HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-27 City Council (20)TO:
City
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
AGENDA DATE: APRIL 27, 1998 CMR:216:98
SUBJECT: LEAF BLOWER ASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT
This is an informational report and no Council action is required at this time.
BACKGROUND
In January 1998, Council directed staff to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf
blower noise, to review environmental issues, to provide a survey of what other jurisdictions
have done regarding leaf blowers, and to return in 90 days with a report. Council also
requested that,staffprovide information about the current level of enforcement and on issues
related to enforcement of any proposed ordinance changes. Since receiving the assignment,
staff has been gathering information needed to develop the OPtiOns. This report provides
information that staffhas gathered to date regarding the following: a summary of the history
of leaf blower control in Palo Alto; experience of other cities and their leaf blower
ordinances; test results of sound meter readings for various types of leaf blowers and other
garden equipment; leaf blower complaints and current enforcement, efforts; pollution
information; and pending legislation concerning leaf blowers:
DISCUSSION
Summary. of Leaf Blower Control in Palo Alto
In 1972, the City established noise standards with the adoption of Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 9.10. In 1986, as a result of numerous complaints about noise from equipment used
by gardeners and Public Works employees and City contractors, the Police Department
started to formalize its response and enforcement of the ordinance. At that time, after
conducting noise meter readings on 18 different pieces of commonly used equipment, it was
CMR:216:98 Page 1 of 8
concluded that the noise ordin ~ance was restrictive and needed to be reviewed for changes.
After aCouncil study session on the issue early in 1987, staff presented three options to the
Council specifically related to leaf blowers, including: 1) a ban on the use of gasoline
powered leaf blowers, 2) a prohibition on the use of gasoline leaf blowers within 250 feet
of a single family or multiple family residence, and 3) a prohibition on the use of a gasoline
leafblow, er exceeding 90 decibels at a distance of 25 feet between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, and total prohibition on Sundays and holidays. The Council
approved the third option with some modifications as an.. ordinance amendment. The
modifications included a reduction from 90 decibels to 82 decibels and a further reduction
to 75 decibels after July 1, 1989, and a change inhours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. At the time
of the second reading of the ordinance amendment, there was considerable discussion
concerning a possible exemption for City crews who used leaf blowers to clean parking lots
during nighttime hours due to the anticipated increase in costs and a decrease in the standard
of cleanliness. Direction was given to staff at that time to prepare a policy for purchasing
quieter equipment, In August 1987, Council approved an amendment to the noise ordinance,
which permitted the use of gasoline leaf blowers not exceeding 82 decibels at 25 feet
(reduced to 75 decibels at 25 feet on July 1, 1989) to clean City parking lots between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. Additionally, Council directed
that all potential vendors and bidders for City equipment purchases or City contractors
adhere to five noise emission criteria for consideration. The criteria included: the vendor’s
ability to comply with the City’s noise ordinance; written plans for reducing equipment noise
emissions in the future; current operating decibel levels of equipment used by the vendor;
the ability of the vendor to provide equipment designed to reduce noise; and the vendor’s
commitment to the "Buy Quiet" program sponsored by the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing.
A leaf blower control initiative was placed on the November 1987 ballot, which would have
prohibited the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers exceeding 70 decibels at 25 feet and
would have required users of leaf blowers to get written certification from the Police
Depamnent that the equipment was not able to produce noise levels in excess of 70 decibels.
During the time prior to the election, it was estimated by representatives of both sides of the
initiative that costs for homeowners and the City would increase by 20 to 30 percent. The
initiative failed by 3,333 votes.
Enforcement of OrdinanCe
The Police Department has enforced the ordinance regarding the use of leaf blowers on a
complaint basis for the last 11 years. Calls received concerning leaf blowers are assigned
to a police or community services officer for investigation. Response to these calls falls
within the non-emergency response category and, depending upon other higher priority calls
CMR:216:98 Page 2 of 8
for service at the time, the calls are normally handled within one hour of the receipt of the
call. It is not uncommon for the users of the leaf blower to have left prior to the officer’s
arrival. Oftentimes, if the user is present, they will reduce the power of the equipment once
they see the officer arrive. While the current ordinance prohibits leaf blowers which
produce noise levels in excess of 75 decibels, without testing each piece of equipment at full
throttle with a sound meter it is not possible for the officer to determine if they are in
violation.
