HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-23 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
DATE:FEBRUARY 23, 1999 CMR:139:99
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REGULATIONS
OF THE USE OF LEAF BLOWERS IN PALO ALTO
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report provides ~’ecommendations for regulating leaf blowers. As staff has conducted
research and talked to numerous people, it is clear that there are a wide variety of opinions
and perspectives on the issue. While the recommendations would not totally eliminate ~noise
level concerns and do not specifically alleviate the issue of particulate matter pollution, staff
believes it has developed a balanced, proactive approach that should result in a reduction of
noise levels while at the same time maintaining an accepted level of cleanliness for the City.
This report provides updates on other cities’ experiences and summarizes the types of
regulatory legislation used~ by other agencies. The report also discusses proposed
enforcement procedures, addresses the issue of cleaning City properties and facilities, and
presents alternative options for Council consideration.
CMR:139:99 Page 1 of 18
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to revise Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code regulating leaf blowers in the following manner:
1)only leaf blowers that have been permitted for use by the City of Palo Alto may be
operated in the City;
permits would be issued, for a fee, only for blowers that meet the California air
quality standards, and are rated at 65 dBA or less at 50 feet, by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI);
3)in two years, permits would be issued only for blowers that meet the Califomia
air quality standards, and are rated at 62 dBA or less at 50 feet, by the ANSI
standards;
4) leaf blowers must be operated with all extension tubes in place;
5)blowers could be operated only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday;
6)use of leaf blowers would be prohibited on Sundays;
7)
8)
the blowing of debris onto adjacent properties would be prohibited;
enforcement Would be conducted on a proactive basis instead of a complaint basis.
After an initial grace period, citations would be issued for all violations. In those
situations when a commercial gardener is found to be in violation, a notice would also
be given to the gardener’s client informing them of the violation. If a leaf blower
operator receives two citations, the permit to operate the blower would be revoked.
9)City crews would only be allowed to operate leaf blowers beginning at 4:00 a.m. in
the downtown area, California Avenue, Midtown area, the Municipal Golf Course,
and in City parking lots;
10)City crews would be exempted from these regulations for clean up after special events
and in emergencies;
If Council approves these regulatory measures, staff would return with a draft of a revised
ordinance (Chapter 9.10). Additionally, staff would return with a budget amendment
CMR:139:99 Page 2 of 18
ordinance to cover the costs needed to implement the program.
BACKGROUND
In January 1998, Council directed staffto 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 provide information about the current level of
enforcement and on issues related to enforcement of any proposed ordinance changes.
Since that time, staff has conducted a considerable amount of research, held meetings with
gardeners and members of the public, obtained information about what other cities are doing,
monitored local and state legislative activities, and performed noise level tests on equipment.
The two status reports provided to the Council during theyear (CMR: 216:98 and 341:98)
contain considerable information that is not repeated in this report. This report provides
updated information about the above topics, as well as costs associated with cleaning City
properties and facilities, alternatives for regulating the use of leaf blowers, and specific
recommendations for Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
Alternative Clean-up Tools
Staffhas investigated the types of tools that are used for clean-up purposes and compared the
time it takes to do the work to the time doing the same work using a leaf blower. (It is
important to note that, while the mechanical tool in question is known as a leaf blower, it is
frequently used in the clean up of other debris such as litter, dirt, grass clippings, etc.)
Rakes/Brooms - The most commonly used tools for clean up of yards, open spaces, grounds,
etc., are rakes and brooms. Obviously, brooms are the quietest and result in the least amount
of pollution (some minimal pollution occurs when dust particles become disturbed during
sweeping and raking). Brooms, however, can only be used on certain types of flat, smooth
surfaces such as asphalt and concrete that are amenable to sweeping.
The time it takes to sweep an area is considerably longer than the time it takes using a
blower. Depending upon the reference source, the time differences range from three to five
times longer. According to industry standards published by the California Landscape
Contractors’ Association, a nonprofit organization that represents about 2,500 State-licensed
landscapers, there is an average ratio of one hour of labor using a leaf blower compared to
CMR:139:99 Page 3 of 18
five hours for sweeping. In 1997, the City of Santa Barbara conducted its own study
comparing times needed to clean parks with leaf blowers and sweeping. While the times
differed depending upon the amount and type of debris, weather conditions, the presence of
the public in the park, and the type of surface, they concluded that the average of one hour
of leaf blowing was equivalent to five hours of sweeping. In October 1998, one of Palo
Alto’s Public Works employees conducted a time comparison test. The employee used a
broom for one hour to clean the sidewalk area of University Avenue. He swept around tree
wells, along curbs and parking wheel stops. Using a broom, he was able to sweep
approximately two and one-half blocks on only one side of the street. Using a leaf blower
for an hour, he was able to clean a five-block area on both sides of the street.
Early last year, as the City of Santa Cruz was reviewing the use of leaf blowers in its city,the
city determined that the time needed to conduct the cleaning of its parking lots and other city
facilities without the use of leaf blowers would be two to three times longer.
Rakes are another tool that is frequently used. Rakes produce some noise when used on hard
surfaces (a metal rake on concrete was measured at 58-60 dBA at 50 feet) and result in
minimal air pollution. However, like brooms, they require additional time to complete the
work. An experiment was conducted by Echo, Incorporated. Echo is one of the largest
manufacturers of leaf blowers in the Country. It videotaped two men working side-by-side
in a park area. Each gardener was to clean a grass area covered with leaves. One gardener
used a rake and the other gardener used a leaf blower. The gardener who used the rake took
50 percent more. time to complete the job.
