The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 NOISE CONTROL 10-02-95NO. 12 10-2-95 Inter-Corn DATE' OCTOBER 2, 1995 TO- WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEPARTMENT $UBJEC~ ORDINANCE NO. 1156 - AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 4616 AND 4617 . _ -r.'' - NOISE CONTROL RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Council. FISCAL IMPACT There, are' no fiscal impacts to the City associated with this project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In response to a complaint regarding the use of leafblowers, the Mayor requested that staff agendize the issue of regUlating the use of leafblowers. On August 7, 1995, staff presented modifications to Sections 4616 and 4617 of the Noise Ordinance to the City Council. The proposed modifications were designed to prohibit the use of not only leafblowers, but all loud-property maintenance equipment during late nighttime hours'~' Prohibiting the use of loud property equipment was suggeSted since the existing code permits nearly all noise sources during nighttime hours as long-as they do not exceed the decibel level established by the code. For staff to enforce violations caused by these, noise sources, a noise consultant must be retained to measure the noise level generated by the activity in response to any specific complaint. Historically, staff has gained compliance by contacting the property owner rather than measuring noise levels and issuing citations. At' their August 7, 1995 meeting, the City Council voiced concerns with the.proposed modifications to the City's Noise Ordinance that would regulate loud property maintenance equipment. Since many commercial centers use parking lot sweepers and other maintenance equipment at night to maintain their property, the City Council was concerned that prohibiting the use of this type of equipment during late night hours might hinder commercial property maintenance efforts. The City Council directed staff to contact the Chamber of Commerce for their input on regulating this type of equipment. City Council Report Ordinance No. 1156 October 2, 1995 Page 2 At staff's request, Mr. Tom Brennan, Executive Manager of the Chamber of Commerce polled several commercial center property owners who indicated that they believed that prohibiting'the use of any type of property maintenance equipment as previously proposed would.be too regulatory (see Attachment 1). Mr. Brennan commented that noise complaints are not common and that business owners preferred to continue working with staff in resolving such complaints when they occur. Also, Mr. Brennan indicated that the commercial owners he polled felt that the proposed regulation was unwarranted in light of the infrequency of the complaints involved. In response to the City Council's concerns, staff has revised draft Ordinance No. 1156 to allow commercial Centers to operate property maintenance equipment later than would be allowed in residential areas (Exhibit 1). References to minimum distance requirements from .residential properties to noise producing maintenance equipment on commercial properties have been deleted. The proposed ordinance prohibits the use of loud property maintenance equipment within residential areas before 7 a.m. and after 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and before 9 a.m. and after 5 p.m. on Saturdays. Within commercial and industrial areas, such equipment would be prohibited before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m. Monday through Friday and before 9 a.m. and after 10 p.m. on Saturdays. The use of loud property maintenance equipment will be. prohibited ~on Sundays and federal holidays in all areas. Proposed changes to. Sections 4616 and 4617 are shown in Attachment 2. Although the proposed code changes ~would limit loud maintenance equipment in general, the. existing code provides an exception for private property owners performing maintenance activities on their place of residence between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. on any day. Staff believes that providing separate regulations for residential and commercial areas will protect residents without constraining businesses. Staff would continue to gain compliance by notifying property owners and/or management companies of complaints rather than by issuing citations. The-City Attorney has advised staff that without identifying specific hours for equipment use, the only enforcement tool available under the existing code would be to contract with~a noiSe measurement consultant in the event of an continually uncooperative property owner or manager. