Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-10 City Council (20)TO: City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 10, 1998 CMR:341:98 SUBJECT: LEAF BLOWER ASSIGNMENT - SECOND STATUS REPORT REPORT IN BRIEF In response to a Council assignment to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf blower noise and environmental issues, staff has continued to conduct research, contacted additional cities that have implemented blower bans, and has held some community outreach meetings to receive input on the options. This report provides an update on the research, includes information received from gardeners and community members about their concerns, ideas and suggestions, and status report on pending legislation. Staff will return to Council soon after Council’s vacation with specific recommendations. CMR:341:98 Page 1 of 7 This is an informational report and no Council action is required. This report provides additional information on the Council assignment to evaluate options for addressing leaf blower noise, to review environmental issues, and to get community input on potential impact associated with options. Specifically, this report includes updated information on pending legislation, experiences of additional cities that have banned blowers, and the process used and opinions obtained from the community. Staff anticipates agendizing the item for discussion and action at the Policy and Services Committee meeting of October 6. Due to the interest level on this issue, staff will include the third staff report in the Council packet soon after the Council returns from vacation in order to allow for wider and timely dislribution. DISCUSSION Other Cities’ Experience Staff has conferred with several other cities regarding their enforcement of leaf blowers. Contact was made with the Cities of Piedmont, Lawndale and Del Mar. The City of Piedmont implemented a ban on fuel-powered leaf blowers in 1990. One problem it has encountered is that gardeners use gas-powered generators for the electric blowers that are as loud and create as many pollution problems as leaf blowers. Del Mar adopted its ordinance banning portable, gasoline-engine blowers in 1989. Its ordinance is enforced by code enforcement personnel and they respond to 15-25 complaints a month. Lawndale just enacted its ordinance one year ago. They allow homeowners and gardeners with a business license to operate electric blowers. Its code enforcement officers enforce the ordinance and respond to about six complaints a week. Due to the fact that over half of the cities that have banned leaf blowers are much smaller than Palo Alto and as a result usually do not have large commercial and industrial areas, numerous city facilities/properties or vibrant downtowns, staff has contacted some of the larger cities to determine how they deal with the cleanliness issues in these areas without leaf blowers. CMR:341:98 Page 2 of 7 Since adopting its ordinance, the City of Los Angeles has received so many complaints that it is in the process of adopting another ordinance that would give its code enforcement personnel enforcement authority, as significant police officer time has been spent in dealing with the number of complaints. The City of Los Angeles has also allocated $1 million to its Deparmaent of Water and Power to develop a battery-operated prototype leaf blower that is quieter and as powerful as gas-powered blowers. Because city workers use brooms, many areas of the city are not cleaned as often. Due to its concern about the cleanliness of surfaces such as tennis, basketball, and volleyball courts, additional efforts are made to keep them clean to ensure safety and to protect the city from increasedliability claims. The City of West Hollywood has used general relief workers who are on unemployment and welfare to perform some of the extra manual labor that was needed when its ordinance became effective in 1984. The cleaning of the city’s large parking lots is contracted out and the associated costs have increased, but actual figures were not available. In response to the City of Menlo Park’s ban, a petition drive to put the issue to the vote of the people was successful and it will be included on the November 1998 ballot. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors recently adopted a resolution that prohibits use of any polluting garden and utility equipment by any County department or independent contractors working for the County on "Spare the Air Days" or other days that the Bay Area Air Quality District requests the public refrain from engaging in polluting activities. Attachment A provides an updated list of cities that have banned leaf blowers. Pending Legislation Senate Bill 1651, that Senator Polanco introduced in February 1998, died in the Senate Appropriations Committee due to the language that required the State Department of Consumer Affairs to provide for certification of blowers. However, Senator Polanco has amended Senate Bill 14, which originally dealt with jury service, and substituted leaf blower language in this bill. Senate Bill 14 had already passed the Senate with its original language and is currently pending in the Assembly. If passed, SB 14 would: prohibit cities from establishing noise limitations on leaf blowers emitting noise levels of 65 decibels or less at 50 feet; prohibit cities from regulating leaf blowers except between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends; allow cities to regulate the manner and use of leaf blowers used to blow debris into sidewalks or gutters; require leaf blowers used commercially after January 1, 2000 to be tested and certified by an independent testing facility; and allow cities to adopt more stringent requirements on the hours or manner leaf blowers may be used only through a ballot initiative approved by the majority of the voters. Staff will continue to track this legislation. CMR:341:98 Page 3 of 7 Staff has received information regarding associated pollution issues from the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CEPARB), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The EPA initially adopted Tier I emission standards for utility engines (engines used in lawn and garden equipment) in 1990 that were to have became effective in 1992. However, due to a petition filed by the utility engine industry, the implementation of the standards did not begin until 1995. Tier II standards were originally scheduled to become effective in 1999; the implementation of those standardshas been delayed until 2000. Under the Tier II regulations, the emissions of hand-held equipment will be reduced by about 70 percent from the 1995 standards. Attachment B details the difference in standards between the 1995 and 2000 regulations. Estimates developed by the CEPARB some years ago revealed that the amount of particulate matter that is emitted from a leaf blower is equivalent to the surface dust that might be caused by the wind blowing on a paved road or about five pounds an hour per leaf blower. They also noted that leaf blowers are frequently used to clear paved areas such as driveways, parking lots, etc., and thus become "dust" blowers. In a 1991 report, the CEPARB concluded that particulate matter can cause serious health problems, especially pulmonary and respiratory problems. The California particulate matter standard that was adopted in 1982 is 50 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24-hour period. The national 24-hour standard, adopted in 1987 (EPA is currently revising), is 150 micrograms per cubic meter, not to be exceeded more than once per year averaged over three years. While most particulate matter is emitted from motor vehicles, off-road engines or engines used for lawn and garden equipment, including leaf blowers, are responsible for a certain’portion of this pollution. HoweVer, the EPA and ~CEPAR.B do not single out leaf blowers as offenders, but include all fuel-powered lawn and garden equipment such as mowers, chain saws, edge trimmers, etc. EPA documents acknowledge that hand-held equipment is primarily powered by two-stroke engines because, unlike a four-stroke design, two-stroke engines have more operational capability and are significantly lighter than four-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines, however, emit higher levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particle matter. The EPA has also recognized the industry’s progress towards lowering emission levels is "significant" and is being accomplished through relatively simple engine modifications. As a result, the CEPARB concludes that the industry is on schedule with its research and development efforts that will bring them into compliance with the Tier II standards. CMR:341:98 Page 4 of 7 Communi .ty Outreach/Response After receiving considerable information from other cities and based upon staff research, seven options were presented as a basis for the community outreach meetings: 2. 3. 4. ° A ban on all types of leaf blowers. A ban only on fuel-powered leaf blowers. A ban on the use of leaf blowers except in industrial parks and commercial areas. Further restrictions on the hours of the day and days of the week they are currently allowed. An ordinance permitting the use of leaf blowers that are certified that they cannot be. operated at higher than 65 decibels at 50 feet and that are permitted by the City for use in Palo Alto. An ordinance allowing leaf blowers to be used only by private citizens on their own property. No changes to the current ordinance. At each of the meetings staffhas conducted with the various interested groups, feedback on the issues and the pros/cons of options have been obtained. Some additional ideas that were presented at the meetings include: ® The use of leaf blowers on "Spare the Air Days." Divide the City into districts and allowing leaf blowers to be used in districts on certain days of the week. Conduct more educational outreach to leaf blower users on proper use. Regulate leaf blower use based upon duration of time used (e.g., 15 minutes in an hour). Use mediation to settle issues between users/complainants. Staff has met. with representatives from Echo Corporation, the largest manufacturer of commercial leaf blowers in the Country. Additionally, information from other manufacturers has been collected. On June 10, staff held a meeting that was attended primarily by gardeners and landscapers. Twenty-one people attended that meeting. The first general community meeting was held on June 17. Community members were notified of this meeting in several ways. Letters were sent to each neighborhood association and to over 70 people who had voiced opinions via letter, e-mail, telephone or oral communications at Council meetings. A notice was included in the City’s Web page and a press release was issued. Twenty-six people attended this meeting. Another community meeting was held on July 15. Staff especially invited residents and business owners who hired gardeners who used leaf blowers, as this was one segment o’f the community that staff had not heard from. CMR:341:98 Page 5 of 7 Twenty people attended this meeting, seven of whom had attended one of the previous meetings. Attachment C