HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-26 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting January 26, 1998 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors (MPAC)85-453 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................85-453 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................85-453 2. Guidelines for Staff Implementation of Burma Purchasing Restrictions..........................................85-453 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PRA Group for Landfill Environmental Monitoring and Consulting Services..............................................85-454 4. Second Quarter Investment Activity Report.............85-454 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 38...............................85-454 6. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation Regarding the Brown Act.............................................85-457 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for Compensation of the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO).......................................85-461 8. Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, Huber and Wheeler re Leaf Blower Noise..........................................85-461 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.............85-467
1/26/98 85-452
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Rosenbaum SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors (MPAC) City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Ruth Lacey and Anne Saldich received unanimous votes and would be interviewed on Monday, February 2, 1998. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert A. Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, spoke regarding oral communications. Carl Hoffner, 4121 Old Trace Road, spoke regarding the noise ordinance. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding malfeasance. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, spoke regarding historic preservation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of October 27 and November 3, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 4-0-2, Mossar, Ojakian Αabstaining,≅ Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 4. 2. Guidelines for Staff Implementation of Burma Purchasing Restrictions 3. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PRA Group for Landfill Environmental Monitoring and Consulting Services 4. Second Quarter Investment Activity Report
1/26/98 85-453
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 38 Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said that letters were sent out to 192 properties in the district and staff received responses from 119. He said 72 (61 percent) were in favor of the project, 27 (23 percent) were not in favor, and 20 (16 percent) had no preference. Council Member Wheeler referred to a letter dated January 18, 1998,
from Charles T. Alwine, which stated that ΑRight now the city maintains the utilities up to where they enter my house, and I understand it, the proposed underground connection between the curb
and my house will be up to me to maintain.≅ He asked if that was a
change in the City=s policy with respect to undergrounding utilities. Mr. Mrizek said no. When a property was built on years ago and an overhead connection was made, the property owner paid for the overhead service from the pole on their property to the connector and from that point on, the Utility Department took on the responsibility of maintaining the wire drop. In the current situation, the conduit and wire on a property were the property
owner=s responsibility to install and once installed and connected, the Utility Department assumed the maintenance responsibility of the underground wires to the meter. Council Member Kniss asked how staff responded to the property owners who did not wish to pay the additional money for undergrounding. Mr. Mrizek said the rationale for undergrounding was that it increased the reliability of the system. The overhead systems were affected by wind and bad weather. Hopefully, undergrounding would improve the reliability of the system and it did improve the value of the property because there were no poles in the backyard and the property was more aesthetic. Staff recognized that the cost was high and that was why the City implemented the 10-year plan on a very low interest rate. In the past, several property owners jointly hired a contractor in order to save some money. The 10-year plan resulted in a lien on the property. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the 10-year plan was restricted and if a property owner opted to take the loan what would they be required to pay each year.
1/26/98 85-454
Mr. Mrizek said the 10-year plan was offered to every property owner in the district. In recent history, the interest rate went from 6.57 to 7 percent. The interest rate was based on the New York Bond Buyers Index of Municipal Bond Average Yields for 20 Bonds, e.g., if a loan amount was $3,500, at 7 percent interest rate the annual premium would be $488. Council Member Eakins asked if a property chose not to pay or take the loan, would it result in a lien. Mr. Mrizek said it had to be installed or there was no utility service. Vice Mayor Schneider was concerned about people who could not afford the payment and asked whether there was any other recourse. Mr. Mrizek said no. Vice Mayor Schneider declared the Public Hearing open. Keith A. Kvenvolden, 2433 Emerson Street, said he was opposed to the undergrounding after receiving the estimate of $1,100 to $3,500. He attended the September 17, 1997, meeting held by the City and changed his initial vote from no to yes. He then received an estimate from the City of $3,400 and after speaking with the staff was informed that the amount could be higher because of the need to tear up and replace his landscaping. He received another estimate of $3,800 from a private electrician which did not include cutting the concrete. His home was very modest and he was opposed to spending $4,000. He was interested in another type of option from the City other than the 10-year plan. Electra van Bragt, 2580 Waverley Street, said her income was fixed. She read a letter which indicated that as a senior citizen she was unable to incur a loan. She asked the City Council to please consider that some citizens were unable to pay for the undergrounding. Mark Lawrence, 446 Marian Avenue, said in looking at the map that showed the plan for undergrounding, he was concerned that he would not live long enough to see all of the utilities underground. He was supportive of the process and wanted to see it sped up. He understood the concerns of people on fixed incomes and he thought the Council might need to explore better ways of providing assistance for them. J. Dorfan, 2475 Bryant Street, opposed the undergrounding project. He did not feel that the undergrounding would raise the value of his property and he had never had any problems with his overhead wiring. He felt that charging people for this service was unreasonable. He reminded the Council that 7 percent for 10 years doubled the cost. He encouraged the City to explore other alternatives.
