HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1997, 2 - POWER BLOWER COMMITTEE REPORT AND PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS council
j aGEnaa nEpont
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P 0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Develop ent Director �0
Prepared By: Judith Lautner,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Power blower committee report and proposed noise ordinance amendments
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Review final report from the City's Power Blower Committee;
2. Adopt Negative declaration of environmental impact;
3. Adopt an ordinance modifying the noise regulations to prohibit use of blowers on Sundays and
require a maximum noise output of 70 dBA at 50 feet from the blower; and
4. Review the draft education program. Make suggestions or requirements as appropriate.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City Council has discussed power blower use in this city on several occasions. In February
1997, the Council directed staff to draft amendments to the noise regulations, to prohibit blower use
on Sundays and to limit noise levels from blowers to 70 decibels at 50 feet from the blower. The
Council also directed staff to create a committee of volunteers to develop a more effective education
program,to educate users and detractors of power blowers.
The amendments have been drafted and the committee formed. The committee has met four times
and has developed an educational program. The primary element of that program is the creation of a
flyer to be distributed widely and kept at shops where blowers are sold. The flyer would spell out the
City's laws exactly,provide tips for proper use,and explain how the laws are enforced.
Other elements of the education program include enhancing police response, creating newspaper
advertising, and re-writing the noise regulations. Not all of these elements will necessarily be
implemented.
The Council should adopt the amendments and review the education program.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 20, 1993, the City Council responded to complaints by a citizen (Alan Friedman) about
problems associated with leafblowers. The Council directed staff to research the issue and return
with information on these machines.
On January 25, 1994, the Council reviewed a report on these machines. After public testimony
and discussion, the Council directed staff to work with the California Landscape Contractors'
Association (CLCA) to 1) prepare amendments to City noise regulations to,limit further the hours
that power blowers may operate; and 2) develop an educational program to inform landscape
workers of the proper ways to use these machines.
am?—/
Other 2-97
Power blower noise amendments and education program
Page 2
On April 19, 1994, the Council held a public hearing to review amendments to the noise ordinance
and to review a draft educational program. The Council passed to print an ordinance limiting the
use of power blowers to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., and accepted the educational
program. Because of concerns raised by the Public Works Director, the Council delayed final
action on the noise ordinance change until July 19, 1994. At that time the changes were finally
passed as initiated.
In October 1994, the Council changed the regulations to allow blowers to be operated outside
residential areas from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., rather than from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and asked that staff
return with an ordinance setting decibel limits for blowers, including a certification program to
assure enforcement of the noise limits. Such an ordinance was presented to the Council on March
19, 1996 and rejected because it was difficult to implement.
On February 18, 1997, the Council once again discussed blowers. After taking testimony from
several citizens, the Council directed staff to return with changes to the noise regulations
prohibiting blower use on Sundays, and limiting noise levels to 70 dBA at fifty feet from the
blower. The Council also directed the Police Department to start logging blower complaints and
directed staff to establish a committee of volunteers to report to the Council on suggested ways to
"educate users and detractors about the different types of equipment." Staff was to report on the
makeup of the committee, its charge and specific procedures.
The draft amendments to the noise regulations are complete. A volunteer committee has met four
times and developed a series of recommendations on noise ordinance amendments as well as a new
and improved draft education program, part of which is underway.
Evaluation
1. Committee report and recommendations. A volunteer committee has been created. The
membership of the committee has varied over the times it has met, but generally consists of
representatives from the landscape maintenance industry, an acoustical engineer, and City public
works and planning staff.
At the first meeting, volunteers were given the direction provided by the Council in February
(see minutes of that meeting, attached). The direction was to"educate users and detractors about
the different types of equipment." A brainstorming session was conducted. In the following
meetings the committee solicited additional comments and information from blower advocates
and opponents and the Police Department. Some conclusions were drawn:
The primary noise problems come from blowing in the downtown area and in shopping center
parking lots. This work has to be done at times that businesses are closed or have little business.
Therefore, some maintenance crews use blowers in the middle of the night, particularly in
shopping center lots (in violation of regulations). Public parking lots downtown are maintained
under contract to the City, and therefore these workers have been required to use blowers only
during the allowed hours.
Meeting the City's current requirements results in a quandary: when blowers are used in parking
lots only after 7 a.m., the operator must work around vehicles and persons arriving for work.
According to landscape contractors on the committee, it takes about twice as long to clean
parking lots after seven than before. This means the noise continues for longer periods and more
a -�
Other 2-97
Power blower noise amendments and education program
Page 3
people are offended by the noise and dust. On the other hand,downtown residents are sometimes
awakened by blowers used before seven.
