[Zac Bears]: Committee of the whole meeting notice, Wednesday, November 15th, 2023 at 6 p.m. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let's actually go. Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. Present. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Morell. Present. Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Four present, three absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, November 15th, 2023 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 21-057 to review draft language for proposed ordinance regarding leaf blower use. The City Council has invited Interim Building Commissioner William Forty, a representative from the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from local landscaping companies to attend this meeting. For further information, aids, and accommodations, contact the City Clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. I will be presiding today over this Committee of the Whole regarding leaf blower use ordinance. We have had several meetings on this so far. and a draft ordinance as well, which we will be reviewing, taking a look at. We have several comments back from, I believe, from legal counsel, from our building commissioner, from the Chamber of Commerce. We've also received, I don't know if all Councilors have received, but I've received many emails in support of the ordinance, emails not in support of the ordinance. I think the most important thing to say is that the ordinance is not done. It is being drafted. It is not final right now. We are at a stage where we will be taking input from all of the folks who are interested in this and trying to craft a policy that addresses the issues that we are working to address. I also want to note Councilor Caraviello will be joining us later. He had another obligation at this time. Councilor Scarpelli as well. So we will likely be joined by our fellow Councilors as this meeting progresses. At this point, I'd like to turn this over to President Morell, who is the initiator of this ordinance, to share some more context.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. And I had asked Vice President Bears to chair this meeting as the chair is supposed to be as, I understand they are a voting member, but the chair is supposed to be as neutral as possible. And since this was my paper that I introduced, I think it's a better representation if I speak from the floor rather than the chair. I just wanted to start, give a little background of kind of how we got here today. I know there's been a lot of interest on social media, through emails, responding to the meeting notice. And we've actually, had a few meetings on this topic so I just want to share background for folks who might just have been brought in just learning about this so I have actually received as a Councilor I know some of my other Councilors have as well I may have been Some of them are from my neighbors, so I may have been specifically targeted. But I've had a number of emails over the years asking, what can we do about leaf blowers with regards to either noise or the pollution component of it? And those of them who are here tonight will tell you that I pushed them off for as long as I could. I said, I don't know if we can do anything. I don't know if we can do anything. And then I finally submitted a resolution in 2021, actually at the beginning of the year, just saying, let's have a subcommittee meeting. see explore the level of interest as far as what folks might want to see and stuff like that and just get the conversation going. So after two of those meetings, we actually moved to have go to the committee the whole because I think as we all know, if we're here tonight, there's strong feelings on both sides of the issue. And I think it was more representative to have the larger body be able to debate that. And in the process, we had requested from legal counsel, just a draft ordinance that would provide regulations around leaf blower use in this city. That's the gist of what, that's really what we asked for. This is a common practice is to ask legal counsel, you know, we want to, we have this thing we're trying to do. Can you draft us some language? In the past when it's been our city solicitor, what we've gotten back or the process for drafting that has been a little more that we're in. Um working with KP law. What we got back looks strikingly similar to what they have in Somerville. Um And. Essentially the reason we ask for a draft is it's something to work off of. It's easier to have something to respond to. I think they kind of gave us pretty much everything that you could consider or folks are we could pick and choose what works for Medford, what doesn't, what we want to, you know, see where we want to go with this. So I just want to kind of provide that background because I know understandably so a lot of people are reacting to that draft as if it's something that we're looking to pass in its entirety. I'm not looking to pass that. I think based on feedback on both sides, but I think based on feedback, there's obviously more conversation to be had. And the reason that that draft exists in its form still is when we heard it at our last committee of the whole on this topic, which was over a year ago, Um, we had some debate and Councilor Scarpelli said we really need to have the landscapers here before we do anything before we go any farther. So we left that in the state that it's in. We invited the landscapers that we have contact information for through the city, and that's the meeting I think we're hoping to have tonight. I have a number of, I think, adjustments I'd like to consider to the draft language that I think would be a compromise on a lot of sides of the issue. I think you know, number one, this is largely in line or making sure that this is in line with our noise ordinance. I don't think it's anything outside of the realm to just be more explicit that these types of machines are under the same grounds as our noise ordinance. I think there is some good stuff in the ordinance as far as having commercial operators and owners of large property just simply submit a plan for, um, what they do to mitigate the noise, if anything, inventory of their blowers, and then operators plan for educating their users and providing PPE, which, as I understand, a lot of, not all, but a lot of landscaping companies are already doing a lot of these things as far as making sure they're, of course, that their employees are trained, that they're providing PPE should they, if their employees want to use it. And then I think some basic language, of course, as far as, you know, making sure that I think where some of the frustration comes from with leaf blower use is folks, we can get into the noise, but folks are bothered by the noise. They look out their window and someone's, a user is like chasing down some like dirt in a driveway. And I think stuff like that is where people start to say, you know, I get it for leaves, I get it for cleaning up, but it seems like it's becoming the tool for everything. And when it's the tool for everything, it's just making sure that, you know, Users aren't blowing stuff into the street. They're not blowing leaves and everything else into the street and things like that, which I think, again, is pretty much common sense. And then we do have the language as far as limiting the number of leaf blowers per lot, 10,000 square feet or less. I think that is completely reasonable, especially considering our lot size in Medford. So that's just where I'm at right now. first intention of this meeting was to hear from the landscapers, just in general, if they have specific things, obviously, about this draft that they wanna flag and have that conversation, but I'm happy to yield the floor to my fellow councilors, and then we'll go to our invited guests as well. If anyone else has, also stop me from like, I feel like I'm gonna keep trying to run the meeting, so please.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's great. Please stop me. I'll go to Councilor Collins next.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Thank you, President Morell for kind of setting the table for us tonight. I know for I'm sure for many residents, you know, for myself, I was thinking back while one was our last committee of the whole on this paper. So it's validating to hear the reminder that it was indeed over a year ago. And I think we all appreciate the refresher and kind of reorientation for what the goals of this meeting are to hear from residents again to hear from landscapers specifically, I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli for making sure that we did that before we took this draft any further. I know having reacquainted myself with the draft that KP Law came back with, I also have some kind of general goals and suggestions for how we can take this forward, how we can more tailor this to target the most consequential uses to make it more fair, to make it aligned with other rules in our city. I think that, you know, the preamble of the ordinance is clear that this is about noise pollution. This is about environmental pollution. This is about, you know, just kind of sensible regulations for a tool that is useful, but it's also powerful and it's impactful on neighbors in various ways. So I think that there's some work to be done on the ordinance to make to kind of make sure that it gets at the heart of the issue. Um, the most consequential effects of the leaf blowers and not the more peripheral ones to make it to make it fair to all users. Um, having said that, I'm sure that we'll get to the weeds a little bit later. I'd be happy to, um, hear from some of the assembled here from other fellow Councilors before we start to get into the weeds and make motions. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you, Councilor Beres, and thank you, President Morelle, for introducing this ordinance and walking us through the history of the ordinance and our goals with regards to it. I'm largely echoing Councilor Collins' sentiment by bringing us back to the original purpose and tenant goal of this. ordinance and the preamble, particularly to address noise and air pollution, as so many residents have reached out to us about. And we know we've received a lot of messages on both sides. I'm sure all of us have. But I think Councilor Morell's reminder that this is still very much a draft that is in motion that we're soliciting feedback on. I think I should hope that that should give people pause and hope on this issue. We're very much working through it, as we've all said. I think as a community, our goals are similar. We have set forward community goals. with our climate plans, with our comprehensive plans. This is one of our ways to reach those more long-term goals. I'm very grateful to the Chamber of Commerce and for other residents for giving us feedback on it and giving us actionable recommendations that we can talk through, which I'm sure we'll talk through tonight. So with that, I'll hand it back to you, President Bears. And I'm excited to hear from the residents and experts.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I think just really quickly, I can go through the as-drafted ordinance, and then we can talk about how we might want to change it. I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, if I could, I do think it would be helpful before we get into the suggested changes to hear from the landscapers and folks that want to talk, because I think that can also just inform that.
[Zac Bears]: OK, we want to hear from folks now.
[Nicole Morell]: If you want, well, I think, I think it's helpful to read through it, but I said, I just want to make sure read through hear from folks and then we can go through maybe suggested changes just so sure hearing is can be represented in those changes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely. Give me one moment. The building commissioners just joined us.
[Nicole Morell]: And I should add, I think we referenced a lot of folks we've talked to. We also, the earliest version of this was reviewed by DPW as well. So just having that folded in.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Give me one moment here. Great, thank you, Mr. Clerk. Just going to try to share screen.
[Zac Bears]: So just to quickly go through this, the current draft, which as President Morell noted, is essentially a form seemingly taken from another community, and we want to tailor that to our community's needs and capacity. We start with an intent statement, reducing noise emissions in a particular manner from the use of leaf blowers and reducing the use of gas and oil-based fuels and reducing carbon emissions are the intent. There's a set of definitions. And then there's a section B limitations on use. And this goes through a series of time limits. So this draft would limit to certain months of the year. And also this section does exempt the city. It also exempts stuff such as the emergency operations, cleaning up from special events, storms, hurricanes, et cetera. The subsection two, would prohibit use on Sundays and legal holidays, and then essentially allow use between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays, as well as limiting to one continuous hour per day for any particular property, and require compliance with the noise ordinance. The third section refers to commercial leaf blower operators and owners of large property. and would require that commercial operations and large owners register with the city and submit an operations plan for their use of leaf blowers. Subsection 4 says that you can't use a leaf blower to blow debris and a variety of other items onto other people's property or into the street. Then we have a section regarding emission standards and decibel levels. The use of only one leaf blower at a time can be used on parcels smaller than 10,000 square feet. None of these limitations apply to de minimis use by individuals on the properties that they reside. There's a phase-out of gas-powered leaf blowers, starting with commercial landscapers in March 2025, residents in March 2026, and wheeled leaf blowers powered by four-stroke engines on properties larger than one acre are not subject to the prohibitions of this subsection. And then there's a variety of legal language around enforcement regulations, severability, and the effective date of the ordinance. So it's just a short summary of where we are now. I would like to hear from everyone personally as the chair. I think it might be useful to hear where the council already may disagree with this and have a couple, maybe a top level of changes that we can hear from everyone what they think, but I think it might be clarifying. to everyone present and everyone who's interested. How much of this there's already an intent to change. So I would defer to my fellow councilors whoever has suggestions about proposed amendments. We could also go to Commissioner Forty who did provide a comment letter if we wanna hear from him before we go to councilors.
[Nicole Morell]: Can we get a new comment letter or this is the previous one?
[Zac Bears]: It's not, I don't have a dated copy. This is regarding the permit, $100 permit for administrative costs, the sound decibel levels.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, we want to go to Commissioner Forty just because we're on borrowed time with him always.
[Zac Bears]: Interim Building Commissioner Forty, I'm going to go to you on Zoom. We'll recognize if you just want to quickly summarize the comment letter that you provided to us regarding the draft we're looking at.
[Bill Forte]: Actually, Councilor, thank you. I was just trying to search for that letter. I know that I did it about six months ago, and if you'll just bear with me, maybe you could perhaps take comments from everybody else while I'm still looking for it. My apology for not being completely ready for this.
