News About the Noise Ordinance

Ruckus made over Tulloch noise

Tulloch Reservoir is at the heart of the debate regarding a proposed Calaveras County noise ordinance.

Absent an ordinance, party events at Lake Tulloch Resort that draw thousands are spilling out into neighboring properties and law enforcement is effectively powerless to stop the racket that goes on day and night on the water. Supervisors postponed a decision earlier this year on setting up new regulations for vacation rentals on the lake, which some full-time and part-time residents have blamed for the noise on the water.

The challenge for county planners is to craft a law that is uniform for the whole county, and that addresses concerns on the crowded lake without being overly burdensome on other areas of the county.

The county Board of Supervisors heard Tuesday from resort neighbors fed up with the problems created by what the resort promotes as “bump” parties that draw thousands from the Central Valley and surrounding areas.

Neighbor Ray Hoot told supervisors noise is just one concern. Hoot said he has seen his dogs abused, his fence cut and even partygoers having sex in his yard. His wife said she doesn’t feel safe if home alone while an event is going on.

Melinda Hoff, another nearby Tulloch resident, said the events are too much for local authorities to handle.

“Calaveras County does not have enough police to handle a bump event,” Hoff said.

The board approved an updated agreement with the resort for security services at events earlier this summer, with Sheriff’s Department administrators giving assurance they could staff the events at the level called for in the contract.

Calaveras County Sheriff’s Capt. Jim Macedo said a noise ordinance doesn’t mean a deputy will respond to every noise complaint but it does lend a tool to make would-be noisemakers think twice and could prevent deputies from returning again and again to the same problem spot.

“We are hoping to establish this ordinance as a deterrent because we don’t want to bog the court down,” Macedo said. “If a deputy is available, we’ll respond … (but if not) this call will stack up and wait behind those other (higher priority) calls.”

Supervisor Steve Wilensky lamented that it will take a law to coax considerate behavior out of neighbors.

“It ranges from roosters crowing to dogs barking to guns shooting,” Wilensky said. “It has everything to do with just bad basic manners. I can think of a hundred things I’d rather see the sheriff’s (deputies) do than tell people to pipe down and knock it off.”

Supervisor Merita Callaway suggested decibel levels between 45 and 70, the range from normal conversation up to that of a vacuum cleaner, in the first draft of the proposal may be too quiet and inquired as to whether nighttime-only restrictions can be put in place.

Supervisors agreed with Sheriff’s Department officials that first-time offense fines of $150 wouldn’t be an effective deterrent.

Planner Darcy Goulart said an updated draft will be ready for the board’s consideration in about a month, addressing the issues with the fines and the cost of decibel meters, estimated at about $1,000.

Supervisor Darren Spellman suggested a smartphone application that measures decibels can be downloaded for 99 cents and has been held up in European courts as adequately accurate.

Others questioned whether American judges would agree.

Supervisor Tom Tryon added that the next draft of the ordinance ought to specifically address other county noise issues, including noise generated from target shooting as it became a contentious issue at the center of the board’s eventual denial of approval for a Valley Springs shooting range last year.

Noise tweaks in Lode – Audio pollution plan will return to board in month

By Joe Goldeen | Record Staff Writer | July 26, 2012 12:00 AM

SAN ANDREAS – A proposed noise ordinance up for consideration by the Calaveras County supervisors earlier this week was returned to staff for some tweaking and is expected to come back before the board in about a month.

County planner Darcy Goulart said the first reading of the proposed ordinance prompted a productive discussion among supervisors and a supportive public that has waited years for the county to put some teeth into dealing with noise complaints.

“They gave us some direction on some things to bring back,” Goulart said Wednesday. “They want us to take a look at the fine structure that we have; some thought maybe the fines were a little too low. They want us to take a look at other jurisdictions and see how they are handling it.”

The current proposal sets the noise nuisance fines at $150 for a first offense, $250 for a second offense and $500 for a third offense.

“Other issues they want us to look at are where the (sound) measurements are taken such as at the property lines, and how it relates to new industrial and commercial uses,” she said.

The board also asked staff to review the enforcement section that calls for the Sheriff’s Office and the Code Compliance Unit to enforce the new ordinance. Most noise complaints come at night and on weekends, Goulart said, when sheriff’s deputies are most likely to be working.

That could save the county a little upfront money – about $1,000 – for the cost of a fifth sound meter.

The Sheriff’s Office has indicated it would only need four meters.

When the revised ordinance comes back to the board, it will be presented as a first reading, Goulart said.

It cannot be adopted until it is presented at a subsequent meeting.

Contact reporter Joe Goldeen at (209) 546-8278 or jgoldeen@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/goldeenblog.