A proposed ordinance that would allow the city of San Diego to waive enforcement of illegal noise violations has slipped into the docket of the San Diego City Council.
Discovered at the last minute before final city council review and approval, the ordinance, known as Item 11, has disturbed downtown residents and watchdogs. Some wonder if the city may be trying to pass the legislation without full public vetting.
If the ordinance passes, it could invalidate a lawsuit brought by a downtown residents group against the San Diego Padres. The team manages music concerts at Gallagher Square. Ballpark District residents say concerts regularly exceed current city noise ordinance levels.
Note: The lawsuit specifically targets noise from sizable concerts in the open-air Gallagher Square park area, where speakers point out toward residential buildings. (The city and the Padres split revenue from these concerts). The citizens group’s lawsuit does not focus on concerts by major artists like Billy Joel or Paul McCartney that are booked inside noise-buffered Petco Park.
The group suing the Padres is known as Residents Concerned About Noise From Gallagher Square. President Wayne Metlitz had no comment on the two-and-a-half-year-old lawsuit, which is scheduled for mitigation this summer. But he believes all of downtown should oppose the ordinance.
“If adopted, the implications would extend well beyond Gallagher Square and affect neighborhoods throughout the entire city wherever [noise] exceptions might be sought,” Metlitz said.
Downtown Community Planners Committee Chair Gary Hewitt is the one who found the ordinance labeled as a “clarification” in a long list within the 2026 Land Development Code Update.
Hewit says the language in Item 11 is not a clarification, rather, “it’s a new blanket exemption from the noise ordinance for any permitted activity.”
He says the labeling of Item 11 as a clarification caused his planning group to miss the significance in an initial review. Hewitt, who took over as chair of DCPC a few months ago, took a deeper look and discovered that the language in the item had changed substantially.
Here’s what was written in the general discussion of Item 11 (Sound Level Limits): “It shall be unlawful for any person to cause noise by any means to the extent that the one-hour average sound level exceeds the applicable limit given in the following table…”
This is what was later added in the actual ordinance, according to Hewitt: “…unless the use or activity is otherwise authorized by a special event permit, development permit, or other permit or agreement approved by the City Manager, or designee.”
A city spokesperson indicated concerns are out of proportion.
“Item 11 only clarifies that there may be limited situations where temporary exceptions to average noise level limits are allowed when authorized…,” City of San Diego Public Information Officer Peter Kelly wrote in an email to The San Diego Sun.
Hewitt points out that the word “temporary” was used in the Item 11 staff report but not in the final ordinance text.
Asked if Item 11 was presented in a misleading fashion, Hewitt said it appears there was “probably some intentionality.”
“I don’t know if it is directly linked to the lawsuit [against the Padres],” Hewitt said. “But if this passed [the city] could just say, ‘Okay, now Gallagher Square’s exempt.’ I’d love to know if the Padres coordinated with city staff on this.”
The Padres front office did not respond to an email query about its knowledge of Item 11.
Downtown Residents Group President Gary Smith agreed with Hewitt that Item 11 needed to be reconsidered.
“This is [the city’s] way to say, ‘We don’t want to do any enforcement anymore so we’ll just get rid of everything,’” Smith said. “And believe me, that will get miserable really, really fast…you could have all the train horns come back, you could have all kinds of things happen. It is not a good place to be.”
The DCPC voted unanimously at its May 20 meeting to request that the City Council remove Item 11 from the 2026 Land Development Code Update prior to final passage.
Hewitt also hopes the City Planning Department will “rework the amendment with meaningful guardrails, including a decibel ceiling, duration limits, public notice requirements, required findings, and an appeal process for inclusion in a subsequent Land Development Code update.”
A representative from City Councilmember Stephen Whitburn’s office who attended the DCPC meeting was unclear on how or when an opportunity would arise to remove Item 11 from the LDC list. Email queries to Whitburn’s office were not immediately returned.
Downtown activist Janet Rogers believes the city should be focused on finding an effective noise enforcement method, not abandoning responsibility.
“Right now [the city’s] Code Enforcement does nothing,” Rogers said. “Their website says to call the non-emergency police phone number. But noise abatement is a low priority and police never show up…Eliminating the city’s standard for permitted events, so the city doesn’t have enforcement responsibility, is the wrong direction.” SDSun
