|
<br /> ""III
<br />e t:; 9~
<br /> 9/13/71
<br />I to the ordinance, and that passage of the ordinance, as it now exists, not be delayed.
<br /> Motion carried.
<br /> C.B. 9499 - Concerning unnecessary and unreasonable noise and amending certain sections of
<br /> the Eugene Code, 1971, and declaring an emergency, was submitted, and no councilman
<br /> present requesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only.
<br /> Mr. Mohr m9ved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time-:9Y council bill
<br /> number only, and that enactment be considered at this time.
<br /> Manager said the Council has had before it a general noise control ordinance developed by staff.
<br /> Discussions of the ordinance will be continued at this meeting.
<br /> The city attorney has also prepared a section which would establish some performance standards
<br /> as measured by a decibel meter for certain noises as another method of judgment and enforcement.
<br /> This proposal was circulated to Council members for future discussion, so that Councilmen would
<br />e have an opportunity to read it thoroughly before it was scheduled. If the Council proceeds with
<br /> discussion and action on the general noise ordinance, this will give staff an ordinance for
<br /> use in the interim, since at the present time, the City has no noise control ordinance on the
<br /> books. At the,. ti~etlfe. code was adopted, the ordinance for noise control was repealed. The
<br /> Ci ty Attorney' s~office- has provided the Council with an updated copy of the ordinance with a
<br /> few clarifications and corrections, but with no change in meaning. The ordinance was read.
<br />I Mr. Don Price, Bond Lane, read a short letter in favor of decibel measurement, and asked that
<br /> it be filed in the city records.
<br /> Richard Higgins, Department of Physics, University of Oregon, was not sure he was in favor
<br /> of the ordinance, as worded. He felt the ordinance was very much needed, but that it would
<br /> be a mistake to rush into an ordinance which would be vague. He said the ordinance was a
<br /> laundry list of things needed in Eugene, and how to apply it was very unclear. It needed a
<br /> quantative standard. He also felt certain portions were an abridgement of personal freedom.
<br /> He urged the Council to pass only the first section, deleting the word "unnecessary," and
<br /> defer the rest until the constructive standards could be included.
<br /> ~, Mr. Joe McClure, 2510 Cresta De Ruta, said he was in favor of a good ordinance, but he felt
<br /> cars inside the city limits should be equipped with mufflers.
<br /> Harold Owen, South Emerald, said that noise depended not only on the decibels, but on the
<br /> frequency and length of time consumed. He had hoped further studies would include such things.
<br /> Monica Matson, 751 South Danebo, asked if the new ordinance would eliminate the drag strip
<br /> in their area. Manager said the discussion of the new decibel section would be the appropriate
<br /> time for this subject.
<br /> Vernon Whitwe~, 1280 Willow Creek, asked whether the new ordinance would be enforceable, since
<br /> the Balboa operation is still going on into the night.
<br />I Ron Nunemaker, 3160 Harris, had complained previously about Rexius'Sawdust trucks. He felt
<br /> some were much noisier than others, and that they could be muffled.
<br /> Mel McDermott, 3690 Willamette, complained about the noise made by minibikes, and felt there
<br /> should be some limitation to this noise.
<br /> Allen Conrad asked whether this ordinance would be enforceable, and whether specific complaints
<br /> could be handled.
<br />e Manager commented regarding the need for specific limits in addition to the general ordinance,
<br /> that there are many nuisance-typeriOlses, and some of these are so temporary or movable that
<br /> measurement with a device designed for that purpose is not practical. The measurement may be
<br /> further complicated by other noises in the area. Both the general and specific type are
<br /> needed. He explained that there had been extensive investigation of ordinances of other cities
<br /> and model ordinances by staff of both thepresent and past attorney's offices. Wi th regard
<br /> specifically to chain saws, he felt perhaps the City Attorney could consider this. Sawdust
<br /> blowers are covered under the ordinance, and barking dogs under the section pertaining to dog
<br /> control.
<br /> City Attorney commented with respect to the request for deletion of the word '''unnecessary,''
<br /> and said it had been deleted. He agreed that use of measuringrlevices posed a number of
<br /> problems and if the ordinance was limited to only that type, that would be the only way
<br /> of enforcement. There are other types of noises which are difficult to identify with some
<br /> equipment. Some noises are temporary and portable. He said that the proposed ordinance is
<br />I based on the National Insti tue of Municipal Law model ordinance, with modified language in I
<br /> many instances. With regard to the "laundry list", he felt there was some value in having
<br /> a list. It is difficult to give an adequate definition of the kind of things which are
<br /> prohibited. Regarding chain saws, he felt they were within the definition of machinery,
<br /> but a specific reference could be made.
<br /> Councilman McDonald agreed with Mr. Higgins that only the first part of the ordinance should
<br /> be passed by the Council. He asked regarding Item J, whether this pertained to Saturday
<br />'_ and Sunday, or was for just five days a week.
<br /> 9/13/71-4
<br /> I
<br /> '''1 I, ..>II
<br />
|