HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-15 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................89-179 CONSENT CALENDAR...........................................89-179 1. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to: 1) Approve an ordinance adding Chapter 10.45 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to regulate valet parking; and 2) Direct staff to include the following fees and penalties in the Municipal Fee Schedule that was adopted by the Council on June 28, 1999.........................................89-179 2. Quarry Road Widening and Pasteur Drive Relocation.....89-179
3. Resolution 7905 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Right-of-way for Street Purposes and Reserving an Easement for
Public Utilities at 3105/3106 Bandera Drive, Palo Alto≅89-179 4. New Underground Sanitary Sewer Pipe Across John Lucas Greer Park..................................................89-179 5. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation............................................89-180 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to revise Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regulating leaf blowers...........89-180 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........89-191 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to a Closed Session...............................................89-192 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.......89-192
11/15/99 89-178
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. Present: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the minutes of October 4, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. 1. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to: 1) Approve an ordinance adding Chapter 10.45 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to regulate valet parking; and 2) Direct staff to include the following fees and penalties in the Municipal Fee Schedule that was adopted by the Council on June 28, 1999: (a) $450 permit application, (b) $74 annual permit renewal, (c) $220 short-term permit, (d) $35 per space per week for on-street parking spaces, (e) $150 per valet parking sign fee, and (f) $30 penalty for unauthorized parking in on-street valet parking spaces. 2. Quarry Road Widening and Pasteur Drive Relocation Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Regarding the Improvement of Quarry Road and Pasteur Drive and Providing for the Maintenance Thereof Agreement By and Between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto Relating to the Improvement and Maintenance of Pasteur Drive and Quarry Road
3. Resolution 7905 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Right-of-way for Street Purposes and Reserving an Easement for
Public Utilities at 3105/3106 Bandera Drive, Palo Alto≅
11/15/99 89-179
4. New Underground Sanitary Sewer Pipe Across John Lucas Greer Park 1st reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan of Improvements at the John Lucas Greer Park MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 5. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(A) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. DELETED - Scheduled for the November 22, 1999, Council Agenda. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to revise Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regulating leaf blowers in the following manner including incorporating the California Air Resources Board Tier 2 Regulations: 1) Allow only commercial gardeners/ landscapers who were trained and certified by a City-approved process to operate fuel-powered leaf blowers within the City limits; 2) Allow only leaf blowers (fuel and electric) with manufacturers affixed labels indicating an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) noise level rating of 65 dBA or less at 50 feet to be used within the City limits; 3) Encourage the use of leaf blowers (fuel and electric) rate at 62 dBA or less by the year 2003; 4) Allow the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday; 5) Allow commercial use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in industrial areas on Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.; 6) Allow residents (and commercial gardeners) to use electric leaf blowers between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Saturdays; 7) Prohibit the use of all leaf blowers on Sundays and holidays; 8) Conduct enforcement on a proactive basis, utilizing citations and an increasing scale as well as
notification of violations to commercial gardeners= clients at the location of the violation; 9) Allow City crews to operate leaf blowers between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. in the Downtown area,
11/15/99 89-180
California Avenue area, Midtown area, the Municipal Golf Course, and in City parking facilities, with special consideration given to those areas immediately adjacent to hotels; 10) Exempt City crews from the regulations for clean up after special events and in emergencies; 11) Prohibit City crews and discourage commercial gardeners from using fuel-powered leaf blowers on Spare the Air Days; 12) Require the use of extension tubes and mufflers; and 13) Prohibit blowing debris into adjacent properties. Further, that recommendation No. 9 include not only areas adjacent to hotels, but also adjacent to residential properties; to direct staff to further study leaf blower use in commercial areas adjacent to non-residential, non-City properties (private properties) in a way that would lead to some rational enforcement; and to include in the definition of City crews any contractors directly employed by the City. Council Member Kniss noted the Council had studied the leaf blower issue for approximately one year. A thorough report was done on leaf blowers, and the Council reviewed the issues and discussed when leaf blowers could be used and the areas where leaf blowers could not be used. She believed that the Policy and Services
