Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4: Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances; Amending Sections 4.083, and 4.084 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Sections 6.750 and 6.755 to that Code Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Mike McKerrow www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5251 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council discussed concerns about noise pollution generated by a variety of sources, including leaf blowers, during an August 2006 work session, and directed the City Manager to prepare an ordinance proposing additional restrictions in the Eugene City Code. BACKGROUND In 1996, the City Council discussed noise pollution generated by leaf blowers and similar equipment, but did not adopt a ban or restrictions on noise and use. Before the revised Land Use Code was adopted in 2001, Eugene included performance standards for sound emissions in Chapter 9 (Land Use). Compliance was promoted by the Planning and Development Department, and the more common complaints involved home heating/cooling units and mechanical equipment on commercial and industrial properties. The standards were difficult to administer and were removed from the code, with specific noise restrictions retained for the Natural Resource Zone. Other noise restrictions can be found in Chapter 4 (Offenses). However, noise pollution remains a lower priority for Police enforcement, with most police responses limited to amplified music and similar disturbances. In 2005, the council adopted an ordinance prohibiting operation of a motorized transportation device in a manner “…causing excessive, unnecessary, or offensive noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitivity.” Most recently, during the City Council’s August 2006 work session, officials discussed a proposed ban on leaf blowers and mulch blowers. While rejecting an outright ban, the council asked for an ordinance that included restrictions on time, duration and location of use for leaf blowers, similar to those in other jurisdictions. The council also discussed the impacts of commercial and industrial noises in residential neighborhoods, and directed staff to review the existing code for other possible gaps. Defining Noise Pollution Many consider noise pollution a byproduct of a growing population, density and mixed uses -- and the sounds of mechanization. However, at community, state, national and international levels, numerous L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702204.doc organizations have formed over the last 20-plus years to seek reductions in noise pollution for a quieter “public commons.” Noise pollution is unique. It is transient – once it stops, the environment is free of it. It can be measured, but monitoring cumulative exposure is challenging. It is subjective, with certain noises considered pleasant to some and annoying to others. Impacts of sound extend beyond the actual loudness and include time and place, duration, source, and whether the listener has control over the noise. Noise pollution has been implicated in performance reduction, adverse social behavior, cardiovascular problems, stress and loss of sleep. It is difficult to know at exactly what point noise becomes loud enough to cause damage to the ears. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established 70 dBA as a safe average for a 24-hour day, with dBA meaning decibels (sound intensity) measured with the commonly used “A” filter. This level is based only on risk to hearing. (An average washing machine is considered to be at 75 dBA when in use. A typical conversation occurs at about 60 dB.) Highlights from the Proposed Ordinance The proposed ordinance splits regulations addressing relatively “acute” and “chronic” disturbances between Eugene Code Chapters 4 (Offenses) and 6 (Environment). The separate provisions would be administered by Police and Planning and Development, respectively. Chapter 4 would retain provisions related to amplified music and animal sounds. The provision relating to dog-barking has been expanded to include other animal noise disturbances, with language reflecting the current practice that links a violation to a continuous disturbance rather than occasional or intermittent noise. Many of the other provisions would move to Chapter 6. The variance section has been simplified and is proposed to be included in Chapter 6. [In addition to environmental regulations, Eugene Code Chapter 6 also includes nuisance provisions (e.g., accumulations of debris, odor).] Restrictions on leaf blower noise are proposed, modeled on regulations for the City of Davis, California. Two areas that were covered by the “old” land use code are proposed to be incorporated into Chapter 6: residential pumps and commercial/industrial noise disturbances in residential areas. The recommended language has been simplified to aid compliance. The proposed ordinance also would grant an exemption to other government agencies for sounds generated from activities by or at the request of the agency in maintenance, construction or repair of public improvements, in public rights-of-way or easements. Such an exemption already applies to the City of Eugene. Potential Issues with New Regulations and Noise Pollution Enforcement Resources and workload: Despite the negative impacts noise pollution can have on community members, adoption of new regulations does not necessarily give all noise complaints top priority for enforcement resources. Both Police and Planning and Development will continue to juggle a variety of tasks and projects to advance council goals and the array of regulations that support a safe, healthy and vibrant community. With proposed changes in Chapter 6, Planning and Development, rather than Police, would assume responsibility for a good portion of the noise provisions. These would be assigned to the department’s three FTE in zoning and nuisance investigation and compliance. These staff members currently handle a broad range of information and enforcement activities associated with trees, signs, nuisances, land use and zoning, smoking and overnight camping. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702204.doc It is not uncommon for noise disturbances to occur, or for residents to want to address problems, during evening and weekend hours. PDD staff would be able to schedule sound readings during these times, as was done before the 2001 Land Use Code update; however, staff is not available for unscheduled compliance work during evenings and weekends. Effective enforcement: The City of Davis, CA, reports that noise enforcement is a relatively low priority compared to other kinds of compliance issues. With leaf blowers, as an example, community self- monitoring is paramount, because city staff is unable to quickly respond to and verify complaints regarding duration and location of use. People disturbed by leaf blowers (and other noise disturbances) may have to document potential violations through recording and photographs. Given enforcement experience here and in other communities, the new standards may have greater success through self- monitoring, and the City’s ability to respond to inquiries may not always meet each complainant’s expectations. Science of sound measurement: Consistent with noise pollution ordinances in other communities and with the City’s previous regulations, the proposed ordinance incorporates sound level readings and one- hour equivalents using an A-weighted level. There are other ways to measure noise, including low- frequency rumbling noises that travel far and move through walls. Some communities establish zones and schedules, with decibel restrictions set by location and time of day. And, finally, a “reasonable person” standard would provide both less precision and greater flexibility than numerical standards. The proposed ordinance is staff’s assessment -- based on review of other regulations and general-interest noise pollution literature – about what could be reasonably communicated and administered in this community. It is important to note that staff has not consulted sound engineers or other specialists. Exemptions: When Lane County recently sought to conduct night-time work on Delta Highway, it first had to obtain a noise variance from the City of Eugene. In the proposed ordinance, the expanded exemption for city, county or state and persons under contract to these entities would treat the different levels of government much the same – no variance would be needed by other government agencies. In addition, using language from Davis, California, the proposed exemption would apply not only to road construction, but to sounds produced by maintenance of trees and landscaping, street sweeping and similar activities. This would exempt government agencies from the restrictions applicable to other commercial, industrial and residential uses and activities, including leaf blowers and mechanical systems. City staff uses leaf blowers on parks land, bike paths and other surfaces, and at City Hall and other properties. The current leaf blower used by Facility Management staff in the downtown area had the lowest decibel reading available at time of purchase, operating at a maximum level of 65 dB. Older leaf blowers, which may be in use by residents and other agencies, may operate significantly higher. Commercial and industrial noise in residential areas: The proposed ordinance includes provisions to protect residents in residential zones from certain commercial and industrial noise. It does not include the exemption language that the “old” Land Use Code provided for uses, activities, equipment and processes established before January 1982, which enabled a bypass under certain conditions. The proposal also narrows the applicability to residentially zoned properties, and does not include residences in industrial zones. A brief review of ordinances in other communities showed that some have exemptions, while others do not. The council may wish to explore exemption options. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702204.doc RELATED CITY POLICIES Eugene City Code primarily addresses noise disturbances through standards in Chapter 4 (Offenses), largely administered by the Eugene Police Department. Among the activities and related noises that are regulated are idling engines, building construction, amplified music and dog-barking. Although reducing noise pollution has not been identified as a recent goal or strategic priority by the City Council, livability is a key concept in numerous policies. In June 2005, theCity Council adopted a goals and vision statement that included the following principle: Preserve our physical assets and natural resources. We will sustain our pristine water, clean air, beautiful parks and open spaces, livable and safe neighborhoods, and foster a vibrant downtown, including a stable infrastructure. The Growth Management Policies also highlight livability: Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. COUNCIL OPTIONS After receiving public testimony, the City Council may choose to: 1.Take no action at this time. 2.Approve the ordinance as proposed. 