[Zac Bears]: You got it, I understand. I'll go to President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Sure, I can start. I think I have a few ideas. I know Councilor Collins has a few ideas as well, so I can also I'm happy to not take over everything, but I think one thing, one concern that was raised, I talked to a few members of the Chamber of Commerce, and I think we heard this concern the last time we talked, was just exempting the city properties, and I think people said that doesn't seem fair, which I think that is a fair comment, that that doesn't seem fair. It's not. I do think we could amend this, that we strike the, strike where we exempt the city properties, and the city properties get folded into that request with the commercial leaf blower operators. Not the request, but the stipulation. With the commercial leaf blower operators and the OLP, that they submit a plan or have a plan on file as far as the three parameters that we have as far as address owner or operator's efforts to mitigate the impacts of noise and emissions on operators of the leaf blowers and occupants of your properties. inventory of equipment and then the plan for educating users of its equipment on safety precautions for users, proper use, et cetera. So I think that would be something that brings the city under the same scope as like the other large properties that we're talking about. So I think that's something that speaks to the fairness, making sure this, what we're looking at is looking at properties of similar size in the same way as opposed to saying this property is the same size as that property, but it's the city, so we're not gonna ask them to do certain things. So that would be one motion I plan to make. I'm not exactly sure the way to do it. I'd be curious other councilors thoughts, but I think right now feedback I'm getting is de minimis use is perhaps a confusing term for, or it's just, it's Latin, it's a legalese term. So I think making explicit where, Um, it is not our intent to infringe on individuals, um, on their property. And again, it's not our intent to infringe on anyone. It's our intent to set regulations that can, um, meet the requests and needs of our community. But I think just understanding whether it's, um, changing the first, um, beyond limitations of use, just making sure that that includes just the use of leaf blowers in general. Um, and that's, actually, no, it's two, I think. We take two and we align it more with our noise ordinance, which is what dictates this stuff anyways. And then that way everyone would be under the same kind of noise ordinance stipulations and regulations rather than having two separate buckets for commercial and individual. So I think I'd be curious, or just thoughts in general, just how to make that more clear. But again, I think We always wanted to have that part of this, that you going out to your lawn and blowing your leaves, doing whatever for probably the amount of time it takes to do a standard size yard in Medford. It was never our intent to say, hey, you can't do that. So I think just figuring out what the language is to make these regulations reflect that. So that's all I have for right now, I see. I need to stop trying to call on people. So that is all I have for right now. I defer to you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. So just to summarize your comments, I captured three general proposals you intend to make. One being that the city municipal operators be treated the same way as commercial operators and the OLPs. Two, that we update and clarify subsection B7 to further explain the de minimis term and make that clearer. We need to figure out the specific language, but that's the general intent. And then three was to update B2 to align with the hours of the noise ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, and I don't know if updating B2 like eliminates the need for seven. I mean, maybe it's just helpful to be, you know, as, I mean, I know it's helpful, it's helpful just to be as explicit as we can in what, just so folks know what we're trying, what we're looking to do.
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Nicole Morell]: Again, based on feedback.
[Zac Bears]: Let's see if Commissioner Forty, I see a hand up, so I'm going to go to the Commissioner and then I'll go to you, Councilor Collins.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, Mr. President. Looking at the comments that I made and these were dated back in, it looks like it was, I don't have a date on here. I'm not sure why I don't, but I can see when it was created. In any case, I know that we picked this up from last year. So my comments basically are restricted to three things, but I would like to add something in here as well. the provision should contain a permit fee. I know that that was mentioned by Councilor Morell. In addition to that, if somebody is applying for a waiver from that, let's say it's a school or it's a church or something for whatever particular reasons, then, you know, they could, you know, and that I believe that that should probably be left to the commissioner, you know, that determination. Um, that would be in consultation with the health department and, um, and the other, um, department head that, that, that person feels, uh, necessary to reach out to, um, the sound decibel levels. Um, the only way to really enforce, uh, something like this, and I do have, um, experience in the city of Newton. Um, a person has to be trained and certified by the EPA. Uh, there's a training course that is. available and I believe it's an eight hour training course on noise meters, how to calibrate them, how to use them, what the proper ambient background noise is supposed to be, how to measure all those things. I didn't have that training, but any one of my staff that who may be enforcing this, which I would say would be probably the code enforcement officers, Dennis and Mike, Mike Valerva, would have to get certified. So there's a there's a cost associated with that. The meter I know is not cheap. That meter can run anywhere from 800 to $2,000 depending on the quality and the caliber of that type of meter. But I know that they're not cheap. And again, the training that goes with that. And then the The, again, I just want to make the city and the city council aware that, you know, there is a cost associated with enforcement of this. The fines that will be issued as a result of the enforcement would probably take care of some of the overtime. However, you know, I think proceeding any approval of this, there should be a line item budget where the fines actually go into an overtime fund, not that the city wants to make a profit on this because that's not the idea but the idea is to obviously keep the peace and enjoyment of the neighborhood. there is going to be, you know, you can't really find somebody for this act unless you catch them in the act. And, you know, having people that violate on a regular basis is probably going to happen on the weekend, just my guess. So those are the recommendations that I made at the time, but the one other thing that I would like to, that I'm suggesting that the council add is that homeowners be exempt from this. And the only reason I say that is because I think that the purpose and the intent of this is to control commercial enterprises that otherwise come in and do this massive kind of cleanup. When you're near a leaf blower operation cleanup, it's conceivable that there's gonna be a lot of noise, there's gonna be exhaust fuels from these blowers and for larger commercial operations, I think that this ordinance makes sense. I think that it's reasonable in its regulation, but I think for the average person that's a homeowner, whether they have an electric leaf blower or a gas powered leaf blower, I don't see that this ordinance should apply to homeowners for the purposes of, again, live in residence, people that reside at the property primarily and that they are the homeowners. I don't feel as though this should apply to the average homeowner. And I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the language in a while, but I'm not sure if that's been addressed, but I just wanted to throw it out there because I think that this is gonna create more problems than it solves if this homeowner exemption is not put in the ordinance somewhere. So those are the only comments that I have at this time. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I'll go to President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Commissioner Forgese. So if we were to adjust this language to that it just, the regulations on use are related to the existing noise ordinance, do you think that would then result in the need for overtime to enforce or since, I mean, that's something that's already on the books. So I'm just, if we, again, conceivably people are following this already, but making sure it's explicit that, Regulations around leaf blower use fall under the existing noise ordinance.
[Bill Forte]: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I was under the impression that the decibel levels are set separately for this type of activity, which I believe the decibel level is 0.65 decibels. Is that correct?
[Nicole Morell]: I don't believe we actually, so I guess outside, so I guess the noise ordinance, I guess, related specifically to the time. So the time balance, so like between seven and six, we actually don't have in our noise ordinance specific decibels or the one, the section I'm referring to refers to the use of machinery. It doesn't list specific decibels. And I share your concern there as far as, I'm not sure how we would be able to capture that in a way that would make
[Bill Forte]: any difference other than where you have a large cr I'm just picturing what a crew looks like. Okay, th They are going to create a decibel level over 100. Okay. There's no question. The average decibel of a handheld echo leaf blower is, by federal standards, 0.65 decibels. That's at the highest throttle level, and that would be basically the most noise that you would get out of a gas leaf blower. This would basically, this bans gas leaf blowers. Am I correct?
[Nicole Morell]: I don't believe that was the intent of this stipulation. Um, there is language here about a phase out. So again, I'm, I'm, um, I'm just asking specifically as far as like the time. So irrespective of the 65 decibel, because I think I've, I've raised from the beginning, I think, um, much to the chagrin of some of my neighbors, I'm not sure that's something that we can do. So I think that's something I'd be willing to motion to strike out simply because I don't know how we're going to enforce it. Um, So just as far as if, you know, if the bounds we put on this is you can use a leap lower in accordance with the noise ordinance, as far as the time, it's when you can use machinery. Would that require any additional enforcement or is that already falling under the umbrella?
[Bill Forte]: Well, the problem you have is that the noise ordinance is specific to construction noise, if I'm correct. I believe so. I believe it's restricted to construction noise machinery.
[Nicole Morell]: That's it's the language is like machinery machinery.
[Bill Forte]: Okay. Yeah. Well, that would be, I guess, a gas powered leaf blower and electric leaf blower would fall into that same category. I don't know that I think it would be wise to, you know, so that the ordinance is not ambiguous to mirror those hours of operation in this ordinance. or refer them to the ordinance section in which you're referring to these hours of operations. So I think if it makes a sub-reference to the ordinance on machinery operation, then I think that would suffice, just so that it's not ambiguous.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, as it reads, it's section 38-34. So it says operation plan or machinery performance of certain work No person shall perform work of a type that is excessively noisy and disturbing to the reasonable peace and quiet of the proximate neighborhood before our 7am or after our 6pm on any day and then it goes on. So it kind of has relatively blanket language currently.
[Bill Forte]: I would make a sub reference to it in this ordinance just to be sure.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, but I guess back to it. Sorry. I'm not trying to belabor this. But do you think If we reference the noise ordinance, if we update this ordinance and it makes reference to the noise ordinance and say the noise ordinance is what affects the parameters of use of leaf blowers, do we think then we will need additional staffing to enforce that since it's an existing ordinance that I would assume we're already enforcing? responding to calls about?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so what is supposed to happen is that actually falls on police. So any noise outside of regular business hours at the building department, the code enforcement officers really don't go out unless there is some kind of building emergency. We don't get, at least as a practice, I don't want to pay overtime for anything that could be dealt with otherwise. on a non-emergency basis. So the overtime is limited to emergency calls only by the fire department or police department in some cases, but for the most part, we try to limit any overtime. If this was a Saturday situation where someone was operating leaf blowers without the proper permits, outside of the scope of regular hours, then that might be something that the department can look at as maybe possibly an extra enforcement over the weekend. But to get to the answer, the crux of the answer you're looking for is I can see this being independent from the regular city ordinances. I think it would have to be a little bit more clear on the exact and specific hours of operation for leaf blowers. And I think that the enforcement also has to be, I think that the enforcement, if you're gonna follow the noise ordinance, would fall under the police on weekends and nights. So that's kind of how I see it. So I wouldn't burden, I don't know that I would respond to an off hours call for a leaf blower at 6.30 at night where my staff has already gone home and the minimum for overtime is four hours, I think it would present a problem. So again, we would enforce it during regular business hours and there's really no way to fine somebody after the fact if you don't catch them in the act of actually doing it. Right, okay. So it does, it does kind of present problems on either side, but, um, you know, it all depends on how, how much traction you want this ordinance to have. And then how, obviously how it would be funded, uh, would be through all the time, but that would be enforcement after hours. And it would have to be, that'd have to be a special revenue fund, you know, that when fines are issued, um, that they, they go out. So if I have a code enforcement. inspection now with someone's working on a Saturday without a permit, it's an automatic $500 fine. So if there's no permit, I'll send an inspector out there, but they're going to pay a $500 fine. And, uh, you know, they can appeal that fine, but until such time as there won't be issued a permit or they can pay the fine and the permit will be issued. So, you know, there's a mechanism in place. If there's any kind of call on the weekend that, that I can, um, you know, rectify, um, sending out an inspector on, on something that may not be otherwise an emergency. So, so this is kind of a non emergency thing, you know, the council would have to decide what kind of priorities they would want to set with this, and to what extent they'd want to enforce this so you know I'm open for suggestions but I think that. The ordinance by itself should have its own hour set and its own enforcement agencies listed. So if it was a police matter after hours, that should be enumerated in there as well as during regular business hours, you know, that the building commissioner obviously will follow up on complaints and give notices of violation to companies that are otherwise recognized. But, you know, to enforce this, you know, boots on the ground on the weekend is gonna be costly and, you know, we would have to make sure that there's a funding source in place for it.