Committee=s (P&S Committee) recommendation worked well for the community. Police Chief Pat Dwyer said the issue of leaf blowers was a sensitive and contentious issue which had been addressed across the state in a number of different ways by different jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions opted for a total ban while others opted to take no action at all or to try to pass some legislature which might represent the greatest good for the greatest number. He believed the City, along with the community, crafted the best possible compromise that could be obtained. The recommendation was excellent and staff did a good job. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said there was one correction in the staff report (CMR:412:99) regarding recommendation No. 7
which should read, Αprohibit the use of all leaf blowers on Sundays
and Holidays.≅ Fuel-powered leaf blowers would be deleted from the recommendation. Staff received questions from the community in
regard to holidays. Staff=s intent was to recognize the normally recognized national holidays or those holidays where most people would not go to work and would be home. There were many other
holidays that could be possibilities; however, staff=s intent would be to use the nationally recognized holidays. Recommendation No. 4 of the staff report (CMR:412:99), which would provide for the allowance for using leaf blowers Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., would pertain to gardeners and residents; however, staff was not recommending that residents go through the certification
11/15/99 89-181
and training process. Staff hoped if a training video was produced, the video could be sold or provided at the time leaf blowers were sold so residents could receive the training. Staff was trying to draft language that was easily understood and enforced in regard to Item No. 6 of the staff report having to do with the allowance of commercial use on Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. in industrial areas. She noticed over the prior 10 months, there were some complaints in what was commercially zoned areas that were adjacent to mixed-use areas; therefore, staff needed to work on that particular item. Attached to the staff report was a copy of the Draft California Air Resources Board (CARB) report on the Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers. She cautioned that the report was a draft; however, the author, Dr. Nancy Steele, anticipated having a final report to submit to the CARB in a few weeks. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was any discussion at the prior P&S Committee meeting about incentives for gardeners who choose not to use leaf blowers. Ms. Johnson did not recall discussing incentives. Given time, staff could come up with incentives. Council Member Schneider said she wanted to see some kind of incentives for people who chose not to use leaf blowers. Mayor Fazzino said the use of leaf blowers by the City between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. seemed inconsistent with the law since some areas were adjacent to residential areas. He asked what the alternative was if leaf blowers could not be used in areas adjacent to residential areas. Superintendent Paul Dornell, Public Works Department Operations Division, said the alternative was to use a broom. Traffic would make it difficult to clean if staff started cleaning at 8 a.m. If staff maintained the 4 - 8 a.m. cleaning schedule, a broom would be used; however, more staff would be required to clean. Mayor Fazzino asked how often the City used leaf blowers. Mr. Dornell said leaf blowers were used three times a week in the Downtown area. City parking lots were cleaned once a week. Council Member Mossar asked what would prevent the City from restricting parking on a rotating basis in parking lots around the Downtown in order to clean between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. Mr. Dornell said restricting parking in order to clean was something that could be considered.
11/15/99 89-182
City Manager June Fleming said staff discussed restricting parking many years prior but did not do it because the lots were needed on a more regular basis. Ms. Johnson said staff did some checking and found that some of the parking lots began filling up around 7 a.m. Council Member Mossar clarified that permit spaces were being filled, not public spaces. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Mayor Fazzino asked how many complaints were received. Mr. Dornell understood there were seven complaints in the last ten months. Ms. Fleming said the staff went through extraordinary measures with individuals who had severe problems with leaf blower noise. Staff actually rescheduled entire areas in order to be considerate of people with special needs. Don Howard, Gardenland Power Equipment, Campbell, encouraged the Council to accept the staff recommendations. Staff put a lot of time, effort, and research on the matter. He referred to Item No. 9 of the staff report (CMR:412:99) that exempted the City from the hours of leaf blower use and asked for the reasoning behind the
City=s exemption. There needed to be a defined definition as to who was making leaf blower noise, especially in regard to the early morning and late-night leaf blower noise complaints. He believed that 7 complaints in 10 months was a non-issue and a low occurrence. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, believed the restricted hours for use of leaf blowers should begin at 9 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. Complaints between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. during the weekdays amounted to 23.8 percent of all leaf blower complaints made in Palo Alto in 1998. The sum of all complaints for Sunday was 7 percent of the total and Saturdays was 7.6 percent. He concluded that although the City was restricting leaf blower use on Saturday and Sunday, it was not dealing with the complaints that were occurring between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. during the weekdays. He noted that the leaf blower
operator got 95 to 110 dBA at 1-2 feet from the motor which was over the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), California Occupational Safety and Health Association (CalOSHA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)standards. Douglas Nakamura, State Chair of the Resource Management Committee, California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA), 283 Kinney Drive, San Jose, worked with Ms. Johnson and staff in developing