provides the unedited responses received at each of the meetings. The opinions and perspectives about the use of leaf blowers and the appropriate coUrse of action in dealing with them are varied. Some people have very strong feelings that the only alternative is to totally ban leaf blowers due to the noise and pollution issues. Others have strong feelings that blowers are a necessary tool to help keep the community clean. There is general consensus that whatever regulation/option is selected, it needs to be easy to understand and enforce, and that the City should adhere to the same regulations as homeowners, gardeners or businesses. ~ Additional Staff Work to be Completed Staffis finalizing the research phase of the assignment and in the process of determining cost impacts to the City for the various options. Additionally, using all the information obtained from the community outreach, staff will develop recommendations for Council consideration. In order to provide a wide and timely distribution of the staff report containing recommendations to interested community members, staff will agendize the item for referral to the Policy and Services Committee once the Council returns from vacation and agendize the discussion at the Policy and Services Committee meeting on October 6. RESOURCE IMPACTS Staff is still in the process of estimating costs associated with the options. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Revised List of Cities Who Have Banned Leaf Blowers Attachment B- EPA:s Hand-Held Equipment Emissions Standards Attachment C - Unedited Responses From Community Meetings PREPARED BY:Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief CMR:341:98 Page 6 of 7 REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: CMR:341:98 Page 7 of 7 ,A o o ATTACHMENT B EPA’s HAND-HELD EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS STANDARDS Year 1995-98 2000 Displacement Less than 20cc 20ec - less than 50cc 50cc and greater All HC 220g/bhp-hr 180 120 50 CO 600efohp.hr 600 300 130 NOx 4.0g/bhp-hr 4.0 4.0 4.0 PM n/a n/a n/a .25 HC - Hydrocarbons CO - Carbon Monoxide NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen PM - Particulate Matter g/bhp-hr - grams per brake-horsepower-hour ATTACHMENT C Leaf Blower O.D " -’" Complete ban on all leaf blowers. None given would take more time to do the work increase costs to customer/City vacuums won’t work (corners) no economic equivalent quality of work suffers aesthetic degradation increase in repetitive motion injuries raking disturbs top soil; causes soil erosion arbitrariness: doesn’t take into account needs of all parties; quality of life for everyone precludes advancement of technology to resolve noise issues Comments: ¯newer equipment is much quieter ¯more homeowners can have a beautiful garden with use of blowers ¯increase in request/use of gardeners - seniors ¯clients opted for less services when prices would increase ¯3rd party intervention is the problem - should be between client and gardener Ban on only fuel powered leaf blowers. None given in 1.5years, everything we know about 2 stroke engines will change doesn’t take into account new generation of technology generators aren’t GFI equipped - result - safety issues electric blowers designed for homeowners use commercial use - only 2 months double noise issue - blower and generator requires 2 people - one to handle cords and one to use blower trip hazards created by cords (electric blowers) pollution still occurs - uses power electric shock problem lack of access to plugs can be just as loud Comments: hatchet approach O.Dtion #3: Allow leaf blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas. Er_o_~: None given ¯some types of commercial areas require quiet ¯ ¯mixed use becomes an issue ¯double equipment needed for gardeners who commercial ¯enforcement could be an issue do both residential and Further restrict the hours of the day and days of week leaf blowers may be operated. (e.g. 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday-Friday) better than ban when tube requirement added, this solves the complaint problem (San Mateo) would beat peak hours for commercial some clients prefer work done on weekend gardeners need to work eight hours Comments: ¯use on Saturdays ¯use on Sundays isn’t significant; they do work holidays O.Dtion #5:Allow leaf blowers that cannot be operated at higher than 65 decibels as certified by manufacturer at 50 feet and require permits issued by the City. Hillsborough uses this would assist in recovery/identification of stolen blowers would eliminate use of older units easy to enforce training could be mandatory would help drive technology ¯some people might not maintain their equipment Comments.: *65 dba now, few years 60 dba o companies (responsible) put down safe mulch o more particulate matter disturbed by vehicles Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own property. ¯Gardeners could sell their old blowers .problem for gardeners most people in Palo Alto have gardeners discriminates between homeowners would tend to be noisier - older equipment - 1 week 15 minute use compared commercial use noise level could go up if more homeowners used, especially Sundays _Q_otion #7: No change to current ordinance. o 0 0 o 0 Hillsborough uses this would assist in recovery/identification of stolen blowers would eliminate use of older units easy to enforce training could be mandatory would help drive technology manufacturers won’t be inclined to solve problem hard to enforce continued levels of complaint doesn’t resolve issue if state passes legislation, current ordinance couldn’t be used