HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-31 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 31, 2000 1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission.................................89-324 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................89-324 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................89-324 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Green Power Program and Establishing Green Power Rate Schedules - Refer to Finance Committee................89-325
3. Ordinance 4609 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Table of Organization for the Police Department in the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00".89-325 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $959,260 for the Fixed Film Reactor Rehabilitation Project at the Water Quality Control Plant89-325
5. Resolution 7928 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2000-2001".................................................89-325 6. Endorsement of List of Bicycle Projects for Inclusion in the Bicycle Element of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan (VTP 2020)............................................89-325 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................89-325 7. Public Employee Appointment...........................89-326 7A. (Old Item No. 9) Amendment to Contract C4044185 with HMH, Inc. for Additional Design and Limited Construction Phase Services in an Amount of $97,000 for the Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bicycle Path Capital Improvement Program Project 19310.................................89-326
89-322
8. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Noise from Leaf Blowers89-327 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........89-342 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m............89-343
89-323
89-324
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, (Fazzino arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Beecham SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission Council Member Ojakian chaired the Council Advisory Committee, consisting of Council Members Burch and Mossar, which reviewed the 24 Parks and Recreation Commission applications, and 12 candidates were selected to be interviewed. The Committee based their selection on criteria including geography, application completion, and interest. The Council Advisory Committee recommended the following candidates for interviews: Richard Beckwith, Ann Briggs, Edith Eddy, William Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Bruce Grimes, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keating, Don Mayall, Helen Proctor, Judith
Steiner, and Lynn Torin. He reminded the Council the Committee=s recommendation would not preclude the Council from voting for any of the 24 applicants. Mayor Kniss said a previous Council decision was that when the Council received 10 or more applications for any Board or Commission appointment, a small Council Advisory Committee would be appointed to select a smaller group of applicants to be interviewed. In the case of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Committee selected 12 applicants who would be interviewed in the evening on February 9, 2000. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the Council Ad-Hoc Committee=s selection. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding the roadside begging ban. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Winter Lodge. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
01/31/00 89-325
MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the Minutes of December 13, 1999, December 14, 1999, and December 20, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-1-0, Lytle Αabstaining,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 2-6. 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Green Power Program and Establishing Green Power Rate Schedules - Refer to Finance Committee
3. Ordinance 4609 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Table of Organization for the Police Department in the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00"
Resolution 7927 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7890 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7897, 7907, and 7914 to Delete the Classification of Coordinator, Communications Services and Add
the Classification of Coordinator, Police Technical Services≅ 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical Company in the Amount of $959,260 for the Fixed Film Reactor Rehabilitation Project at the Water Quality Control Plant
5. Resolution 7928 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2000-2001" 6. Endorsement of List of Bicycle Projects for Inclusion in the Bicycle Element of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan (VTP 2020) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 1-4 and 6, Beecham, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 5-2 for Item No. 5, Lytle, Mossar Αno,≅ Beecham, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Kniss announced that the Closed Session was scheduled for 8:00 p.m.
01/31/00 89-326
City Manager June Fleming requested that Item No. 9 be moved forward to become Item No. 7A. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to move Item No. 9 forward ahead of Item No. 8 to become Item No. 7A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 7. Public Employee Appointment Title: City Manager Authority: Government code section 54957 REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 7A. (Old Item No. 9) Amendment to Contract C4044185 with HMH, Inc. for Additional Design and Limited Construction Phase Services in an Amount of $97,000 for the Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bicycle Path Capital Improvement Program Project 19310
Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said per the Council=s direction of September 22, 1998, staff reported on ways to continue the Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Bicycle Path project which sought to create a pedestrian/bicycle path from Churchill Avenue to the University Avenue train station. The project was difficult. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said the project consisted of construction of a pedestrian/bicycle path along the west side of the Caltrain tracks from Churchill Avenue to University Avenue, including a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Embarcadero Road adjacent to the existing railroad bridge. The project was bid for construction on May 19, 1996, at which time the bids were 50 percent higher than the available funds, and the bids were rejected. From May 1996 to 1998, several developments occurred including staff applying for and pursuing additional state and federal funds. The project did not compete well, and subsequent steps were taken to postpone construction of the new bridge until new funding became available. Staff negotiated with the Joint Powers Board (JPB) to use the existing railroad bridge as an alternate, temporary connection which the JPB accepted. The JPB
than acceded to the PUC=s position and withdrew its approval. Subsequently, staff agreed not to pursue the temporary use of the existing bridge and offered to modify the project as shown on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report (CMR:116:00). On September 19, 1998, staff recommended the Council cancel the project due to lack of funds and strong opposition to the project. The Council directed
01/31/00 89-327
staff to explore alternatives and to return with options. Since that time, staff secured an additional $800,000 in federal funds which allowed the construction of the new bridge. However, opposition by one of the railroad organizations could forestall the project. Because staff did not have expertise in dealing with