[Nicole Morell]: So, okay, thank you. Yeah, that's helpful. And I don't think I know I for one Councilor is not my intention to make this a police matter. So I think just, um, mulling on that.
[SPEAKER_20]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, Madam President. Um, just to summarize a little bit more of the discussion so far. Um, there's a suggestion for a permit fee to be included from the commissioner. The commissioner would be the determining any any exemptions or waivers. Um, there's a discussion of cost associated with decibel level and the training necessary. And it sounded like Madam President, you were amenable to not requiring to go out and measure decibel levels.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I don't. I think it's one of those. I think Commissioner 14 Spartan number one, we don't have the. The train staff or the device currently, but also. If you send folks out and the people have already left it, so what do you kind of? Yeah, which.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Suggestion that you know, ensuring that fines go into a special revenue fund to address any enforcement. And then there was also suggestion around enforcement specifying the building commissioner or designee. And it seems like there was not an intent to enumerate that this would be something that police would be doing after hours, or at least that was how you felt about it.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, and we do have language in this saying the building, you know, that the building department board of health would be responsible for enforcement. But again, Trisha Forty brings up a good point where if these complaints are coming in after hours and he is, it's his, statement that you can't enforce this unless you actually see someone in the act of violating it, then I think that leaves us at odds at the moment.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. So just, yeah, I just wanted to summarize that. I'll go back over this after we've heard from councillors and before we hear from everyone else. Councilor Collins are saying, Councilor Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner 40 for being here. We appreciate your feedback on this, um, before sort of moving on to the next. Bucket around this. I just wanted to note. I think that I think that this conversation is helpful. I'd certainly agree with you come somewhere. I think that this is not the intent here to turn, um. enforcement around leaf blowers into an MPD issue that strikes me as really normative to how the city currently enforces other non-emergencies in our code. It makes me think of some of the recent committees of the whole that we had around the updates to the solid waste ordinance when some of our representatives from the code enforcement team, it probably was Commissioner Forty again saying, you know, dumping got brought up and making reference to, you know, you can't You can't fine somebody for illegal dumping unless you catch them in the act. You know, so this is seems consistent with that other type of, you know, quote unquote offense. And I think that having sort of a non-emergency recourse, like if there is a complaint, if it's flagged for follow-up so that we can assure that proper permitting is going on, that seems reasonable to me. So just kind of. to loop back to some of the earlier comments you made, President Morell. I think you've already hit on a few of my priorities to discuss in this meeting. I'm glad you brought up kind of removing the exemption for the city. I think when I said earlier about trying to target this ordinance on the the issues of most consequence. If we're talking about noise pollution and environmental pollution, then we're talking about where are these scenarios when the most leaf blowers, specifically gas leaf blowers, are going to be used by the most people by the most number of times. And to me, whether that's a private property or public property, it doesn't matter. So we shouldn't exempt the city. I'd be happy to support a later motion to remove that exemption. I'm glad that we're aligning the time restrictions and allowances with other related activities that are governed under the noise ordinance. I think that'll make it less confusing for anybody that might be affected by the ordinance. On that, I think we've already discussed linking the hours of the day to the hours laid out in the noise ordinance. Sorry, I'm just looking at my notes here. Looking at my notes, I'm trying to find the train of thought that was left behind. But I think that this also gets at another issue of trying to prioritize this on the area of most consequences, talking about people using leaf blowers on large properties, commercial properties, public properties, versus just a normal resident using a leaf blower on their individual property. I might have been one of the people that said that the term de minimis was confusing to me. And I think that we have earlier in the ordinance, we have some subsections that I think do make it clear what rules apply to owners of large properties. And then we have some caveats for how they apply differently to just people using leaf blowers on their own properties. I feel like there's a way that we can simplify this, that we actually don't need the section on de minimis use at all. My understanding from a recent reread of the ordinance is that we have these restrictions around what types of leaf blowers can be used and when, and when they'll be phased out. And we have restrictions on time of day. And currently, we have restrictions on the season they can be used in, though I think we should discuss that as well. And then it seems like there's an additional standard for owners of large property that have to go through a permitting process and submit a mitigation plan for noise and environmental impact just for owners of large properties. And I think it's already clear in the language of the ordinance individual owner-occupants residents are exempt from that. So I'm not sure what purpose the de minimis is serving at all. Actually, if residents are already subject to the same standards for you can't use a super in the morning, you can't use them super late at night, you can't violate the NORS ordinance, but residents don't have to go through this permitting and mitigation plan. I just think that if this is an area where we can remove that and just make it more clear what's targeting residents and what's additional for owners of large properties, I'd be curious to hear if there's an argument for leaving that in.
[Zac Bears]: President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Back to Commissioner Forde. So looking at, we have a, I don't know how much people use this at all. We actually have a barking or disturbing dogs set of our ordinances where the language is no person owning a dog, keeping a dog, blah, blah, blah. Where such noise, barking of a dog, is plainly audible at neighboring residents from the building, premises, vehicle, or conveyance housing said dog, or such noise is continuous in excess of 10 minutes. That such noise is plainly audible at said distance or continuous in excess of 10 minutes, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation. Maybe you never get calls about this, but I mean, this is just something that By the time someone goes out there, the dog may no longer be barking or I'm just curious, do you get calls or people reach out about this and just how it's handled that can like inform anything here?
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so we only respond to construction noise. That would be the extent of our enforcement under the noise ordinance. We don't feel it's appropriate or we just haven't, you know, historically enforced any kind of noise like parties at night or, you know, we might handle maybe a truck idling kind of thing if there's like a business that's Um, you know, that's running trucks late at night or, um, excessive noise related to a building project. Um, other than that, we really are not the enforcing agent for the noise in the city. I believe that the police are the enforcing agents, um, for the city.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Thank you.
[Bill Forte]: That addresses that. Just one more thing I wanted to add about the exemption for homeowners. I believe that what I'm saying they would be exempt from is the registration of using a leaf blower. So again, this would only apply to commercial, you know, landscape companies that come in and clean out, you know, by contract on, you know, anything other than a residential property, you know, on a regular basis so that that's that's specific to the registration, the hundred all of permit fee and all that registration is specific to commercial landscapers and the only exemption that a homeowner would get is that they wouldn't have to register as a commercial landscaper obviously and but they would still be subject for the same rules and regulations, especially when it comes to hours of operation of a, of a leaf blower. So that might need some clarity as well. So.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. And just to, I appreciate that, appreciate that commissioner Forty. And I think just kind of as much check my interpretation here, cause I based on my read of this ordinance, I think that's where we're at in this current draft is that all users cannot violate the DOORS ordinance. All users have to use a safe leaf blower, adhering to certain EPA standards. But only operators operating on large properties have to go through the permitting and the mitigation planning aspects. I think that's how the ordinance is currently written. I think if that needs to be clarified, then it should be, because I think that's of the priorities for me in this meeting is delineating, you know, how does, how is this different for individual residents versus for contractors or municipal employees? And I think that's kind of the crux of it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to chime in at this point with some, some points that there there's more that I think we can work on, but in general, I appreciate the discussion that we're having so far. I do, I, would be in favor of removing the exemptions for the city-owned properties. I think it's important that we set an example as a city if we expect people to follow this ordinance. I think aligning the regulations in this ordinance with the noise ordinance makes a lot of sense. I think in general, it'll be easier to enforce things if they're in line with existing ordinances. I do, in reading the text of the ordinance itself, I do think that the minimus point in subsection seven does address a lot of the concerns that I've been hearing from residents, but I do agree with Councilor Collins that we could make it clearer and put it in to subsections one and two, if that makes more sense for residents who are reading through the text of this ordinance. But that is, I think, a legal question. So I'll leave that to the lawyers. I very much support basically separating this from individuals, I think, in the sense that our target are these, as we, I think all of us have kind of enumerated, just listed out today. Our target is really these huge properties, municipal properties that were, there's so much pollution and so much noise being created. We don't want to, I think there, I think we all agree with the reasonable regulation of this and we just have to find a way to put this, put that in the text. But, I think, I mean, Councilor Morell, you might know more, but I'm looking at section B, subsections one and two might make sense, but I'd be interested to hear if you have anything.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Could I just actually really quickly, Councilor Collins, did you have any specific additional amendments beyond the ones that were listed? I just want to make sure I have captured them in the list that I'm keeping.
[Kit Collins]: What do you have for me so far?
[Zac Bears]: I have that you agreed with a bunch of other ones that have already been proposed. Was there anything new?
[Kit Collins]: I have already have removing the exemption on I can read.
[Zac Bears]: I can read my list really quickly. I have the municipal not not exempting municipal updating and clarifying the minimus use, uh, updating to align with the noise ordinance hours. Um, and then we had also from the building commissioner making sure permit fee is included, uh, removing the decibel level measurement. Um, and just clarifying the enforcement authority, was there anything else?
[Kit Collins]: Well, I have a couple others that I haven't brought up yet.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, okay, you haven't brought them up yet. Okay. Which I can do now or later. All right, I'll go to President Rourke.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Mr. St. Baird. I just wanted to note to Councilor Tseng's point, I mean, it may be worth including the de minimis as well, because I think in the stuff may fall, I think, you know, when it's daily hours are extended, folks may have, oh, I just want to use my leaf blower, you know, do this really quick. whatever get this done I have extra daylight hours so making sure like that is like exempt if someone's just cleaning up their yard they have they need to go past the regular noise ordinance time maybe it's maybe that's excessive but I don't know I could I could see that being an instance where having including both just having the regulations but also saying diminished use you know for whatever cases
[Zac Bears]: Sure, we'll just be a couple more minutes, thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I'm happy to.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, anyone else?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, go ahead. Just really quick about that point. I think that there might be use keeping it in there. It'd be a great question for the lawyers. If anything, I think increasing the aggregate number of minutes might make a bit sense. This seems a little low in my opinion, but just wanted to put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: I know we have a couple more from Councilor Collins. I just want to throw out that I think structurally this ordinance is flawed from the get-go, the draft that we received. I just think it's a lot of counterfactuals that make it hard to understand what each section is trying to say. I think it may be better structured instead of just having limitations on use as a general section with seven subsections to maybe break that up into potentially you know, owner occupied or a residential section, and then a commercial, municipal, and OLP section, and then it would be very clear what's applying to which group.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I will say cities that I've looked at that do have things like this, they have their ordinance that's, you know, within their code of ordinances, and then they have like a one pager that kind of summarizes and not legally is what is included. So, but I think to your point that and like plus and.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think a structural change would just benefit readability. I'll go back to Councilor Sagan and then I'll open it up to the public.
[Justin Tseng]: Really quickly, to your point, I think I understand what Section B is saying with points 1 and 2 about excluding municipal and OLP, and then in point 3 bringing them back in. I think I understand it, but it is one of those things where structurally just doesn't seem helpful for all this to be lumped together. And it's not particularly clear, even to us. And we're used to looking at these ordinances. Right.
[Zac Bears]: All right. At this point, I will open up to members of the public. We have Tom Lincoln on Zoom, and then if there's anyone in the chamber who'd like to speak, you can line up. Yeah, I think we also want to make sure we get from the landscapers too, but I know people have time commitments, but just from whoever, whoever is not a Councilor, but if anyone would like to speak, any members of the public in the room, landscapers, et cetera, I also have a hand up on Zoom. So I'll go to Tom Lincoln first and then folks can line up behind the podium. Tom, name and address for the record, please.
