AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Climate, Sustainability, and Transportation Subcommittee 04-27-22

[Nicole Morell]: 21-057 subcommittee on climate sustainability and transportation transportation runs April 27 at 2022 at 6pm. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.

[Paul Mochi]: I'll just start Peli. I see you, Councilor Tseng you're present. Excellent president morale.

[Nicole Morell]: three present, zero absent, the meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Subcommittee on Climate Sustainability and Transportation on Wednesday, April 27th, 2022 at 6 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to review and propose draft language to establish an ordinance around commercial grade leaf blower use within the city in the interest of public health and safety for Medford residents, paper 21-057. The subcommittee has invited Building Commissioner Paul Moki to attend this meeting. For further information, aids and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, subcommittee chair. So to start tonight, we have a few things before us. So this is the first time this subcommittee or any subcommittee is meeting on this paper. We do have some draft language that was provided by KP Law just for us to review to see if it's something we wanna work off of Um, it looks like we also have some residents here who would like to speak, um, or at least just being attendance. I want to give the opportunity to speak. Um, and then we also have building commissioner movie here who would be able to provide insight on, um, just the capabilities the city may have around code enforcement. If we do want to, you know, the subcommittee finds we want to implement certain restrictions or regulations around this, um, as that is a concern sometimes as far as establishing audiences. we need to have the ability to enforce the ordinances. So I put it up to my fellow councilors if you'd like to just talk on this in general first, this came before the council in 2021 and was immediately moved to subcommittee to really discuss it. This is a result of a number of complaints I think that we've heard from residents. And I know there are concerns as well as just how to go about this in a way that would be beneficial for all. So I'm gonna go to councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. And I appreciate this meeting. I think it's very important. I think you're seeing the impact that gas powered blowers have played a negative impact in the environment. If you read, I know that you read some of the latest studies that you see the emissions that emitted through the gas powered blowers that are overtaking automobiles. And there are some concerns. But I'm going to state that that is a huge factor. And I think that's an important factor. And this is a great start off for the dialogue. But I think that I was involved because I was involved in my full-time position in a neighboring community that also showed the impacts that if we do change this policy, how it would impact us as a city in other ways. So I think that, so my comments tonight, Madam President, really just to obviously the pros, a very serious and something we need to look at environmentally. But what we're seeing and what I've been told is the, unfortunately, we have to look at the financial impact that would play in our community, looking at what would happen with DPW, for instance. The, The transfer of gas powered blowers to lithium battery powered. blowers are substantially financially impactful to our community if we do turn that over. So I think that's something I think we need to look into and weigh. I think that some of the questions that were raised that people reached out to me and talked to me about the environmental impact of the lithium battery after it's after its use and truly what is the impact to the environment when it's time to dispose of those batteries. So I think that is another factor that we need to look into. And some of the smaller impacts that I was, a few landscaping companies from Medford reached out and said, George, do you realize the impact of changing this over? It's something that they will have to do obviously, it would then fall back on the consumer again. And I don't want to belittle that fact, but I think that has to be said because it was brought up. I think that that's one of the questions. And then I know one other factor, I know that it's missing my memory right now, but I'm sure it'll compute in a minute. So it's been a long day. So these are the things that I'd like to hear as we start these discussions that how those factors will play out method. Oh, and the last part you already brought up is the policing of it. That's something we talked about when we changed the ordinance for many other policies and how that's going to affect a department that really doesn't have enough personnel to police that and who's going to do it. So, you know, smaller impacts, I think that one neighbor contacted me and said, George, you know, they don't believe in the blower, it's loud, it bothers them. But now you're starting to pit neighbors against neighbors, that if a neighbor does use a gas powered blower, then now, The, the, it's going to be, um, uh, another impact where you have a whistleblower calling on to the city departments and, um, and now it causes another divide. So again, these are things that. Um, I expressed just because they were brought to my attention or that I've been dealing with in my capacity, uh, working for parks and recreation as we start our budget process. I know that some old and other communities did turn over, but. Some of them, for instance, in Cambridge, for instance, they did make that move, but the economical impact, the financial impact to those communities, I don't think will play a bigger play a bigger impact than it does here in Medford, just for the fact that their finances are in surplus. They have money to make these big changes. So I think that, you know, as we start this dialogue in the process, I think these are the questions and the concerns are brought up on one side in comparison to the other. Now, again, I'm gonna reiterate, as you delve into the study, and you realize how negatively impactful gas powered blows are to our environment, it's gonna be shocking as that comes out more and more in depth and detail. So thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to keep my comments relatively brief because I know we have a lot to get to when it comes to looking at the draft ordinance itself and we have, I think, perhaps many people who want to comment on it. I find this you know I think this issue is one of the great examples of the intersection between truly like local issues that impact our everyday lives, and The great kind of big concepts that everyone talks about when it comes to social justice or environmental justice, or, or just, you know, creating a more livable future for us, our children, and the people to are who will call Medford home, one day. I find this you know, obviously there are details that we have to work through. But by talking through them sitting meeting today I'm optimistic that we can move forward on this issue I've heard from a lot of constituents who are very enthusiastic. about the work that we're doing today. And so, by talking through the small details. I think we can make a lot of progress. This is, you know, I want to note that this is something that other communities as Councilor Scarpelli has alluded to, has or have already put in place. In fact, I think California as a state has acted on this issue by banning them by 2024. And so as we talk about this, there are going to be many facts that come out, I think, that are going to shock many people in this room about the negatives of gas-powered leaf blowers. And I think, you know, I'll keep my comments brief. I'll end there right now, because I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tsai. Yeah. And just if I could, I think, you know, I've got a number of emails as well. A lot of people very excited to see something like this happen, but also, you know, a handful of folks just there is stuff to balance. I think, you know, similar to the snow removal ordinance, there are a fair amount of elderly people who rely on these landscaping services to upkeep their yard, to do yard work they can no longer do. Unfortunately, or just as a matter of fact, these landscaping companies have kind of made it so the leaf blowers are just part of the service regardless of if they're needed or not. So it's really tricky where folks are stuck in this catch 22 that maybe they don't want or even need the leaf blower, but it's part of the package. Um, so if they want to get any yard work done, they need to get this leaf floor part of the package. So, um, I do think a Councilor Tseng this point of, as more communities look at regulations around this, including entire states, California, Rhode Island is looking at it too. Um, companies I think will adjust. Um, but I just want to know there is, um, I think things to consider in balance. And I think, um, the draft language we were given does work to do that. So I can actually, um, share my screen, but I also, if there's any residents who want to speak before we get into kind of the nitty gritty of looking at a potential ordinance document, I will go to Tom Lincoln first. Tom, if you could just give your name and address for the record, please.