11/15/99 89-183
the recommendations. The City went through great lengths to be fair and open concerning all facts of the matter. He supported the staff recommendations. Requiring that leaf blowers be registered or certified in the City to be under 65 dBA would eliminate many blowers being currently used in the City. He had dealt with leaf blower issues for 26 years, and he sensitized employees on the proper operation of a leaf blower. Schedules to accommodate individuals or sensitive areas were used. That type of communication would go further in resolving the issue than having an adversarial relationship with sections of the community. Council Member Kniss said at a prior Council Meeting someone spoke to the courtesy issue of leaf blowers. Since then, the operators
had turned the blower down or acknowledged the person=s presence on the sidewalk and diverted the leaf blower. Frank Manocchio, 1280 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, supported the staff recommendation. Part of the educational component to the leaf blower issue was to get the residents who employed the contractors to abide by the City ordinances. Being a responsible contractor was good business sense. Aggressive enforcement of the ordinance should be expected. Council Member Schneider asked how many members of the CLCA were
present at that evening=s meeting. Mr. Manocchio said approximately six people. Some members of the Bay Area Gardeners Association (BAGA) were also present. He was a member of a committee called the Coalition which was comprised of manufacturers and distributors of leaf blowers, BAGA, CLCA, and the Latin American Gardeners Association in Los Angeles. The Coalition was in the process of producing an instructional video about leaf blower safety issues, the use of respirators, air protection, and courtesy in using leaf blowers. Frank Niccoli, 2975 Fair Oaks Avenue, Redwood City, maintained Palo Alto Square on Page Mill Road and El Camino Real since 1987. His company had dealt with noise issues at the complex. The structure of the complex was glass and corridors, and most of the bottom floors were taken by companies that needed its phones. There were 107 tulip trees onsite which were deciduous. When the trees dropped their leaves, they came down all at once. His company had to be creative in clearing the area without making a significant amount of noise so people could run their businesses. A significant amount of noise was concentrated on the operator of the blower. The industry had been aware of the noise impact on the operator for many years and included hearing protection as part of the gardeners safety training. Staff did an excellent job in producing an ordinance that was fair to the industry.
11/15/99 89-184
Juan Carlos Prado, Executive Director, Bay Area Gardeners Association, 212 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, said his members represented approximately 70 percent of all gardeners who did
maintenance in Palo Alto. He shared Mr. Abraham=s concern in regard to the well being of the gardener. The great majority of gardeners also worked in the City of Menlo Park. The BAGA believed the proposed hours of operation would make it easier for gardeners to work in neighboring cities. He believed reducing the hours of operation by an hour would not solve the problem. The core of the problem was many gardeners were not using the leaf blowers responsibly. He supported mandatory training for gardeners in the use of the leaf blower. George H. Koerner, 2130 Yale Street, supported the staff recommendation. He hoped the proposed prohibition of blowing debris onto adjacent properties would also cover City streets and gutters. One common behavior he witnessed was when a gardener finished a job, he/she would blow the smaller debris into the middle of the street and into the gutters of neighboring houses. Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, wanted to see stronger language in some areas of the recommendation. In regard to Item No. 3 of the staff report (CMR:412:99), if the decibel rating was not required by a reasonable period of time, she believed there would be more noise complaints. She believed if there were not a complete prohibition of leaf blowers on Spare the Air Day, the City was being socially irresponsible. There was nothing for the Police to enforce if the City was going to merely discourage leaf blower usage on Spare the Air Day. Ramon Quezada, President, Bay Area Gardeners Association, 445 Lancaster Way, Redwood City, encouraged a City Council/BAGA continuing partnership. Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road, #109, said the proposed training course was ineffective because the gardeners knew how not to behave. The City had an election in the 1980s proposing a ban on leaf blowers. During that time, the gardeners were considerate and used leaf blowers at half throttle; made sure debris was not blown all over; and during conflicts, even resorted to using rakes. After the election, the gardeners went back to using leaf blowers at full power. She suggested monitoring the leaf blowers and reporting the results to the Council every six months. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, was concerned with enforcement. College Terrace was a dense neighborhood, and she typically heard four or five cleanup crews each weekday running from approximately 30 minutes to an hour apiece. She was curious as to how she was supposed to know whether the gardeners had been through the training and who were using approved machines. The leaf blowers
11/15/99 89-185
were loud and disrupted her phone conversations. She was concerned with the enforcement of Item No. 13 of the staff report (CMR:412:99) which prohibited the blowing of debris onto adjacent property. She suggested the City encourage the usage of lower dBA leaf blowers. Council Member Schneider supported staff recommendations 1 - 14 with some changes. She suggested the following changes: 1)in Item No. 3 changing the year from 2003 to 2002; 2) in Item No. 4 changing fuel-powered leaf blowers to be all leaf blowers; and 3) in Item No. 11 prohibit City crews and prohibit commercial gardeners from using fuel-powered leaf blowers on Spare the Air Days.