[Tom Lincoln]: 27 Gleason Street, Medford. I'm a little confused about the large parcel business. And I think the danger here is that by emphasizing that you're actually ignoring the really heart of the matter here. If you took all the hours of leaf blower usage in a given year in Medford, I can about guarantee that a huge percentage of it is on small, relatively small residential plots. On my small street, on Gleason Street, There are often two or three people working at the same time with several leaf blowers a piece. They're here not very long sometimes, but sometimes quite long. And I think that, I think you're confusing the residential use versus commercial use. A commercial landscaper working in a residential area has just as much effect maybe more, frankly, because of proximity to quality of life and pollution and noise. So that's something that I think you need to be careful about, in my opinion. Secondly, I can see that enforcement is very difficult on this. And I think that that tells me, and I think probably some other people, that what you really want to do here is incentivize the use of quieter leaf blowers, which are the electric ones, quieter and cleaner. I don't know what other cities have done. This kind of ordinance is spreading across Massachusetts to some extent, but in order to incentivize people to use electric leaf blowers. The fact is the people on the ground are not making, typically not making the decision about what equipment they use, unless they happen to also be the owners of companies, and there is a wide range of companies doing this work, at least from my observation. So I think that some kind of incentive program, carrot, if you wish, lots of sticks here, but some carrots I think would be a good idea. I think the decibel, I'm going back to this, I'm sorry, I think the decibel meter business is, I sort of a non-starter to make a bad pun here because I don't see decibel enforcement going on in Medford on anything else. So I can't imagine that this would be something that would be a high priority. I may be wrong, that sort of thing. The last thing, which is a smaller issue, but just an observation as a resident, there are leaf blowers and then there are large machines that vacuum up leaves, particularly towards the end of the season. And those sometimes sound like a cacophony of leaf blowers all sitting inside a big wooden box on a truck. And I don't know if that's already covered on the building inspector construction ordinance. but it's another piece of this. So that's just the comments that I have here. I'm not an expert on drafting by any means, but I think the comments about the structure of the ordinance are also probably quite apropos.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Thank you, Tom. Anyone in the audience would like to speak? Feel free, yes. You need to press the button on the microphone, and I'll need your name and address for the record, please. You're good.
[SPEAKER_04]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: You're on? You're on.
[SPEAKER_04]: OK. All right. Catherine Maris, 50 Ridgeway Road, Medford, up in North Medford. So I'm a home gardener. I do my own landscaping and so on. And so I do it any time I want to. So it could be 9 to 5, could be 8 o'clock in the morning, could be 6 at night. I trim the bushes when they need to be trimmed. I vacuum them up. I blow the stuff around to my property and break it and all that kind of stuff. I'm an older woman, so it takes me a long time. Sometimes I'll do a little, I'll cut all the bushes and do one side, and then I'll go in the house and have a drink, and then I come back out. I'm not doing it in five minutes, I'm not doing it in 15 minutes. I might be doing it between June 1st and September 30th. I don't, I want to do it then. This says that I can't, is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Well, this draft has language, but it's not final.
[SPEAKER_04]: OK, so I object to people telling me that I can't do my gardening and yard work during the summertime when you do it. So at first, I was happy when you said about the de minimis, and it didn't. De minimis, yeah. And then I realized when you were talking that it was the permit. That was the thing that I would be exempt from. So as a homeowner. It's both.
[Nicole Morell]: It would be both. De minimis use would be for homeowners.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, so am I allowed, and I have an electric one because I can't use the gas one, it's just too much for me, to go out and trim the bushes and to use my blower back during the summertime?
[Nicole Morell]: I think, yeah, we would vote on everything, anything, so yeah, 100%. I don't think that, I personally, I would like to introduce a motion where that electric is exempt from any of the regulations. I think that to Tom's point, I think that's an incentive point. But I think this is absolutely what is helpful for us to hear. So I think this is all up for grabs, this is all up for debate. So yes, that is what it says right now and that's what you're reading. Is that what we're trying to pass? For me, no.
[SPEAKER_04]: I think there's a whole bunch of people that are just like me that do the same thing.
[Nicole Morell]: Absolutely, yeah. And I think that's part of it, is the way this is written now, written by lawyers, is confusing. So number one, make it not confusing, but number two, hear from people and make sure that, yeah, we're not limiting people from doing their gardening, doing things.
[SPEAKER_04]: And I also believe that we're a different city than when we compare ourselves to some of all. We're a totally different city than some of all. We have larger lots and, you know, houses are a little bit farther apart, etc.
[Zac Bears]: Some of this is somewhat Arlington Belmont also passed similar ordinances similar to structures these which are You know, I like to say Medford's a little bit of Somerville, a little bit of Malden, a little bit of Melrose, a little bit of Winchester, a little bit of Arlington, you know, different parts of the city have different flavors. But yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: But when I read some of this stuff, I think, you know, are we going to be like Footloose? We're like Elmore City down in Oklahoma where they don't allow dancing anymore. You know, we've got to be careful about what we're stomping on. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. But this does say, and I think this is where we need to clarify, because even Mr. Lincoln, who just brought up, This specifically says the limitations set forth in two of the subsections, so those are the ones that we were talking about around the hours and days, will not apply to de minimis use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property at which they reside.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, so it's not just property. permits, it's my general, okay.
[Zac Bears]: And the question there is kind of what does de minimis mean? That's what we're trying to figure out.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so skip de minimis and just say exactly what it is, which the homeowner is allowed to do this during these months, during these hours. And electric is okay, because that seems to not hit the decibel point that you don't want to have doing the noise.
[Zac Bears]: I think there's a bunch of linguistic clarification and structural clarification that needs to happen in this ordinance to make it clear exactly what applies to who and what everything means.
[SPEAKER_04]: Great. All right. Thank you. That's what I needed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Chris Bennett on Zoom and then I will come to the in-person next. So Chris Bennett on Zoom. You should be on mute.
[Chris Bennett]: Hi. I'm Chris Bennett. I'm on Martin Street in Medford. And I appreciate that you're talking about making it that homeowners are not going to be more exempt from this. But the one thing I wanted to bring up is we're considered Free City USA. I have like six trees in my backyard. I purposely kept the trees because I feel like it takes care of pollution on its own. We do our own composting. We do as much as we can without having to worry about all that stuff. But I'm also older and I have a pretty large, I'm on a lot and a half, and I have to do a lot of leaves. I probably end up with Even with my mulching and all the stuff that I do, there's like 30 bags. I'm not going to do that without a leaf blower. And I understand everybody's concern with gas powered, but I would say 99% of the homeowners don't have gas powered. blowers. It's usually the commercial trucks that have all of those. So I just wanted to, again, agree with what everybody was saying that if it's a homeowner thing, it's like we should be exempt. It doesn't make any sense not to be. That's my two cents. That's it. Thank you, Chris.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please, and it's on.
[kOuBy-MtMpc_SPEAKER_34]: So it's Dorino here, 325 Malden Street in Medford. I'm also a resident in Medford, and I am also concerned with, as a resident, we have limited hours after work to try and get things done. And the restrictions, I think, definitely need to be clear and fair. We don't want property values going down, because people can't tend to their yards. I know you're moving it to commercial, but we also have to keep in mind, landscapers can choose not to do business in Medford if we make it challenging for them. So something to just consider from a business perspective, too, is it worth them, depending on how many clients they have, to pull this paperwork and the permit to do this? Also, right now we're talking about leaf blowers being electric. I mean, down the road, I'm sure we're gonna talk about lawnmowers and other appliances that we use. And I just really, with the economy the way it is, I just don't think this is good timing for any of this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Anyone else in the chamber would like to comment? Or anyone on Zoom? Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_18]: Patrick Harris, 178 Woodwind Street. Metford residents for over 50 years now. I've been landscaping in Metford since I was 12 years old. I'm just gonna run through a couple of things. Do you have what's gonna be the cost of permits?
[Nicole Morell]: I think it was thrown out $100.
[SPEAKER_18]: It's a recommendation of $100. So if I'm a landscaper, you pretty much know I have a leaf blower. What's the purpose of me now having to cash out more money? for my business to get a permit to use leaf blowers. Then am I going to have to have a permit to use my lawnmower? Or my truck? Which way does that go? I'm just wondering where it's going to go after that. It's a slippery slope, and no one's proposing it. OK. But, well, you're proposing $100, and that'll be for leaf blowers, and then the gentleman on Gleason Street, who is complaining probably about me, I've talked to him. I mean this time of year, I circulate Medford every 12 to 14 days. I'm on his street for 15 minutes every 12 to 14 days. I have 14 employees. We support many families. So I think the restrictions that you have for homeowners, that should be gone, because that's crazy. The hours, like the last lady just said, people are working late. They come home. What are they going to do, spend Sunday, five hours cleaning their yard, when they could be with their family? Everybody works two jobs, husbands, wives, everybody. So I think they should be exempt from all of that. When you say multiple blowers, so if I come to your property and I'm only allowed to use one blower, is that what you're proposing if I'm on a property of less than 10,000 square feet? So I have one blower on your property for an hour, when if I'm free, I'm there for 15 minutes. So my crew comes in, I have a crew of 14, so if I come to your house, I have at least six or eight guys raking up leaves. Then I have guys coming in behind them with blowers to try to clean everything up afterwards. So we do a ton of raking. The leaf sucker that I have, yes, it's loud. We try to keep it as low as possible when we're running it and running it when we suck up the leaves. I don't want my guys climbing up 10, 14 feet on a ladder with big tops of leaves and possibly dangerous. So that's why we use the leaf suckers. It also makes us more efficient and we're out of there a lot quicker. The timing that you guys have on this, I mean, just as a landscaper, if it's March 1st and the weather's good, we're out. I totally agree. We want to go summertime after Memorial Day. September 15th is a much better day than October 1st. Leaves are flying around here easily after the 15th. December 15th is a closed date. I have no problem with that. Just your hours of operation. I mean, you're trying to go at 9 a.m. in the morning.
[Nicole Morell]: I think we've been talking a lot about just going with the noise ordinance, which is 7 a.m. to 6.
[SPEAKER_18]: Okay. I'm just wondering, because, I mean, the other morning I was woken up with a truck outside my house at 5.30 in the morning delivering curbing. I mean, so there's other people... They should not be doing that either. Well, they are. So I'm just saying this... And the city, if you drive around with all the construction that we're having, those guys are working 6.20, 6.30 in the morning, and nobody's saying a word to them. So I don't know if they get some type of exemption. for working on the roads at that time? I don't know. Is that, are they not allowed to be working at 6.30 in the morning?
[Zac Bears]: I think it depends. I mean, it would generally know if it was private use. I don't know if there's specific use. I'm just talking about all the construction that we have going on in the city. I mean, if it's MassDOT or DCR, we don't have authority over that. So I don't know what streets.
[SPEAKER_18]: Okay. The phase out, like you're talking about getting rid of all leaf blowers within two years.
[Zac Bears]: It would be, as written, gas-powered leaf blowers by March 15th, 2025 for commercial landscapers and March 15th, 2026 for residents on their own property.