The majority of complaints associated with leaf blowers concern their use prior to the
permitted hours of operation. Very few complaints have been received about their use after
the permitted time. Attachment A provides a listing of leaf blower complaints received by
the Police Department from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, providing the
location of the complaint, and whether the officer was able to contact the alleged violator.
For the first offense, a written warning is issued to the user. The officer completes a noise
violation form and information is maintained by location, name of user, and the action taken.
It is extremely rare to encounter repeat offenders. During 1996, the Police Department
responded to 123 leaf blower complaints; in 1997, the number increased to 145. It takes an
average of about 30 minutes for an officer to respond, investigate and document a leaf
blower complaint.
Sound Levels of Equipment
The Police Department uses calibrated sound meters that meet the standards of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) to measure decibel levels. It should be noted that ANSI
ratings, that come with most leaf blowers are usually obtained by taking measurements in
controlled settings and at 50 feet that sound meter readings taken under field conditions
usually result in higher readings than the ANSI ratings.
In 1987, few, if any, gasoline powered leaf blowers produced noise levels below 70 decibels
at 25 feet. Staff has recently taken sound meter readings of various brands of gasoline and
electric leaf blowers, other commonly used garden equipment, and for comparison purposes,
ambients of other areas. Attachment B provides a detailed listing of the results. Generally,
most gasoline powered leaf blowers produce less noise than earlier models, but still have the
capability of reaching the mid to high 80 decibel level. Electric leaf blowers tend to be
slightly less noisy, but not significantly so. Manufacturers are finally beginning to design
and distribute blowers with even lower noise emissions. As an example, the Echo 46LN
model used by City workers has the capability of emitting only 65 decibels measured at 50
feet per the ANSI testing standards. In field tests, depending upon the ambient and other
factors, the equipment produces up to 73 decibels at 50 feet. As with other types of garden
equipment, there are four noise sources associated with leaf blowers of any type, the engine,
CMR:216:98 Page 3 of 8
air volume/flow (normally measured iv, cubic feet per minute), muffler and impeller.
According to information received from manufacturers, for the models that produce only 65
decibels the engine noise is about the same as the air volume noise.
It is important to note because a logarithmic formula is used in calculating noise levels, a
blower that produces 70 decibels is actually one-fourth as loud as one that produces 90
decibels. A change of three decibels is barely noticeable to the human ear while a five
decibel change is noticeable, but not dramatic.
In researching the issue, stafflearned that the way blowers are altered or changed also affect
noise levels. As an example, most blowers are equipped with removable tube segments.
While it is presumably easier for the user to use just the short tube, there is a reduction in
noise levels when all the tube segments are attached.
The determination of whether a noise source is annoying is not solely determined by the
decibel level. Other pieces of garden equipment such as lawn mowers and weed trimmers
can produce the same decibel levels, but are not as annoying due to differences in tone, pitch,
and/or duration of use.
Pollution Issues
There are two pollution concerns associated with leaf blowers: gas emissions and
dust/pollen. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that
garden equipment accounts for five percent of the air pollution in the country. Exhaust
emissions from these engines contain hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and particulate matter. These emissions are the result of fuel and air being
mixed and burned to produce the power needed for the operation of the engine. According
to the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, evaporative emissions occur in
several ways. The majority occur during refueling and spillage. These types of emissions
are generally smaller compared to the hydrocarbon emissions. In an article from the Bay Air
Quality Management District, it was noted that a gasoline powered leaf blower emits as
much pollution hourly as a car driven 100 miles, a lawn mower 50 miles, and a chain saw
200 miles. Because other gasoline powered garden equipment produces equivalent amounts
of exhaust emissions, the EPA has addressed all types of equipment and has not singled out
leaf blowers.