Noise concerns are not restricted to leaf blowers. Citizens invited to committee meetings
expressed concerns with sidewalk steam-cleaning operations, construction noise, and other
power equipment. There were recommendations to prohibit construction activity on Sundays
and holidays. Because construction and steamcleaning is different from yard work, the
committee was not in a position to comment on or make recommendations on these other areas.
It would not be inappropriate to regulate other power gardening equipment use in a manner
similar to that of power blowers. If the Council chooses to pursue such an option; it should
provide specific direction to staff.
An education program has been drafted. The committee and its guests came up with many
ideas for a)informing users of the City's laws on power blowers; b) encouraging appropriate use
of blowers; and c) letting people know what to do when these laws are broken. A copy of the .
draft education program is attached.The following paragraphs explain parts of the program.
a. The flyer. The primary element of the program is the creation of a flyer that
is specific to San Luis Obispo. The flyer is to let people know, in a friendly manner,
exactly what the law says. It will also provide tips on proper use and who to call for
apparent violations. A copy of a draft version of that flyer will be available at the
Council's meeting.
The committee recommends that the City send the flyer out in all water bills,
distribute it to all businesses within the city and most of the county that sell power
blowers, send it to all known landscape maintenance persons who work within the
city limits, distribute it at meetings of the California Landscape Contractors'
Association, to the Cal Poly Ornamental Horticulture Department, and any other
relevant organizations. Copies would be handed to persons applying for business tax
certificates for landscape maintenance. This broad-brush approach is intended to
reach most residents and gardeners in the city.
b. Police response. Enhancing Police effectiveness was also high on the
committee's list. Complainants have said that when they call the police, citations are
rarely issued and the responding officer normally does not appear to know what the
regulations say.
As directed by the Council, the Police Department (PD) has created a separate code
for power blower calls, so that the number of complaints may be more accurately
tracked. Noise violations are misdemeanors, which means that the officer must
actually see and hear the violation before he or she can issue a citation. Because most
blowing is done in a matter of minutes,the officer often does not have an opportunity
to observe the blower in action. In these cases, the complainant is often dissatisfied
with the response to the complaint.
In 1997, a total of seven calls were logged in under the new blower code (5314). One
of these resulted in a citation. It is possible that some calls were taken and logged
2
Other 2-97
Power blower noise amendments and education program
Page 4
under a separate number, but that is possible with any type of call. This number is
consistent with the numbers in previous years, and indicates that blower complaints
are still not high in number.
The committee determined that there are two ways the PD can enhance blower
enforcement,without the need to create a whole new program:
• Education.. The noise control officer can make sure that beat-duty
officers are made aware of the hour restrictions.
• Use "FI cards". The police are authorized to use "Field Interrogation
cards" where there are "suspicious circumstances". The officers who
are called for a blower complaint can be directed to take down the
name and address of persons suspected of using blowers in violation
of the regulations (in cases where citations cannot be issued). These
names would then be given to the persons responsible for mailing
informational flyers, and letters with flyers would be sent to the
alleged offender. If the same operator then violates the law at a later
date, the officer would have a record that he or she had been
informed and may choose to step up enforcement efforts.
Although these small changes can improve the effectiveness of police response,
possibly the greatest change needs to take place in public expectation. Complainants
often do not understand why officers cannot write citations for violations they do not
themselves observe. The flyer and other educational efforts are expected to help
improve that understanding.
C. Other efforts.The committee established the following as medium-and low-
priority on the education program. These ideas would be pursued if determined
necessary after the high-priority items are implemented:
Plain-language noise ordinance. Many members of the committee confessed to some
confusion in reading and understanding the way the ordinance is now
formatted and written. An admirable goal for the committee is to rewrite at
least that section that deals with power blowers, so that it is immediately
comprehensible to most citizens.
Newspaper advertising. Eye-catching, graphically-intense display ads could be
produced, that provide simple tips for consumers, in a format similar to that
used by the Utilities Department in its current public relations campaign. The
blower campaign would not be as large or elaborate as Utilities', but would
be fairly regular. For example, ads may be produced quarterly. A related
possibility is the addition of blower laws and tips to the City's web pages.
Cost for this item could vary widely, depending on the type of ad (display or
public service), its size and frequency of publication.
Other 2-97
Power blower noise amendments and education program
Page 5
Blowerfest. An event at Mission Plaza or elsewhere, offering information,
demonstrations, tips on how to get the most from a blower efficiently (and
with less pollution). The event could be stand-alone (not likely to attract a
large crowd)or part of some other related event.
