By Joe and Janet Krovoza
On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the city council approved eliminating all noise decibel limits for every city park, all school grounds, barking dogs, non-commercial power tool use and vehicle repair in neighborhoods. The council did this under the guise of a Consent Calendar “clean-up” item buried among changes to nine different ordinance chapters. The subheading was “Remove outdated and unenforceable provisions–noise limitation.”
Consent Calendar items are reserved for items deemed “routine and non-controversial” that “require no discussion.” This is not where one would expect a major overhaul of the Davis municipal code’s noise ordinance. During public comment at the February 3 meeting, we alerted the council to the magnitude of what staff had placed on the Consent Calendar and asked the council to pull the item for discussion. They did not. Agenda Item 4D passed unanimously with no public input on the noise section (other than ours), and no staff presentation.
Ordinance amendments require two “readings.” The first reading is to receive input, the second reading is for the staff to present revisions if legitimate issues arise during the first reading. Staff have placed the second reading on the Consent Calendar for the upcoming February 17th meeting as item 4B. The meeting starts at 6:30 pm. No staff presentation is planned, no public input is invited – though comment must be accepted, as always, at the start of the meeting under General Public Comment.
The changes have not been reviewed by any city commission. They should go to the Planning Commission, at a minimum. It’s unclear who the staff are that did the work on this. No experts or analysis is cited in the vague 168 word explanation for this radical new approach to city noise management. The short explanation of changes makes references to ambient noise making accurate readings difficult, ambient noise creating prosecution issues for the Yolo Superior Court, and the need for consistent application. These make no sense in the context of what’s being approved.
The city’s stated reasoning for these alterations is that because the city “has grown larger and traffic has increased locally and on highways” it is now “more difficult to take accurate noise readings.” Really? Says who? We are very familiar with the various noise studies and exchanges with the city’s consulting sound engineers since 2019, and are deeply aware of the literature. Not once have we heard a consultant posit that ambient noise levels were making it difficult to take accurate measurements. This is a complete canard, invented by unidentified staff to deflect argument and justify the gutting of huge swaths of the ordinance.
The subheading also indicates the amendment addresses “unenforceable provisions.” There’s nothing unenforceable when something exceeds a limit. Try telling a traffic officer this the next time you are pulled over for speeding. If anything, abandoning decibel limits for subjective police officer or city determinations makes enforcement more, not less, challenging. What’s easier and more defensible than enforcing an explicit limit?
The Davis Noise Ordinance
Here’s the preface to the Davis noise ordinance, set forth in Chapter 24 of the Davis Municipal Code:
It is declared to be the policy of the city … to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying sound levels from all sources. … Davis is designated a quiet city. At certain levels, sounds are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and, in the public interest, shall be systematically proscribed. It is the purpose of this chapter to prescribe standards for and to provide an effective and readily available remedy for violations of this chapter. … (emphasis and edits {for brevity} are ours)
Respecting the themes of “all sources,” “at certain levels,” and “to prescribe standards,” the ordinance is actually quite easy to follow. Here’s a summary:
First we have the foundational, objective standards that (for now) apply to everyone across the city, unless there is a special provision.
- Maximum Noise Limits are set for residential, commercial/industrial/core commercial, and high noise corridors. Residential areas have limits of 55 dB day (7am-9pm), and 50 dB night (9pm-7am). Commercial and noise corridors allow for higher levels. Simple.
- How maximum noise is measured is clearly defined in the definitions section: “Noise level means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced by a sound source…”. (precise measurement specs follow)
Of course, there are exceptions to these decibel limits. If a citizen or group would like permission to make noise above the limits, they may petition the police chief using a “registration statement.” If the registration statement is approved, one may exceed the limits for a limited time and the approved purpose. For these exceptions, there is a “maximum noise limit” above which no registration statement may grant permission. That limit is 20 dB over the otherwise applicable limit.