In June 1995, the EPA fmalized the first national regulations affecting small gasoline
powered engines used in garden equipment. Phase 1 regulations became effective in 1997
and were expected to result in a 32 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. Because
the Phase 1 regulations affected all new garden equipment manufactured after August 1,
1996, the full impact has not yet been determined. Currently, the EPA is working with state
CMR:216:98 Page 4 of 8
and industry representatives to structure Phase 2 standards that would result in an additional
30 percent reduction below the Phase I levels.
Staff is still in the process of attempting to gather information regarding dust pollution or
particulate matter created by leaf blowers. While it is clear that airborne dust particles are
factors in cardiopulmonary illnesses, little concrete information based upon scientific
analysis associated with blowers has been found to date. The impetus behind the City of
Santa Monica’s ban was directly related to the number of residents with immune deficiency
diseases and the senior population with respiratory illnesses.
Other Cities’ Experience
Staffhas checked with other cities regarding their enforcement of leaf blowers. Most cities
have ordinances similar to Palo Alto’s in that they attempt to control the use of leaf blowers
by regulating certain decibel levels, hours of permitted use and distances from residential
areas. Some cities have included such stringent distance requirements that the ordinance
actually serves as a ban. Los Angeles~ as an example, prohibits gasoline leaf blowers within
500 feet of a residential zone. After passage of the Los Angeles ordinance in 1996,
opponents went to court in an attempt to get the ordinance declared unconstitutional. Some
cities have considered bans (e.g. Palm Springs) but have decided against them for various
reasons. Aider Santa Barbara’s City Council decided not to ban all leaf blowers, an initiative
was placed on the ba~ot and was approved by the voters last November. However, a similar
advisory ballot proposal was defeated in the City of Burbank. Attachment C shows those
cities that have adopted ordinances that totally ban leaf blowers. The majority of those cities
that have enacted a leaf blower ban prohibit only the use of gasoline powered blowers; a few
others have outlawed gasoline, electric and battery operated blowers. Enforcement is usually
done on a complaint basis and response is a low priority. Staff has learned that in order to
circumvent the language of some bans, people have changed the type of fuel they use from
gasoline to alternative fuels like methane. Because some blowers have the capability of also
being used as vacuums, some users also circumvent leaf blower bans by using the vacuum
capability to pick up leaves and debris.
Staffhas also learned that, depending upon the size of the city, without an exemption for city
crews, a decrease in the level of maintenance to city streets, parks, and facilities or an
increase in costs resulted when a total ban occurs. Industry standards published by the
California Landscape Contractors’ Association and the National Parks and Recreation
Association use a ratio of one hour of labor using a leaf blower to five hours of sweeping.
Some cities have conducted their own time/motion studies and have concluded that
production rates vary depending upon the amount/type of debris, weather conditions, type
of surface, and the number of people occupying the area that is being cleaned. In 1997, the
City of Santa Barbara estimated that a change from leaf blowers to sweeping/raking would
CMR:216:98 Page 5 of 8
increase costs to maintain its golf course, parks, downtown, and parking facilities by an
estimated $445,000 per year and about $120,000 in one-time costs for the purchase of newer
equipment. The City of Berkeley reported that by switching from leaf blowers to brooms,
its park maintenance costs increased without receiving commensurate increases in its
budgets, and the frequency, quality, and standards of-maintenance have been reduced.
Berkeley also re_ports a significant increase of wrist, elbow and back injury Workers’
Compensation claims and retirements since it has switched to brooms.
Several years ago, the City of Whittier completed an exhaustive time-in-use study that
compared time and costs associated with alternatives to the use of leaf blowers. It concluded
the following:
Area covered is 168,989 square feet:
Blower
Broom
Hose down
Walk behind vacuum
TIME
2.25 hours
282 hours
76 hours
18 hours
COST
$32.O6
$4,018.50
$1,083.00
$256.06
Pending Legislation
On February 13, 1998, Senator Polanco introduced Senate Bill 1651. This bill was initially
introduced with language that focused on gasoline powered leaf blowers. It would require
the State Department of Consumer Affairs to establish a testing and certification program by
July 1, 1999, that would govern permissible noise levels for leaf blowers and a trade-in
program for those blowers that do not meet the specified standards. All leaf blowers sold
after January 1, 2000 would need to meet a maximum noise level of 65 decibels at 50 feet.