Mayor Fazzino said he believed Council Member Schneider=s motion would have to be voted on separately.
City Attorney Calonne said Council Member Schneider=s motion could be separated if the Council so chose.
Council Member Kniss suggested following Ellen Fletcher=s comments with staff reporting back to the Council in six months with the number of comments and complaints during that period of time. Council Member Schneider said the changes she suggested were not onerous to gardeners and supported the comments of the people who had spoken. Council Member Kniss believed a report could be brought back to the Council regarding the results of the leaf blower regulations without the benefit of a motion. She asked whether staff would have given a report back to the Council on the leaf blower issue.
Ms. Fleming said it was staff=s practice to bring a report back to the Council, especially with an issue like the leaf blower which was new and different. The time period varied from six months to a year depending on administrative decision. If the Council wanted the report, then the Council should give staff direction if it wanted the report in any specific time. Staff did not intend to produce a report every year but would return results at the end of the first year. Council Member Kniss was not firm on the six month period but believed there should be some follow-up in regard to complaints and how the regulations were functioning. Mayor Fazzino clarified that informally, staff would return a report to the Council.
11/15/99 89-186
Ms. Fleming said intended the report would be an informational item. Council Member Mossar said staff worked long, hard hours and came up with an interesting compromise. She remained uncomfortable with where the City ended up on the leaf blower issue. Leaf blowers were like smoking. There was a time when the thought of regulating smoking was unheard of and yet, there were smoking regulations in place and everyone benefitted. She believed the City was irresponsible to allow its own staff or contracted staff to use gasoline-powered blowers when the health effects were clearly issues. The City needed to set an example for others. A few speakers mentioned dust. She witnessed dirty windows, porches, houses, cars, sidewalks, and streets. She watched a gardener from her driveway who was cleaning with a leaf blower on the lawn next door blow debris onto her driveway. She thanked the various gardener associations that worked with its members to correct behavioral problems; however, individual operators were a problem. There was no way that each and everyone could guarantee that the gardeners who were presently working would be well-behaved. The City of Los Angeles set a 500-foot limit for leaf blowers separating commercial properties from residential properties. She hoped the City would eventually follow the direction of the City of Los Angeles. Any gardening or sweeping service should honor the time restrictions that were set out. She was familiar with leaf blowers beginning before 6 a.m. at Town and Country Shopping Center, Stanford Shopping Center, and Stanford University. The Council should be clear in the ordinance that blowing into the street, onto adjacent properties, sidewalks, or using the leaf blower to clean the street was not acceptable. She understood why it was easy for the City to commit to not allowing the use of leaf blowers on Spare the Air Days. She hoped the City would encourage everyone to honor Spare the Air Days which happened during the summer when things were dry. One of the significant problems inherent in the Bay Area was the small particles in the air. There were all kinds of health reasons to avoid blowing dust into the air, particularly on Spare the Air Days. She hoped to use the
City=s website and other tools to make the commercial and residential communities aware of Spare the Air Days. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Mossar, to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to prohibit fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas. Council Member Rosenbaum said the two-stroke engine was technology run amok. Over the prior 20 years, the leaf blower had led to the spread of noise and air pollution in residential neighborhoods with the situation steadily growing worse as more and more people hired gardeners. The leaf blower exposed the operator to deafening noise for several hours a day. The argument against a ban was led by a
11/15/99 89-187
group organized by a local distributor of Eco-Brand Blower which was one of the leaf blowers advertised to meet a 65 dBA standard. The Police ran two tests, one of which the Council had observed. In the tests, the leaf blowers that were certified to measure at 65 dBA actually measured at 70 dBA. The Eco-Blower which was advertised at 65 dBA was tested by Consumer Reports Magazine and also measured at 70 dBA. He wanted to see the City join other cities in California that banned the fuel-powered blower. Council Member Schneider said accusing an industry of single-