There are special provisions for specific issues. Amplified sound requires a registration statement. Barking dogs and construction and landscape equipment have detailed rules.
There are also exemptions. Non-commercial power tools are currently exempt from the decibel limits from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, but not after 8:00 pm and before 8:00 am. Air conditioners in good condition are exempt from the decibel limits. Noise generated for safety and emergency purposes is always exempt from the decibel limits. These are straight forward and for narrow purposes.
There are also a few provisions that involve subjective standards where a police officer gets to decide what’s reasonable or unreasonable based on factors such as loudness, pitch, duration, time of day, etc. For these subjective standards, the decider of what’s okay is the city itself via the police officer, who works for the police chief. One could say that the chief is essentially our top sound officer, following the direction of the city manager and ultimately the city council. For the subjective determinations of what’s reasonable, the city decides.
Davis’ noise ordinance has been in effect for decades. It isn’t rocket science. If you take the time to read it, it’s clear and logical. It isn’t an outlier among municipal noise ordinances. Hundreds of communities nationwide use similar objective decibel limits as their citywide foundation of what’s permissible.
Clear and impartial noise regulations are a cornerstone of good city planning, something for which Davis is known. When standards are clear, citizens and the city alike can plan for them, expectations are maintained, and fairness prevails. In fact, Joe can’t recall a single noise issue coming to the city council when he was mayor (January 2011 to June 2014). The ordinance works.
What’s the City Proposing Now?
Instead of removing “outdated and unenforceable provisions,” the city adds 24.02.040 (g) [page 7 of the “clean-up staff report]. It reads:
“Outdoor activities. Ordinary and reasonable activities and sounds from public playgrounds, parks, licensed daycare facilities, and public or private school grounds, including but not limited to school athletic and school entertainment events between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are exempt from this chapter.” [emphasis added] Note: “…exempt from this chapter” means there are no more objective decibel limits, and parks and schools are even exempt from the provision (24.05.010) that allows for a police officer to come out and make a subjective determination of what’s reasonable and what’s not.
The new addition does not provide any guidance on what will be considered “ordinary and reasonable activities and sounds” for parks and schools. Nor does (g) specify who will make the “ordinary and reasonable” determination. Since parks and schools are exempt from the noise ordinance after the “ordinary and reasonable” determination is made, it’s unclear who decides what and when. What if the activity is reasonable, but its sound is not? Or the reverse? The new 24.02.040(g) is as clear as mud for both the criteria and the enforcement mechanism – other than there is no objective standard and the city can do what it wants.
The amendments also delete phrases referring to decibel limits for the sections on “Animals and fowl” (24.02.010), power tools (24.02.040 (a)), and vehicle repairs (24.03.010), leaving their enforcement to the subjective opinion of the responding officer under 24.05.010.
These are huge changes and a major enforcement shift for noise protection in Davis. The new rules create uncertainty and will likely require more police time and make the job of officers more difficult. Today, when the police are called to a student party and the meter reads 50 dB (the residential night limit), the case is over and done. This will continue in neighborhoods between residents, but for parks and at schools, there will be no clear rule, it will all be up to the officer – except that if some unspecified person has determined the noise is “ordinary and reasonable” then the office has no role because the noise is entirely exempt.
The new exemption in 24.02.040(g) creates a massive conflict of interest for the city. It allows the city to exempt itself from following any noise limitation applicable to a park – objective or subjective. All it has to do is declare that what it’s doing or approving is “ordinary and reasonable” and tough luck to anyone concerned.
What are the practical effects? Residents will still need to observe decibel limits for most activities in their neighborhoods, and may lodge complaints if they are exceeded, but it will be fruitless to complain if those same decibel limits are violated in adjacent parks or school grounds. Once the noise source is coming from a park or a school property, the decibel restrictions vanish and only the city decides what’s acceptable. You can ask the police to have amplified music from a neighbor’s house party turned down, but unless some city official has said this noise isn’t ordinary and reasonable in a park, the officer has no role.