The bill would permit homeowners to use non-qualifying blowers on their own property after
January 1, 2000. Additionally, the bill would prohibit local agencies from regulating the use
of leaf blowers except between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and 5:00
p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. Staff contacted Senator Polanco’s office and found out that
the bill was introduced in reaction to the City of Los Angeles’ new ordinance that became
effective on February 13, 1998. Senator Polanco believes that reasonable statewide
regulation of leaf blowers represents public policy that is superior to the various conflicting
local ordinances. In the analysis of the bill, Senator Polanco estimates that a commercial
gardener’s costs would increase 20 to 40 percent. However, the Senator’s assistant indicated
CMR:216:98 Page 6 of 8
that this estimate was based on antidotal information. The bill was not passed at the first
hearing in the Senate’s Business and Professions Committee on April 13 due to the lack of
the required number of Senators in attendance.. At that time, the language was amended to
address leaf blowers in general without regard to power source. The amended bill was
reconsidered on April 21 and further amendments were made. The most recent amendments
include language that would require the State Department of Consumer Affairs to certify leaf
blowers as meeting a specified maximum noise level based upon data provided by
manufacturers. Additionally, the bill has been changed to allow local initiative measures
which contained more stringent requirements on the hours or manner of use of leaf blowers
to supersede the bill’s provisions. The bill failed passage in the first heating of the Revenue
and Taxation Committee, but will be reconsidered.
Anticipated Additional StaffWork to be Completed
Prior to returning to Council with some options for consideration, staff will complete the
research phase of the assignment. With that information, meetings will be conducted with
residents, gardeners, and other interested parties to obtain feedback on the issues and on the
pros/cons of alternatives. Staff will then finalize options and return to Council. Staff
anticipates the remaining work on the assignment to take about two to three months,
depending upon the input received at the meetings with various groups.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
When staffretums to Council with options, cost estimates associated with each option will
be provided based upon enforcement, as well as any resource impacts to City operations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Two-Year History of Leaf Blower Complaints
Decibel Level Matrix of Garden Equipment
Other Cities’ Leaf Blower Ordinance Matrix
PREPARED BY:Don Hartnett, Lieutenant, Traffic Manager
Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
CMR:216:98 Page 7 of 8
REVIEWED BY:Chris Durkin, Police Chief
APPROVED BY:
CMR:216:98 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
TWO-YEAR HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date
12-31-97
12-31-97
12-30-97
12-28-97
12-28-97
12-28-97
12-24-97
12-24-97
12-17-97
12-14-97
12-6-97
12-4-97
12-4-97
12-4-97
12-3 -97
12-1-97
11-28-97
11-28-97
11-27-97
11-26-97
11-25-97
11-24-97
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate
(UTL)
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
Hundred Block of Possible Leaf
Blower Violations
400 block of Forest
400 block of San Antonio
300 block of High
600 block of Homer
700 block of Rosewood
2000 block of Channing
3600 block of E1,Camino
Bryant @ Channing
400 block of Kipling
800 block of Middlefield
600 block of Homer
4100 block of Crosby P1
100 block of Walter Hayes