Other Ideas divide City into districts - only allow use on certain days in certain districts to coincide with garbage pick up days General Comments. would assist in education; some commercial clients have offered to provide space ¯63% gardeners 2-5 employees; 21% gardeners 5-10 employees; 5.3% gardeners 25 + employees °they are willing to work with City ¯key is training on operation of blowers °taking leaf blower away from trade is equivalent to prohibit electric vacuums in house cleaning ¯weather causes back-ups °people see constant blower use all day long °would rather work with reasonable restrictions than not work at all ,example: MP ban - he raised rates - lost 11 clients; these clients hired others who do less quality work; 15-30% increase in fees - another lost 7 clients °vacuums also disturb air - dust 0 brooms kick up dust dust/particles accumulate without blowers - becomes issue with wind force manufacturers to give training 50-60% belong to organization; is increasing multi-language handouts for training Brands of Leaf Blowers °Echo - newer models are heavier ¯Stihl- 320L ¯Red Max "Astron °Shindawa Leaf Blower O.~tions - Community Meeting June 17. 1998_ Complete ban on all leaf blowers. o o 0 0 o o annoyance to bicyclists as debris blown into streets budget only option that addresses problem of pushing debris from one place to another 20 other cities have a ban - no cost increases easy to understand easy to enforce removes noise, pollution issues associated with blowers - addresses health problems would put pressure on industry (garden equipment, not just blowers) unless PA bans them like other adjacent cities; PA will become a mecca for blower use only totally pollution-free option blowing removes valuable topsoil/mulch alternatives provide more exercise,~ more jobs less risk to gardeners more fair as neighbors aren’t disturbed have proven effective in other communities 0 0 o would remove a useful tool from gardeners all tools have a cost associated with them people on limited income would have a hard time affording gardener service is arbitrary singles out one tool Comment.~: ¯2 stroke engines the problem .Qption #;~: Ban on Only fuel powered leaf blowers. o 0 o 0 possibly quieter good compromise, better than no ban at all reduced fuel emissions have proven effective in other communities best electric blowers are cheaper than gas powered dust still gets blown around electric blowers can be just as noisy still removing organic topsoil generator noise can be very loud still have impeller that creates noise shock hazard in wet areas still could be hard to enforce as people can’t differentiate between noise of gas vs electric Comments: ¯takes less time with gas powered so noise isn’t heard for as much time ¯if you water surface prior to blowing, only leaves get blown ¯battery powered electric broom is quieter Allow leaf blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas. ~_LO_~: None given discriminatory based upon areas mixed use, people live in commercial areas even workers deserve peace and quiet noise could result in loss of worker productivity often encourages use in very early or late hours Further restrict the hours of the day and days of week leaf blowers may be operated (e.g., 10 a.m.- 4 p.m., Monday-Friday). ~r_o_~: None given unenforceable still impacts sleeping babies, people who work at home, seniors, ill people would concentrate emissions/noise into shorter periods - more harmful still have noise, pollution unfair to those at home would be unfair to residents who do their own work on weekends .ODtioq #5:Allow leaf blowers that cannot be operated at higher than 65 decibels as certified by manufacturer at 50 feet and require permits issued by the City. based on noise standard, not on single piece of equipment could provide an educational component (could track # of complaints to revoke if too many) certification by manufacturer is like fox guarding hen house noise level still too high some lots only 50’ wide still takes time to enforce :hard to measure leaf blower annoyance in decibels - pitch the issue cost of administration, issuance of permits dust pollution still a problem not a good use of police resources Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own property. would result in overall less leaf blower use unenforceable - proof of ownership still creates noise, dust, emission problems could result in neighbor conflicts could put some gardeners out of work D.B_tJgB_#_7.: No change to current ordinance. ~_0_~: None given use all comments from other options police officers don’t always have noise meters would cause more irritation would make it difficult to deal with other noise issues has loophole of alternate fuels ¯begs question on how it is enforced ¯ordinance might not be the problem, but enforcement of it ~: Other ideas A.San Mateo County county operated equipment not allowed to use on "spare the air" days adopted purchasing guidelines covers county contractors Educational outreach needed Mediation could be an option Regulate by duration of noise (time used - e.g., 15 min in an hour) ~ral Commeqts: needs to be evaluated in context of all noise, e.g., Caltrain, highway would like to see the complaints info mapped - may not be a problem in all neighborhoods decisions shouldn’t be based just on the # of complaints - some people don’t complain ask the question - what are leaf blowers trying to do current ordinance hard to enforce gardeners who don’t use leaf blowers are efficient and effective if Council bans blowers for residents, should ban for City use people who use blowers (City workers in