HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1994, C-6 - TA 42-94: AMENDMENTS TO NOISE REGULATIONS, RESTRICTING HOURS OF OPERATION OF POWER BLOWERS. MEETING DATE:
city of sa►n Luis OBlspo 3-9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MW NUMBER: /JI�
FROM: Arnold Jonas, C unity Development Director [%
BY: Judith Lautner, sociate Planner
SUBJECT: TA 42-94: endments to noise regulations, restricting
hours of operation of power blowers.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Give final passage to Ordinance No. 1261 (1994 Series) , as
introduced on April 19, 1994, amending the noise regulations to
limit hours of operation for power blowers.
DISCUSSION
The City Council introduced Ordinance 1261 on April 19, 1994. The
ordinance restricts leafblower operation to between 8:00 a.m. and
6: 00 p.m. daily.
The amendment will go into effect 30 days after final passage of
the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may, by motion, 1) reject the ordinance, or 2) continue
action.
Attached:
Ordinance no. 1261, as introduced
ORDINANCE NO. 1261 (1994 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE NOISE REGULATIONS TEXT
TO LIMIT FURTHER THE HOURS
WHEN POWER BLOWERS MAY BE OPERATED
(TA 42-94)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider
the noise regulations amendment request TA 42-94, amending Section
9.12.050 of the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A. attached; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings;
Findings•
1. The proposed amendment conforms to the general plan.
2. The Community Development Director has reviewed the text
change and determined that it is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because it consists of a regulatory action taken by the City
Council to assure the protection of the environment (section
15308, class 8) . The Director concludes that the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment, and the City
Council hereby affirms the categorical exemption and finds
that it reflects the independent judgement of the City
Council.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City
council finds and determines that the project's Categorical
Exemption adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Municipal Code change,' and
reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The
Council hereby affirms said categorical exemption.
SECTION 2. The municipal code amendment TA 42-94, as
shown on Exhibit A. attached, amending section section 9. 12.050B
and 9.12.050B. 10, is hereby approved.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with
the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be
published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in
the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
0 1261
Ordinance no. 1261 (1994 Series)
TA 42-94 : Citywide
Page 2
thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 19th day of
April , 1994, on motion of Council Member Roalman , seconded
by Vice Mayor Settle , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Roalman, Vice Mayor Settle and Mayor Pinard
NOES: Council Member Romero
ABSENT: Council Member Raopa
Mayor Pe Pinard
ATTEST:
City Clerk Diane Gladwell
APPROVED:
i A o
G�-1-3
Noise Ordinance Amendment
9.12.050 Prohibited acts.
B. Specific Prohibitions. The acts, as set forth in
3: thFeugh-8-e€ this section, and the causing or permitting thereof,
are declared to be in violation of this chapter:
10. Domestic Power Tools, Machinery.
a. Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically
powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool or
similar tool between ten p.m. and seven a.m. , so as to create
a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real
property line.
".nv. ..,.:..ti{.`iii:....v..::... •M::tiL;ry"4\\'IX + \+.<n:nYn±4i ^:'i.>::;n:{VA
b-r
,:;"+}Sff;H:i"3..� :� y.� :y;... :: :: :;:L.; .« ."*y: `R v.'�R:`►::*IF.:�:?'`'Y:�V>`:f4'
.''/:i'.yf:.:. �2•`..!>vhl,'.. �. �,,.y .: .tea.:x.:L�:\:'k}:::<pGR.icaa:as.. ;iui..'. 'Eyig.::::;-.;.'s
:
'•',i 1'[;a i:... a v�+;';a ';ua'x '{}„istia::Xvs;t?;w:R:.. .;tnS.
ro .:
s Any motor, machinery, pump, such as swimming pool
equipment, etc. , shall be sufficiently enclosed or muffled and
maintained so as not to create a noise disturbance in
accordance with section 9. 12.060 of this section.
EXHIBIT A (TA 42-94)
MEETING AGENDA
DATE '9 ITEM #
JCCu., 11 9 CCC DA �+
a !'.fir;; ❑ RN CUR
O
❑ Fnc
26 April 1994 •_ - �•• F
1591 Slack, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (543-9085 2 RE-E-'!F.
Mayor Peg Pinard and City Council `"' BWWERS_ 1'...
