Item 1: PH on Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbance

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz that there were many sources of noise pollution and they were not all created by leaf and mulch blowers. She would not support a ban but would consider expansion of EC 4.083(h), which listed pile drivers, hammers and lawn mowers, to include leafblowers and mulch blowers in order to limit operations to a reasonable timeframe. She did not want to drastically impact landscaping businesses, gardeners and people's ability to care for their property. Mr. Kelly observed that city dwellers should expect some noise although that did not mean residents should have to tolerate unlimited noise. He said there was a balance point in government regulation and he hoped that most noise problems were resolved through neighbor-to-neighbor conversation and courtesy. He acknowledged that was not always the case. He received complaints from constituents about loud music from parties or car stereos and, in particular, leafblowers. He asked how other communities enforced decibel-based codes. City Manager Taylor replied that the code 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 was 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 with respect to leaf and mulch blowers was frequency; leafblowers might be used once a week and mulch blowers once or twice a.season. He was not interested in imposing restrictions on mulch blowers beyond prohibiting use between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. He was interested in considering leafblowers 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 concurred with Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He noted that noise concerns were greater in the summer when people had their windows open and lawn equipment was used and as the City densified, those problems would be exacerbated. He would support adding leaf blowers to the code as well as Mr. Kelly's suggestion to expand the current list, but would not support a ban. Mr. Poling stated he would not support banning mulch and leafblowers. He said there were standards in place that seemed to be working. He questioned the need for more regulations when the City had difficulty enforcing those it now had. He was in favor of perhaps expanding the current ordinance to include devices such as leafblowers and power washers in restricted times. He would not support a ban because some people were unable to perform manual labor on their own property and the cost to hire someone would be prohibitive. He said mulch blowers actually did the community a service by distributing mulch efficiently and reducing waste and runoff. Ms. Piercy said she was in favor of expanding the list instead of banning. She encouraged businesses that used those devices to find ways to lower the noise level. Mr. Pryor declared that he owned an electric leafblower and a power washer. He acknowledged the devices made noise and operators wore hearing protection, although noise dissipated quickly over distance. He agreed that the level of noise that was acceptable was an extremely subjective issue; however, a limitation on hours of operation was not subjective. He agreed with previous speakers that there should not be a ban but would favor a public hearing to determine what 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 were not mowing their lawns or using leafblowers at 11 o'clock at night. She said there was more to quality of life than sleeping. She said she was less bothered by noise when sleeping than when she was having a cookout on the deck. She agreed that noise in an urban environment was unavoidable but reiterated that leafblowers did not seem to serve an obvious purpose as the leaves just went elsewhere. MINUTES-City Council Work Session August 16, 2006 Page 2