“I am pleased to report that the neighbors consider that these measures have resolved the issues to their satisfaction and if the day care maintains these measures, their current operation schedule and policies, the matter is closed,” Mr. Wood wrote.
The Council that evening unanimously voted to direct the City Staff to fulfill its agreement with the neighbors of the Montessori Day Care Center and determine if problems still exist with noise levels two years after the construction of the sound wall and three years after all parties (daycare center, neighbors and the City) had agreed to implement a list of mitigation measures to reduce noise.
“For over 15 years the city received complaints from neighbors whose property is adjacent and to the East of the day care. The complaints include excessive noise and debris, including toys and food items, being thrown over the property line fence by the children at the school,” City Official Mark Wood wrote on July 15.
A meeting of the neighbors and the owner of the day care was hosted by the City in May 2007. Attending the meeting were Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Councilmember Lamar Heystek, the neighbors, the owner of the day care John Hillis, City Manager Bill Emlen and Chief Building Official Mark Wood.
On that date the city agreed, along with the owner and the neighbors, to construct a sound wall to mitigate the noise. This was completed. However the city went further than that by stipulating in the letter from Mark Wood:
“After the fence was in place we would re-evaluate the noise levels to determine if other measures need to be taken.”
As Councilmember Stephen Souza said at the December 1 City Council Meeting, ““I believe that the August 24, 2007 letter directs us to this motion. We have agreement from the owner of the property, we have agreement from the parties that feel aggrieved, that the noise should be reevaluated. Until the noise is reevaluated, how do we know that they are not in continual violation of the noise ordinance, and the noise ordinance not only affects the neighbors as it has been pointed out, it affects the kids. It affects the kids who we are required to protect.”
According to Mark Wood’s July 15th memo, “several mitigation measures measures recommended by the noise consultant have been completed.” These include, completion of a sound wall between the school and the neighbors; sound deadening matt applied to the day care concrete patio area; sound deadening material applied to the ceiling of the patio area; use of the patio area is now restricted to entering and exiting the play area; the area closest to the property line has been designated as a “quiet area;” and all hard plastic wheeled riding toys have been removed or replaced.
Bill Emlen, Davis’ City Manager told the Vanguard in a phone interview on Thursday, that the Montessori school is now in full compliance with the mitigation measures agreed up to reduce noise impacts on the neighbors. He added that these changes were “a long time coming.”
According to the neighbors, these changes have changed everything. “It is night and day from the way it used to be,” said Coralie Munro, whose house has been one of the focal points of the noise complaints.
“We are very appreciative and very grateful that it’s gone this far and it’s made a huge difference,” she continued. “I barely notice when they’re in or out now because of the mitigations that they’ve undertaken and they’ve actually followed through. Many days the children don’t even come out until 9:30 or 10. I don’t hear them unless they’re just passing through the patio. When they’re playing in the yard now, I don’t hear anything inside my house.”
The biggest problem as the photo from the Vanguard demonstrated to the council on December 1, is that design of the patio focused noise directly at the neighbors houses. Simply moving the children off the patio would make a big difference even without any of the other mitigation measures.
As Davis City Manager Bill Emlen told the Vanguard yesterday, the building and playground orientation focused noise at the neighbors. In addition they all had very shallow yards meaning their homes were just a few feet away from the fence which itself was inadequate.
“The biggest difference I believe is keeping the children out in the play yard. In terms of what they physically did is keeping them off the patio. The patio with the physical structure of the building made it almost like an amplification area. Just keeping the children in the play yard and not there makes a huge difference,” Ms. Munro added.
When asked if the city would still pursue an exemption to the noise ordinance, Mr. Emlen said, “That remains to seen as it is up to the council. Right now it is not at the top of the priority list.”
The question remains as to why this took so long to resolve. The first complaints were lodged with the city back in 1995.
This was a challenging issue as the city, according to Mr. Emlen, did not have the direct authority because they did not have a conditional use permit which would allow the city to have the kind of leverage they needed to compel the owner to comply with the noise ordinance. As a result, the city saw this largely as a dispute between the neighbors and the school owner. The noise ordinance is a “squishy” issue and it was “not the city’s fight.”
“The city could have washed its hands of this years ago,” Mr. Emlen said, but thanks to Mark Wood it did not. “Mark Wood did a great job of brokering the deal,” Mr. Emlen added.
On this point Coralie Munro agrees. “The city, especially Mark Wood, Mark has been brilliant in going through,” she said but quickly added, “We wish it could have happened a lot sooner, the city could have done this years ago and we could have been at peace as we are now many years ago, but we’re grateful for it at least being accomplished now.”
Bottom line though, the neighbors consider this matter done. “We’re grateful, we’re appreciative. And if it remains the way it is, it’s very reasonable and very acceptable,” Ms. Munro said.
“If it was like this when I moved into this house, you would never have heard from any of us. To me this is a normal people’s residential neighborhood now. We don’t hear the pounding on the fence, that area’s now a quiet area now,” she concluded.
And so finally after fifteen years, the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Hopefully the city is more proactive in the future to prevent such situations from arising and festering as long as they have.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “This was a challenging issue as the city, according to Mr. Emlen, did not have the direct authority because they did not have a conditional use permit which would allow the city to have the kind of leverage they needed to compel the owner to comply with the noise ordinance. As a result, the city saw this largely as a dispute between the neighbors and the school owner. The noise ordinance is a “squishy” issue and it was “not the city’s fight.””
I don’t quite understand this point. What has a conditional use permit got to do with anything? Either the noise ordinance is enforceable or it isn’t, or am I missing something?
If they had a conditional use permit, they could threaten them that if they don’t comply with the noise ordinance, they would lose their ability to operate. Otherwise it would simply be a fine each time the neighbors complained about noise and the police found a violation.
dmg: “If they had a conditional use permit, they could threaten them that if they don’t comply with the noise ordinance, they would lose their ability to operate. Otherwise it would simply be a fine each time the neighbors complained about noise and the police found a violation.”
I see your point about conditional use permit. But it is my understanding that the police were never willing to enforce the noise ordinance. Had law enforcement fined the day care several times, there might have been a resolution to this problem long ago. However, I wonder if the case of the “arrested snorer” in Davis gave the police pause to intervene…