Other ideas will be reviewed further as the high-priority projects are completed. The committee
has been meeting monthly, and is scheduled to meet again on October 15, to review the
Council's actions on this item, finalize the design of the flyer, and pursue any next steps. The
committee's work is essentially complete, with the exception of follow-up review and assistance
as necessary. Meetings in the future are expected to be called less frequently.
2. Noise regulations changes are made. Amendments to the noise regulations have been drafted,
that limit decibel levels and prohibit power blower use on Sundays. These changes are
incorporated into the attached draft ordinance. The power blower committee discussed
prohibiting blowers on holidays as well, to preserve the quiet for several extra days per year.
However, there was concern that people would not know which holidays are affected, and that
holidays are the only chance for some residents to do many maintenance jobs around the home,
and many of those jobs require a power blower. For these reasons, the committee supports the
prohibition on Sundays but not on holidays.
The City's parks maintenance supervisor is concerned about prohibiting the use of all blowers on
Sundays. The Jack House property is usually maintained on Sundays, with the use of electric
blowers. The minutes refer to blowers, with no distinction in kind. If it was not the intent of the
Council to prohibit all blowers,the regulations can easily be amended to correct this.
The committee's acoustical engineer and the Police Department representative have both
commented that regulations limiting decibel levels are not likely to be enforceable, except in
extreme cases where separate testing is worthwhile. Sound measurement is not simple and is
affected by many variables in the environment. The only fair way to determine if a machine does
not exceed the 70 dBA limit is to test it in controlled circumstances, an option not normally
available to the average police officer.
However, it is appropriate to have such a limit in our ordinance. This regulation can be used to
sway blower buyers toward the quieter machines. Virtually all new blowers are being
manufactured to meet this standard today, and are marked by stickers on the machines
themselves. But many older-built machines are still on the market. It will still take a few years to
phase out all of the older,noisier,more-polluting machines.
CONCURRENCES
Public Works Parks maintenance staff is on the committee and is interested in retaining the ability to
use power blowers in maintenance of all City properties. The Police Department notes that education
is good, but also that increased knowledge of the law may lead to a greater number of complaints.
Other departments have no concerns with blowers.
—S
Other 2-97
Power blower noise amendments and education program
Page 6
FISCAL ITWPACT
As currently constructed, the education program is expected to cost $1,000 for flyer reproduction
and mailing costs. Periodic massive re-mailings (every year or every other year) would cost a
similar amount. If newspaper advertising is to be done, it is likely to be in the form of paid display
ads, which would be designed with cost in mind. City graphics-capable staff is being used for flyer
design and would be used for newspaper design as well. The Public Works and Community
Development Departments are anticipating sharing the costs, current and possible. Current budgets
are adequate.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt a modified ordinance, to allow use of electric blowers on Sundays or to
address other concerns raised during the hearing.
The Council may continue action.Direction should be given to staff.
The Council may, by minute action, choose to make no changes at this time.
The Council may recommend or mandate certain changes to the education program or require its
elimination.
Attachments
draft ordinance
environmental initial study
draft education program
draft flyer(if available)
minutes of City Council February 18, 1997 meeting
ORDINANCE NO. (1997 SERIES)
AMENDMENTS TO THE NOISE REGULATIONS
LIMITING DECIBEL LEVELS OF POWER BLOWERS AND
PROHIBITING THEIR USE ON SUNDAYS
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 7, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the
General Plan, the purposes of the Noise Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed text amendment to the noise regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the
City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Section 9.12.050 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
9.12.050
B. Specific Prohibitions. The acts, as set forth in this section, and the causing or permitting
thereof, are declared to be in violation of this chapter.
10. Domestic Power Tools, Machinery.
b. Operating a power blower in a residential zone or within two hundred feet of
a residential zone between six p.m. and eight a.m., Mondaythroiigh
Saturday ateHeise ,,:s... aefess -- .: , raW
pFepeny .
c. Operating a power blower in any non-residential zone between six p.m. and
seven a.m., Monday through Saturday, .
d. Operating a power blower m.soca a manner:as:to exceed the.following
standard:
Measurement'location: . .. ..;....
_ - .' .Maximum noise aevel, dBA
50 feet from the blower 70 dB
e. Operating 'a:po -bl. .....i.any... ' findid on" a'-
....6W,6
d ; Any motor, machinery, or pump, such as swimming pool equipment,
etc.I 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 chapter.
