Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Kelly affirmed his interest in considering language regarding leaf blowers and similar devices that was <br />comparable to the Davis, California ordinance, which combined several strategies. He understood the desire <br />for a certain amount of convenience but had a problem with both the noise and pollution of leaf blowers <br />relative to other devices. He suggested staff develop proposed language that would address times of day, <br />broadening the list of devices and perhaps incorporating the Davis language related to leaf blowers and <br />similar power tools. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the larger landscaping businesses could be surveyed to determine the current decibel <br />ratings of their equipment. City Manager Taylor said the City’s devices could be evaluated. Mr. McKer- <br />row commented that the leaf blowers used downtown to maintain the mall were the quietest models available <br />when purchased and operated at a maximum of 65 decibels, while older models operated at 80 decibels. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he would agree to looking at a range of devices and decibel levels, but not to singling out leaf <br />blowers. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about City operations, Mr. McKerrow said that he understood <br />most of the leaves were blown into piles and collected by vacuum, although he doubted that homeowners <br />vacuumed leaves. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring <br />back language that expanded the noise ordinance to include leaf blowers as well as <br />some of the elements of the Davis, California ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if mulch blowers would be included. Ms. Solomon said the discussion seemed to <br />indicate that mulch blowers provided a service and would not be included. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed there had not been as much discussion about restricting mulch blowers. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to add the following sentence: “Staff will <br />review the current noise ordinance to see if significant noise sources are missing. <br />Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to include mulch blowers. Ms. Bettman <br />provided a second for purposes of discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said her intent was to add mulch blowers only to EC 4.083 that prohibited operation from 10 <br />p.m. to 7 a.m. as that would not have a significant impact on responsible businesses that provided that <br />service. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that was not the intent of her motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman withdrew her second and the motion to amend died for lack of a sec- <br />ond. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon confirmed that any proposed language would be subject to a public hearing before action. <br /> <br />The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />