|
<br /> ,...- I
<br /> tt5 e
<br /> 8/9/81
<br /> r II I
<br /> I Mr. Williams explained the operation of his bakery, and loud noises which accompanied II
<br /> the early-morning operation. He was concerned that a business practice of 50 years !I
<br /> il nrrght be prohibited by passage of this ordinance.
<br /> :,
<br /> I, :'
<br /> I' "
<br /> II Mr. Hershner could see no necessity for a general section preceeding a general#y I:
<br /> i!
<br /> II comprehensive list of the various kinds of noises. Chief of Police pointed out l!
<br /> "
<br /> 11 the enforcement problems, and that all problems cannot be anticipated. Ii
<br /> "
<br /> ,i I'
<br /> Ii I'
<br /> " Mr. Williams moved that this document be specifically directed at the willful and
<br /> 'I
<br /> I, unnecessary kinds of noise.
<br /> "
<br /> !I
<br /> i' Mrs. Beal pointed out that, in this case, intent would have to be proved. This would
<br /> i:
<br /> II create an unnecessary roadblock. She felt the intent of the person was not the i:
<br /> Ii
<br /> reason for the ordinance, but the effect that the noise had. !i
<br /> II : ~
<br /> 'I Mr.Sw~nson p~intedout that Mr. Williams suggestion would put a great burden on
<br /> II the prosecution. It would have to be proven that the person not only knew what he e
<br /> I ~ was doing, but willfully violated the ordinance in doing it. He felt there should
<br /> Ii be a possibility for warning in such cases, and an opportunity for correction. Mr.
<br /> p Williams did not agree, but said he was concerned wi th virtual condemnation of property
<br /> Ii without compen~~tion.
<br /> ,I -
<br /> I: "
<br /> ~ I Mr. Teague agreed with Mr. Williams contention, and said he had experienced some !,
<br /> :! "
<br /> similar problems in connection with his business. I
<br /> I
<br /> II Mr. Williams was interested ,in the section concerning animals in the industrial
<br /> !I
<br /> I: area, and asked about the amendment to the dog control ordinance recently passed,
<br /> . . .' .. . .
<br /> 'I and whether permits WQuld be granted in such instances.
<br /> II
<br /> :,
<br /> Ii Mrs. Campbell suggested that a quiet zone could be created around hospitals and
<br /> I, retirement homes. It was pointed out that this again, was a matter which would
<br /> 'I
<br /> II require enforcement, and enforcement is the problem.
<br /> It
<br /> I' Mrs. Beal asked for exclusion of the muffler provision for spectator sports. She
<br /> II
<br /> " felt this was a distrubance to many people in the area. Manager pointed out that this
<br /> 'I had been worded to conform to a recent council decision regarding the automobile racing
<br /> :,
<br /> "
<br /> I' acti vi ti es .
<br /> I' "
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> ,I Mayor Anderso11l suggested that, if ;the Council felt a change was necessary, it ,I
<br /> , iJ
<br /> ,
<br /> , "
<br /> could be made at a later time. ,
<br /> II "
<br /> , Commi ttee Meeting, 8/4/71 - Noise Control with Regard to Construction - Councilman
<br /> il McDonald has rece,i ved complaints about bulldozer and jackhammer noise and asked if
<br /> II the new noise ordinance would have some affect on this. Mr. Swanson of the City
<br /> Ii Attorney's office said the office has been revising the proposal presented to the
<br /> II Council last week, and studying hours when noise would be particularly disturbing.
<br /> II They hav~ 'f::onsid$red changing the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.
<br /> il I
<br /> I, ' '
<br /> I, Mrs. Beal was concerned that the Council at times has no opportunity to view the
<br /> II
<br /> II proposed legislation or changes in proposals before the public hearing. Assistant
<br /> I.
<br /> Ii City Manager explained that the changes proposed in this ordinance relate to the
<br /> "
<br /> ii broad general statement. There are no other real changes being proposed. 'i
<br /> II
<br /> I' "
<br /> d i:
<br /> II Testimony at regular meeting - Mayor Anderson explained that there have been minor Ii
<br /> Ii in the noise control ordinance and asked the City Attorney to explain them. "
<br /> changes
<br /> "
<br /> ,I
<br /> II Mr. Arthur Johnson, City Attorney, explained various approaches to controlling noise e
<br /> Ii
<br /> iI through ordinances, and that the legislature had recently enacted l~gislation which
<br /> " takes the decibel approach and adoption of standards to establi~h limits to the
<br /> Ii amount of noise which can be emitted or allowed at a certain distance and adopt
<br /> Ii standards and regulations. It is uncertain whether enactment of this bill would exclude
<br /> ,I the City from taking that approach. The proposed ordinance will prohibit unreasonable
<br /> 'I
<br /> II and raucous noise. He ,explained sections of the ,ordinance, anq standards set up.
<br /> II It ,will prohibit certain activities from 10 :00 ,]'5.m. ,to 7:00 a.,m.
<br /> Ii
<br /> 1
<br /> I. Bernice Mobley, 3031 Portland, was very concerned with the noi~e. Portland Street
<br /> II
<br /> has become almost unbearable because of the noise. In answer to her question about
<br /> the curfew, Mr. Martin said that minors must be in by midnight, but this does not
<br /> Ii apply to those young adults who are driving on Willamette.,
<br /> 'I
<br /> Ii Emil S. Matson, 751 So. Danebo, said he lives right across from ,Balboa Race Track.
<br /> II He was against any excessive noise, and felt it was detrimental and,invaded the right I
<br /> I' to privacy. He had hired an industrial testing firm to rate the noise caused by
<br /> Ii
<br /> :1 races at the track and found them to be extremely excessive.
<br /> I'
<br /> II
<br /> " Mrs. Vernon Whi twer, 1280 Willow Creek Road, asked that the 10;00 limit on noise be
<br /> if
<br /> II enforced.
<br /> :1
<br /> Ii Mr. Ray Gilden, 20 East 37th, sug~ested that the city use the decibel method of
<br /> "
<br /> II determining excessive noise. He felt this was an enforceable method.
<br /> \1 e
<br /> "
<br /> " 8/9/71 -
<br /> I' e
<br /> 'I
<br /> ~
<br />
|