railroad safety and PUC related issues, the City Attorney=s Office recommended retention of special counsel familiar with the PUC code to secure PUC approval for the project. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, urged the Council to move forward with the project and thanked staff for it hard work. There was no good way by bicycle to get through the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) from the north without going around El Camino Real. Completion of the project would encourage more bicycle riders who were afraid to mix with traffic on such a busy street. There was a path from PAMF north but nothing going beyond the PAMF south. She asked the Council to approve the staff recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the staff recommendation with respect to the Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project as follows:
1. Confirm the Council=s intent, in principal, that staff continues taking the necessary steps toward completion of the project, along with the understanding that additional funding in an estimated amount of $32,000 may need to be authorized when the construction contract is awarded. 2. Direct staff to file an application with California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for approval of the Bicycle Path encroaching on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) railroad right-of-way. 3. Direct staff to execute an agreement between the City and the law firm of Sevron & Werson, to provide the services necessary to file an application with the PUC. 4. Approve an amendment to the consultant agreement with HMH, Inc., to provide additional design and limited construction phase services in an amount not to exceed $97,000, as well as authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the consultant agreement with HMH, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $15,000. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham absent. ORDINANCES 8. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Noise from Leaf Blowers
01/31/00 89-328
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.48.040 of Chapter 9.48 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Disposal of Rubbish, Dirt, Leaves or Debris on Streets and Other Public and Private Properties Mayor Kniss said the issue of leaf blowers went to the Palo Alto voters in 1987 (55 percent against a ban, 45 percent for a ban), and in Menlo Park recently. Mayor Kniss asked Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson to give an overview with more data than usual in order to update the four new Council Members. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the issue of leaf blowers had been around for quite some time, and leaf blowers were in use since the early 1970s in specific response to drought conditions in some states, especially California. Prior to that, garden hoses and rakes, were used to clean debris from lawns, gardens, and yards. In 1972, the Council adopted Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) referred to as the Noise Ordinance. Specific reference to leaf blowers was not included in the first Noise Ordinance and, for about 14 years, complaints were few. In late
1986, the Police and Public Works Departments= staff began receiving a significant increase in the number of excessive noise complaints, especially those associated with the clean up of parks and streets. While the complaints focused on leaf blowers and street sweepers, numerous complaints were also received regarding other types of lawn and garden equipment. At that time, it was determined that the equipment used by the City, contractors, and gardeners were not compliant with the first Noise Ordinance. Staff estimated that the cost to the City would increase from $64,800 to $220,500 or a 240 percent increase if leaf blowers were not used for the clean up of City facilities. Based on that information, and in order to give staff time to prepare a revised ordinance, the City Manager used his authority to exempt City equipment except for leaf blowers from the restrictions of the Noise Ordinance for a 90-day period. In February 1987, the Council directed staff to draft a revision to the Noise Ordinance which would allow the use of leaf blowers between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. The revision also provided that no blowers could initially exceed 82 dba measured at 25 feet, and after July 1, 1989, that level was reduced to 75 dba measured at 25 feet. Other alternatives were discussed including a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers and a prohibition on the use of leaf blowers within 250 feet of single-family or multi-family residences. Though many Council Members expressed a dislike for the noise produced, they were not prepared to ban leaf blowers. The Council directed staff to purchase the quietest possible equipment for use in City facilities and to communicate the
Council=s action to blower manufacturers in order to assist the
01/31/00 89-329
efforts and production of quieter equipment. In April 1987, at the first reading of the revised ordinance, the Council requested an exemption for City crews allowing the use of leaf blowers to clear public parking lots during different hours. As a result of that action in August 1987, the Council adopted an ordinance which allowed City crews to clean public parking lots using leaf blowers between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Due to public controversy surrounding the revised ordinance, an initiative, Measure E, was submitted to the voters in November 1987. The initiative prohibited the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers exceeding 70 dba at 25 feet and required leaf blower users to obtain written certification from the Police Department indicating the blowers were not allowed to produce noise levels in excess of 70 dba. During the election process, both sides of the issue agreed that cost to homeowners and the City would increase by 20 to 30 percent if the initiative passed. However, the initiative failed by 3,333 votes. On July 1, 1989, the allowable decibel level as approved by the Council in 1987 was reduced to the current 75 dba at 25 feet. During the prior 11 years, the number of leaf blowers used across the country and in Palo Alto increased significantly. According to the
California Air Resources Board=s (CARB) recent report, leaf blower sales rose 30 percent from 800,000 in 1990 to 1,868,160 in 1997. The Police Department enforced the ordinance on a complaint basis since 1987; however, due to various factors, enforcement was difficult. Depending on the priority of other service calls, the response time ranged from immediate to within one hour. It was not uncommon for users to have left or ceased using the equipment prior
to the officer=s arrival. Due to the way the current ordinance was written, sound meter readings must be taken to determine whether a blower exceeds the 75 dba allowable level. The number of leaf blower complaints police staff responded to was 193 in 1996, 145 in 1997, 175 in 1998, and 101 in 1999. In January 1998, the Council directed staff to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf blower noise, to review environmental issues, to provide a survey of what other jurisdictions did, and to report on enforcement efforts. During the prior two years, considerable research was conducted, meetings with residents and gardeners were held, and information was obtained from other cities. Staff presented the Council with a list of recommendations and, after several Policy and Services Committee meetings, the recommendations were refined. At the November 15, 1999, Council meeting, staff was directed to draft an ordinance banning fuel-powered blowers in residential areas effective in one year. Before the Council that evening was the proposed ordinance. She shared with Council the current state of blower technology and information from the experience of other jurisdictions. It was clear that the blower manufacturers have continued to work on reducing noise levels produced by their equipment. In checking with other jurisdictions, the success or unsuccess of bans varied according to interpretation. Mayor Kniss announced that the Council would recess into a Closed Session.
