Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
M112414 w/Hearing Record Comments
District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Week of November 24, 2014 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner David Sullivan. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: Four citizens commented on the proposed Noise Ordinance; • A citizen stated he met with Economic Development Council (EDC) staff who confirmed the need for jobs; • A citizen commented on the proposed Animal Responsibility Code update; • A citizen spoke on behalf of the Jefferson County Democrats and stated: 1) They urged the Board to advocate for the process to establish warfare range; 2) They support an increase in state revenue; and 3) The Jefferson Healthcare Board needs to advocate for healthcare security; and • A citizen commented on the importance of laws. APPROVALAND ADOPTION OFTHE CONSENTAGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve all the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CALL FOR BIDS re: Supply of Liquid Asphalt Products for Bituminous Surface Treatment (BST) for Calendar Year 2015; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on Monday, December 15, 2014 in the Commissioners' Chambers FINAL LONG PLAT APPROVAL re: Ludlow Cove I1; To Divide 14.74 Acres into a 42 Single Family Lot Subdivision SUB07-00038/MLA07-00593; Port Ludlow Associates, Applicant AGREEMENT re: Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) Crew to Perform an Alder Release Project in the Dosewallips and Duckabush Floodplains; In the Amount of $18,000; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) AGREEMENT re: Health Technology Services; In the Amount of $1,600; Jefferson County Public Health; Qualis Health AGREEMENT re: Provide Regional Jail Services; In the Amount of $175,743; Jefferson County Central Services; City of Port Townsend AGREEMENT re: Quilcene Shop Security System; In the Amount of $981 plus a $42 Monthly Charge for Monitoring; Jefferson County Public Works; Guardian Security Systems, Inc. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Kc 7. AGREEMENT re: Upper Hoh Road Culvert Replacement, M.P. 3.338, Project No. CR1896; In the Amount of $733,565; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) 8. AGREEMENT re: Port Hadlock License and Use to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $40,903 per year; JeffCom 9. AGREEMENT re: Port Townsend Tower Sublicense, Station 16 to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $12,000 per year; JeffCom 10. AGREEMENT re: Port Hadlock Tower License to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $12,000 per year; JeffCom 11. AGREEMENT re: Coyle Road Real Property License to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $1 + $3,500 per year; JeffCom 12. AGREEMENT re: Coyle Road Tower and Building Sublicense (Public Works Radio) to Provide Emergency Communications and Dispatch Services; In the Amount of $3,500 per year; JeffCom 13. Advisory Board Reappointments (2) re: Jefferson County Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (JCPRAB); Two (2) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2016; District No. 3 Representative, Mike McFadden; and Two (2) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2016; District No. 3 Representative, Roger Hall 14. Advisory Board Appointment re: Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC); Four (4) Year Term Expiring November 24, 2018; Alternate Representative for Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Environmental Biologist, Neil Harrington 15. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 17, 2014 Totaling $871,114.44 and Dated November 18, 2014 Totaling $3,442.52 16. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 20, 2014 Totaling $72,224.43 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 6, 2014 Totaling $129,325.69 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Viewed a model home in Ludlow Cove last week. - Attended a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) meeting last week. - Reported that a ceremony to swear in the Elected Officials that will be filling positions through the end of the year will be held November 25, 2014. All Elected Officials will be sworn in on January 2, 2015. Commissioner Johnson - Attended a Safe Energy Leadership Alliance (SELA) meeting and a Marine Resources Committee meeting last week where the effect of rail oil transportation was discussed. Commissioner Sullivan - Attended a forum on homelessness last week. - Met with the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) last week. A new ferry is to be named "Chimacum." Page 2 'Cl � G Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 K DISCUSSION and HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance: County Administrator Philip Morley stated that as a result of input from the public and County staff, several new sections have been added to the proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would repeal Chapter 6.05 in Title 6 of the Jefferson County Code and replace it with a Chapter in Title 6 entitled "Chapter 6.07 Animal Responsibility," the text of which is provided in Attachment "A" to the proposed ordinance. County Administrator Morley distributed copies of the proposed ordinance, including previous and current edits. The Board has already been briefed on the public review draft of the ordinance. Since that draft, several new additions and provisions have been added to the proposed ordinance. He reviewed changes with the Board. Below are highlights of the proposed edits: • Section 020 Provision banning hybrid animals and the definition of hybrid. Any hybrids that currently exist are grandfathered in. • Section 020 Livestock refinement. • Section 050 Running at large on public property. Language gives flexibility re: park regulations that trump what is in code. • Section 090 Refined howling and barking 1) Borrowing language from the proposed Noise Ordinance which includes "clearly heard by a person of normal hearing" between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. lower threshold; and 2) Noise continuance for more than 20 minutes, or intermittent noise more than 3 times. • Section 100, added "injury to person." Entry into food establishment — refined section. • Section 120 Addition: Picking up waste. • Section 130 and Section 140 added people on bicycles. • Section 160 changed to any dog running at large. • Section 170 limited the tethering of animals. • Section 180 alignment between private and hobby kennel. • Section 290 flexibility proving or allowing exceptions for vaccinations of rabies. • Section 370 private kennel definition. • Section 540 Addition: Provisions not exclusive. • Section 550 Addition: Disclaimer of liability and disclosure to give instructions. Sections regarding violations have been reviewed by legal counsel. County Administrator Morley noted that if the hearing were to move forward, he suggests amending the hearing notice as well. He provided copies of the corrected hearing notice. Commissioner Johnson and Chairman Austin stated that for a person who stays at home during the daytime, or someone with an infant, a barking dog can be just as aggravating during daylight hours. County Administrator Morley indicated that issue could be addressed further at the hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Hearing Notice re: Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance as amended; Hearing set for Monday, December 8, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the Cotton Building, 607 Water Street, Port Townsend. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 3 O 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 y HEARING re: Proposed Clean Water District Ordinance: Environmental Health Director Jared Keefer reviewed two revisions to the proposed ordinance: 1) Section 2 now clearly defines what parcels would be exempt from the Clean Water District (CWD) fee; and 2) When previously discussing the issue with Assessor Jeff Chapman and legal counsel, they noted an opportunity to input a lower fee amount for properties such as timeshares, which can be owned by multiple people. The CPI methodology has also been clarified. County Administrator Philip Morley noted Assessor Jeff Chapman is in the audience, should questions arise that he may be able to answer. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated that he is pleased to see that the ordinance has been previously expanded to include properties which were obvious sources of water pollution such as Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and other places. Mr. Thiersch indicated that the current ordinance does not cover the extreme amount of pollution that comes from boats. People live on boats, but the parcels the boats are on, are not included in the current Clean Water District (CWD) Ordinance. They are not assessed a fee on this, and that is a mistake. That is something the County should consider. He noted that he would like an explanation if this is not the case. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Director Keefer asked Assessor Chapman whether boats or boat parcels should incur the CWD fee? Assessor Chapman stated that marinas pay one assessment, individual boats are not assessed. He added that the same situation is true for trailer parks, the park is assessed, but not the individual trailers. The County uses a parcel -based system. Director Keefer stated they erred on using the method that has been practiced to -date. The intent was to keep the methodology simple and not complicate things. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 11-1124-14 Amending the Jefferson County Clean Water District Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.65. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Johnson commented that Jefferson County's stormwater fees are currently low and that this may not always be the case. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was recessed at 10:17 a.m. and reconvened at 10:27 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 DISCUSSION and APPROVAL re: Participation in the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Workers' Compensation Retrospective Rating Program: Clerk of the Board/Human Resources Manager Erin Lundgren and County Administrator Philip Morley recapped a previous discussion the Board had with AWC's Retro Program Manager. The following information was provided to the Board: "For several years Jefferson County has participated in the sponsored Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Select Retro Pool and Workplace Safety Alliance. WAC 296-17B regulates retrospective rating for workers' compensation insurance. Retrospective rating (retro) is a voluntary financial incentive program offered by the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) to encourage improvements in workplace safety. Participating in retro creates an opportunity to earn refunds of required premium payments. However, participation involves risk because additional premiums can be assessed when participants are not successful in controlling losses. Employers control losses by preventing workplace illnesses and injuries, and helping injured workers return to work If a sponsored group receives a net assessment for two consecutive coverage periods, the group is placed on probationary status. If a sponsored group receives a net assessment in the following coverage period, that group will be denied future enrollment and the sponsoring organization will not be allowed to sponsor another group in the same industry category for the five years following the third coverage period with a net assessment. Members of the WSAC Select Retro Pool and Workplace Safety Alliance meet annually to review the retro plan and decide whether or not to reenroll in the program. In the past, the WSAC Retro group has received refunds, as well as net assessments. However, in the last two consecutive coverage periods the WSAC Retro group received net assessments and the group anticipates a third consecutive assessment. During the annual WSAC Retro group meeting held earlier this year it was decided that the group would not continue pooling. As a result, WSAC terminated its contract with Sedgwick, which is the agency that provides retro pool services and third party L&I claims administration services to the member Counties participating in the WSAC Retro group. The termination of the contract with Sedgwick is effective December 15, 2014 and Jefferson County will no longer have third party claims administration services through Sedgwick as of that date. WSAC has been working with the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) on a proposal for AWC to provide retro program services to WSAC member counties. In September, a final proposal was agreed to by both WSAC and AWC. AWC `s Retro Program Manager Brian Bishop attended the Board's meeting on November 10, 2014 and gave a presentation on AWC's services and pool. " County Administrator Morley stated that if Jefferson County's injury rates are low, the County could potentially get money back. Clerk of the Board Lundgren explained that the cost to participate in the program is 7% of the County's total premiums. Total L&I premiums for 2014 are estimated to be $268,000 for an annual service fee of $18,000. She added that participating in this program allows for the possibility for Jefferson County to receive a refund of a portion of the premiums paid. AWC reports that they typically receive about a 12% refund of the premiums each year. If Jefferson County's claims experience is good, AWC will refund Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 the annual service fee out of our portion of the premium refund. The remaining balance of our portion of the premium refund is handled as follows: Half of the balance of the refund would be kept in a reserve account and the other half would be distributed back to Jefferson County two years after the claims period has closed. Clerk of the Board Lundgren stated that by participating in this program, the County will receive third party administration of L&I claims through AWC. Other services provided by AWC include onsite visits, onsite training, return to work program, hearing conservation program and a Safety Academy. If four County employees (one employee from Administration/HR and three employees from other departments) graduate from the Safety Academy, the County would receive a 15% discount off the service fee. County Administrator Morley noted that if the County decided not to participate, we would need to acquire a third party to administer L&I claims. He added that joining the AWC Retro Pool should ultimately not cost the County anything. On the downside, if the County's experience level goes up due to a rise in claims, or as a pool, if the group's claims go up, it could expose Jefferson County to an additional assessment down the road. The AWC Retro Pool is working on building up a reserve so in the event the pool has a bad year, there will be money set aside to assume that loss. He indicated that AWC is eager for Jefferson County to join their retro pool because of our excellent rating in the past. Commissioner Sullivan stated that there is no "zero" risk, but there is a risk in doing nothing. County Administrator Morley stated that AWC is committed to accident prevention and that they care about keeping staff healthy and safe. He recommends joining AWC's Retro Pool. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve executing the application for group membership and the participation in AWC's Retro Program Pool and L&I Claims and Administration Services. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Johnson asked how much of a reserve should we carry to be comfortable? Clerk of the Board Lundgren replied that AWC is working to reserve 1.5 times the maximum assessment that they could be exposed to. County Administrator Morley clarified that AWC is building that reserve up over time, not the County. Chairman Austin called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was recessed at 10:36 a.m. and reconvened at 11:01 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Proposed Noise Ordinance: The Board held a public hearing on a proposed noise ordinance. County Administrator Philip Morley stated that due to the size of the audience and the amount of individuals giving testimony, he suggests that the Commissioners not make a decision today so they can deliberate further on the issue. He added that the hearing is on a proposed noise ordinance and currently, the County has no such ordinance. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez was present and stated that over the years, residents were the ones who have been asking for a noise ordinance code. He indicated that there is a Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) which the County adopted under Resolution No. 67-85, but it is not useful. The WAC requires a decibel meter and the County does not possess one. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez noted that the Interim and Elected Sheriff both agreed that having a noise ordinance with actual teeth would be a useful law enforcement tool. Borrowing language from Skagit County and seeing parallel language in Kitsap County and Pierce County Code, the proposed ordinance tries to protect the peace and quiet. Living in a primarily rural county that has low population density with the ordinary activities of daily life ranging from barbecuing, operating an ATV on your own property, to the discharge of a firearm, the ordinance has to have balance. In that regard, the ordinance creates a category of noise known as a public disturbance noise. A public disturbance noise is defined in the ordinance under Definition 5. He read the definition into the record. "Public disturbance means a source of sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors." The noise has to interfere with the peace, comfort or repose of the claiming person. The operative word is "unreasonably." For certain noises, the noise has to occur at certain hours of the day. Usually noises fall under the public disturbance category at night after 10:00 p.m. Public disturbance noises are laid out in some detail in the public ordinance. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated that he has been advised that the Interim Sheriff intends to propose the elimination of Section C of the ordinance. Such a noise category is otherwise exempt in the daylight hours unless in extreme circumstances it rises up to the level of a public disturbance noise under Section K, which is a catchall section. The point of the amendment would be for equipment with internal combustion engines such as ATVs or a Public Works road truck undergoing repair, needs to be turned on and revved during the daytime. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez anticipates another proposed amendment by the Interim Sheriff which would include the addition of the term "reasonable" person to Section K. While this may seem like a rather subjective standard. The term "reasonable" person is a long accepted concept in the law. It means the noise would have to be unreasonable to a reasonable person. Basically, a reasonable person is your average person of normal hearing and normal understanding. There are many layers that protect a citizen from arbitrary enforcement of the code: 1) The noise has to unreasonably disturb the person or persons who want to complain about the noise. This recognizes the undisputable fact that our modern technology, and even our older technology like vehicles and generators make our life easier, but they make noise. 2) A Sheriffs Deputy who shows up has to hear the alleged noise that is causing a disturbance. The Sheriff Deputy has full judgment to decide whether or not that the noise is unreasonable. 3) If the Sheriff s Deputy finds that the noise is indeed a disturbance, than a warning is given. 4) If the Sheriff's Deputy has a subsequent visit to the same person causing the noise disturbance, then an infraction could be written. The infraction would be heard in District Court. 4) The Court Judge is also a layer of protection for the person who feels that their noise was reasonable and the infraction should not have been issued. There are many exempt noises that are exempt 24 hours a day, every day and no matter where they occur. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez noted that the exemptions were drawn from a similar ordinance in Skagit County, a county that has towns and cities, but also many rural areas. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez explained that RCW 9.401.290 is the law in which Washington State preempts firearm discharge rules. In Section Q of the proposed ordinance, as the County's attorney, he would like to make an edit. Under Section Q it should read "The lawful discharge of firearms." He would like to see the rest of the section on firearms deleted, which include Section R and Section S. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated there has been some concern over agriculture properties and noises. They are covered by Section M. For instance, a farmer could hay all night to save the crop from rain. Agriculture would be covered on any type of property. It covers any location at any time. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez indicated that there could be situations that we cannot quite conceive of today. They included a catchall, Section K for this. They will be adding in the term "reasonable" person. This is a legal concept. He gave an example for this term by explaining that every time you are driving in a car and you decide not to tailgate, you would be driving like a reasonable person. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public comment. Due to the number of speakers, each speaker was allotted two minutes to comment. Steve Crosbv, Jefferson County: He stated that he lives on the City limits, half of his house is in the City and half of his house is in the County. At times, he has been bothered by amplified sounds coming from the County side. His past experience as a dispatcher for the Sheriff s Department and as a long-time resident leads him to believe that 99% of noise complaints in the City are resolved by having an officer show up at a residence and asking them to turn down the noise. In the County, his experience is that the deputies do not respond because there is no ordinance and they cannot do anything anyways. If the Sheriff adopted a procedure in regards to keeping the peace by contacting people, there would be a better shot of keeping everyone happy, without an ordinance. Lance Rosmever, Jefferson County: He stated that he resides off of Prospect Road and he is in the direct flight path of the Jefferson County Airport. When he and his wife were searching for property to build their home, they exercised diligence in discovering the following that their property was overflown by aircraft of various size and propulsion methods. At the time, there was not a no -shooting zone on their property, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island flight activity was audible and neighbors included younger families whose interests included motorized sports. They purchased their home site knowing in advance there were activities in the area which would generate noise. Establishing a noise ordinance is concerning to him. The ordinance analysis states that citizens benefit from overall rural quiet, yet many of your constituents participate in activity that this restriction seeks to regulate. Public disturbance noises, Section 1; D and other places in the ordinance refer to normal hearing and the ability to discern noise at a distance of 150 feet. He submits that this is a subjective definition and should not be the standard. The ordinance also does not support whether or not the offending noise would be determined from inside a structure or outdoors. Does the Board consider any differentiation in that? Has there been such an outcry on the part of County residents or overall failure of the Sheriff s Office representatives to even cause consideration of this ordinance? Koya Leyden, Jefferson County: He stated that from what he has heard, using the term "a reasonable person's hearing" makes no sense at all. If you're going to do anything at all, you're going to need a reasonable decibel level. If he were to listen to his music, one neighbor may not hear it, but another neighbor with a hearing aid may hear it and call law enforcement. One neighbor may have better hearing Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 R] than the other and a decibel level number should be inputted into the ordinance if it should pass. He does not agree with the proposed noise ordinance. He has been living in this County for 30 years and there has not been a noise ordinance and there is no need for one. Bill Leavitt: He stated that he does not know much about the proposed noise ordinance as he does not know how to operate a computer. This puts him at a disadvantage in regards to not having knowledge of the Board's actions. If they needed to work on a bulkhead on the beach, they have to work with the tides. They would need to be working on the boat at 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m. maybe even 3:00 a.m. There would be rocks banging out of trucks and excavator noise. What will you do about that? Send the Sheriff and make us stop? Hello. He takes his bus to a piece of property he has where there is no power. He needs to turn on his generator and may not want to go to bed until 1:00 a.m. You going to come out and yank me out of my place? He could go on and on. In regards to shooting, the ordinance needs to make clear that you can still shoot. This is another attempt — like a camel getting his nose under a tent — once he's under there, he's in with you. In no time. He anticipates the next step is a County -wide No Shoot Zone. He said with this type of ordinance coming through, he knows it is coming. We do not need to go there. He makes a lot of noise, but his neighbors and him have a good relationship and it's never been a problem. He believes there has never been a call where his neighbors have complained about noise he makes. The proposed noise ordinance would give neighbors a tool to harass other neighbors. He could go on and on, but for now he will end his comment. Colby Martin: He has lived in town for the past 18 years, which is his whole life. He has never heard of people complaining about noise. He believes Port Townsend is becoming more of a retirement area. He explained that he drives a big truck and has to work on it consistently. He does not like the idea of not being allowed to work on his vehicle after work. Sometimes he works on his vehicle up to 1:00 a.m. He has a neighbor who does not like him and he anticipates the Sheriff s department will be called over absolutely nothing. It is wrong in so many ways to tell him that he cannot do something. He considers it a violation of the amendments if you are going to tell him he cannot do something that he wants to do. He does not accept it. He gets it to an extent. He understands you cannot just go out and shoot someone. He does not agree with not being able to make noise after 10:00 p.m. That is outrageous and a lot of other people think so too. He attended the High School here, hung out with friends and grew up in this community. His friends like to be able to do things after 11:00 p.m. As long as they are not outrageously loud and causing a problem for the whole neighborhood, he does not see why it is a big problem. Art Burke, Cape George: He read from a written statement he submitted. (See hearing record). Glenn Richardson, Jefferson County: He stated that he did not have a statement ready. His grandson is seventh generation in this County. Many years ago when people first started coming here, they welcomed them. Now he knows how the Indians feel, we welcomed in too many of you. He believes the County is going to do whatever they want to do with or without the public speaking. You really do not care about the people who have lived here all of our lives. He truly believes that statement. He has been the Jefferson County Fair Board President, Head of the Tri -Area Business Club and the Lyons Club. He keeps seeing more and more changes happening here that he does not appreciate. His family lives on 100 acres with the intent on being able to do the things he wants to do there. He believes that the ordinance is taking some of his rights away. A little bit at a time, continually pinching and pinching. People who live next to a school will start complaining about the school kids. People who live next to an Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 airport will eventually start complaining about the airplanes. Now you have moved here and are complaining about us. Please do not let this go through, it is as simple as that. Interim Sheriff Joe Nole: He thanked everyone in attendance. He stated that he is the Sheriff of Jefferson County for one more day. In the last five years, there have been 337 noise complaints which average out to about 6 a month. He addressed a previous comment regarding the Sheriff s department being dispatched to a noise complaint. While a noise complaint is not something they search out or want to go to, he noted that all they can do is act as a mediator and try to get the parties to get along. Most people are cooperative and can work it out, but there are others who refuse to turn their music down and the Sheriff s department has no choice but to leave. He added that this usually leads to more calls at the same location. He would like to see a couple revisions to the ordinance. On Section I C, under public disturbances. He would like the timeframe to be changed to "between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m." He would also like the ability for the Sheriffs Department to respond to noises made during the daytime that are a nuisance. In Section 1 K, adding the word "reasonable" in front of "person's" so it would read "reasonable person's of normal hearing," In Section G, he would like verbiage addressing the existing Jefferson County Code Title 6 dealing with Animal Responsibility. He stated that fireworks is not addressed, but, RCW 70.77.395 outlines the dates and times that fireworks can be used. Chairman Austin asked that he submit the rest of his statement in writing. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez stated that he has copies of some of Interim Sheriff Nole's suggestions. Richard Broders: He stated that way back when, the County had a sound meter. They are not very expensive. He would have commented on the gun aspect of this ordinance, but as it had already been addressed by a previous speaker, he would not comment on that at this time. Everyone recognizes there are some sounds that are inappropriate to inflict on your neighbors, where other sounds are benign and a part of rural life. The problem is that there is a huge grey area of sound types and intensities between these two. That points out one of the primary flaws of this proposed noise ordinance, making it illegal to produce a sound that "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons." No sound meter reading is required. An ordinance based on such a loose non emperical standard can only be called vague, a violation of burden to prove standards, arbitrary and capricious. He doubts if such a standard can be legally enforceable or whether most law enforcement professionals would like to enforce it. There already is a noise law covering Jefferson County which is Chapter 173.6C WAC which is and has been enforced by the Sheriff s Office and DCD for many years. It cannot be called not strict as the maximum allowed sound for example, from residential properties is 55 decibels, even less during the hours of darkness. To put this in perspective, normal conversation at three feet is 60-65 decibels, rainfall is 50 decibels, and a sewing machine is 60 decibels. To be clear on the state preemption law, I think that is really important. That needs to be addressed. In summary, keep state and emperical noise standards, throw out the arbitrary and subjective standards based on complaints and comply with the state preemption law. He submitted copies of the law and other documentation. (See hearing record) Joe D'Amico, Jefferson County: He believes that if the noise ordinance passes, there will be a significant change in the County. He is a fourth generation of Port Townsend. He is reminded of a movie where folks visit a rainforest and find a tribe and they make all these changes and then disasters happen. He believes that is what is going to happen here. We are trying to blanket the entire County with this ordinance. It will create a lot of things that the County .... non -conforming uses right David? ...that will Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 M R be coming up. People are going to be out there, you're going to go to someone's house because they are working on their truck and then you're going to find out that they've had a shop there for the last 20 years, which will lead to a non -conforming issue. He does not see where that has been addressed in the ordinance, and it should be. If you are a non -conforming business and you've been there prior to the noise ordinance, you should be allowed to continue, otherwise you are going to put people out of work. A previous speaker was concerned about not being able to work on his truck. He has heard a lot of that same concern in the community regarding people who want to work on their trucks late at night. Jefferson County has been isolated for so many years, we are hard workers and people work on their own stuff. They do not bring in people or tow trucks to pick up their vehicles and bring them to the shops. They do not have the money for that. It's economically depressed and this will basically continue that. He asked if this has been approved or looked at by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)? He believes they require a 90 day review and he believes Mr. Harper indicated that the proposed ordinance needs to go before DOE before being adopted. Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez replied that he is not aware of that. Most police -power ordinances do not require police approval. Mary Rothschild, Cape George: She read from a written statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Dick Burgeron, Jefferson County: He stated there is a fundamental difference in an unincorporated area. You have true country folk who live there, and then you have city people who want to live in the country. He believes this is where the issues begin. It is the city people who move into the rural areas seeking peace and quiet and think that is what living in the country is all about. They are the ones who complain, because they bring their city attitudes with them. Country folk talk about their differences and work it out amongst themselves. In the rare occasion where you cannot work out those differences, pay back is a bitch. But we do it on our own. We do not have to call in the Sheriff. Let the Sheriff work on more important things like burglaries, property crimes and assault. That is where the Sheriff should be devoting their time, especially when he hears they are overworked and understaffed. Do we really want them out handling noise complaints? If a noise ordinance passes, there will be more and more complaints that the Sheriff's department will have to handle, instead of people working out the issues themselves. He suggested that just as certain areas in the County have no -shooting areas, how about trying the noise ordinance where people make noise and may have complaints, such as the Port Ludlow area. Try it out in a few pilot areas and see what happens and then build on it from there. Dennis Pownall, Jefferson County: He thanked Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez for his work on the ordinance and then read from his statement. Mother Nature works 24 hours a day and he needs time to work on his equipment when it is safest to address those issues, and that is early morning for him. (See hearing record) Alden Johnson, Jefferson County: He stated that his written statement voiced concern in regards to gun use and that Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez addressed his concerns. (See hearing record) Jon Ebner, Jefferson County: He thanked the Deputy Prosecutor for the revisions he talked about during his presentation. He originally came to stand against the ordinance other than those having to do with noise generating from firearms. The public disturbance noise, he believes there are a lot of major Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 typographical errors that were made. He reviewed a printout of the ordinance he obtained from the internet. He pointed out that under "Violation defined" where it says "available to the hearing of others, a public disturbance noise or any sources of sound..." he suggested that "sources of should be removed. It is hard to have a source of sound be a violation. That should be cleared up. Where it reads "The sounds which unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors..." How is that to be measured? Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez mentioned a noise meter. He explained that when he was working with the City on their noise ordinance, we prescribed a sound meter so that we could actually measure it. They are cheap. I'll buy it if you need it, but don't pass the ordinance. It is unreasonable and overly restrictive and high handed. Thank you. Dan Baskins, Poulsbo: He stated he is representing Hood Canal Sand and Gravel. The ordinance, as written, is constitutionally vague and therefore unenforceable. He has worked on several ordinances in various jurisdictions. The County does have a noise ordinance, it's the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) that is adopted by the state. It deals with how to measure noise, and the impact of commercial to residential and industrial to residential, issues others have not seriously considered. In working with noise complaints in Jefferson County, the one thing he believes the Board is missing is having a standard. That standard is found in the WAC. You do have to have your code reviewed by the DOE, but what you are missing is the enforcement mechanism. Missing from the proposed ordinance is the addressing of warnings, formal presentation, hearing examiner and District Court. That is missing in the County's Code. Despite good intentions, the County is travelling down a slippery slope. Noise is the number one complaint between neighbors. Barking dogs become part of that. The WAC addresses this. It addresses both night and daytime standards. If one were to look carefully at the WAC, it establishes the frequency and addresses a two minute rule, five minute rule, things that only people working with complaints really understand. He can annoy his neighbor with a noise maker, and when the Sheriff comes out, how is he going to measure that? If you set a passive from where the receiving property is as a standard that becomes the way the state does it. It becomes very measurable and enforceable. In the 80's unenforceable noise standards were the number one cause for lawsuits lost by counties. Dena Jones, Quilcene: She stated that sometimes you need to (unintelligible) the absurd, by being absurd, so she is going to be absurd. She explained that she moved out to Jefferson County from New York City. She said this area sounds like New York City. The sirens go off which causes the coyotes to go off which causes the dogs to go off. Are you going to get rid of the coyotes? Are you going to turn off the sirens? Maybe if you're going to die, maybe you should move to the City so you are closer because she lives in Quilcene and the. noise is constant all summer long. It is ridiculous, she agrees, but, what are you going to do, change that? You have to get rid of the coyotes because that is why the dogs go off. Her dog starts barking at deer, raccoons or strange, long-haired, maggot -infested weirdoes who walk across her property. There is a reason to have dogs. The cats meow, and they are big cats called cougars. What are you going to do about the cougars? What are you going to do about the bobcats? They make noise too. She believes the proposed noise ordinance is over stated and whoever wrote it is not being reasonable. Thank you. Jamie D'Amico, Jefferson County: She stated that she is the Vice President of Security Services. Being involved in a noise issue herself, she would like the County to be aware of the financial impact this will have on all those involved. She knows first-hand how it affected her and her family. She urged the Board not to pass this ordinance. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Jennifer Scott, Jefferson County: She stated that is the Corporate Secretary for Fort Discovery. She is against the noise ordinance and urged the Board to take more time to review the proposed ordinance. Jeff Roscoe, Jefferson County: He stated he works for Security Services Northwest. Working in a place that sometimes generates noise, he is concerned by the proposed ordinance. He urged the Board to take into consideration people who work in places that may be affected by the ordinance. It is similar to the guy who mentioned working on his truck. He opposes the proposed ordinance and thanked the Board. Roger Short, Chimacum: He is opposed to the proposed ordinance and agrees with a lot of the previous speakers. He is attending the hearing to help save agriculture in the County. He understands that agriculture noises are currently exempt from the proposed ordinance but is concerned about perpetual creep that happens with regulations. When a regulation is started, it can lead to more regulations down the road. He addressed a previous comment regarding enforcing the regulations. We have so many ordinances on the books that we can't take care of the ones we have now. One of those pertained to only being able to have two or three dead automobiles on your property, but now we cannot enforce someone who has 60-70 automobiles on their property. We cannot do something about some of the junk yards around because we do not have the enforcement ability. He suggested taking care of the top two or three percent of the bad actors and leave the rest of us alone. We can only regulate those who allow to be regulated. That has been found out in court cases in the County. There are more important things the Sheriff's department can be doing. He has a radio controlled aircraft group in the Chimacum Valley of about 50-60 people who love the location of his property for their hobby. The little planes make noise and there are those who stop by and observe what's going on. It is a good recreation event. The noise from the remote controlled vehicles has not been addressed. Thank you. Mimi Mackay, Jefferson County: She stated that she is a critical care ICU nightshift nurse at Jefferson General Hospital and also at Harrison Hospital. She works during the night and sleeps during the day. She opposes the proposed ordinance. She does not expect the activities of daily living to reach a reasonable level in the daytime while she is asleep. She resides on 20 acres on Jacob Miller Road which is known for being a contentious area for noise. Since her residence is at the bottom of the valley, her property acts as an amphitheater. There are a couple of other properties through the woods that are the same way. There are a lot of area residents who have parties during the summertime and it does not bother her. Given her location, she realizes that the sound in the valley may make it seem louder than it really is. That is what concerns her about the proposed ordinance. There is no decibel level reading on this. She believes the noise is part of the character and culture of Port Townsend and the reason she resides here. Lesa Barnes, Jefferson County: She supports some form of a noise ordinance. Several years ago, for several summers, there were many weekends with loud parties. She has triple pane windows and even with the windows shut, the noise was so loud it affected the way she spoke inside her home. Parties would end at midnight or go until three in the morning. She could not use her indoor voice. She called Commissioner Sullivan and the Sheriff and they could not do anything about it. About 12 neighbors got together and spoke to the neighbors who made the loud noise. The response they got was "We will tell you when we are planning a party and you can go on vacation." Anne Hueter, Jefferson County: She stated that she had emailed her statement and chose not to give further testimony. (See hearing record) Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Sandra Wurtsmith, Port Townsend: She signed the hearing list to comment, but could not be reached when called upon. Mike Hinojos, Cape George: He is opposed to the proposed ordinance as it is currently written. He believes it is much too vague. When he lived in a rural area of Grass Valley, California, most of the properties varied from 5-40 acres. Neighbors moved in half a mile away and he became good friends with them. The new neighbors had moved to Grass Valley from very noisy City Terrace, which is near East Los Angeles. After a year, the neighbors decided to move back. He asked them why they decided to move back? The neighbors said it was too noisy in the rural area of Grass Valley due to donkeys, cows, horses, peacocks and coyotes. Thank you. Dan Taylor, Jefferson County: He stated that the ordinance as it is written, and even if amended, is far too subjective. He believes that in order for the proposed ordinance to be effective at all, it requires at least minimal decibel readings and substantial hours. As most attorneys know, "reasonable" is one of the most contested words there is. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez replied "That's true." Mr. Taylor stated that if the County wants more lawsuits, it can continue using the "reasonable" standard. Steve Oakford, Port Townsend: He feels that this piece of legislation is complicated and dependent upon judgment calls. Regarding noise, comparing a citizen's judgment call is somewhat different than a trained peace officer making a judgment call for a traffic violation. When a police officer makes a stop, he is following the person he is going to cite and is physically witnessing what is going on. If someone calls the Sheriff or Police department and they respond, that sound may not be still happening. It would be taking the complainant's word about it. If someone is really upset about something, the term "reasonable" definition ceases to exist. Without measurement, it becomes an arbitrary guesstimation. Decibel readers are cheap and he stated he would donate one to the County. Audrey Jean, Jefferson County: She stated she has lived in Jefferson County for 35 years. Most of the complaints seem to be an exaggeration of what the noise ordinance is going to stop the people from doing. From her reading of the ordinance, it seems that some of those things are exempt. Maybe the major extreme noise problems may just affect the minority. Rights and regulations like this are established to protect the minority who are suffering in discomfort from an inconsiderate neighbor's noise pollution. When she is forced to stay up until 2:00 a.m. on a summer night and she has to close all her windows and wear earplugs, that is an infringement of her rights. She would like to see the noise ordinance adopted so that her rights for living in a peaceful, quiet environment are not infringed upon. She does not wish to stay up all night and party with someone else's music. The County used to be quiet and pleasant. She stated that barking dogs and working on your engine during the day is all minor stuff, and most people do not really complain about that. It is the recent extreme noise that is the problem and people need protection from it. The only way to get that protection is to have a noise ordinance. The Sheriff will be able to go out and tell people to stop. Right now, when she complains, the Sheriff doesn't even come out because there is nothing they can do about it, and it's just not right. Several of her neighbors feel the exact same way. Naomi Ingalls, Port Townsend: She stated that she is a third generation Port Townsend native, she lived and grew up here. She and her husband recently bought land out in the County and are currently building a home. She is 100% for the proposed ordinance. A lot of what people are concerned about is already protected in the ordinance. You are not going to be shut down for working on your truck. Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 X, Coyotes, dogs and farm animals are all okay. It is the unreasonable. Maybe the ordinance has to be tweaked so it is not so generalized. It is the unreasonable 3:00 a.m. party, shaking windows. It is the dirtbikes driving five at a time in circles until 10:30 p.m. followed by music, that is ridiculous. This would not be on the table if people were more considerate of their neighbors. That is all they are asking for. Be considerate. This would not even be an issue if people turned down their music and turned off their motorized bikes at 11:00 p.m. Thank you. K.C. Krug: Declined to comment. Previously submitted a written statement. (See hearing record) Gretchen Brewer Port Townsend: She stated she does not generally like to increase regulations. As written, the noise ordinance is too broad and too vague and can lead to regulation creep. There should be a provision to work it out first. There is a similar rule in Berkeley, California. It forces people to take better ownership of their complaint or issue. It often solves problems and creates connections. The way it is currently written is a slippery slope and can lead to a patchwork of regulations. She believes that the proposed ordinance will increase the regulations for individuals and small businesses while continue to exempt the constant large intrusions such as the mill. The mill constantly roars and grinds. Explosions from the pressure relief valves are noisy and it is worse on nights and weekends. People need relief from that, not from a person working on their car when they are taking advantage of the good weather. Navy growlers will be flying over continuously from Whidbey to the West End. That will be a huge problem. She appreciates private aviation and appreciates the exemption for that noted in the proposed ordinance. She previously submitted a written statement. (See hearing record) Chief Larry Karp: He stated he is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to come down here and oppose the noise ordinance. He addressed a previous speaker and Chairman Austin asked him to address the Board. He stated that everyone wants to legislate, and that is quite the challenge. If the County wishes to use the `reasonable" man approach, he would like to volunteer his services as a calibration for a reasonable man. There's people from all walks of life at the Sheriff's department. Some agree with his hillbilly attitude and others won't agree with that. It is not going to work using the Sheriff's department to dictate the "reasonable" man approach. He anticipates the proposed ordinance will get the County into more lawsuits, neighbors pitted against neighbors and it will create more trouble than what currently exists. I beg you ... it's like here we go again. Here we have the fathers down here and soon to be fathers and mothers, trying to come up with a solution where a problem does not exist. Don Henderson, Jefferson County: He stated that there is a problem. What we need is some sort of linkage so we can take care of the bad apples. He has been a country boy all his life and has lived in Jefferson County for 30 years. City people have moved in thinking they can do anything they want to. They bring with them their un -muffled motorcycles and they won't shut up. They won't meet you at the fence to talk things over. We need some linkage to protect the law abiding citizens from the bad apples. Whether it be a decibel meter, or a reasonable person, please do not give up on this project. Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock: He opposes the proposed noise ordinance. The `reasonable" man approach sounds good, but once a neighbor is irritated, that reasonability is out the window. There is no such thing as a "reasonable" man when the Sheriff is called on you. That contains an arbitrary and capricious format right from the beginning. There already is WAC 173.60 that has the ability to call the Sheriff if there is a noise problem. It addresses a decibel level that the Sheriff's department can test. Decibel meters can't be that much. He knows the County has budget issues, but the County should have one if Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 they are to move forward with the noise ordinance. A decibel meter would be able to measure what the issue is and not leave the decision to someone else's whim. Thank you. Carol Wood, Jefferson County: She stated that when the proposed noise ordinance was originally discussed, there were a number of references to rural areas. In fact, we have many developed communities in the unincorporated part of the County. We live in very close proximity to each other. Some people may be fortunate and not have a disgruntled neighbor living near them. She is not so fortunate. Section K, the catchall category, is vague and subjective. She believes that even if a court rules against a person, they still would have an avenue based on the wording of Section K. Section K is an unnecessary burden to the deputies, the court system and she believes it will result in lawsuits to the County. She urged the Board to delete Section K. When a professional sound engineer came out and assessed the [sport] court noise, it was determined that they were below the state standard. In fact, they could have up to two more courts and still be below the state standard. Section K would still not preclude a certain person making one or more repeated complaints to the Sheriff s department. According to the sound engineer, who came at a cost of $1,800, he stated that a decibel measuring device depends on how they are coded. She urged training for the proper use of any sound measuring device, if implemented. Gabe Omelas: He stated he would not talk about dogs or racing cars. They have been through a bit since 2005 with Security Services Northwest (SSNW). Today, it continues. He does not know where the end in sight is. The issue has gone through the Supreme Court and now it lays dormant. The activity at SSNW, which includes explosions, is continuing. He urged the Board not to forget about him and his neighbors and stated they are suffering. It is a warzone. Thank you. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated that a lot of people seem to be basing their trust on a decibel meter. They believe that if a decibel meter is to be used, there will not be a problem. Meters of any sort, when used by law enforcement, have to be continuously calibrated. A case can be thrown out in court if you can show to the court that the radar gun was not calibrated within the previous 24 hours under the same temperatures and such circumstances. There are tight standards on that. The same would apply to the use of decibel meters in the County. You are not going to have all the deputies in this County with decibel meters that are calibrated regularly and accurately in order to have such cases stand up in court. That is why the reasonability standard is included in the proposed ordinance. The ordinance states "An unreasonable noise, as determined by a law enforcement officer..." not by a disgruntled neighbor. The law enforcement officer needs to witness the noise in order to write a citation. We trust police and the Sheriff to make decisions on a myriad of other laws that do not have measuring devices. Law enforcement officers can determine speed, reckless activity, disorderly conduct and other behaviors which are judged based on the "reasonable" standard. That is how we want our society. This law is no different from that. The ordinance may need some fine-tuning, it may be a little too broad in some areas, but overall the ordinance is long overdue. The proposed noise ordinance is suited for this area. The same sort of law has been in force and upheld in hundreds of other counties and communities in this country, let's not be any different. Barbara Barnhart, Jefferson County: She referenced her statement she previously submitted. (See hearing record). She stated she opposes the proposed ordinance. She suggested appointing a committee like Seattle did. Appoint a committee to deal with the dozens of issues that were raised today. The ordinance as written is unenforceable under current case law and ignores the fact that this County is Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 already subject to the Washington State Noise Act and the WAC regulations under that act. She had been told that some of the language in the ordinance has been borrowed from the Skagit County Ordinance. By establishing a committee, they would be able to read all the local ordinances and pick and choose from the best parts. Part of the Skagit County Ordinance was not borrowed. Where it reads "It shall be a complete defense to any charge of a noise violation that the noise meter standards were not violated." The noise meter standards are fundamental. She urged the Board to read what she submitted and not pass the ordinance as currently written. The noise ordinance is way too broad and there are issues to be dealt with, but this is not the way to do it. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he would like a chance to review the record. Commissioner Johnson stated that bickering neighbors will use many tools to get back at each other. He believes they could use a noise ordinance as a tool. He added there are legitimate comments on both sides. The Board agreed to extend the written comment period to December 31, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. The meeting was recessed at 12:24 p.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m. with Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan present. Commissioner Johnson arrived at 1:45 p.m. COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Miscellaneous Items: • Noise Ordinance continued deliberation. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez was present. Commissioners and staff discussed several of the issues raised during the morning public hearing, with particular reference to nuisance from firearms and RC W 9.41.290. WAC 173-60 includes some restrictions on noise from firearms. Staff will research State nuisance law, and state restrictions (if any) on when/where firearms may be discharged. For example, can someone repeatedly fire a semi-automatic rifle outside for target practice at 3:00 a.m. without it qualifying as a nuisance? Staff will also review what other jurisdictions have done and related case law. Depending on the extent of changes made, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) may need or wish to hold another public hearing on a revised ordinance. Commissioners will endeavor to review the written hearing record by December 1, 2014, and deliberations will continue during the December 1, 2014 County Administrator Briefing (CAB) session. The BOCC may continue deliberations at a subsequent (possibly December 8, 2014) regular meeting. It was acknowledged that final action may take place in 2015. • Memorial Field Roof Repair: Public Works Director/County Engineer Monte Reinders, Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler and Central Services Director Frank Gifford were present. Staff outlined the bids with ($366,000) and without ($264,000) a new roof, versus existing revenues ($250,000) for a total maximum shortfall of $116,000, and the potential use of unallocated revenues above amounts budgeted in 2014 for Private Harvest tax ($48,000), Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 I WC Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Timber Sales ($88,000) and Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) ($38,000). The alternative of simply removing the entire roof and superstructure and maintaining the stands was estimated by staff to cost $190,000. Staff recommended replacing the existing roof ($366,000). Commissioner Sullivan expressed concerns about the County's significant competing capital needs, possible future revenue cuts by the state and federal governments, and whether the county would be better off to reserve the Harvest tax, DNR and REET for those other needs. County Administrator Morley discussed tradeoffs between those needs, and the expectation of the community and the County's future relation with the community. He identified other likely revenues in 2015, including c. $80,000 from REET, and $200,000 from Treasurer's interest from maturing CDs to partially address Commissioner Sullivan's objectives. Commissioners Johnson and Chairman Austin favored moving forward to replace the stadium roof. Staff will place the stadium roof replacement bid award on the Regular Agenda for December I, 2014. • Marijuana Moratorium work schedule: Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith was present. The Moratorium's adopted work program would require the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) action by February 9, 2015. Staff vacation and Planning Commission's schedule preclude getting a code revision adopted by the 6 month deadline. He presented an alternate schedule, which includes enacting an extension/renewal of the moratorium. Commissioner Sullivan suggested the BOCC could simply allow the moratorium to lapse. Staff described the vesting that would result. Commissioners explored the idea of renewing the moratorium for less than 6 months, such as 3 months. There was some support for that, though Commissioner Sullivan expressed reservations. • Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Recommendations. Commissioner Austin walked through the LTAC's funding allocation recommendations for 2015 and staff described including in the budget the additional $5,000 capital expenditure contingency for the Gateway Visitor Center. No action was taken, as it was discussed these allocations could be reflected in the Final 2015 Budget that the BOCC would adopt later this year. • Jefferson Land Trust (JLT)/Trust for Public Lands (TPL) open space opportunities (including Navy's Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program) and funding exploration request discussed. All three commissioners spoke against pursuing any tax increase for open space at this time. • 4h Quarter 2014 Budget Update and Sheriffs Office discussions. • 2015 Budget: mentioned but not further discussed. • NACo — Public Lands Committee — need new Jefferson County representative. Commissioners will discuss further in 2015 with the new Commissioner. • BOCC Committee assignments — Commissioners are reviewing these for discussion in 2015. • Consideration of whether to take any BOCC action regarding Navy Growler Jet and electronic warfare testing and whether to request United States Forest Service (USFS) time extension and other process improvements. Commissioners discussed handling this topic as individual Commissioners, rather than as a Board. Calendar Coordination: • The Certification of the Election and Swearing in of the Sheriff, Treasurer and Assessor will be on November 25, 2014.4 Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2014 Commissioner Sullivan will be participating in a Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) conference call regarding marijuana revenue sharing on November 25, 2014. • The Jefferson County Courthouse and County facilities will be closed on November 27 and 28, 2014 in observance of Thanksgiving. • Chairman Austin will be out of the office mid-afternoon on November 25, 2014 and will be back in the office on December 1, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson will be attending the Washington State Auditors Office Exit Conference on December 2, 2014. • There will be a Drug Court graduation on December 4, 2014. • Commissioner Johnson will be attending a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting on December 10, 2014. • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) meeting on December 10, 2014. • There will be a JeffCOM meeting on December 11, 2014. • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Jefferson Transit Board meeting on December 16, 2014. • There will be a Board of Health meeting on December 18, 2014. • Chairman John Austin's recognition and farewell party will be held on December 22, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. • The Jefferson County Courthouse and County facilities will be closed on December 25, 2014. • The Swearing in of Elected Officials will be held on January 2, 2014. Future Agenda Items: • Discuss Boards and Commissions assignments. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:14 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Carolyn very Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnso , ember David Sullivan, Member Page 19 SEA •, t A ATTEST: Carolyn very Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chair Phil Johnso , ember David Sullivan, Member Page 19 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance DATE and TIME: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Not Required CITY Not Required)_YES Testimony? NO MAYBE `7oM K 7_ 5A6I d N, r 57 crrfAd c -k ❑ LSI ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ Viu Ir P a Z a- N � 2 s,- /� - a. jd�fvk V /6t w ;KA ❑ hl K, Sc 04 PK4K❑ `El0✓ J�W !i J r WUmin 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ J O( El [10 ❑ El El ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ 11 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ El El P X - JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance DATE and TIME: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not equire CITY fNot Required)___YES Testimony? No MAYBE owl o i wti� w.rQ El El 'XKI 58 (u �' i o A >_p£� T ��u �1q1 S, 3Dc �Ay ����� P� ��►�� � ❑ ❑ m ❑❑ liar. l z �I �, .9i ❑ ❑ ❑ El 11 U �p 2J&- Mort %�dnSevO El An res t Ivo 1" wA ❑ ❑ Q' ❑ El U9 ElH ❑ !'� d �o 2Sk� l S . k'6�✓o0 0 � �� dcrr� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 11 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance DATE and TIME: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Not Required CITY Not Required) Testimony? YES No MAYBE \ t�� L yeti\ reU� \Z 2g1� sc s^ 'u ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 000 111:10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 111111 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11110 11110 111111 ❑ ❑ ❑ 000 ❑ 1111 ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1:11:1 Y\ y M x JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance DATE and TIME: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Not Required) CITY Not Re uired Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JAA ❑ ❑ ❑ vfz�iE 71-7(�A10-766D(tE( . -t- ❑ 911 ❑ Z E'❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ K M 1vs������M P� ❑ ❑ ❑ © vL — a >>Z -c ❑ ❑ �iwC� �l d> ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �d l LIEM l e- w 0( 1 On T�,txl t- Er ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ F ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ 11 El 11 jeffbocc y `` From: CenturyLink Customer <tmsl93@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:43 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: noise I'll go on record as being strongly against this proposed noise regulation. It seems to me that the vast majority of this is unnecessary. If we really need regulation regarding barking dogs please look at how Seattle deals with this. The county should not be an arbitrator between neighbors, people need to deal with their own problems, our government should instead deal with making itself more efficient. Also, I choose to buy my home in an unincorporated part of the county to avoid just this sort of nonsense. Sincerely Thomas Seslar 11/10/14 To: Board of Jefferson County Commissioners Sheriff Nole D.A. Alvarez Re: Noise control ordinance N1 C v P- I can't be present at the meeting as I live out of state but have a life long investment in Jefferson County. My name is Steven Woodbury. My wife and t purchased a home at 65 Kelly Dr. off of Thomdyke Rd. in Port Ludlow 7 years ago. We live full time in Oregon (Tillamook area) until we both can fully retire and move permanently to 65 Kelly. We visit our home in WA. every other month, at Thanksgiving, Christmas and one month during the Summer. We have friends that target shoot in the area. Most of them are retired law enforcement as I am and we are all safety minded. We all shoot (rarely) and if someone complains we abide by those wishes and respectfully come to an agreement. Never shoot at night unless of an emergency situation. There is one resident nearby that does not get along with anyone. He plays music very loud and sometimes it is full of profanity. He drives his vehicle faster than conditions dictate and is just an all around jackass. Our road, Kelly Drive is a private graveled road that is wide enough for one vehicle. All of us but this person pay into a fund to cover repairs and upkeep of the road. Myself and others have called the Sheriff s office about this resident's noise and we are told there is no ordinance concerning the noise. They won't even go talk to him about it. I live in Tillamook County and was a deputy here for 14 yrs. And we didn't have and still don't have a noise ordinance. The D,A.'s office told us though that 10 PM was the start of "quiet time" If we had 3 complaints about the noise after 10 PM the culprit would be cited for DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Also an attorney told me that if enough neighbors complained and all got together they could file a civil suit against that noise making person for a multitude of reasons. I worked in a county like Jefferson where there were usually only 2 deputies and a state trooper on at night. know they have better things to do and they usually are more important things to deal with. We are suppose to "protect and serve." It would greatly be another tool for law enforcement to deal with business and to serve the community if there were some kind of noise ordnance. Thank you for your time add feel (free to con me. Steven Woodbury 21975 Blaine Rd. , Beaver OR. 97108 jrwoody@embargmail.com 503-398-4606 CenturyLink Webmail: Fwd: Noise ordinance hearing r fIS�n`fivn orr il'Iwrc Beam lawWeima,+8c F- 0. romBabneldmlx l""n 4 milmpy 0.N 0.9W 445:45PMPN M MwLml Erwka .4 x: , xm TO: FROM: DATE: RE: http://maii.centurylink.net/zimbra/h/search?si=0&so—O&sc=80129&... JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator Joe Nole, Interim Sheriff David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney November 10, 2014 HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance, Hearing Scheduled for Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:00 am. in the Commissioners' Chambers STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Jefferson County currently lacks a noise control ordinance. ANALYSIS: Most other counties have such a regulation in place regarding noise control to protect the quality of life for their citizens. A noise control ordinance is particularly needed in this county because it is primarily rural and citizens expect and benefit from overall rural quiet. The regulations from other Washington counties recognize the need to both define what types of noises generate a public disturbance (and should be prohibited) and those noises that must be acknowledged as reasonable and not offensive to the citizens' health and welfare in light of our modem lifestyle. This proposed regulation would follow that balancing model found in the codes of other Washington counties. FISCAL IMPACT: None other than providing the Sheriffs Office with another regulatory tool. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Hearing Notice for publication in THE LEADER and proceed to have a public hearing on this proposed ordinance as part of the BoCC public meeting on Monday, November 24, '... 2014. I//sl y WMo Admi 'strator Date 2 of 11/9/2014 6:46 PM effbocc From: frogmou ntain@olympus. net Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:51 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: noise ordinance Jefferson County commissioners; This letter is regarding proposed noise ordinance while I understand the County needs a noise ordinance. I would like you to consider a variance for kennels between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM. You need to understand that I am caring for other people's dogs some of which do bark. I do everything in my power short of harmful corrections to reduce barking. Some kennels spray dogs with water hoses to stop barking this can lead to aggression and other health problems. It is also the reason many clients bring their dogs to me for care. Noise ordinance In other states and counties make exceptions for existing dog kennels they are not subject to the same noise ordinances as private residence. A distinction should be made between commercial and noncommercial noise between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM. This ordinance as written could be interpreted to make any gun range in violation. Moving in next to a dog kennel and expecting no barking is the same as moving in next to an airport and expecting no planes. One of the major causes I have that starts the dogs barking is sirens which can be heard from Highway 19 and 20. Also you should know I am the only kennel that will take in dogs of people who are vacationing or taking whale watching trips in Jefferson County. As you know I have a neighbor with the stated purpose of closing my kennel! Even though he has left the country to avoid arrest he is very much in contact with other neighbors and wishes to put me out of business. This noise ordinance would be a perfect vehicle for harassment of my kennel. Harold Elyea Frog Mountain Pet Care From: Dennis Schultz <dschultz@waypoint.