City Hall, Palm at Osos ''"_ � 4M.=-
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 /-.?R b9 19,94
c!-.y cauwcI!
Dear Mayor Pinard, ;., L;-,;s oa:spo, CA
I know better than to believe everything I read in the
newspapers, but "only 6 calls in two years" suddenly made me into
an old grouch, which I dislike. Our son Gregory (32 N. Broad) and
'I have called three times in the past 10 months, and if what Alan
Friedman tells me is correct, he must have been the only other
person to have called. I do not believe this.
I oppose the use of blowers, and therefore, I oppose the sale
of blowers. However, I understand the difficulties in convincing
users and sellers why this should be our policy, so sitting
politicians probably shouldn't become overly involved with my
opinions on this. My major complaint is that people who use them
claim the blower is "efficient", which I believe is nonsense. The
people I have watched using these machines either blow the debris
into the city's sewer system we all pay for or onto their
neighbor's property for them to worry about it. I do not measure
efficiency in this ridiculous manner. Composting principles for
these users simply go out the window. The Community Development
staff listened to our views some months back and were doubtful that
our recommendations would prevail, given the economic fallout that
banning blowers might generate even if blowers could be easily
replaced with brooms.
Noise and pollution remain problems, and. I think the Council
can do some things to reduce both. But those using blowers will
still abuse your rules, and in all probability we will still
complain about their use. we would have attacked this problem more
directly with you, but we know the enforcement problem our view
creates and the miniscule budget means you have with which to
address it. Do the best you can given the constraints you face, and
we will reluctantly live with it.
Sincerely,
Dominic B. Perello
cc: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
COUNCIL BOUD DIS
EYO&o ❑ FIN DIR MEL,,NG AGENDA
❑ FIAE CHIEF DATE, 9 1/ ITEM #
ATTORNEY GPOW DIS
May 2, 1994 ET'CLERWOR G ❑ POLICE CNF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
PLCO PERS DIR
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer Y
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Leaf Blowers
At the last City Council meeting, the Council took action to create
an ordinance change to the hours of operation for leaf blowers.
The change in hours impacts. the City's ability to maintain its
parking lots and parks. Our current contract for services of
parking lot clean up allows the contractor the choice of hours of
operations of power leaf blower equipment starting at 7 : 00 a.m. As
a result of the proposed change in ordinance, we will be in
violation of our own contract for services.
Due to the new change, and due to the proposed change in the
ordinance, we will enter into negotiations with the contractor.
Depending upon those negotiations, we will either be forced to
accept a change in the level of service (i.e. less cleaning) of
City facilities or an increase in City expenditures to allow
additional personnel to perform cleaning services in the remaining
hours available within the contract.
Per the minutes of the April 19, 1994 meeting the City Council also
directed staff to bring back, at the first meeting in September, a
proposal to limit gas powered blowers and the potential for a phase
sunset of power blowers all together. The proposed regulations to
eliminate power blowers will have a substantial impact on staff's
ability to clean City parks. Part of our ability to perform more
work with less manpower, is our ability to use modern technology,
i.e. power blowers. If the Council's concern with power blowers is
noise pollution, power blowers are currently available that the
City could purchase with substantially reduced levels of noise,
i.e. below 70 dba. If the Council's concern is particulate matter
given off by powered gas blowers, staff can switch to electric
powered blowers in most areas. As cleaning parks with water
powered equipment is prohibited, the only option remaining after
elimination of power blowers would be hand sweeping. With existing
staffing levels, we would be unable to hand sweep the existing
parks to achieve the same level of service of cleanliness.
v �7
MAY 3 1994
'-':TY CLERi<
Leaf Blowers
Page Two
Therefore, I would urge the Council to consider making the
following changes:
1) Reinstitute the time for commercial leaf blowing
operations to 7: 00 a.m. This would allow existing contractors
to service the downtown parking lots in the manner they are
currently doing, with no impact to fiscal or manpower
considerations.
2) Articulate to the Community Development Department staff
your desires for either reduction in noise pollution or
particulate pollution, and allow staff the flexibility to
address your concern while having access to the modern
technologies which allow us to maintain our levels of service.
lealblow/mm2