AN ORDINANCE relating to noise control; establishing an alternative enforcement 75-foot standard for determining excessive vehicle noise; and amending Section 25.08.430 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities. New Americans and Education. Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill. 119277. An Ordinance relating to Noise Control Establishing an alternative. Enforcement 75 foot standard for. Determining excessive vehicle noise. And amending Section. 25.08.430 of the Seattle Invisible. Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Catherine Gonzalez. Thank you. Council President. I think there is one proposed amendment that was circulated before noon today, and I'm a little unclear as to the procedure because, you know, amendments under our new council rules, I believe, need to be circulated by 5 p.m. on Fridays. Yes, it certainly does. But we will we will do that. Friday also. Okay. So we do not have to suspend the rules today because of an email that did take place. And so we're okay to proceed. And so if there is an amendment we can from Councilmember Mosquito, she could make that amendment now and we could proceed , if you like. Great. So I would suggest that as chair of the committee, I defer to the prime sponsor of Council Bill 119277 to walk us through an overview of the Council bill and then perhaps allow Councilmember Mosqueda an opportunity to walk us through her proposed amendment, consideration of that amendment, and then we can take a final vote. Does that seem like it's a good run, a show council. President run the show. So, Councilmember Skate, would you like to talk about you? No, I'm going to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold, who's the prime sponsor of the underlying legislation, to walk us through the work she has done on getting us to this point. Very good. Thank you. Fantastic. Works for me. Thank you. So just a little bit of background about. This time last year, I worked with. Community members in the Alcoa and Fauntleroy neighborhoods to complete and Alcoa Public Safety and Health Survey to address community concerns around activity in the beach communities, beach, residential and business communities of Elk and Fauntleroy neighborhoods. The survey had really high participation. 1100 people participated in the survey, and the results showed that modified muffler noise was the number one community concern. And after that, during the budget process, the Council adopted a statement of legislative intent, asking that the Seattle Police Department report back to council about how the City Council could help CPD in addressing the issues raised in the community survey. The report from CPD noted the challenges that CPD has in enforcing noise laws that use a decibel standard and require a sound meter which is time consuming, requires calibration and requires officers to carry sound meters. And that's not practical for officers to use. So we worked with the law department and speed on a potential solution, which is this proposed legislation. The legislation itself uses a standard that we currently use. For. Stereo noise, and that is basically using a 75 foot standard for audible noise by a person of normal hearing as the proxy for a decibels standard. And so it specifically adds a section to. The vehicle exhaust. Noise law allowing for enforcement for exhaust. Noise. And again, this is based on the 1989 stereo noise law. The 75 foot standard was recommended by the Environmental Health Division of the Department of Public Health, which noted it is, in our opinion, if a sound can be heard clearly and plainly in an in in an outside environment at least 75 feet away, it is of such intensity and volume that it is likely to be bothersome, distrustful and even harmful. This is because the volume of the sound source is between 83 and 85 decibels. The maximum permissible level of sounds produced in residential areas is 55 decibels in commercial areas, 57 decibels. So again, the 75 foot distance is being used as a proxy proxy for a decimal reading. The law, though. Originated from community activism in the Elk and Fauntleroy neighborhoods, is one that would apply citywide. I have several of my colleagues here in the Council have been looking at this issue as it relates to their their districts as well. One of the things that I think Councilman Rostker is going to talk a little bit more about as relates to her amendment relates to biased policing and concern about bias policing. I have some comments I'd like to make about that as relates specifically to the 2012 consent decree and the adoption of a new bias free policing policy . But I'll hold those until we talk about the amendment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. So I think now would be a good time to talk about the amendment. Councilwoman ROSQUETA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to amend Council Bill 119277 by adding a new section to entitled The C.R. excuse me, which says The Seattle Police Department shall report to the city council on. The locations of citations, demographic information regarding citations and disposition of citations. Reporting shall occur at least on a quarterly basis to the Chair and members of the Committee with Oversight of Public Safety beginning no later than January 31st, 2019. And then it remembers the remaining sections accordingly. I just refer to that as Amendment one. It's been moved. Is there a second? Okay. Little discussion on the amendment. Sure. Mr. Chair. Thank are. Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your conversation in your committee and to the sponsor. Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing this forward. As I said before, we know that excessive noise is a public health issue, and thank you for your extensive engagement with communities. We also know that we want to look at every piece of legislation for any unintended consequences. And per the conversation that we had a committee of the chair's comments, in my comments, we had been discussing the possibility of a quarterly reporting just to have a better sense of whether or not there were any unintended consequences. So this amendment before you really is just scoped ad requests in quarterly reports just for that first year after implementation so that we can have a better assessment of how it's being implemented and any any concerns that may arise. And thank you again to the chair's comments from this morning, because we don't want to rush anything through without any conversations with CPD about actual demographics that can be collected and how that would be done. So we will hold off on those additional components that were discussed this morning and just focus on the reporting back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very good. Any further comments on the amendment? We're just talking about the amendment right now. You're very good, Catherine Swann. Thank you. President Hello. Just to let the council know I will be voting yes on this amendment, but I do intend to vote no on the overall ordinance. I will save my comments for them. Very good. Any comments? Just on the amendment case of the amendment, as articulated by council members, Kate has been moved in second. And all those in favor of the. I will raise your hand, please. I said earlier that I want. I know, but I asked the second time. I was good. But I can't read mine. So we have a hairball if you like to comment on the amendment. I do. Very good. I just wanted to give a little bit of history as it relates specifically to the department's efforts to address the consent decrees finding regarding unbiased policing policy in conjunction with the the Community Police Commission in 2015, CPD did adopt a new policy on bias free policing. It was approved by the federal judge. It includes race, ethnicity, color, sexual orientation and gender in states. That is the possibility. It's the responsibility of all CPD employees to know and comply with. The policy requires an annual report on bias based policing and and the allegations related to it, as well as the status of the Department's efforts to prevent but bias free policing the policy. Also, states have spd's commitment to eliminate policies and practices that have resulted in disparate impacts, and they call out specifically practices related to citations that might have disparate impact on protected particular protected classes. And they tag the the need that when unwarranted disparate impacts are identified and verified, the department will consult with neighborhood business community groups and or the Community Police Commission to explore equally effective alternative practices that would result in less disproportionate impacts. Alternative enforcement practices may include addressing the targeted behavior in a different way, de-emphasizing the practice in question or other measures. Initially, disparate impact analysis will focus on again race, color and national origin. Central staff have in providing an update on on the implementation of bias free policing policies have have noted that SPD has been traded trained on the bias free policy as well as receiving race and social justice training and implicit bias training. Thank you, guys, Herbert, for those comments. I'll just see you down there. Excellent amendment. Okay. We're just voting on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. Okay. It is a minute in Councilmember Herbold. I'll turn it back to you. I believe for the base legislation for further discussion. I have nothing further to add. As to the base legislation, all aside from the fact that a speedy at the table in committee last week committed to a robust education outreach program before the implementation of this ordinance is very good. Thank you. Concerning Herbold Councilmember Swan, I do recall you did say you want to see something about space legislation. So, Councilmember Sawant, thank you. Councilman Beck shot two. I will be voting no. As I said on this legislation, which I informed Councilmember Herbold office about in advance. And I would like to take a moment to explain why. To be clear, I believe that the people in Seattle should have a right to peace and quiet. And I definitely support having laws on the books that will allow people to do something about excessively and unnecessarily loud noises in their neighborhoods and barks. However, this legislation does not make excessively loud vehicles illegal. That is already the case. Instead, it changes the enforcement from an objective standard measured by decibel into a totally subjective standard that could apply to almost any