Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Leaf Blower Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supervisors direct staff to map rebate and program options for electrifying leaf blowers, drop ordinance plan

3204404 · May 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board approved a referral to explore rebate and outreach options to help landscaping businesses and crews transition from gas leaf blowers to electric equipment, and removed a proposed prohibition/ordinance option from consideration amid equity and enforcement concerns.

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to pursue options for financing and outreach to support replacement of gas leaf blowers with electric tools in unincorporated parts of Santa Clara County, but the board removed a proposed countywide ordinance and ban from the immediate work plan.

Supervisor Pam Lee introduced a referral asking county staff to explore an ordinance and a rebate program to accelerate adoption of zero‑emission leaf blowers. After hearing feedback from landscaped businesses and supervisors concerned about enforcement and the effect on immigrant and low‑income workers, the motion was amended to remove the ordinance option and focus staff on rebate programs, partnerships with entities such as Silicon Valley Clean Energy, language‑accessible outreach, and working with the Office of Labor Standards and Department of Environmental Health.

Supporters said the change would reduce emissions, noise and health harms; some small landscaping operators told the board that batteries and equipment costs and run‑time for batteries are real concerns and urged accessible rebates and technical assistance. Supervisors also asked staff to provide information on existing regional and state rebate programs rather than immediately creating a county‑funded rebate.

The board voted to receive options and an outreach plan with the clarified scope; staff said they would not recommend a county‑funded rebate without further analysis and would look for other partners to reduce the out‑of‑pocket costs to small operators. The motion passed unanimously, 5‑0.