3.Approve an amended ordinance reflecting public input and council deliberations. 4.Defer action to provide opportunity for additional research and discussion. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is suggested; this is a public hearing only. ATTACHMENTS A. Minutes from August 16, 2006, Eugene City Council meeting B. Eugene City Code, Chapter 4, Noise Disturbance Ordinance (existing code) C. Eugene City Code, January 1995, Chapter 9 Excerpts on Performance Standards for Noise (“old” code) D. Eugene City Code, 9.2520(20) Noise (Natural Resource Zone) (existing code) E. Proposed Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mike McKerrow, Land Use Management Supervisor Telephone: 682-5251 Staff E-Mail: mike.j.mckerrow@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702204.doc ATTACIIMENT A MINU'TES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall August 16, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David K.elly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Pape, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Abatement of NOise Pollution City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrO'hf to discuss noise pollution. He said the issue \vas raised by Ms. Taylor. Mr. McKerro\v stated that noise standards \vere mainly found in Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code (Ee) and \\lere enforced by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He said current requirements prohibit noise from anlplified music, construction, la\\7fl mo\vers and other sources during certain hours and tbe standards include an exemption provision and variance process, vvhich is used primarily for largc construction prqjects. He said that regulation of noise varied \\-idely in other communities and standards could ban products or activities altogether, limit hours of operation or duration or establish maximum decibel limits or use a combination of those strategies. He related that research found few outright bans of mulch blowers and leaf blowers. He noted that restricting the use of mulch and leafblo\vers w'ouldhave an inlpacton City operations in parks, the do\\rnto\vn mall and else\vhere in the community. He said that Public Works and Facilities Management had upgraded equipment and reduced noise levels from leafblo\\lcrs in recent years and preliminal)' infonnation on that \-vas available to the council. He identified the special challenges associated \\1th enforcing noise standards, including the usual limited duration of the noise, availability of staff and the inconsistent volume of the noise source. Ms. Taylor agreed \vith the difficulty of enforcement \vhen the source of the noise might be gone before staff arrived, but she felt there ,vas good cause for banning things such as leaf and mulch blo'\;vers that did bother people. She said the ban on noise between certain hours did not recognize that people~s lives could be disrupted by noise at times other than those for sleeping. She said that ever since a constituent initially raised the issue she had heard similar concerns from many people. She questioned the usefulness of leaf blo\vers and cited the problems created \vhen leaves ended up in storm drains or neighboring property. She did not feel it \vas necessary to inflict noise on people.simply for the comfort or convenience of another person. She said just because a la\v was difficult to enforce ,vas not a reason to abandon it. Ms. Ortiz said the issue for her represented a bigger picture because there were many things in the, community that made noise. She lived in an industrial area where residents would regard a leaf blo\ver as a minor noise source. She commented that many noise sources could not be stopped and she ,vQuld not support a ban on mulch and leafblo,vcrs~ but \vould support limiting the time of usc. She said that leaf and mulch blo\vers were part of to day's culture because people had less time; they \-vere modem conveniences that also represented businesses and jobs. MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 1 Ms. Bettman agreed \vitb Ms. Ortiz that there \vere many sources of noise pollution and they \vere not all created by leaf and mulch blowers. She would not support a ban but \vould consider expansion of Ee 4.083(h), which listed pile drivers, hammers and lawn mowers, to include leafblo\;vers and mulch blowers in order to limit operations to a reasonable timeframe. She did not ,vant to drastically impact landscaping businesses, gardeners and people's ability to care for their property. Mr. Kelly observed that city d"veUers should expect some noise although that did not mean residents should have to tolerate unlimited noise. He said there \vas a balance point in government regulation and he hoped that most noise problems \vere resolved through neighbor-to...neighbor conversation and courtesy. He ackno\vledged that was not always the case. He received complaints from constituents about loud nlusic from parties or car stereos and, in partie-ular, leafblo\vers. He asked how other communities enforced decibel...based codes. City Manager Taylor replied that the c,ode was primarily decibel-based in the three communities he lived in prior to Eugene and it required that enforcement officers responding to a complaint use a device to measure the decibel level. He said it \\las easier to enforce time limits. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman's suggestion for expanding the number and type of devices restricted to specific times. He said an issue \vith respect to leaf and mulch blowers was frequency; leafblo\vers might be used once a \veek and mulch blowers once or nvice a season. He was not interested in imposing restrictions on mulch blo\vers beyond prohibiting use bet\veen lOp .m. and 7 a.m. He ,vas interested in considering leafblo,vers in greater detail both in terms of noise and the pollution from the fuel consumed by inefficient engines. He asked for more details about the Davis, California ordinance. Mr. Pape c-oncurred with Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He noted that noise concerns "vere greater in the sumn1cr ,vhen people had their windo\vs open and la\Vll equipment ,vas used and as the City densified, those problems ,vould be exacerbated. He would.support adding leafblo\vers to the code as \vell as Mr. Kelly's suggestion to expand the current list, but \vould not support a ban. Mr. Poling stated he would not support banning nlldch and leafblo\vers. He said there \vere standards in place that seemed to be \vorking.He questioned the need for more regulations when the City had difficulty enforcing.those it no\v had. He \vas in favor of perhaps expanding the current ordinance to include devices such as leafblo\vers and.po\ver \vashers .in restricted times. He \vould not. support a ban because some people \vere unable to perform nlanual labor on their own property and the cost to hire someone \vould be prohibitive. He said mulch blo\vers actually did the community a service by distributing mulch efficiently and reducing "vaste and runoff. Ms. Piercy said shc\vas in favor of expanding the list instead of banning. She encouraged businesses that used those devices to find \vays to lo\ver the noise level. Mr. Pryor declared that he O\Vlled an electric leafblo\ver and a power washer. He ackno"vledged the devices nlade noise and operators "vore hearing protection, although noise dissipated quickly over distance. He agreed that the level of noise that was acceptable was an extremely subjective issue; ho\vever, a limitation on hours of operation \vas not subjective. He agreed \vith previous speakers that there should not be a ban but would favor a public hearing to detemune \\That could be done to mitigate or control noise pollution. Ms. Taylor said a ban on operation of leaf and mulch blowers from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. was ridiculous as people \-vere not mo\ving their la\vns or using leaf blo\vers at II o'clock at night. She said there was more to quality of life than sleeping. She said she \vas less bothered by noise \vhen sleeping than \vhen she ,vas having a cookout on the deck. She agreed that noise in an urban environment "vas unavoidable but reiterated that leaf blowers did not seem to serve an obvious purpose as the leaves just\ventelsewhere. MINUTES-City.Council \V ork Session August 16, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Kelly affirmed his interest in considering language regarding leafblo\vers and similar devices that \\las comparable to the Davis, California ordinance, \vhich. combined several strategies. He understood the desire for a certain amount of convenience but had a problem ,\lith both the noise and pollution of leaf blo\vers relative to other devices. He suggested staff develop proposed language that would address times of day, broadening the list of devices and perhaps incorporating the Davis language related to leaf blo\vers and similar pO'Arer tools. Me . Poling asked if the larger landscaping businesses could be. surveyed to determine the current decibel ratings of their equipment. City Manager Taylor said th.eCity's devices could be evaluated. Mr. McKer... ro\\' commented.that the leafblo"rers used downto'VVll to..maintain the mall \vere the quietest models available \vhen purchased and operated at a maximum of 65 decibels) \vhile older models operated at 80 decibels. Mr. Pape said he would agree to looking at a range of devices and decibel levels, but not to singling out leaf blo\vers. In response to a question. fronl Ms. Taylor about City operations, Mr. McKerro\v said that he understood most of the leaves were blo\>Vl1 into piles and collected by vacuum) although he doubted that homeo'Wllcrs vacuumed leaves. Ms. Solonlon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back language that expanded the noise ordinance to include leaf bloV\rers as \velt as some of the elements of the Davis, California ordinance. Ms. .Bettman asked if mulch blo\Xlcrs \vould be included. Ms. Solomon said the discussion soonled to indicate that mulch blo\vers provided a service and would not be included. Mr. Kelly agreed there had nat been as much discussion about restricting nlulch blo\vers. Mr. Kelly .offered a friendly amendment to add t.he follo'Vving sentence: "Staff\vill revie\v the current noise ordinance to see if significant noise sources are missing. Ms. Solomon accepted the amen.dment. Ms. Taylar moved to amend the motion to include mulch blo\vers. Ms. Bettman provided a second for purposes of discussion. Ms. Bett.man said her intent \vas to add mulch blo\vers only to EC 4.083 that prohibited operation from. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as that \vould not have a significant impact on responsible businesses that provided that serVIce. Ms, Taylor said that \vas not the intent of her motion. Ms. Bettman \vithdrew her second and the motion to amend died for lack of a sec- ond. Ms. Solomon confirmed that any proposed language would be subject to a public hearing before action. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES-City Council ;~ Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 3 B.. WORK SESSION: JeffersonIWestside Options for Immediate Protection City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir to present the options for addressing concerns raised by the Jefferson \Vestside Neighborhood. Ms. Muir explained that the purpose of the work session \vas to consider short-term options to pause or mitigate the R-2 zoning in a portion of\vhat "vas known as Area 15 oftbe Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan asillustratcd in Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She related the history of the issue and described staff s research and \\lork \vith residents of the neighborhood. She said ll1any options ,vere brainstormed \:vith the neighborhood to address inappropriate infill and those were set forth in the AIS. She said that additional discussions narrowed the options.do\vo to two for furtheroonsideration and those would provide a process that \vould ratify an opinion about the meaning of Lo"v...Medium Residential density. She noted an email from the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood co....chairs \vith suggestions for action and indicated that those vvere discussed in the AIS along with a recommendation from the city rnanagerand staff that the actions \vere not necessary. She discussed tbe.impact on Planning and Development Department resources, the Planning Commission's and departlllent' s work programs and high priority tasks, as ,veU as the difficulty of responding quickly. if the council initiated plan amendments. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for \vorking ,\lith the neighborhood. She remarked that one of the council'}s high priority.goals\vas protecting neigbborhood livability and a component of that ,vas preventing the negative effect of inappropriate infilt She said that Area 15 was a very small area of established, historic single- family housing in a larger neighborhood adjacent to do\vntovm tbat had a significant amount of den.sity, including several high-rise buildings. She said action ,vas necessary to protecttbe Area 15 enclave if the council \vanted to promote a diversity of housing in the neighborhood. She said. if low density zoning \vas at risk in that area it would remove any incentive for opportunity siting in the neighborhood. Mr. Pryor appreciated Ms. Muir's candidness regarding the department's workload as it \vasessential to know the impact of the proposal on department resources. He said he \vascomfortable devoting resources to the task and acting s\viftly on the matter to resolve tbe situation as expeditiously as possible. He \\Tas impressed by the character of the neighborhood and did not ,vant to see it move In a direction undesirable to the neighborhood and the council. He recognized that reducing densities also reduced residential develop- nlcnt opportunities, but in this case be \vas "vining to accept the trade-off. He fully supported a move to initiate the recommendations related to interpretation and reaching agreement and ,vas in favor of making \vhatever resources ,vere necessary available to accomplish that quickly. Mr. Pape said he.\vould support protection oftne area but ,vas concerned about the precedent being set. He said that similar situations existed in neighborhoods throughout the community. He "vas concerned that there \vere inadequate resources to address all of those situations and questioned no\v neighborhoods ,vould be prioritized for attention. He was also concerned about the illlpact 011 density requirements several years in the future. He was "villing to move the issue ahead vvith reservations and hoped tbat a community-wide solution to preserve certain areas while en.couraging opportunity siting could be developed. Ms. Ortiz said she understood the desire to protect neighborhood character, but the issue ,vas a challenge for her because of its effect on the ability of lo\ver income people to flOd affordable housing. She asked ho\v the goal to protect the urban gro\vth boundary and agricultural land c-ould be achieved if density did not increase. Sbeemphasized the. importance of encouraging economic diversity of residents in neighborhoods and said the less development ,vas aUo\ved to happen in better neighborhoods, the harder it \vould be for people with diverse backgrounds and lo\verincomes to integrate into the community. MINUTES---City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Kelly commented that density was either done well or done poorly and .many communities had established processes for accommodating density \vithout destroying the neighborhood. He agreed "vita Ms. Ortiz regarding the need for affordable housing and neighborhood diversity. He agreed ,vith Mr. Pape's concern about establishing a precedent and the cumulative effect of restricting density an acre ata time; hov.rever, he perceived a specific technical problem in the subject neighborhood and would be wining to consider a code change or refinement plan change that \vould detlnean overlay to enable 10\\7 to medium density in combination \vith site revie\v, consistent with the refinement plan. Ms. Piercy expressed her appreciation for the discussion about ho\v to live more densely "vhile preserving the character of neighborhoods. She thought. another council goal should be to ensure tbeeconomic diversity of residents\vithin neighborhoods. She \vas interested in a tool to accomplish density \vhile preserving neighborhood character that.could be applied broadly instead of taking a piecemeal approach. Mr. Pryor said the challenge \vas to find a unified approach that addressed the problem of density .and neighborhood character across the community. Ms. Bettrnan pointed out tbat the neighborhood in question was the densest neighborhood in the entire city and included a variety of housing types.. She said it \\tras important to the health of the entire neighborhood that Area 15 remain a stable section of single-family homes. She hoped that the solution could be simple and not require an extraordinary amount of resources. Ms. Taylor said the neighborhood \vas not wealthy or sparsely populated and urgent attention "vas needed to protect it. Regarding mixed housing, she referred to ber previous discussions of inclusionary zoning, which she thought should happen but was currently prohibited by the State. She hoped that the Council Committee on Intergovemnlental. Relations could take the matter up during the next legislative session. Mr. Pape agreed that \vhile the neighborhood \vas morc.densely developed than the south hills or other areas in the community, it still did not match.the planned for density. He ,vas not certain tbat tbe neighborhood \vould be opposed to appropriate densifying of the area. He asked ,vnich of the two options under consideration \vas the n10st legaUy.defensible. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that \vhile the options \vereproceduraJly differen.t, each of them \vas legally defensible. Mr, Pape asked if the two options were short of a Metro Plan amendment. Ms. JerOll1e replied that the proposed process \vas t\:vo-step. . She said the neighborhood and staff agreed to present to the council tbe possibility of a Metro Plan amendment process to identify the neighborhood as low density\vhich could.take some time, and an.jnterpretation process to address the neighborhood's concerns in.the interim. The neighborhood hoped the interpretation'\vould be consistent with the way they vieVv'led the intent of the neighborhood refinement plan and provide a basis for arguing against an upzone in the area until the Metro Plan amendment took effect. She noted that, this t\VO-stCP strategy was vie"red..by the neighborhood as an interinl ll1easure and infill standards \vere regarded as the.best way to address concerns about density, She clarified that the neighborhood's intent is to support a return to a medium density Metro Plan designation once the Council has adopted infiU standards. Ms. Muir added that staff\vas committed to making an administrative interpretation decision initially and, if appealed, the interpretation would move through the appeal process. Mr. Pape asked if the decision vvouldapply to other neighborhoods. Ms. Muir said the decision \vould only apply to the Jefferson-Par West Refinement Plan but clarified that anyone could request an interpretation by the Planning Director by filing a form and paying a fee. MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 5 Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West RefmementPlan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to lo\v-density Residential development. In addition, to direct the City Manager to make this task priority # 1 on the Planning Commission \vork plan and pull resources from the other high priority \vork program items to accomplish this as quickly as possible ,,,iilin the parameters of the amendment process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to amend the motion by deleting the sec- ond sentence of the motion entirely and re\vording the end of the first sentence as follows: "Move to initiate anlendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and tbe Land Use Code to limit the subject area to 101,,"1 density residential development low- to 111edtum-density residential as described in the re- ~finement plan. In adaition, to direct the Cif)Y Manager to mal{e thistasl( priority #1 00. the. PlatmingCoIllmission\vork plan ana pull. resources from the otber high pri orit)' viork program itell113 toaeoomplish this as quickly as possible ,;vithin thepa rwn.eters of the amendment