[SPEAKER_18]: Why wait two years? Why don't you just vote this out and don't have us use them now? I mean, that's ridiculous trying to phase this out. The amount of trees that are in the city, the amount of cleaning that we actually do for the city, the amount of stuff that we clean up on city property, You know, you talk about people not blowing leaves out to the street. Every citizen in Medford, once they hear you're a leaf. you know, you set the dates for cleanup and the trucks are coming, people are piling the street with leaves. If you get one snowstorm before they get cleaned up, you have tons of leaves under snow throughout the whole city. So, I mean, we're still doing a fair amount of work in helping the city clean up as well. And there's a lot of landscapes out there. I mean, I proposed it in Winchester. There's certain areas that if you want to, if it was possible to break them up into certain brackets and say, okay, I work in your area on a Monday. I work on your area on a Tuesday. You can have all the noise there in one day, and then the rest of the week, there's not. But then if you have a dividing area, maybe somebody's too close, there's blows going each day. So I mean, again, I'm only in Medford every 12 to 14 days, because we can't be there every week. So I'm just saying, I'm not. These people that are complaining, they complain about me 15 minutes every two weeks. That's why I'm saying some other landscape is if they were able to work the same areas. They probably can't do that, but just an option. We've already talked about this in other cities, for us to set up a trailer that's all electric, and you talk about electric blowers being much better, they are not. The amount of coal, the amount of natural gas that it takes to make these batteries, it would cost me, to one trailer alone, $75,000 to get a trailer equipped to run electric blowers. for the day that we're using them. I mean, you want to put that cost on? I have two cutting curves. That's $150,000 I have to invest into batteries, which you think are better? No. I mean, there's many stories of these lithium batteries just going on fire now. So that's a point that, you know, and maybe that's what you want to phase out too. I don't know who you expect to rake all these leaves in Medford without blowers. That's a little ridiculous. That's about it. I mean, I think your dates, if you want to do that, there's certain jobs during the summer that you need a larger blower for. So maybe that's about it. Yes.
[Nicole Morell]: Can I ask you a question? Of course. Do you work in places, do you operate in like Arlington and places? Nope. Nope.
[SPEAKER_18]: I'm in Winchester.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Do you operate in any towns that have leaf blower ordinances?
[SPEAKER_18]: Lexington. Lexington?
[Nicole Morell]: Yep. How does that?
[SPEAKER_18]: We have gas blowers during the summer. We have battery blowers during the summer. But I mean, there's a certain job, like we're trimming bushes during the summer. If I'm in Lexington, I'm using my gas blower, that little blower. And we rake up all the heavy stuff first, but we've got to clean stuff up. So do we still use them sometimes? We have to. You know, I mean, homeowners, what am I going to do? Put the cost onto them now. You know, I try to be very reasonable to what we charge people. And so what now I'm going to spend another, what, 10 guys, another hour and a half on somebody's property. Somebody that can't do it. Somebody that does work six days a week that wants to spend time with their family on a Sunday. It's just, you know, there's different things. This is method. Been here a long time. I pay my property taxes just as everybody else in my family does. I mean, so it's been a long time family business. So I just don't want to get run out of Medford. I feel like that's what you're trying to do. And I think it's going to just snowball into all the things that you're going to try and get rid of snowblowers. And then is it my lawnmower next? Is it my leaf sucker that the gentleman's complaining about? How far is this going to go? And you talk about pollution, but the city keeps building more houses. They want more of this or they're bringing more people into the city. We have a million apartments. How many more cars do we have now out here with this pollution? It's just going to snowball from one thing to the next. So I don't mind working with the city. I know some people don't care about my blowers. I know some people do. So you're hearing from the people that are complaining. You're not hearing from the people that don't care.
[Nicole Morell]: We're here for both. I mean, yeah, there is.
[SPEAKER_18]: But I'm sure there's a bigger audience that you're not hearing from that don't care about this.
[Zac Bears]: If I could, I just have one question. Sure. You spoke about the dates. You seem pretty certain that the March 15th date, before March 15th and after December 15th, you didn't have any issues with that.
[SPEAKER_18]: Like I said, March 1st, if the weather's good. I mean, we could still have snow. We have snow in April sometimes, and that shuts us down for a week. But if I'm out March 1st, you have Memorial Day, I totally get that. People want to have quieter summer. So again, we're already using the battery-packed blowers during the summer. And then we're using them in towns that don't even have the ordinance as well, just trying to work with people. And then I think the September 15th to December 15th, I mean, that's generally when we're out working. The 7 to 5, all my guys go home at 5.30. They all have families. I don't want them working past that. And you get to this time of year, it's dark at 5 o'clock. I'm not going to be working out there. So if you stop me off at 9 o'clock, now I can only work from 9 to 5 when I really can't get to 5. You know, we have a limited 10 months to get all of our work done. And if you're gonna limit something that I've been doing passionately for 32 years of my life, it's just, I don't mind talking about it. I'm happy to come up with solutions, but phasing them out, I don't see that ever happening. In Medford, unless you want to get everybody with rakes on one day to go clean up everything. The phase-out was for gas only. Still gas. Have you used a battery pack blower? We have an electrical area. I mean, do you go to the houses that I go that have, like that lady said, that's on Martin Street, where she has five trees? Have you seen the topography in Medford since 1950 to now? We have a lot of trees. You know, I could jump into other things too. I mean, you guys have a tree company that comes into Medford and they pop trees throughout the city. I don't see one dig safe marked. These people pop up on curbs, break concrete and drop trees into the ground. I'd love to know what we're paying for them, because they're crappy trees. Some of them are half dead, but you guys are paying for it and you're planting it. So there's other things about the city, you know, that needs to be checked in on as well about that. So, I don't know, that's my piece. Thank you for your comments.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate it, thanks. Anyone else in the chamber would like to comment? And actually, I have Eunice on Zoom. If you could just wait one second. Eunice, name and address for the record, please.
[Eunice Browne]: Eunice Brown, Greenleaf Ave. Thank you very much. I just want to ask a quick question first before I say what I need to say so that I have some clarity. Is this only for gas blowers, or is it basically applying Like the, you know, not being able to use anything in the summer, does that require, does that, what's the word I want, apply to any sort of a blower? The rules that you have, does that apply to any sort of a blower or just gas blowers?
[Zac Bears]: As written, which it will likely be amended, the phase out is for gas blowers only. The definition of leaf blower for all the other requirements does include battery and electric.
[Eunice Browne]: OK, so now that we've got that out of the way, so what I'm getting at is I think there's a few different areas, and I think you've kind of touched on them, that definitely need some revisions here. Definitely the days of the week and the time, Monday through Saturday, 9 to 5, affects certainly both the homeowner and the commercial folks. I don't think that works for them at all. You know, to not be able to use it on a Sunday for somebody that might work six days a week, you know, now they can't get out there and tend to their property. The season, March 15th to May 31st, and then 1st of October to the middle of December. So then you can't use a blower at all during the summer. What if you're having a 4th of July party, or a graduation party, or something like that? You can't go out and tidy up your yard. The length of time, the way I understand it, And I guess I don't really understand this de minimis piece. Was that saying that you can only go out and use your blower for maximum five minutes a day? Because if that's the case, that's ludicrous for almost anything. And then my last point, and I had this conversation online earlier with President Morell about How many landscapers were notified about this meeting? I know back 1 of your meetings. I don't know a year or so ago. Um, you know, it was agreed upon that. You'd contact the landscapers. Um, obviously, Mr. Mr. Pierce came to the podium a moment ago. I believe my landscaper is. either on Zoom or in person, I'm not sure which, but only because I told him about this. He had no idea. And he talked to a couple of his landscaping buddies and of other companies. They had no idea either. So I think you're missing an awful lot of businesses that do business in Medford. I mean, As I tried to explain to President Morell earlier today, when I needed a landscaper a year ago, I googled landscapers in Medford. Came up with a couple of dozen businesses. I went on to some of the Medford groups. I asked for recommendations. I put in the search boxes, fall cleanup, spring cleanup, whatever, and it got you know, dozens upon dozens of names of companies that do business in Medford, how many of them were notified? I think we're missing out on an awful lot of people who do business in Medford that have no idea that this is on the table at the moment. So I think the outreach definitely needs to be better. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. Name and address for the record, please.
[Nicole Morell]: It's on. Oops, I hit it again.
[McGilvey]: Thank you. Harry McGilvey for Piedmont Road, Bedford. For starters, I would hate to see somebody like Pat Cass, who is a real good guy, and he runs a really good business. I would hate to see him go out of business because of government regulations. That's a tragedy. I'd also be curious, in the spirit of transparency, because we all love that word. How many people are actually complaining about this? This is a city with about 70,000, 80,000 residents. How many residents actually have a problem with this? As a homeowner, I have all gas-powered equipment. I'm reluctant to buy lithium battery stuff because I have personal experience where I've seen The dangers of lithium batteries, in the last year or so, I've seen what lithium batteries can do. And I'd be leery to plug one into my garage, which is connected to my home. I don't trust the technology. I don't think they've mastered it yet. I haven't really had any experience with house fires or anything like that caused by gas-powered equipment. And I'm also curious as to how the city of Medford can say we can't use gas-powered equipment, you're going to phase them out, when I can legally go to Home Depot or Lowe's and buy one. I'm just curious as to how the city has that authority to phase something out. What else are we going to phase out? Because my lawnmower and my snowblowers sound just as loud as my leaf blower. And I operate my snowblower much longer and at much later times. than my leaf blower. And I don't hear my neighbors complaining when I'm going around the corner all the way up to Wyman street, making a path on the sidewalk with my, uh, with my snowball. So I urge the council that this, this, with everything we have going on in this city, this is not something that, that, that I think this council should be VP dealing with right now. We talk about funding and budgets and everything else. And now we're talking about limiting leaf blower use in the city of Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else in the chambers or online?
[Nicole Morell]: That's a good sweatshirt. That's it. You gotta watch out what they're teaching them there though. That's where I came from. Oh, that's a good school for that.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, I'm going to name an address for the record, please.
[Milva McDonald]: Hi, Milva McDonald, 61 Monument Street. Um, thank you for bringing this ordinance, um, forward. I, I personally don't, I don't like the noise. Um, but I just want to focus on an issue that has been touched on, but I feel like it hasn't really been delved into, and that's the environmental impact of leaf blowers, which, I mean, we can talk about the slippery slope, but right now leaf blowers are on the table, and what we do know is that gas-powered leaf blowers are highly polluting. One statistic I just read said that one hour of leaf blower use is equivalent to driving 1,100 miles in a car. I do think that gas-powered leaf blowers are in another class, and I would like to just see that brought out a little more. And I understand the difficulties of the enforcement, the noise issues. Even though I am concerned about them, I work at home, and I do find it difficult. That said, the most important aspect to me of this ordinance is the phase-out. Many of you ran on a commitment to addressing climate change and environmental issues, so I really urge you to follow through on that and follow through with the phase-out of gas-powered leaf blowers.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Link to Ellen on Zoom.
[Ellen Epstein]: Thank you, Zach. I just wanted to put in my two cents.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, could I have your name and address for the record?