[Tom Lincoln]: Sure. Tom Lincoln, 27 Gleason Street in Medford. I lived here well over 30 years at this point. I assume, I'm sorry, I'm a little behind on this. I assume you're talking mostly, if not exclusively, about commercial use of leaf blowers. It's certainly been my observation living here over on Gleason Street that the use of leaf blowers has increased exponentially a great deal. As somebody mentioned, I think you just mentioned, they're a part of the package. Just the other day, I observed, I won't name any names, but I observed a small landscape company where a young man spent about 30 minutes chasing a couple of leaves around a driveway, number one. Number two, I think it's not just the air pollution, which is certainly a factor. I don't know the statistics, but at last that I knew that something like 10% of air pollution comes from gas powered landscape machines, but there's also the noise factor. And then adjunct to that, which I'm sure is probably beyond the scope of this kind of legislation, is the impact on the workers themselves. I see a lot of workers that don't use hearing protection. My late father was very deaf in his latter years, and you don't wanna be there, and it's a simple thing to use hearing protection. And of course, the battery-powered blowers are much, much quieter. I think this is clearly one of those issues where one person's convenience becomes a larger issue to the rest of the population. I'm sure the leaf blowers make it a lot easier for landscape companies to operate. I think that if they looked at it, they'd probably use them less themselves. It's not without cost to the landscape company, given the cost of gasoline, et cetera. you know, you see a lot more leaf blowers and you do rakes now. I mean, I'm not telling people how to do their business. I'm not a very good landscaper myself, that sort of thing. I mean, my sense of this is if you start with some reasonable regulation on using battery-powered leaf blowers that the landscape companies will migrate to that. Maybe you have a phase-in, you know, sort of a system. I think you could also incentivize. I don't know what the hours of, I think Paul Mokey can talk about this, but I think people are allowed to start working at 7 a.m. And boy, a leaf blower at 7 a.m. is a pretty big shock. Certainly battery-powered leaf blowers would be quiet. Maybe they'd be allowed, I'm just throwing this out, you know, if you use a battery-powered leaf blower, Maybe you can start at 630, a little bit of an incentive there. As I know that people are really hustling on this and it's a competitive business. I think there's a reasonable solution here. I can tell you just anecdotally that a lot of residents are not happy with the noise. They're not happy with the blue smoke in their neighborhoods and You know, it's certainly a problem that's gotten much worse rather than better in the last few years. Thanks.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Tom. Would any other residents like to speak before we start to review the draft? I see Nancy, and then I'll go to Norman. Nancy, name and address for the record, please. Oops, sorry. Should we see a little unmute box popping up?

[SPEAKER_02]: There you go. All right. Hi. I'm Nancy Lincoln. I live at 30 Irving street in West Medford. I've been here for 35 years. And of course my big issue is the pollution and the noise. I just, I hope that some resolution could be made so that gradually these leaf blowers, gas powered leaf blowers could be abolished by the city. I think it would have to be incremental changes, obviously. I know a lot of people make their living doing landscaping, but I do think if there were some carrots, something that would help landscapers. I'm also wondering if there's any kind of program that could be drawn up similar to when you want a new refrigerator and you get a rebate if you use energy efficient or if you if you want a new law you know a new whatever furnace you get a nice rebate to choose a high efficiency whatever a machine. I'm wondering if that could be possible for landscapers to help them know, by new equipment. So I'm just really, really concerned about the noise. I think one thing that would help right away is if there were a time when there would be a moratorium, like, I don't know, Sunday morning, or Sunday afternoon, or Saturday afternoon, when the leaf blowers couldn't be used, or late, or in the evening, or something, I don't know. But the noise is just, it's really, it's really bad. You know, thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Nancy. Yeah, I do, it was brought to my attention, Mass Save actually does have a program for going electric for landscape tools for individuals, Um, so leaf lowers on lawn mowers, um, nothing yet for commercial. Um, I have flagged in the past, um, to see if there are any grant programs out there. You know, it's beyond it's likely I'm just assuming beyond our financial scope as a city to offer those types of rebates. Cause MassAve is offering at the state level and they just simply have more money than we do. Um, but I think I can, uh, ping once again, our folks that are great at chasing down grants and see if some, you know, if there's any potential, something like that might exist.

