Suggestions for “Nightlife Regulation Amendment Act of 2015”
1. A single agency should be responsible for enforcing alcohol establishment generated noise. We strongly support Councilman Orange’s bill to amend Section 25-725 of the DC Code, and suggest the following revisions.
2. Adopt new penalties as proposed by Councilman Orange in section (h) of the current bill. Explanation: the current modest penalties do not provide adequate incentives to comply with existing law.
•First violation is a warning.
•Second offense is a fine of $500-1000
•Third offense is a suspended license of 15 days
•Fourth offense is revoked liquor license.
3. Delete paragraph (b)(3) that restricts protection to residents living in commercial zones. Explanation: The DC Noise Act (Title 20 Chapters 27 and 28) clearly provide protection to all of DC’s residents. 25-725(c) expressly requires all Licensees to comply with the Noise Act. Therefore, ABRA should prevent unlawful behavior of licensees that affects residents living in commercial zones, which is increasingly the norm. Moreover, there are other provisions of the Noise Act that the ABC Board has already found protects residents in commercial zones, such as “noise distrurbances” and “disorderly conduct.” See a complete description of existing law in the Ozio decision ().
4. Expressly limit the noise levels and hours permitted for operations on rooftops, summer gardens and sidewalk cafes. Explanation: roofdecks, popping up in residential neighborhoods as well as near residents in commercial zones. Hotels are getting into the game, as as clubs in concentrated areas, such as “Club Central” in Dupont Circle, the 14th Street Corridor, H Street, and Adams Morgan. The ABC Board has already issued several decisions that make clear that playing amplified music in an open space violates the law, yet DCRA and ABRA keep issuing licenses to build rooftop venues and grant entertainment endorsements with full hours and no limitations on noise. Residents go through the lengthy protest process to stop what will certainly violate existing law. Residents are not concerned about operations in outdoor spaces, so long as these spaces are not designed to provide dancing and clubbing type noise. To be clear that the District’s agencies must not permit this type of activity, and to signal to licensees that they should not develop outdoor spaces if loud music will be required, 25-725 should expressly forbid amplified music over 60 decibels in such spaces. This will permit soft, background music suitable for conversations and is fair to both businesses and residents (who pre-date the arrival of the roofdeck trend). Suggested language:
(—) The licensee shall not produce any sound, noise, or music over 60 dBA in any outdoor space. Entertainment endorsements are not permitted in outdoor spaces.
5. Amend 25-725 to include instructions about enforcement as set forth below. Explanation: ABRA and the Noise Task Force are currently unable to find violations even when amplified sound is clearly in violation of the objective and subjective elements of the DC Noise Act and regulations. The suggestions below are used by other jurisdictions to control noise, and have withstood constitutional scrutiny. Explanation of specific provisions: (1) directs an inspector to find a violation if it can be plainly heard in a residence. Currently, ABRA uses a form that restricts the ability of an inspector to find a violation even if the music CAN be heard in the residences. (2) Allows for enforcement if the noise can be heard on the street, and should significantly improve enforcement. Currently, the ABRA inspector must come into the home, which is not required by Title 20, and which is very disruptive to the resident. (3) Title 20 has a problem with measuring sound that should be fixed. The problem is how the statute defines “ambient noise.” In areas where there are many roofdecks producing loud sound, the ambient noise is artificially pushed up too high, making it impossible using a noise meter to find a violation, even though loud sound is plainly flooding into the streets and into residences. Setting a limit that is 10 decibels over the legal limit would make it easier for a club to self monitor and for a District official to find a violation of the law. Suggested revision:
(c): The licensees under this subchapter shall comply with the noise level requirements set forth in Chapters 27 and 28 of Title 20 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (“the Noise Act”). Licensees shall be presumed in violation of the Noise Act if:
1. The noise is plainly audible in a resident’s home, or
2. The noise is plainly audible 50 feet from the establishment, or
3. Noise measurements taken in summer gardens and sidewalk cafes operated by the Licensee exceed the maximum statutory limit under the Noise Act by 10 dBA or 5 dBC.
6. We suggest that requiring sound monitoring requirements of (f) and (g) to be more narrowly focused on licensees operating outdoor spaces, and done electronically. Explanation:technology exists that would make it possible to monitor the sound levels in outdoor spaces in real time. This would cut down on the burden licensees of taking hourly readings, ensure accuracy, and improve enforcement.
For more information, please visit or contact Sarah Peck, or 443-240-4435.
Page 1