2700 block of Middlefield
200 block of Waverley
700 block of Arastradero
4100 block of Crosby
900 block of Scott
600 block of Gilman
Moana Ct
200 block of Grant
300 block of Curmer
11-20-97
11-20-97
11-07-97
11-04-97
11-3-97
10-30-97
10-30-97
10-27-97
10-26-97
10-24-97
10-23-97
10-20-97
10-17-97
10-15-97
10-08-97
10-6-97
10-3-97
9-30-97
9-30-97
9-08-97
9-25-97
9-24-97
9-24-97
9-23 -97
9-22-97
9-19-97
9-18-97
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
600 block of Bryson
300 block of Forest
4100 block of Baker
Birch @ California
400 block of Kipling
Bryson @ Middlefield
00 block of University
400 block of Kipling
400 block of Lytton
1900 block of Waverley
Bryson @ Middlefield
Sheridan @ E1 Camino
Scale @ Webster
3700 block of E1 Camino
2300 block of St. Francis
400 block of Kipling
3600 block of E1 Camino
900 block of Waverley
00 block of University
400 block of Alma
500 block of Channing
2200 block of St. Francis
3500 block of Laguna
400 block of Addison
2200 block of Yale
3000 block of Middlefield
2000 block of Oberlin
9-16-97
9-15-97
9-14-97
9-13-97
9-10-97
9-9-97
9-7-97
9-3 -97
9-3 -97
9-3 -97
8-29-97
8-29-97
8-25-97
8-23 -97
8-17-97
8-13-97
8-8-97
8-1-97
8-1-97
7-29-97
7-27-97
7-27-97
7-22-97
7-17-97
7-16-97
7-12-97
7-10-97
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
400 block of Lincoln
1500 block of Mariposa
400 block of Guinda
1500 block of Escobita
2300 block of Webster
800 block of Los Robles
4000 block of Middlefield
500 block of Everett Ct
Ruthven
100 block of Middlefield
1000 block of Forest
3200 block of Ramona
Kipling @ Lytton
Curtner @ E1 Camino
500 block of Everett Ct
Webster @ University
00 block of University
3500 block of Greer
Churchill @ Bryant
300 block of Forest
100 block of E1 Camino
600 block of San Antonio
500 block of Channing
2000 block of Channing
700 block of Loma Verde
1400 block of Hamilton
300 block of Feme
7-9-97
7-7-97
7-7-97
7-6-97
7-5-97
7-4-97
6-27-97
6-27-97
6-25-97
6-24-97
6-21-97
6-19-97
6-18-97
6-16-97
6-12-97
6-10-97
6-6-97
6-5-97
6-4-97
6-2-97
6-1-97
5-30-97
5-24-97
5-24-97
5-21-97
5-16-97
5-15-97
CM
CM
UTL
CM
unit canceled
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
P0rtola @ Sequoia
Torreya Ct
300 block of Lytton
100 block of E1 Camino
1900 block of Waverley
Forest @ Bryant
3300 block of Middlefield
400 block of Forest
4100 block ofPena Ct
800 block of Lytton
3300 block of Hillview
Cowper @ Hamilton
700 block of Middlefield
900 block of Bryant
2000 block of Oberlin
900 block of Bryant
700 block of Colorado
Byron
2000 block of Oberlin
1400 block of Bryant
Forest @ Gilman
200 block of Edlee
Forest @ Gilman
300 block of Cowper
1700 block of Middlefield
4100 block of Middlefield
800 block of University
5-14-97
5-14-97
5-14-97
5-12-97
5-9-97
5-9-97
5-1-97
4-23 -97
4-21-97
4-21-97
4-18-97
4-15-97
4-3 -97
3-30-97
3-27-97
3-24-97 ¯
3-22-97
3-21-97
3-20-97
3-14-97
3-10-97
3-8-97
3-7-97
3 -3 -97
3 -3 -97
3-2-97
3-1-97
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM-
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
unit canceled
500 block of Arastradero
3100 block of Bryant
300 block of Webster
2600 block of Marshall
300 block of Cowper
4200 block of Ruthelma
Gilman @ Forest
600 block of High
200 block of Addison
00 block of University
4200 block of Ruthelma
2000 block of Channing
600 block of Glenbrook
3300 block of Hillview
600 block of Gilman
2700 block of Middlefield
500 block of Hamilton
400 block of Forest
Cowper @ Everett
Park @ Edlee
CM Guinda @
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Homer
500 block of Hamilton
500 block of San Antonio
Bryant @ Kellogg
300 block of Lytton
1600 block of E1 Camino
100 block of Cowper
3-1-97
2-27-97
2-21-97
2-18-97
2-14-97
2-13-97
1-27-97