01/31/00 89-330
RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION FROM 7:55 P.M. - 8:40 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Public Employee Appointment as described in Agenda Item No. 7. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 7. Mayor Kniss clarified that the City of Los Angeles funded development of a battery-powered blower. Ms. Johnson thought but had not confirmed that the Los Angeles City Council, during its process leading up to its ban, funded the Public Works Department $1.5 million to work with the manufacturer in development of quieter equipment. She thought there were two different companies working on those blowers. Council Member Mossar spoke to the director of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding electric-powered leaf blowers. The answer she received was there were two manufacturers with a prototype battery pack leaf blower powerful enough for commercial use, neither of which were currently on the market. Council Member Burch said he understood the cost of the battery pack was expensive and estimated at $600. Whether that cost would be lowered significantly in production was an unknown. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. The estimate for the battery pack and blower attachment could easily cost $2,300; a person would probably have to buy several battery packs. The good side was that the same battery pack could be used for other lawn equipment. Juan Carlos Prado, Executive Director of Bay Area Gardeners Association, 212 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, said the initial response was to work with the neighboring cities on a fair
compromise for the gardeners and residents. A years= time and much effort was spent, but a compromise could not be reached and a ban resulted. The end result was a referendum, and the residents voted to overturn the ban. Currently, Palo Alto received hundreds of letters; the issue a passionate and important one. The solution was to obtain a compromise and work toward eliminating pollution
and noise. His organization=s approach was to pressure the industry into creating quieter and less polluting equipment. Consumers did not have many options unless the manufacturer provided that equipment in the market. The good news was that manufacturers were developing and researching new equipment. What was important was if manufacturers wanted to stay in business in California, they would have to compete for that technology which would gradually bring the prices down. There was also a much effort put forth by gardeners, retailers, and dealers to lower the noise level of the equipment. His organization wanted to work
01/31/00 89-331
together with the City in eliminating emissions and noise in a fair way for everyone. Gas-powered leaf blowers were getting quieter. He referred to a report by the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board which mentioned regulations of two-cycle engines for leaf blowers in California. Council Member Burch spoke to the manager of a large garden maintenance company who used not only blowers but a vacuum attachment which vacuumed up the leaves rather than blow them. He asked Mr. Prado whether he was familiar with that vacuum. Mr. Prado said yes. There were many commercial machines available, but unfortunately they had five horse power or more and were extremely loud and polluting. For that reason, his organization abstained from that option. Council Member Burch asked whether he was familiar with any manufacturers that might try to make a less noisy vacuum system. Mr. Prado replied no. The vacuums were made almost exclusively for commercial purposes where noise was not as much a factor. Jose Laman, Clean Greenview Service, 345 Manzanita Way, Woodside, said vacuum could only be used in the driveways or parking lots because vacuum equipment removed top soil. The use of a rake also removed top soil, especially if the soil was wet. No top soil would be taken away if the blower was used properly, only leaves. He agreed with the use of quieter equipment, but supported the use of leaf blowers resulting in less damage to plants. He also trained his crew to be observant of people in the area while using leaf blowers. Henri Ocafrain, member of Bay Area Gardeners Association (BAA), 1860 Palm Avenue, Redwood City, said the association needed more people to be part of the association. The Association tried to educate the helpers and each other and also tried to work out a compromise between their customers and the City of Palo Alto. Using a rake instead of a leaf blower took longer and caused some gardeners not to be able to complete their work. He received complaints from neighbors while using a rake that the noise was worse than the noise from the blowers. There were many gardeners raising families and trying to provide them with an education. The gardeners needed the use of blowers to do their work. He urged the Council not to ban the leaf blowers. Linda Jolly, 3757 Haven Avenue, Mainly Park, had 12 years experience with landscape and maintenance and agreed with Mr. Ocafrain that the leaf rakes made a worse noise than the quiet blowers currently used. She hoped the Council would not sentence the gardeners to using rakes. The last time she spoke before the Council, she demonstrated the cordless electric blower she used for the last couple of years. The only problem with the blower was
01/31/00 89-332
that it needed two to three times the power to be effective. She reminded the Council that the blower only cost her $70, the batteries were small, the machine was light, and she felt it should be easy to double or triple the power of the machine. She asked whether the Council could have someone call Black and Decker to ask what those possibilities might be. She hoped the Council would not take the gas-powered blowers away from the gardeners because there was nothing that cleaned as well or as fast as air. Leaf rakes were noisy and caused much loss of time and money. If the Council was determined to ban the gas-powered blowers, she asked whether City staff could do research and help the gardeners get a powerful cordless electric blower that was within their means. Gardening had become a high-tech industry based on speed and competition. Gas-powered blowers were used throughout Palo Alto including the