Take pickleball (recently banned in Carmel due to noise complaints). Currently, it must abide by the same objective noise limits as the rest of the community. If the city adopts these changes, all current courts, and any future courts, will have a blanket exemption from the city’s established decibel limits. Soccer and water polo whistles day and night – good to go. The city builds these areas, so implicitly their use is ordinary and reasonable. New basketball courts in a park near homes? Entirely the city’s decision and citizens will have no options for relief. It appears that noise from the DHS stadium can no longer be restricted in any way, so long as the city decides it’s ordinary and reasonable.
Here’s a very real recent example. The city granted a permit for adult soccer to use Westwood Park on Sundays. Apparently referee whistles start up at 8:00 am and eliminate any chance for those near the park to enjoy their backyards and even the interior of their homes for hours every weekend. These whistles certainly violate the established decibel limits. And while the city could condition the permit on not using a referee whistle, they have so far ignored the neighbors’ pleas for relief. Having granted the permit, our conclusion is that the city must consider this ordinary and reasonable. Without objective decibel limits, residents will be stripped of any recourse.
The changes create multiple double standards. First, resident-to-resident/parks/schools noise must follow the dB limits, but not parks/schools-to-residents. Second, if residents want special permission for a limited time and purpose to make more noise, they must seek a registration statement and can’t go up by more than 20 dB. The city, on the other hand, can go above the limit in parks whenever it wants by self-appointing its noise “ordinary and reasonable.”
Why is This Happening?
Your guess is as good as ours, but we can’t help but think our long-running struggle to keep the SkyTrack out of Arroyo Park is at least partially responsible.
To recap: back in 2019, the city, without any community input, installed a new SkyTrack after approving a staff report for “replacement” equipment. The SkyTrack is Davis’s largest and loudest play structure, about 120 feet from our and our neighbors’ homes. We had never been bothered before by park noise (aside from a few late night parties) in the nearly 20 years we had lived there, coexisting just fine with the pool, city summer camps and Saturdays loaded with AYSO soccer. But when the SkyTrack opened, we were stunned by the level of scraping and banging noise that now filled our yard and every room of our house. No wonder, because the noise it made easily exceeded both the day and nighttime decimal limits. It ultimately measured 63 dB, way above the 55 dB limit. Thankfully, three years and two sound studies later, the city finally acknowledged the violations and had it taken down, intending to reinstall it elsewhere in the park. Unfortunately for the city, it turns out the new council-approved location (based on its own data) will exceed the decibel limit as well.
So here we are, with the city council being asked, without any discussion or public input, to give a thumbs up to one of the most consequential changes to our municipal code in years. One that, oh by the way, would make it okay to put a SkyTrack in Arroyo Park, after all. No wonder we’re concerned. It would be nice if we could all exempt ourselves from laws we don’t like.
Noise is Bad
It’s not just annoyance we’re talking about. Hardly a week goes by without more findings about noise damaging our health. A June 2023 article in the New York Times titled, “Noise Could Take Years Off Your Life. Here’s How” describes the ways chronic noise, “a largely unrecognized health threat,” contributes to hypertension, strokes and heart attacks.
The American Public Health Association concurs: “Chronic noise, even at low levels, can cause annoyance, sleep disruption, and stress that contribute to cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, metabolic disturbances, exacerbation of psychological disorders, and premature mortality. Noise interferes with cognition and learning, contributes to behavior problems, and reduces achievement and productivity,” reads a 2021 policy statement.
And it doesn’t have to be ear-splitting to be harmful. The World Health Organization warns that average traffic noise above 53 dB or aircraft noise above 45 dB are associated with adverse health effects. Daytime ambient sound in Arroyo Park is generally around 40 dB. The SkyTrack at its original location gave sound readings at our property line well over 60 dB. Closer to the device itself, multiple readings were 70 dB or more, at least one reaching as high as 88 dB, only inches from where kids would be playing.
