Item 1: PH on Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbance

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly affirmed his interest in considering language regarding leafblowers and similar devices that was comparable to the Davis, California ordinance, which combined several strategies. He understood the desire for a certain amount of convenience but had a problem with both the noise and pollution of leaf blowers 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 leafblowers and similar power tools. Mr. Poling asked if the larger landscaping businesses could be surveyed to determine the current decibel ratings of their equip~ent. City Manager Taylor said the City's devices could be evaluated. Mr. McKer- row commented that the leaf blowers used downtown to maintain the mall were the quietest models available when purchased and operated at a maximum of 65 decibels, while 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 blowers. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about City operations, Mr. McKerrow said that he understood most of the leaves were blown into piles and collected by vacuum, although he doubted that homeowners vacuumed leaves. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back language that expanded the noise ordinance to include leaf blowers. as well as some of the elements of the Davis, California ordinance. Ms. Bettman asked if mulch blowers would be included. Ms. Solomon said the discussion seemed to indicate that mulch blowers provided a service and would not be included. Mr. Kelly agreed there had not been as much discussion about restricting mulch blowers. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to add the following sentence: "Staffwill review the current noise ordinance to see if significant noise sources are missing. Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to include mulch blowers. Ms. Bettman provided a second for purposes of discussion. Ms. Bettman said her intent was to add mulch blowers only to EC 4.083 that prohibited operation from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as that would not have a significant impact on responsible businesses that provided that servIce. Ms. Taylor said that was not the intent of her motion. Ms. Bettman withdrew 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