[SPEAKER_02]: But I also, I also think, you know, Pennywise pound foolish, I think, okay, it might be more money up front. But if you want a community in which people are happy living in, and people are going to move here, you want a quality of life. I mean, if houses are costing a million dollars, you clearly don't want a quality of life that doesn't reflect that you, you have to pay for things. And then eventually down the line, you'll recoup your, I mean, just absolutely.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, that's an excellent point. And I think if, you know, I can look into that individually or if anyone wants to make a motion, we can just touch base with the finance department. And I think knowing that other cities, you know, Cambridge and Somerville have regulations around this, I'm curious, you know, is there like a multi-city thing that could happen?

[SPEAKER_02]: I get a little tired of we're poor, we're poor, we're metro, we're poor. Come on, you know? I get tired of it too, for sure. You can find money if you want it. There's ways to divvy up the pot. I think it's possible. I'm not a mathematical genius or anything, but I do think that it could happen.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I will definitely, I will put some feelers out. So thank you for that. Thank you. Of course, Norman, name and address for the record, please.

[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Madam President. Can you hear me?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Okay, good. Norman Kaplan, 23 Hedland Way in Medford. So I think a point that has to be made here is what is the concentration of the use of these machines? Who is really being affected? In my cluster, my neighborhood of about 100 homes, and that covers Franklin, Headland, Barber Lane, Ronalee, and Arden. It's about a hundred residences. They're all single family homes. And by my observation, and I think it's fairly accurate, about 15 of those residents are using commercial landscapers, all of whom are unloading, hulking gas, fueled leaf blowers as a matter of policy and practice at every visit. But that's about 15%. And I think that if you take a look at Medford as a whole, I think you're not going to exceed 15%, it's probably less. But what's happened here is we've reached a tipping point. At some point, and we have reached it, one of the other speakers indicated that there's been an exponential increase in the use of these devices. I would call it a metastasis. I've been here for eight years, and when I first came here, we'd see a leaf blower once in a while through a landscaper. It's horrendous now. A couple of weeks ago, and I called this to the attention of the president and to the mayor, and to another city councilor. We had one company who has three clients in nearly proximate to my home, show up at 7.15 in the morning. They didn't leave the neighborhood until 12.15. They were there for five hours. And they had four gas leaf blowers going on every property. And by my calculation, for each hour they had those machines going about 15 minutes, it was about 300 minutes of a single gasoline leaf blower minutes, which is five hours. And imagine just having one of those machines going for five straight hours and the amount of emissions, the amount of pollutants the amount of ultrafine particulate, to say nothing of the fact that, you know, all of these ground source contaminants, and this is an issue not only for the gas blowers, but it's an issue for the electric blowers. This entire concept of shooting ultra high speed air at the ground to clean off your lawn, your driveway, the gutters, the sidewalk, the little nature strip, That was ill-conceived from the start, you know, and it's become normalized. But what you've got is, what you're doing is you're aerosolizing, you're dispersing into the public airspace, as well as onto your neighbor's airspace, everything that's on the ground. in a way that would not normally be done. And we're talking about mold, we're talking about animal feces and urine, you're talking about fertilizer, pesticides, all kinds of lawn chemicals. And the fact is, it's much more likely that a resident that's using these commercial landscapers is also going to be applying chemicals to their lawn. The 85 percenters, including myself and some of the other speakers here, I imagine, are suffering because 15% of the residents require what the landscapers call a polished look. So that means everything that isn't nailed down on that lawn or your driveway or the street has to be dispersed. Well, that's just insane. and we're really being held hostage. I have seen children on bicycles riding through the streets during one of these visits by the landscapers when they're blowing stuff all over the place, sucking in these pollutants. What parent in their right mind would take their child out in a baby stroller during one of these visits by these landscapers? By my calculation, and I've done an informal study and I've provided a list to Madam President and to the mayor, there are more than 50 commercial landscapers plying their trade here in Medford, and they all have multiple clients. And so it's not just that a landscaper shows up one door, two doors down, they do their job for 45 minutes or an hour and a half and they leave. What happens is, yeah, they're here, they leave, and just when you think you've gotten some relief, the next commercial landscaper shows up to do somebody else's lawn. And so this thing just goes on. I mean, you can have a whole day full of this. This has to end. The same arguments against change here were made about lead paint, about asbestos, about seat belts, about catalytic converters, oh, it's gonna be expensive, it's gonna be passed on to the consumer. We have to be, sensible about this thing. This is health, the health of ourselves, the health of our children, the health of babies and infants. These lawns can be managed without the gas leaf blowers. They'll find a way, even if they have to combine some use of electric with adding on another worker. That's not bad. Another