SECTION 3. A synopsis of this ordinance,approved by the City Attorney,together with
the names of the Council Member voting for and against,shall be published at least five 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 thirty(30)days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at a meeting held on the day of onmotion of
,seconded by ,and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cllee�'&.ef Qa�
A95-
,rWorne/ &17
��►���h�������i��►II►IIIIII�IIII@°""„'�►� IIIII
city osAn lues oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ER 2-97
Citywide
1 . Project Title: Noise regulations amendments for power blowers
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
4. Project Location: citywide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City Council, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
6. General Plan Designation: all designations
7. Zoning: all zones
8. Description of the Project:
The project is the amendment of the noise regulations to 1) prohibit the use
of gas-powered blowers on Sundays and 2) to restrict decibel levels of
blowers to 70 dBA 50 feet from the blower.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
The change requires approval of a Municipal Code amendment.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Not applicable.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ��
ER 2-97
Citywide Noise Regulations amendment
Page 2
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services . .x
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have-a significant effect on the environment, and a X
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leasi
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a`Potentially Significant Impact" or is 'Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
2
1=rp-ia
ER 2-97
Citywide Noise Regulations amendment
Page 3
September 5, 1997
Signafige Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager For Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
3 y
or —��
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Pon jiy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 2-97 Iswes Unless Impact
mitigation
Citywide Incorporated
Page 4
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would.the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental :plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
The general plan Land Use Element defines different designations for different land uses. Power blowers ca
be used in every land use designation or zone. The regulations are intended to limit noise disturbances frorr
this type power equipment, and therefore increase compatibility of the use within any zone or betwee
zones.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable X
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b), Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure; including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable-soil X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique:geologic or physical features? X
4.- WATER.- Would the proposal:result.in:
.a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
4
a—�oZ
Issues and Supporting Informati. ., Sources sources Pot-ed,dly potentially Less Than No
Significant sigffieant Significant Impact
ER 2-97 Issues Unless Impact
Cmitigadon
Citywide
Inc
Page 5 orporated
f) Change,in the quantity of ground waters,•either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through±int erception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of•groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. X
otherwise available for public.water_supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Power blowers create temporary pollution by raising dust and other particulate matter, and by discharging
exhaust fumes from gas-powered blowers. The Air Pollution Control District does not restrict use of blowers,
however, because their contribution to air pollution is not significant. The proposed regulations are no
expected to have any significant effect on blower pollution except to eliminate its production on Sundays. I
gas-powered blowers are not .used on Sundays, they will likely be used more on other days, so the en
result will not be significantly different from the present situation.
S. TRANSPORTATIONMIRCULATION.. Would the;proposal.resuh:in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?. X
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access.to nearby X
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site:-or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflictswith. adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts; bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts (e.g.compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the:.proposal affect::
a) 'Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants;fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. 'hentage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat; etc.).?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? L X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? T X
5 J
40l _1_3
Issues and Supporting Informat,un Sources SourcesPon. ,ly Pot tiaIIy I=Than No
Significant SigniScant Significant Impact
ER 2-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Citywide Incorporated
Page 6
b) Use'non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability df,a known mineral, X
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?.
The prohibition of use of gas-powered blowers on Sundays will result in a slight reduction in energy use o
that day of the week, but the use will likely shift to other days of the week. Therefore, there will be no ne
savings or additional energy use.
9. HAZARDS. Would the..proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X
health.hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable-brush, X
grass or trees?
10.NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) :Increase in existing noise levels? X
.b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable"_noise levels as X
defined by the San Luis Obispo General:Plan Noise
Element?
The regulation changes would eliminate noise from gas-powered blowers on Sundays, if adequate)
enforced. There may be a slight increase in blower use on other days to make up for the loss of Sunday. Th
regulation changes would also limit decibel levels of all blowers to 70dBA 50 feet from the blower. This
change should result in lower noise levels from blowers overall.
11. PUBLIC.SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered.
governmentservices in any of the following areas:
a) 'Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a:need:for new systems.or supplies.;or substantial.alterations-to the_following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities? .
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
6
Issues and Supporting Informat._., Sources Sources Poten�rr Potentially I=Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 2-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Citywide Incorporated
Page 7
13..AESTHETICS. .Would the proposal:
a). Affect.a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic-effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the:potential to degrade the X
quality of the environment; substantially reduce the
habitat of a-fish.or wildlife species,. cause a fish:or
wildlife population to drop.below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate.a p1brit.'or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminateimportant
examples of the.major periods of California history or
prehistory?
See above discussions.