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:25 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments - Noise Control Ordinance As President of the Olympic Stewardship Foundation, I am submitting the following comments on this proposed ordinance: Public Disturbance Noises: (1)(a) Is this 24 hours a day? (1)(c) Is this 24 hours a day, How about the operation of Agricultural equipment? Does this contradict the JCL's for AG? How about hours? (1)(h) How about discharges used for predator control? (1)(k) This allows an arbitrary judgment call on the part of the enforcing officer. Will they receive special training for judging sounds (source, volume and or distance), How about hearing tests? Persons with very good acute hearing can hear sounds from longer distances. Exempt noises: m) Does not include the use and operation of farm equipment at all hours as allowed in the JCC! This appears to be a poorly written, hard to enforce ordinance, that will be wide open to challenge in court. With this ordinance in place, will there be an increase in enforcement workload. Has there been an analysis of the complaints that have been already made? Are they concentrated to any specific areas, individuals, Hours of the day, day of week, or season? Are they mostly from chronic complainers, or people who don't like their neighbors? Is this a county -wide problem? Is this the best solution for a problem? This county is already overburdened with very extensive sets of regulations that are poorly enforced, do we need more? Dennis Schultz President Olympic Stewardship Foundation P.O. Box 1122 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 jeffbocc From: Bill Eldridge November 13, 2014 4 HEARING R IND Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:12 PM To: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; jeffbocc; jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: Proposed Noise Ordinance Jefferson County Commissioners Jefferson County Administrator The fact that Jefferson County lacks a 'Noise Control Ordinance" does not make it necessary to have one. I have lived in Jefferson County for over 72 years. Jefferson County is a rural county and one of the benefits is having "Freedom". The Jefferson County Sheriff Department has handled noise complaints since the Departments inception. A check of there records will show that noise complaints make up a very small portion of there responses. The Sheriff Department has more pressing matters then to use there resources dealing with barking Dog or Lawn Mower because there neighbor is mad at them and turns them in because of your newest Ordinance. I will also point out that the County has limited revenue do to it's size and Business Base. The money's needed to support this Ordinance is far more important in other areas of the Budget. I have spoken to many citizens of the county and no one I have conversed with feels there is a NOISE issue in Jefferson County. Bill Eldridge Port Ludlow 360-437-2120 From: Troy McKelvey <troymckelvey@gmail, com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:25 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise ordinance I am NOT in favor of this proposed ordinance. Troy McKelvey 1603 Logan Street Port Townsend 360.643.1147 jeffbocc From: Levi Ross <madronahouse1@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:29 AM HEARING REQ` RD To: jeffbocc Subject: [BULK] Proposed noise ordinance Attachments: Proposed Jefferson County Noise Ordinance Comment.docx Please see attached. Levi Ross Proposed Jefferson County Noise Ordinance Comment From: Levi Ross 181 Raven Rd Port Townsend, WA 98368 11/13/14 Gentlemen, It is my opinion that there is little to no need for a noise ordinance in Jefferson Co. to give the sheriff dept. another tool. What is the matter with enforcement activity against 'Creating a Public Nuisance', or 'Disturbing the Peace'. Aren't these both tools that give the sheriff and deputies the ability to cite individuals or businesses for making too much noise? For example, I live on a 10 acre parcel of land near Cape George Colony. Several years ago a Jefferson County Sheriff Deputy drove down my driveway. My dog went out to challenge him, barking all the way. He sited me for having a barking dog. He didn't need a noise ordinance. It seems the Sheriff's office had received a complaint about nuisance barking by dogs. The deputy was out in my neighborhood looking for the source of the noise. He assumed, because my dog barked at him as he approached our house that our dog was the culprit. It took me a while, and a little research, but, I finally found that the complainant lived more than a half mile from my property, on the other side of a ridge and that the barking that was heard could not physically have been from my dog. It was from another dog, much closer to the bothered neighbor. The judge agreed. But, the point is, there was no noise ordinance needed for me to be cited or to have to show up in court to present evidence. One of my arguments to the court, was that, in the rural parts of our county, dogs offer a significant security by alerting owners of visitors or intruders and, when trained to do so by challenging those visitors or intruders by barking. This is of special importance to me. I am a gunsmith, with a permitted home business, on my property. As such, I could be at increased danger of being a target for burglary or theft. My dog is one of the best deterrents available against intruders. While my dog has been trained to help protect my property and family by alerting us when someone drives down our driveway. He also provides significant protection from our burgeoning population of coyotes, raccoons and deer. We have a garden that is often targeted by the local deer population. I've done my best to fence it off to protect it. But, without the barking of my dog we would still experience significant damage due to the marauding deer. The coyote population has been a constant challenge also. They roam through our property, during some parts of the year on a daily basis. Our barking dog challenges and keeps them further away from our residence, our cat, our fish pond, and when we had them our ducks and chickens. They can come through at any time of the day or night. During mating and pupping season our dog can often be heard at 2am helping to heard them away from our property due to his barking challenge. He can, just as easily, be heard at 2pm. The coyotes don't seem to have a set schedule for their visits. They too, are often, quite vociferous. I'm suspecting they will not respond to a noise ordinance. Nor will they be easy to cite for 'disturbing the peace'. The raccoons are another matter. They always show up just before sunrise or just after sunset. Before we had our current dog, we lost many ducks and chickens to the raccoons. Fences and coops were no defense, but, our dog has been. I've communicated with our two closest neighbors about the barking to ask if they are bothered. They have responded that they appreciate the fact that our dog is helping to keep the coyotes further away. One, a single mother also responded that she actually appreciates the activity of our dog. She lost a favorite cat to coyote predation two years ago. She credits the activity of our dog with helping to protect her other cat. She was also burglarized this last summer. It is unfortunate that our dog is also trained to not intrude on our neighbor's territory and did not deter the theft. She commented that she too was considering getting a dog to help with her own personal and property protection. As incidents of theft increase in the rural parts of our county, dogs are often one of the only tools a property owner has that can be counted on to help deter and protect. The noise of barking is primarily the mechanism that deters the thieves. Some of us have chosen to live in the rural parts of our county. Development of such property often requires the use of engine driven tools. Chain saws, tractors, generators, chippers, mowers and pressure washers are just part of the retinue of equipment that is required to help control the growth, move the dirt, power the construction and facilitate development activity. All these devices produce noise. Some of them may need to be used, earlier or later than the proposed ordinance might allow. Currently, the sheriff already has the ability to report, warn and cite anyone or any organization if the noise generated is a nuisance to neighbors. The deputies can easily offer personal incident evaluation as to whether such noise is justified or inappropriate for the time of day and activity. We don't need a noise ordinance for this type of enforcement to continue. There is a flip side to "quiet enjoyment" of one's rural property also. That flip side is the ability to make the noise required to carve out and maintain such rural property. The proposed ordinance also states that objective noise measurement criteria are not required to judge whether any particular noise is a nuisance and subject to control. Without such objective measurement, the enforcement of a noise ordinance can be judged to be arbitrary and capricious. While my argument is that such an ordinance is not needed, if you choose to continue and adopt it, as drafted, without stating objective measurement criteria for judging whether a noise is a nuisance, you will leave the county open to a variety of legal challenges, many that may devolve into subjective argument of one neighbor against another or a deputy against a property owner, that the courts will have no choice but to throw out, due to the lack of objective criteria in the complaint. Without arguing further, let me restate my protest against the need for a specific noise ordinance in our county. Rural residents also have the need and right to produce noise, just as much as they have the right to not have noise be an intrusion into their own quiet enjoyment of a rural lifestyle. Our law enforcement and legal community already have the tools needed to judge and act in support of community and rural residents concerning noise complaints. We don't need a specific noise ordinance just because other counties have one, or on the premise that our law enforcement community needs another tool. A better approach is to encourage the complainant and the subject of the complaint to get together and come to personal agreements on when and how much noise is acceptable. The law enforcement community can already perform this action without needing a noise ordinance. If such agreement cannot be achieved, then warning, citation and enforcement actions against creating a public nuisance or disturbing the peace can be employed with the laws we already have. Let's not let the continuing development of a police state mentality further intrude into our rural community. We don't need it. Levi Ross 360-390-8018 jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: chinook@olypen.com Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 11:48 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordinance Dear Board of Commissioners, I am in support of the proposed ordinance. 1 live next to two houses that are rentals owned by a landlord that lives in Seattle. Those rentals have been weekly in nature, which generates a party atmosphere type crowd of renters. These renters come over, bring speakers out onto the decks of the houses and turn the music up until past midnight in many cases. They have generated over 40 calls from us to JCSO to these addresses (650/660 Tala Shore Drive) for noise complaints in the last 20 years. Lately, new neighbors moved in to 650. While these renters are more stable, they run a semi professional band. Practices extend past 10 PM frequently. We have to listen to their weekly practices, and calls to JCSO over the years have resulted in us being told there is no noise ordinance so many times we don't even call anymore. The houses on the other side of us are empty vacation homes, so no one is impacted regularly except us, as permanent residents. The neighbors also fix old cars, and late night repairs have occurred. 3 AM hot tub parties, loud music until 2, etc. all point to a set of neighbors who do not want to listen to our reasonable requests to keep the noise down to a reasonable time frame and show respect for the people with regular working hours. A noise ordinance will give JCSO a set of teeth to help us get our neighbors to behave in a reasonable manner. Nothing else has worked. Thank you for considering this request. David Neault 640 Tala Shore Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360-620-2629 From: Barbara Glenn <derivativeduo@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:43 PM To: jeffbocc; Barbara Glenn Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regards to the proposed Noise Ordinance being considered in Unincorporated Jefferson County. I live in Cape George Colony, an active, non -rural community, which many people choose as a residence because of its strong neighborhoods, active lifestyle and opportunity for fitness such as the gym, pool and pickleball court. There are always people walking by my house, talking. People can see into my home due to proximity. Privacy and quiet is not a given in such a community. I imagine that the same could be said for Kala Point. There are no farms in the Colony and lots are as small as in many areas within Pt. Townsend proper. We did not want to live a rural life, far from the sight and sound of our neighbors. If people choose to live such an insular life, they would likely choose a more isolated area, with surrounding land to buffer their contact with human noise. I am not sure who instigated this proposed noise ordinance, but the idea that one person could complain about an activity such as a family putting up a basketball hoop in their driveway for their teenagers makes me feel very uncomfortable. A neighborhood could decide to put up a basketball hoop for all of its teenagers to shoot hoops to avoid boredom and misbehavior. A grandmother could decide to babysit her grandchildren every day, and let them yell and play right outside my bedroom window. All of these things can be dealt with reasonably, taking into account the needs of the individual and the community. The proposed Ordinance gives one person too much control over a community's or an individual's choices, especially in a non -rural community like Cape George Colony or Village. This proposed ordinance is vague and seems undemocratic in its granting one person the right to subvert the wishes and needs of others. One person's unreasonable noise is another person's asset. A school or childcare center is an asset to one homeowner while it may feel like it would lower property values for another. An outdoor pool that is open to an entire neighborhood increases property value, despite potential noise issues. Questions of on-going noise problems should be given individual hearings based on the situation. If necessary, extreme problems can be dealt with legally. I do not support this Ordinance. It is too broad and vague to deal with varying situations. It is a set up for people who are angry at each other to make spurious complaints. Please do not adopt this poorly thought out measure. Sincerely, Barbara Glenn From: Ann Candioto <anncandi@cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: proposed noise ordinance Where did it come from and where is it going? I refer to section K of the proposed new noise ordinance up for your consideration. It is difficult to imagine who wrote this ambiguous and puzzling paragraph. It leads one to wonder: are people who don't have normal hearing (hearing aids) not allowed to complain? if "normal" hearing is a standard what about "normal" mental processes and social skills? why do we not need a sound meter reading out here in densely populated Cape George if it is required in town? And, of course, most of all, who is going to decide what is "sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons" (odd phrasing indeed)? Does the Sheriffs Department really want to run all over the county on complaints, check the hearing of the complainer, and make that judgement - they must not be as busy as I thought. It is interesting to think that everytime my peace is threatened - as happens with jetskis, leafblowers, diesel engines, barking dogs (how many barks are too many barks?), motorcycles, woodsplitters, and heavy equipment - instead of dealing with it personally or accepting a certain amount of live -and -let -live, as I do know, I can simply call the Sheriff and ask them to send someone out to do a hearing test on me, make my neighbors behave, and restore my peace, comfort, and repose. This section K is ill conceived, ill written and can only set the Commissioners, Sheriffs Department and the all of us up for more headaches. Please ask more of our ordinance writers than this miserable example. Ann Candioto 51 N Rhododendron Dr Cape George anncandi(c-)cablespeed.com HEARING RECORD ieffbocc From: Ron Bednarski <twocats@cablespeed.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:52 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance Attachments: Bocc pickleball.docx November 18, 2014 To: Jefferson County BOCC Re: Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance Paragraph K, under the heading "public disturbance noise" states "Within unincorporated Jefferson County, it is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession or control of property, including a motor vehicle, to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing. Who gets to evaluate what sounds are unreasonably disruptive, and how exactly do they do that? If the sound of your neighbor practicing his bagpipes send you up the wall, can you summon the sheriff? If the constant burbling of your neighbor's outdoor pond sounds more to you like water torture, can the prosecutor order it shut off? Under this proposed ordinance, one complaining neighbor could make it unlawful for a kid to bounce a basketball in a driveway, or for neighbors in a private community to play outdoor sports of any kind. While the justification for establishing a noise ordinance emphasizes the rural, quiet nature of our unincorporated county, it doesn't take into account that many residential areas (Le. Cape George, Kala Point, and Port Ludlow) are nearly as densely populated as incorporated Port Townsend. A sound meter reading should be a consideration in determining whether a noise rises to the level of public disturbance. Karen Bednarski 61 S. Rhododendron Cape George From: Ann Hueter <pibirdl30@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance Re: Paragraph K While I respect everyones right to live in an environment free from undue noise and disturbance, this gives one person the right to decide what that should be and involve law enforcement in the decision without any objective measurement of the sound required! It also implies that a hearing test would be needed to determine if the complainant has "normal' hearing! This does not identify where the disturbing sound might be coming from - indoors, outdoors, in passing. It is altogether too loose and arbitrary and could only contribute to the addition of reporting in the Leader under Sheriffs Calls . That department has better things to do. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Ann E. Hueter 130 Colman Dr. Pt. Townsend, Wa 98368 HEARING RECORD jeffbocc From: Phyllis Ballough<pballough@integraassociates.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:30 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Section K of proposed noise ordinance To: Jefferson County BOCC Re: Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance Upon hearing about this proposed ordinance I was appalled. There is an ordinance in place and it is based on decibel levels. I cannot believe that our County Commissioners would waste the tax payer's money on this when there are so many other problems in this county to deal with. The amount of officer's time it would take to follow up on these nuisance complaints would take away from investigating much more serious offenses. Meth labs, of which I am sure there are many, robberies, and many more important crimes other than someone running their leaf blower to long. It truly makes me wonder how and why this would be brought before you, it sounds like a one person vendetta. Truly it is important that neighbors step up and talk with each other to solve their problems instead of looking to the government to solve small problems. For larger noise ordinance violations there is already ordinance's in place. I urge you to put this where it belongs on the back burner permanently. Phyllis Ballough 81 So. Rhododendron Dr Port Townsend, WA. 98368 1 HEARING From: Cape George Manager <manager@capegeorge.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:16 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Carol Wood; Fellner Leslie, Karen Krug; Katie Habegger@gmail. com; Mike Hinojos; Ray Pierson; Richard Hilfer Subject: Noise Regulation Hearing Comment Attachments: Letter to JC Commissioners 11-19-14.pdf; Declaration of Jerry Lilly in Support of Defendant's Reply to Pi's Opposition to Motion to Strike.pdf Dear County Commissioners, Attached you will find comment and supporting document from the President of the Board of Cape George Colony Club regarding the Proposed Noise Ordinance. We understand that a hearing is scheduled on Monday, November 24th at 11 am and will be sending a representative to provide additional comment. Sincerely, Art Burke Manager Cape George Colony Club 360-385-1177 CAPE GEORGE COLONY CLUB 61 CAPE GEORGE DRIVE PORT TowNsENO, WA 98368 11/19/2014 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (By mail and by e-mail to ieffbocc(&co.iefferson.wa.us ) Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance hearing (11/24/14 @ 11 AM) Dear Commissioners: www.capegeorge.org office@capegeorge.org PHONE: (360) 385-1177 FAX: (360) 365-3038 Cape George Colony Club is a homeowner association of over 500 homes located on the east side of Discovery Bay. Our association has developed a number of common property amenities for the enjoyment of our residents, including a marina, a pool, a clubhouse, a fitness room and a pickleball court. Our community's experience with the pickleball court has caused concern about the proposed Jefferson County Noise Ordinance. Specifically, we believe subparagraph (k) under Public disturbance noises is overly broad and subjective, and likely to lead to conflict within our community and possibly in other areas of the county. In 2012, a pickleball court was established at Cape George, largely through the volunteer efforts of our members. Since that time, the sport has become very popular and is now enjoyed by many members and their guests. However, one of our members began to complain about noise from the court. She presented the association with unreasonable demands to shut down or move the court. In an effort to address the member's complaints, Cape George enacted rules limiting the hours of play on the court to 9AM-7PM and providing for quieter paddles and balls. These measures were apparently not sufficient because in July 2014 the complaining member filed a lawsuit against Cape George in Jefferson County Superior Court. She immediately sought a court order prohibiting any further play on the court, basing her request upon her own highly subjective complaints. To oppose this request, Cape George presented the court with the report of Jerry Lilly, a registered professional acoustical engineer. A copy of Mr. Lilly's declaration with his curriculum vitae and report is enclosed with this written comment. After taking extensive measurements, Mr. Lilly concluded the pickleball court fully complied with the Washington Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). Mr. Lilly's report stated: In conclusion, there is no doubt that the noise generated from pickleball games on the existing court at Cape George Colony Club is within the allowable limits set forth in WAC 173-060. In fact, these results suggest that the club could Install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the noise ordinance. Presented with this objective evidence, the court denied the restraining order. Shortly thereafter, the complaining member voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit. Subparagraph (k) provides it is unlawful "to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing." it goes on to state a sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists. In Cape George's experience as described above, such a provision could subject the association to unwarranted disputes and, frankly, harassment by allowing the member to base complaints upon her own subjective perceptions even though it has been objectively established Cape George is in full compliance with the Washington Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). This is just one example of the problems subparagraph (k) could cause in our association. I can think of others. Cape George has a marina. Boats often sound their horns upon entering or leaving. Could this subject us to a noise complaint? For these reasons, Cape George requests the Commissioners to reconsider subparagraph (k). Very truly yours, Ric f r President, Bo rd of Trustees Cape George Colony Club Enclosure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Honorable Keith C. Harper Hearing Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY BONNIE WHYTE, No. 14-2-00137-1 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF VS. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO CAPE GEORGE COLONY, a nonprofit MOTION TO STRIKE corporation, Defendant. I, Jerry G. Lilly, declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that I am over the age of eighteen and make this declaration based on personal knowledge: 1. I am the President of JGL Acoustics, Inc., in Issaquah, Washington. I am a registered professional acoustical engineer. I am the past president of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants, and current chairperson of ASTM's Mechanical and Electrical System Noise Subcommittee. I have worked as an acoustical consultant and engineer for almost 40 years. A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW MOTION TO STRIKE - PAGE 1 901 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 1400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 1171379! 3510.0153 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 6894501 FAX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2. I was asked to test whether the sound pressure levels generated by Cape George Colony Club's pickleball court was in compliance with state and local sound ordinances. 3. Washington's sound ordinance is codified at WAC 173-060 ("Sound Ordinance"). Port Townsend has also adopted the Sound Ordinance. Under the Sound Ordinance, the allowable sound level for a steady noise source at any location on a receiving property is 55 dBA during daylight hours, with the following exceptions. Short -duration sounds can exceed this 55 dBA sound level: by 5 dBA up to 15 min./hour; by 10 dBA up to 5 min./hour; and by 15 dBA up to 90 seconds/hour. The maximum allowable noise level is 70 dBA (i.e., 55 dBA + 15 dBA). 4. I performed my sound test on August 8, 2014. I took continuous sound measurements from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. During this time period, four players were playing pickleball. My sound level meter was positioned next to a stake in the ground that was identified as the corner of Ms. Whyte's property line. I used a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2270 Type I Sound Level Meter with BZ -7224 data logging software ("Sound Meter"). I personally calibrated the Sound Meter prior to use. The Sound Meter's microphone was positioned five feet above the ground and fitted with a windscreen. 5. The Sound Meter recorded both the actual (un -weighted) sounds made, as well as the A -weighted sound level. "A -weighted" means that the sound level has been filtered for human hearing. The sound level is represented as "dBA," where "dB" means decibels, and the "A" indicates that the sound level is A -weighted. Washington's Sound Ordinance uses A - weighted sounds, which is why the sound ordinance references "dBA." (There are other sound level weights, including "C -weights" which I discuss below.) DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE - PAGE 2 117137913510.0153 FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 1400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 689-8501 FAX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6. After recording the sound level and ambient noise at Ms. Whyte's property line, I examined the data to identify what sound levels were caused by pickleball-related activity, as opposed to other sounds. Details concerning my findings are discussed in my report dated August 9, 2014. A true and accurate copy of my report is attached as Exhibit B. 7. As I stated in my report, after reviewing the data, I have no doubt that the sound generated from the pickleball court is within the allowable limits set forth by Washington's Sound Ordinance. In fact, I believe that Cape George could install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the Sound Ordinance. 8. I have also reviewed the Supplemental Declaration of Bonnie Whyte. In her Supplemental Declaration, Ms. Whyte claims that she recorded pickleball-related sounds up to 72 dBA. I have not been provided with Ms. Whyte's ambient sound recordings or test data, but I believe Ms. Whyte's 72 dBA reading is erroneous for the reasons discussed below. 9. Many commercial sound meters—including the one Ms. Whyte identifies in her Supplemental Declaration—contain an "A" and "C" switch, allowing the user to quickly toggle between the "A" and "C" setting. 10. The "A" setting tests "A -weighted" sound. As discussed above, an "A - weighted" sound level represents what a person actually hears. People do not hear low - frequency sounds as easily as higher frequency sounds because the human ear progressively filters out lower -frequency sounds. The "A -weighted" filter incorporates this aspect of human hearing. Washington's Sound Ordinance uses "A -weighted" sound ratings exclusively, as do most other states and other countries throughout the world. 11. The "C" setting more closely identifies what a sound meter actually records. A "C -weighted" sound does not filter out low -frequency sounds to the same extent as "A - DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW MOTION TO STRIKE- PAGE 3 SE FIFTH AVENUE •SUITE 1400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 1171379/3510.0153 (206) 689-8500. (206) 689-8501 FAX 11 2, 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 weighted" sound. As a result, the dB rating for C -weighted sounds is always greater than the A -weighted sound level and is typically 10 to 25 dB higher than the equivalent A -weighted sound. In other words, a sound that registers 50 dB (on the A -weighted scale) will register 60 to 85 dB (on the C -weighted scale). 12. A person without technical knowledge of the important difference between A - weighted and C -weighted sounds may mistakenly record C -weighted sounds as "dBA." However, as I stated above, the Sound Ordinance does not use C -weighted sound levels, and C - weighted sounds will greatly over -inflate the A -weighted sound level being recorded. 13. This is also important because sound levels do not progress lineally. Rather, sound levels progress exponentially. For every 10 dBA increase in the sound level, the actual sound to human ears has doubled. So a 70 dBA sound level is twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound level. (If the scale was linear, there would be roughly a 16% increase in loudness between a 60 and 70 dBA levels.) 14. Ms. Whyte's alleged recording of a 72 dBA sound level represents almost double the sound level of the highest pickleball-related sound that I recorded during a continuous hour. The highest sound level I measured on August 8, 2014 was caused by a low- flying single-engine airplane. The sound level of this low-flying airplane was 68.9 dBA, which would be considerably quieter than Ms. Whyte's alleged measurement. 15. By way of comparison, a 72 dBA sound is the equivalent to the sound made by a gas -powered lawn mower being operated outdoors approximately 100' away without any obstructions between the mower and the person hearing it. 16. I do not know the location or conditions under which Ms. Whyte made her alleged measurements. I raise the above issues because they are of a technical nature requiring FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO 901 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 1400 MOTION TO STRIKE -PAGE 4 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 689-8501 FAX 1171379/3510.0153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14� 15 161 17 I8� 19' 20 21 j 22 I 23 i special knowledge, training, and expertise. I have not discussed all of the issues I have with Ms. Whyte's allegations. I declare under penalty of peJjury under the laws of the State of Washington than the { foregoing is true and correct. Signed in Bellevue, Washington, this -_j Z day of August, 2014. Jerry l: cn DECLAR,U [ON OF JERRY IAL I,Y IN SUPPORT OF DUENDANT',S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSI.1JON TO MOTION "N S]'RIKE- PA(;I-: 5 1171379:3510.0153 FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. ATTORNLYS .AI LAW 961 (11111 A,VFRUL.SUI It,' 1400 SFA'I'TLE, WASHINGTON 98164 1206) 689.8500 • (206) 689-8501 FAX EXHIBIT A JERRY G. LILLY EDUCATION: M.S. in Engineering Acoustics, 1975, Pennsylvania State University A.B. in Mathematics, 1972, Whitman College 1983 -Present: President of JGL Acoustics, Inc. providing consulting services to architects, real estate developers, public agencies, and industry in sound and vibration control and environmental noise assessment. The majority of these services are related to four broad areas of acoustics: 1) sound isolation and interior acoustics in buildings, 2) mechanical noise and vibration control, 3) environmental noise assessment and control, and 4) industrial noise control. Other areas of expertise include preparation of environmental impact statements, construction noise assessment, and expert witness testimony. Typical projects include hospitals, music buildings, office buildings, theaters, churches, hotels, educational facilities, industrial facilities, and transportation system improvements. 1979-1983: Acoustical consultant with Towne, Richards & Chaudiere, Inc. in Seattle, Washington. Served as project manager for several mechanical, architectural, and industrial noise control projects. 1977-1979: Acoustical engineer with the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington. Responsible for field measurements and mathematical modeling of underwater acoustic reverberation for applications to U.S. Navy undersea weapons guidance systems. 