1-25-97
1-21-97
1-14-97
1-10-97
1-27-97
1-14-97
1-9-97
1-7-97
12-26-96
12-22-96
12-6-96
12-4-96
12-3 -96
11-28-96
11-24-96
11-23-96
11-23-96
11-22-96
11-20-96
11-14-96
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Hamilton @ Cowper
2000 block of Channing
Hamilton @ Lincoln
4100 block of E1 Camino
Louis @ Embarcadero
Bryant @ Churchill
400 block of Alma
Lincoln @ Webster
Channing @ Webster
Channing @ Cowper
Columbia @ Stanford
400 block of Alma
Channing @ Cowper
Columbia @ Stanford
Channing @ Cowper
300 block of Seale
400 block of Forest
3700 block of Wright
400 block of High
3800 block ob Magnolia
400 block of Coleridge
400 block of Hamilton
500 block of Hamilton
700 block of Channing
4100 block of Hubbart
700 block of San Antonio
Kingsley @ Webster
11-13-96 CM Forest @ Gilman
11-13 -96 CM 4200 block of Pomona
11-13-96 CM Lytton @ Emerson
11-7-96 CM 300 block of Scale
10-31-96 CM 3200 block of Middlefield
10-25-96 CM 4100 block of Sutherland
10-24-96 CM 600 block of Glenbrook
10-24-96 UTL 3200 block of Middlefield
10-16-96 CM Forest @ Bryant
10-12-96 UTL Bryant @ Forest
10-11-96 CM 700 block of Sutter
10-11-96 UTL 500 block of University
10-9-96 UTL Emerson @ Churchill
10-9-96 CM University @ Cowper
10-9-96 UTL 400 block of High
10-7-96 UTL 200 block of Cowper
10-6-96 CM 1100 block of Harnilton
10-5-96 CM 500 block of Hamilton
10-3-96 CM Loma Verde @ Middlefield
10-2-96 UTL Forest @ Gilman
10-1-96 UTL 2200 block of Wellesley
9-27-96 CM (electric blower)400 block of Femando
9-26-96 CM 400 block of Femando
9-26-96 CM Hamilton @ Gilman
9-23-96 CM 00 block of University
9-21-96 CM Lot J
9-19-96 CM 200 block of Alma
9-16-96 CM Hawthome@ Cowper
9-16-96 UTL 400 block of Femando
9-13-96 CM Sheridan @ E1 Camino
9-12-96 CM Middlefield @ Loma Verde
9-11-96 unfounded 400 block of Femando
9-9-96 CM California @ Columbia
9-4-96 CM 100 block of Heather
8-31-96 UTL Colorado @ Middlefield
8-30-96 CM 400 block of University
8-27-96 CM 3800 block of Magnolia
8-26-96 UTL 400 block of Femando
8-16-96 CM Waverley @ Embarcadero
8-14-96 CM 300 block of Bryant
8-9-96 UTL 200 block of High
8-8-96 CM Ash @ Grant
8-8-96 CM 400 block of Grant
7-27-96 CM Oregon @ W. Bayshore
7-18-96 UTL 4100 block of Morris
7-17-96 CM 300 block of University
7-13-96 CM 800 block of Hansen
7-10-96 CM 800 block of Hamilton
7-5-96 CM 1900 block of Waverley
7-3-96 CM 1100 block of Parkinson
7-3-96 CM 800 block of San Antonio
6-30-96 UTL Hamilton @ Cowper
6-30-96 CM 400 block of Hamilton
6-24-96 UTL 900 block of Matadero
6-22-96
6-14-96
6-3 -96
5-31-96
5-30-96
5-23 -96
5-23 -96
5-22-96
5-19-96
5-17-96
5-16-96
5-14-96
5-13-96
5-13-96
5-8-96
5-8-96
5-7-96
5-6-96
5 -5 -96
5-3 -96
5-3 -96
4-29-96
4-26-96
4-26-96
4-24-96
4-23 -96
4-22-96
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
unfounded
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
unit canceled
CM
unfounded
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
500 block of Center
Wellesley @ California
700 block of San Antonio
500 block of Lowell
100 block of Emerson
College @ Ash
Gilman @ Forest
100 block of Heather
600 block of Wildwood
Emerson @ University
500 block of Lincoln
400 block of San Antonio
200 block of University
1500 block of Page Mill
Middlefield @ Homer
200 block of California
1900 block of Waverley
University @ Tasso
Alma @ Lytton
2000 block of Channing
1100 block of Greenwood
University @ Cowper
600 block of Guinda
500 block of University
North California
University @ Alma
700 block of Page Mill
4-17-96
4-16-96
4-11-96
4-1-96
4-1-96
3-28-96
3-25-96
3-19-96
3-14-96
3-12-96
3-12-96
2-29-96
2-26-96
2-22-96
2-14-96
2-10-96
2-9-96
1-25-96
1-22-96
1-12-96
1-10-96
1-10-96
1-8-96
1-6-96
1-6-96
1-6-96
1-5 -96
1-5 -96
UTL
unit canceled
UTL .