Because the decibel scale is logarithmic, with every 10 dB increase, the sense of loudness to the ear doubles. In other words, the SkyTrack is many times louder than anything else in the park. And then add 12 dB to the impulsive “bangs” at either end of the ride – as recommended by some noise experts – and you’ve got something 11 to 12 times louder. Hardly “ordinary.”
And not all noise is equal in how it affects our health. The more “intermittent” noise is distinguishable from background noise, the more likely it is to contribute to higher levels of heart disease and stroke. Per the NYT, “Jarring sounds that break through the ambience…are more detrimental to health than the continuous whirring of a busy roadway, even if the average decibel levels are comparable.” The noise produced by the SkyTrack, for instance, is highly intermittent, with the loudest moments (the bangs of both tracks at either end) occurring irregularly depending on the weight and velocity of the rider(s). You never know when they’re coming. Intermittency creates the same issue with pickleball, some student parties, incessantly barking dogs, power tools, and soccer and water polo whistles.
Additionally the city’s new approach doesn’t take into account just how truly annoying something like the SkyTrack is. Or how irritating someone else’s music is when you are just trying to read or do homework at home, or in the park itself, for that matter. Or how unfair it is that people living next to a park can be awakened on Sunday mornings at 8 a.m. by unrelenting whistles from the soccer game unfolding a few yards beyond their back fence. If Davis is truly a city that holds its citizenry should be free of “unnecessary, excessive and annoying sound levels from all sources,” as the opening paragraph of the noise ordinance proclaims, then these offences shouldn’t be tolerated.
Modern Trend is to Increase Noise Protections
More and more communities are recognizing how harmful noise is and are taking steps to strengthen, not weaken, their regulations. Updated, more stringent ordinances are being implemented across California, from Fresno and Madera counties to West Sacramento, Sacramento, Fremont and Fullerton. In fact, more cities are adding, rather than subtracting, decibel limits to their ordinances because objective decibel limits promote fairness, clarity and less subjective enforcement.
While Davis was a leader decades ago in declaring itself a “quiet city” and setting clear decibel limits, city staff is now asking the council to ignore the growing evidence that noise is a public health hazard and to weaken the ordinance significantly – moving the city in exactly the wrong direction. Davis will become a conspicuous outlier if these amendments proceed. The ordinance itself will radically differ from its rosy preamble.
Conclusion
What’s going on is the city doesn’t like the clear, fair and objective decibel standards that have worked for years because they sometimes tie their hands. They force the city to follow the laws like every other member of our community, rules wisely established to ensure Davis truly is a “quiet city,” and that the commons are respected.
Removing any sort of objective decibel limit for all parks, schools, dogs, power tools and vehicle repair means that when the city is a party to a dispute or has a vested interest in an outcome, it can simply decide that it wins. With these sweeping amendments, the city will control all, or almost all, subjective noise determinations where it has an interest. The city is granting itself this sweeping power via an approval process that isn’t transparent, informed or deliberative.
Or course, there are all sorts of better ways to handle this other than these mindnumbingly broad and self-serving amendments. Schools could be exempt during school hours and for afterschool activities. When the city would like park noise to exceed the limits, a process could be established designating an impartial body like the Planning Commission, to decide what’s acceptable, including alternatives and special conditions.
We have a new city manager and a new mayor. No members of the current council voted for the original SkyTrack. A new majority has been elected since the SkyTrack relocation decision. We need the current council to agree to follow the law, not weaken it in a citywide attempt to cover up past staff mistakes. Council members should protect the city’s citizens, not become apologists for past blunders. It’s time to think anew and act anew. It’s time for the council to simply do the right thing.
Please let the council know how you feel about this. Their council emails and districts are here. Come to the council meeting Tuesday (February 17th), or send in a comment or leave a phone comment ahead of time. There won’t be an agenda item, but you can speak at the start of the meeting under General Public Comment. We hope to see you there.
Davisite 
Leave a comment