[Ellen Epstein]: I'm sorry, Ellen Epstein, 15 Grove Street, Medford. I have a problem with leaf blowers, and I'm old enough to remember the time before leaf blowers. And it seems like we're not even talking about that. To me, the biggest danger of leaf blowers is that they encourage a pristine landscaping aesthetic that is really detrimental to a healthy ecosystem. And I know that leaf blowers are here to stay. I think it's really unfortunate. And I'm very much in favor of doing anything we can to regulate them. Thanks very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ellen. Anyone else? Mr. McGilvery, if there's anyone else who hasn't gone first, I want to let them go before you go second time. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Norman Kaplan, Hedlund Way. First of all, I would just like to say I listened to Pat Kearse very carefully. And I have a lot of respect for Pat. One thing he did not mention is that he volunteers to coach girls basketball. And he's doing a fantastic job. And I also have respect for his industry, the landscaping industry. There's a lot of landscapers out in my neighborhood every week, and I see how hard they're working. I am sorry that we have to, it has come to this, that we need to talk about an ordinance to rein in, regulate, if not outright ban the gas leaf blowers. It is too bad that this could not have been done on the basis of just common sense, and that is homeowners could see this problem, they could hear the noise, they could read about the polluting effects, the health hazards, and talk to their landscapers and say, look, we just can't have this. There was a time before leaf blowers, there was a landscaping industry. We got the leaves taken care of. We got the grass clippings under control. It's going to cost a little more. You're going to have to add in a couple of workers. You're going to have to combine electric with raking and brooms. All right, it's worth it. We are actually living under a tyranny of the minority. I would say, rough estimate, maybe 15% of the households in Medford are actually employing landscapers, and landscapers are, are using probably 95% of the, if not more, of the gas leaf blowers. We don't see too many homeowners with a gas tank strapped to their back, and certainly no women. They're too smart for that. So it's the time To end the use and misuse of these devices is long past due. And it's also time to end consideration of half measures. Virtually all of the leaf blowers that we see and hear through closed windows and doors and walls are of the backpack style. These are the machines that are favored exclusively by the, or almost exclusively by the landscapers. The problem that has really not been addressed here, we've talked a lot about noise and it's horrible to be sure, but there probably wouldn't be the same groundswell of momentum across the country for the elimination of these devices if it was only the noise. What we haven't heard a lot is what is the real problem? And that is the health hazards of these devices. These are crude, inefficient, two-stroke engines. And unlike the typical internal combustion engines, your four-stroke, something that would be in your motor vehicle, which has separate tanks for gasoline and oil. These two-stroke, which are very simple, they're very primitive, they're cheap, they combine the gasoline and the oil in the same tank. And as a result, about a third of that mixture, fossil fuel, that gasoline and oil is emitted unburnt in the exhaust along with a toxic brew of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease causing chemicals and harmful ultra fine particulate. One of the major manufacturers of commercial grade gasoline leaf blowers, and all power tools is steel, S-T-I-H-L. Let me read directly from a warning in the current steel commercial grade gas leaf blower operator's manual. And I quote, as soon as the engine is running, this product generates toxic exhaust fumes containing chemicals such as unburned hydrocarbons, including benzene, which is a known carcinogen, carbon monoxide, that are known to cause respiratory problems, cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. The warning, which is prominently displayed in the owner's manual, goes on to highlight the emission of airborne contaminants of smaller, particular size. the exact words they're using. They're talking about the particulate matter 2.5, 2.5 microns lower. This is a smaller diameter than a human hair. And the problem with this ultrafine particulate is it cannot be filtered out through our bodies. It ends up deeply lodged in our lungs and it is known to cause all kinds of health problems. The warning also goes on to highlight the emission of these smaller particles and actually warns the operators and bystanders to wear approved respirators. Now, these landscapers that are out there for nine and a half hours a day, from 7.30 in the morning to 4.30 at night, hours and hours of exposure in very close proximity to these emissions. They're not wearing respirators. Very few of them are wearing eye protection, and also few are wearing hearing protection. And from where they are, the decibel level, as our building commissioner said, is probably over 100 decibels. Just imagine, though, for a moment, if a team of landscapers was on your neighborhood with the leaf blowers going and they all had on industrial grade respirators, would you let your kids out to play? Would you take your baby out in the stroller for a walk with these devices going? This morning, I've heard from, I hear from landscapers, well, we're running off in five minutes or 15 minutes. This morning they arrived, the horse trailer arrived on my street at 8.35 a.m. They left at 10.45 a.m. Now, they did handle a couple of different properties, but they were on for, 9.30, yeah, two hours and 15 minutes. And I can tell you that the majority of that time, I was listening to that horrible leaf blowing noise. And despite the fact that my windows were closed, doors were closed, and I had earplugs in, and the radio on, it was still, I could still hear it. But again, my main concern is the health hazards here. They are 15 times, according to Mass Perk, and for those of you that don't know what that is, that's a non-profit advocacy group for the public interest. According to Mass Perk, a gas leaf blower is 15 times as polluting as a gas-powered automobile. According to the California Air Resources Board, one hour the use of a single backpack blower generates the same emissions as a car driven 1,100 miles. And I think one of our residents mentioned that unless you didn't cite the source. So she was right on. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2020, gas leaf blowers and gas string trimmers were responsible for 85% of all fine particulate emissions and 51% of all volatile organic compound emissions of all gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment. And that's just what comes out of the back end of the leaf blowers. What's coming out of the front end? Well, they're blowing at speeds of 180, 200 miles per hour. This is hurricane category five air speeds. and they're blasting a lot of stuff into the air that neither you or your children want to inhale, like animal feces, construction dust, mold, fungus, pollen, pesticides, herbicides, and all of this stuff lingers in the air for hours. So it's not just a problem in front of your house, but all of your neighbors. So in Medford from mid-March to mid-December, except for Sundays and rainy days, there are over 50 landscaping companies that fan out every day for nine hours, nine and a half hours, from 7.30 to 4.30. And they're polluting the neighborhoods. And not only the air that we breathe outside, but inside our homes as well, if we choose to open our windows. Do we really want these machines operating daily in our neighborhoods once a year? To my good neighbors who knowingly or unknowingly permit landscapers to use the gas leaf blowers. I'd say the Masters Golf Tournament is never relocating from Augusta, Georgia to your lawn. Your lawn does not need to look like wall-to-wall carpeting. It can still be properly cared for and have a manicured appearance by a combination of electric or battery-powered blowers, rakes, and brooms, and grass clippings. All summer long, the landscape is blown grass clippings. These do not need to be blown anywhere. Scots, everyone's heard of Scots. They make the grass seed and lots of other lawn chemicals. They actually recommend that the grass clippings be left in place. We cannot continue to sacrifice the health of our residents. on the altar of spit polished lawns. We don't let our children drink polluted water. Why should we have them breathe polluted air when we have it within our power to make the air a lot cleaner and healthier? There was a lot of talk here about enforcement. And my response is that this is an imaginary problem. Of course, there will be some violators, but there are legal remedies to address that, any noncompliance. If we pass an ordinance, most people and most businesses will comply because most people and most businesses are in fact law abiding. And as for the minority of violators, first of all, a gentle reminder, is likely all that is needed, such as a letter from the Board of Health or from the building department, or just having the homeowner who's hiring the landscapers indicate to the landscaper that we do have an ordinance and we would like you to comply with it. There are other remedies, but I doubt it would ever get to having to go beyond what I've just suggested. There's also a standard refrain from landscapers that they would have to increase their rates if they couldn't use their blowers. I haven't seen any evidence of that where gas leaf blowers have been banned. And to those who say that rates would go up, I have to ask those same landscapers, did you lower your rates after you began using the leaf blowers? I doubt it. Banning gas leaf blowers at all times and restricting the electric and battery power to the spring cleanup and fall leaf removal is not a radical movement, as some would seem to suggest. Because there is no national ban on gas leaf blowers, it is up to municipalities to act, and hundreds have.
[Zac Bears]: I wanna just quickly- Norman, I'm just gonna have to give you like one more minute.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Here's a sampling of cities and towns in the United States that have already passed ordinances banning gas leaf blowers, all without civil unrest, I might add. Palo Alto, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Oakland, and at least 20 others in California. Seattle, Washington, Aspen, Colorado, Miami Beach, Naples, Florida, Somerset, Maryland, Lodgemont, New York, Montclair, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and here in Massachusetts, Concord, Belmont, and Arlington. We talked about the, I'm gonna skip over the ordinance itself because a lot of work still needs to be done on it. But I just wanna finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank President Morell for all her skill and hard work, hours of work that she has invested in bringing this important ordinance. to near fruition. Thank you very much for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Any other comment? Harry, I know you wanted to come up. Anyone else? I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom, but if you'd like to comment, please feel free to raise your hands on Zoom. Seeing none, I'll go to Harry again.
[McGilvey]: Thank you. Harry McGilvey for Piedmont Road. I never read the owner's manual. This guy just scared the crap out of me for a while. I think we were all looking a little bit down. Anyways. Anyways, City of Medford has a vac truck, and most contractors have a vac truck. I'm just making a point here. You talk about loud noise, and you talk about, but they can't get things done without that vac truck. We had that McCourt project go through the City of Medford for five years. There were portions of that project where there were so many utilities underground. Without the vac truck, they wouldn't have been able to dig the holes. That's my, as much as we want to make gas powered equipment, the devil here, we need it. So let's just be careful as to what we ban and what we don't ban. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment from members of the public at this time? Seeing none, I will go to Councilor Tseng. and then President Morell and then Councilor Thomson.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. I don't want to step on anyone's toes here. I appreciated all that feedback. I think it was useful and I think it showed me that I think we're all a bit closer to our goals than we appreciate, than we realize. I think that what I'm hearing from residents' needs to take care of their lawns and also what we support here from our conversations tonight, it seems like there's a big appetite for exemptions for battery-slash-electric-powered leaf blowers. I think that something that There's also that we should be looking at in the city council that there seems to be agreement on our minor adjustments to hours, to operations on Sunday, start dates of leaf blowing season, like March 1st and September 15th, instead of March 16th and October 1st, and increasing the minimist time from five minutes to something a bit more reasonable, more realistic to match residents' demands. But I think as residents have reminded us, many of us have been elected on platforms specifically on noise pollution and environmental pollution. And we do owe it to our voters to move on an actionable example of this. I think the question is, what does that look like? But I do think that there is more consensus than we realize. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, so I would make a motion based on this discussion that we adjust Section 2 under limitations of use so that it reads, in accordance with Sections 38 through 34 and 38 through 37. And then that goes into someone who decided that the use of leaf blowers is restricted to the hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on any day.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Nicole Morell]: And then I think it would, okay, we'll start that. Did you email this language?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So I can put it in the report? Yeah. I think if I may suggest that it might be more useful for us to make motions about general policy changes rather than specific language. Okay. I'm going to make a motion that we reorganize and remove a bunch of legalese.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, because I think this has to go back to the legal counsel. They can actually put in the work of getting us an ordinance that is reflective of Bedford and not just giving us Somerville's ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: So the motion would be to change the hours from 9 to 5 to 7 to 6.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, in accordance with the existing noise ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: We'll take all the motions at once, but that's motioned by President Morell, seconded by Councilor Collins.
[Nicole Morell]: And then I would also motion to strike the language exempting city properties from these regulations. And then also, I don't know if we're on the same motion, add city properties to the requirements of subsection 3 under limitations of use.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Can you repeat that last part?
[Nicole Morell]: Add city properties into the subsection 3 as far as the requirements limitations of use. So that's a section that includes commercially floor operators, owners of large properties, and then adding in the city of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Should we have that be one motion, maybe?
[Nicole Morell]: Sure. I think that's, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah. As long as the clerk reads everything back. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a second on that motion?
[Nicole Morell]: And then I would just ask that we strike subsection five with regards to the specific decibels. actually might not be the whole thing there yeah there's a sentence in there that it says as far as OSHA requirements regarding PPE so I would just ask that we strike the part specific to decibels between the notwithstanding or after the word agency through the period after the word decibels yeah yes
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is there a second on that motion?