1/26/98 85-455
Liz Davis, 2430 Cowper Street, opposed the project and did not believe that the undergrounding of the utilities would increase the value of her property. She was concerned about the polling of the property owners by postcard. Vice Mayor Schneider declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Kniss asked whether the interest rate on the loan could be negotiated. Mr. Mrizek said the rate was based on what the Utility Department offered as reflected in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the ordinance establishing Underground Utility District No. 38 and thereby amend section 12.16.02 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 38" Council Member Kniss supported the motion because the property owners had options including hiring an independent contractor. She noted that it was a longstanding policy of the City. Council Member Wheeler concurred with Council Member Kniss. She also lived in a neighborhood that had overhead utilities and as she recalled in earlier presentations by the staff, the poles only had a certain lifetime expectancy, and some of the poles were reaching the end of their useful lives. It would require landscape damage to replace the poles in the backyard areas and could be very problematic. She said there were issues of a more universal nature that the City needed to take into consideration which were more cost-effective than undergrounding. Council Member Mossar asked how much advanced warning a neighborhood received when undergrounding was coming to their neighborhood. Mr. Mrizek said a letter and overall schedule were sent to each district with an intent to create an underground district. He said the letters for District 38 were sent out the previous summer. Council Member Eakins was aware of the unpleasant circumstances of receiving a bill for a service but felt that as members of a community it was necessary to do our part for the whole community.
1/26/98 85-456
Vice Mayor Schneider supported the motion. She was disappointed that there was no mechanism to deal with people who were on a fixed income and hoped that issue could be looked at in the future. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation Regarding the Brown Act Utility Advisory Commission (UAC) Chairperson James Sahagian said at the December 3, 1997, UAC Meeting, a motion was passed requesting that the City Council assign the City Attorney the task of reviewing the Brown Act to make specific recommendations on how the UAC might conduct meetings, either private or public, so as to avoid the dissemination of sensitive information into the public domain. The motion was particularly targeted toward the electric utility. The electric utility was no longer a public monopoly and would be subject to the same competitive forces as private business, and in the execution of the UAC charter, it was necessary to provide strategic oversight. It became particularly important
because some of the electric utilities= key customer bases were going to be targeted potentially by outside utility service providers. In order for the UAC to effectively execute their charter, it was necessary to meet as a group or as a splinter group to review sensitive information. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he was willing to do the work. There was a policy issue that should be addressed first which was whether the City Council wanted the UAC to be involved in a way that required it to have access to sensitive information. He referred to an overhead which showed the UAC ordinance. In 1991, the City Council was concerned with having help from a citizen panel in digesting what it felt was increasingly complex and technical utilities information. Utilities matters were large and project-oriented decisions involving millions of dollars and the
UAC=s inception related to that context. The ordinance focused on long-range planning and policy matters, excluding daily operations. The information that Mr. Sahagian had indicated related to specific contracts with specific power brokers or customers. The City had drawn a very fine line in a very uncertain legal environment about what could be and could not be released publicly. The line was drawn in a way that had caused him to advise the staff not to release the details of certain transactions, even to Council Members. The information was available in an aggregate way, but the staff was not making public the key elements of the business operation. The policy question for the Council was whether it wanted the UAC to be involved in that kind of information and was it practical to have a public appointed advisory body advised about essentially secret information. The reason it was sensitive currently was because it had to do with
1/26/98 85-457
issues both in the utilities business and external to the utilities business. Council would recall that in 1996 the City sponsored a League of California Cities resolution that sought legislation to protect customer privacy and propriety business information that was being discussed that evening. Last year Senator Byron Sher carried and Governor Wilson signed the customer privacy legislation. There was no similar legislation for propriety business information. The City was at a disadvantage with investor-owned utilities or the markets who had been registering in droves to sell power to California consumers. He hoped to find an author at some point to carry that kind of legislation. The problem had been complicated recently by a number of bad judgment stadium deals. The political environment was not good to get authority to conduct municipally-owned utility business in private. It was particularly complicated if they tried to involve public decision makers in those propriety decisions. The Council handled it by way of policy, delegating to the City Manager very broad authority to handle the utilities contracts. The City Manager had authority to bind the City to utilities commodity purchases without Council action in order to allow the City to run the utilities like a business. He was concerned that he would not be able to give the UAC an opinion that would get them where they wanted to go. He understood what their interest was, but he thought it needed to be approached legislatively and the timing was not good for that type
of legislation. He wanted to call the Council=s attention to the governance or policy issue that was raised. The Council needed to address how the UAC would interact, both with the Council and the staff, and go from there. Council Member Kniss recalled the history of the creation of the UAC. She said the Council had been fortunate given the exemplary membership on the UAC. The original charge was to advise and review, and she suggested that a discussion at the future joint meeting with the UAC would be helpful.