employee with a rake or a couple of rakes. You'd be surprised how much improvement there have been in rakes. I rake my own lawn. It doesn't take that long. So other communities have done this across the country. New York has many communities, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Illinois has a proposal on the table. Our next door neighbor, it's embarrassing. They have banned even electric leaf blowers during the non-leaf season. There is no reason why, at the very minimum, we cannot confine all leaf blowing, electric and or gas, in terms of the residents, to six weeks in the fall, March 15th to April 30th, and six weeks, that is in the spring, and six weeks in the fall from November 1st, when you have to have some measurable amount of leaves on the ground to December 15th. That's 12 weeks. That's actually almost a quarter of the year. Otherwise, there's absolutely no rationalization for having these air blowers on the ground. on anybody's property other than for so-called polished look. But there's no reason that the 85, the super majority of people have to suffer the noise, the toxic emissions and the ground sourced airborne contaminants so that those people who must have that type of a lawn you know, can be satisfied. They can still have clean lawns. They're just going to have to do it in a sensible and a sane way. I took a look, and I'm only going to take another moment. I'm only going to take another moment. I just want to mention that I did take a look at the draft language from KP Law. I think it's an excellent start. I provided Madam President with a memorandum that I drafted to make some suggested revisions. I hope that Madam President, you will share this memorandum with Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Sen. And I'll be happy to, I don't know who else has seen this draft, but I don't know if you're gonna publicize it.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I'm gonna, yeah, I'm gonna screen share right now. If anyone wants an actual copy, I can send it to them. And then this was the city solicitor sent this a little ways back and I send it to the entire council as well, just because we had started getting a lot of emails about leaf blowers. I wanted to make sure people had this in front of them. So thank you, Norman, and I'm gonna start screen sharing and just kind of going through this. And if Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli, if you wanna offer Um, and then, um. Commissioner Moki, too. I can just kind of tag to you when we get to the different enforcement parts and just get your feedback. People need that a little bit bigger. Possibly. So this starts off with a definition. So leaf blowers, this has it defined as fuel, battery, or electricity. So that is something, you know, if we want to keep it for all types of leaf blowers, we can come back to this too when we actually see the language. And it just defines, you know, the manners in which they are used, which I think is helpful because as has been noted by many people, Probably they're rarely used for leaves, honestly. They're used for minimal debris and other things most times out of the year. And then, you know, during certain seasons they're used for leaves. Owners of large property. So property owners, including, but not limited to corporations and condominiums or homeowners associations who own one or more adjoining parcels of land in common ownership that together compromise a total of two acres or more. So this is a better apply to, you know, most homeowners or a lot of homeowners. This is more large properties. And then commercial leaf blower operator is an entity organization that employs two or more employees who receive income remuneration or compensation of any kind, whether as a fee, and that just goes into that. And this accepts municipal operators and municipal contractors are excluded from this definition. So the limitations that have been offered in this Draft, again, these are all, I mean, every part of this is up for discussion. We could also decide that we want to throw this away and start over. That wouldn't be my choice, but I just want to note that this is all very much a starting document that I believe is similarly modeled to what Somerville and Cambridge have in place right now. So this notes that notwithstanding sections 3834 and 3837, the use of leaf blowers is prohibited except between March 15th and May 31st. and October 1st and December 15th in any year. So this notes leaf blowers in general. So I think this would also apply to individuals using leaf blowers. I would have to flag that for legal counsel just to confirm that. And this accepts all of the, really the parks in the city and city maintain recreational space, as well as, do I see, I do not see if any, I'm just scanning right now. I do not see the cemetery listed here. I know that was also of concern, just being a very large parcel that uses DPW for this work and their machinery. So I can note that unless any councilors disagree.

[Justin Tseng]: Notice for me.

[Nicole Morell]: Great. I mean I would like to put it out to cancer saying has a scar Peli I mean, on these, these dates. These bands of dates that you should be allowed if there is any feedback on that. I think also after after hearing from residents and their concerns on this. Okay. Are there any residents, I mean, who have any, you know, I think this is something that will have to be socialized to a certain extent. Just to try to get more feedback on this is my thought beyond the small handful of folks that are here. But if we want to start, if we want to keep this language, these dates for now, This will also have to move to a committee of the whole of the entire council. So essentially what we want to do is create a product that we feel comfortable with, knowing that it can and likely will change when it gets to a committee of the whole. So there are no disagreements there. Also, I'm curious if any of the councilors have thoughts or if presidents want to speak on the fact of, you know, parks being accepted from this. There. Go ahead, Norman.