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the revised draft ordinance. Publishing of a public notice for this type of code amendment is not required by State law. City council Report Ordinance No. 1156 October 2, 1995 Page 3 CONCLUSION The inappropriate use of loud property maintenance equipment, is difficult to enforce and a concern for residents. Staff recommends that the City .Council adopt Ordinance No. 1156 (Exhibit 1)- to~ establish .enforceable regulations regarding the use of property maintenance equipment. K~ren Sicoli Assistant Planner Attachments: Christin~.Shingleton Assistan~ City Manager Chamber of Commerce letter dated August 28, 1995 Proposed Revisions to Sections 4616 and 4617 Exhibit: 1. Revised Draft Ordinance No. 1156 KS: kd\ccreport \ leaf cc4. ks ATTACHMENT 1 Chamber of Comme~ce Letter Dated August 28, 1995 Adgust 28, 1995 .. o. Dana Ogdon City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Dana: At your request, we have surveyed our Chamber member retail center property managers regarding the proposed noise ordinance under consideration by the City Staff & Council. Attached you will find copies of the four. responses we received. Additionally, I have had discussions with Chamber board members and business-owners on the matter. "While an "official" Chamber position statement cannot be approved until our September 13, 1995 board-meeting, the flavor of sentiment appears to be universally opposed to more regulatory statutes on this matter. Statements have been made to the effect - "why pass a law when all we need to do is talk to the people involved and work things out?" The feeling is that Several isolated incidents have affected a few people prone to.complain. 'We fully~respect-our citizens' rights to peace and quiet, but feel the ordinance in question is somewhat of an over reaction. Thank you for including us "in the loop" and please advise if we can be of further assistance in this'matter. Sincerely- .y~urs., ..-. . . . //'; ..-'.~ ~O&~.° / .' /' Thomas P. Brennan Executive Manager 399 El Camino Real, Tustin, California 92680 (714) 544-5341 Fax (714).544-2083 88/15/1995 21'11 171454431 ., THE ENDERLE GRL PAGE TO: Tom Brennan, Tustin Chamber of Commerce-FAX #544-2083 · FROM: Al Enderlc, Ch~;rman Chamber Noise Abatement Committee-FAX #544-3121 DATE: 8-15-95 TIM~: .10~5 I contacted all c~f the shopl~ing c,~teri on thc list you pmvid.ed. With this FAX arc the. responses I've received to date. Those that have yet .to respond Voiced pretty much _the: same response. Leu Bone4(, City Planning Commissioner, scat me COpies of the Community D~velopmemt - Depanmem report, City oflXl~,vport Beach Ordinance, City oflrvine Code,. Selected City Code F.~.cerpts, Draft of Sections 4616 and 4617 and Draft of Ordinance 1156. In discussing the issue With Chu. ck ThompsOn, the manager of Endede Center, Chuck pointed out that he comes to work at 6AM and, on. the days tho Tustin street sweeper COmes by, it comes by at 6 AM and is extremely loud, much louder than any air blowers and an hour. earlier than tho ordinance suggests. If additional regulation is to be considered, he felt, and I agree, that it would first have to start with the city. Chuck said that we have not had any complaints and, if we did, we would want to respond to them personally. Ail those I spoke with felt that we already have too many re~lations which all add up to ftuther ~_ifl;ng busines and tho last .thing the city needs to do is increase the restrictions on bus'messes that are already experiencing difficult times, As stated at' the council meeting, I feel people with complaints should first direct their complaint to the source of the' problem and allow the.source to respond. If that' doesn't result in a satisfactory solution then and only then should the next step be taken and thc . city approached. Initi~6u8 an ..ordirumce is a last resort approach, especially when the number of complaints are so very. low in relationship to the percifiv~ problem. People need to 'practice talking to people and not be encouraged to initiate more and more laws that separate people. Regards,. ' : .'~.~-~- .. .-. . - . . ~.: . o 08/15/199'5 21:11. 1714544312: /' - THE ENDERLE GROL PAGE 714 75~ 9~98 TO 5443121 AUG 14 ' 95 16:55 FR TUST I N M~4ETP~q%E ru STIN MARKET 04 _= August 14, 1995 RE: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Powered Blowers/Sweepers The Committee regarding Noise Abatement · To WhOm It May Concern: My name is Deborah Frost end I am General-Manager of the Tustin Market Place. 