Council Member Wheeler said the City Attorney=s advice to the Council on closed session meetings was very narrow, and the Council and the public were well served by it. After reviewing the information from the UAC, she was unclear as to what would cause an occasion for the UAC to go into closed session. Mr. Calonne said the best way to get into closed session was to take a contract and indicate that a term of the contract could be disputed and could lead to litigation and therefore required closed session to discuss it. As he understood the situation in San Diego, there was concern about the term of the contract and to avoid litigation they extended it for 35 years. Basically, there had been some lawyering around the pending litigation exception to justify closed sessions. Council Member Wheeler had correctly identified the difficulty he would face in getting the UAC where it wanted to go.
1/26/98 85-458
Council Member Wheeler concurred with Council Member Kniss and said currently she did not have a knowledge base on which to make any policy decisions. She asked what time commitment would be necessary for the staff to return to the Council with information that would provide a framework for it to make a policy decision. Mr. Calonne said it would be a high priority, and he would make the time to do it, and in terms of hours it was more than a day and less than a week. City Manager June Fleming said it would probably take more time
initially on her side of the organization than the City Attorney=s. She would not feel comfortable going into the process without some initial discussion about philosophy with the Council which was not a part of the item that evening. Commissioner Sahagian said the specific areas where there was sensitivity about information being discussed in the public domain were specifically commodity acquisition, information specifically around electric purchases, key customer retention information, and any service area expansion plans that might be looked at in the future. Ms. Fleming said currently the UAC nor the Council could receive that information. Council Member Ojakian concluded that a discussion about the purpose of the UAC was necessary. He said if they could not get involved in matters that might require a closed session, then what was left for them to be involved in. Ms. Fleming said when the UAC was first formed they were extremely busy adhering to the charge in the ordinance as well as additional items that she had requested the Council refer to the Commission. The world had changed with deregulation and would probably change further. The time that the UAC committed to some activities now might be restricted. She could not recommend where the UAC needed to be, but it was a part of a larger group of issues that needed to be addressed in the future. Council Member Mossar asked when the joint meeting with the UAC was scheduled. Ms. Fleming said the joint meeting was scheduled for March 9, 1998. Fred Eyerly, Member, Utility Advisory Commission (UAC), 101 Alma Street, said the UAC was not trying to violate the Brown Act. The UAC initially wanted to find out what the limitations with the Brown Act were with respect to the ordinance related to the UAC. The intent was not to expand its authority. The UAC needed some guidance to understand the parameters of what it could or could not
1/26/98 85-459
do. The Brown Act did allow the appointment of ad hoc committee for a six-month period to discuss matters with staff, and it would be helpful in order to allow a UAC subcommittee to set some parameters and to then discuss the issue as a whole with the UAC. He asked the City Council to direct the City Attorney to provide some definitive way to address the issue. He felt an overall discussion of the function of the UAC needed to be discussed at the joint meeting. MOTION TO TABLE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to table the issue to allow for a period of time for the Council to meet with the Utility Advisory Commission (UAC) to review and
assess this issue in context of the UAC=S charter. MOTION TO TABLE PASSED 6-1, Ojakian Αno,≅ Huber, Rosenbaum absent. ORDINANCES 7. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for Compensation of the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) Amendment No. 10 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 10 to Contract No. 4688, to provide for revised compensation to PASCO, for refuse collection and recycling services, retroactive to July 1, 1997. 2. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance to transfer $460,000 from the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Refuse Fund operating budget.