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
North California
Forest @ Waverley
Gilman @ Forest
Stanford @ Bowdoin
500 block of University
3200 block of Greer
1400 block ofBryant
400 block of Hamilton
Everett @ Bryant
300 block of Forest
3600 block of E1 Camino
Columbia @ Stanford
700 block of Guinda
2200 block of Park
2200 block of Park
300 block of Curtner
200 block of University
Stanford @ Columbia
600 block of Channing
2000 block of Edgewood
2000 block of Bryant
400 block of Grant
400 block of Newell
Castilleja @ Mirarnonte
1700 block of E1 Camino
1500 block of California
1900 block of Waverley
3300 block of Alma
Company
Echo
Stihl
Echo
Echo
Echo
Stihl
Stihl
Stihl
Stihl
Roybi
Honda
Honda
Blk-Decker
Shindaiwa
Honda
Sears
Echo
ATTACHMENT B
DECIBEL LEVEL MATRIX OF GARDEN EQUIPMENT
Model
PB400E leaf blower
BR400 leaf blower
PB46LN leaf blower
PB46LN @ reduced power
PB400E (with elbow tube removed)
BR320L leaf blower
BG75 hand held leaf blower
BE55 electric leaf blower
BE55 @ ½ power
electric leaf blower
metal leaf rake on lawn steps
HRC216HXA lawn mower
HRC216I-IXA with blade off
electric lawn mower
T260 line trimmer
GX22 line trimmer
old electric line trimmer
CS3400 chain saw (small)
CFM
388
476
370
382
377
362
Company
50’ dBa
rating
74
75 ?
65
n/a
n/a
69
69
65
50’ field
test
71-78
72-77
70-73
60-64
73 -79
72-75
62-72
66-68
62-65
61-63
58-60
68
62
62-63
72-76
71-74
60-61
75-82
25’ field
test
79-84
82-84
73-78
68-72
79-84
78-80
73 -78
73 -77
70-73
68-73
63 -70
81
72
70
77-79
77-80
67-70
81-88
3’ field
test
91-104
90-100
89-95
85-88
91-104
88-98
88-96
89
85
84
75-82
93
86
81-84
94-98
92-97
80
99-106
Miscellaneous Noise Source dBa’s
Loud dog barking at approximately 35 feet 78-80
Voices during city staff meeting 55-65
City Hall plaza at lunch time 58-65
Train arriving at University Ave station measured at 25 feet 85-92
Car going by on quiet residential street measured at 25 feet 65
Vehicle traffic at Alma & Churchill during heavy traffic 62-76
Car with bad muffler at Alma & Churchill 81
Inside a quiet house 42
Front porch of above house 43
Back porch of above house (some freeway noise and wind in trees)49
CFM is the cubic feet per minute of air produced by a leaf blower. All measurements were rounded
down to the nearest whole number. Field tests were conducted under circumstances that an officer would
likely encounter, but do not meet the ANSI testing standards which require the use of a sound room or
stadium. All of the tested equipment is gasoline operated, unless otherwise noted. Sound measurements
of garden equipment varied based on the four 90 degree turns made by the operator.
o o o