[Nicole Morell]: All right, I can stop there to let other councilors talk.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Give me one second. I just want to catch up here. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Any further motions? Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: I think that President Morell already made the motions that I was planning, so thank you for that. I'd want to clarify, do we already have a motion on the floor to make electric leaf blowers exempt from existing seasonal restrictions? In that case, I would make a motion to make electric leaf blowers exempt from the
[Zac Bears]: I was, um, so it'd be a motion to just that the electric could be easier round.
[SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, well, I think I think it would be exempt from
[Kit Collins]: Section B limitations on use, subsection 1, but I'm also cognizant that this is going to get reorganized, so I'm not sure if referring to the subsections is helpful at this point.
[Zac Bears]: So let's just have it as a motion that electric and battery relief blowers can be used year-round. That's an easier way to phrase it this time. It's a motion by Councilor Kahn, seconded by... What's Councilor Tseng?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Kahn?
[Kit Collins]: I have a feeling this is going... The second motion will tie it to what you were... I'd like to propose, Councilor Bears, that I would also motion to rephrase section B, subsection seven, to just clarify that there's an exemption for permitting and mitigation plans and permitting fees. for residents using leaf blowers on their own properties, and I think that probably referring to residents is most clear as opposed to owner-occupiers, property owners, et cetera.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Individual on the property at which they reside is the current language.
[Nicole Morell]: Well, there you go. And I think, just if I could interject, I think that sentence, too, if we just strike the word de minimis and that sentence about de minimis, I think it serves our original intent. without adding the confusion of de minimis, defining de minimis. But just a suggestion.
[SPEAKER_08]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: So it's a motion to rephrase B7 with the exemption for permits and mitigation fees and to strike the word de minimis in that section.
[Adam Hurtubise]: except everything. Right.
[Nicole Morell]: I'm sorry, what do you mean by that?
[Justin Tseng]: If we strike the word de minimis, we have to reincorporate that second sentence somehow into the first sentence.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, it refers to two specific sections. So it's currently the limitations set forth in subsections. B1 through 2 shall not apply to, and it says, diminished because it's divided.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, it's mostly that if we get rid of all references to the minimus in here and get rid of that second sentence, then it's a complete exemption from everything.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should, and this is where it goes to why I think we need to restructure it. My suggestion would be that we motion to say that the use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property at which they reside shall have the following limitations. And that would be,
[Kit Collins]: I'm happy to make a more general motion along the lines of recapturing the intent that these restrictions do not apply to individuals using them on their own properties. That doesn't need to be in D7.
[Zac Bears]: So essentially, it would just be that they would be in that, that the use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property at which they reside would be required to be in compliance with sections 38, 34, and 38, 37. That's the noise ordinance. And then the only other restriction that we were placing was some sort of aggregate time limit.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not arguing against myself unintentionally. I think, yeah, I think I remember saying the de minimis there is helpful for folks that need to operate outside the regular noise ordinance. So I forget I ever said anything. I will go back to it. Cause I think the point of the de minimis there, I think what we're trying to get at is there are these hours of the noise ordinance, but there may be, Circumstances where folks want to, need to, whatever, use their leaf blower for a certain amount of time to get their work done. I think making sure we're exempting, or in my opinion, exempting residents from the ability to, granting residents the ability to do that.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. I mean, the most important part of it is just the aggregate time created definition, really, in my opinion.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. I think that, that issue gets a little less important if we remove the prohibition on Sundays and holidays. I think that those kind of fringe cases where somebody really needs to use their leaf blower for what I'm sure would be a short amount of time, if it's before 7 or after 6, might fall under the category of the neighbor phone call or perhaps like a letter from Coden 4. I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm trying to, in a real-time way, if it's more useful to put it into the ordinance or if it's more confusing.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, Councilor Collins has a point there. Especially if we vote on your motions, that section might just not be needed.
[Zac Bears]: It sounds like, just so I can understand it, that essentially if you're an individual and you want to use a leaf blower on your property, all we're going to say is, You have to do it between the hours that the noise ordinance allows. And otherwise there's some additional amount of time that you could use it outside of the noise ordinance. Like you could use it after 6 p.m., but only for 15 minutes or. So what Councilor Collins was saying is that, yeah, that last part we cut out. So just say that the only limitation on an individual's use is the noise ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. So I'm sorry, what did you say by Susan Ferris?
[Zac Bears]: that the only limitation on an individual using a leaf blower on that property where they live would be the noise ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I guess my point to that is the woman we had here before who said, you know, sometimes I, you know, I'm out there at seven or I'm doing little bits at a time with like my electric leaf blower. So I don't want to impede on that, I guess. I mean, my, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: So we could do noise ordinance or some amount of minutes is what I'm saying.
[Nicole Morell]: OK, got it.
[Zac Bears]: I would be open to either. I think either works and makes sense. I'm saying it would be an or in the phrasing of it. Generally, try to keep it within the noise ordinance. If you're going outside of the hours allowed by the noise ordinance, you get 30 minutes. Yeah, OK. I don't know if 30 is right. You guys can debate that.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I was going to say we should maybe talk about what makes sense. I think 15 or 30 makes sense.
[Kit Collins]: We can make a motion to receive feedback from the Board of Health or Building Commissioner on what the correct de minimis number of minutes should be in this case. I'll second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Should you say that again, please? I couldn't hear it.
[Kit Collins]: To request feedback from Commissioner Forty or designee from the Board of Health on what an appropriate de minimis interval would be.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: A motion to
[Zac Bears]: amend section B subsection 7 to say that this ordinance would only limit the use of a leaf blower. Yeah, I'm going to get there. This ordinance would only limit the use, sorry, the use of a leaf blower by an individual.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: The use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property at which they reside. The compliance with sections 38-34. With sections 38-34 and 38-37. And to allow some amount of time outside of those restrictions and request feedback from Commissioner Fordy and the Board of Health on what that length of time should be. And that's the motion by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Sainte. Are there other motions? I have a couple, but go ahead.
[Nicole Morell]: I know Councilor Collins' motion to have electric or battery um, exempt from section, um, from the seasonal, um, regulations, but I would motion that it also includes section two, just as far as the, the time regulations, just because of the resort regulations.
[Zac Bears]: We're not sorry.
[Nicole Morell]: It would have, have electrically floors being exempt from sections one and two. So I think we talked about section one is the seasonal and section two is like the time of day. who's having electrically exempt from the time of day regulations.
[Zac Bears]: So you could use it whenever.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Is it electric at 9 p.m.?
[Nicole Morell]: I mean, my thought is they're quiet enough they don't need to be, but I mean, maybe this is a question for... I'll hold. I'll stay on that. I think there is a... Because I think there is the noise ordinance related to the machinery, or there's an ordinance. The way the noise ordinance is written, and of course, this leads it up for interpretation, is specific to machinery. It says, no person shall perform work of a type that is excessively noisy and disturbing. So under the idea that this is not as noisy and disturbing as the gas, but I'm also fine to just let it lie and leave it for any future discussion or whatever. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_20]: I don't mean to get so intensely into the weeds. I appreciate that.
[Kit Collins]: I think I, well, we could certainly, as a write-up draft, we could motion anything and further amend it. I think that would play differently in different neighborhoods of the city. Yeah. Thinking about my neighborhood in South Medford, it feels a little more out of bounds, and I think it would in many other neighborhoods.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. Again, this is a living document at this point, too. I'm not married to anything. OK. Then the one other thing, or I just know, I think, that the dates that Mr. Keir shared were helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I had March 15 to May 31 and September 15 to December 15.
[SPEAKER_18]: That's my head.
[Zac Bears]: I just have something else. I just want to. Oh, sure.
[SPEAKER_18]: Go ahead. I have to go coach. What is your next steps? Like, is there another meeting or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're going to file all these motions. Then there'll be another meeting once legal counsel has drafted all these motions into hopefully more readable language. And my guess is it will be after the new term starts in January. One thing that we are, fingers crossed, going to have implemented by our first meeting in January is a new online agenda and meeting management system where more of these files, like the drafts and stuff, will actually be attached to the online agendas for people to access.
[Nicole Morell]: So just procedurally, this stuff has to go through committee. Until it's voted out of committee, it's not going to be something we actually vote on. Some stuff stays in committee forever. Some stuff, I mean, the last time we met on this was a year ago. I'm not gonna be in the next council, so I shouldn't make any promises, but yeah, there's at least one more meeting of a committee style likely before it would end up on anything that would actually be voted on. Okay, perfect.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great, thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: I mean, someone else can motion. I know Vice President Bears has some motions, so I don't wanna.
[Zac Bears]: Those are my two motions. I don't wanna be committee in all the motions. Let's stick with March 15th. Okay. Councilor Tseng is making a motion that the restriction that they would be allowed between, and so let's be clear here, because we've exempted electric entirely, that's January 1 to December 31? Yes. Okay. So this would be for the gas blowers, March 15 to May 31, and then September 15 to December 15. Okay, that's a motion by Councilor Tseng.
[Adam Hurtubise]: March 15th, May 31st, and September 15th, December 15th.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm not going to amend or put. I was going to suggest a little bit of a different approach, which is just only have the electric only allowed in the middle in that summer period. Because I don't really see the value between December 15th and March 15th of allowing the electric.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I think it's just easier language-wise.
[Nicole Morell]: Also, I think that the seasons have the seasons decide what people are. Okay. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think for me, I think it's about the, like the, uh, the right to, what is it? Quiet enjoyment, like during the summer, I think is what folks are seeking. Um, I think sometimes I think we talked, we talked about like leaf collection. I think, um, the seasons are changing so much that there may be, I don't know, God knows what to do when earlier or later, but I think that having that quiet time that people can actually be outside, you know, during the summer is important.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. So the motion is gas powered leaf blowers only allowed to be used between March 15th and May 31st and September 15th and December 15th. Is there that's motion Councilor Tseng seconded by second Councilor Morell present. Um,
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I mean, I think, honestly, I don't know. I don't think people are going to be using it on top of the snow. Maybe they are. If they have to, maybe there's a reason. I don't know. Yeah, I think it's just, I think just for clarity, I think it's this use, I think, to also Mr. Kearse's point, it's like it's limited by the weather anyways. But I think for clarity, it's just easier to say that. It's either exempt or they are allowed whatever. It's just like the very straightforward sentence. Yeah, I'm not trying to design an ordinance where it's like, you know, you're at a parking spot and like, you know, there's something and you're reading four signs in a row trying to do the math in between to figure out if you can actually park. And I do think there's a discussion point. I think it's just, I think it's worthy of discussion as far as the dates of the actual phase out, perhaps they need to be pushed out a little bit. I know there is, there's a bill in both the house and the Senate right now, as far as funding for commercial landscapers to transition to electric. So I think, I think there is some stuff moving in a way it hasn't before. that maybe would support that. Again, I think if there's something coming up under another council, it's not gonna be me, but putting that up for consideration, knowing this is a draft and it's still being worked on, it doesn't have to, but I'm just putting it out there for consideration.
[Zac Bears]: I've got a few of my own. One is a motion to add a permit fee to a $100 permit fee to the commercial operators and OLP section, and that the commissioner will have the discretion to issue waivers.
[Justin Tseng]: Do you need one of us to formally make that motion?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll make that motion.
[Nicole Morell]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Second is to establish a special revenue fund for all fines collected under this ordinance to fund enforcement.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll also help you make that motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Third is enforcement, just specify in the enforcement section that this will be enforced by the building commissioner or designee.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That'll be seconded by.
