and on the patio were much louder. But then they were closer by far. The school being a block away down Picasso.