1975-1977: Acoustical Consultant with Paul S. Veneklasen & Associates, Inc. in Santa Monica, California. EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES: Instructor, M.E. 428 "Machinery Noise", Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Washington, Winter Quarter 1981. Instructor, Arch 436-U "Architectural Acoustics", Department of Architecture at the University of Washington, Spring Quarter 1988. Lecturer, ASHRAE Professional Development Seminar: "Designing HVAC Systems to Control Noise and Vibration", 1996 - Present, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Toronto, Seattle, Montreal, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Austin, Dallas, Denver, Albuquerque, San Diego, Minneapolis, Newport News, Orlando, New York City Jerry G. Lilly Resume 06/09/14 Page 2 of 2 PUBLICATIONS: "Absorption Coefficients for Spatially Separated Acoustical Panels", Proceedingsfrom 1984 International Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Honolulu, HI 1984. "Breakout in HVAC Duct Systems", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 21, No. 10, October 1987. "Vibration and Noise", Chapter 22 of Pumping Station Design, ed. R.L. Sanks, Butterworths, 1989. "A Sound Reduction Enclosure Without Doors", Proceedingsfrom 1991 International Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Sydney, Australia, December 1991. "Environmental Noise Criteria for Pure Tone Industrial Noise Sources", Proceedings from Noise -Con 94, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, May 1994. "Field Testing of Operable Partitions", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 29, No. 11, Nov. 1995. "Noise Control at an EPA Superfund Cleanup Site", Sound and Vibration, Volume 32, No. 12, December 1998. "Reverberation Chamber Qualification at Low Frequencies", Sound and Vibration, Volume 33, No. 12, December 1999. "Noise in the Classroom", ASHRAE Journal, Volume 42, No. 2, February 2000. "Recent Advances in Acoustical Glazing", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 38, No. 2, Feb. 2004. "Suggested Modifications to ASTM Test Method E 477", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 45, No. 6, June 2011. "Acoustical Design and Qualification of Reverberation Rooms", Proceedingsfrom Internoise 2012, New York City, NY, August 2012 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Institute of Noise Control Engineers (Board Certified since 1993) Acoustical Society of America (Fellow since 200 1) National Council of Acoustical Consultants (President: 1996-1998) ASHRAE (Member Technical Committee 2.6, Sound & Vibration) Registered Professional Acoustical Engineer (Oregon, 1983) ASTM (Chair, Subcommitte E 33.08 Mechanical and Electrical System Noise since 2006) EXHIBIT B Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 1 of 5 August 9, 2014 Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164-2050 Attention: Christopher Matheson Subject: Cape George Colony Club Pickleball Court Environmental Noise Measurements Gentlemen: This report presents the results of environmental noise measurements conducted yesterday at the Cape George Colony Club located at 61 Cape George Drive in Port Townsend, WA. The purpose of the measurements was to determine if the noise generated by players playing pickleball on the existing pickleball court is in compliance with the Washington State Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). This ordinance limits noise generated on private property from exceeding allowable limits on neighboring properties. When both properties are zoned residential, as is the case here, the maximum allowable noise level for a steady noise source at any location on the receiving property is 55 dBA during the daytime hours (7 AM to 10 PM). Sounds that have a short duration, such as the noise generated by the ball striking the pickleball paddle, can exceed the 55 dBA allowable sound level by 5 dBA (up to 15 minutes per hour), by 10 dBA (up to 5 minutes per hour), and by 15 dBA (up to 90 seconds per hour). The noise level can never exceed 15 dBA above the stated limit. In this case the absolute maximum allowable noise level is 55 + 15 = 70 dBA. Figure 1 presents an aerial view of the project site showing the location of the pickleball court and the approximate noise measurement location. The measurements were taken with a Bruel & Kiser model 2270 Type 1 sound level meter with the BZ -7224 data logging software. The instrument was calibrated immediately before the measurements with a Bmel & Kjaer model 4230 portable acoustic calibrator. The instrument was placed on a tripod next to a stake in the ground that was identified as the comer of the plaintiff s property line (see Photo 1). The microphone was positioned 5 feet above grade and fitted with a Bruel & Kjacr model UA -1650 windscreen. The weather conditions were perfect with sunny skies, temperatures in the mid 70's and no noticeable wind. The measurements began at 11:00 AM and continued until 12:00 noon. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Figure I (above). Aerial view of site showing the noise measurement location and pickleball court. The microphone was approximately 240 feet from the center of the pickleball court. Photo I (at right). View of Bruel & Kjaer model 2270 sound level meter on tripod located in the woods at the property line. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 3 of 5 N 60 Cape George Ptckleball Court Figure 2. Ambient noise at position t 10 0 11MAM 11:05AM 11:10AM 11:15AM 11:MAM 11:5AM 11:30AM 11:35AM 11:QAM 11:QAM 11:50AM MWAM I2 PM TI.a.1 Dy WgW 0. 2014) Figure 2 presents the measured A -weighted sound pressure level as a function of time. Each data point on the graph represents the 1 -second average sound level. A total of 3,600 data points are displayed in the graph. Note that the noise level was typically between 30 dBA and 50 dBA, with occasional peaks above 55 dBA. These peaks were caused by aircraft and trucks. The highest measured 1 -second average sound pressure level was 68.9 dBA caused by a low-flying single-engine airplane at 11:20 AM. The average (Leq) noise level over the entire hour (including all measured sounds) was 46.1 dBA. The noise level exceeded 55 dBA for a total of 69 seconds during the hour. (Note that the noise ordinance permits the level to exceed 55 dBA for up to 15 minutes per hour). The noise level exceeded 60 dBA for a total of 20 seconds. (Note that the noise ordinance permits the level to exceed 60 dBA for up to 5 minutes per hour). The noise level exceeded 65 dBA for a total of 5 seconds, when the noise ordinance allows levels above 65 dBA up to 90 seconds per hour. Thus, based on the analysis of the I -second noise measurements, the measured noise level showed compliance with the noise ordinance, even including all of the other ambient noise sources. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 4 of 5 It is interesting to note the high resolution data capture feature of the Bruel & Kjaer 2270 sound level meter. Figure 3 presents some of the same data shown in Figure 2, except with the sound pressure level averaged over 0.1 second. This graph shows the measured sound level over a 2 minute time period beginning at 11:02 AM. Each data point represents 1/10th of a second, so the entire 2 minute time period is represented by 1,200 data points. Here you can easily see each individual impact of the pickleball and the paddle. The sound level of each impact ranges from 35 to 57 dBA. During this two - minute time period there was only 1 impact over 55 dBA, and that impact lasted only 1/10"' of a second. It would take 10 identical impacts to accumulate 1 second over the 55 dBA noise ordinance limit. Since the noise ordinance allows sound levels to exceed 55 dBA up to 15 minutes per hour, it would take 9,000 of these impacts during an hour to exceed the noise ordinance. There were a total of 33 identifiable pickleball impacts during this 2 minute time period. Only one exceeded 55 dBA. Figure 4 presents the measured noise level for a 2 -minute time period beginning at 11:41 AM. This time period was selected because it had the highest measured pickleball impact noise level (63.7 dBA at 11:41:40 AM) during the entire 1 -hour time period. During this 2 -minute time period the pickleball noise level exceeded 60 dBA two times, each time for only 1/100 of a second. The pickleball impact sound levels ranged from 35 9 0D d 30 10 0 1- 11:02.00 AM Cape George Pleklebali Court Figure 3. Ambient noise at Position 7 11:02:30 AM 11:03:OD AM Time of Dig (August e. 2014) 11:03:30 AM 11:000 AM 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 5 of 5 60 E W 0 P- 11:41:00 AM Cape George Piekleball Court Flgum4. A1N11ant noise at Position 1 &� 63.]daA 11:41:30 AM 11:42:OD AM 11:42:37 AM 11:43:00 AM time W Dy (Augwt a. 2014) dBA to 63.7 dBA, with most of the maximum levels between 50 and 55 dBA. Note that the noise ordinance allows the sound pressure level to exceed 60 dBA for a total of 5 minutes each hour. It would take 3,000 pickleball impacts each with a maximum level of 63.7 dBA to exceed the noise ordinance limit. In this 2 -minute interval there were only 2 impacts of that level, and these were the highest pickleball impacts registered during the entire one-hour measurement. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the noise generated from pickleball games on the existing court at Cape George Colony Club is within the allowable limits set forth in WAC 173-060. In fact, these results suggest that the club could install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the noise ordinance. If you have any questions regarding these findings, do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, JGL Acoustics, Inc, Jerry G. Lilly, P.E., President, FASA Member INCE, ASTM, NCAC 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 CAPE GEORGE COLONY CLUB REA1 CORD 61 CAPE GEORGE DRIVE f HL/� g PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 office@capegeorge.org PHONE: (360)385-1177 FAX: (360) 385-3038 11/19/2014 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (By mail and by e-mail to Ieffbocc(o)co.iefferson.wa.us ) Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance hearing (11/24/14 @ 11 AM) Dear Commissioners: Cape George Colony Club is a homeowner association of over 500 homes located on the east side of Discovery Bay. Our association has developed a number of common property amenities for the enjoyment of our residents, including a marina, a pool, a clubhouse, a fitness room and a pickleball court. Our community's experience with the pickleball court has caused concern about the proposed Jefferson County Noise Ordinance. Specifically, we believe subparagraph (k) under Public disturbance noises is overly broad and subjective, and likely to lead to conflict within our community and possibly in other areas of the county. In 2012, a pickleball court was established at Cape George, largely through the volunteer efforts of our members. Since that time, the sport has become very popular and is now enjoyed by many members and their guests. However, one of our members began to complain about noise from the court. She presented the association with unreasonable demands to shut down or move the court. In an effort to address the member's complaints, Cape George enacted rules limiting the hours of play on the court to 9AM-7PM and providing for quieter paddles and balls. These measures were apparently not sufficient because in July 2014 the complaining member filed a lawsuit against Cape George in Jefferson County Superior Court. She immediately sought a court order prohibiting any further play on the court, basing her request upon her own highly subjective complaints. To oppose this request, Cape George presented the court with the report of Jerry Lilly, a registered professional acoustical engineer. A copy of Mr. Lilly's declaration with his curriculum vitae and report is enclosed with this written comment. After taking extensive measurements, Mr. Lilly concluded the pickleball court fully complied with the Washington Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). Mr. Lilly's report stated: In conclusion, there is no doubt that the noise generated from pickleball games on the existing court at Cape George Colony Club is within the allowable limits set forth in WAC 173-060. In fact, these results suggest that the club could install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the noise ordinance. Presented with this objective evidence, the court denied the restraining order. Shortly thereafter, the complaining member voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit. Subparagraph (k) provides it is unlawful "to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing." It goes on to state a sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists. In Cape George's experience as described above, such a provision could subject the association to unwarranted disputes and, frankly, harassment by allowing the member to base complaints upon her own subjective perceptions even though it has been objectively established Cape George is in full compliance with the Washington Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). This is just one example of the problems subparagraph (k) could cause in our association. I can think of others. Cape George has a marina. Boats often sound their horns upon entering or leaving. Could this subject us to a noise complaint? For these reasons, Cape George requests the Commissioners to reconsider subparagraph (k). Very truly yours, Ric f r President, Bo rd of Trustees Cape George Colony Club Enclosure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Honorable Keith C. Harper Hearing Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUN'T'Y BONNIE WHYTE, No. 14-2-00137-1 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF VS. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO CAPE GEORGE COLONY, a nonprofit MOTION TO STRIKE corporation, Defendant. I, Jerry G. Lilly, declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that I am over the age of eighteen and make this declaration based on personal knowledge: 1. I am the President of JGL Acoustics, Inc., in Issaquah, Washington. I am a registered professional acoustical engineer. I am the past president of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants, and current chairperson of ASTM's Mechanical and Electrical System Noise Subcommittee. I have worked as an acoustical consultant and engineer for almost 40 years. A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINrIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE - PAGE 1 1171379/3510.0153 FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 1400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 689-8501 FAX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2. I was asked to test whether the sound pressure levels generated by Cape George Colony Club's pickleball court was in compliance with state and local sound ordinances. 3. Washington's sound ordinance is codified at WAC 173-060 ("Sound Ordinance"). Port Townsend has also adopted the Sound Ordinance. Under the Sound Ordinance, the allowable sound level for a steady noise source at any location on a receiving property is 55 dBA during daylight hours, with the following exceptions. Short -duration sounds can exceed this 55 dBA sound level: by 5 dBA up to 15 min./hour; by 10 dBA up to 5 min./hour; and by 15 dBA up to 90 seconds/hour. The maximum allowable noise level is 70 dBA (i.e., 55 dBA + 15 dBA). 4. I performed my sound test on August 8, 2014. I took continuous sound measurements from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. During this time period, four players were playing pickleball. My sound level meter was positioned next to a stake in the ground that was identified as the comer of Ms. Whyte's property line. I used a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2270 Type I Sound Level Meter with BZ -7224 data logging software ("Sound Meter"). I personally calibrated the Sound Meter prior to use. The Sound Meter's microphone was positioned five feet above the ground and fitted with a windscreen. 5. The Sound Meter recorded both the actual (un -weighted) sounds made, as well as the A -weighted sound level. "A -weighted" means that the sound level has been filtered for human hearing. The sound level is represented as "dBA," where "dB" means decibels, and the "A" indicates that the sound level is A -weighted. Washington's Sound Ordinance uses A. weighted sounds, which is why the sound ordinance references "dBA." (There are other sound level weights, including "C -weights" which I discuss below.) DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE -PAGE 2 1171379/3510.0153 FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 1400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 689-8501 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6. After recording the sound level and ambient noise at Ms. Whyte's property line, I examined the data to identify what sound levels were caused by pickleball-related activity, as opposed to other sounds. Details concerning my findings are discussed in my report dated August 9, 2014. A true and accurate copy of my report is attached as Exhibit B. 7. As I stated in my report, after reviewing the data, I have no doubt that the sound generated from the pickleball court is within the allowable limits set forth by Washington's Sound Ordinance. In fact, I believe that Cape George could install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the Sound Ordinance. 8. I have also reviewed the Supplemental Declaration of Bonnie Whyte. In her Supplemental Declaration, Ms. Whyte claims that she recorded pickleball-related sounds up to 72 dBA. I have not been provided with Ms. Whyte's ambient sound recordings or test data, but I believe Ms. Whyte's 72 dBA reading is erroneous for the reasons discussed below. 9. Many commercial sound meters—including the one Ms. Whyte identifies in her Supplemental Declaration—contain an "A" and "C" switch, allowing the user to quickly toggle between the "A" and "C" setting. 10. The "A" setting tests "A -weighted" sound. As discussed above, an "A - weighted" sound level represents what a person actually hears. People do not hear low - frequency sounds as easily as higher frequency sounds because the human ear progressively filters out lower -frequency sounds. The "A -weighted" filter incorporates this aspect of human hearing. Washington's Sound Ordinance uses "A -weighted" sound ratings exclusively, as do most other states and other countries throughout the world. 11. The "C" setting more closely identifies what a sound meter actually records. A "C -weighted" sound does not filter out low -frequency sounds to the same extent as "A - DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW MOTION TO STRIKE - PAGE 3 901 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 1400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 1171379/3510.0153 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 669-8501 FAX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 weighted" sound. As a result, the dB rating for C -weighted sounds is always greater than the A -weighted sound level and is typically 10 to 25 dB higher than the equivalent A -weighted sound. In other words, a sound that registers 50 dB (on the A -weighted scale) will register 60 to 85 dB (on the C -weighted scale). 12. A person without technical knowledge of the important difference between A - weighted and C -weighted sounds may mistakenly record C -weighted sounds as "dBA." However, as I stated above, the Sound Ordinance does not use C -weighted sound levels, and C - weighted sounds will greatly over -inflate the A -weighted sound level being recorded. 13. This is also important because sound levels do not progress lineally. Rather, sound levels progress exponentially. For every 10 dBA increase in the sound level, the actual sound to human ears has doubled. So a 70 dBA sound level is twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound level. (If the scale was linear, there would be roughly a 16% increase in loudness between a 60 and 70 dBA levels.) 14. Ms. Whyte's alleged recording of a 72 dBA sound level represents almost double the sound level of the highest pickleball-related sound that I recorded during a continuous hour. The highest sound level I measured on August 8, 2014 was caused by a low- flying single-engine airplane. The sound level of this low-flying airplane was 68.9 dBA, which would be considerably quieter than Ms. Whyte's alleged measurement. 15. By way of comparison, a 72 dBA sound is the equivalent to the sound made by a gas -powered lawn mower being operated outdoors approximately 100' away without any obstructions between the mower and the person hearing it. 16. I do not know the location or conditions under which Ms. Whyte made her alleged measurements. I raise the above issues because they are of a technical nature requiring DECLARATION OF JERRY LILLY IN SUPPORT OF FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 901 FIFTH AVENUE . SUITE 1400 MOTION TO STRIKE - PAGE 4 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164 1171379/3510.0153 (206) 689-8500 • (206) 689-8501 FAX 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1.> 14 15 16 17 18 19 li 20 I 21 22 2i Ij special knowledge, training, and expertise. I have not discussed all of the issues I have with Ms. Whyte's allegations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State- of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. j Signed in Bellevue, Washington, this --J 2 day of August, 2014. Jerry LMW \ D1'CI ARIION OF.1FRRl 1 LI,Y IN SI;PPORT01° DI tFNOAN}'iRI;:P4l'TO P4AIt"1"1 Pl="S OPPQS1TtOu-I'f.7 NIO'HOti TO STR I Kra — PAG 1 5 1 1 ? 1179 13510.0153 FORSBERG & UMLAUr, P.S. A FrORNII YS A IAW 901 FlPfli AVENUE. SUI rF 14nu SEAT -FIT. ti'.1SNINGTOA 93164 (20,689-8,(10.,2061689-3501 PAX EXHIBIT A JERRY G. LILLY EDUCATION- M.S. in Engineering Acoustics, 1975, Pennsylvania State University A.B. in Mathematics, 1972, Whitman College EXPERIENCE: 1983 -Present: President of JGL Acoustics, Inc. providing consulting services to architects, real estate developers, public agencies, and industry in sound and vibration control and environmental noise assessment. The majority of these services are related to four broad areas of acoustics: 1) sound isolation and interior acoustics in buildings, 2) mechanical noise and vibration control, 3) environmental noise assessment and control, and 4) industrial noise control. Other areas of expertise include preparation of environmental impact statements, construction noise assessment, and expert witness testimony. Typical projects include hospitals, music buildings, office buildings, theaters, churches, hotels, educational facilities, industrial facilities, and transportation system improvements. 1979-1983: Acoustical consultant with Towne, Richards & Chaudiere, Inc. in Seattle, Washington. Served as project manager for several mechanical, architectural, and industrial noise control projects. 1977-1979: Acoustical engineer with the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington. Responsible for field measurements and mathematical modeling of underwater acoustic reverberation for applications to U.S. Navy undersea weapons guidance systems. 1975-1977: Acoustical Consultant with Paul S. Veneklasen & Associates, Inc. in Santa Monica, California. EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES: Instructor, M.E. 428 "Machinery Noise", Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Washington, Winter Quarter 1981. Instructor, Arch 436-U "Architectural Acoustics", Department of Architecture at the University of Washington, Spring Quarter 1988. Lecturer, ASI IRAE Professional Development Seminar: "Designing HVAC Systems to Control Noise and Vibration", 1996 - Present, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Toronto, Seattle, Montreal, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Austin, Dallas, Denver, Albuquerque, San Diego, Minneapolis, Newport News, Orlando, New York City Jerry G. Lilly Resume 06/09/14 Page 2 of 2 PUBLICATIONS: "Absorption Coefficients for Spatially Separated Acoustical Panels", Proceedingsfrom 1984 International Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Honolulu, HI 1984. "Breakout in HVAC Duct Systems", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 21, No. 10, October 1987. "Vibration and Noise", Chapter 22 of Pumping Station Design, ed. R.L. Stinks, Butterworths, 1989. "A Sound Reduction Enclosure Without Doors", Proceedings from 1991 International Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Sydney, Australia, December 1991. "Environmental Noise Criteria for Pure Tone Industrial Noise Sources", Proceedings from Noise -Con 94, Ft, Lauderdale, Florida, May 1994. "Field Testing of Operable Partitions", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 29, No. 11, Nov. 1995. "Noise Control at an EPA Superfund Cleanup Site", Sound and Vibration, Volume 32, No. 12, December 1998. "Reverberation Chamber Qualification at Low Frequencies", Sound and Vibration, Volume 33, No. 12, December 1999. "Noise in the Classroom", ASHRAE Journal, Volume 42, No. 2, February 2000. "Recent Advances in Acoustical Glazing", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 38, No. 2, Feb. 2004. "Suggested Modifications to ASTM Test Method E 477", Sound and Vibration, Vol. 45, No. 6, June 2011. "Acoustical Design and Qualification of Reverberation Rooms", Proceedings from Internoise 2012, New York City, NY, August 2012 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Institute of Noise Control Engineers (Board Certified since 1993) Acoustical Society of America (Fellow since 200 1) National Council of Acoustical Consultants (President: 1996-1998) ASHRAE (Member Technical Committee 2.6, Sound & Vibration) Registered Professional Acoustical Engineer (Oregon, 1983) ASTM (Chair, Subcommitte E 33.08 Mechanical and Electrical System Noise since 2006) EXHIBIT B Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page I of 5 August 9, 2014 Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S. 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164-2050 Attention: Christopher Matheson Subject: Cape George Colony Club Pickleball Court Environmental Noise Measurements Gentlemen: This report presents the results of environmental noise measurements conducted yesterday at the Cape George Colony Club located at 61 Cape George Drive in Port Townsend, WA. The purpose of the measurements was to determine if the noise generated by players playing pickleball on the existing pickleball court is in compliance with the Washington State Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). This ordinance limits noise generated on private property from exceeding allowable limits on neighboring properties. When both properties are zoned residential, as is the case here, the maximum allowable noise level for a steady noise source at any location on the receiving property is 55 dBA during the daytime hours (7 AM to 10 PM). Sounds that have a short duration, such as the noise generated by the ball striking the pickleball paddle, can exceed the 55 dBA allowable sound level by 5 dBA (up to 15 minutes per hour), by 10 dBA (up to 5 minutes per hour), and by 15 dBA (up to 90 seconds per hour). The noise level can never exceed 15 dBA above the stated limit. In this case the absolute maximum allowable noise level is 55 + 15 = 70 dBA. Figure 1 presents an aerial view of the project site showing the location of the pickleball court and the approximate noise measurement location. The measurements were taken with a Bruel & Kjaer model 2270 Type 1 sound level meter with the BZ -7224 data logging software. The instrument was calibrated immediately before the measurements with a Bruel & Kjaer model 4230 portable acoustic calibrator. The instrument was placed on a tripod next to a stake in the ground that was identified as the corner of the plaintiff's property line (see Photo 1). The microphone was positioned 5 feet above grade and fitted with a Bruel & Kjaer model UA -1650 windscreen. The weather conditions were perfect with sunny skies, temperatures in the mid 70's and no noticeable wind. The measurements began at 11:00 AM and continued until 12:00 noon. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1 (above). Aerial view of site showing the noise measurement location and pickleball court. The microphone was approximately 240 feet from the center of the pickleball court. Photo 1 (at right). View of Bruel & Kjaer model 2270 sound level meter on tripod located in the woods at the property line. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Cape George Pickleball Court Figure 2. Ambient noise at Position t Tim. of Day (Au9.st S. 3014) Figure 2 presents the measured A -weighted sound pressure level as a function of time. Each data point on the graph represents the 1 -second average sound level. A total of 3,600 data points are displayed in the graph. Note that the noise level was typically between 30 dBA and 50 dBA, with occasional peaks above 55 dBA. These peaks were caused by aircraft and trucks. The highest measured 1 -second average sound pressure level was 68.9 dBA caused by a low-flying single-engine airplane at 11:20 AM. The average (Lech noise level over the entire hour (including all measured sounds) was 46.1 dBA. The noise level exceeded 55 dBA for a total of 69 seconds during the hour. (Note that the noise ordinance permits the level to exceed 55 dBA for up to 15 minutes per hour). The noise level exceeded 60 dBA for a total of 20 seconds. (Note that the noise ordinance permits the level to exceed 60 dBA for up to 5 minutes per hour). The noise level exceeded 65 dBA for a total of 5 seconds, when the noise ordinance allows levels above 65 dBA up to 90 seconds per hour. Thus, based on the analysis of the 1 -second noise measurements, the measured noise level showed compliance with the noise ordinance, even including all of the other ambient noise sources. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 ,�■■� IMMMEMEMEMEM 1lil�� �� 1 ���'"I!�i�l I!71f, ��'I�fif 11�17��1 �'� � �'1���I'�I M■■■■■■■■■1�1■ ,■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■EM■■■■■■■ Tim. of Day (Au9.st S. 3014) Figure 2 presents the measured A -weighted sound pressure level as a function of time. Each data point on the graph represents the 1 -second average sound level. A total of 3,600 data points are displayed in the graph. Note that the noise level was typically between 30 dBA and 50 dBA, with occasional peaks above 55 dBA. These peaks were caused by aircraft and trucks. The highest measured 1 -second average sound pressure level was 68.9 dBA caused by a low-flying single-engine airplane at 11:20 AM. The average (Lech noise level over the entire hour (including all measured sounds) was 46.1 dBA. The noise level exceeded 55 dBA for a total of 69 seconds during the hour. (Note that the noise ordinance permits the level to exceed 55 dBA for up to 15 minutes per hour). The noise level exceeded 60 dBA for a total of 20 seconds. (Note that the noise ordinance permits the level to exceed 60 dBA for up to 5 minutes per hour). The noise level exceeded 65 dBA for a total of 5 seconds, when the noise ordinance allows levels above 65 dBA up to 90 seconds per hour. Thus, based on the analysis of the 1 -second noise measurements, the measured noise level showed compliance with the noise ordinance, even including all of the other ambient noise sources. 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 4 of 5 It is interesting to note the high resolution data capture feature of the Bruel & Kjaer 2270 sound level meter. Figure 3 presents some of the same data shown in Figure 2, except with the sound pressure level averaged over 0.1 second. This graph shows the measured sound level over a 2 minute time period beginning at 11:02 AM. Each data point represents 1 /10"' of a second, so the entire 2 minute time period is represented by 1,200 data points. Here you can easily see each individual impact of the pickleball and the paddle. The sound level of each impact ranges from 35 to 57 dBA. During this two - minute time period there was only I impact over 55 dBA, and that impact lasted only 1/10th of a second. It would take 10 identical impacts to accumulate I second over the 55 dBA noise ordinance limit. Since the noise ordinance allows sound levels to exceed 55 dBA up to 15 minutes per hour, it would take 9,000 of these impacts during an hour to exceed the noise ordinance. There were a total of 33 identifiable pickleball impacts during this 2 minute time period. Only one exceeded 55 dBA. Figure 4 presents the measured noise level for a 2 -minute time period beginning at 11:41 AM. This time period was selected because it had the highest measured pickleball impact noise level (63.7 dBA at 11:41:40 AM) during the entire 1 -hour time period. During this 2 -minute time period the pickleball noise level exceeded 60 dBA two times, each time for only 1/10 of a second. The pickleball impact sound levels ranged from 35 70 W o 11:02:00 AM Cape George Pickleball Court Figure 3. Amblemi noise at Position 1 57.0 dBA 11:02:30 AM 11:0100 AM 11:0 MW AM 11 N:00 AM Time of pry )AUWst 0. 2014) 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 Cape George Pickleball Court August 9, 2014 Page 5 of 5 n W to a +- 11:41:00 AM Cape George Pickleball Court Figure4. Ambient noise at Position 1 63.]deA 1141:30 AM 11:4T00 AM 11:43:30 AM 11:4 W AM Time of Dry (Augum B, 4014) dBA to 63.7 dBA, with most of the maximum levels between 50 and 55 dBA. Note that the noise ordinance allows the sound pressure level to exceed 60 dBA for a total of 5 minutes each hour. It would take 3,000 pickleball impacts each with a maximum level of 63.7 dBA to exceed the noise ordinance limit. In this 2 -minute interval there were only 2 impacts of that level, and these were the highest pickleball impacts registered during the entire one-hour measurement. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the noise generated from pickleball games on the existing court at Cape George Colony Club is within the allowable limits set forth in WAC 173-060. h1 fact, these results suggest that the club could install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the noise ordinance. If you have any questions regarding these findings, do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, JGL Acoustics, Inc, o., Jerry G. Lilly, P.E., President, FASA Member INCE, ASTM, NCAC 5266 NW Village Park Drive Phone: (425) 649-9344 Issaquah, WA 98027 FAX: (425) 649-0737 jeffbocc From: Woody <cwoodnla@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:32 PM To: manager@capegeorge.org; jeffbocc Cc: daisydigge2@gmail.com; ksltd@sprintmail.com; kphabegger@gmail.com; imahwino@cablespeed.com; rneinpt@cablespeed.com; rjhilfer@cablespeed.com Subject: Re: Noise Regulation Hearing Comment Is it possible to send a copy of this to David Stanko so he will know our position on this? A couple of folks have asked about that and perhaps asking David to be present to address this Section K if he's concerned about the enforcement issues. Woody -----Original Message ----- From: Cape George Manager <manager@capegeorge.org> To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Carol Wood <cwoodnla@aol.com>; Fellner Leslie <daisydigge2@gmail.com>; Karen Krug <ksltd@sprintmail.com> Katie Habegger@gmail. com <kphabegger@gmail.com>; Mike Hinojos <imahwino@cablespeed.com>; Ray Pierson <rneinpt@cablespeed.com>, Richard Hilfer <rjhilfer@cablespeed.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 11:16 am Subject: Noise Regulation Hearing Comment Dear County Commissioners, Attached you will find comment and supporting document from the President of the Board of Cape George Colony Club regarding the Proposed Noise Ordinance. We understand that a hearing is scheduled on Monday, November 24th at 11 am and will be sending a representative to provide additional comment. Sincerely, Art Burke Manager Cape George Colony Club 360-385-1177 jeffbocc From: Richard Hilfer <rjhilfer@cablespeed.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:54 PM To: Woody Cc: manager@capegeorge.org; jeffbocc; daisydigger2@gmail.com; ksltd@sprintmail.com, kphabegger@gmail.com; imahwino@cablespeed.com; rneinpt@cablespeed.com Subject: Re: Noise Regulation Hearing Comment I have no problem with you sending this to Stanko. It is now public record Also, if any Trustee wants to provide oral testimony to the Commission on behalf of Cape George on 11/24, please let Art know. On Nov 19, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Woody wrote: Is it possible to send a copy of this to David Stanko so he will know our position on this? A couple of folks have asked about that and perhaps asking David to be present to address this Section K if he's concerned about the enforcement issues. Woody -----Original Message ---- From: Cape George Manager <manager(d)..capegeorge.org> To: jeffbocc <ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.up Cc: Carol Wood <cwoodnla(a)aol.com>, Fellner Leslie <daisvdigger2(a)gmail.com>; Karen Krug <ksltd dsprintmail.com>; Katie Habegger@gmail. com <kphabegger(a)gmail. com>; Mike Hinojos <imahwino(d)cablespeed.com>; Ray Pierson <rneinpt(a_cablespeed.com>; Richard Hilfer <rihilfer a(�.cablespeed.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 11:16 am Subject: Noise Regulation Hearing Comment Dear County Commissioners, Attached you will find comment and supporting document from the President of the Board of Cape George Colony Club regarding the Proposed Noise Ordinance. We understand that a hearing is scheduled on Monday, November 24th at 11 am and will be sending a representative to provide additional comment. Sincerely, Art Burke Manager Cape George Colony Club 360-385-1177 jeffbocc From: Leslie Fellner <daisydigger2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:13 PM To: Cape George Manager Cc: jeffbocc; Carol Wood; Karen Krug, Katie Habegger@gmail. com; Mike Hinojos; Ray Pierson, Richard Hilfer Subject: Re: Noise Regulation Hearing Comment I think this letter is absolutely perfect. Thank you Richard, and everyone else who contributed to it Leslie On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Cape George Manager <manageria capeaeor¢e.org> wrote: Dear County Commissioners, Attached you will find comment and supporting document from the President of the Board of Cape George Colony Club regarding the Proposed Noise Ordinance. We understand that a hearing is scheduled on Monday, November 24th at 11 am and will be sending a representative to provide additional comment. Sincerely, Art Burke Manager Cape George Colony Club 360-385-1177 HEARING RECORD leffbocc From: Woody <cwoodnla@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:39 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Objections to Proposed Noise Control Regulations I am writing to address the proposed Jefferson County Noise Control Regulations 1. Why doesn't the Board of Commissioners wait until the incoming sheriff (Stanko) and prosecutor (Haas) have an opportunity to discuss this with staff (Nole and Alvarez) whom the newspaper reported promulgated and proposed these regulations? 