handedly undermining the Council=s deliberations was going too far, it would be like trying to ban fuel-powered cars suddenly on streets. The fact was one manufacturer came close to the dBA standards the City was requiring. She believed people in the leaf blower industry needed to be applauded and not punished. The people who used the standards, or got close to the standards the industry was making, should be commended and recognized publicly. To put such an onerous requirement on the industry suddenly was untenable. She did not support the motion. Council Member Eakins said there was considerable discussion on page 14 in the staff report (CMR:139:99) in regard to the contrast between the electric and the fuel leaf blowers. She asked Council Member Rosenbaum to describe further why the fuel-powered leaf blowers would be banned. Council Member Rosenbaum said the ban on fuel-powered leaf blowers would primarily be because of noise; however, air pollution was a significant element as well. The electric leaf blowers were quieter by test than the fuel-powered leaf blowers. Council Member Eakins understood from prior discussions that unless there was a battery operated leaf blower, the gardener would have to plug the leaf blower into an outlet. Council Member Rosenbaum said that was correct. Los Altos and 20 other cities throughout California used electric leaf blowers. Council Member Eakins asked for further information on electric leaf blowers. Ms. Johnson said the electric leaf blowers tended to be lower in dBA levels; however, there were some dangers in using electric leaf blowers. Oftentimes if water was present, there was the danger of electrocution. In speaking with gardeners who used electric powered leaf blowers, two people were usually needed, one to operate the blower and the other to handle the cord. While there was a ban in Los Altos on fuel-powered leaf blowers, there were still some gardeners who used fuel-powered leaf blowers in Los Altos.
11/15/99 89-188
Council Member Eakins wished there were further information regarding the electric and fuel-powered leaf blowers. Council Member Huber assumed that Council Member Rosenbaum removed from the recommendation the gasoline powered leaf blowers and left the regulations to apply to other types of leaf blowers. Council Member Rosenbaum said to some degree many of the regulations would not be necessary if fuel-powered leaf blowers were eliminated. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He believed there was a time when a message needed to be sent. The leaf blowers could be engineered to be far better, and municipalities, states, and governments needed to force the issue by either banning leaf blowers or reducing significantly the dBAs allowable. Noise was a health hazard and the City did not have to live with it. He supported the motion. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum had a timeline in mind for banning fuel-powered leaf blowers. Council Member Rosenbaum said no. He assumed if the Council wanted to ban fuel-powered leaf blowers, it would be done as soon as possible. Council Member Kniss said few people in the industry who supplied the services to the residents were ready to go with electric blowers immediately. She believed that there should be a reasonable timeline for banning fuel-powered leaf blowers. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to have the ban not go into effect for one year. Council Member Eakins did not like leaf blowers in general because of the pollution, noise, and loss of topsoil. She wanted to eventually see all leaf blowers banned and a departure from a super-manicured, unnatural environment to a more natural environment. The City needed to set an example and have a program to reduce in a steady fashion the amount of City-owned landscape that was highly manicured to go to a more naturalistic, environmentally friendly kind of landscape. She supported banning the fuel-powered leaf blowers with a one-year transition period. Council Member Ojakian did not support the motion. Staff did a good job and was praised for its expertise. Banning leaf blowers was difficult when there was other gardening equipment that was equally detrimental. Leaf blowers had become fashionable to single out as opposed to weed whackers or gas lawn mowers. Staff did a
11/15/99 89-189
good job in going from complaint-based enforcement to proactive enforcement. Four percent of the cities in California had ordinances regulating or banning leaf blowers, meaning 96 percent of the cities did not have ordinances. He believed the reason for that was most people wanted to have some common ground where equipment could be used, while also seeing a gradual tightening up of the laws over a period of time. The better approach was to take
the staff=s recommendation. Council Member Mossar supported the motion. She wanted to confirm