Ordinance 4476 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for Compensation of the
Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO)≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, Huber and Wheeler re Leaf Blower Noise
1/26/98 85-460
Council Member Fazzino thanked staff for its assistance with the issue. He emphasized that the requested action was to refer the issue to staff for discussion and review and to provide options to the Policy and Services Committee (P&S). He said it had been about 10 years since the City was part of a community-wide debate over the issue of leaf blowers, and in 1987 there was an initiative on the ballot to ban leaf blowers, mainly because the Council made a commitment to lower the dBA levels for leaf blowers, change the hours of usage, and increase enforcement. In 1989, the Council did follow up on its election commitment and reduce the allowable noise level to 75 dBA. It had been very difficult to achieve effective enforcement over the past eight years. He had heard from many residents who said that by the time a call was made and a police officer arrived, the noise had ceased and the gardener or the property owner was no longer using the blower. There were a limited number of noise meters in Palo Alto, and at times there were being used for other issues and not available. Many residents were loathed to call the Police Department because they felt that the police should properly focus on crime and real concerns that affected the community. There were more people who worked at home in 1998. The senior population had grown and there were more retired people; therefore, there were more people impacted by the blowers. Seventy-five dBA at 25 feet was still very loud. For a variety of reasons residents were more impacted by noise. Palo Alto was no longer a quiet suburban oasis -- there was noise from airplanes, amphitheaters, traffic, and leaf blowers. During the past couple of years, he had received more complaints about leaf blowers than any issue other than traffic. There were serious concerns about gas-powered blowers that created significant noise and pollution issues which included exhaust as well as dust. It was not his intent to prescribe a particular course of action. He thought there were legitimate arguments on all sides of the issue, and in the memo he and his colleagues had suggested three or four options that should be considered by staff. The staff was asked to evaluate the options in the memo as well as any others that might surface. Staff was also requested to look at the economic impact of the proposal. He asked that the gardening community be involved in the discussions. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct staff to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf blower noise, and return to the Policy and Services Committee within 90 days with a report on this issue and for staff to consider options ranging from: 1) more effective enforcement; 2) more restrictive hours for leaf blower operation; 3) a ban on certain types of leaf blowers; and 4) a complete ban on all leaf blowers. Further, to ask staff to provide information on the current level of enforcement and on issues related to enforcement of any proposed ordinance changes with consideration given to other types of equipment that are substantially quieter but still effective, since improvements have been made in some types of equipment. Finally, to ask staff that feedback and reactions from
1/26/98 85-461
members of the community, including gardeners, be obtained regarding the consequences of any options that are considered. Council Member Wheeler commended Council Member Fazzino for an excellent job in setting the stage and giving some of the background on the Committee. She was concerned about the issue of environmental pollution as well as noise pollution. She wanted that aspect included in the response from staff. In 1987, it was a very radical proposal but since that time a number of communities had enacted some measure of control on the use of leaf blowers. There was no need to invent or reinvent the wheel on the issue. There were a lot of examples within the State of California, such as Los Angeles. It was a preliminary stage to gather information, and it was not the intent of the authors of the memo to annunciate a position. She hoped that the Council would define the scope of what the staff should examine and take to the P&S Committee. Council Member Kniss became concerned about the issue when someone called her at work, held the phone out the window, and asked whether she could work with the noise in the background. She said technology had advanced significantly and was not the same as in 1987. She was cognizant that gardeners would have real issues and concerns with respect to the issues. She hoped that there would be
a balance set between the gardeners= needs and the community=s needs with respect to the reduction of noise and pollution and that
some reasonable solutions could be offered that met everyone=s needs. Council Member Mossar underscored the comments made by her colleagues regarding the environmental consequences of leaf blowers. The leaf blower issue was often thought of as a noise issue, but she felt that the environmental issues were very severe. She said that air pollution and public health were two things that many people knew about, but they tended to forget that air pollution translated into water pollution and was something that needed to be focused on. She had done a lot of work in the area of water quality and knew that the urban dust which blew around with the leaf blowers was in many cases very lethal and quite toxic. She hoped that the staff report would provide the Council and the public with more information about those hazards. She also felt that in reviewing the leaf blower issue the City needed to recognize that it should examine its own policy. The City, as a matter of course, condoned the use of leaf blowers in the transaction of its maintenance. She hoped the City would be the first to eliminate the leaf blowers. She noted in the recent past, the Council had voted to approve the use of leaf blowers in City parking lots; and more recently since the City had incorporated residences into more urban commercial settings and people were living in all parts of the community, perhaps it was a good idea to eliminate the leaf blowers. Linda Cohen, 935 Scott Street, thanked the City Council for addressing the issue. As a long-term resident of Palo Alto she
1/26/98 85-462