precess. Mr. Kelly explained that he was not interested in allowing upzonings to 28 units per acre in the area but was interested in allo\ving selective increased density under site revie\v and as described in the refinement plan to a middle ground above 10 units per acre. He deleted the second sentence because the work plan bas been developed in great detail and opportunity siting \vas identified as a high priority. He said there\vere numerous tasks in the \vork plan on \vrnch the council ,vould expect to see progress. Referring to statements that the neighborhood \\ras very dense, he noted that the refmement plan stated tbat ID.Area .15 the average lot size \vas 8,200 square feet, \vmen \vas a density of five units per acre. Ms. Bettmanreminded the council that the refinement plan ,vas developed in 1983. She said she \vould not support the amendment because it increased density \vithout the infill standards and cited a section of the refinement plan relating to encouraging and increasing residential density \vhile maintaining the character of the neighborhood. She said a commitment by the City to rehabilitate existing housing stock through public and private investment had not occurred. She said the motion \vould accomplish half of the opportunity siting strategy to increase density as high as possible in certain appropriate sites and at the same time do~nzoning and preserving existing residential neighborhoods. Mr. Kelly revised the language of his motion to amend. as foUo\vs: Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinenlent Plan and the Land Use Code to.limitthe subject area to IOYl'vdensity residential developulcnt.low- to mediun2-densifJ.J residential as described in the refinement plan to be consistent with the policies of the refinement plan "for Area 15. Mr. Pape, as thesecond~ ac- cepted the revised language. Ms. Jerome clarified that the motion \vould require a tex.t amendment to the Metro Plan, not just a diagram amendment, and did not address the neighborhood's concern about interpretation of the. meaning oflo"v to medium density as the refinement plan policy itself \vas the issue. Mr. Kelly further clarified his at11endment as follows: Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to linlit the subject area to lo~.vdensity residential de"-ytelopment low- to medium- density residential as described in therefirzement plan to be . consistent with the policies qf the re.linement .plan .for Area 15 and lvitlt maximum densities higher MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 6 than R-I but lower than R....2. Mr. Pape, as the second, accepted the revised lan- guage. Mr. Pape reiterated his concern about other neighborhoods having the same problems and the need for a consistent approach. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there were a number of high -density developments adjacent to Area 15, \vhich made the area the highest density with the highest threat afany neighborhood in the community. She noted that the petition requesting a remedy ,vas signed by 286 residents, including many \vho lived outside of Area 15. She thought that. Mr. Kelly's amendment would perpetuate the issue of disparity bet\:voon the original meaning of Io'V\! to medium residential and the current understanding that it meant upzoning to R-2 \vas acceptable. Ms. Muir said the motion before the council considered some of the options in the May 24, 2006, memoran- dum from staff, including \\lork on site revie,,, and design. standards. She said that changing the language from "low to medium" to ~'lo"v" ,vas identified in discussions with the neighborhood as part ofa future action that might implenlent opportunity siting. Sbe said that \vas not enlphasized in the staff report because there was never a guarantee unless there was a sunset date. She did not want to rely. on that until there\vas something concrete to consider. She thought the work associated with the proposed motion would require a little more time and effort to present a product to the council. City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposed motion \vould require more stafftinle than the motion suggested in the AlS. Mr. Pryor observed that just designating. an area 10\\1 density would not address the issue of neighborhood character or inappropriate infiH. He understood that there \-vas no expectation an area would remain lo\\' density; that was an interim measure while other strategies \vere developed. He preferred to make ita priority task. Regarding the hope that lo\v density \vas an interim solution while other strategies were developed, Mr. Kelly noted that there \vas great enthusiasm .in 1993 for nodal development, also KnO\VIl as mixed-use centers, and 13 years later, that effort was barely started. He said bis amendment would not allow four to eight more units per lot as that was based on blanket R-2 and bisamendment specified density lower than the maximumR-2. Ms. Taylor said she\vould vote against the amendment as the matter of protection required some urgency. She said that increasing rentals in a neighborhood created a transitory effect and reduced the number of residents with a long-teon interest in the stability of the neighborhood. Mr. Pape asked if the motion\vould require moving to a density of four to eight units per acre. Ms. Jcronle replied that Mr. KeUy~s motion limited density to something belo'\;v the maximum allowed in R-2 but an interpretation 'Vvould still be necessary to determine \vhat that nunlber would be. Mr. KeUy said the number \vould be defined by staff during the process. Mr. Pape asked if the council's action could be sunsetted in t\:vo or three years to ensure that long-term strategies ,vere developed. Ms. Muir said a sunset provision \vauldnot be part of the council's current action but, if an amendment was initiated, staff vvould ,vork with the city attorney to draft that type of language. Ms. Jer01l1e encouraged a sunset provision to establish a specific sunset date instead of indicating it would happen when tbe City adopted infilI standards. MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 7 The vote on the motion to amend the main motion \vas tied, 4:4; Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pape voting in favor.. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in. support of the motion to amend and it passed. on a final vote of 5 : 4. Mr. Papc suggested including a sunset provision. City Manager Taylor said that staff would include a recommended timeframe fora sunset provision. in its report to the .counciI. Ms. Muir clarified that her reference to a sunset clause related only to redesignation from low-medium to low density as an interim step before opportunity siting was implemented. Ms. Piercy stated that she voted in favor oftne amendment in part because there were many priorities and she \vas not comfortable "vith it being number one, although it "vas important. The vote on the main motion as amended \vas tied, 4:4,.Mr. Pryor,.. Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solo- monand Mr..Pape voting. in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support oftbe motion as amended and it passed on a final vote of .5 : 4. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to request that tbe City Manager di- rect staff to begin the process of issuing an official interpretation pursuant to EC 9.0040(1) or (3) to interpret the Area 15 policy of the Jefferson-Far West Refine- ment Plan~ which is incorporated into the Land Use Code.at EC 9.9580(17). The nlotion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at I :20 p.m. Respectfully subnlitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 8 ATTACHMENT B 4.080 Noise Disturbance - Prohibited. (1) For purposes of this section, and sections 4.081, 4.083 and 4.084 of this code: (a) Noise disturbance means any sound which: 1. Injures or endangers the safety or health of a human; 2. Annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities; or 3. Endangers or injures personal or real property. (b) Plainly audible means where the listener clearly can hear the content of the sound produced by the noise source. Sounds which may be clearly audible include, but are not limited to, musical rhythms, spoken words, vocal sounds, and engine noises. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or recklessly create or continue any noise disturbance. (Section 4.080 amended by Ordinance No. 16299, enacted September 13, 1971; Ordinance No. 19274, enacted August 13, 1984; and Ordinance No. 19902, enacted February 17, 1993, effective March 19, 1993.) 4.081 Noise Disturbance - Repetition and Failure to Cease. It shall be unlawful for any person responsible for a noise disturbance caused by electronically amplified sound or a gathering of five or more people to: (a) Fail within 30 minutes to eliminate or cease such noise disturbance after receiving a citation or other notice of a violation of this section or section 4.080 of this code, or (b) Intentionally or recklessly create the same or a similar noise disturbance within six months of having received a citation or other notice of a violation of this section or section 4.080 of this code. (Section 4.081 added by Ordinance No. 19902, enacted February 17, 1993, effective March 19, 1993.) 4.083 Noise Disturbance - Specific Prohibitions. Unless exempted by section 4.084 of this code, the following acts are declared to be noise disturbances; however this enumeration shall not be deemed an exclusive list of the violations of section 4.080(2) or section 4.081 of this code, nor shall the recitation of specific prohibitions below be deemed the exclusive and entire listing of unlawful noise disturbances for each subcategory: (a) Sound producing, amplifying or reproducing equipment. Operating or permitting the use or operation of any device designed for sound production, amplification, or reproduction, including but not limited to any radio, musical instrument, phonograph, television set, tape recorder, loud speaker, or other similar device: 1. Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day so as to be plainly audible within any dwelling unit which is not the source of the sound; or 2. On public property or on a public right-of-way so as to be plainly audible fifty feet or more from such device, except as authorized by permit. (b) Steam whistles. Blowing any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work, as a warning of fire or danger or as authorized by permit. (c) Sirens. Sounding a stationary siren. (d) Exhausts. Discharging into the open air the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motorboat, motor vehicle, or any mechanical device operated by compressed air or steam without a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent the emission of loud or explosive noises except where such discharge is from vehicles used for participation in vehicle spectator sports activities between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and the activities are properly licensed by the city and consistent with its zoning ordinance. (e) Idling engines. Operating for more than 15 consecutive minutes any idling engine in such a manner as to be plainly audible within any dwelling unit between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (f) Loading, unloading, opening boxes. Loading or unloading any vehicle or opening, closing or destroying bales, boxes, crates and containers, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day, so as to create a noise disturbance. (g) Construction or repair of buildings, streets, etc. Constructing (including excavating), demolishing, altering, or repairing any building, street, sidewalk, driveway, sewer or utility line between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (h) Pile drivers, hammers, lawnmowers, etc. Operating any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, or steam or electric hoist between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day or lawnmower between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (i) Animals. Keeping any animal which frequently or for a long duration makes vocal or other sounds so as to create a noise disturbance. (j) Other. Any sound source exceeding the standards set out in section 9.2530(20) of this code and not otherwise exempt therefrom. (Section 4.083 added by Ordinance No. 16229, enacted September 13, 1971; amended by Ordinance No. 17434, enacted July 28, 1975; Ordinance No. 19274, enacted August 13, 1984; Ordinance No. 19697, enacted June 25, 1990; Ordinance No. 19770, enacted April 22, 1991, effective May 22, 1991; Ordinance No. 19902, enacted February 17, 1993, effective March 19, 1993; and Ordinance No. 20301, enacted November 10, 2003, effective December 10, 2003.) 4.084 Noise Disturbance - Exemptions, Variances. (1) Exemptions. The following sounds are exempted from the provisions of sections 4.080, 4.081, and 4.083 of this code: (a) Sounds made by work necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger. (b) Sounds made by warning devices to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger, provided however that burglar or fire alarms shall not operate continuously for more than fifteen minutes. (c) Sounds made by an emergency vehicle, as defined in ORS 801.260, when responding to or from an emergency or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. (d) Sounds made by current employment of land and buildings for farm uses, i.e., for the purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting, and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management, and sale of livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees, or the produce thereof, or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural operations or any combination thereof including the preparation and storage of the products raised for man's use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise by a farmer on such farm. (e) Sounds made by activities by or at the request of the city in maintenance, construction, or repair of public improvements in public rights-of-way or easements. (f) Sounds produced pursuant to a specific variance granted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, or by the city manager or hearings official under subsection (2) of this section. (g) Sounds caused by sources regulated as to sound production by federal law or sounds caused by sources the regulation of which is preempted by state law. (h) Sounds not electronically amplified, created by athletic and entertainment events other than motor vehicle racing events or fireworks displays. (i) Electronically amplified announcements at athletic events other than motor vehicle racing events. (j) The sounding of any horn or signaling device on an automobile, motorcycle, or other vehicle reasonably required by the exigencies of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. (k) Sounds specifically authorized under a permit or license issued by the city. (2) Variances. Any person who owns, controls, or operates any sound source which does not comply with section 4.080, 4.081, or 4.083 of this code may apply to the city manager for a variance. As used herein, "city manager" includes a designee of the city manager. (a) Application. An application for a variance shall be in writing on a form provided by the city, contain the information required by the city manager, and be accompanied by a fee in an amount set under section 2.020 of this code. No application shall be considered received until all required information and the fee have been submitted. (b) Public notification. The city shall give written notice of the application to any officially recognized neighborhood association in whose boundaries the sound source is located. The city shall also post written notice at the sound source location. The notice shall state the date by which the application will be considered, the nature of the variance to be considered, and where persons may file written comments regarding the application. The applicant shall maintain the posted notice until the final decision on the application is made. (c) Types of variances. 1. Class A variances may be granted by the city manager for an event or activity which does not exceed 24 hours. 2. Class B variances may be granted by the city manager for an event or activity or series of related activities which are 24 hours or more in duration. (d) Decision. 1. The city manager shall grant or deny the variance within 14 days of receiving a complete variance application. The time for decision may be extended to 30 days if a public hearing on the application is held. 2. The city manager may, on the city's manager's own motion, hold a public hearing on the application before deciding to grant or deny the variance. 3. The city manager may grant a variance after considering the written application for variance, any written comments, and the applicant's compliance with variance conditions previously imposed. The variance may be granted by the city manager when it appears that compliance with the standards from which the variance is sought will produce unnecessary hardship to the applicant without equal or greater benefit to the public or that the purposes of the noise disturbance provisions can be served without a strict application thereof. 4. The city manager may impose limitations and conditions granting the variance in order to protect affected persons from the noise disturbance. A violation of any such condition or limitation shall constitute a violation of section 4.080(2) of this code and grounds for revocation of the variance. 5. A decision to grant or deny a variance shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for such decision. The city manager shall notify the applicant of the decision and shall make it available to any person who has submitted written comments on the application. 6. The city manager may revoke a variance without a hearing upon finding that: a. The applicant has provided false or misleading information, or omitted disclosure of a material fact, on the application or related material; b. The applicant is operating the sound source in violation of this code or applicable local, state or federal law; c. The applicant has violated a condition of variance approval; or, d. New information shows that the permitted activity or device would endanger property or the public health or safety. 7. The action of the city manager in denying a variance application or in revoking an issued variance may be appealed in the manner provided by section 2.021 of this code. The decision of a hearings official on any such appeal is final. The action of the city manager in approving a Class B variance may be appealed under the same procedures if such appeal can be decided in a timely way. Decisions of the city manager in approving a Class A variance are final. (Section 4.084 added by Ordinance No. 17435, enacted July 28, 1975, and amended by Ordinance No. 19274, enacted August 13, 1984; Ordinance No. 19606 enacted February 27, 1989; Ordinance No. 19697, enacted June 25, 1990; Ordinance No.19902, enacted February 17, 1993, effective March 19, 1993; and administratively amended by Ordinance No. 20113, enacted April 6, 1998, effective May 6, 1998.) 9.618 Eugene Code cannot be reconstructed except in conformity With the provisions of this code. (c) If a nonconforming structure is moved. it must. then conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located a fter it i s moved. (d) On any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure conta in; n9 a nonconformi nguse . ordinary repair is permitted if * in any 1.2 month peri od . the work does not exceed 50 percent of the current replacement cost of the nonconforming structure or portion of the nonconforrni ng structure, . as the case may be<< (Section 9.618 amended by Ordinance No. 19835, enacted April 13, 1992. effective July 1. 1992.) , 9.620 Exemptions. The following are exempt from these non-conformity provisions: . (a) Bui ldi ngs and uses replacing those permi tted in. the formerRG district when that district was deleted (March 11. 1985) providing the buildings and uses are not closer to property lines or exceed the density. height. or coverage of the original development. This exemption is limited to the development site on which the buildings or uses existed on March 11* 1985. (b) Additions to existing dwellings~churches, and schools if. they otherwi se conform to the regul ations then in effect in the district, in which they are located. ( c) Bui 1 di ngs and uses ex; st i ng" and 1 ega 11 y perm; tted or permitted conditionally in the I-2and I-3zoning districts as listedin the zoning ordinance on January 27. 1982. are exempt from regulations pertaining to non-conformities. . This exemption is limited to development sites in the 1-2 and 1-3 zoning districts on which the buildings or uses exlsted on January 27, 1982. Cd} Buildings and uses which had a contormingresidential density according to the, zoning ordinance on (date of adoption) are exempt from regulations pertaining to non-conformities.Th~s exemption is limited to development sites in the R-2. R-3. and R-4 zoning di stri cts on which the residenti a 1 bui 1 di ng an,d. uses ex; sted, orin which a bu.; lding permit or land useappl ication, is pending on (date of adoption).. If such abuilding which is nonconforming for minimum density is destroyed by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the development site maybe redeveloped with the previous number. of unit(s} if completely rebuilt within five years. If not completely rebui It withinnveyears, the development site is subject to the density standards of section 9.546. (Section 9.620 amended by Ordinance No. 19328. enacted June 10. 