that it was acceptable to add Council Member Rosenbaum=s language to the 14 points of the staff report (CMR:412:99). Council Member Kniss said the year leeway made a difference. She assumed that the ban would be set in November or December 2000, and suggested before the ban was set in place, staff return to Council with a report of what had been discussed during that period of time, how the ban would actually work in the City, and what the final guidelines would be. Council Member Rosenbaum asked Council Member Kniss to clarify what staff would be doing during the year. Council Member Kniss said in one year, fuel-powered leaf blowers would be banned in residential areas. There should be a report back from staff stating whether there would be any impact. Council Member Rosenbaum reiterated that his motion was direction to draft an ordinance. The ordinance would be returned to Council before the ban was put into effect, and at that point, there would be public testimony and the Council would have full opportunity to consider the implications. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. Mayor Fazzino did not support the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-4, Fazzino, Ojakian, Schneider, Wheeler Αno.≅ Ms. Fleming asked for clarification as to what the Council wanted staff to do. Mayor Fazzino said the motion was to ban fuel-powered leaf blowers within one year in residential zones. He asked what other impacts the ban had on the proposed ordinance. Ms. Fleming said the parts of the staff report that were compatible with the ban on fuel-powered leaf blowers would be used in drafting the ordinance. Staff would return to the Council with the draft
11/15/99 89-190
ordinance and a report outlining the pieces of the recommendation that went with it. Mayor Fazzino said the new Council would have the opportunity to review the ordinance before the ban went into effect in November 2000. Mr. Calonne understood that Council was directing him to draft an ordinance banning fuel-powered leaf blowers in one year. He wanted to know when the Council expected the draft ordinance. Mayor Fazzino said in 2000. Ms. Fleming said it was not possible to return a report to Council before the end of 1999. Mayor Fazzino asked what the City Attorney recommended with respect to the rest of the staff recommendations. Ms. Fleming said it was difficult to implement the staff recommendation piecemeal. She suggested that staff be allowed to return to the Council with a report indicating which pieces fit together with the ban. Mayor Fazzino clarified that staff would analyze the recommendations and determine the consistency with Council Member
Rosenbaum=s motion and then return to the Council a consistent set of recommendations. The recommendations would not be returned to the Council until January 2000 at the earliest. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler proposed to amend Item No. 13 to prohibit the blowing of debris onto adjacent properties and into the public right-of-way. Ms. Fleming said that there was a Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 9.48.040 that was clear regarding the blowing of debris onto adjacent properties and into the public right-of-way. Vice Mayor Wheeler presumed that PAMC Section 9.48.040 was enforced on a complaint basis. Ms. Fleming said staff would ensure that the code was enforced. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to request that staff consider ways to publicize the leaf blower hotline, to prepare periodic reports on leaf blower experiences and complaints, and to promote and publicize Spare the Air days.
11/15/99 89-191
MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Fazzino clarified that staff would analyze the recommendations and return to Council. The new Council would have the opportunity to review the draft ordinance. The ban on fuel-powered leaf blowers would not go into effect until November 2000 so the Council would have the opportunity to review the current experience of whatever ordinance was in place during the next year.
The Council was not putting anything in place at that evening=s meeting that would take effect immediately. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar asked the City Attorney to provide guidance
to the Council on how to interface MPAC=s new program called Neighbor Space.
Council Member Ojakian discussed Senator Sher=s budget hearing meeting in the Council Chambers on November 15, 1999, specifically about Caltrans management looking at the issue of planting in the El Camino Real medians.
Council Member Schneider noted former Council Member Ron Andersen=s wife was recovering from an illness and sent his regards. Vice Mayor Wheeler reminded the Council of the Special Meeting on November 16, 1999, at 6 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
11/15/99 89-192
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.
11/15/99 89-193