[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. I think what's generally done in other communities is they have carved out an exception for the DPW because they're dealing with very large parcels and they have a tremendous, you know, they have a very large inventory of equipment. And it's really a question of giving them just enough time to transition to either battery or electric powered devices. And also to try as best they can just to minimize the use. I mean, there's ways that they can even minimize the use of their gas equipment. But I think in the main, the residents that are suffering, they're suffering in the neighborhoods, not because they, you know, My child goes to play tennis at Playstead Park or Victory Park or McNally at softball. The leaf blowers are not out there. It's here in the communities, here in the neighborhoods that we're seeing the most use. I don't really have a problem, you know, with having an exception for the DPW, so long as the DPW is going to make a good faith effort to transition to non-lethal, you know, machinery. And I think that's possible. I mean, that's the way the country's going anyway. I mean, you know, 10 years, 15 years from now, you're not going to see any of these gasoline lawn machines at all. They just won't be sold. You know, we're going to electric cars. But in the meantime, we need relief now. So, you know, we got to do the best we can. So what I wanted to make I wanted to make a mention, though, on the time frame. I mean, there's no reason to allow leaf blowers in the month of May. I mean, by May, there are no leaves on the ground. There's nothing on the ground except for grass clippings. And there's going to be some mulch that may somehow escape the bed and drift over onto the sidewalk. So I say get a broom. if you wanna sweep it off. The way that's written right now, we only have four months of relief. We need more. It should be six weeks in the spring, six weeks in the fall, November to December and March to the end of April. And that's gotta be it.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Norman. I see Tom has his hand up as well. Go ahead, Tom.

[Tom Lincoln]: Yeah, just two points. One is I don't think the DPW does a huge amount of leaf blowing themselves. I think all the maintenance at the cemetery has been subcontracted to Venaria. At least I see them over there all the time. The DPW is pretty thin on the ground. I wish they had more people, frankly, and a lot of other things. So there's that. And I'm sorry, I forgot what my other point was. But I also think that there's some contiguity here, or should be some contiguity between this and the leaf pickup schedule. uh, which is 13 has been 13 weeks of pickup since it started, I think. And I, and that certainly has is targeted to the, to the, uh, times when you're going to have the most, uh, most, uh, uh, debris, uh, to, to, to recycle. Um, I'm a little wondering a little lift if the, uh, ordinance least initially may be too broad in terms of, of individuals. I think that, uh, at least in my opinion, just my opinion and experience, the big issue here in terms of volume, making a pun there, volume of everything has to do with commercial use of leaf blowers. And the last thing I would say is that I would bet if they were honest, if you've got an honest answer, which I'm sure you would, we talked to people in the business and they would say, well, the reason they use leaf blowers is because it allows them to compete on price in terms of competitive business, and because the customers absolutely demand that kind of perfection in terms of the results, which Mr. Kaplan aptly pointed out. So I think that, you know, there's, the model leaf blowing is probably, setting everything aside, probably exceeds what, you know, is absolutely necessary right from the get-go, would be my sort of educated guests.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Tom. Um, so moving through, um, do I have a motion from, um, I'll see if there are any motions at the end or any, um, but also any Councilors, if you have any adjustments along the line, please let me know, but moving on to, uh, part two. So notwithstanding sections 30, 34 and 38, 37. The use of leaf rollers was further prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays and prohibited on other days except between the hours of 9am and 5pm. I'm curious, Commissioner Mokey, what are the current times as far as landscaping crews? I mean, I think we've all experienced them earlier, but I don't know if they're operating on the way they should.

[Paul Mochi]: Thank you, Council President Morell. Right now the audience I think these 3834 and 3837 that you're referencing here, the hours of that falls under the current noise audience and the general audiences for the city. And what those hours, Monday through Saturday, 7am to 6pm. And the Sundays is prohibited from working, except if you get a special permit from the chief of police, which that's kind of the abnormality that doesn't really happen too much. But the way, just what may be helpful to think of as we go through the rest of this draft, is that the way that ordinance is written, it says people should not operate machinery or any type of device that causes excessive noise. So we've always included that. OK, that's going to, you know, construction workers and so on operating equipment and trucks that cause excessive noise. We've also used that to enforce in some cases You have retail stores that are getting deliveries at 6 630 in the morning dumpsters me an MC that's been a real problem so we've always put that under the umbrella with the noise ordinance. And I think that one of the things someone mentioned earlier, even though it's right now, the current ordinance allows work from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., I think having any type of leaf blower going off at seven, that seems to me to be a little bit too early. So I think, and I think here it says nine o'clock, so that's probably a more, a better time to start in the morning.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Marocchi. Moving on to, so, and this again goes into that same language, accepting the parks listed and then commercial leaf blower operators and owners of large parcels of land seeking to operate leaf blowers on such lanes shall not be permitted to operate leaf blowers but may be exempted from this prohibition of the subsection if they submit an operations plan to the building commissioner or designee for review or approval. I am a little, Um. This language. I don't know if it's referencing operating outside of those hours. It seems like it's just more general limiting this. I'm curious if other Councilors are reading it. The same way I am. Um, I think. I think what it's aiming to get at is that if these, um.

[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Madam President.

[Nicole Morell]: If you can, if you can briefly I know you're, you're a lawyer so but if you could briefly.