:b) Does the project have ttie potential to. achieve short- X
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
Short- and long-term goals are the same.
c) Does the project have.impacts-that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
.considerable" means.that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of.
other current projects, and.the effects.of probable
future projects)
No cumulative impacts are expected from these changes.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial.adverse effects on.human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
See discussions above.
7
ER 2-97
Citywide
Page 8
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier:6n6ly0s may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA-process, .one oi
more effects have:been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063-(c) (3
(D). In this case. a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where tKey are available for review:
No earlier analysis was used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to :applicable legal standards, and stat
whether such. effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
No earlier analysis was used.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than:Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t
which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
No earlier analysis was used.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083.and 2.1087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1,21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,:202'Cal. App. 3d 296'(1988); Leonofff v.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, .222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. 1 General Plan Digest, City of San Luis Obispo, 1997
8
Power blowe
education
program
High priority
I . Amend regulations
Do as council directed-
Status.
rected.Status.changes made.Need to be passed by City Council.
Deadline: Scheduled to go to the Council Oct. 7.
2. Create informational flyer
What to do: Create a one-page flyer that explains the City's laws about power blowers. The
flyer should explain the ordinance in plain English and in Spanish,and also include the text of
the ordinance itself. It should include a short list of dos and don'ts for power blower usage.
Finally,it should contain enforcement information. Create after the above changes to the
regulations are passed(draft can be created ahead of time).
Distribute it to all stores inside and near the city,possibly throughout the county,that sell
blowers. Send out in water bills.Distribute in meetings of CLCA and other organizations
(garden clubs, Cal Poly Ornamental Horticulture Division,for example). Give out with business
tax certificates for gardening businesses. Mail to all known landscape workers in area. Send it to
persons cited for or warned of possible violations of the regulations.
Status.draft created. Under review by staff and committee members.
Steps:
• Preparation by Community Development and Public Works staff-estimate 12 hours for
writing,graphics,revisions, another two for review, editing by others. Cost absorbed by
departments.
o? -i7
Power blower education program
page 2
How many we need:
13,000 for water bills; 2,000 for the rest:total 15,000
Cost.
Copying: 15,000 @.03 (estimate)_$450. If two-sided, folded,estimate$1,000
• Distribution:
Get list of customers of Noble Saw. (done)
Get list of gardeners with city business tax certificate from Finance.
Enlist assistance from CLCA, others to distribute to businesses.
Arrange to send out with water bills.
Cost.$200 for two mailings(half of water customers each time)with water bills
Deadline. Development of flyer: October 21, 1997
Distribution: by December 10, 1997
3. Get the PD to step up enforcement
Inform officers of the rules and make sure they enforce them.
Get approval to use Field Interrogation forms for possible violators,to get names and addresses.
Deliver cards to Community Development(initially -may move to CLCA volunteers
eventually)to send out letters and flyers.
Comment:members of the committee and guests felt that some significant fine needs to be
associated with violations.At this time,though,no action on this is contemplated.According to
the PD,typical fust-time violation fines are $60.
Status.Joe Hazouri,officer in charge of noise abatement,will find out if FI cards can be used
for this purpose and will make sure duty officers are informed of changes to the regulations.
Deadline.Depends on what can be done.
Mediumpriority
4. Clarify the noise regulations
Rewrite the regulations in readable style
Start at the top and come up with a new format. Is it possible to rewrite just the one section,
where the blowers live?
�d
Power blower education program
page 3
5. Place newspaper ads
The ads would be informational,providing little bits of information in a humorous fashion.
They would let people know the rules, explain the"right"way to use blowers,even explain how
blowers are used to save water, clean parking lots, other uses. Example: "It's ten p.m.Do you
know where your leafblower is?"
Maybe consider developing four different ads,each to be run a few times each season. Find out
"public service" limitations.
6. Enlist help of CLCA
enforcement assistance
hotline
7. Make use of other volunteers
enforcement
8. Public service announcements
9. Talk shows(radio)
10. Review CLCA literature
Low Priority
. Power blower fest or related event
Education program developed through the assistance of:
Tim Peterson,Noble Saw
Nick Krause,Krause Engineering
Kevin Holmes,West Coast Landscapes
Gary Timm Stein
George Elliott,representing California Landscape Contractors'Association
Stan Price,Echo distributor
Wally Robbins,downtown resident
Alan Friedman,resident
Nick Tennis,Camacho&Tennis
(Judy Laumer,Larry Tolson,Joe Hazouri,City staff
Q?/9
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday,February 18, 1997-7:00 p.m.
There was further discussion regarding alternative solutions,and clarification was made by staff
that if additional funding became necessary,the project would have to come back before Council.