City=s own use. Alex Crichton, 1062 Cardinal Way, opposed the leaf blower ban. The leaf blower was a tool of the trade; similar to lawn mowers, weed eaters, etc. Regarding noise, he heard leaf blowers every day and did not find them to be an inconvenience. The low-flying aircraft violating ceilings for flying were much more of a disturbance to the neighborhood. He was also concerned about the City exemption for leaf blowers such as City parks and the libraries. He would like to see a solution based on principles which were used equally with anyone having interest in cleaning yards or public areas. He encouraged further education and regulation for proper use of the tool which was part of the industry and trade. Frank Manocchio, representing California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA), 1280 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, said the City of Palo Alto was a member of his organization since 1994. Approximately one year prior, several City staff members participated in discussions with his organization regarding what could be done in terms of certification and education of leaf blowers. His organization began taping an education and safety video which was one idea that came out of the discussions, and the leaf blower industry was paying for the video. Representatives from the BAA, CLCA, and the manufacturers were cooperating in a joint effort to respond to the problem, which he felt was working. As Ms. Johnson commented earlier, complaints were down about 40 percent which was in part due to heightened awareness, education of the gardeners, manufacturers responding to the marketplace, and quieter equipment. Further, that previous Friday, the California Air Resources Board adopted a 61-page report that concluded there were no provable health effects from the use of leaf blowers. Vice Mayor Eakins recognized the children that evening for their participation in the public process. Mayor Kniss agreed that it was important for children to see early on the democratic process and how it worked.
01/31/00 89-333
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, referred to page 5 of the Ordinance, Section 9.10.50(a), Public property noise limits, and
said the addition of the wording Αfrom the property plane,≅ after
Αa distance of twenty-five feet or more,≅ had nothing to do with leaf blowers. As written, it applied to parkland and public facility land. There was no question as to the original intent of the law. He provided the Council with a one-page insert from the author of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance in 1972 regarding
measurements on public property, Αsources on private or commercial property measurements made at the property plane and the location
of the source.≅ The noise measurements on public land were to be taken at a distance of 25 feet from sources, which meant the measurement could be taken anywhere from a distance of 25 feet. The effect was twofold: it rolled back the safeguard neighbors had next to public property, and it took away a valuable way of handling disputes within public property. The suggestion fully changed what the police did currently. He urged the Council to obey the program in the Comprehensive Plan which stated the noise ordinance would be addressed. Leaf blowers were a separate issue. He asked the Council to consider keeping the current 9 a.m. starting time on week days. From the 1998 date, 23 percent of the complaints were from the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on week days. If leaf blowers were to be allowed on commercial land, the 9 a.m. starting time would help litigate that. Francisco Berrueta, 1961 Old Middlefield Way, Mountain View, asked the Council to think about what the residents of Palo Alto want. Things had changed quite a bit since 1987. He thought banning the gas-powered blower was discrimination because other machinery such as chain saws and skill saws were used regardless of the decibels. People in the gardening business presently would have to pass the cost on to someone else. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland Drive, said a ban on leaf blowers penalized gardeners as well as Palo Alto homeowners who owned their own leaf blowers. City maintenance workers were permitted to use City leaf blowers. The City should ban all leaf blowers, including those used by City workers, or give the residents of Palo Alto the right to use their own leaf blowers. Many years ago, the City planted hundreds of Modesto Ash trees in south Palo Alto which created a mess in the fall. The prior year, during the El Nino rains, her neighbor regularly used his leaf blower before every storm to blow the leaves away from the street gutters and storm drains. Under the new ordinance, the neighbor would be unable to continue the constructive and necessary chore. Jan Yanihiro in her public service messages for the Santa Clara Water District encouraged people to keep storm drains clear. She urged the Council to at least allow Palo Alto residents the right to use leaf blowers during the months of November, December, and January to help the City keep gutters and storm drains clear. She hoped the
01/31/00 89-334