[Nicole Morell]: Sometimes I can't hear over there. It must be the heat, which I don't know if I have a key for.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's a lot on our hands. I'm pointing at the thermostat. These are the AC thermostats. That one doesn't do anything, and that's the heat. Last is that I think we should adjust the structure of the limitations of use section to have limitations for individual, one subsection for individuals, can we rephrase that? One section for individuals using a leaf blower at the property at which they reside. And a subsection for commercial, OLP, and municipal. Commercial operators, OLP, and municipal.
[Justin Tseng]: Cool. Yeah. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, OK.
[Zac Bears]: And the only thing here outside of that that I have that we discussed that has not had a motion made is the Sunday and holiday.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah. I think both.
[Nicole Morell]: I think that the noise ordinance is just every day of the week. So I think if we may change that language to any day, I mean, I think to Mr. Kearse's point, The commercial folks are.
[Zac Bears]: 7 to 6 any day.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah. That's how the motion covers that.
[Zac Bears]: Let's go back to that first motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, the first motion you made covers that.
[Nicole Morell]: OK. Yeah. I think just making sure the language any day is explicit. Yeah. I don't think we want to send folks to then the ordinance to figure out what days it applies to. So I think the way it's written in the ordinance is 7 to 6 any day. Any day.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Change the hours from 9 to 5 to 7 to 6 to align with the noise ordinance.
[SPEAKER_08]: All right, let's read back the 10 motions.
[Adam Hurtubise]: President Morell moved to change the hours from nine to five to seven to six any day of the week to align with the noise ordinance. That's a second from Councilor Collins. President Morell moved to strike the language exempting city properties and to add city properties into subsection three as to the requirements. And that is a second from Councilor Tseng. President Morell moved to strike subsection five regarding the part specific to decibels. And that is a second from Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins moved to make electric and battery leaf blowers allowed for use year round. That is a second from Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins moved to amend section B subsection seven to limit the use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property at which they reside to be in compliance with section 38-34 and 38-37 and to allow some amount of time outside of those restrictions and request feedback from Commissioner Forty and the Board of Health on what the length of time should be. That's a second from Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng moved that gas blowers be allowed only from March 15th to May 31st and then September 15th to December 15th. That is a second from President Morell. Councilor Tseng moved to add $100 permit fee to the commercial operators and OLP section and that the commissioner will have the discretion to issue waivers. Second from President Morell. Councilor Tseng moved to establish a special revenue fund for all fines collect under this ordinance to fund an enforcement, second by President Morell. Councilor Tseng moved to specify that enforcement will be by the building commissioner or designee, second by President Morell. Councilor Tseng moved to have one section for individuals using leaf blowers at the property at which they reside and a subsection for commercial operators, OLP and municipal. That has a second from Councilor Collins as well.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions or comments about those motions, anything that needs to be edited or changed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: I didn't have an opportunity to comment at all on the draft, and I have just two brief. comments, which I believe just were missteps, probably inadvertent on the part of the law firm that drafted. I have other issues with the ordinance. It's not the way I would draft it. But on limitations of use, well, first of all, on the definitions of a commercial leaf blower, having two or more employees, that's totally unnecessary. The whole purpose of this ordinance eventually is to rid ourselves of gas leaf blowers. And so it doesn't really matter whether or not the commercial proprietor is a sole proprietor, or he has 10 employees, or he has one employee, or he's just one guy in a pickup truck and a leaf blower. So my suggestion is that the definition of commercial leaf blower operator be revised to state is any person or business including but not limited to sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation or other entity, organization or arrangement that receives, and the rest of it is okay. But I think it would allow for some mischievousness on the part of businesses to evade these restrictions if they just set up small LLCs with just a manager and one employee. So I think, and my review of of ordinances across the country, almost all of them define the commercial leaf blower as just a person or a business, and they do not talk about how many employees. The other item is on limitations of use, B2, which states that the allowance of up to one continuous hour of leaf blowing No operators, as much as I dislike them, I have never seen or never heard any of them going continuously for an hour. One of the problems, one of the insidious aspects of this is that they're on and off. You just don't know at random. while the landscapers are on the properties. So I would suggest revising that to say that on parcels of 10,000 square feet or less, only one leaf blower may be used, but not more than a total of 30 minutes per day. And that could be broken up into however they decide to do that. Parcels larger than 10,000 square feet. Only one leaf blower may be used, but not for more than a total of 30 minutes per day within each 10,000 square foot area. So those are the two, that's the two low hanging fruit for me on the, on the ordinance as drafted. That's the October 2022 draft. I'll just say in closing that paragraph three really needs some work. And since it'll be going back to the law firm, I'm sure that they will under President Morell's direction. guidance, take a look at that and try to redraft it for some clarity. Do you have any specific comments that we can share with them? Well, yes, I do.
[Nicole Morell]: Pro bono.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: When they talk about such land, It's not specifically defined in the document. I think the drafter intended it to apply only to one or more adjoining parcels that together comprise a total of two acres. If so, that needs to be spelled out. Another construction flaw there is the unnecessary vagueness caused by joining commercial leaf blower operators and OLP seeking to operate leaf blowers. Does seeking to operate leaf blowers on such land apply to commercial leaf blower operators as well as OLP, to be really clear, I think it has to read neither commercial leaf blower operators seeking to operate leaf blowers on one or more adjoining parcels that together comprise a total of two acres or more, nor OLP seeking to operate leaf blowers on one or more adjoining parcels that together comprise a total of two acres or more shall be permitted to operate leaf blowers. I mean, I think that's an improvement, but really to expect businesses to grasp what they can and cannot do. I think it really has to be clarified and simplified, and I think that can be done. I'm not prepared to do that at the moment, but I'd be happy to work with President Morell or that law firm or just submit my ideas generally to the council. If you look, and I'd be happy to send to President Morell a half dozen or so of these ordinances from around the country. I have them all. Every community that I mentioned when I last spoke, I actually have printed out their ordinance from their municipal code. And some of them are elegantly simple, and straightforward, and a sixth grader could understand it. I mean, what we're dealing with here, unfortunately, is it gets into the weeds very quickly. And I think that's part of the problem. I mean, we heard it from residents who were somewhat puzzled and befuddled by what does this mean? What can I do? And actually misinterpreting. what should be spelled out clearly. So, you know, I think this was originally designed from a template, maybe taken from some other ordinance from another community. And that's okay if it works. But if it doesn't, there's nothing wrong with blowing this whole thing up and starting again with something fresh, simple, clear. and to get the job done.
[Zac Bears]: If you could send, I've tried to get it down, but specifically that language for that first section and first clause of subsection three, that would be helpful. I will. And then I personally, and I'm sure through President Morell, to all the Councilors, if there's like one or two of your favorites, and ideally one of them being maybe Massachusetts, although I'm not betting on Lexington. Darlington, Belmont, and Concord.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: I think I might be leaning to Evanston, Illinois, but don't quote me on that.
[Zac Bears]: They tend to be, well, maybe one, if you could give us your favorite from, in terms of the simple language, from an external, and then maybe also if there's one from Massachusetts that you think is at all not jargon-ridden, that could be helpful in guiding. We could say, hey, we want it to read more like this. I'm on it. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're definitely on it, Norman. No one can say otherwise.
[Justin Tseng]: We're appreciative of it, really.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's a good thing. Honestly, I don't think often enough we have, and I don't mean this with levity, really, dramatic readings from owner-operator manuals. It sounds funny to say it that way, but The company's telling you this is dangerous, you know, and in very clear and specific terms about why it's dangerous. And I think that's important. I think it opened everyone's mind in the room, regardless of where they were on this, to say, hey, this is something we should be looking at. So I appreciate it.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: If that's what Steele's is telling you in writing, you can only imagine what their corporate board members are saying in private.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, right.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Exactly. You know, just like we learned from Laura Lahr and the big tobacco cases.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: You know, when we finally got the emails.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. OK. All right. So we will, um, is there a motion we want to make to take on to review that suggested language?
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah. I think, yeah, we'll just motion to review suggested language provided.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Submitted by?
[Nicole Morell]: Submitted by resident. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. All right.
[Nicole Morell]: But I think I would probably also motion to- Join? Yeah, I'm taking a guess here, but join all the motions.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that was my- Yeah.
[Nicole Morell]: Actually, could we roll call? No, could we roll call them one by one?
[Adam Hurtubise]: We don't need to roll call, by the way.
[Nicole Morell]: I'm joking.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't want to- The last two motions I have, I reflect that Vice President Bears has asked Mr. Kaplan to send the ordinance language and several sample ordinances to council. And then President Morell moved to review the suggested ordinance language submitted by Mr. Kaplan. That's got a second from Councilor Tseng. And then President Morell moved to join all motions. Yes. Join and approve or just join?
[Zac Bears]: Join and approve, sounds great. Yes. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Join and approve.
[Nicole Morell]: No, I'm looking at my little sheet of paper. You happen to be right. I'm not used to being over here trying to figure out what's happening. I used to sit over there.
[Zac Bears]: It's a flashback to January 2022. So you just need to call it at that point? Yes, on the motion of council, President Morell, on the joined and approved, to join and approve all of the 11 motions. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Motion passes. Hold up. We have to motion to keep the paper in committee or... We need to... Who are we asking to take a look? What is our now order of operations? Do we want to?
[Adam Hurtubise]: The clerk has a suggestion. I can suggest something. I will have the committee report compiled. I have to get typos out of there and everything. My suggestion would be to circulate this committee report. To get Mr. Kaplan's language and the committee report, take both of those things and send them to whoever is going to be the next editor slash drafter of this draft ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: And do we want, given that we kind of are in this place, because do we want to go to KP with this? And do we think that they'll give us what we want if we go to them?
[Nicole Morell]: I think herein lies the challenge of not having a city solicitor. This is stuff that historically would go to a city solicitor that we'd work hand-in-hand with.
[Zac Bears]: Does anyone want to take a swing at it?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Collins will take a swing at it. I'd be happy to do it too, but since... I think it would be a motion to...
[Kit Collins]: I think that, obviously, it's not ideal. It would be nice if we didn't have sleep service that we could rely on. But I think that this is the process that we've been taking for a lot of this term so far, is one of us takes a first stab at it, gets input, and then it is submitted for a actual legal review to make sure we find what we missed. But I think we'll probably get closer to what we want faster if one of us does the reorganization.
[Justin Tseng]: It also seems like that approach results in fewer red flags.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes, I think that the process would be to have the edits incorporated by Councilor Tseng, and then probably another committee meeting. And then once that looks good, send it out for legal review.
[Zac Bears]: You could go that route. I was even thinking, whichever one of you wants to take the first pass, it could then come to us. And we could send it to KP if we think we're in a place to send it to KP at that point. OK. If you're cool with that, maybe skip a committee. If we feel like it's so substantively, if we judge that it's so substantively different that we feel like it need to have another meeting before we submit it to council, something like that.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, so I think, yeah, just some motion to have Councilor Tseng incorporate the, or I don't know, do you want to do it? Motion to have the edits incorporated, motion, I could just remove the do or from, motion to have the edits incorporated into a draft to be shared with KP Law for legal review.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that sounds good.
[Nicole Morell]: Before coming back to council.
[Zac Bears]: Then one, yeah, we can kind of, can tag team it if we need to. Three of us can tag team it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Someone will be left out.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourned by Councilor Collins, seconded by? President Morell, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 25.43 minutes total words: 2308 |
total time: 25.84 minutes total words: 2214 |
total time: 10.18 minutes total words: 703 |
total time: 7.45 minutes total words: 688 |
|
total time: 1.38 minutes total words: 118 |
|||