'Outing my. two years at Tusdn Market Place, we have never received a complaln~ regarding the noise of our cleaning equipment. Thi~ is'possibly because. we are careful to avoid using the louder equiprnel~t during the early morning hours on the areas of tl~e center That are closest to residential proDerty. Although I understand Someone may think it-necessary to establish an ordinance regarding 1:his issue, it seems that an ordinance Is somewhat excessive considering 'what little disturbance the machinerY causes.' ;Should noise ever become' a problem, it would be In [he best interest of the center to address it based on the particulars of · the situatlon. To be required to follow certain city ordinances will only.res[rict our . ability to do business and seems counterproductive at best. Sincerely, ' Deborah L. Frost General Manager DLF/]p Do~ahu~ Schrit~- .2777 El Camm t~al - T~. ~ ~ 01~) 7~4124 · FAX ~1~) ~.~ 88/15/1995 21' 11 1714544312 THE ENDERLE GRC PAGE, TUSTIN A~,ust 11.199~ RE: Pro~ OrdLns~ce Regarding Powered Blowers~~ To Whom it May Centare: My na~e b Ed SoMs and I ara the Crencral Manager of Mrwln ~tuare Tustin Shopping Center, a position I have held for more than slx year~. During that lime, wc have never received · complaint caused by ihe nois~ of om' cleaning equipment. This may b~ allribmable to the fact that the ar~s ab~t~ing o~r 14 acre s~e ~e p~ly ~ So ~ ~o ~nlm~ ~e im~ ora v~ ~vo s~p~mg n~y r~d~ u~ ~is leads on~ is ~ more of a ~g i~c ~ a c~u~ f~ ~~ng ~ cl~ acti~fi~ at ~~cid.si~ a~r ~e ~c~ While zoning is still the prima7 issue, [ would like to offer that ii'anyone has a noise complaint ea~sed by our work, wc ,~uld b~ open. to hcarln$ abo~ it trod, of course, will do cva-ythhlg, r~s.sonable to contlnu~ to be a good ncighbor. Meanwhile, speaM~g from the viewpoint of being a significant source of revenue for the City of Tustin, we fee/th~ responsible duties we p~orm to keep o~r cent~r'clean far outweigh any isolated instance of occasional mlnot annoyance. Furthcr, anyone moving into this area in thc pa.~ 33 years could not have been unaware of the existence of this center. We strongly feel that any ordirmnc~ adversely aff'cc~g shopping centers would counterproductive to the ~ |ntcrcsts of all concerned parties. .. .. General Manag~ MANAGEMENT OFFICE: 275 Centennial Way · Suite 209 · Tustin, CA 92680. (7141 544-3300 Fa~((714) 08/15/1S95 21'11 1714544312 AU5-11-'9S FR! 16:2"'9 ID: THE ENDERLE GIL~. TEL NO: PAGE 02 ~2f~' P01 ......... FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Tu~tin Chambcr of Commerce Committee on Noise Abatement FROM: .(?14)544-3121 Katol H. Reedy Oeneral Ma~sgei~ DATE: SUBJECT: August 1 I, 1995 Tuslin Courtyard Shopping C~nter Tustin. ~s, NUMBER OF PAGES: 1 (including cover sheet) We are the management company for Tustin Courtyard Shoppins Center in Tustin. Tbb will serve to express out opposition to any Noise Abatement Ordinance which thc'City ,~.,~.~.,. v, . - is proposing. Not only have we not received any calls or complaints from customers or the community regarding any noise problem, but we would prefer to resolve it directly with the specific customer who placed the complaint, rather than have the City waste thcir time eStablishing and Lrying to implement such an ordinance. Please call me if you have ~uy questions. Thank you for your time. tail'Shopping Centers derle Center derle/VonKay/Thompson 081 S. Yorba St.,. Ste. 107 stin 92680 714/731-2911 tail Shopping Centers rwin Square Tustin Soltis Property Manager 5 Centennial Way, Ste. 209 ~/~ stin 92680 1714/544-3300 ~/ ~ ~-~]~ _.. tailor,Shopping Centers sti~iCourtyard rol H. Reedy General Manager 20 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road aheim 92808 714/283-3535 ~ ~ ~/~-~_~ tail Shopping-,Centers stin Heights Center ank Mangio M~rketing 5 Encinitas Blvd. ~101 / ,~>?_~ cinitas 92024 619/632-1199 ~9~ ~ tail Shopping Centers stin Market Place bbie Frost . 77 E1 Camino Real stin 92680 714/730-4124 tail Shopping Centers stin Plaza urie Stites/The Carlson'Company Corporate Plaza, St'e 104 wport Beach 92660 ~14/729-9260 ATTACHMENT 2 PropoSed Revisions to Sections 4616 and 4617 · . DRAFT SECTIONS 4616 AND 4617 The proposed revisions are provided for ease of reference. Shaded text is proposed for addition; text shown in strike-out is proposed for deletion. 