Council followed the recommendation of Ms. Johnson who put many valuable hours into creating an ordinance that appeared to be a compromise between all the parties to the issue. Roberta Fox, 165 Southwood Drive, was concerned with airborne spores and viruses. She recently read a newspaper article with guidelines on how to clean and vacuum due to a deadly virus discovered years prior which was traveling across the United States. While people meant well, nothing would happen if there were no regulations. If better leaf blowers were developed, the developers might see a profit. The cost could be passed on to the homeowners who needed the service. Miguel Rivera, Vice President, Bay Area Gardeners Association (BAA), 625 Roosevelt Avenue, Redwood City, thanked the Council for the opportunity to discuss the issue and how it could be solved. He looked forward to continuing to work together with the City. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, was bothered by the amount of dirt, debris, and other airborne spores blown onto her property by leaf blowers. She was unable to carry on a telephone conversation in her basement where she worked due to the noise of the leaf blower
used in her neighbor=s yard. She understood that organizations were working to educate their members; unfortunately, the practitioners of leaf blowing who needed to hear the concerns were probably not present at the current meeting. She noted that not all leaf blower operators were members of organizations. She was concerned with
the process, noting that Ms. Johnson=s proposal was a compromise. She attended prior meetings with residents and other people who discussed what was wanted. She was aware that the distance between what residents wanted was wide. There were many residents who wanted a complete ban and others who wanted no additional regulation. She urged the Council to support the staff recommendation to ban the gasoline-powered leaf blowers. She asked the Council to consider banning the use of leaf blowers on public rights-of-way. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, was at a Council Meeting in 1985-86 when the issue was considered. At that time, gardeners promised to change their habits and meet with the manufacturers to provide more environmentally friendly and quieter leaf blowers. The city manager at the time was opposed to regulation. The gardeners won the initiative election, and once the election was over, the gardeners went back to their old habits. As a result, the City experienced the current problem. The gas-powered leaf blowers might be less polluting than they were five years prior, but they were still equivalent to hundreds of automobiles. The leaf blowers were noisy and blew dust in the air. The City did not get many complaints because it was irrelevant to complain. Approximately ten years prior, he complained about a gardener blowing at over 80 dba more than 100 feet from his home. He called the Police Department, but since it was not a high priority call, the Police
01/31/00 89-335
did not arrive for 20 minutes, at which time the gardener loaded his equipment on his truck. If the City wanted quieter leaf blowers, they should ban all gas powered blowers, effective January 1, 2001. That would motivate the leaf blower manufacturers to design something quieter. He used an electric powered lawn tool on his large yard. Ashlen Cherry, Tri-City Apartment Association (TCAA) Government Relations Director, 792 Meridian Way, Suite A, San Jose, said TCAA was the trade association representing the rental housing industry in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. She opposed the ban as currently drafted. Such a ban would add significant costs to the already high costs of operating rental housing. At a time when everyone was concerned with rising rents, adding to the operating costs would increase the problem of the affordable housing crisis. Costs would increase both in terms of the length of time it would take a gardener to clear a property or the number of gardeners that would be needed to clear a property in the same amount of time. Those costs would be transferred to a renter. The ordinance, as currently drafted, did not provide for viable alternatives to address the problems. She understood the manufacturers were working on designing tools that would be more environmentally friendly and efficient. The TCAA recommended the ordinance not go into effect until January 1, 2002, to allow for some of the new products to come on line. Since the ordinance currently excluded all City property, parks and public areas, she presumed the City took into consideration the high cost associated with banning gas-powered leaf blowers. If the intent of the Council was to eliminate the perceived nuisance and reduce emissions, it was appropriate that the City would lead in a ban in banning its own use of gas-powered leaf blowers. Paul Hilf, 501 Cupertino Way, San Mateo, said gas-powered leaf blowers were nothing more than labor-saving devices. He had 17 years experience in the business and supported a ban on leaf blowers. Leaf blowers were not valuable tools to accomplish whatever he needed accomplished. He used long handled brooms and rakes. In response to comments made about taking away soil and losing bedding plants, the gardener who made that comment should be fired. A simple solution was to periodically replace the topsoil bedding plants. If the Council had seen and heard regarding what was accomplished with leaf blowers during the day while he worked outside, there was no doubt the Council would ban leaf blowers. He watched gardeners push sheets of water along the sidewalk on a rainy day with leaf blowers. The amount of mindlessness in the use of leaf blowers was incredible. Roots and twigs did not always need to be removed because they served as a protection for the soil. Leaf blowers lowered the expectations of the gardening industry and the level of service. He charged customers a modest amount over market, had a prosperous business, and turned down work on a regular basis. He said claims made by people who said they needed leaf bowers to make a living was nonsense.