2. 1 believe it is the sheriffs duty to ENFORCE THE LAW AND NOT MAKE THE LAW and I believe our incoming sheriff has so stated in his campaign. (See comment 1 above) 3. 1 OBJECT TO PARAGRAPH K in the Public Disturbance Noise section for many reasons, including the following: a. Why would you want to treat the many residents & communities of the unincorporated Jefferson County differently than residents of incorporated cities in Jefferson County are treated re: noise? That is discriminatory! b. This paragraph is vague and subjective and clearly aimed at addressing a single disgruntled person's complaint. What unreasonably disturbs or interferes with another's peace may be and often are sounds of joy for others. c. Because of the lack of an objective standard deliberately deleted in Paragraph K, enforcement will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The commission will be opening the door to numerous lawsuits if this section and the definition of a violation is adopted. (See comment D below) d. I OBJECT TO THE DEFINITION OF "VIOLATION". The drafter of this section notes that "it shall be a violation of this Chapter to generate, produce, disseminate or otherwise make available to the hearing of others a "public disturbance noise" or any source(s) of sound which unreasonably disturb(s) or interfere(s) with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors. (Emphasis added). This gives the impression that even if, Paragraph K of the Public Disturbance Noises was deleted, the disgruntled neighbor still has a complaint by definition!! e. I OBJECT TO THE STATEMENT UNDER LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION which states "that this Chapter shall be liberally construed to carry out its broad purposes". If the County has proper & clear objective regulations drafted there should be no need for an enforcement official to "liberally construe" anything, as you suggest. A violation would be clear on its face if objective standards were set. I ASK THAT YOU CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL AND DIRECT COPIES TO MR. STANKO AND MR. HAAS IMMEDIATELY. Thank you. Carol Wood r.�r,�� HEARING From: Matt Stewart Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:01 AM To: Philip Morley Cc: Frank Gifford Subject: County shop concerns with noise ordinance Importance: High Philip, 1 have some concerns about our ability to continue operating the shop and (though I do not purport to speak here for them) the ability of Public Works to perform many of their routine operations without running afoul of the noise ordinance as it is currently drafted. Here are the relevant portions: Definitions. (4) "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, governmental body, state, or other entity whatsoever Public disturbance noises. (1) Public disturbance noises include: (c) Frequent, repetitive, or continuous noises from starting, operating, repairing, rebuilding, or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, dirt bike, other off-highway or off-road vehicle, or any internal combustion engine; Exempt Noises. Sounds originating from the sources listed here do not constitute a violation of this Chapter, are not "public disturbance noises" and are defined as an "exempt noise" regardless of where or when they occur. h) Emergency equipment and work necessary in the interests of law enforcement or for the health, safety or welfare of the community; j) The installation or repair of essential utility services or work necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; k) Generators during periods when there is no electrical service available from the primary supplier due to power outage; o) The operation of motor vehicles on highways which are regulated under Chapter 173-62 WAC; The first paragraph means we have to comply. The second says that the type of noise we generate repairing vehicles is prohibited — not prohibited at a certain volume at certain hours (as in 173-60 WAC), but strictly prohibited as a public disturbance noise. All yard operations also seem to be prohibited here: moving vehicles and equipment around our yard, operating our forklift, loading sand into dump trucks, etc. (This would seem to apply to all vehicle and equipment shops. Read strictly, it would prohibit all such shops unless they could operate without frequently or repetitively running the vehicles/equipment being repaired.) Exemption "h" exempts certain emergency operations, and one could assume that certain of our operations would be exempt if we were fixing an essential public -safety or public-service vehicle or piece of equipment in an emergency situation, but it seems clearly to exempt only emergency, not routine, work. Exemption "j" exempts utilities and could be interpreted, perhaps, to exempt all roads maintenance. If not read so broadly, it would seem that non -emergency roads maintenance performed with non -road vehicles (rather than the on - road vehicles exempted by exemption "o") would be prohibited by the ordinance. Exemption "k" exempts generators only when the power is out. It does not exempt the essential, routine testing and cycling of emergency generators. (This affects a wider audience, as well — anyone with an emergency generator and a schedule of testing and cycling when the power is not out.) Exemption "o" exempts only regulated on -road vehicles operating on highways. The use of such vehicles off road (such as in our yard) and all use of non -road equipment is afforded no such exemption. In short, the strict prohibition on noises related to vehicle/equipment operation and repair would have to be significantly loosened to allow us to continue our operations at the shop; alternately, that paragraph could be eliminated and the already established and referenced noises levels of 173-60 WAC relied upon instead for the regulation of this type of noise. The item exempting generators should be expanded to exempt routine testing of that equipment. I may be missing something that makes these concerns irrelevant, but if not, by my admittedly quick reading of the proposed ordinance this morning, the ordinance would prohibit far more in our sector than was probably intended. Compliance would be difficult at best. Apologies for this quick and possibly error -laden email, but I wanted to get this to you as quickly as possible. Thank you, Matt Matt Stewart Manager, Fleet Services Jefferson County PO Box 1200 371 Chimacum Rd Port Hadlock WA 98339 mstewart@co.jefferson.wa.us Office: 360.344-9713 Mobile: 360-301-9448 ppcc CA NEARING RECORD NOV 212014 tlrlasa. AFF ` i CUUNTY; xq To: Board of JeffethicutCounty Comassidirsers com"llsI��N� Sheriff Note D.A. Alvarez Re: Noise control ortlinance 1 can't be presematthe meeting as I live out of state have a Hfo long investrathatin Jefferson County. My name is Steven Woodbury. My wife and I purchased a home st 65 Kelly Dr. off of Tbomdyk ,Rd. in Port Ludlow? years ' We livo full thus in Oregon (TiVarehok area) until we both M, fully retire and move permanently to 65 Kelly,. - We visfmv home in WA. every other month, at Thanksgiving, Christmas and one month during the Summer. We have friends thateuggt shoot in the area. Most ofthem are retired law enforcement as I am and we are an safety minded. We all shoot (manly) and if someone complains we abide by those wishes and respectfully come to an agreareem Never shoot at eight unless of an emargency situation. There is we residedzearby that does not get along with anyone. He plays music very loud and sometimes it is full of profanity. He drives his vehicle faster than conditions dictate and is just an all around jackass. Our road, Kelly Drive is a private graveled road that is wide enough for one vehicle. All of us but this person pay into a fiord to coveriapairs andephaep of the road. Myself and others have called the Sbairs office about this residem s noise and wean told there is no ordinanceconcerning the noise, They won't even go talk to him about it. I live in Tillamook County and was a deputy here for 14 yr& And we didn`t have and still don'titave a noise ordinance. The D.A.'s office told us though that 10 PM was the start of" quiet time." If we had 3 complaints about the noise after 10 PM the culprit would brtftad for DIS61WERLY CONDUCT. Also an attorney told me that if enough neighbors complained and all got together they couldMe a civil suit against that noise making person for a multitude of reasons', worked in awmity like Jefferson where there were usually only 2 deputies and a stain trooper on at night. I know they have better things to do and they usually are am important things to deal with. We are suppose to "protect atulaerve." It would greatly be another tool for law enforcement to deal with business and to serve the community iftbere were some kind of mise ordinance. Thank you for your time and feel free to contawt,, me. Steven Woodbury • ai . l r7, 21175 Blaiwkd,, Beaver Oil. 97108 jrwoody@e mail.ccm 505-3984606 i Leslie Locke From: Joe Nole Sent: Friday, November 21, 20144:20 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: Noise Ordinance Letter Attachments: Noise Ordinance.PDF Hi Leslie, I was told to send the attached letter to you. It is a comment from a citizen regarding the proposed noise ordinance. Sheriff Joe Nole Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 79 Elkins Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 360-344-9747 NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required underthe Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act jeffbocc HEARING RECORD► From: Kim Nunes <xyzmisc@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 7:53 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support for Ordinance Noise Control Regulations for Jefferson County This email is to let you know that I strongly support the Ordinance Noise Control Regulations for Jefferson County. It is long overdue. Thank you, Kim Nunes From: Jan Stone <js@cablespeed.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:42 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Objections to Proposed Noise Control Ordinance To The Jefferson County Board Of Commissioners I am very concerned about vague language and subjective standards used in the proposed Noise Control Ordinance being considered by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, particularly Subsection (k) and the definition of "violation." I strongly believe that, if enacted, Subsection (k) would lead to confusion, conflict, and unending enforcement nightmares in unincorporated densely populated areas of Jefferson County. 1 am a resident of the Cape George community, where hundreds of homes exist in close proximity to each other. We have chosen to live in Cape George because of the many social and cultural benefits of living in close community with others. In return for those benefits, each of us tolerates a variety of daily annoyances from our neighbors, including but not limited to noises of many types. Subsection (k) fails to recognize the realities of living in community, by using a subjective standard defined only by the individual preferences and peculiarities of any one person. As regards noise, unincorporated densely populated areas such as Cape George should be governed by the same objective and measurable standards and regulations as those that govern incorporated densely populated areas. Some sections of the proposed ordinance appear to be reasonable, objective and enforceable. Those include the time limitations set forth in Subsection (d), and commonly -used measurable noise level limits referred to in Subsection (a). But Subsection (k) refers only to a subjective standard that cannot be objectively measured or defined. And by including in the definition of "violation" the words "or any source(s) of sound which unreasonably disturb(s)... etc." this ordinance opens the door to a flood of complaints from intolerant persons. 1 am a retired attorney with over thirty years of experience practicing law. I am surprised that the vague language and subjective standards included in this proposed ordinance, especially Subsection (k), would be seriously considered for adoption by a governing authority. I believe such an overly -broad ordinance would encourage intolerant and unreasonable persons to press spurious complaints, would cause those charged with enforcement to be burdened with poorly defined investigations, and would result in the type of over -policing that is abhorrent to our culture and customs. In addition, our local courts would be further burdened with frustrating and unnecessary litigation, and our citizens would incur high costs of defending reasonable individual freedoms. I urge the Commissioners to take whatever steps are necessary to entirely eliminate Subsection (k) from any further consideration, and to delete all other vague references and subjective standards from the proposed ordinance. Jan Stone js@cablespeed.com From: Barbara Barnhart <barbbarnhart@rocketmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 10:03 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: noise ord Attachments: commissioner noise 2.docx i have attached my way too long views on the noise ord. please make copies available for the commissioners. thank you. do you send an email reply that you received this?? thank you. To: Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners Date: November 20, 2014 Re: Proposed Noise ordinance —Just say NO Gentlemen: I don't like the Noise Ordinance for several reasons. First, after reviewing the Washington Noise Act, related WAC provisions and several reported court noise abatement cases, it seems incontrovertible that Section (1)(k) is fatally flawed and unenforceable. Second, the ordinance has some technical deficiencies identified later in this letter, which will, unless corrected, predictably prevent the ordinance from being approved by the Department of Ecology, as required. Third, the fact that you have the authority to propound a noise ordinance does not answer the fundamental question: Should you pass the ordinance, even when it is revised to incorporate proper legal standards and the concerns of the public? There is a sentiment in government and a perceived duty to right every wrong, via the Police Power. I urge the Commissioners to remember that not every slight or harm should be remedied by government. A person aggrieved by unwelcome noise retains the private personal right to seek mediation or to commence a nuisance lawsuit against the wrongdoer and, should he or she prove their case, to obtain relief in the form of damages and/or an injunction. The County should not undertake to solve all problems for all people. The overbreadth of the proposed Ordinance, particularly Section (1) (k) is an unwelcome effort to do too much. 1. Why Do We Need This Ordinance? The county is already subject to, and citizens are protected by, the Washington Noise Act and related WAC provisions (RCW 70.107 et seq. and WAC 173-60-010 et seq.). The Commissioners might simply formally adopt the entire existing regime or simply do nothing, allowing the state provisions to continue to be the law of the county on noise. 1 If you believe an ordinance is necessary, you should publicly identify and describe what the problems are that have led to this proposal: (1) how many noise complaints are made to the sheriffs office in the course of a year? (2) how many noise violations are issued in the course of a year? (3) how many are contested — i.e. go to trial or before the District Court judge for dismissal or a fine reduction? (4) what is the anticipated burden on the sheriffs deputies if the ordinance passes and is approved by the Department of Ecology? (5) do the deputies have access to approved noise meters and are they trained to use them? (6) What priority will noise investigations have in the Sheriff's office? (7) what are the guidelines for a deputy and the court to gauge "unreasonableness"? (8) what has been the experience of Port Townsend and neighboring jurisdictions with noise ordinances, i.e. number of violations issued and court challenges in the last year? And (9) What are the views of our Sheriff -elect and Prosecutor -elect regarding increased staffing needs, expense and the diversion of staff time away from more serious criminal and social welfare concerns? With those answers in mind, do we need a noise ordinance? 1 Presumably, in the absence of a county ordinance, the county Sheriff has been enforcing the Washington State Noise Act with its very specific WAC regulations. Has this been the case?? The Troublesome Section (1) (k) is fatally Flawed and Void for Vagueness: Based on the decisions of four Washington court cases, there is compelling legal authority to the effect that our broadly written Section (1) (k) is void for vagueness and therefore is unenforceable. I found no cases upholding the enforcement of a noise ordinance with language similar to (1) (k). The four cases are discussed in the next few paragraphs. I believe there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY for the broad sweeping language of our Section (1) (k) which provides in material part that "...it is unlawful for any person .... to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons...." When reviewing the case summaries, I urge the Commissioners to focus on this factor: subjective language in an ordinance may be enforceable BUT ONLY IF it is specifically linked or tethered to specific conduct in a specific context. Linkage is key and Section (1)(k) has none. 2.1 City of Everett v. O'Brien, 31 Wn App 319: In the 1982 Everett case, p. 321, the court described the standard to be met for an ordinance to not be void for vagueness and to be consistent with due process: "To be consistent with due process a penal statute or ordinance must contain ascertainable standards of guilt so that people of reasonable understanding are not required to guess at the meaning of an enactment. Cite omitted. However, the Constitution does not require impossible standards; all that is necessary is that the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Cites omitted, emphasis added. The court in Everett held that the defendant with his loud motorcycle had violated the city's noise ordinance directed at: "....frequent, repetitive... noise (from) .... The starting, operation, repair .... of any motorcycle... so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property." The conduct prohibited is identical to our Public Disturbance Noise (hereafter "PDN") Section (1) (c). The "unreasonably disturb... etc." language is identical to our Section (1)(k). In the Everett ordinance specific conduct (motorcycle operation) is directly linked to the effect on citizens ("unreasonably disturb"). This linkage of specifically identified behavior to the resulting disturbance enabled the court to conclude that the proscribed conduct was adequately identified and that ordinary persons could see the cause and effect of loud motorcycle noise impacting others. The ordinance was upheld. Our Section (1)( k), while attempting to proscribe any and all noise, necessarily fails to specifically identify any particular proscribed behavior and is therefore unenforceable under the Everett case. The impact on the hearer is not "linked" to any specific behavior enumerated in the ordinance. 2.2 Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn App 519: In the later 1988 Holland case, a Tacoma noise ordinance made unlawful the playing of automobile sound equipment at a volume that could be heard more than 50 feet from the car. The defendant argued, among other issues, that the ordinance was too vague. The court, at p. 543, used a slightly different standard to decide whether the ordinance was enforceable: "The traditional standard of unconstitutional vagueness is whether the terms of a statute are so indefinite that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application (cites omitted)..... to withstand a challenge for vagueness an ordinance must provide adequate notice to persons of common understanding concerning the behavior prohibited and the specific intent required: it must provide citizens, police officers and courts alike with sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement." Cites omitted, emphasis added. The court upheld the Tacoma ordinance (p. 544) because a person of ordinary intelligence would know what "radio" and "audible at 50 feet" meant. The court was particularly persuaded because the ordinance had no subjective element such as "unreasonably" or "disturbing". The objective standard of "audible at 50 feet" prevented the objectionable and unenforceable vagueness which would result from imprecise subjective factors. Our section PDN (1)(e) is similar to the Tacoma statute and would similarly be enforceable. Our Section (1) (k) however, does not describe any specific prohibited behavior. There is thus no linkage between identified behavior and effect on others. The language in (1)(k) prohibiting all noise of any nature or sort in any circumstance which "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons" is precisely the subjective language rejected by the Holland court. Under that decision, Section (1)(k) is unenforceable and void for vagueness. 2.3 Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn 2d 22 (1988): In this case the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct based on a municipal ordinance which forbade "loud and raucous behavior" on a bus if the conduct "unreasonably disturbed others". The municipal court found him guilty, the Superior Court then reversed the conviction because the ordinance was vague, then the Appellate court reversed and reinstated the conviction holding that the ordinance was constitutional and the Supreme Court upheld the Appellate court. The issue was whether "loud and raucous" was vague. The court concluded that loud and raucous conduct on a bus is an understandable concept —the conduct prohibited is identified and is linked to a site. The court affirmed (p. 25) that the "vagueness doctrine serves two important purposes: to provide fair notice to citizens as to what conduct is proscribed and to protect against arbitrary enforcement of the laws. Cites omitted". The court determined that: "...the use of "unreasonably disturbs others" does not render vague a statute that is otherwise specific in nature." The court affirmed the enforceability of the ordinance precisely because if was limited in its application: "...to the context of noise on a bus. Given this specific context the prohibited disturbances are easily measured so that citizens have fair notice of what activities are prohibited." Here, again, subjective measures may be acceptable IF linked to specific behaviors in a specific context. That is not the case with our defective (1)(k). 2.4 Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wn 2d 541 (1988): In this dog barking case, the state Supreme Court reversed a conviction, finding, instead, that the ordinance, which included a criminal prohibition against permitting a dog's frequent or habitual barking, howling or yelping which "disturbs or annoys" any person or neighborhood, was unconstitutionally vague because it made criminal liability dependent on the subjective determination of any person who heard the barking. The court, p. 542, affirmed that: "the test for evaluating the vagueness of legislative enactments contains two components: adequate notice to citizens and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. cites omitted". The court viewed with particular disfavor the fact that the ordinance: "....gives to ANY person who feels a dog's frequent or habitual barking is annoying or disturbing the power to make a subjective determination a crime has been committed..... Rather than an owner's being able to determine readily their compliance with the ordinance, it is any person's or neighbor's threshold tolerance for barking which determines lawful conduct by the owner of the dog.... Whether the behavior is lawful or unlawful will depend solely on the subjective feelings of annoyance or disturbance by a particular person.." The court rejected this ordinance because it allowed the victim to define the crime, rather than making specific conduct unlawful. Our Section (1) (k) relies on the same standard the Supreme court rejected in Spokane: again, our Jefferson County citizens have no notice under (1) (k) of what behavior is proscribed, what standards will be applied, and enforcement is left to the inconsistent vagaries of the temperaments of others. 3. Section (k) Conflicts with WAC 173-60-040— Decibel Standards: Section (1) (k) may not make illegal sounds which are lawful under the decibel standards of WAC 173-60-040. WAC 173-60-040 sets forth a comprehensive chart establishing allowable decibel levels within residential, commercial and industrial communities for the State of Washington. Our Section (1)(k) prohibits all sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace or repose of another and does not require a sound meter reading to establish a violation? This means that certain sounds may be quite legal under the WAC decibel standards but conceivably and predictably illegal under Section (1)(k). This will make some noise simultaneously lawful and unlawful. If that conflict occurs, it is the law that the local ordinance (1) (k) is unenforceable. On this issue, the court in Seattle v Eze infra (p.28) held that "...our state constitution prohibits cities from enacting laws that conflict with state law. Cites omitted." The court cited extensive authority (p. 29) to the effect that local ordinances may be broader than a parallel state law but may not contradict a state law. A conflict of laws exists if a city attempts to authorize by ordinance what the legislature has forbidden or if the city forbids what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized or required. This supremacy principal means that if a noise level is lawful under the WAC standards it is irrelevant that someone's repose is disturbed under 1(k). Section 1(k) cannot make unlawful that which is legal and authorized under the WAC standards. With respect to noise as a nuisance, there is a statute which deals directly with the potential conflict issue. RCW 7.48.160 describes the principal: "Authorized Act Not a Nuisance: Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance." This statute provides further support for the mandatory conclusion: noise events lawful under the WAC decibel standards cannot be in violation of (1)(k). Other jurisdictions have found a simple way around this. 4. Resolution of the Conflict of Laws Problem: Snohomish County appears to have solved the conflict of law issue: that County defines Public Disturbance Noise as "... any sound which, because of its random or infrequent occurrence is not conducive to measurement under the quantitative standards established in SCC 10.01.030..:'. The referenced quantitative standard was the state WAC decibel standard. Although a conflict of law was not the issue in the case, the court in State v. Immelt, 150 Wn App 681 (2009) found unobjectionable the use of a standard other than the WAC decibel standard but only in those instances when a decibel reading was not possible. S That section provides, in part, that: "...A sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists." Similarly, the Ordinance provides at Penalty (2) that "a sound level meter reading is not necessary to establish the commission of an offense." It is possible that the initial intention of (1) (k) was to acknowledge and allow the potential for enforcement when decibel level data was unavailable. This would occur when a deputy arrives to investigate after the noise has stopped. I think some of the (I) (k) problems could be fixed, in part, by changing its language to the effect that a condition precedent to the issuance of a noise violation under Section (1) (k) should be the unavailability of a contemporaneous decibel measure and the impossibility of accurately replicating the complained of sound. In those instances a standard other than the WAC standard could be used based on reasonable estimates, corroborating testimony and other material and competent evidence to potentially to establish a violation. If standards are not already in place, the Sheriffs office would need to develop training, practices, strategies and standards for noise investigations. 5. YOU FORGOT TO MENTION MY COURT HEARING! The ordinance should specifically identify what rights an alleged violator has under RCW 7.80. et seq. or Jefferson County regulations to appeal the citation to the county District Court. As with the Port Townsend Noise Act (Chapter 9.09) the District Court judge, in our county cases, should specifically be granted discretion to dismiss, reduce, suspend or defer the finding of a violation or the imposition of a fine and, for those instances when a trial is necessary, the judge should be granted discretion to refer the matter for mediation. While the Penalty section provides that no noise meter reading is necessary for a conviction, that section should be conditioned on the same caveat as (1)(k) —that decibel readings are only not necessary for a conviction or finding of a violation if and only if such readings were impossible to obtain or to reasonably replicate or to reliably estimate. The Penalty section should also be revised to the effect that evidence of compliance with the WAC standards would be a complete defense to any violation including a violation under (1) (k). 6. Other Miscellaneous Problems; 6.1 The WAC decibel chart should be set out in the Ordinance. Many people have decibel apps on their smart phones — the availability of the chart is informative, easy and THE guide to citizens concerning allowable levels of sound. It is the most basic of all of the information. The Skagit County ordinance sets out the entire chart at the beginning of the ordinance — it takes up maybe one quarter page? 6.2 The Washington Noise Act is not even mentioned in the ordinance. It should be referenced at the very beginning of the Ordinance. It is THE foundation law. 6.3 The introductory phrase at PDN (1) and the language of Section (a) is very confusing and convoluted. It just is not clear what parts of WAC are to be applied where. I assume it means the WAC decibel standards are to apply to all of the PDNs but I really don't know what that section means. 6.4 The ordinance omits to establish and describe the county EDNAs (environmental designation for noise abatement). These are the three types of neighborhoods— commercial, industrial and residential —which MUST be part of the ordinance as standards vary for and among the zones. As I read WAC 170-60-130 such designations are necessary to obtain the Department of Ecology's approval of the Ordinance. A neighboring jurisdiction added a rural designation to their EDNAs. 6.5 The word "decibel" does not ever appear in the proposed ordinance even though under state law and in common practice that is how noise is measured.' Do we issue speeding tickets without regard to speed, or DUI citations without regard to alcohol consumption levels? But we are to issue noise violations without regard to sound levels?? It makes no sense.... . 6.6 Just as a matter of the appearance of fairness, perhaps the ordinance should not mention "peace and quiet, etc." six times while disregarding the rights of citizens to be from unreasonable harassment by neutral deputies required to investigate at the behest of complaining neighbors. 6.7 It appears that most of the Exempt Noise section of the ordinance is pretty much copied directly from WAC 173-60-050. Why not exactly copy the WAC provision?? Our Exemption list left out some of the WAC noises, like blasting, sounds from industrial installations, from forest harvesting and silviculture, and natural gas transmission and distribution facilities (do we have any?) and imposes time limits on bells, chimes and carillons that WAC 173-60-050 (4)(d) does not. The list should be carefully double checked against the WAC provision. 6.8 Correct exemption (s): I think the time reference is off—should it read ".....until one half hour after sunset not sunrise). 6.9. Perhaps ease up on the emphasis on the bucolic/pastoral nature of our county, when many thousands of county residents reside in the suburban like communities of Kala Point, Port Ludlow, Cape George and other similar residential neighborhoods. Don't ignore our concerns. 6.10. My Personal Concern: I play pickelball on a private court during daytime hours. The sound of the paddle is well under the WAC standard for a residential neighborhood, the sport meets the criteria of PDN (1)(d), but I know that a neighbor's peace and repose is disturbed under (1)(k). What will the Sheriffs deputy do with the complaint he or she will most assuredly get?? The correct answer is in this letter. My apologies for the length of this epistle. I hope it has been helpful. Thank you for your consideration. Good luck, Barbara Barnhart 12 Queets Place (Cape George Colony) Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-5735 barbbarnhart@rocketmail.com 3 The phrase "sound meter' does appear in the proposed Ordinance at section (k) of "Public Disturbance Noises" and in the penalty section but only to the effect that decibel readings are NOT necessary. jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Gail Hotohkee <g6hotohkee@ymail.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 11:44 AM To: jeffbocc; Gail Hotohkee Subject: Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance TO: Jefferson County BOCC RE: Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance I'm writing to respond to this proposed ordinance. Currently I am out of state but want my voice heard. After reading this proposal I feel that if put into law it would clearly indicate that lunancy supersedes logic. To demonstrate how ludricious this is, it would seem that a person could call authorities when their spouse is snoring too loud. Afterall, such sound is "disturbing or interfering with the peace, comfort, and repose" of the other. Who will enforce this ordinance? Our local law enforcement? As a taxpaying citizen I believe the need is much greater assuring our homes & roads are safe, than having them respond to a personal vendetta. Let Iogice prevail and get back to basics. Neighbors and communities should be able to work this issue out. Rely on the ordinance already in place which can easily be measured by an instrument. Gail Hotohkee 133 Marine View Place Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc HEARING REGGRo From: Mary Rothschild <hoffelt_rothschild@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 1:04 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment on Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance November 21, 2014 Jefferson Board of County Commissioners jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance Commissioners: In reference to the Noise Control regulations scheduled for a public hearing on November 24, 2014, please consider this emailed comment in your deliberations: Yes, there should be a balance between reasonable noises and disruptive noises and we appreciate the county's efforts to strike this balance. We especially support the attempt to protect local farms from unwarranted complaints about livestock or agricultural machinery sounds. But we also question whether, in several other significant ways, the new regulations will burden our already overworked sheriffs department and prosecutor's office or cause grievances over neighborhood sounds to escalate. This ordinance, as proposed, would make it possible for a few to argue that certain sounds annoy them or destroy "quiet enjoyment" of their property and thus place a restrictive cone of silence over the rest of us. To begin with, unincorporated Jefferson County is described as primarily rural without acknowledging urban/suburban areas such as Cape George Colony, Kala Point, Port Ludlow or Port Hadlock. Where we live in Jefferson County is as densely populated as our former neighborhood in Seattle, yet this ordinance presumes our suburban Cape George neighborhood should be as quiet as remote Kalaloch. This is an unrealistic expectation. The ordinance needs to reflect these individual community differences. The list defining what constitutes a "public disturbance noise" is appropriately specific, but the definition of violation also includes overly broad language: "any source of sound which unreasonably disturb(s) or interfere(s) with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors." (our emphasis) Who defines what is unreasonable? This provision would appear to give any one person the power to summon the sheriff, or litigate, over any sound not specifically exempted, not just those sounds defined in the ordinance as public disturbances. Defining an unreasonable noise becomes even more difficult because the ordinance eliminates sound -meter levels to either establish whether a noise is a public disturbance, or to prosecute alleged violations. While there might be cases when reasonable people will agree, without a meter reading, that a noise is obviously illegal, there likely will be other instances when a decibel reading might be the only way to objectively mediate disputes over sounds. Measurable criteria — such as blood-alcohol levels in DUI laws or speed limits on roadways -- provide standard ways to determine whether a law has been broken. Sound -meter levels should continue to be one tool, although perhaps not the only tool, to ensure that county noise enforcement does not become a subjective judgment. And while we agree there is benefit from quiet, especially at night, we also think there is considerable benefit from the daytime sounds of a thriving, vibrant community, especially the sounds of children playing outdoors or all residents enjoying healthy exercise and friendly competition on private sport courts and ball fields. Please include sports activities -- not just league or school -sponsored events -- on the list of noises exempt from regulation. Thank you, Mary Rothschild and Ross Anderson 164 Quinault Loop Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4976 p.s. There seems to be an error in paragraph (s) under exempt noises. As written, this provision appears to exempt the noise from hunting gunfire only if the hunting takes place around sunrise. This makes no sense. jeffbocc From: Marion <feliz123@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 1:46 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordinance Proposal Attachments: Noise ordinance.pdf It•.',. 