Council Member Romero amended his motion so other options for the temporary solution could
be considered by staff during the process,and Council Member Williams accepted the
amendment;motion carried (5-0).
COMMUNICATIONS
Comm. 1. Mayor Settle stated that the Joint City Council meeting will be held with the other cities
in the County on May 1, 1997.
Comm.2. Council Member Romero said the next Channel Counties meeting will be on Friday,
April 4, 1997.
Comm.3. CAO Dunn JD suggested that Council consider April 2n°for a joint meeting with
SLOCOG,and Council agreed on that date.
BUSINESS ITEMS(Continued)
3. POWER BLOWERS (File No.703)
Council considered the current power blower regulations.
Community Development Director Jonas presented the staff report, recommending that the Council
affirm their previous position regarding leaf blowers. He stated that manufacturers have improved
the models so they are significantly less polluting and quieter,and recommended keeping the
existing regulations.
Mayor Settle asked for public comment.
Alan Friedman.3101 Rockview,asked Council to ban gas powered leaf blowers because of the
noise and pollution caused by them.
Hank Alberts.544 Pacific Street, asked Council to place a ban on the use of power blowers.
Nick Tennis.128 Hermosa Drive,Shell Beach,stated that properly used, leaf blowers are valuable
tools. He urged Council to allow the industry to continue to improve their product and to educate
individuals in the proper use.
Pat Veesart.1446 Morro,spoke in support of a ban on leaf blowers or further restrictions which
would limit the hours of operation.
Larry Houloate,SLO,stated that gas leaf blowers should be banned,or a maximum decibel limit
should be set to limit the noise.
Torre Houlgate-West,1344 Mill St,spoke in support of a ban on leaf blowers.
Timm Stein.770 Broad Street,stated that he is a professional gardener who uses leaf blowers in
his work. He said, property used,they are a valuable tool and should not be banned, but perhaps
further regulations would help the situation. He volunteered to work on a committee to address
the issues.
Kevin Holmes, 1500 Royal Way, urged Council to keep the existing ordinance and make an effort
to educate people on the proper use of leaf blowers. He stated that the use of leaf blowers is
important to his business.
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday,February 18,1997-7:00 p.m.
Victor Barbosa.SLO,stated that the use of leaf blowers should not be further restricted.
ANick Crouse. Engineering Consultant,stated that the most likely solution is to regulate the use of
the blowers, but not a complete ban. He recommended a combination of education of the users as
well as the detractors and restricted hours. He indicated his willingness to study the levels of
noise from different types of equipment and conduct an educational seminar.
Mayor Settle returned discussion to the Council.
After discussion,moved by Roalman/Williams to direct staff to draft an ordinance to limit the use
of blowers to those with noise output less than 70 decibels at 50',direct the Police Department to
log all complaints related to power leaf blowers,and increase hourly limits to exclude operation
on Sundays; motion carried(5-0).
Moved by WilliamslRomero to establish a committee of volunteers to educate users and detractors
about the ent types of equipment After discussion, Council Member wlliams,with the
consent of Council Member Romero, amended the motion to direct staff to bring back a report
detailing the make up of a committee,their charge and speck procedures; motion tamed
54. TRANSIT ADVERTISING (File No.546)
Council considered advertising on SLO Transit buses.
Public Works Director McCluskey presented the staff report,giving a brief history.
Transit Manager Ham Watson.presented details regarding the proposed limited advertising on
busses.
Mayor Settle asked for public comment.
Tom Fulks.SLO Regional Ride Sharing Program,supported the adoption of a resolution and
urged Council to approve an agreement tonight.
Ted Utz, KCOI TV,spoke in support of the resolution and asked for affirmation of an agreement
tonight.
Mayor Settle returned discussion to the Council.
After discussion,moved by Romero/Williams to approve alternate Resolution No.8635
establishing a policy that allows advertising on SLO buses,and authorize staff to negotiate an
agreement for in-lieu advertising on SLO transit buses,subject to CAO approval; motion carried
(5-0).
Moved by Smith/Settle to direct staff to follow up on the in lieu agreement to assure a value to the
City; motion carried (5-0).
5. CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS (File No.9101-040-053)
Council considered the City Hall Seismic Safety/HVAC Project budget.
Public Works Director McCluskey presented the staff report,stating that the construction
management budget has run way over and above what was originally budgeted. He suggested that
the Neighborhood Traffic Management project budget could be used as an alternative source of
funding for the cost overrun, rather than using the General Fund.
Daily JUuhna 10/3/97
Suit Aims to Sweep Away Leaf Blower B
By Tom Orewyler ing restrictions relating,'for example, to push the same [objective]otherwise?"he
Daily JoumalStaff wdW. the hours,.decibel level`;or manner in said.