01/31/00 89-336
Gerardo Lombera, 436 Warrington Avenue, Redwood City, said BAGA wanted to work with the City to solve the problems and create programs to educate gardeners on the appropriate use of leaf blowers. The problems could be resolved without banning leaf blowers. Isaias Rumayor, Jr., 2341 Oak Street, Dos Palos, asked the Council to establish an ad hoc committee or subcommittee to address the concerns of the residents regarding leaf blowers. He hoped the City could resolve the issue by listening to all sides. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, addressed the issue of the exception allowed to City crews and contractors whereby they were able to clean certain areas between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. and use fuel-powered blowers in nonresidential areas as defined by the proposed amendment. Many PF zones were in areas surrounded by residential. Midtown was one of those areas. She heard trucks at 5:00 a.m., and her double-paned windows 600 feet from the truck did not prevent the noise from penetrating. The exception for the City combined with the language on the top of page 5 in the staff report (CMR:120:00) was not discussed at the previous meeting nor by the committee that reviewed the language. As far as she knew, the wording was unrelated to any leaf blower issue as stated in the information provided the public and by the title of the staff report (CMR:120:00). It appeared that combining the language on page 5 with the language on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:120:00)
Α4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.,≅ decibels could be exceeded by 15 dba over the ambient at 4:00 a.m. at 25 feet from the property line. New language should not be included at the last moment which was not understood as to what the impact was. For example, the wording might allow CSI to not build a sound wall if measurements could be measured differently and at 15 dba higher than what might have previously been allowed. She did not understand the wording in the ordinance and did not think the Council should approve extra language that was discussed in a public meeting or explained by Ms. Johnson or Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote. Someone needed to explain how the wording worked together. Cheryl Zaslawsky, Menlo Park, ran the grass roots movement of the pro-ban side of the City of Menlo Park campaign. The compromise ordinance in Menlo Park was a failure. The ordinance adopted by the Menlo Park City Council was not much of a change from a prior ordinance. A few extra restrictions were added which were not being observed on a regular basis. On January 18, 2000, Martin Luther
King=s Birthday observance, she noticed five leaf blowers in use during the day which was a violation of the Menlo Park ordinance. The Police Department informed her that leaf blowers were not a high priority. She and Juan Carlos sat on a task force and worked out etiquette measures they both felt were important. The only thing that worked was a total ban of leaf blowers. It was important to look at other cities such as Los Altos which had a
01/31/00 89-337
successful ban for many years. The Chief of Police of Los Altos spoke to the Menlo Park City Council and said ordinances were not
enforceable. The ΑYes≅ on E campaign was endorsed by the Sierra Club and the American Lung Association. The leaf blower was a serious public health menace with many aspects to the pollution, including exhaust and fumes that emanated from the machines. Considering public health and welfare was an obligation. Council Member Lytle asked why the Menlo Park efforts failed with the voters. Ms. Zaslawsky said there was a professional organization on the other side with more money to spend on a campaign. Hazel Rand, 1028 McGregor Way, said recently, a ban on smoking in restaurants was proposed, and the restaurant industry claimed thousands would lose jobs because customers would be lost and restaurants would have to close. That did not happen. Looking at the restaurant industry at the current time proved that the smoking
ban had no adverse effects. The gardeners= associations claimed that gardeners would lose jobs if the leaf blower ban was upheld. She had several people ask her for the name of her gardener simply because her gardener used a rake and a broom rather than a leaf blower. She was tired of being forced to inhale obnoxious fumes and clouds of dust and to withstand the ear-splitting noise from a
leaf blower a gardener used to clean up debris in a neighbor=s yard. She did not like to be forced to go indoors to escape the intolerable pollution. She was tired of being denied her rights by the polluting gardener to clean up her garden quietly with a rake and a broom at a time that suited her schedule. The blower pollution impinged upon the rights of others in many ways. Gardens were welcome in Palo Alto; leaf blowers were not. She urged the Council to ban leaf blowers. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, said when she was on the
Council in the 1980s, a manufacturer=s representative told the Council that leaf blowers would get quieter, but if that happened, it was not noticeable. During the election campaign in 1997, gardeners were remarkably polite. The people who wanted a ban were the people the Council represented. As a letter writer to the Palo
Alto Weekly wrote the prior week, ΑWe promise new campaigns to
improve and maintain the quality of life in Palo Alto.≅ The quality of life in Palo Alto would greatly improve without gas blowers. Every leaf did not have to be removed with a blower; it was good for the environment to keep the leaves where they were. She urged the Council to approve the ban on leaf blowers. Ramon Quezada, President of BAGA, 445 Lancaster Way, Redwood City, thanked the Council for the opportunity to have one-on-one dialogues. He sympathized with the people who wanted to ban leaf blowers and agreed they were noisy. Education and training were important. He asked the Council to consider the recommendation
01/31/00 89-338
from staff. Considerable time and effort was spent preparing that recommendation. The gardeners wanted to work together with the City. Rafael Madriz, 342 Beverly Avenue, Millbrae, asked the Council to consider how many gardeners would be affected by the ban on leaf blowers. He did not like leaf blowers but had to support his family. He would use battery-operated leaf blowers if they were available. The Council should go against the companies that made leaf blowers rather than the gardeners. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the ordinance to prohibit the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas effective July 1, 2001.