4612 DEFINITIONS ::::-'::::.'::-'.':::::5 4616 SPECIFIC DISTURBING NOISES PROHIBITED It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, cause to allow, to be made or continued for any amount Of time the following acts and things which are hereby declared to be unnecessary,. excessive and annoying in violation of this article: 4617 EXEMPTIONS The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter: EXHIBIT 1. Revised Draft Ordinance No. 1156 ORDINANCE NO. 1156 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE, HEALTH AND SANITATION The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows: ae Noise associated with the late night or early morning use of loud property maintenance equipment can be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. -- Be Uncontrolled noise from property maintenance equipment is contrary to the public interest and the quiet enjoyment of residential homes. C. The control of suCh equipment is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows'. Section 1. Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4612, Definitions, of the Tustin city Code is hereby amended to add the following: "Property Maintenance Equipment. A mechanical blower, leafblower or parking lot sweeper which produces a current of air by meChanical, electrical, or other means to push, propel, or blow dirt, dust, leaves, grass clippings, trimmings, cuttings, refuse, and/or-debris or any other appliance intended for the maintenance of landscaping on private property." Section 2. Article 4, Chapter 6, section 4616'of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to add the following: "Section 4616, Specific Disturbing Noises Prohibited (4) Property Maintenance Equipment. The use and operation of leafblowers, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise, is prohibited in residentially zoned areas any and all hours on Sundays and Federal Holidays, before 7:00 A.M. and after 6 P.M. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 A.M. and after 5 P.M. on Saturdays.-- In commercial and industrially zoned areas, the use of propert~ maintenance equipment is prohibited any and all hours on Sundays and Federal Holidays, before 7:00 A.M. and after 10 P.M. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 A.M. and after 10 P.M. on Saturdays. No property owner, lessee, gardener, property maintenance service, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person working at their direction to operate property maintenance equipment in violation of the proVisions of this ~section. All debris generated by the use of property maintenance equipment shall be cleaned up and disposed of in accordance with Section 4421 of this Code. Exceptions: io Public property maintenance is exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance. ii. The use of property maintenance equipment may' be permitted outside of those limitations identified in subsection 4616 (4) in the case of necessity or upon a finding that such approval will not adversely impact adjacent properties and the health, safety, and welfare of the co~mmunity if a temporary exception is granted in writing by the Building Official or' the Building Official's authorized representatives. All temporary exception requests shall be made in writing and shall include the specific times and dates and locations requested and a description of the of-the a~tivity that is proposed. In granting a temporary exception, conditions may be imposed on the use of property maintenance equipment to protect the public health and safety. Any approval granted may be summarily revoked by the Building Official at the sole discretion of the Building Official. Notice of such revocation shall be provided to the requestor, Police Departmen~ andproject file. section 3. Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4617 (i), Exceptions, of the Tustin City Code is hereby repealed: (i) Noise sources associated With maintenance of real property provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. land 6:00 P.M. on any day except Sunday or Federal holidays, or between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 on Sundays or Federal holidays. Section 4. Severability Ail of the provisions of the ordinance shall be construed and applied together in order to accomplish the purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionally shall apply only to the particular facts, determinations and part of this Ordinance, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to · be fully effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin held on the 18th day of September, 1995. JIM POTTS Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of t-he City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1156 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of September, 1995 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City-Council held on the day of - , 1995, by the fOllowing vote: COUNCILMEMBERAYES: 'COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Pamela ~toker, City Clerk KS: leaford4, ord