Contending that the Los Angeles.City which they are used. .. That is only one of the issues that wor- .
Council could have used less restric- According jo the suit,the city violated ries him, however. "Pm also concerned
tive means in enacting an.ordinance ban- :the gardeners due process and equal pro-
about the confiscatory nature of this,"Van
i ning the use of leaf blowers in residential :.tection rights lvyhen it instituted the ban. . Buskirksaid;sefersirag tn.the suit s addi-.
areas, a coalition of gardeners' orgamza- .....Besides arguing that the-law is unreason-
tions, allegation that the ordinance consti-
tions,contractors and leaf-blower comps- •able and arbitrary,the suit claim the law. totes a"taking of private property without
nies filed suit Thursday in Los Angeles singles out if blowers and does not sub• a eat of just compensation!rope
-Superior Court hoping to have the law jest other equally noisy (if not noisier) p N
swept off the books. gardening equipment to;the.same treat-
Adopted Dec.3,the ordinance forbids ;ment Also included as a cause of action is an
use of leaf blowers within 500 feet of any The plaintiffs include the Association of . alleged procedural violation by the
residence in the city - effectively ban- ..Latin American Gardeners of Los City Council,which,according to the suit,
ning their use altogether.The law went Angeles, the California 'Landscape failed to follow its own rules when it voted
into effect July 1. Contractors Association,a leaf-blower sell- on the measure.
Ronald Van Buskirk,an attorney in the er and a leaf-blower manufacturer. Van Buskirk is president of the Pacific
San Francisco office of Pillsbury,Madison Association of4tinAmerican Gardeners of Legal Foundation, a.conservative public
& Sutro who filed the complaint, said Las Angeles et hL u City,ofLos Angeles et interestgroup based in Sacramento that is
other cities have passed less onerous laws aL,BC17890$.; known for its outspoken advocacy of prop
relating to the notoriously loud blowers. While acknotrrled>hat the'rational-
Instead of implementing an outright basis"test that courts apply for laws not. arty rights. However, he said the leaf-
prohibition,Van Buskirk said,other cities affecting a ptotected class is a low sten- blower suit is unrelated to that group.
looking at the noise problem created by dard for the.¢overnment to meet, Van Efforts to reach.officials with the Los
leaf blowers have elected to control the Buskirk said toe ordinance goes too far.. Angeles city attorney for comment were
use of the gas-powered machines by plat- "Why have d ban wheh you can accom not successful.
MEETING AGENDA
DATE /V 7-f ITEM #
�
OUNCI L D DIR
AO T],FIN DIR
AO ` flRECHIEF`
EK
RNEY � . •DPW DIR.
aaCLERKtOflIQ . '.'0POUCECHF:
0 MaJIT TEAM O REO DIR
.f]VM DIR
O i El PERS DIR
RECEIVED
OCT 0 3 1997
OLO CiT.Y .CLERK
m- MKIL &COfrDIR
p.M ❑ FIN DIJCHF hii-ETING AGENDA
I>�0 ❑ FIRE CDATE 1 7 ITEM #�
D4(rMRNEY ❑ PW DI
Cl etERKIORIG ❑ POLIC❑ hiGMTM_ 0 UTIL D❑ PERS
October 1 , 1997
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Dear City Council Members ,
While I am not a resident of the city, I do live in the
county; and prefer to take the large view of living on the
planet. In December the United Nations is holding a
meeting in Kyoto, Japan to discuss what 90 Nobel-winning
scientists regard as the critical situation with regard to
. global warming and the continued emission of carbon dioxide
and other climate-altering pollutants. (The unabated fires
in Indonesia are directly linked to excess fossil-fuel
use in America. )
What does that have to do with leaf-blowers in San Luis
Obispo? you might ask. Most likely, you will already be
aware of the dubious contribution that blowers make to the
environment. Operating on diesel fuel, they utilize 25%
of the fuel -and emit the remaining 75% in the form of
pollutants ; not to mention noise and dust (they are not
called blowers for nothing. ) At least 10 cities, including
Laguna Beach, in Southern California have summoned up the
common sense (not a notable California trait) to ban
leaf-blowers completely. One would think that San Luis
Opispo would be light years ahead of Los Angeles where the
prevailing motto is "More, Bigger, Quicker. "
whatever happened to brooms? Surely there are deluxe models
with wide-sweep range available to the discriminating
gardener. And if they take a little more time, do the tidying
up a little less often. A small thing to ask, so that the
planet might survive. So that there are future leaves for
our children to sweep.