resented the noxious and persistent use of gas-powered leaf blowers. She was affected by the leaf blowers on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. She hoped the Council would implement heavy handed rules to substantially reduce the use of the assaultive and abusive peace busters. The neighborhoods were currently invaded beyond acceptability from traffic on the ground to noise and pollution in the air to the low-flying craft overhead. She was a professional gardener and worked with other gardeners who did not use power tools. She urged Council to address the issue. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, said she was impacted by the leaf blowers from every direction. The residents in her condominium complex were working with their landscapers to see if there were other means to alter the way in which they maintained the property. She was home a couple of days and found it very disconcerting to have all of the leaf blowers going on during various times of the day. Don Howard, representing Gardenland Power, Campbell and Howard Small Engine Repair, Redwood City, said he had distributed a packet of information. There had been astounding changes in the industry since 1987. Ecco, which produced the older leaf blowers, had produced a newer model which was built to provide quiet blowers. It had a rate of 65 dBA at 50 feet which was based on OSHA standards. The new machine was quieter than a rotor lawn mower and a hedge trimmer. He was in favor of getting rid of the older machines and putting them out of service. His group would offer a $100 trade-in on the older blowers for one of the newer models. He wanted to work with the staff and the gardeners to establish reasonable hours and to have some of the newer technology brought on line. The newer leaf blower model met all of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requirements for the State of California. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, representative of the College Terrace Association, said the Association had discussed the issue last September, and in general was in favor of a ban on leaf
blowers in Palo Alto. She concurred with Council Member Mossar=s comments about the environmental issues. She was unaware until recently that when leaf blowers were used in parking lots and streets, asbestos and other deposits made by the cars left on the streets became airborne, and the community did not want the waste to become airborne again by the use of the residential gas-powered leaf blowers. She was concerned about the antiquated concept of limiting hours because it assumed there was some time of day when everyone was out of the neighborhood and it was okay to make noise. Like many Palo Altans, she worked at home one to three days a week, and on most of those days she heard four or five leaf blowers and it disturbed her concentration. She asked the Council to seriously consider the lifestyle of the 90s which involved people being home all or most of the time.
1/26/98 85-463
Gary Parma, President, San Mateo Gardeners Association (SMGA), 4312 Edison Street, San Mateo, said he had debated the issue in several communities. SMGA had written a guideline of usage which was simply a matter of being considerate and compassionate when using the gas-powered leaf blowers as well as using the newer blowers. SMGA had not received any complaints from the gardeners or neighbors. He said restricting Saturday hours and having 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the week and using the guidelines had eliminated complaints regarding leaf blowers in San Mateo. He encouraged that those recommendations be explored.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, supported the Council=s memo. He said construction noise and leaf blowers accounted for 74 percent of the complaints that the police received according to the 1994 Comprehensive Plan update. He hoped the police would be asked to provide input. He suggested that the City also take advantage
of Menlo Park=s experience. He concurred with Council Member
Fazzino=s statement that many people did not complain because they felt it would not do any good. There were a number of
technological issues, and he supported Council=s efforts to look at the problem. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, remembered the discussion and debate about leaf blowers in the 80s. He was a member of the group that tried to get the ordinance passed. He said there were two primary reasons why it failed. First was a strong opposition of the then city manager who talked about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional expenses that the City would incur for using rakes
rather than blowers. Second was the gardeners= discussion about the technological advances that were going to reduce the noise level. He referred to the previous speaker who had indicated that quieter blowers were available which did not mean that gardeners had purchased them and were using them. He reminded the Council that it was not just the noise but debris, dust, and trash. He
agreed with Council Member Fazzino=s comments regarding calling the police. He suggested that staff consider providing the actual cost the City spent to respond to calls for the service for the police, how much it would cost to equip people with meters, and how much it would cost the City for increased maintenance if people were allowed to use electric blowers in commercial districts. He asked that the staff try to get some idea of the increase in raspatory diseases and an assessment of what would happen if the gas-powered leaf blowers were replaced with lower powered blowers which were certified by the City. He asked whether the homeless could, as a part of the Work Program, be given rakes to clean up the parks. Yasuo Shinozyka, 894 Cabot Lane, Foster City, said the gardeners needed the leaf blowers. Other methods such as washing by water or
rakes did not work. The leaf blowers damaged the gardeners= hearing, but it was necessary for their jobs. He wanted a law
1/26/98 85-464
which provided an incentive to produce leaf blowers that were less noisy and pollutant. Council Member Ojakian asked that staff provide a review of some of the laws of other jurisdictions when the item came before the P&S. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the 90 day limitation was realistic given the current staff workload. City Manager Fleming said she was not sure that the assignment could be completed within 90 days without letting some other items slip in priority. The item would involve discussions with a number of community groups and other jurisdictions. The staff could return in 90 days with a status report as to where the staff was and indicate how much time it would take to complete the item. Council Member Kniss asked that the staff work with the gardeners and the community on the issue. She asked that a representative of the gardeners participate in a collaborative effort. Ms. Fleming said staff would do that. Council Member Wheeler requested that the staff review environmental issues and provide a survey of what was done by other jurisdictions in California. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to review environmental issues and to provide a survey of what has been done by other jurisdictions regarding leaf blowers. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 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.
1/26/98 85-465