This is a place devoted to discussing and learning about acoustics as it relates to community noise in Austin, Texas. Noise is an important issue here due to rapid expansion and a high importance placed on live music. We attempt to make sense of what’s going on as the old meets the new, the “keep it downs” clash with the “if it’s too loud you’re too olds,” and new regulations are written.
AustinNoise.org is maintained by Joshua Leasure (aka RevMen), an acoustical consultant working in Austin.
I live in an apartment complex across the street from Anderson High School on Steck Ave. and a number of residents are becoming annoyed with the high school marching band which practices for about an hour at 7:45 AM every weekday in the school parking lot. Based on your understanding of the Austin noise ordinance, I was wondering if you could tell me what time/decibel restrictions are applicable in this situation.
Jeffrey Winkler
As far as I can tell from the zoning map, both your apartment complex and Anderson High School are zoned SF-3, which falls under “Residential.” Therefore Section 9-2-5 (B) of the ordinance would apply to your situation:
This is an impossibly difficult ordinance to satisfy, since even quiet sounds can still be considered “audible,” but it works in your favor in this situation. If the band is audible anywhere beyond a residential property line before 10:00 a.m., they are in violation of this section of the ordinance. After 10:00 a.m. they are limited to 75 dBA.
This assumes that a marching band’s instruments fall under the definition of “sound equipment.” Section 9-2-1 (7) suggests that they do:
Joshua: I live on Parkview Circle and when the weather conditions are just right I too can here the Anderson High band practicing, also the trains on MoPac but I find it interesting and fascinating that the sound can travel so far. When people rent an apartment, it is their responsibility to access the area in which they chose to locate. I am sure they were well aware that there was a high school located across the street. If they had rented a place that overlooks MoPac, I hardly think anyone will agree that the traffic noise needs to be lessened just because they can hear it. People need to take some personal responsibility for their own actions, ie. renting an apartment across the street from a high school. On the other hand, a good friend built a house in the country 20 years ago. Long after they located there, Nutty Brown Cafe morphed from an abandoned building to a cafe to an outdoor concert venue. The noise from there is deafening, particularly in the low ranges. The Nutty Brown Cafe should be required to abide by the published sound regulations rather than buying off the local politicians.
Hi Lawrence.
Sometimes changes in the weather can cause sound to be heard miles away from its source. I once did measurements in Sacramento concerning the concert venue that was at the State Fairgrounds. People in various places all over the city could hear the concert depending on where the clouds were that night! It turns out clouds are pretty effective sound reflectors.
Be careful when assessing culpability based on first use. A lack of complaints does not create an exception to a noise ordinance. If my understanding is correct, the morning rehearsals by the band at Anderson are clearly not in compliance with the noise ordinance. Even if the band practiced this way for 5 years without a complaint, it is not reasonable for them to assume that no one would move into the apartment buildings that would speak up about the unwanted sound. The band director should find a way to rehearse that is in compliance with the city ordinance, or should work out some kind of agreement with the people in the neighborhood.
Also, you should consider the point of view of the apartment complex’s owner. Is it not reasonable to assume that homes in residentially zoned area would have the protections provided to any residential property in the city? It is not up to the marching band to decide which of the surrounding properties should be exempt from the ordinance. The apartment complex will suffer a loss of renters if the correct solution is to say that people simply should not live there.
The issue of moving next to MoPac is not a good example. Traffic noise is not caused by a single person or group, but by thousands of passing vehicles. Responsibility for traffic noise falls on the government entity that builds the road. In other states, noise studies are inherent to highway improvement projects. Texas lags behind the rest of the Union in this regard.
The Nutty Brown Cafe issue is an interesting one because the neighbors of that venue are not protected by any city noise ordinance. The only numerical limit for them to compare measured noise levels to is the extremely vague “85 decibels” in the Texas Penal Code. My understanding is that Texas counties are not allowed to have noise ordinances (though my understanding may be incorrect).
Interesting you should mention the Nutty Brown now, as I have just begun work on a detailed article surrounding that issue. I hope to have a complete technical analysis completed in a few weeks, including objective sound level measurements, which seem to be completely missing from that discussion. It just so happens that I have personally done measurements for some of the Nutty Brown’s neighbors through my “day job.”
Thanks for your comments. Please feel free to share any other comments or questions you have.
Hello All,
I am eager to connect with others who are bothered by noise from leaf blowers. Leaf blowers, including electric ones, emit high-pitched, high-decibel sounds that rattle you beyond toleration. In my neighborhood, Hyde Park, where homes are very close together, the noise from leaf blowers (as well as the air pollution effects, including the re-entrainment of ground-level pollutants) is a serious problem. Perhaps others who comment here can comment on this problem. I am looking for others interested in addressing this problem.
This is actually a fairly common complaint. Some communities have adopted “partial” leaf-blower bans, permitting the use of the machines only during certain times of the year and allowing only machines that meet maximum noise requirements. If you search the term “partial leaf blower ban” in your favorite search engine, you’ll find examples of communities that have adopted this type of policy.
Thank you, Mary Lou, for introducing me to the site, and Joshua, thanks for the site. Leaf blowers are my own particular noise issue. I don’t understand why, in the self-proclaimed “Live Music Capital of the World,” the noise ordinances are vigorously enforced against musicians and venue owners, but not against users of leaf-blowers.
These gizmos are objectionable for a dozen reasons beyond the noise they make, but the noise itself is unbearable. On a typical Monday morning at my office on a “quiet” tree-lined street in downtown Austin, one can observe all-out global leaf-blower war, with landscapers using blowers all up and down the block. It’s like trying to practice law in the midst of a biker rally. It is tremendously distracting and stressful.