parks) wearing hearing protection noise harmful to especially children police enforce all sorts of bans, illegal activity use of police to enforce noise not a good use responsibility should be on homeowners who hire gardeners who use leaf blowers LA green card - English and Spanish use water instead people can chose to pay more or have reduced level of cleaning Leaf Blower Meeting - July 15, 1998 Complete ban on all leaf blowers. More gardeners would be needed so more gardeners would be employed. Conflicts with peacefulness associated with "gardens." Is enforceable, Promotes clean/healthy air. More peaceful community. Protects gardeners. Improves quality of life. Helps people who work at home; noise affects productivity. Two cycle engines add to global warming. In downtown areas, businesses get dirty, cars get dirty with dust blown up. Experience of cities who have banned no increased rates/less pollution. O 0 0 Used to clean sidewalks, lots, not just yards. Increases liability for land owner. Ban in commercial areas would increase maintenance costs, cost to land owners/tenants; rents would increase. May result in lawsuits to City by employees due to injuries. Commercial properties would be impacted more as they have larger problem. People working at home who object could lead to cost increases for everyone. Blowers help to get rid of dust and have it carried away by gardeners. .QD.IigJ3~: Ban on only fuel-powered leaf blowers. o ® Would eliminate gas emissions. Makes a hum, not a screech; more palatable. Cost to gardeners is less for equipment/maintenance. 0 O Air pollution still a problem healthwise. Top soil disturbed in yards. ’O O O O 0 Electric blowers can be louder or as loud. Pollution created through use of electricity. Risks when used around pools, water, tripping. Requires two people to work cord and blower. Hazard on larger properties with extension cords; some homes don’t have electrical outlets. Generators are noisy (used for electric), Units used by gardeners are just as costly as fuel powered. .Qg.IJ.QJZ~: Allow leaf blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas. Would allow for cost-effective cleaning of large areas. For commercial properties, they are economic necessity. 0 0 0 0 I 0 Not fair to adjacent residential neighborhoods. People in businesses need quiet too. Puts out even more air pollution. Harm to user of equipment. Issue of mixed use would pose a problem. People on fixed incomes may not be able to affordgardeners. Increased costs for some users. Hard to enforce. Further restrict the hours of the day and days of wee’k leaf blowers may be operated (e.g., 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday). Alternative:Prohibit Saturday-Sunday-Federal holidays for commercial use. Should apply to the City of Palo Alto. ¯Better.than complete ban. O ° ° 0 0 O Nurses, police officers sleep during the day - would help them. Unfair to people who work at home. Still hard to enforce. Increased costs due to decrease in working hours without any real benefit. Unfair to everyone at home - more people work at home. Most complaints come in early in the morning. O.otion 5:Allow leaf blowers that cannot be operated at higher than 65 decibels at 50 feet and require permits issued by the City. ° There are different skill levels for gardeners. Some don’t know how to properly use. Education component would change this. Would keep prices down. Easier to enforce as only a few blowers would qualify. ¯Not workable - people will ignore. Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own property. ~_r_o.s: None given Unfair - neighbor might have old noisy blower. Unrealistic as many residents hire gardeners. ~: No change to current ordinance. No change would be simple. Vast majority of residents don’t complain. All cons from other options. Not working now. Other Ideas A. Divide city into zones - use only one day in a zone. Coincide with trash pick up. Scheduling difficulty for gardeners People who live on border of zones would get two days a week. B. License all gardeners beyond business license (state or local). Would have educational requirements; require certain number of hours of schooling and mandate membership in professional association. Would raise competence level of gardeners. Would need to be a state license so gardeners don’t have to have multiple licenses. Not practical. Difficult for independents. General Comments ¯Alternatives to leaf blower could also have some air pollution problems. ¯We don’t know how much particulate matter is stirred up in air in Palo Alto with blowers. °No one ~alks about banning lawn mowers and they make just as much noise. ¯Some places in town have different levels of use - 20 times in 5-day period. °Mixed use in City would be hard to differentiate between residential/commercial. ¯Not used just for leaves. °Tighter hours, more stringent limits, stronger enforcement would help. ¯Each option should be reviewed closely on enforceability. ¯Enforcement should not pit neighbor against neighbor. ¯Gardeners should be paid more if they don’t use blowers. ¯Study needs to be done to see difference in air pollution between fuel/electric -powered. ¯When compared to trucks, planes, cars, leaf blowers not a real issue. °Blowers help to keep city beautifull Beauty disturbed. Abuses should be handled by neighbors/gardeners association. OSHA requires respirators/hearingprotection for users. Consideration for other people must be considered. There are different skill levels of users. Leaf blower has been singled out to be banned - there must be a reason. Leaf blowers benefit the few at the expense of many.