[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I had to read this over I have to say a half a dozen times before I finally convinced myself I understood exactly where this is in context. In my opinion, and you might wanna double check, I'm sure you will with KP law, I feel that section B3 only applies to commercial leaf blowers and owners of large, in the context of large properties of two acres or more. And that's it. Otherwise, as you've said earlier, the ban is across the board, except for the DPW, but it's individuals. It's not limited to commercial leaf blowers. So really what this is saying, and if you look at my memo, what this really is saying is the commercial leaf blower operators and owners of large property who seek to use leaf blowers on parcels of land consisting of two acres or more must submit operation plans. So it's just relating only to these large properties and nothing else. Otherwise the ban is across the board. That's why I suggested in my memo taking the definition of owners of large property and commercial leaf blowers out of the first section because it's misleading. It should be only here. This is where the definition of commercial leaf blowers and owners of large property belongs. It belongs in B3 because it's just in relation to the large properties.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Norman. Do I have a motion from any councilors to make adjustments or just ask for clarification from council related to that. If anyone would like to make that motion as I can't.

[Justin Tseng]: I'd be happy to make a motion. I just didn't catch the wording.

[Nicole Morell]: I think what As the ordinance begins, it references the commercial leaf blowers, and to Norman's point, it does get a little confusing that it could be interpreted that this ordinance is only referencing commercial leaf blowers, whereas after that, it then just says use of leaf blowers in general, and then the commercial comes back in at this portion. I can also leave it, I mean, we can also leave it just to address in the Committee of the Whole to see if other councilors have a, a different opinion. So if there's no strong opinion, we can leave it. It can be addressed with the larger council. So moving on to section four, I do have a question related to this, Commissioner Moki. Obviously this is the intent. We don't want any of this happening. In my opinion, I don't want any of this happening. Residents I've spoken to don't want this happening. How enforceable is something like this of someone saying, I see so-and-so blowing this into the street and it's this particular matter?

[Paul Mochi]: I'm just, Madam President, just give me a second. I'm just reading through the rest of this here. Sure. Yeah, I think it's, I think you bring up a good point. It's, it's, it's got some good content in there. And I think it's the intent of this is good. However, I think may want to ask KP Law for an opinion on this, because sometimes if people call us on this, by the time we get out there, you know, sometimes they're still doing it and sometimes they're not. And I think, you know, if we could get out there and we see that it's an active situation, they're still doing it, then we can, you know, cite them and make them correct the situation. But sometimes the logistics of this, we'll get a call and, you know, we just always, as you know, we're running around a lot, so we kind of always go right there when the call comes in, although the guys are pretty good about getting out to these things quickly, so I'm just kind of, I think maybe we just have to revisit this a little bit for the logistics of how it's going to work.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, and then moving on to section five, only floor shall satisfy the emission standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the following noise level standard notwithstanding these sections, which are in reference to the current Noise ordinance and the sound emitted from any leaf blower shall be rated by the manufacturer to be no greater than 65 decibels. All leaf blower operators, including commercial leaf blowers, municipal operators, and OLP shall adhere these standards. Six, I think, is impactful since, you know, I would imagine there's only, there's a lot of lots in Medford over 10,000 square feet. On parcels of 10,000 square feet or less, only one leaf floor at a time may be used, and on parcels larger than 10,000 square feet, only one leaf floor may be used within each 10,000 square foot area. Is there any, Mr. Lincoln, go ahead.

[Tom Lincoln]: Yeah, I think this is the heart of the matter right here. I think that the way landscape people, and they're in business, and God love them, and they should be in business, but you know, It's a little bit like the way roofing is done now. It used to be that two guys would come and spend three days stripping your roof, put on a new roof, et cetera. Now nine people come, strip your roof in a half a day and put the rest on in the same half day. So what you see is you often see crews of three, four, five people, at least a couple of people with leaf blowers, the last 15 minutes of a job. And these are small, I think the average lot size in Medford is probably under 7,000 square feet. Uh, it would be my guess, but, but you know, this, this is, this is the cleanup phase. Boom, boom, boom. You put three person people on it with the, with the leaf blower and jump in the truck and you're, and you're out of there. And, and that allows you to, you know, to spend half an hour, 25 minutes on a, on a standard, you know, maintenance job, especially in the middle of, of, of, of the season. And I think that this would have huge impacts this section six.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Tom. Yeah, and I would agree. And I think most folks on the call, I think we can peek out to our neighbor's lawn or whomever. And it is, it's a 6,000 square foot, it's a 7,000 square foot parcel with three to five leaf blowers going on at once. And that really contributes to all of the issues that have been brought up tonight. Moving on to seven, the limitation set forth in subsections to be numbered shall not apply to de minimis use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property at which they reside, provided that such use is otherwise in compliance with the noise ordinance. For purposes of this subsection, de minimis shall mean not more than an aggregate of five units per day. Moving on to enforcement, so, The building department slash board of health shall enforce this ordinance. Violations of this article shall be punishable by fines and penalties as provided in the subsection and in accordance with Massachusetts general laws, chapter 40, section 21B. Any person may register a complaint to initiate an investigation and enforcement within the building department slash board of health. So again, going back to you, I mean, this is the big question, Commissioner Murphy. I mean, is there, you know, the bandwidth to take this on? I mean, do you have any suggestions how something like this could, work in concert with the Board of Health.

[Paul Mochi]: Yes, more people. No, I'm just kidding.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, yeah, I knew that's a fair answer.