1985: Ordinance No. 19835. enacted April 13. 1992. effective July 1. 1992: and Ordinance No. 19995, enacted December 7. 1994, effective January 6. 1995.) Performanc.e Standards 9.636 Description .andPur[!Ose. The provisions of sections 9.636 to9.662. are known as the performance standards. A 11 uses and act i viti es shall observe these standards in order to achieve the purpose and objectives of this. zoning ordinance as set forth. in section 9..252. (Section 9.636 added by Ordinance No. 18915, enacted January 27~ 1982.) 9-206 01/31/95 9.638 Eugene Code 9.644 9~638 ExistinoUses. Activities. uses. equipment and processes existing as of January 27. 1982. that do not meet the standards set forth in sections 9.636 to 9.662 are subject to the following requirements: (a ) No use sha 11 be changed i n a manner that could resul tin a greater degree of nonconformity. -(b) Expansions and installation of new equipment or processes sha 11 conform to applicable standards as set forth in sections 9.636 to 9.662. (c) Time limits on existing use noise emissions that exceed stipulated maximums are prescribed in section 9..644(b). ( d) All uses. not otherwi se . prescri bed by thi S ordi nance shall conform to applicable, federal, state, and local laws and regulations. (Sections 9.638 added by Ordinance No* 18915. enacted January 27. 1982.) 9 . 640 New Uses. Act i vi ties, uses, equi pment and proc~sses establ i shed after January 27. 1982. shall observe the following requirements: (a) Applicable standards as set fo.rth 'in sections 9.636 to 9.662. When federal or state standards are more strict. they shall be observed. (b) Prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy~the building official may require: 1. Evi dence that mandatory federal, state. and 1 oca 1 permits have been obtained. 2. lnformationdemonstra.ting that the proposed use. activity. process or equipment wi 11 comply with appl icable standards set forth in sections 9.636 to 9.662.. This informa- tion may be required as a report of 'findings prepared by qualified engineers or other technical consultants. (Section 9.640 added by Ordinance No. <18915. enacted January 27. 1982..) 9.. 642 Measurements. Accurate and representa.ti vemeasurements as necessary shall be made according to accepted engineering practice. Measure- ments shall be made at or anywhere beyond the property 1 i nes :of the property from which the emission is generated... . . . (Sections 9.642 added by Ordinance No.. 18915. enacted January 27,1982.) 9.644 Noise. In addition to applicable provisions in Chapter 4 of this code. maximum sound emissions shall not exceed equivalent sound pressure levels in decibels, A-Weighted Scale, for anyone hour as stipulated in the table in this section. These maximums are applicable beyond any property 1 ; nes of the property conta i n; ng the n01 se .. Equi va 1 ent sound press.ure 1 eve 1 (Leq) is a measure of the sound level for anyone hour. It is the energy average of al.' the various sounds emitted from the source during the hour. A-Weighted Scale is used to adjust sound measurements to simulate the sensitivity of the human ear. 9-207 12/23193 9.644 Eugene Code 9.644 (a) Maximum one-hour equivalent sound pressure levels: A-Weighted, (dBa), Rece.i vinCI Property Ion; nQDistrict Time of Day Residential I-I Commercial 7am - 10 pm 57 65 65 10 pm - 7 am 50 65 60 In the event the receiving property is occupied by a dwelling, hospi ta 1, schoo 1, 1 i brary or nurs i ng home, even though it may be otherwi se zoned for cOfllltlerci a 1 or i ndustri a 1 and re 1 ated uses, maximum one-hour equivalent sound pressure received shall be: Time of Day level 7 am - 10 pm 57 10 pm - 7 am 50 (b) ~istin9 Uses. Noise emissions from uses existing as of January 27, 1982, that exceed prescribed maximums shall comply with those maximums within 24 months th.ereof. (e) Noises. of short duration. For noises of short duration or impulsive character, such as hammering, maximum one-hour sound pressure levels permitted beyond the property of origin shall be seven deCibels less than those listed in section 9.644(a). (d) Noises of unusual periodic character. For noises of unusual periodic character, such as humming, screeching, and pure tones, the following median octave band sound pressure levels, as required by the Oepartment of Environmental Ouality, shall not be exceeded beyond the property of origin when the receiving property is residentially zoned or is occupied by a dwelling. hospital. school. library, or nursing home: 1. Median Octave Band Sound Pressure levels Octave Band Center Frequency. Hz 7am-lOpm lOpm-7am ~.5 . ~ ffi 63 65 62 125 61 56 250 55 50 500 52 46 1 , 000 49 43 2,000 46 40 4.000 43 37 8.000 40 34 2. Additionala.llowance. When the receiving property is not occupied by a dwell tng , hospital, school. library, or nursing home,. an additional sound decibel emission above the pressure levels specified in section9..644(d)1.above shall be permitted as follows: 9-208 12/23/93 9.644 Eugene Code 9.646 Recei.vina .Propertv.Zone I-I Commercial Additional Decibels. .AlloWed 10 5 ~..;, 9-209 . 12/23/93 ATTACHMENTD Eugene Code (c) Bridges and culverts shall be constructed so that there is at least 3 feet of clearance between the ordinary high water mark and the underside of the bridge or culvert. (d) The lower lip of any culvert shan meet the stream or channel bed .at grade. (e) Culverts shall be the minimum length practicable. (15) Lighting. Area lighting shan be aimed f:jway from resource areas where , possible, and otherwise must be aimed'such that Ught shining on natural resource areas is minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Area lighting is outdoor Ughtingdesigned to illuminate an activity area, trail or bicycle path, and shall also comply with EC 9.4830. (16) Public Access. Access for the general public shaUbe consistent with adopted policies or plans that address public access on specific sites. (17) Location of Structures. To the maximum extent practicable, new buildings, roads and other new impervious surfaces associated with interpretive centers or wetland maintenance facUitiesshaU be located outside boundaries of wetlands identified for protection in adopted plans and policies. (18) Mitigation Site Buffers. When low value wetland sites within theNR zone are restored or enhanced for mitigation credit, a25foot buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of the mitigation area, but within the jurisdictional wetland boundary. All provisions for permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, prohibited practices and applicable special standards that apply to IWB wetland buffer, as specified in EC 9.4800 through EC 9.4860 shall apply to mitigation site buffers. (19) Site Layout. High activity areas,including traffic lanes, loading docks, and group gathering areas shall be located as far away from wetlands,water features and other protected natural areas as is practicable. (20) Noise. For inventoried sites that received a Wildlife Habitat Rating of greater than 60 in the Metropolitan Natural Resources Inventory (Lev, 1990) and sites designated as high value wetlands in the wetland buffer provisions of this code, noise generated by uses within.theNR zone and the wetland buffer overlay zone (as measured at the wetland boundary) and within the waterside protection overlay zone (as measured at the top of the high bank) shall not exceed the fonowing standards: (a) Maximum sound emissions shall not exceed equivalent sound pressure levels in decibels, A-Weighted Scale, for any one hour as stipulated in subsection (b) of this section. Equivalent sound pressure level (leq)is a measure of the sound level for anyone hour. It is the energy average of all the various sounds emitted from the source during the hour. A- Weighted Scale is used to adjust sound measurements to simulate the sensitivity of the human ear. (b) Maximum one-hour equivalent sound pressure levels: A-Weighted (dBa) Receivina Property Residential BroadZooe Category Time ofDav level 7 am - 10pm 57 10 pm - 7 am 50 (c) Noises of short duration. For noises of short duration or impulsive 9-86 03/17/2006 Eugene Code character, such as hammering, maximum one-hour sound pressure levels permitted beyond the property of origin shall be seven decibels less than those listed in subsection (b). (d) Noises.of unusual Deriodic..character. For noises of unusual periodic character, such as hummi.ng, screeching, and pure tones, the following median octave. band sound pressure levels, as required by the Department of Environmental Quality, shall not be exceeded beyond the property of origin when the receiving property is in the NRzone: Median Octave Band Sound . Pressure Levels Octave Band Center Freouencv.Hz 31.5 63 125 250 500 1 ,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 7am-10om 68 65 61 55 52 49 46 43 40 10om-7am 65 62 56 50 46 43 40 37 34 (e) ExemDtions. Local noise standards set forth in this.section do not apply to the following situations: 1. Emergency equipment operated on an irregular or unscheduled basis. 2. Warning devices operated continuously for no more than 5 minutes. 3. Railroad equipment when subject to federal or state regulations. 4. Bells, chimes, or carillons. 5. Non-electronicaUyampUfied sounds at sporting, amusement, and entertainment events. 6. Construction site sounds, except that they shall be confined t07 a.m. through 7 p.m. 7. lawn and plant care machinery fitted with correctly functioning sound suppression equipment and operated between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. 8. Aircraft when subject to federal or state regulations. 9. Agricultural equipment operated between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (f) ExceDtions. Upon written application from the owner or operator of an industrial or commercial noise source, the city manager or the managers designee may authorize or conditionally authorize exceptions to local noise emission standards in the following situations: 1. Infrequent noise. 2. Noise levels at or anywhere beyond the property lines of the property of origin when exceeded by an exempt noise, as listed in subsection (d) above, in the same location. 3. Noise levels on property owned or controlled by the person 9-87 03/17/2006 Eugene Code generating the noise. 4. If after applying reasonably available control technology, a use existing as of January 27, 1982, is unable to conform to the standards estabJishedby this section. Exception a.pplications shall be filed. at the city's permit and information center on a form prescribed by the city manager, and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by the city manager pursuant to EC 2.020 City Manaaer-Authoritv toSel Fees andCharQes. (Section 9.2530, see chart at front of Chapter 9 forlegis/ative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.) 9.2540 Natural Resource .Zone Lot Standards.. There are no minimum frontage or width requirements in the . natural resource zone. There are no lot area requirements in theNR zone except when the zone is applied based on 9.2510(3)- (Section 9.2540, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.) 9-88 03/17/2006 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING NOISE DISTURBANCES; AMENDING SECTIONS 4.083, AND 4.084 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND ADDING SECTIONS 6.750 AND 6.755 TO THAT CODE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 4.083, and 4.084 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are amended to provide: 4.083 Noise Disturbance - Specific Prohibitions . Unless exempted by section 4.084 of this code, the following acts are declared to be noise disturbances; however this enumeration shall not be deemed an exclusive list of the violations of section 4.080(2) or section 4.081 of this code, nor shall the recitation of specific prohibitions below be deemed the exclusive and entire listing of unlawful noise disturbances for each subcategory: (a) Sound producing, amplifying or reproducing equipment. Operating or permitting the use or operation of any device designed for sound production, amplification, or reproduction, including but not limited to a[ny] radio, drums and other musical instruments, phonograph, television set, tape recorder, loud speaker, or other similar device: 1. Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day so as to be plainly audible within any dwelling unit which is not the source of the sound; or 2. On public property or on a public right-of-way so as to be plainly audible fifty feet or more from such device, except as specifically authorized in writing by the city, county, state or federal government [permit]. [(b) Steam whistles. Blowing any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work, as a warning of fire or danger or as authorized by permit.] [(c) Sirens. Sounding a stationary siren.] [(d) Exhausts. Discharging into the open air the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motorboat, motor vehicle, or any mechanical device operated by compressed air or steam without a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent the emission of loud or explosive noises except where such discharge is from vehicles used for participation in vehicle spectator sports activities between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and the activities are properly licensed by the city and consistent with its zoning ordinance. Ordinance - 1 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E (e) Idling engines. Operating for more than 15 consecutive minutes any idling engine in such a manner as to be plainly audible within any dwelling unit between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (f) Loading, unloading, opening boxes. Loading or unloading any vehicle or opening, closing or destroying bales, boxes, crates and containers, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day, so as to create a noise disturbance. (g) Construction or repair of buildings, streets, etc. Constructing (including excavating), demolishing, altering, or repairing any building, street, sidewalk, driveway, sewer or utility line between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (h) Pile drivers, hammers, lawnmowers, etc. Operating any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, or steam or electric hoist between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day or lawnmower between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day.] (i) b Animals. Keeping, or permitting the keeping of any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any sound, cry or behavior [frequently or for a long duration makes vocal or other sounds so as to create] causes [a noise disturbance.] vocal or other sounds on a sustained basis during a 15-minute period shall constitute a noise disturbance. [(j) Other. Any sound source exceeding the standards set out in section 9.2530(20) of this code and not otherwise exempt therefrom.] 4.084 Noise Disturbance – Exemptions[, Variances(1) ]. [ Exemptions.] The following sounds are exempted from the provisions of sections 4.080, 4.081 and 4.083 of this code: (a) [Sounds made by work necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger. (b)] Sounds made by warning devices to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger, provided however that burglar or fire alarms shall not operate continuously for more than fifteen minutes. (cb) Sounds made by an emergency vehicle, as defined in ORS 801.260, when responding to or from an emergency or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. [(d) Sounds made by current employment of land and buildings for farm uses, i.e., for the purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting, and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management, and sale of livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees, or the produce thereof, or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural operations or any combination thereof including the preparation and storage of the products raised for man's use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise by a farmer on such farm. Ordinance - 2 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E (e) Sounds made by activities by or at the request of the city in maintenance, construction, or repair of public improvements in public rights-of-way or easements.] (fc) Sounds produced pursuant to a specific variance granted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, or by the city manager or hearings official under subsection (2) of [this] section 6.755 of this code. (gd) Sounds caused by sources regulated as to sound production by federal law or sounds caused by sources the regulation of which is preempted by state law. (he) Sounds not electronically amplified, created by athletic and entertainment events other than motor vehicle racing events or fireworks displays. (if) Electronically amplified announcements at athletic events other than motor vehicle racing events. (jg) The sounding of any horn or signaling device on an automobile, motorcycle, or other vehicle reasonably required by the exigencies of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. (kh) Sounds specifically authorized under a permit or license issued by the city. [(2) Variances. Any person who owns, controls, or operates any sound source which does not comply with section 4.080, 4.081, or 4.083 of this code may apply to the city manager for a variance. As used herein, "city manager" includes a designee of the city manager. (a) Application. An application for a variance shall be in writing on a form provided by the city, contain the information required by the city manager, and be accompanied by a fee in an amount set under section 2.020 of this code. No application shall be considered received until all required information and the fee have been submitted. (b) Public notification. The city shall give written notice of the application to any officially recognized neighborhood association in whose boundaries the sound source is located. The city shall also post written notice at the sound source location. The notice shall state the date by which the application will be considered, the nature of the variance to be considered, and where persons may file written comments regarding the application. The applicant shall maintain the posted notice until the final decision on the application is made. (c) Types of variances. 1. Class A variances may be granted by the city manager for an event or activity which does not exceed 24 hours. 2. Class B variances may be granted by the city manager for an event or activity or series of related activities which are 24 hours or more in duration. (d) Decision. Ordinance - 3 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E 1. The city manager shall grant or deny the variance within 14 days of receiving a complete variance application. The time for decision may be extended to 30 days if a public hearing on the application is held. 2. The city manager may, on the city’s manager’s own motion, hold a public hearing on the application before deciding to grant or deny the variance. 3. The city manager may grant a variance after considering the written application for variance, any written comments, and the applicant's compliance with variance conditions previously imposed. The variance may be granted by the city manager when it appears that compliance with the standards from which the variance is sought will produce unnecessary hardship to the applicant without equal or greater benefit to the public or that the purposes of the noise disturbance provisions can be served without a strict application thereof. 4. The city manager may impose limitations and conditions granting the variance in order to protect affected persons from the noise disturbance. A violation of any such condition or limitation shall constitute a violation of section 4.080(2) of this code and grounds for revocation of the variance. 5. A decision to grant or deny a variance shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for such decision. The city manager shall notify the applicant of the decision and shall make it available to any person who has submitted written comments on the application. 6. The city manager may revoke a variance without a hearing upon finding that: a. The applicant has provided false or misleading information, or omitted disclosure of a material fact, on the application or related material; b. The applicant is operating the sound source in violation of this code or applicable local, state or federal law; c. The applicant has violated a condition of variance approval; or, d. New information shows that the permitted activity or device would endanger property or the public health or safety. 