1 I�'� i This letter addresses my concerns regarding the proposed ordinance Attachment XX-XXXX K, its unfairness and the adverse effect it would have on most residents of the community in which I live. Marion Clair November 20, 9014 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Subject: Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance The creation of a new chapter of the County Code is at best redundant and at worst excessive. That the definition of "public noise disturbance" can be determined by a single individual claiming that their "peace, comfort and repose" is being damaged without the use of a sound meter reading is ludicrous. The proposal references unincorporated Jefferson County as "rural residential regions and villages" where individuals reside to enjoy "peace and quiet." Exception should be made for what is termed "villages" as that connotes a group of people in a "small municipality with some corporate powers." In fact, villages or communities such as Port Ludlow, Kala Point and Cape George, for example, require their residents to sign community covenants which govern noise, building codes, and general activities that affect the community at large. They are democratically organized and all residents have opportunities to vote for their board of directors as well as for or against various decisions affecting their community. To overlay these already stringent community rules would be to severely limit the general practices agreed upon by residents when they moved into the community or "village." The governance of these communities is already in compliance with all City, County, State and Federal laws and regulations and enjoy a degree of autonomy within these laws and statutes much as Port Townsend does as part of incorporated Jefferson County. While the natural environment may appear rural, the community organization more closely mirrors that of most cities and towns in this and other states in the nation. To impose arbitrary regulations and penalties upon these and similar communities would be to deny them their democratic structure set forth in their community covenants. Individuals desiring a more remote and isolated environment in which to live away from the sounds (noise) of an active society have only to call a real estate agent to find myriad sites available to them in unincorporated Jefferson County. Enforcing such an arbitrary set of NEW requirements, without even the use of sound meter readings, will inevitably result in calls to the Sheriff's office to prohibit and penalize the use of leaf blowers, power tools of all kinds, celebrations in people's homes, on their decks or patios that include audible laughter, music or exuberance, not to mention a student's practicing the piano, trumpet or violin or dribbling a basketball. What is "reasonable sound' or "unreasonable noise" absent a sound meter reading should depend on the democratic determination of a community and not that of a single individual whose sole opinion jeopardizes the quality of life, "peace, comfort and repose" of the majority. Respectfully submitted, Marion Clair 171 Victoria Loop Port Townsend, WA jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Gail Krantzman <gail@gk1040.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 3:24 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordinance to be heard on Monday comments For almost six decades I have never been riled enough to write a letter to my government. This unincorporated noise ordinance breaks that trend. I pride myself on being a good neighbor and conduct my activities to be mindful of the noise I make. Not all my neighbors are mindful of their noises but my attitude is that as long as they are not harming anyone just let it be. Your proposed ordinance now will make it too easy for someone to make a petty complaint over something that might be an isolated incident or a harmless gardening project. To give a citizen an expectation that the sheriff department will show up if my weed whacker is too loud or if I play bocce ball with too much exuberance sets up a bad formula for a good neighbor policy. Your ordinance seems over reaching and vague. Please do not enact this policy without taking into consideration that most homeowners act in good faith. If your experience indicates that a noise policy needs to be in place at least consider that the law would need to be clearer and more objective and set forth reasonable time limits for situations where the sheriff does becomes involved. Thank you for your consideration. Gail Krentzman, CPA 1240 W Sims Way #127 Port Townsend, WA 98368 310-922-1060 phone 855-678-0558 fax The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the transmitted information from any computer. From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch-public@usregs.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 2:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Testimony regarding Noise Control Ordinance Attachments: Noise Control Ordinance for Public Hearing - strike restrictions on use of firearms.pdf Commissioners, This is testimony submitted for the record, prior to the hearing to be held on Nov. 24, 2014, at 11:00 am. Please see the attached page from the proposed Noise Control Ordinance for my recommended line-out deletions. I believe that these changes are needed because: There will almost certainly be a legal challenge(s) from gun enthusiasts, who will cite RCW 9.41.290 (State preemption). The county will spend money to defend such case(s) and will likely lose. Striking the language as I'm recommending would avoid that whole disputelissue. The notion of restricting shooting only to "permitted shooting ranges" would, in effect, create a No - Shooting Zone throughout the entire county. That should not be the intent or effect of a Noise Control law. Many gun owners currently shoot safely on their own property, and the county code, as far as I can tell, does not and cannot require such shooters to get a shooting range permit. Thank you for considering these recommendations, Tom Thiersch Resident of unincorporated Jefferson County p) Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., sounds originating from residential property as a result of temporary projects for the construction, maintenance, or repair of home, grounds, and appurtenances; q) The lawful discharge of firearms for the piotection of life 0! Fropert-j, and the lawfttl use F) The disehffge of fir-eafffis at a pefffli#ed shooting range when eattsistent with the conditions of any applieable eatinty land use pet�mi+ and eaunty license; JThe lawfttl diseharge coaductod between hhour hefore sundse and wna-halfhour nftor Penalties. (1) Any violation of this Chapter shall be punished as follows: (a) The first violation by a person within the preceding year shall be a warning. (b) The second violation by a person within a one (1) year period shall be a Class 2 civil infraction carrying a monetary penalty of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) plus statutory assessments. (c) A third or subsequent violation by a person within a one (1) year period shall be a criminal misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), ninety (90) days in jail, or both. (2) In any prosecution for a civil infraction or criminal misdemeanor, evidence of a sound's level through use of a sound -level meter reading shall not be necessary to establish the commission of the offense. (3) Civil infractions under this Chapter shall be enforced pursuant to Chapter 7.80 RCW and the court rules. Provisions not exclusive. The provisions of this Chapter shall be cumulative and nonexclusive, and shall not affect any other claim, cause of action or remedy and do not repeal, amend or modify any existing law, ordinance or regulation relating to noise, but shall be deemed additional to existing statutes, regulations and ordinances. Disclaimer of liability. Nothing contained in this Chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the county, its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of anyone to comply with the provisions of this Chapter, or by reason or in consequence of the implementation or enforcement pursuant to this Chapter, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the county related in any manner to the enforcement of this Chapter by its officers, employees or agents. Liberal Construction. This Chapter shall be liberally construed to carry out its broad purposes. 6of6 jeftbocc HEARING RECORD From: ksltd <ksltd@sprintmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:04 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Karen Krug Subject: Proposed County Noise Ordinance To: The Jefferson County Commissioners Date: November 23, 2014 RE: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Noise Control Regulations for Jefferson County Gentlemen The proposed Jefferson County Noise Control Regulations while initially seeming reasonable contain a number of areas that give rise to serious concerns and I am writing to put my concerns on the record. First, I am concerned that the regulation as currently drafted refers to "unincorporated Jefferson County," and clearly does not take into account that many of the residential areas in the unincorporated portions of Jefferson County, e.g. Cape George, Kaka Point, are nearly as densely populated as incorporated Port Townsend. Second, Section 1 Paragraph (k) is overly vague with the subjective language "unreasonably disturbs" but will also create an enforcement and prosecutorial burden. As written, this paragraph would require that a single incident of any single sound that a single neighbor might decide is "unreasonably disturbing" would be cause for a Sheriff's investigation, would require administrative follow up during the one subsequent twelve months and could result in a clogged court calendar as the County Prosecutor is required to prosecute or to defend the County's actions in a dispute. As written there are no objective guidelines or criteria for a deputy or court to use to determine what "unreasonably disturbs" one citizen but not the next. Third, I respectfully disagree with County Administrator Morley who suggests that Jefferson County "don't really have tools to responds to complaints." (Peninsula Daily News, 11/23/2014). The county is already subject to the Washington Noise Act and related WAC provisions (RCW 70.107 et seq, and WAC 173-60-010 et seq.). If Commissioner Austin, who leaves office on December 31, 2014, is concerned with keeping his promise after two terms on the Commission why not formally adopt the existing regime? It seems unfair that new leadership and law enforcement officials, i.e. Commission -elect; Sherriff-elect and County Prosecutor - elect; are not be actively involved in drafting and proposing sweeping changes to noise control in Jefferson County. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my concerns and comments. Respectfully, Karen Krug 152 Huckleberry PI Port Townsend, WA 98368 Submitted via email with hard copy to be provided at 11/24/2014 hearing NEARING RECORn jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:33 AM To: jeffbocc; David Alvarez Subject: FW: County shop concerns with noise ordinance Importance: High Please enter this into the public hearing record. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley@co.iefferson.wa.us (360) 385-9100 x-383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Matt Stewart Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:01 AM To: Philip Morley Cc: Frank Gifford Subject: County shop concerns with noise ordinance Importance: High Philip, I have some concerns about our ability to continue operating the shop and (though I do not purport to speak here for them) the ability of Public Works to perform many of their routine operations without running afoul of the noise ordinance as it is currently drafted. Here are the relevant portions: Definitions. (4) "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, governmental body, state, or other entity whatsoever Public disturbance noises. (1) Public disturbance noises include: (c) Frequent, repetitive, or continuous noises from starting, operating, repairing, rebuilding, or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, dirt bike, other off-highway or off-road vehicle, or any internal combustion engine; Exempt Noises. Sounds originating from the sources listed here do not constitute a violation of this Chapter, are not "public disturbance noises' and are defined as an "exempt noise" regardless of where or when they occur. h) Emergency equipment and work necessary in the interests of law enforcement or for the health, safety or welfare of the community; j) The installation or repair of essential utility services or work necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; , k) Generators during periods when there is no electrical service available from the primary supplier due to power outage; o) The operation of motor vehicles on highways which are regulated under Chapter 173-62 WAC; The first paragraph means we have to comply The second says that the type of noise we generate repairing vehicles is prohibited — not prohibited at a certain volume at certain hours (as in 173-60 WAC), but strictly prohibited as a public disturbance noise. All yard operations also seem to be prohibited here: moving vehicles and equipment around our yard, operating our forklift, loading sand into dump trucks, etc. (This would seem to apply to all vehicle and equipment shops. Read strictly, it would prohibit all such shops unless they could operate without frequently or repetitively running the vehicles/equipment being repaired.) Exemption "h" exempts certain emergency operations, and one could assume that certain of our operations would be exempt if we were fixing an essential public -safety or public-service vehicle or piece of equipment in an emergency situation, but it seems clearly to exempt only emergency, not routine, work. Exemption "j" exempts utilities and could be interpreted, perhaps, to exempt all roads maintenance. If not read so broadly, it would seem that non -emergency roads maintenance performed with non -road vehicles (rather than the on - road vehicles exempted by exemption "o") would be prohibited by the ordinance. Exemption "k" exempts generators only when the power is out. It does not exempt the essential, routine testing and cycling of emergency generators. (This affects a wider audience, as well — anyone with an emergency generator and a schedule of testing and cycling when the power is not out.) Exemption "o" exempts only regulated on -road vehicles operating on highways. The use of such vehicles off road (such as in our yard) and all use of non -road equipment is afforded no such exemption. In short, the strict prohibition on noises related to vehicle/equipment operation and repair would have to be significantly loosened to allow us to continue our operations at the shop; alternately, that paragraph could be eliminated and the already established and referenced noises levels of 173-60 WAC relied upon instead for the regulation of this type of noise. The item exempting generators should be expanded to exempt routine testing of that equipment. I may be missing something that makes these concerns irrelevant, but if not, by my admittedly quick reading of the proposed ordinance this morning, the ordinance would prohibit far more in our sector than was probably intended. Compliance would be difficult at best. Apologies for this quick and possibly error -laden email, but I wanted to get this to you as quickly as possible. Thank you, Matt Matt Stewart Manager, Fleet Services Jefferson County PO Bax 1200 371 Chimacum Rd Port Hadlock WA 98339 rnstewart(aCo.iefferson.wa. us Office: 360-344-9713 Mobile: 360-301-9448 iffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Alden Johnson <aldenbj@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: County Noise Ordinance Public Comment The discharge of a firearm produces two notable effects: Noise and a Projectile. For the people who strongly object to guns, it is the dangerous projectile that is generally the basis for that objection. 1 believe that this noise ordinance will likely provide the strong gun opponents an excuse (the perceived sound of distant gunfire) to harass the Sheriff Department to go after gun use. The ordinance acknowledges certain noises as ' "exempt noise" regardless of where or when they occur.' Owners of remote property and citizens not trespassing on remote land should be permitted a "noise exemption" for firearm use other than hunting: i.e. target practice. However, it seems reasonable to restrict the "where and when" of such noise. Accordingly, 1 suggest a rewording of the last exemption: S) The lawful discharge of firearms between one half hour after sunrise and one-half hour before sunset in any area of the county not otherwise prohibited by county land use permit (i.e. No -Shooting Zones), National Park regulations, or Tribal Regulations. Also, if "sunrise" and "sunset" are used, I suggest they be included in the Definition section. Alden B. Johnson 491 S. Bay Way Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360-437-8049 aldenbj@gmail.com HEARING RECORD ieffbocc From: Jo Carter <jo. carter@earthlink. net> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson County noise ordinance Dears Sirs: 1 am completely supportive of structuring a noise ordinance. The outline of your proposal is a benefit to the quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of our entire county. This will help create higher real estate values and better living in Jefferson County. Jo Carter 81 West Boat Drive Port Ludlow, Wa 98365 From: John Adams <2john@earthlink. net> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:13 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: jo.carter@earthlink.net Subject: Noise Ordinance Comment for Paradise Bay We are very much in favor of the proposed noise ordinance for Jefferson County. We ask that you consider that the ordinance for Paradise Bay reflect the one for Port Townsend where 50 feet is the standard distance. The density of our neighborhood is similar with 5 and 20 foot setbacks from our neighbors. 150 feet may be effective for the rural county, but we should have something similar to Port Townsend where neighbors are more densely clustered. We have had problems with noise here for many years and are hopeful that this will pass and ask that you consider Paradise Bay as a different area due to it's density and create a noise distance standard to reflect that. Thank you, John Adams 81 West Boat Drive Port Ludlow (Paradise Bay) From: Jo Carter <jo.carter@earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:39 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise ordinance Comment for Paradise Bay I am very much in favor of the proposed noise ordinance for Jefferson County. ask that you consider that the ordinance for Paradise Bay reflect the one for Port Townsend where 50 feet is the standard distance. The density of our neighborhood is similar with 5 and 20 foot setbacks from our neighbors. 150 feet may be effective for the rural county, but we should have something similar to Port Townsend where neighbors are more densely clustered. We have had problems with noise here for many years and are hopeful that this ordinance will pass and ask that you consider Paradise Bay as a different area due to it's density and create a noise distance standard to reflect that. Jo Carter 81 West Boat Drive Port Ludlow, Wa 98365 From: reschertingLgmau.com Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:00 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance I strongly oppose the proposed noise ordinance that will be discussed on Monday, Nov. 24 at 11:00 AM. in the County Commissioners Chambers at the Courthouse. It is poorly written, is arbitrary and will certainly be difficult to enforce. It will create a lot of confusion and wasted time for the County Sheriffs Office. Please do not approve this without further review and discussion. HEARING From: Jim Hagen <jchagen@donobi.net> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:14 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Control Ordinance Public Comment Jefferson County Board of Commissioners John Austin, Chair Phil Johnson David Sullivan I am writing in general support for the proposed noise ordinance. The preservation of traditional rural character and maintaining of rural lifestyles are an important objective of the Growth Management Act. Traditional rural character and lifestyles are defined as both industrious and passive activity, and accommodations can be made to insure a reasonable balance between the two. I would ask that in any final revisions to this ordinance the Commissioners place maintaining GMA-mandated traditional rural character/lifestyle preservation as a priority. This includes allowances for common sounds associated with rural activities such as agricultural and husbandry operations, lot/parcel maintenance, and recreational activities conducted during normal hours. What I hope this ordinance would achieve is curtailing the kinds of truly excessive noise levels, loud continuous music in particular, that disturbs enjoyment of rural life. I have in the past attended County Commissioner meetings where citizens testified having to endure prolonged exposure to what amounted to rock concerts next to their property. I empathize with them and agree these types of intrusions should not be permitted. By my reading what this noise ordinance basically proposes is enforcement of existing WAC 173-60 standards and is consistent with what other Washington counties have passed. Where I see a departure between the WAC and proposed Jefferson ordinance is in defining what constitutes excessive sound levels. WAC 173-60- 050 assigns specific decibel levels to excessive noise limits while the proposed Jefferson ordinance, in both the definitions and provisions sections uses the term "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of property owners or possessors," or "the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing." This is a terribly subjective and arbitrary standard. What is unreasonable and what is normal hearing? Tested 20/20 vision is generally accepted as a sight standard but I know of no such equivalent for normal hearing. There is no way to define except by the beholder. 1 k clearly states a sound meter is not required to establish whether a disturbance exists. Violations punishable by law should be held to objectively measurable standards, in this case decibel levels. I am also questioning 1 c, addressing continuous or repetitive operation of motor vehicles, motorcycles/dirt bikes, off road vehicles, etc. I am wondering whether any existing auto/small motor repair business will be effected and whether there are options for grandfathering any existing small businesses effected by new ordinance. Per 1 g, I could not find a section 6.07.080 in JCC. I did find 6.05.080 which regulates animal barking and howling. Again, the noise standard of that which "annoys or disturbs any person" is very subjective and arbitrary. And how is 1 g to be enforced, through the new noise ordinance or via 6.05.080? Is a dog subject to seizure and impoundment after first or third offense? With those comments I return to my general support for an ordinance based on WAC 173-60 and that specifically addresses the type of excessive noise levels (i.e. loud music) that are not conducive to rural character. I also believe the general provisions should be subject to objective and measurable noise levels to ensure fair and consistent enforcement. Jim Hagen jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Liz Quayle <lizdquayle@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:33 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, As a past and near future resident of unincorporated Jefferson County (I currently reside within the Port Townsend city limits), I find that the proposed ordinance is far too limiting and punitive than needs be for a noise ordinance, and is also superfluous, as the state's WAC 173-60 already governs noise levels. The proposed ordinance pits neighbor against neighbor, rather than encouraging them to work things out. It requires that our overworked sheriffs add policing of noise complaints, to their necessary work in preventing crimes, DUIs, and illegal drug use in the county. I believe that this ordinance adds to a list of laws and ordinances that put the onus of self-regulation on the police, instead of on the citizens themselves. Another aspect of this ordinance is the limitation of musicians to perform in rural areas, and for businesses to host events. It would be unfortunate if all organizations and bands had to move their events into the incorporated areas to avoid this ordinance, creating a detrimental effect on the income available to businesses, including restaurants and music venues, and on non-profit organizations attempting to fundraise. Limiting businesses' ability to earn income and increasing costs of regulation of this ordinance negatively affects the County's budget. Please Do NOT PASS this ordinance. Yours truly, D. Liz Quayle (360)774-0504 813 G St Port Townsend WA 98368 moving this spring to: 43 Bentley Place (Discovery Bay) From: Frank Hoffman <certainly7@me.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:54 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordinance Hello Commissioners - support the proposed Noise Ordinance. Sometimes neighbors aren't neighborly. Sincerely, Frank Hoffman 462 Jolie Way Port Townsend From: Kathy Knoblock <toddk@msn.com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17 AM To: leffbocc Subject: review of noise ordinance - recommendation To the Port Townsend City Commissioners, I am writing in regard to your imminent review of the city noise ordinance, and I strongly urge you to ban the use of rooftop sound systems as a seagull deterrent. As a resident who has lived directly above one of these systems, I can tell you categorically that they do not work, and are an unreasonable infringement upon the peace and quiet of citizens. The Bay Vista Condominiums have used one of these systems for the last two years. It is completely ineffective. Birds sit next to the speakers. Bird droppings accumulate on the roof as the season progresses. We have asked the residents to turn off the system on numerous occasions over the two years. We, and our neighbors, have invited them to listen from our property. We have sent them photographs of the birds and mess on the roof. They are unresponsive, the birds occupy the roof and the noise continues. The system operates on a light sensor. It begins at sunrise and continues until dusk. The recorded sounds of bird screaming last for thirty seconds at a time, and repeat every four minutes. All day. Every day. The noise is not only audible in my yard and from my deck, but in my house; specifically my kitchen and bedroom. From late spring through the entire summer, I either sleep with my bedroom window shut, or I set my alarm for the predawn hours to get up, close my window, and attempt to get back to sleep. My neighbor rents out her house. She has a deck overlooking the bluff, directly above the Bay Vista roof. No one uses it. She herself plays music through headphones to blot out the noise whenever she works in her garden. I think it is unreasonable to expect citizens to tolerate a completely ineffective source of noise pollution that is broadcast into their yards and homes incessantly for months at a time. We have tried to reason with our neighbors and point out that they are not getting what they want, and we are unhappy, so why continue - 7 But they refuse to turn it off. It seems that the weight of a city ordinance is necessary, with clear wording that these systems are not allowed. Port Townsend's unusual geography puts many more residents' homes above commercial buildings with flat roofs and seagull issues. Sound systems are not the answer. Please disallow their use, and give us back the peace that we are supposed to be able to enjoy. Kathleen Knoblock 1609 Washington Street Port Townsend jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Jo Dwyer <joandjohndwyer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 9:55 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance being discussed at November 24 hearing To the Jefferson County Commissioners I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed noise ordinance governing unincorporated Jefferson County. As written, the ordinance is not only inconsistent, but most likely unenforceable. While several of the sections include the provision that specific noises are to be unlawful during the overnight hours -- 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. -- others make no mention of time constraints at all. Public Disturbance Noises section (1)(k), in particular, is so broadly stated, it flies in the face of all the other sections altogether. And while Chapter 173-60 WAC (Maximum Environmental Noise Levels) is cited in Public Disturbance Noises section (1)(a), it is summarily thrown out the window in section (1)(k) where it states "A sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists." Without a clear definition of what constitutes a public disturbance noise, this ordinance creates an enforcement nightmare for our already strapped local police force, not to mention the real probability of multitudes of lawsuits arising from this broadly worded section on the ordinance. It's as if section (1)(k) flies in the face of all previous sections in the ordinance, throwing out any type of time limits (aka overnight periods only) and leaving out any type of real definition of what constitutes a noise disturbance. Do you really want people calling the sheriffs office because someone complains that a neighbor -- whose property is 151 feet away from theirs -- has wind chimes hanging from their porch and the complainant doesn't like that sound? Or that the people living 153 feet from the complainant is playing basketball in the driveway? According to section (1)(k) of the ordinance, that type of complaint is allowed as long as the noise "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose" of the complaining neighbor who claims to have "normal hearing." One person's definition of "unreasonably" disturbed can be very different than another person's definition. Who's to say which person is correct? Is it up to the Sheriff to decide every time he's called with a complaint? This ordinance is a fiasco waiting to happen. Please reconsider the wording, particularly of section (1)(k), to include more specificity and consequently, better enforceability. Thank you for your time. Jo Dwyer 361 S. Palmer Drive Cape George Colony Port Townsend HEARING RECORD GRD aeffbocc From: ptawdirector <ptawdirector@zoho.com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:05 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on Jeffco Proposed Noise Ordinance Dear Commisioners: I am writing as an individual and on behalf of PT AirWatchers. • Please extend the comment period: many people who have expressed concern about excessive noise in the county did not see the notice in last week's PT Leader (or anything earlier). For something this impactful, many have expressed that they would like their voices to be heard. On this short notice, and working from a variety of notes, here are some immediate observations: • WE NEED TOOLS TO DEAL WITH THE CONSTANT ROAR AND RACKET OF THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER MILL. It runs nearly constantly. At night and weekends, the grinding can be heard as far as two miles away. People who live on the bluff over the mill say that the roar and pressure relief explosions can be deafening and regularly disrupt their lives. It's louder and more constant at nights and weekends. • There should be some requirement for individuals to work it out directly first. Berkeley CA has a rule that if you're going to complain about a noise, first you have to have tried to work it out with the person making the noise. It works well and generally compels people to be more responsible in their accusations, and to deal with the other party more respectfully. • 150' is extremely small, like one city block. People need room to have fun or work on their stuff. Plus people who run businesses need to make a certain amount of noise even at night. There's a big difference between small business noise and people having fun noise and the roar from the mill or the Navy's growlers. • Overall: we would like more time to give this a more nuanced treatment. • Distance and Hours: too restrictive on noise from normal people having happy full lives, too little for industrial racket that goes on constantly and can be hear miles from the source. • Exemptions (e).Aircraft exemption: It makes sense to exempt normal private and commercial air traffic, but the growlers are way louder than normal private and commercial air traffic, and how often they fly is more. The Navy growler noise is excessive and we need relief. • Working on vehicles: if you want your car to run, sometimes you have to work on it, and in working on it, sometimes you have to make noise. • Woodworking, for instance can be noisy. So can people singing into the night. People need room to live without having to get a permit for every activity. • Llamas are notoriously quiet. But thanks for giving them an exemption. • First and foremost, though, we want relief from the Port Townsend Paper Mill's constant racket. Very truly yours, Gretchen Brewer Gretchen Brewer, Director PT AirWatchers PO Box 1653, Port Townsend WA 98368 360-774-2115 ptawdirector@zoho.com T From: Gary Nelson (z) <gnelson.zynrgy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:20 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise ordinance Commissioners, I applaud your proposed noise ordinance. However, if the Navy electronic warfare training program is implemented, the noise level throughout the region will doubtless have a negative impact on the rural lifestyle we enjoy. The mobile systems proposed by the Navy will simulate surface to air missiles and related emissions from what was called the "terminal threat area" when I worked in this field. Military jets will approach these emitters at attack speed --full power with afterburners. The noise levels will be far greater than any civilian aircraft exempted by your proposed ordinance. I urge you to use this ordinance to specifically prohibit tactical training exercises over Jefferson County. Thank you Gary A. Nelson, PhD Sent from my iPad "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." - George Washington, address to Congress (1790) HEARING RECORD From: Scott Hawes Friday 11-21-2014 To: Jefferson County BOCC Concerning the Noise Control Ordinance, I'm submitting the following comments. just because we don't have a noise ordinance doesn't mean we need one. What is appropriate in other counties doesn't necessarily 'fit" t" here. Would my chainsaw or tractor be offensive to your "modern lifestyle"? Frankly, I don't care and neither should the county. Public Disturbance Noise (1) (c) This is not the responsibility of the county. If I need to repeatedly start a vehicle to make it run right, or maybe to go from one spot to another, it should not be against the law. (f) It should not be against the law for me to call out to my dogs or livestock just because it's after 10pm. They don't know how to tell time. (g) My dogs WILL bark at anything happening around our property that shouldn't, including bicyclists yelling at each other as they ride by. (h) If a couger or coyote is after mygeese, I'm notgoing to wait until lam, & this should not be against the law. (k) You can't be serious! Without a metered reading, noise is arbitrary and can be used in a vindictive manner. A crime cannot be proven without evidence; and that would be a meter reading. Penalties (2) Without evidence, you cannot convict or fine a citizen. No !peter, no evidence. A grouchy neighbor who persistantly complains is not evidence. It is not the responsibility of the county to cater to chronic complainers who insist on being in charge of everything, including our lifestyles, be they modern or not Respectfully, Scott Hawes 1030 Dabob Rd. Quilcene, Washington - i4en V3�14 kskd From: ksltd <ksltd@sprintmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:04 PM To: jeffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us Cc: Karen Krug Subject: Proposed County Noise Ordinance To: The Jefferson County Commissioners Date: November 23, 2014 RE: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Noise Control Regulations for Jefferson County Gentlemen: The proposed Jefferson County Noise Control Regulations while initially seeming reasonable contain a number of areas that give rise to serious concerns and I am writing to put my concerns on the record. First, I am concerned that the regulation as currently drafted refers to "unincorporated Jefferson County," and clearly does not take into account that many of the residential areas in the unincorporated portions of Jefferson County, e.g. Cape George, Kaka Point, are nearly as densely populated as incorporated Port Townsend. Second, Section 1 Paragraph (k) is overly vague with the subjective language "unreasonably disturbs" but will also create an enforcement and prosecutorial burden. As written, this paragraph would require that a single incident of any single sound that a single neighbor might decide is "unreasonably disturbing" would be cause for a Sheriff's investigation, would require administrative follow up during the one subsequent twelve months and could result in a clogged court calendar as the County Prosecutor is required to prosecute or to defend the County's actions in a dispute. As written there are no objective guidelines or criteria for a deputy or court to use to determine what "unreasonably disturbs" one citizen but not the next. Third, I respectfully disagree with County Administrator Morley who suggests that Jefferson County "don't really have tools to responds to complaints." (Peninsula Daily News, 11/23/2014). The county is already subject to the Washington Noise Act and related WAC provisions (RCW 70.107 et seq. and WAC 173-60-010 et seq.). If Commissioner Austin, who leaves office on December 31, 2014, is concerned with keeping his promise after two terms on the Commission why not formally adopt the existing regime? It seems unfair that new leadership and law enforcement officials, i.e. Commission -elect; Sherriff-elect and County Prosecutor -elect; are not be actively involved in drafting and proposing sweeping changes to noise control in Jefferson County. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my concerns and comments. Respectfully, Karen Krug 152 Huckleberry PI Port Townsend, WA 98368 Submitted via email with har co to be provided at 11/24/2014 hearing To: Jefferson Co. BOCC From: Ellen Gras November 20, 2014 Re: JeffCo Noise Control Ordinance OZ S Ifc� n� vi`J2sfif"`s' Concerning the proposed Noise Ordinance, I'm submitting my comments, suggested corrections & omissions for the record. Cover page 1)_Analysis: Most other counties have one. So, who says we need one? Can you compare Jefferson to King County?And why of all areas would you concentrate on & harass the rural areas? Define a "modern lifestyle" specifically. We came here to escape the micro -managed stressful "lifestyles" of King & Snohomish counties. Are you referring to the 'weekend' residents of Quilcene? Possibly the people in Prot Townsend who own neither farm animals or behicles of any kind? By "rural"you are singling out the very people who own numerous types of vehicles, firearms & farm animals, and dogs "WORKING" their private property. 2)_ Recommendations BEFORE your next public hearing, make a real effort to have the hearings at an appropriate time for the actual rural citizens, AND notify them in ways OTHER THANJUST your one local newspaper. The majority of Jefferson Co people do NOT subscribe to the Leader, the PDN is the newspaper of choice. There is NO reason a PSA cannot be included there too. Any public awareness of this hearing was by our own personal network of phone calls & emails, handmade flyers at our own expense, to get the word out, and you are all well aware of that by now. 907. LP (h) Rural life...... WHEN my working dogs alert me to a possible break-in or home invasion in progress, the next sound neighbors will hear could possibly be a firearm (mine or someone else's) & we all won't be checking our watches ........ neither will all our/their dogs. Criminals & dogs don't work according to your scheduled hours 1/2 hr AFTER sunset and 112 hr BEFORE sunrise. Did you ever stop to think how really SILLY that sounds? Page 5of6 (k) Are you SERIOUS??!! YOU don't need a meter? Even the WAG (173-60-040) states a meter reading is necessary to prove the decible level. And since the county will carry the burden of proof, try presenting ANY evidence. Without evidence, you have no case. And 1, for one, as a taxpayer really don't want to start footing the bill for an endless trail of lawsuits & bogus harassment. I would like to hear what a legal opinion on that might be BEFOREyou actually bog down the courts with this "Seattle frivolity': (I) Just TOO vague ............ any other noise. To whose discretion are you going to leave that up to, the emperor? Exemptions (g) You can ADD WORKING DOGS right here. THAT is rural life. They are our security systems, our alarms to danger. (m) again, in direct contradiction to your animal code. (n) clarify .......... we can be annoyed by "commercial advertising" on the streets in our "new modern rural lifestyle': It brings to mind the Blues Brothers with a giant megaphone mounted on an old panda. Page 6of6 Penalties (2) again, you're trying to take the easy, lazy way out by creating your own rules inconsistant with even state law. NO PROOF? NO VIOLATION *****Provisions not exclusive "The provisions of this chapter shall be cumulative & nonexclusive": Get to the point and write a good ordinance. Who was so arrogant as to include a clause that means 'increasing with successive additions'? Edit (1)(c) of Public disturbance noises to read: HEARING OCOR (c) l3ettivicen the hours of 10 p.m. and ? a.m.. }=�frequent, repetitive, or continuous noises from starting, operating, repairing, rebuilding, or testing of any motor vehicle. motorcycle, dirt bike, other off-highway or off-road vehicle, or any internal combustion engin and betti>een the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., this category of noise shall also be a public disturbance noise if the noise constitutes or rises to, in the opinion of law enforcement. a violation of subsection (k) below; Edit (1)(k) of Public disturbance noises to read: (k) Within unincorporated Jefferson County, it is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession or control of property, including a motor vehicle, to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more reasonable persons of normal hearing. A sound meter reading In addition, since the BoCC has not yet adopted the new Animal Responsibility code referenced in the Noise Ordinance, it seems to make sense to edit (1)(g) of Public disturbance noises to read: (g) Noise from a dog or cat in violation of the JCC Title G Animal Responsibility chapter section on "Howling and barking" as presently enacted and codified. or as may be subsenuently enacted and codified; T RCW 70.77.395: Dates and times consumer fireworks may be sold or discharged — Loca... Page 1 of 1 RCW 70.77.395 Da es times consumer fireworks may be sold or discharged — Local governments may limit, prohibit sale or discharge of fireworks. (1) It is legal to sell and purchase consumer fireworks within this state from twelve o'clock noon to eleven o'clock p.m. on the twenty-eighth of June, from nine o'clock a.m. to eleven o'clock p.m. on each day from the twenty-ninth of June through the fourth of July, from nine o'clock a.m. to nine o'clock p.m. on the fifth of July, from twelve o'clock noon to eleven o'clock p.m. on each day from the twenty- seventh of December through the thirty-first of December of each year, and as provided in RCW 70.77.311. L(2))onsumer fireworks may be used or discharged each day between the hours of twelve o'clock d eleven o'clock p.m. on the twenty-eighth of June and between the hours of nine o'clock a.m. and eleven o'clock p.m. on the twenty-ninth of June to the third of July, and on July 4th between the hours of nine o'clock a.m. and twelve o'clock midnight, and between the hours of nine o'clock a.m. and eleven o'clock p.m. on July 5th, and from six o'clock p.m. on December 31st until one o'clock a.m. on January 1st of the subsequent year, and as provided in RCW 70.77.311. (3) A city or county may enact an ordinance within sixty days of June 13, 2002, to limit or prohibit the sale, purchase, possession, or use of consumer fireworks on December 27, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and thereafter as provided in RCW 70.77.250(4). [2002 c 370 § 31; 1995 c 61 § 22; 1984 c 249 § 24; 1982 c 230 § 31; 1961 c 228 § 56.] Notes: Severability -- 2002 c 370: See note following RCW 70.77.126. Severability -- Effective date --1995 c 61: See notes following RCW 70.77.111. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.77.395 11/24/2014 WAC 173-60-040: Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. f Page 1 of 1 HEARING RECORD WAC 173.60-040 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003 Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. (1) No person shall cause or permit noise to intrude into the property of another person which noise exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels set forth below in this section. (2)(a) The noise limitations established are as set forth in the following table after any applicable adjustments provided for herein are applied. EDNA OF NOISE SOURCE EDNA OF RECEIVING PROPERTY Chm A Class B Class C CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA CLASS B 57 60 65 CLASS C 60 65 70 (b) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced by 10 dBA for receiving property within Class A EDNAs. (c) At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in (a) and (b) above may be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than: (i) 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any one-hour period; or (ii) 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any one-hour period; or (iii) 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. [Order 74-32, § 173-60-040, filed 4/22/75, effective 9/1/75.j httn //anns_lee.wa-gov/wac/default.asnx?cite=173-60-040 11/24/2014 r -q� ❑ --1 CL 0) y m a - p -q Z 8-4QM*aW" N m -I +G Da o O m3 m s m G o0o00o sai =r O-6 m C 0 - (Dm 3m �.Qn b m m QQQQ QQ❑. ❑ all ?^:� uj m x o m o x m Z 41 mmmmmmm c o N y m co c N CL rt m .,{ Q m 3 3 m C [Q m 3 N p' m 0 3 p M m m O d 0 m m m_ C 0 O d 7 rte. m v N -` ❑ l> N m CL K U2 C O d Q 3 v T." y. 3 C p 3 cr 0 S gyp' .m -t m N LD Ul � m Zm 3 O y wQ C3 [ m 0 N m (p.O.t __• p m O O yN - ay �, y= p O 'a 3 r 3 3 .-� 3 3 Q_ .Ca. Q m Cl (? vr n G7 ai S S m S C O C 3 N 3 Q y 3 3 = C N m ¢ �p G� m y -� -w :D f7 C S Q m Q -. CD C .Z. Z _N 7C m C g m O N O O m 3 N Q 6 N µ 0 v COs m O `° p w to w S� 0 Otr 0 co CL CD m CD m co __ m U'7O C 90 �.�m (p m � � 3 �F g N a m 3 u �; Q O N 7! n m o r' N m x at a) y Q �. O .S L CD m N si0 al rr 0 - C -ti Z m O O 3 m.. m CM C3 m o D O m C3CL � y O m M m CD 6 N m F,' M O m m ED C13 w O �.2) 3 3 G_ m N G2 m 3 G7 O CD O- t n 0 A O p .�. @ m n 1. 3 1 m Q . X al O S j y m N= m 7C N z S m m m Sv mµ ' O .Z � N m .s m m 3 m rK._+ at t7 C C - CA 0 0 CD CD CL ❑ Q Scn .ni Q O 0 ED 2: S7 Co N N N .N.F NO 0' m m b 3 Z 3 m N m GO N ..t Z _ lD Ill Q •mZ - _. - C C} X Q _. O N- S C tQ -6 3= m 'a 3 m al K m 3 O COto O m y m CO m 0 I m Q 3 N N 7 @ C m m 3 CL j mn N m 0 FDD N N fS S 3 m a) C7 fDy U1 Q p. C -' oO a U p� .5.. Q m X= 3 0 0 @CD S m O, In —0 am a1 CD? W C Q m > K C Q W 3 Q m '.' Q m m gpg 5.K p m n w m V) m co y S^ m co c N U) 7N r' O O C N j- _ - n' n o m m m. GLii� a -a -< --- Q -a a s m w s� s o A DGQ .moo-. c m C 9 SN} a❑i a �' CD -' m m CO n m m � c, m O 0 m p C17m ... m 6m co N m 3 C o Q (D m o- m 1< c , m mom+ r) m Q C j 3 c N N S: 3 ami m :3 Q $ N = .'y 0• s c -a m m - = v. w �1 @ OD m m m -w r S a) O N m y C `C S 3 O c .vZ al C O` N B 3 7 A O m 3 -.. O 3 al QSQ �al S� 3 �'� 3 t9 K .m.. S N N m M N mQ m Q �C n CD m m o s y m � o o to fD 0 w o, _( 3 v �D CO CD m � � 3 o m O v Y O 3 C to co 3 co CD o 3rr m V CO � r � GO a n m 3 Sp ^ CL CL CD n m 0) p� Q 3 CD v y v ...+ IN 0 a 0 Z ' 0 (D 3 oa � _ 0 m = 9P n [A 10 3 /�♦ =F � CD O CD CD O C 7 Q CDI ca ca O Q 11111/2014 RCW 9.41290: Sfa[e prewOOM RCW 9.41.290 State preemption. The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. [1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.] Notes: Finding — Intent -- Severability -1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43,70.540. Effective date — 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010. Severability — 1985 c 428: " ff any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other or circumstances is not affected." [1985 c 428 § 6.1 Application —1983 c 232 § 12: "Section 12 of this act shall not apply to any offense committed prior to July 24, 1983." [1983 c 232 § 13.] Severability —1983 c 232: See note following RCW 9.41.010. RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Ex... Pagel of 3 RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty. (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon: (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public; (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b). For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury. In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas; (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public; (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be dearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite--9.41.300 11/24/2014 RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Ex... Page 2 of 3 (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances: (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article 1, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to: (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms. (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone. (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law. (4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law. (5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises. (6) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: (a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties; (b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10. 14, 10. 99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or (c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties. (7) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section does not apply to correctional personnel or community corrections officers, as long as they are employed as such, who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a correctional employee or community corrections officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10. 14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010. (8) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300 11/24/2014 RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places —Local laws and ordinances —Ex... Page 3 of 3 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility. (9) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrators designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises. (10) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment. (11) Government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training must be training that correctional personnel and community corrections officers receive as part of their job requirement and reference to such training does not constitute a mandate that it be provided by the correctional facility. (12) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (13) "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250. [2011 c 221 § 2; 2008 c 33 § 1. Prior. 2004 c 116 § 1; 2004 c 16 § 1; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 429; 1993 c 396 § 1; 1985 c 428 § 2.) Notes: Finding -- Intent -- Severability --1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540. Effective date --1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410,413-416,418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010. Severability –1985 c 428: See note following RCW 9.41.290. htto://aovs.le2.wa-eov/rcw/default.asox?cite=9.41.300 11/24/2014 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 HEARING RECORD Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance hearing (11/24/14 @ I IANI) Commissioners: My name is Art Burke and I'm the Manager of Cape George Colony Club, a homeowner association of over 500 homes located in Jefferson County. I have been asked by the Board of Trustees to provide comment concerning the proposed noise control ordinance. Our association has developed a number of common property amenities for the enjoyment of our residents, including a marina, a pool, a clubhouse, a fitness room and a sports court where the game of pickleball is played. Our community's experience with the sports court has caused concern about the proposed Jefferson County Noise Ordinance. Specifically, we believe subparagraph (k) under Public disturbance noises is overly broad and subjective, and likely to lead to conflict within our community and possibly in other areas of the county. In 2012, a sports court was established at Cape George, largely through the volunteer efforts of our members. Since that time, the game of pickleball, which is played at the court, has become very popular and is now enjoyed by many members and their guests. However, one of our members began to complain about noise from the court. She began to present the association with unreasonable demands to shut down or move the court. In an effort to address the member's complaints, Cape George enacted rules limiting the hours of play on the court to 9AM-7PM. Players were also provided paddles and balls which research showed were consistently quieter during play. These measures were apparently not sufficient because in July 2014 the complaining member then filed a lawsuit against Cape George in Jefferson County Superior Court. She immediately sought a court order prohibiting any further play on the court, basing her request upon her own highly subjective complaints. To oppose this request, Cape George presented the court with the report of Jerry Lilly, a registered professional acoustical engineer. After taking extensive measurements during active play, Mr. Lilly concluded the noise from the court fully complied with the Washington Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). Mr. Lilly's report stated: In conclusion, there is no doubt that the noise generated from pickleball games on the existing court at Cape George Colony Club is within the allowable limits set forth in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173- 060.) In fact, these results suggest that the club could install several more courts in the same area and still be in compliance with the noise ordinance. Presented with this objective evidence, the court denied the restraining order. Shortly thereafter, the complaining member voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit. Subparagraph (k), provides it is unlawful "to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing." It goes on to state a sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists. In Cape George's experience, the wording in the proposed ordinance could subject the association to unwarranted disputes and, frankly, harassment by allowing someone to base complaints upon their own subjective perceptions even though it could be objectively established Cape George is in full compliance with the Washington Noise Ordinance (WAC 173-060). For these reasons, Cape George requests the Commissioners to reconsider subparagraph (k). Hello. My name is Mary Rothschild I live in Cape George Colony, where my neighbors' homes are as close to mine as my neighbors' homes were in my former hometown -- central Seattle. The only thing rural about Cape George Colony or Cape George Village is the fact that we have to drive many miles to any county or city park. Many of us here today were in the courthouse a few weeks ago, sitting through a hearing on a demand by one resident to shut down our sports court. This little court was the brainchild of many neighbors and deliberations about where it could be located were the subject of many widely publicized public meetings. Multiple fund- raisers were held to pay for the court, which was built by a small army of volunteers. Based on all the community input, outboard of directors had chosen a site already a bustling hub, at the Colony entrance, tucked behind a bank of mailboxes where several hundred vehicles drive by or stop daily, and next to a maintenance shed where heavy equipment comes and goes. The sports court is now enjoyed by dozens of adults and children, has forged new friendships and given everyone a chance for healthy, fun exercise. But one litigious resident, who had sued the community before, lodged a complaint about sounds from the court. Attempts to mediate a compromise - restricting hours of play, muffling paddles with pads and requiring "quiet" racquets were rebuffed. This person would only accept removal of the court. In Superior Court a few weeks ago, the attorney representingthis resident repeatedly banged his fist on the judge's bench, claiming this was the sound of a pickleball, and saying it was the same as a pile driver. The judge rejected this ludicrous exaggeration. He had before him a report from a sound engineer, which proved that not only did the gentle tick -tock of the balls, and voices from the sports court, notmexceed the state's -legal levels, but that a second court at the same site would together not produce enough sound to constitute a legal disturbance. If the commission adopts the proposed noise -control ordinance, as submitted, this nuisance suit will likely be revived, and similar complaints and lawsuits throughout the county will result. We may lose our right to enjoy healthy exercise outside. Please exemptFnot only league or school sponsored athletic events, but all outdoor sports activities,"from the ordinance. And please do not exclude sound meter readings as one way to objectively determine whether a noise complaint is valid. One more story about how subjective sound complaints can be: We recently put a basketball hoop on a garage - in Port Townsend, not Cape George -- for our 13 -year- old grandson, who has turned out for the Blue Heron school team. A neighbor complained about the sound of the bouncing ball. Soon, our grandson, a shy, polite kid, was practicing free throws less than 15 minutes a day. The neighbor still objected. We then suggested our grandson shoot hoops only when the neighbor was away from home, but that, too, was unacceptable. Asked how the sound of a basketball could bother someone nowhere near it, we were told it would "disturb the birds." Well, this proposed ordinance may be for the birds, because it certainly doesn't address the lives of real people in a normal, active community. "Overall rural quiet" as a general, vague standard is an unrealistic expectation, especially in suburban residential developments like ours, and the proposed section k, under public disturbance noises, goes much too far in banning any sound that one person claims disturbs peace, comfort or repose, and in discounting sound meter readings as a possible, objective measure. Yes, there is a public benefit to quiet, especially at night, and 1 support your efforts to promote that. But equally beneficial to Jefferson County's welfare are the happy daytime sounds of citizens playing together outdoors, enjoying healthy activities and building a sense of community. Please preserve those as well. Nov. 24, 2014 To: BOCC RE: Unincorporated Jefferson County Noise Ordinance HEARING RECORD I only have one issue and would appreciate your consideration of the following: The proposed noise suppression time frame of 10 PM to 7 AM is NOT appropriate as a year-round solution and I believe it would instead be more realistic if it followed a morning time frame consistent with daylight hours. The coolness and morning moisture greatly reduce fire dangers and is the safest time to use tools and machinery. This is especially important in the Spring and Summer months, as the danger of fire is at its greatest at that time. I also think it is unfair and unrealistic to expect rural environments to be subjected to urban -like rules and regulations. If these proposed regulations were enacted based on population density then I think they might be appropriate, but much of rural Jefferson County is comprised of acreage parcels with minimal densities. I would like to see the morning noise suppression time changed to a half-hour before sunrise (consistent with Washington State Fishing/Hunting Regulations), or at the latest, sunrise, which is about a half hour after daylight. Thank You, Dennis Pownall Discovery Bay >t,J ,# Al THORNDYKE RESOURCE November 24, 2014 Jeffferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance Gentlemen, Jefferson County's proposed Noise Control ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. Its use of a subjective "public disturbance noise" standard, without requiring an objective assessment (e.g. through the use of decibel meters) is so vague and broad as to chill free speech. '?o be consistent with due process,... [an] ordinance must contain ascertainable standards of guilt, so that people of reasonable understanding are not required to guess at meaning of enactment." The language must convey "sufficient definite warning as to proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Everett v. O'Brien, 31 Wn. App. 319, 323 (1982). The proposed Jefferson County ordinance provides in part: Violation Defined. It shall be a violation of this Chapter to generate, produce, disseminate or otherwise make available to the hearing of others a "public disturbance noise" or any source(s) of sound which unreasonably disturb(s) or interfere(s) with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors. Public disturbance noises. (1) Public disturbance noises include: (k) Within unincorporated Jefferson County, it is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession or control of property, including a motor vehicle, to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing. A sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists. While several of the subsections defining "public disturbance noises" may have constitutional vagueness problems, subsection (k) is a catchall that is most troublesome from our perspective. One challenging an enacted ordinance has the burden of showing that the ordinance does not satisfy the requirements of due process. "The test for evaluating the vagueness of legislative enactments contains two components: adequate notice to citizens and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement." City of Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wash. 2d 541, 543 (1988) In Fischer, the Court found a Spokane ordinance, which provided that "No person shall keep a dog within the City limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the City", violated both the Fourteenth Amendment and Const. art. 1, § 3, and was void because it provided neither adequate notice to citizens of unlawful conduct nor adequate standards to prevent its arbitrary enforcement. The crux of the ordinance is that it gives to any person who feels a dog's frequent or habitual barking is annoying or disturbing the power to make a subjective determination a crime has been committed.... it is impossible to know whether this barking "disturbs or annoys' another person or neighborhood. Rather than owners being able to determine readily their compliance with the ordinance, it is any person or neighbor's threshold tolerance for barking which determines lawful conduct by the owner or harborer of a dog... Whether this behavior is lawful or unlawful will depend solely on the subjective feeling of annoyance or disturbance by a particular person or neighborhood. Conceivably, strangers walking by the same residence every day could file a complaint if the dog always barks at them. Id., at 544-45. The proposed Jefferson County ordinance is similarly vague, prohibiting any person "to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more persons of normal hearing." Just as in the Fischer case, this gives "persons of normal hearing" the power to make a subjective determination a crime has been committed. The person allowing the sound would not be able to readily determine their compliance with the ordinance, as it is the perceiver's threshold tolerance for the noise which determines lawful conduct; whether the behavior is lawful or unlawful will depend solely on the subjective feeling of annoyance or disturbance by that particular person. Moreover, the proposed ordinance specifically states that an objective determination — i.e. a sound meter reading — "is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists." Hood Canal Sand DBA Thorn-ftke6 Manager Forwarded message --------- From: Ann Hueter <pibirdl30@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Re: Paragraph K HEARING RECORD While I respect everyones right to five in an environment free from undue noise and disturbance, this gives one person the right to decide what that should be and involve law enforcement in the decision without any objective measurement of the sound required! It also implies that a hearing test would be needed to determine if the complainant has "normal' hearing! This does not identify where the disturbing sound might be coming from - indoors, outdoors, in passing. It is altogether too loose and arbitrary and could only contribute to the addition of reporting in the Leader under Sheriffs Calls . That department has better things to do. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Ann E. Hueter 130 Colman Dr. Pt. Townsend, Wa 98368 https:llmail.google. com/maillu/0/?ui=2&ik=26be7008df&view--pt& search=sent&th=149... 11/22/2014 To: Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners ` -� p Date: November 20, 2014 HEARING RER® Re: Proposed Noise ordinance — Just say NO Gentlemen: I don't like the Noise Ordinance for several reasons. First, after reviewing the Washington Noise Act, related WAC provisions and several reported court noise abatement cases, it seems incontrovertible that Section (1)(k) is fatally flawed and unenforceable. Second, the ordinance has some technical deficiencies identified later in this letter, which will, unless corrected, predictably prevent the ordinance from being approved by the Department of Ecology, as required. Third, the fact that you have the authority to propound a noise ordinance does not answer the fundamental question: Should you pass the ordinance, even when it is revised to incorporate proper legal standards and the concerns of the public? There is a sentiment in government and a perceived duty to right every wrong, via the Police Power. I urge the Commissioners to remember that not every slight or harm should be remedied by government. A person aggrieved by unwelcome noise retains the private personal right to seek mediation or to commence a nuisance lawsuit against the wrongdoer and, should he or she prove their case, to obtain relief in the form of damages and/or an injunction. The County should not undertake to solve all problems for all people. The overbreadth of the proposed Ordinance, particularly Section (1) (k) is an unwelcome effort to do too much. 1. Why Do We Need This Ordinance? The county is already subject to, and citizens are protected by, the Washington Noise Act and related WAC provisions (RCW 70.107 et seq. and WAC 173-60-010 et seq.). The Commissioners might simply formally adopt the entire existing regime or simply do nothing, allowing the state provisions to continue to be the law of the county on noise. ' If you believe an ordinance is necessary, you should publicly identify and describe what the problems are that have led to this proposal: (1) how many noise complaints are made to the sheriff's office in the course of a year? (2) how many noise violations are issued in the course of a year? (3) how many are contested — i.e. go to trial or before the District Court judge for dismissal or a fine reduction? (4) what is the anticipated burden on the sheriff's deputies if the ordinance passes and is approved by the Department of Ecology? (5) do the deputies have access to approved noise meters and are they trained to use them? (6) What priority will noise investigations have in the Sheriff's office? (7) what are the guidelines for a deputy and the court to gauge "unreasonableness"? (8) what has been the experience of Port Townsend and neighboring jurisdictions with noise ordinances, i.e. number of violations issued and court challenges in the last year? And (9) What are the views of our Sheriff -elect and Prosecutor -elect regarding increased staffing needs, expense and the diversion of staff time away from more serious criminal and social welfare concerns? With those answers in mind, do we need a noise ordinance? ' Presumably, in the absence of a county ordinance, the county Sheriff has been enforcing the Washington State Noise Act with its very specific WAC regulations. Has this been the case?? 2 The Troublesome Section (1) (k) is fatally Flawed and Void for Vagueness: Based on the decisions of four Washington court cases, there is compelling legal authority to the effect that our broadly written Section (1) (k) is void for vagueness and therefore is unenforceable. I found no cases upholding the enforcement of a noise ordinance with language similar to (1) (k). The four cases are discussed in the next few paragraphs. I believe there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY for the broad sweeping language of our Section (1) (k) which provides in material part that "...it is unlawful for any person .... to allow sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons...:' When reviewing the case summaries, I urge the Commissioners to focus on this factor: subjective language in an ordinance may be enforceable BUT ONLY IF it is specifically linked or tethered to specific conduct in a specific context Linkage is key and Section MM has none. 2.1 City of Everett v. O'Brien, 31 Wn App 319: In the 1982 Everett case, p. 321, the court described the standard to be met for an ordinance to not be void for vagueness and to be consistent with due process: "To be consistent with due process a penal statute or ordinance must contain ascertainable standards of guilt so that people of reasonable understanding are not required to guess at the meaning of an enactment. Cite omitted. However, the Constitution does not require impossible standards; all that is necessary is that the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Cites omitted, emphasis added. The court in Everett held that the defendant with his loud motorcycle had violated the city's noise ordinance directed at: "....frequent, repetitive... noise (from) .... The starting, operation, repair .... of any motorcycle. so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property." The conduct prohibited is identical to our Public Disturbance Noise (hereafter "PDN") Section (1) (c). The "unreasonably disturb... etc." language is identical to our Section (1)(k). In the Everett ordinance specific conduct (motorcycle operation) is directly linked to the effect on citizens ("unreasonably disturb"). This linkage of specifically identified behavior to the resulting disturbance enabled the court to conclude that the proscribed conduct was adequately identified and that ordinary persons could see the cause and effect of loud motorcycle noise impacting others. The ordinance was upheld. Our Section (1)( k), while attempting to proscribe any and all noise, necessarily fails to specifically identify any particular proscribed behavior and is therefore unenforceable under the Everett case. The impact on the hearer is not "linked" to any specific behavior enumerated in the ordinance. 