1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Noise from
Leaf Blowers≅
1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 9.48.040 of Chapter 9.48 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Disposal of Rubbish, Dirt, Leaves or Debris on
Streets and Other Public and Private Properties≅ Mayor Kniss clarified the ordinance before the Council at the current meeting would incorporate the other portions of the ordinance that was included previously. The previous ordinance included other issues that supported certain parameters with timing and education. Council Member Mossar said the advantage of the current ordinance was that it acknowledged both the health and environmental issues as well as noise issues associated with leaf blowers by extending the period of time it gave the industry an opportunity to put the prototype on the market that were currently being tested. California was a state that took pride in the quality of its environment and the health of its citizens. No one was allowed to pollute and cause health risks. Working together was important to make sure those risks were reduced. Mayor Kniss said a clear message needed to be sent to everyone involved that Palo Alto was serious about stopping pollution and noise and encouraging the ban. Council Member Lytle said John Abrahms and Lynn Chiapella raised questions relating to page 5 of the ordinance, Section 9.10.050, public property noise limits. The concern raised was whether the
01/31/00 89-339
change made in the section would actually change the way the City measured noise Citywide. City Attorney Calonne said there was no intention to change the way things were currently done. The language was disputed in the tennis court litigation, and staff thought the way noise was measured should be clarified. Measuring 25 feet from the source on public property left open the question of where the source might be. There was nothing to restrict a leaf blower or tennis player from standing on the edge of the property and operating their machinery 25 feet from the property line. The language was not directly related to leaf blowers and did not represent a policy change as far as he was concerned. Ms. Johnson said in most cases, the measurements were taken 25 feet from the property plane. Council Member Lytle said she would vote against the proposed ordinance. Her concern was that the legislation could lead to a referendum as it did in Menlo Park and polarize the community at a time when the City was healing from other divisive issues. She preferred to reintroduce the compromise ordinance that came before the Council in November 1999. The Council heard compelling testimony from Ms. Lynn Johnson that similar ordinances in other communities such as Menlo Park and Davis were effective and bans were not as solid a piece of encouragement as people might wish they were. Great improvement could be experienced in environmental quality through the compromise ordinance. She was not willing to abandon a ban altogether; it would be a good idea to calendar and prioritize a ban as a more drastic step should the compromise ordinance not work in the long term. The compromise ordinance would rely heavily on the self enforcement and involvement of the people who testified at the current meeting. She wanted to hold
the gardeners and gardeners= associations accountable for seeing success from the ordinance. Mayor Kniss clarified the motion was the same as the one before the Council in November 1999. Council Member Mossar said it was important to understand there were two distinct differences between the compromise that staff brought to the Council in Fall 1999 and what was currently before the Council. One difference was the date the sunset fell and the other difference was what sunset. In the current ordinance, gas-powered leaf blowers were called out as an item to be sunset. The ordinance provided in Fall 1999 indicated the sunset pertained to decibel level only and did not address air pollution issues. Council Member Eakins said she had been opposed to the use of gas blowers for a long time. Section 1 of the ordinance indicated,
ΑThey present a unique nuisance because of the character and volume of their noise and pollution emissions and the dust and debris they
01/31/00 89-340
project.≅ She suggested adding Αtop soil damage≅ caused by excessive use of leaf blowers. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add language to the findings under Section 1(c) that leaf blowers are damaging to top soil. Council Member Burch supported the motion to July 1, 2001, on one condition. Many people spoke about noise pollution and air pollution. Banning gas-powered and leaving electric-powered leaf blowers did not answer questions of air pollution. He was concerned that banning gas-powered leaf blowers for others but allowing City crews to use them was not a level playing field. He read in the staff report (CMR:120:00) that the City was spending $500,000 and without leaf blowers that amount would go to $.9 million. He favored banning both gas and electric leaf blowers commencing July 1, 2001, and there would be no commercial use or use by the City. The City worked hard to push for something different. Council Member Mossar said she agreed in principal with Council
Member Burch=s perspective. The ordinance currently before the Council was the compromise that moved the Council in the direction of reducing noise and air pollution. The gas-powered leaf blowers had additional air pollution over and above an electric-powered leaf blower because of the unburned hydrocarbons. She suggested clarifying that the July 2002 date for banning gas-powered blowers did not exempt the City; the City would have to convert its use of gas powered blowers. That would give the City the same amount of time as the commercial world to switch equipment. Ms. Johnson said that issue was not part of the recommendations that went to the Council on November 15, 1999. The exception for the City was included at that time. Council Member Mossar said the Council discussed banning leaf blowers in residential areas, and staff brought back a definition
of Αresidential.≅ She said a case could be made that most city properties were within residential areas and, in those areas, gasoline-powered leaf blowers should not be allowed. Ms. Fleming said the ordinance was written by zone; the City parks were zoned PF, and PF was not included. It was true that PF zones were adjacent and in close proximity to residential areas. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the restrictions include City operation of fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas. Council Member Mossar suggested adding language to the motion that the ban pertained to city properties adjacent to residential areas.