I once suggested a partial ban on leaf-blowers in a letter to a prior mayor and members of the city council, and from the response I got you would think I had just hopped off my Martian spacecraft.
Don Dickson
Hi Joshua,
First of all, what a great resource! I was pleasantly surprised when I ran across this site while looking for guidelines on noise limits here in Austin. I live on the edge of town (but within city limits) and my property adjoins a Farm-to-Market road; and the noise in the morning can be downright deafening. Do you know if there are any ordinances currently in place that put limits on the level of road noise that is considered to be acceptable?
Thanks,
Randy
Hi Randy,
I’m glad you’re finding the site useful. I hear from people frequently who have questions that are similar to yours, so I will continue to develop the site as best I can.
In some places, when a road is expanded or otherwise modified, a noise study is a required part of the associated environmental study. This was the type of work I did most often at a previous job. In those situations, there are limits to the noise that homes near the roadway can be exposed to, and if the study determines those levels will be exceeded, mitigation options, such as walls and berms, are explored. Even in states that are very proactive about noise, this is the only situation I am aware of where noise mitigation for traffic noise is assured by the government.
In Austin and in Texas, I am not aware of any such triggers. TxDOT may have noise reviews as part of its environmental review process, but, as far as I am aware, if they are done they are done internally. I don’t think there’s anything in place in our law or government that could help you with your particular situation.
Depending on the topography and layout of your property with respect to the road, a noise barrier may be an effective option (though not inexpensive). You may also be able to improve your windows, doors, or even walls and ceiling to reduce interior sound levels to something tolerable. Your windows would be the starting place, since that is most often the weakest link in keeping out noise. Windows can be replaced outright with windows that perform better, or “internal storm windows” can be added to provide a significant improvement in noise attenuation.
Good luck! And feel free to comment further or e-mail me if you have more questions.
-Josh
Joshua,
Incredibly well done. You’re tackling an important part of what’s left to “the people” to hash out and hammer into some sort of reasonable shape, after the elected official have officially mucked things up. At least they’re consistent.
6 months ago, I proposed to City Staff a minor change in the Code, to allow multi-day Sound Permits. The need was brought about by the changes made to the Outdoor Music Venue Permit section of the code, a year ago.
The problem is that many locations do not propose to be an ongoing Outdoor Music Venue. Some businesses only want to do one multi-day show per year, during SxSW. The simple fact is that those businesses have no choice, at this time, but to apply for an Outdoor Music Venue Permit, if they want to do more than a one-day event that includes music.
I warned of the impending problem, especially during the Spring Break/SxSW week, for businesses that would be able to pull multi-day Temporary Use (outside) or Temporary Change of Use to Public Assembly (inside) Permits, but would not be able to pull a Sound Permit to cover multiple days, because a Sound Permit is currently only available for 1 day every 30 days per location.
Last week, Monday, Feb 1, at the request of the Music Commission, I appeared and presented my proposed change. A simple change was discussed and formed into what the Commission unanimously passed as a proposed revision, to create a 4-day (96-hour) Sound Permit.
The revision was immediately drafted into a Resolution to Council, in order to get on the Feb 11th Council Agenda. The item was then successfully placed on the agenda. Unfortunately, it got one too many co-sponsors, and they jumped in and mucked it up good, again.
Hell, they may, still, not be finished mucking it up. You never know. It’s virtually impossible, I’ve found, to overestimate some of our Council Member’s propensity for making things worse.
See Item # 17 – “an ordinance authorizing 96-hour sound amplification permits”
Follow the “Backup Material” link, to download a Draft of the ordinance.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/public_meeting_agenda.cfm?meetingid=204
Any of this can change at any time, even during the Council meeting.
It should be interesting.
Write On,
gary etie
http://AustinCityPermits.com/
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the encouragement, and for sharing about your proposal for multi-day sound permits. It seems like a good idea, almost obvious, and I’m curious to know what anyone might have against it.
-Josh
Josh,
The 4-day, or “96-hour Sound Permit” was passed on consent, at the beginning of the Feb 11, 2010 City Council meeting.
Agenda Item 19 – “Approve an ordinance authorizing 96-hour sound amplification permits; waiving the requirements of City Code Section 9-2-24 related to permit duration; and declaring an emergency.”
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/public_meeting_agenda.cfm?meetingid=204
The final approved, Ordinance is available for download, on this page:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council_meetings/item_attachments.cfm?meetingid=204&itemid=12331&item=17
Feb 11, 2010 City Council Transcript – Including discussion, and postponement on action, regarding Appeals to two Approved Outdoor Music Venue (OMV) Permits, for Little Woodrow’s and Sustainable Waves.
There is a TON of either accidental or purposeful misinformation being offered up by the appellants, and I am of the opinion that these Appeals will be denied, and Sustainable Waves will be able to put on great shows, at a great venue,. I’m also fairly confident that Little Woodrow’s will be able to carry on the tradition of music at their venerable location on Guadalupe.
In both cases, my opinion is based on the fact that the venues meet the criterion set forth in the OMV Permit Ordinance adopted last March.
Despite many, many problems, the Ordinance has been given first aid (The Riverfront Overlay and CBD Zoning Districts given extensions on OMV Permit expiration, IIANM) and “a chance to work”, for the past year.
A series of minor miracles have occurred, in order to rescue a number of well connected unintended victims of the March 2009 OMV Permit Ordinance.
Other locations have had to meet the current Code, in their applications, and have done so. You can read the dialogue that took place during the Public Hearing, in the transcript of the Feb 11th Council meeting, here:
The OMV Permit Appeals are under the “4:00 PM — Public Hearings and Possible Actions”
Items # 34 PH & 35 PH
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/2010/council_02112010.htm
peace,
gary
Thanks Gary! And congratulations on making progress.