It does not take a great deal of intelligence to realize
that we can no longer justify short-term expedience at
the expense of long-term quality of life.
J
U
Sincerely, UJ> m 0
M .Power Giacoletti c� U
1266 Santa Ynez Avenue UJ o
Los Osos, CA 93402 0 ,—
(805 ) 528-4223
co
TING AGENDA
�I�h�IIiQ I �II�III DATEL° 7 97 ITEM # 2
.Nis.
III � WIS 'W +.C1. 0 . sa.n OBIS
990 Palm Street, San.,Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
f. �d C'/'7� (� c�Lt. C-J t 1 p
l. . 1?_COUNCIL IF-FM' DIR
0-MO U NN DIR ..
September 24, 1997 r-, �" D�HIGI
t ror,I:..,
❑,CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE Cfif--
-O MGMTEAM ❑ REC DIR
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 0 13 UTIL DIRp 0 PERS DIR
POWER BLOWER REGULATIONS
Our records indicate that item is of interest to you. You are, therefore, being notified that
the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider noise regulation
amendments to prohibit power blowers on Sundays and-to restrict-decibel levels of blowers to 70
Dba at 50 feet.from the blower. A proposed educational-programmill also'be reviewed
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 7 1997,. beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at City 114.990 Palm Street. The-public s welcome t6'attend and,comment.
Written comments are encouraged. Other items,may be,discussedlbefore or after this item. Please
know that if you challenge-this action in court,you may.be;limited'to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised during the public :hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council,at,or prior to,the-public hearing.
The agenda report, including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the
City Clerk's Office(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting.
For more information, please contact Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, in the Community
Development Department at 781-7166..
onL. dwf
City Clerk
A6 I-
6 7ev -------
s. -
: .�
REMERM Bill Richardson
P.O. Box 5003
cFP® Vity cd San Luis'Obispo.is committed to includebthe•disabled in all of: San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Telecomm ileations Device for the Deaf(805)7§1:7410..'
SLO CITY COUNCIL -
+
Oct-03-97 01 : 22P City of SL_O-CD Dept- 805 781 7173 P-02
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 40-7 9 ITEM #
MEMORANDUM OrCDD DIR
LeACAO
❑FIN DIR
❑FlRE CHIEF
❑PW DIR
TO: Mayor aid City Council C�POLICE CHF
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer ❑RECDIR
FROM: Arnold Rivas,Community Development Director ❑ML DIR
El PERS DIR
DATE: October 2, 1997
SUBJECT: Additional information. October 7, 1997 Agenda Item#2
Agenda item#2 deals with the on-going power blower noise issue. It includes comments
from the ad-hoc users committee established at the request of Council to investigate the
potential for additional ways of allowing continued use of the machines while minimizing
fate potential for complaints. A portion of the committee comments relate to current
police response to noise complaints..
In the course of executing their charge,the committee heard from a variety of interested
persons, both supporting and objecting to the use of power blowers. Some of the persons
in the latter group expressed unhappiness with city response to blower noise complaints,
and in particular a perceived reluctance on the part of the Police Department to issue
citations. To better understand this aspect of regulation, Police Department personnel
responsible for_,Noise Ordinance enforcement were included among those persons
advising the committee_ At the conclusion or their review,the cdminWee eonclirded
in fact the police-are responding appropriately and responsibly, and that a lack of
understanding the la%�s'andprocesses of noise regulation by those filing the
complaints con tributesto-the-misnirderstrmding.
unfortunately, some'readers see the police response information.included in the staff
report as being critical of the Police Department's efforts,when in fact the opposite result
is intended. The report is clear that the police have established a new code(5314) to -
reeister and track blower complaints. It notes that during 1997 to the date of report
preparation, seven calls were logged iri..One of the responses actually resulted in a
citation being issued. The latter.is:significart; since as the.report also clearly indicates,
the responding officer must see and hear the violation before a citation can be issued.
This creates a sienificant burden on enforcement that citizens often,do not understand-
the cannot;ust take their acrd that the offense occurred. In fact, as the report also slates,
the Committee concluded that the greatest change needed to increase the
"effectiveness"of police response is a change in public expectation.
The report also states that the committee recomn.er:ds consideration of the use of Field
Interrogation' Cards to deal with potential repeat offenders. Aft
considering this
possibility,the Police Department is confident that their computerized system of
complaint tracking is a more effective and efficient . ethod of fellowing these
situations. They do not feel that use of the FI Cards is required.
c: Jim Gardiner
Ron Whisenand