Item 4: Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances

Home Browse Search

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