[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, actually, we work very closely with the Board of Health on a lot of these issues. And that does help because they're combining the two departments, of course, there's more people. And I think the other thing that's helpful with this is the new permit tracking software we have, where it's very easy to establish and maintain a database on these issues. And if one department goes out, you know, One department gets a call, the other department's already been out there, we just jump on a computer or on our tablets while we're at the scene and we know if anybody's already been there. So it'll be tough, I think, to get around to a lot of these, but I think we can manage it. It's just another thing we'll have to do.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, and would you recommend leaving the language as building department or board of health?

[Paul Mochi]: I don't know if I should speak for Mary. That's fair too. But we work so closely together. I think she would probably go along with that, but like I said, I don't want to speak for her, but we could certainly run that by her too.

[Nicole Morell]: Yep. I mean, we can definitely invite the board of health to a future meeting. Thank you for that. Okay. So yeah, that touches on D. So that's something that we could revisit unless councilors feel strongly about it and the standard severability clause and effective date. So this has September 1st, 2022. We usually, there's usually things like this is a 90 day effective date. So I think it depends when this moves along. So, and that is also something we can revisit in a future community meeting, unless I'm sorry, committee meeting, unless Councilors have a strong opinion on it. Mr. Lincoln.

[Tom Lincoln]: Yeah, I'm wondering, I should know this, forgive me, but do the battery powered leaf blowers inherently satisfy the noise level limitations in terms of decibels? Or are they, I mean, I'm sure that that seemed to me to be a great, one of the great advantages of them.

[George Scarpelli]: That's number one. Yeah, Mr. Lincoln with that, you got to be careful because that's misleading too. There are some that are just as loud.

[Tom Lincoln]: So I just don't know the ones I've seen.

[George Scarpelli]: I'm sorry, sir. No, I think that that's something that we should add to look into, maybe ask the, maybe the DPW director had an idea, but I know that neighboring communities did do the study with that. Mason's pretty readily available if we, you know, even reach out to the DPW commissioner in Somerville, I think that might have, that there is something that, I think they even narrowed it down to a certain leaf blower, a gap battery powered leaf blower, that the decimal fall in the range that I think our constituents would, you know, at least be acceptable.

[Tom Lincoln]: So, sorry to interrupt, Tom, I just wanted to- No, no, I appreciate that. I guess my point here is that I think it would be wise to have some you know, incentives even built into this ordinance for, you know, getting people to use, you know, at least I know it's a 15-year window here, a 10-year window to use battery-powered leaf blowers. I think the other thing, and I'd love to see some information on this, maybe somebody has it, but my guess is that over the life of use that a battery-powered leaf blower is cheaper to operate and it's certainly less complicated from what I can see. Anybody I've ever talked to dealing with small engines and it's just, they get out of tune in terms of efficiency, even if they aren't very efficient in the first place. I think there's some real advantages. I mean, the entire construction industry has gone over to cordless drills and even larger things like chop like chop saws, the batteries haven't gotten much better. I think that the batteries are reasonably recyclable. Although that was a good point made earlier by Consular Scarpelli. But I think any ordinance is just my opinion. But I think any any word should have have some have some carrots as well as, as as the sticks.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: I agree, I agree with Tom and I think that for the residential I think that we could. That's possible I think, again, what you're going to see is the commercial, the commercial blowers. which, you know, that's going to be where they've, you know, the big companies have taken advantage of it and they know that this is coming. So they've boosted the price for the big commercial battery powered blowers. So and again, that's That's part of life, I guess. So I don't, I'm not for it or against it. I'm just that that's something that we realized as we were looking into it. You know, and again, I think the difference that we see is that Medford, at least as given the, the city entities and its financial, you know, responsibilities with not including them right now. I think that when Somerville did their study, I believe it would now cost Somerville $300,000 to turn their DPW equipment from gas powered to the lithium battery powered one. So again, so I don't think that I, I think that we're in good shape with this proposal, I think. I think as long as we make sure that the decimals fall into line for the noise issues. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, I'm on two screens and I lost my control panel. Is there any further discussion from councilors? I think we have... We haven't had any motions to adjust this. Again, this is knowing that this will go to a committee of the whole, so there is still lots of time to adjust this, get more feedback and see if this is something you want to change in any way.

[George Scarpelli]: If I can, Madam President, I think this is a good step. I think that obviously, we're very fortunate that we have educated constituents that have done their homework. And we have three Councilors that have done their homework. I mean, we see the benefits of this ordinance. But again, like I said, as we move forward, what is drafted, I think that These are reasonable, reasonable changes. And I think that this is moving in the right direction. But I think the whole the questions that, you know, we're going to hear, you know, I know, Mr. Moki jokingly said, you know, more staff but legitimately that's that's that's probably what I heard today is probably the biggest concern is the policing of it. Because you're gonna have, you're gonna have neighbors, we're gonna, we're gonna have neighbors, they're gonna be very, very passionate about the situation and we can't leave it into neighbors to police this because you can only see negative issues arise. So I think the policing of it is going to be probably the most important, but I like the way this is going. I think that everything that was put forth is reasonable and thought out and There's some great, great suggestions by constituents. I think that, you know, reaching out to Mass Save, maybe there should be something for our business community that we should ask our state delegates to look at some sort of incentives to turn over from their gas powered demons to, you know, or environmentally friendly blower. I think we're in the right course. I just think that this is a good starting off. At least this is how I believe, Madam President. So I appreciate everybody's hard work. I think this is a good start. So thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to Councilor Tseng, and then I will come back to you, Norman, for a closing.