2.2 Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn App 519: In the later 1988 Holland case, a Tacoma noise ordinance made unlawful the playing of automobile sound equipment at a volume that could be heard more than 50 feet from the car. The defendant argued, among other issues, that the ordinance was too vague. The court, at p. 543, used a slightly different standard to decide whether the ordinance was enforceable: "The traditional standard of unconstitutional vagueness is whether the terms of a statute are so indefinite that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application (cites omitted)..... to withstand a challenge for vagueness an ordinance must provide adequate notice to persons of common understanding concerning the behavior prohibited and the specific intent required: it must provide citizens, police officers and courts alike with sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement." Cites omitted, emphasis added. The court upheld the Tacoma ordinance (p. 544) because a person of ordinary intelligence would know what "radio" and "audible at 50 feet" meant. The court was particularly persuaded because the ordinance had no subjective element such as "unreasonably" or "disturbing". The objective standard of "audible at 50 feet" prevented the objectionable and unenforceable vagueness which would result from imprecise subjective factors. Our section PDN (1)(e) is similar to the Tacoma statute and would similarly be enforceable. Our Section (1) (k) however, does not describe any specific prohibited behavior. There is thus no linkage between identified behavior and effect on others. The language in (1)(k) prohibiting all noise of any nature or sort in any circumstance which "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of one or more persons" is precisely the subjective language rejected by the Holland court. Under that decision, Section (1)(k) is unenforceable and void for vagueness. 2.3 Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn 2d 22 (1988): In this case the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct based on a municipal ordinance which forbade "loud and raucous behavior" on a bus if the conduct "unreasonably disturbed others". The municipal court found him guilty, the Superior Court then reversed the conviction because the ordinance was vague, then the Appellate court reversed and reinstated the conviction holding that the ordinance was constitutional and the Supreme Court upheld the Appellate court. The issue was whether "loud and raucous' was vague. The court concluded that loud and raucous conduct on a bus is an understandable concept—the conduct prohibited is identified and is linked to a site. The court affirmed (p. 25) that the "vagueness doctrine serves two important purposes: to provide fair notice to citizens as to what conduct is proscribed and to protect against arbitrary enforcement of the laws. Cites omitted". The court determined that: "...the use of "unreasonably disturbs others" does not render vague a statute that is otherwise specific in nature." The court affirmed the enforceability of the ordinance precisely because if was limited in its application: "...to the context of noise on a bus. Given this specific context the prohibited disturbances are easily measured so that citizens have fair notice of what activities are prohibited." Here, again, subjective measures may be acceptable IF linked to specific behaviors in a specific context. That is not the case with our defective (1)(k). 2.4 Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wn 2d 541 (1988): In this dog barking case, the state Supreme Court reversed a conviction, finding, instead, that the ordinance, which included a criminal prohibition against permitting a dog's frequent or habitual barking, howling or yelping which "disturbs or annoys" any person or neighborhood, was unconstitutionally vague because it made criminal liability dependent on the subjective determination of any person who heard the barking. The court, p. 542, affirmed that: "the test for evaluating the vagueness of legislative enactments contains two components: adequate notice to citizens and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. cites omitted". The court viewed with particular disfavor the fact that the ordinance: "....gives to ANY person who feels a dog's frequent or habitual barking is annoying or disturbing the power to make a subjective determination a crime has been committed..... Rather than an owner's being able to determine readily their compliance with the ordinance, it is any person's or neighbor's threshold tolerance for barking which determines lawful conduct by the owner of the dog.... Whether the behavior is lawful or unlawful will depend solely on the subjective feelings of annoyance or disturbance by a particular person.." The court rejected this ordinance because it allowed the victim to define the crime, rather than making specific conduct unlawful. Our Section (1) (k) relies on the same standard the Supreme court rejected in Spokane: again, our Jefferson County citizens have no notice under (1) (k) of what behavior is proscribed, what standards will be applied, and enforcement is left to the inconsistent vagaries of the temperaments of others. 3. Section (k) Conflicts with WAC 173-60-040— Decibel Standards: Section (1) (k) may not make illegal sounds which are lawful under the decibel standards of WAC 173-60-040. WAC 173-60-040 sets forth a comprehensive chart establishing allowable decibel levels within residential, commercial and industrial communities for the State of Washington. Our Section (1)(k) prohibits all sound which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace or repose of another and does not require a sound meter reading to establish a violation 2 This means that certain sounds may be quite legal under the WAC decibel standards but conceivably and predictably illegal under Section (1)(k). This will make some noise simultaneously lawful and unlawful. If that conflict occurs, it is the law that the local ordinance (1) (k) is unenforceable. On this issue, the court in Seattle v Eze, infra (p.28) held that "...our state constitution prohibits cities from enacting laws that conflict with state law. Cites omitted." The court cited extensive authority (p. 29) to the effect that local ordinances may be broader than a parallel state law but may not contradict a state law. A conflict of laws exists if a city attempts to authorize by ordinance what the legislature has forbidden or if the city forbids what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized or required. This supremacy principal means that if a noise level is lawful under the WAC standards it is irrelevant that someone's repose is disturbed under 1(k). Section 1(k) cannot make unlawful that which is legal and authorized under the WAC standards. With respect to noise as a nuisance, there is a statute which deals directly with the potential conflict issue. RCW 7.48.160 describes the principal: "Authorized Act Not a Nuisance: Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance." This statute provides further support for the mandatory conclusion: noise events lawful under the WAC decibel standards cannot be in violation of (1)(k). Other jurisdictions have found a simple way around this. 4. Resolution of the Conflict of Laws Problem: Snohomish County appears to have solved the conflict of law issue: that County defines Public Disturbance Noise as "... any sound which, because of its random or infrequent occurrence is not conducive to measurement under the quantitative standards established in SCC 10.01.030....". The referenced quantitative standard was the state WAC decibel standard. Although a conflict of law was not the issue in the case, the court in State v. Immelt. 150 Wn App 681 (2009) found unobjectionable the use of a standard other than the WAC decibel standard but only in those instances when a decibel reading was not possible. z That section provides, in part, that: "...A sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists." Similarly, the Ordinance provides at Penalty (2) that "a sound level meter reading is not necessary to establish the commission of an offense." It is possible that the initial intention of (1) (k) was to acknowledge and allow the potential for enforcement when decibel level data was unavailable. This would occur when a deputy arrives to investigate after the noise has stopped. I think some of the (1) (k) problems could be fixed, in part, by changing its language to the effect that a condition precedent to the issuance of a noise violation under Section (I) (k) should be the unavailability of a contemporaneous decibel measure and the impossibility of accurately replicating the complained of sound. In those instances a standard other than the WAC standard could be used based on reasonable estimates, corroborating testimony and other material and competent evidence to potentially to establish a violation. If standards are not already in place, the Sheriff's office would need to develop training, practices, strategies and standards for noise investigations. S. YOU FORGOT TO MENTION MY COURT HEARING! The ordinance should specifically identify what rights an alleged violator has under RCW 7.80. et seq. or Jefferson County regulations to appeal the citation to the county District Court. As with the Port Townsend Noise Act (Chapter 9.09) the District Court judge, in our county cases, should specifically be granted discretion to dismiss, reduce, suspend or defer the finding of a violation or the imposition of a fine and, for those instances when a trial is necessary, the judge should be granted discretion to refer the matter for mediation. While the Penalty section provides that no noise meter reading is necessary for a conviction, that section should be conditioned on the same caveat as (1)(k) — that decibel readings are only not necessary for a conviction or finding of a violation if and only if such readings were impossible to obtain or to reasonably replicate or to reliably estimate. The Penalty section should also be revised to the effect that evidence of compliance with the WAC standards would be a complete defense to any violation including a violation under (1) (k). 6. Other Miscellaneous Problems: 6.1 The WAC decibel chart should be set out in the Ordinance. Many people have decibel apps on their smart phones —the availability of the chart is informative, easy and THE guide to citizens concerning allowable levels of sound. It is the most basic of all of the information. The Skagit County ordinance sets out the entire chart at the beginning of the ordinance — it takes up maybe one quarter page? 6.2 The Washington Noise Act is not even mentioned in the ordinance. It should be referenced at the very beginning of the Ordinance. It is THE foundation law. 6.3 The introductory phrase at PDN (1) and the language of Section (a) is very confusing and convoluted. It just is not clear what parts of WAC are to be applied where. I assume it means the WAC decibel standards are to apply to all of the PDNs but I really don't know what that section means. 6.4 The ordinance omits to establish and describe the county EDNAs (environmental designation for noise abatement). These are the three types of neighborhoods — commercial, industrial and residential —which MUST be part of the ordinance as standards vary for and among the zones. As I read WAC 170-60-130 such designations are necessary to obtain the Department of Ecology's approval of the Ordinance. A neighboring jurisdiction added a rural designation to their EDNAs. 6.5 The word "decibel" does not ever appear in the proposed ordinance even though under state law and in common practice that is how noise is measured.' Do we issue speeding tickets without regard to speed, or DUI citations without regard to alcohol consumption levels? But we are to issue noise violations without regard to sound levels?? It makes no sense.... . 6.6 Just as a matter of the appearance of fairness, perhaps the ordinance should not mention "peace and quiet, etc." six times while disregarding the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable harassment by neutral deputies required to investigate at the behest of complaining neighbors. 6.7 It appears that most of the Exempt Noise section of the ordinance is pretty much copied directly from WAC 173-60-050. Why not exactly copy the WAC provision?? Our Exemption list left out some of the WAC noises, like blasting, sounds from industrial installations, from forest harvesting and silviculture, and natural gas transmission and distribution facilities (do we have any?) and imposes time limits on bells, chimes and carillons that WAC 173-60-050 (4)(d) does not. The list should be carefully double checked against the WAC provision. 6.8 Correct exemption (s): I think the time reference is off— should it read ".....until one half hour after sunset not sunrise). 6.9. Perhaps ease up on the emphasis on the bucolic/pastoral nature of our county, when many thousands of county residents reside in the suburban like communities of Kala Point, Part Ludlow, Cape George and other similar residential neighborhoods. Don't ignore our concerns. 6.10. My Personal Concern: I play pickelball on a private court during daytime hours. The sound of the paddle is well under the WAC standard for a residential neighborhood, the sport meets the criteria of PDN (1)(d), but I know that a neighbor's peace and repose is disturbed under (1)(k). What will the Sheriff's deputy do with the complaint he or she will most assuredly get?? The correct answer is in this letter. My apologies for the length of this epistle. I hope it has been helpful. Thank you for your consideration. Good luck, Barbara Barnhart 12 Queets Place (Cape George Colony) Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-5735 barbbarnhart@rocketmaii.com 3 The phrase "sound meter' does appear in the proposed Ordinance at section (k) of "Public Disturbance Noises" and in the penalty section but only to the effect that decibel readings are NOT necessary. Gail Krentzman HEARING From: Gail Krentzman <gail@gk1040.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 3:24 PM To: Jeff bocc@co.jefferson.wa.us' Subject: Noise Ordinance to be heard on Monday comments For almost six decades I have never been riled enough to write a letter to my government. This unincorporated noise ordinance breaks that trend. I pride myself on being a good neighbor and conduct my activities to be mindful of the noise I make. Not all my neighbors are mindful of their noises but my attitude is that as long as they are not harming anyone just let it be. Your proposed ordinance now will make it too easy for someone to make a petty complaint over something that might be an isolated incident or a harmless gardening project. To give a citizen an expectation that the sheriff department will show up if my weed whacker is too loud or if I play bocce ball with too much exuberance sets up a bad formula for a good neighbor policy. Your ordinance seems over reaching and vague. Please do not enact this policy without taking into consideration that most homeowners act in good faith. If your experience indicates that a noise policy needs to be in place at least consider that the law would need to be clearer and more objective and set forth reasonable time limits for situations where the sheriff does becomes involved. Thank you for your consideration. Gail Krentzman, CPA 1240 W Sims Way #127 Port Townsend, WA 98368 310-922-1060 phone 855-678-0558 fax The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If .you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the transmitted information from any computer. 11/20/14 To The Jefferson County Board Of Commissioners: I am very concerned about vague language and subjective standards used in the proposed Noise Control Ordinance being considered by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, particularly Subsection (k) and the definition of "violation." I strongly believe that, if enacted, Subsection (k) would lead to confusion, conflict, and unending enforcement nightmares in unincorporated densely populated areas of Jefferson County. I am a resident of the Cape George community, where hundreds of homes exist in close proximity to each other. We have chosen to live in Cape George because of the many social and cultural benefits of living in close community with others. In return for those benefits, each of us tolerates a variety of daily annoyances from our neighbors, including but not limited to noises of many types. Subsection (k) fails to recognize the realities of living in community, by using a subjective standard defined only by the individual preferences and peculiarities of any one person. As regards noise, unincorporated densely populated areas such as Cape George should be governed by the same objective and measurable standards and regulations as those that govern incorporated densely populated areas. Some sections of the proposed ordinance appear to be reasonable, objective and enforceable. Those include the time limitations set forth in Subsection (d), and commonly -used measurable noise level limits referred to in Subsection (a). But Subsection (k) refers only to a subjective standard that cannot be objectively measured or defined. And by including in the definition of "violation" the words "or any source(s) of sound which unreasonably disturb(s)... etc." this ordinance opens the door to a flood of complaints from intolerant persons. I am a retired attorney with over thirty years of experience practicing law. I am surprised that the vague language and subjective standards included in this proposed ordinance, especially Subsection (k), would be seriously considered for adoption by a governing authority. I believe such an overly - broad ordinance would encourage intolerant and unreasonable persons to press spurious complaints, would cause those charged with enforcement to be burdened with poorly defined investigations, and would result in the type of over -policing that is abhorrent to our culture and customs. In addition, our local courts would be further burdened with frustrating and unnecessary litigation, and our citizens would incur high costs of defending reasonable individual freedoms. I urge the Commissioners to take whatever steps are necessary to entirely eliminate Subsection (k) from any further consideration, and to delete all other vague references and subjective standards from the proposed ordinance. Jan Stone is@cab_lespeed.com_ Objections to Proposed Noise Control Regulations Pagel of 2 HEAPING R From. Woody <cwoodnla@aol.com> r • EWYU To: leftbocc <leflboce@colefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objections to Proposed Noise Control Regulations Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 4:39 pm I am writing to address the proposed Jefferson County Noise Control Regulations: 1. Why doesn't the Board of Commissioners wait until the incoming sheriff (Stanko) and prosecutor (Haas) have an opportunity to discuss this with staff (Note and Alvarez) whom the newspaper reported promulgated and proposed these regulations? 2. 1 believe it is the sheriffs duty to ENFORCE THE LAW AND NOT MAKE THE LAW and I believe our incoming sheriff has so stated in his campaign. (See comment 1 above) 3. 1 OBJECT TO PARAGRAPH K in the Public Disturbance Noise section for many reasons, including the following: a. Why would you want to treat the many residents & communities of the unincorporated Jefferson County differently than residents of incorporated cities in Jefferson County are treated re: noise? That is discriminatory! b. This paragraph is vague and subjective and clearly aimed at addressing a single disgruntled person's complaint. What unreasonably disturbs or interferes with another's peace may be and often are sounds of joy for others. c. Because of the lack of an objective standard deliberately deleted in Paragraph K, enforcement will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The commission will be opening the door to numerous lawsuits if this section and the definition of a violation is adopted. (See comment D below) d. I OBJECT TO THE DEFINITION OF "VIOLATION". The drafter of this section notes that "It shall be a violation of this Chapter to generate, produce, disseminate or otherwise make available to the hearing of others a "public disturbance noise" or any source(s) of sound which unreasonably disturb (s) or interfere(s) with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors. (Emphasis added). This gives the impression that even if, Paragraph K of the Public Disturbance Noises was deleted, the disgruntled neighbor still has a complaint by definition!! https://maii.aol.com/38848-916/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 11/23/2014 Objections to Proposed Noise Control Regulations Page 2 of 2 e. I OBJECT TO THE STATEMENT UNDER LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION which states 'that this Chapter shall be liberally construed to carry out its broad purposes". If the County has proper & clear objective regulations drafted there should be no need for an enforcement official to "liberally construe" anything, as you suggest. A violation would be clear on its face if objective standards were set. I ASK THAT YOU CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL AND DIRECT COPIES TO MR. STANKO AND MR. HAAS IMMEDIATELY. Thank you. Carol Wood https://maii.aol.com/38848-916/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 11/23/2014 HEARING RECORD SECURITY =_ _ _ NORTHWEST, INC. P.O. BOX 660 Port Townsend WA 98368 1-800-859-3463 Date: November 24, 2014 To: Philip Morley, Jefferson County Administrator From: Joe D'Amico, President, Security Services NW Re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance CC: Commissioner John Austin Commissioner David Sullivan Commissioner Phil Johnson Dear Mr. Morley, Please find my attached comments regarding the proposed Noise Control Ordinance. I'm not in favor of the proposed Noise Control Ordinance for many of the reasons I will outline below and I respectfully request that BOCC not pass this ordinance as presented. Jefferson County has been and continues to be a working County since the mid 1800's. Our timber industry, farming, fishing & shellfish harvesting, maritime, hunting and military installations have all shaped the character and people of Jefferson County. Many of us have grown up in the community and don't mind the hustle and bustle of the working people of Jefferson County. For most of us, living in Jefferson County for generations, we are used to the country noises and the accessory noises that have shaped our County. First, Jefferson County is about to embark on a fundamental facelift that will effectively change the face of Jefferson County from a small working county to suburbia USA. We need areas in Jefferson County for businesses and its citizens to conduct work without government interference. I'm fearful that this ordinance will widely become popular with neighbors that are/have been feuding for years and will lead to unintended consequences to the citizens and county government. Not to mention, bogging down the sheriff's office and the courts. Let me explain with regards to the Sheriff s Office. Violations of the proposed noise ordinance are infractions similar to moving infractions. Infractions need to be witnessed by the Deputy and the Deputy will need to witness the violation in order to issue a citation. So, as you know Jefferson County is heavily wooded and many properties cannot be view or accessed via the county road network. By the time a responding deputy arrives there's a high likelihood that the offending noise may have subsided. So, will the county be trespassing on to people's property and conducting investigations, issuing them a citation that wasn't witnessed and only had been assumed to have come from that person's property? Will Jefferson County Deputies be driving onto citizen's property to investigate noise complaints without the property owner's permission? This will lead to citizens complaining about the sheriffs office and will be viewed as poor customer service. Not to mention unhappy citizens complaining about how the noise ordinance in not enforced. Secondly, I'm concerned that this has been authored by an interim Sheriff. Why not wait a month, until the new Sheriff takes office? Why not also wait for the new Commissioner elect? Thirdly, I'd like to touch on the financial impacts. Your fiscal impacts list NONE. This is misleading. Every time someone calls JEFFCOM 911 the Jefferson County Sheriff s Office is charged $28.00, just for the phone call. Not to mention the deputy's time, this averages $34.62 an hour. Including employment taxes and benefits and you could add an additional $10-20 an hour. For discussion purposes, let's say fuel cost averages $7.00 per call. So, for a single noise complaint the citizens of Jefferson County could be facing a call fee of $89.00 per call. This doesn't include a citation, report and court appearances, which could double the estimated call fee of $89.00 to $178.00. This also doesn't cover court costs and other criminal and or civil challenges, which will be forthcoming. I also read that citations can't be issued with proper noise metering devices. Knowing that each deputy drives his own patrol car does that mean that Jefferson County will need to purchase up to twenty-eight noise metering devices? Your statement in ANALYSIS "...primarily rural and citizens expect and benefit from overall rural quiet." Who said that? I thought rural counties like Jefferson County were supposed to keep their rural character per GMA and other Jefferson County documents. 2 I Thank you for hearing out my concerns I'm hopeful that you will not move forward on this noise ordinance, which is poorly written and will have negative impacts on our small businesses and working community. Respectfully, Joseph N. D'Amico, President Security Services NW 1-800-859-3463 3 X x x �k JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance DATE and TIME: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Re uired CITY Not Required) Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ,� « � ❑ ❑ ❑ Pc,+,6c)0(:j lioLl PT ❑ ❑ esa. 3a rn ex — `� ,Z ❑ ❑ T ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ u �C 10 et � ® n❑ El ❑ ,91 ❑ J�� _ �N %nib uv ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ f ❑ ---w❑ El S El LSI- ❑ ❑ .0_ Ie El El El All 1WtV !IL92 lella✓< ❑ El I, t%'�3 w e --),Lit u6k:sk ;� 77- ❑ ❑ Cv1^c II.q Z F i HEARING RECORD, To the Jefferson County Commissioners: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed noise ordinance governing unincorporated Jefferson County. As written, the ordinance is not only inconsistent, but most likely unenforceable. While several of the sections include the provision that specific noises are to be unlawful during the overnight hours -- 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. -- others make no mention of time constraints at all. Public Disturbance Noises section (1)(k), in particular, is so broadly stated, it flies in the face of all the other sections altogether. And while Chapter 173-60 WAC (Maximum Environmental Noise Levels) is cited in Public Disturbance Noises section (1)(a), it is summarily thrown out the window in section (1)(k) where it states "A sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public disturbance noise exists." Without a clear definition of what constitutes a public disturbance noise, this ordinance creates an enforcement nightmare for our already strapped local police force, not to mention the real probability of multitudes of lawsuits arising from this broadly worded section on the ordinance. Its as it section (1)(k) flies in the face of all previous sections in the ordinance, throwing out any type of time limits (aka overnight periods only) and leaving out any type of real definition of what constitutes a noise disturbance. Do you really want people calling the sheriffs office because someone complains that a neighbor -- whose property is 151 feet away from theirs -- has wind chimes hanging from their porch and the complainant doesn't like that sound? Or that the people living 153 feet from the complainant is playing basketball in the driveway? According to section (1)(k) of the ordinance, that type of complaint is allowed as long as the noise "unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort and repose" of the complaining neighbor who claims to have "normal hearing." One person's definition of "unreasonably" disturbed can be very different than another person's definition. Who's to say which person is correct9 is it up to the Sheriff to decide every time he's called with a complaint? This ordinance is a fiasco waiting to happen. Please reconsider the wording, particularly of section (1)(k), to include more specificity and consequently, better enforceability. Thank you for your time. Jo and John Dwyer 361 S. Palmer Drive Cape George Colony Port Townsend November 20, 9014 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Subject: Proposed Noise -Control Ordinance The creation of a new chapter of the County Code is at best redundant and at worst excessive. That the definition of "public noise disturbance" can be determined by a single individual claiming that their "peace, comfort and repose" is being damaged without the use of a sound meter reading is ludicrous. The proposal references unincorporated Jefferson County as "rural residential regions and villages" where individuals reside to enjoy "peace and quiet." Exception should be made for what is termed "villages" as that connotes a group of people in a "small municipality with some corporate powers." In fact, villages or communities such as Port Ludlow, Kala Point and Cape George, for example, require their residents to sign community covenants which govern noise, building codes, and general activities that affect the community at large. They are democratically organized and all residents have opportunities to vote for their board of directors as well as for or against various decisions affecting their community. To overlay these already stringent community rules would be to severely limit the general practices agreed upon by residents when they moved into the community or "village." The governance of these communities is already in compliance with all City, County, State and Federal laws and regulations and enjoy a degree of autonomy within these laws and statutes much as Port Townsend does as part of incorporated Jefferson County. While the natural environment may appear rural, the community organization more closely mirrors that of most cities and towns in this and other states in the nation. To impose arbitrary regulations and penalties upon these and similar communities would be to deny them their democratic structure set forth in their community covenants. Individuals desiring a more remote and isolated environment in which to live away from the sounds (noise) of an active society have only to call a real estate agent to find myriad sites available to them in unincorporated Jefferson County. Enforcing such an arbitrary set of NEW requirements, without even the use of sound meter readings, will inevitably result in calls to the Sheriff's office to prohibit and penalize the use of leaf blowers, power tools of all kinds, celebrations in people's homes, on their decks or patios that include audible laughter, music or exuberance, not to mention a student's practicing the piano, trumpet or violin or dribbling a basketball. What is "reasonable sound" or "unreasonable noise" absent a sound meter reading should depend on the democratic determination of a community and not that of a single individual whose sole opinion jeopardizes the quality of fife, 'peace, comfort and repose" of the majority. Respectfully submitted, Marion Clair 171 Victoria Loop Port Townsend, WA Received after Hearing Comment Deadline jeflbocc From: Jeanne Shold <jdshold3746@gmail. com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 1:41 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Noise Control Ordinance Gentlemen, I realize I'm tardy with this statement, but would appreciate you considering this. I object to this proposed ordinance for all the exact opposite reasons as all your "whereas's". Rural Jefferson County is and should be left rural, "whereas" allowing it's residents the freedom of a rural environment that cannot be found or allowed in an urban environment. Most sincerely, John (Duke) Shold 1 Received after Hearing Comment Deadline jeffbocc From: Gregg Knowles <greggk47@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:16 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordiance Gregg Knowles 451 Kennedy we Port Hadlock, WA 11/25/2014 County Commisioners John Austin David Sullivan Phil Johnson PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA Dear Commissioners: I was unable to make the meeting where the purposed noise ordinance was discussed so I'm sending my comments via this letter. First I moved from Port Townsend partly because the city wants more and more control of every activity a human engages in. Port Hadlock was like the wild west with tennis ball fire crackers and guns firing at times throughout the year. I'm not in favor of either but neither do I see a need to curtail these events in exchange for whatever sounds I might generate. Bottom line is a judge said recently "what do you expect you live in the country" and this ordinance further regulates behavior making it undistinguishable from the city. Second I was involved in helping the Port prepare its master plan where there were areas surrounding the airport designated as low noise areas. There were even signs at the end of the runway cautioning pilots to respect these areas. Those signs are gone and the WAC's specifically excludes aircraft and their testing. My gripe is the noise from planes that come from Seattle and elsewhere to do free touch and goes because it cost at Bellevue and Seattle airports. My request is that while we can't make pilots as responsible as pet owners the ordinance should at least dovetail with the master plan and its low noise areas. Being outside these areas should be an offense if you have to proceed with this ordinance. While I know you've had public pressure and campaign promises to do this I hope you'll consider my input as you deliberate. Sincerely, Gregg Knowles N Received after Hearing Comment Deadline jeffbocc WSFrom: John Adams <2john@earthlink.net> ent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordinance? Greetings, Can you tell me the status of the noise ordinance being considered for Jefferson County. We live in Paradise Bay and have had problems with noisy neighbors here and would be in favor of the ordinance. Thank you for any information you could provide regarding this. John Adams E E jeffbocc From: jeffbocc Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:59 AM To: Philip Morley Cc: David Sullivan; John Austin; Phil Johnson Subject: FW: Noise Ordinance? Importance: High Philip, See the email below received in the jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us email address. Please send a response to Mr. Adams re: the status of the Noise Ordinance. Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary I Jefferson County Commissions Office 360 385 9100 -----Original Message ----- From: John Adams [mailto:2john@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Noise Ordinance? Greetings, Can you tell me the status of the noise ordinance being considered for Jefferson County. We live in Paradise Bay and have had problems with noisy neighbors here and would be in favor of the ordinance. Thank you for any information you could provide regarding this. John Adams Julie Shannon From: John Austin Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:38 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Clean Water Fee From: Bemis McNeil Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:37:35 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin; Philip Morley; Jared Keefer Subject: Clean Water Fee I hope you will rule and tax (a.k.a. fee) equally for your citizens in your upcoming decision of exempting timeshare properties from the newly imposed fee on SOME of your land owning citizens. You have already diluted the money -generating parcels NOT to include those parcels hooked to the government run sewer system and laid all the burden of your funding to the rural property owners of the county. Your last decision in April, to lay out a broad fee on all rural property parcels regardless of value, also shows a lack of fair judgment which has prompted me to again voice my opinion. Do NOT dilute your money -generating parcels more. Let's all be included in your poor decisions to increase taxes/fees on your citizens. Quit exempting! It creates unequal, unfair taxation. Sincerely, Caleb McNeil