vehicle in Seattle. The line that is added reads code. Or can be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing at least 75 feet away from the vehicle and quote, 75, 75 feet is actually not a very big distance. These council chambers are over 50 feet wide and they are 75 feet wide, if you include the waiting area on the other side of the glass where members of the public come into the chambers. In my staff member Ted Worden measured it. At that distance you would hear most cars. So it all comes down to what it means to see a car can be, quote unquote clearly heard. Clearly is an entirely subjective metric. And I think it has to be this legislation should be evaluated in the in in in light of the fact that policing is extremely biased and police officers would choose whom to take it and whom not to take it or cite. Unfortunately, there is a hoard of statistical evidence that in this country the criminal justice system is used far more frequently and far less leniently to punish people of color and poor people. I hope that if this legislation is passed, its subjectivity would not result in more biased enforcement of noise violations. But statistically speaking, the most likely outcome of this legislation is that more people of color and working class and poor people will be held responsible for driving an old car with a failing muffler. I can easily imagine getting a call from a constituent who relies on their car to get to work and is trying to save up money to have that car repaired. But who is falling farther and farther behind because of the tickets they get under this ordinance? I'm sure that many working people have been in situations where they've had a broken muffler and are saving up to fix it again. I'm extremely sympathetic to everybody who wants to limit noise in their neighborhoods and parks. Peace and quiet is essential for people to relax, and there is nothing unreasonable about that. However, the reality is excessive noise is already illegal and I cannot support making that decision something that is almost entirely subjective. Finally, I would note that the fiscal note for this ordinance mentions that race and social justice analysis has not yet been done. This seems like an example of a legislation that could really benefit from such an analysis before passage of the legislation, and if there were a motion to send it back to committee to do that work , I would support doing that. Feeling that, however, I will be voting no today. Thank you. Concerns one councilmember backchannel. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I will tell you that you are going to go down as my husband's hero here, as somebody who lives downtown, has been saying for years that he felt that we really needed to move something forward here. And it's not a joke. But somebody has said that one motorcycle driving down at two in the morning after they've left a bar or wherever else they've been, can wake 10,000 people. And I know that on Alki it's become an issue as well. I've heard it in Ballard around Golden Gardens. And I think the real issue, because we know that motorcycles offer enjoyable and purposeful transportation for many, but as soon as we get the aftermarket modification and those are just designed to increase noise, that it really negatively impacts our community. So my proposal, God bless you, is to advocate that we look at I'm going to support what you're doing here. I think it's a good first step, but I do think we need to continue to look at what other cities have do have done. Green Bay is an example. Other cities use the EPA, stamp enforcement and an officer can simply look to see if it's a straight pipe and if it has the EPA visible and unalterable stamp on the muffler, then we know that it has passed the EPA standard and that it is a much lower decibel. I think that is a way that we can go in addresses. What council members want was raising. I do believe that we can continue this. I think yours is a first step in the right direction. I'll be supporting it. But I would like us to continue to look at this EPA stamp enforcement procedure. Any further comments? I just want to make a clarification. I heard it. Defective mufflers are enforced under a different part of the Seattle Municipal Code. Okay. You have according to central staff, there have been 83 citations over. The last. Eight years issued for defective mufflers in Seattle. Very good. And I want to thank you. This is a good example of you looking at an issue that affected your district, but affects a district, too, in many other districts as well, some more than others because of where some of the modified muffler muffler drivers like to drive. But thank you very much. And customer Mesquita, thank you for alerting us to the need for some kind of filter as we look at how this is implemented and customer Gonzalez thank you for hosting the discussion in terms of making our communities more safe, more livable, so good. Come. I never saw that. I moved to pass Council Bill 119277 as amended. So a second, please call a role on the passage of the bill. WHEREAS. Mr. O'Brien, so on. No. Make sure. Gonzales I. Herbold, i. Johnson president narrow. I didn't favor one opposed. The bill passing the chair of the Senate. Please read. Agenda item number three, the short title, please. The short.