[Justin Tseng]: I'm of a similar sentiment on reading through this ordinance and and seeing what's been implemented in different towns and both in the area and in in different municipalities across the country. Really, I think a lot of this is reasonable. I think it's a lot of this. A lot of the conditions and the kind of the details here are things that we we would see in other municipalities. And so there's nothing that's really particularly you know there's no gotcha points, there are no kind of no kind of. you know, like find detail points that would really catch anyone off guard, which I think is good with when we are drafting ordinances. I am amenable if, you know, in a community of the whole, some other councillors have suggestions, I am amenable to those suggestions. I'm not married to this draft, but I do think this is a really good draft going forward. And I wanted to thank everyone for contributing to our conversation today and for contributing their expertise, especially. I'd be interested in seeing the memorandums that some of us have written about this to see what the suggestions are, to see how exactly we can clarify, for example, point three on this page. But overall, I'm happy with where we are, where we are. I think today's conversation has been very productive.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And yeah, I just want to echo that as well as I think this is a great starting point. And I absolutely do hear the residents that want to see more or, or more limited dates, I think, just knowing that this is an ongoing conversation that this will move to a committee of the whole if motion to do so. And I think with a lot of things. It's just important that that folks have a chance to learn about something before it starts to really move so I think keeping with this draft is a good idea to just keep the conversation going around this so that folks who may not be here tonight may not have, you know, may have missed the notice for this meeting. We'll have time to look at this and think about this coming for the committee of the whole. And then again, we can entertain, you know, many more suggestions, make edits and keep this process going. I think just, you know, keeping a space document and also having the minutes from this meeting that include every single suggestion. And I will share, Norman, I will share your memorandum with the other Councilors. And of course people can continue to send things and attend meetings. going back to you, Norman. Sorry, Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: I would make the motion that we report this out to the Committee of the Whole favorably at this point so we can continue the dialogue and get the input of our fellow colleagues. And like you said, Council President, as the word gets out, then I'm sure we'll be getting the phone calls and the emails from the business owners that own landscape companies in Medford they can share their concerns or their, you know, and that's something that we can entertain and listen and, you know, and have that dialogue in a bigger forum. But like I said, I think this is a good starting off point. I think that, you know, having Mr. Moki has been always been the voice of reason. Um, you know, you always find find yourself when your question, you listen to Mr. Mulkey because he's always, um, he's always in the middle. I don't think Mr. Mulkey is taking the side he's doing with you. what's best for our community. And it's refreshing and I appreciate all his hard work. And again, obviously Norman didn't do much work to prepare, but it's good to hear, like I said, when you have educated constituents sharing their input. And these are concerns that we hear. I mean, I had a neighbor come to me just the other day for a neighbor that was, doing work and their concrete company was using the blowers and they understood that they started doing that. I went over and I talked to the gentleman and I said, listen, could you at least start doing this when people are at work? And they agreed. But once it's out there and all permits and that is out there in ink. I think it's important that they'll know that. So again, thank you. And I'll make that motion to move forward favorably to the committee of the whole. And I would second.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to report the paper out favorably to committee of the whole, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

[Paul Mochi]: Councilor Scarpelli.

[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, three in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Mr. Kaplan, if you could, if you want to take us out, if you could be brief as you've had.

[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: I had a feeling you were going to say that. Mr. Scapelli, you took the words right out of my mouth. There's an old adage, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. and you know we're finding the masons are using the leaf blowers and we're finding the fellas up on the ladders cleaning gutters they're using the gasoline blowers too. I just want to conclude by urging the council to look at at passing the strongest possible ordinance. Because as a practical matter, we only have one chance to get this right. Whatever ordinance is passed, we're going to be stuck with. This isn't going to be an annual revisitation of this ordinance. We've got to get it right the first time. And I think as far as the landscapers giving them additional time or roll it out. If they don't understand where the wind is blowing here, if they don't understand the groundswell movement against these machines, then they are willfully blind. The Globe just did a survey and a poll. They had an argument section a couple of weeks ago, and the poll is running 72% in favor of banning gasoline leaf blowers. And if you take a look at next door, you'll see a lot of comments there. I mean, it's everywhere in the public forum. So I don't really have any sympathy for the landscape of saying, well, this is catching us by surprise. It can't be catching them by surprise unless they have their head in the ground. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam President.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Okay, I just saw you on mute. Nope, motion to adjourn, it's off.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn. Seconded by... Second. Councilor Tseng, the only person who can second. And I do just want to thank you, Commissioner Moki, for taking the time to be out here. I know we tend to bring you to a lot of these things and put a lot on your department. And I think we've spoken in past meetings about the need for more code enforcement folks. I'm sure we'll all be speaking to that very soon. You're welcome. Mr. Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Three in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.

[George Scarpelli]: Good night, everyone.

[Justin Tseng]: Good night, everyone. Thank you.