7. The action of the city manager in denying a variance application or in revoking an issued variance may be appealed in the manner provided by section 2.021 of this code. The decision of a hearings official on any such appeal is final. The action of the city manager in approving a Class B variance may be appealed under the same procedures if Ordinance - 4 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E such appeal can be decided in a timely way. Decisions of the city manager in approving a Class A variance are final.] Section 2. A caption entitled “Environmental Noise Disturbance,” and Sections 6.750 and 6.755 are added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide: ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE DISTURBANCE 6.750 Environmental Noise Disturbance – Specific Prohibitions. Unless exempted by section 6.755 of this code, the following acts are declared to be noise disturbances, as that term is defined in section 4.080 of this code; however this enumeration shall not be deemed an exclusive list of the violations of this section, nor shall the recitation of specific prohibitions below be deemed the exclusive and entire listing of unlawful noise disturbances for each subcategory: (a)Exhausts. Discharging into the open air the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motorboat, motor vehicle, or any mechanical device operated by compressed air or steam without a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent the emission of loud or explosive noises except where such discharge is from vehicles used for participation in vehicle spectator sports activities between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and the activities are properly licensed by the city and consistent with its zoning ordinance. (b) Idling engines. Operating for more than 15 consecutive minutes any idling engine in such a manner as to be plainly audible within any dwelling unit between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (c) Loading, unloading, opening boxes. Loading or unloading any vehicle or opening, closing or destroying bales, boxes, crates and containers, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day, so as to create a noise disturbance. (d) Construction or repair of buildings, streets, etc. Constructing (including excavating), demolishing, altering, or repairing any building, street, sidewalk, driveway, sewer or utility line between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. (e) Pile drivers, hammers, leaf blowers lawnmowers, etc. Operating any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist, leaf blower, or lawnmower between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following day. No single powered leaf blower shall produce a noise level exceeding 70dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet. No powered leaf blower shall be operated within a 100-foot radius of another powered leaf blower simultaneously. On a single-family residential property, the 70 Ordinance - 5 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E dBA at 50 feet restriction shall not apply if operated for fewer than 10 minutes during any consecutive sixty minute period. (f) Residential pumps, fans and air conditioners. Operating any heat pumps, residential fans, air conditioners, stationary pumps, stationary cooling towers, stationary compressors, or similar mechanical device or any combination thereof installed after [the effective date of this ordinance] so as to create any noise which would cause the maximum noise level to exceed 60 dBA at any point on the property line of the affected residential property. (g) Commercial and industrial noise. Operating any equipment and conducting activities so as to create any noise which would cause the maximum noise level to exceed a one-hour equivalent sound pressure level of 60 dBA at any point on the property line of an affected residential property zoned R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4. (h) Steam whistles, sirens, and other aural warning devices. Operating or permitting the operation of a steam whistle, siren, or other aural warning device except where necessary to provide a warning of fire or danger. (i) Other. Any sound source exceeding the standards set out in section 9.2530(20) of this code and not otherwise exempt therefrom. 6.755 Environmental Noise Disturbance – Exemptions, Variances. (1) Exemptions. The following sounds are exempted from the provisions of section 6.075 of this code: (a) Sounds made by work necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger. (b) Sounds made by warning devices to protect persons or property from imminent exposure to danger, provided however that burglar or fire alarms shall not operate continuously for more than fifteen minutes. (c) Sounds made by an emergency vehicle, as defined in ORS 801.260, when responding to or from an emergency or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. (d) Sounds made by current employment of land and buildings for farm uses, i.e., for the purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting, and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management, and sale of livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees, or the produce thereof, or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural operations or any combination thereof including the preparation and storage of Ordinance - 6 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E the products raised for man's use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise by a farmer on such farm. (e) Sounds produced by work performed by the city, county or state, and persons under contract with them for repairs or maintenance of roads, water wells, water service lines, trees and landscape, as well as street sweeping, garbage removal, and similar activities. (f) Sounds produced pursuant to a specific variance granted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, or by the city manager or hearings official under subsection (2) of this section. (g) Sounds caused by sources regulated as to sound production by federal law or sounds caused by sources the regulation of which is preempted by state law. (h) Sounds not electronically amplified, created by athletic and entertainment events other than motor vehicle racing events or fireworks displays. (i) Electronically amplified announcements at athletic events other than motor vehicle racing events. (j) The sounding of any horn or signaling device on an automobile, motorcycle, or other vehicle reasonably required by the exigencies of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. (k) Sounds specifically authorized under a permit or license issued by the city. (2) Variances. Any person who owns, controls, or operates any sound source which does not comply with section 6.075 of this code may apply to the city manager for a variance. As used herein, "city manager" includes a designee of the city manager. (a) Application. An application for a variance shall be in writing on a form provided by the city, contain the information required by the city manager, and be accompanied by a fee in an amount set under section 2.020 of this code. No application shall be considered received until all required information and the fee have been submitted. (b) Public notification. The city shall give written notice of the application to any officially recognized neighborhood association in whose boundaries the sound source is located. The city shall also post written notice at the sound source location and provide copies of the notice to owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the sound source location. The notice shall state the date by which the application will be considered, the nature of the variance to be considered, and where persons may file written comments regarding the application. (c) Decision. Ordinance - 7 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E 1. The city manager shall grant or deny the variance within 14 days of receiving a complete variance application. The time for decision may be extended to 30 days if a public hearing on the application is held. 2. The city manager may, on the city’s manager’s own motion, hold a public hearing on the application before deciding to grant or deny the variance. 3. The city manager may grant a variance after considering the written application for variance, any written comments, and the applicant's compliance with variance conditions previously imposed. The variance may be granted by the city manager when it appears that compliance with the standards from which the variance is sought will produce unnecessary hardship to the applicant without equal or greater benefit to the public or that the purposes of the noise disturbance provisions can be served without a strict application thereof. 4. The city manager may impose limitations and conditions granting the variance in order to protect affected persons from the noise disturbance. A violation of any such condition or limitation shall constitute a violation of section 6.075 of this code and grounds for revocation of the variance. 5. A decision to grant or deny a variance shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for such decision. The city manager shall notify the applicant of the decision and shall make it available to any person who has submitted written comments on the application. 6. The city manager may revoke a variance without a hearing upon finding that: a. The applicant has provided false or misleading information, or omitted disclosure of a material fact, on the application or related material; b. The applicant is operating the sound source in violation of this code or applicable local, state or federal law; c. The applicant has violated a condition of variance approval; or, d. New information shows that the permitted activity or device would endanger property or the public health or safety. 7. The action of the city manager in denying a variance application or in revoking an issued variance may be appealed in the manner provided by section 2.021 of this code. The decision of a hearings official on any such appeal is final. The action of the city manager in Ordinance - 8 DRAFT 12/13/06 ATTACHMENT E approving a variance may be appealed under the same procedures if such appeal can be decided in a timely way. Section 3. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, is authorized to correct any reference errors contained herein, or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ____ day of ____________, 2007 ____ day of _____________, 2007 ___________________________ ____________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 9