01/31/00 89-341
Council Member Burch said that would present a problem for the Police Department. The only way the Police Department could work was for a ban on all gas-powered leaf blowers for everyone. Ms. Johnson looked at other city ordinances that banned leaf blowers in residential areas. Some ordinances were broad and others specific as to zones. Vice Mayor Eakins said public facilities were close and interconnected with residential areas, but there were commercial areas with large parking lots and no one living nearby where the risk of air and particle pollution and noise problems were not as high. Ms. Johnson said the lines of demarcation for the zoning designations could run mid-block or down the middle of the street, which was difficult for the gardeners to understand. The police staff would be required to carry a map around to determine whether or not the leaf blower was allowed to be used in a particular location. Council Member Burch was accurate by saying a ban was easier to enforce. Ms. Fleming said staff had an issue in trying to comply with the direction received from Council. Palo Alto faced housing crunches and tried to provide more housing. The City had a number of live-work residences which made the ordinance difficult to enforce. Council Member Ojakian asked staff to explain the current status of AB 1544 in which the state looked at putting in some stipulations against how local jurisdictions could deal with leaf blower bans. Ms. Johnson said the subject of that bill changed to deal with redevelopment and had nothing to do with leaf blowers. Council Member Ojakian asked whether there were any bills currently pending in the state that looked at legislating leaf blowers. Ms. Johnson said there were two or three bills currently pending. She heard conflicting reports on their status. Council Member Ojakian said the issue was interesting and motivated the public. He would not support the motion. If it failed, he suggested going back to the staff report (CMR:412:99) on November
15, 1999, and modifying it to change item 3, ΑEncourage Require the use of leaf blowers (fuel and electric) rate at 62 dba or less by
the year 2003.≅ He suggested the City provide an equipment trade-in program to encourage use of electric- or battery-powered leaf blowers. The City might be able to use electric utilities public benefits program to do that. He also suggested requiring commercial users of leaf blowers to wear masks, filters and ear muffs to try to protect themselves. He favored a gradualist approach.
01/31/00 89-342
Council Member Fazzino supported the gradualist approach. He did not want to be viewed as someone who supported the concept of continued leaf blower use in the community. The right noise and air pollution concerns were enumerated prior to the current meeting as well as the current meeting. The Council and staff committed themselves and the community to a compromised process and engaged all the stakeholders in the process. The Assistant Police Chief met with interested parties and stakeholders over a long period of time and developed a 14-point compromise plan. The proposals before the Council in the staff report (CMR:412:99) were significant with respect to certification, noise levels, time of use, and monitoring. The community went through a divisive issue in 1987; a proposed ban was defeated by the voters, 55 percent/45 percent. The City of Menlo Park recently went through a virtual civil war on the issue, and he did not want that experience repeated in Palo Alto. At some point, he was ready to draw the line and ban leaf blowers, but he wanted to explore a compromise first. The proposals before the Council were a meaningful set of compromises, and it was important that the Council be vigilant with respect to enforcement. The City needed to demand that the gardeners remain committed to what they said at the current meeting with respect to working with the City as partners to ensure implementation of the proposals before the Council. There was no need to establish a specific date for a ban at the current meeting. The ordinance could be revisited if it was not working in one year. Also, the City needed to ban leaf blowers on City property as well as residential areas.
Council Member Kleinberg was appreciative of the staff=s efforts and sympathetic to the situation that so many of those in the audience found themselves in trying to provide for their families and have a decent livelihood in Silicon Valley. She was concerned about enforcement and felt without a total ban, the Police Department would face a nightmare. A police state would be created by asking neighbors to check up on other neighbors and call the police. She found that most of the gardeners who worked in Palo Also did not belong to the Bay Area Gardeners Association. Training all the gardeners to learn how to use equipment would be a nightmare. The most important job the City Council had was to protect the health, safety, and quiet, peaceful enjoyment of the residential community. Public health was an immediate concern. She was sympathetic to senior citizens and those with disabilities who felt threatened by the possibility of the ban because they felt they would not be able to have their yards taken care of properly. She hoped that would be worked out during the transition. She suggested amending the hours under section 9.10.060(f) from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 6 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER that under Section 9.10.060(f) hours of operation for residential power equipment be changed from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 6 p.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
01/31/00 89-343
Mayor Kniss clarified the motion was to extend the ban put into place in Fall 1999 and split the time difference. The ban would go into effect July 1, 2001. She preferred the Council receive reports in six months and in another six months. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER that staff report back to the City Council at 6 months and 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter. MOTION PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Lytle, Ojakian Αno,≅ Beecham absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kleinberg supplied information regarding Propositions 21, 26, and 28 which would be on the March 7, 2000, election. Council Member Fazzino asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Henry Page. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in memory of Henry Page, principal of the Palo Alto Adult School and former counselor at Cubberley High School. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
01/31/00 89-344