Staff has heard on many occasions that a leaf blower ban adversely impacts the earning
potential of gardeners because it takes longer to do the work. However, to date, no
individual or organization has been able to provide any documentation that indicates that this
has proven to be the case in those cities that have approved ordinances prohibiting the use
of leaf blowers. The California Landscape Contractor Association sent a survey to 1,000
members last Fall. One of the questions asked how much a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers
would increase their annual costs. Based upon the survey responses, the average increase
was 20.7 percent. The level of increase was found to be lower for larger businesses (16.6
percent) and higher for smaller businesses (22.3 percent).
Water - Water has been used in the past in many places to rid hard surfaces of debris. In non-
drought years, hoses are frequently used in residential areas to dean driveways and
sidewalks. Some cities, including Palo Alto, use power washers to clean their commercial
areas. This equipment generates noise levels that are as loud as or louder than leaf blowers.
Staffrecently took sound meter readings of a power washer being used in the downtown area.
and found that it registered 73 dBA at 50 feet. While the use of water usually does not create
CMR:139:99 Page 4 of 18.
air pollution problems, water is a resource that should not be wasted, especially during
drought years.
Other Tools - City staffhas reviewed the use of other tools, such as street sweepers, that are
frequently used to clean commercial areas. Sound meter readings were taken on the City’s
Green Machine, and on two models of street sweepers. Attachment A provides the results
of the sound meter tests taken at 3 feet, 25 and 50 feet. The Green Machine produced the
lowest noise; however, even at 50 feet, it produced up to 66 dBA, not much quieter than most
of the newest leaf blowers. While the Green Machine has been a useful tool in helping to
clean the downtown area, it has its limitations. Cement tire stops in parking lots, tree wells,
and other obstacles prevent its use in certain areas and restrict its ability to pick up debris in
certain areas.
New Technology_
Manufacturers of leaf blowers have been contacted regarding the status of new technology..
Several things ate occurring in this area. There is movement in the industry toward battery-
operated equipment. The major concern at this time is the quality, weight and cost of the
batteries. Initially, batteries could cost up to $600 and are quite heavy. While the potential
of battery-operated leaf blowers includes positive aspects in that they would not have any
fuel emissions, in all likelihood, they would still run at about 63-64 dBA noise levels.
The potential of manufacturers to mass-produce leaf blowers that operate at 62-63 dBA
within the next few years is also quite good. Due to the logadthrnic formula in determining
decibel levels, this means that leaf blowers could be operated at noise levels about 155
percent quieter than those used ten years ago and about 35 percent quieter than those
operated at 65 dBA. This would be equivalent to the noise levels of ears traveling on
residential streets (at 25 feet). According to manufacturer representatives, it is probably
unlikely that blowers would be made that would producenoise levels of much less than 62
dBA due to the considerable reduction in air flow, which would be detrimental to their
operation.
Staff has conducted some research and has done some sound level testing of some of the
newest equipment and determined the following:
The Echo PB46LN was tested and while it does not have the ping sound produced by
other blowers, the noise level was slightly higher in field conditions than its rating of
65 dBA.
o Toro Proline BP6900 .claims to be rated at 62 dBA, but when tested by Police
CMR:139:99 Page 5 of 18
Department personnel, was found to be slightly higher. It is quieter, however, than
the Echo PB46LN which is rated at 65 dBA.
The Maruyama BIA500 is advertised to be the quietest backpack currently made and
is rated at 62 dBA using ANSI standards. Staff was unable to obtain one to use for
sound meter testing however.
Ryobi manufactures a four-cycle blower that claims to produce 80 percent fewer
combined hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions than the traditional two-stroke
engines.
Staff was interested to learn that although more leaf blowers are sold in California than in
any other state in the Country, manufacturers are considering in the future not selling their
blowers here due to the State’s stricter fuel emission requirements and the problems their
customers face with the various types of ordinances. Apparently due to the increased sales
throughout the rest of the United States, in addition to numerous countries around the world,
the reduction of sales in California does not cause manufacturers much concern. While some
people believe that this trend may be the best possible answer to resolving the leaf blower
dilemma in the future, others are concerned that a general decline in the overall cleanliness
of the state will occur.
T_vpes of Leaf Blower Regulations
Staff has reviewed more than 45 ordinances from cities in California and found that leaf
blowers are regulated by different cities using various strategies. Cities develop regulations
according to their own specific needs and factors such as the amount of commercial and open
space areas located within their jurisdiction, the level of cleanliness their community
demands, and the amount of expenditures they determine acceptable for ensuring compliance "
to their regulations. Some cities do not regulate the use of leaf blowers at all. Regulatory
strategies fall into six basic categories: 1) time of day/day of week, 2) noise levels, 3) area
specific, 4) bans, 5) educational approach, or 6) a combination of the five.
Time of Day/Day of Week - These types of ordinances regulate by the times of day and days
of week that blowers can be operated. These regulations are the most common form imposed
by cities and are based on the premise that leaf blower noise is usually most offensive during
certain hours of the day or days of the week. Hour restriCtions range from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Some cities totally prohibit the use of blowers on Sundays and holidays, while others
decrease the number of hours per day that blowers can be used on weekends and holidays.
CMR:139:99 Page 6 of 18
Ordinances using only time of day/day of week restrictions are fairly simple to enforce in that
it is obvious when the blowers are operated.
Noise Levels - Some cities regulate the use of leaf blowers based upon noise levels. These
types of regulations address one of the major complaints about leaf blowers which is the level
and type of sounds they produce. The decibel levels allowed by cities also vary, although
most use either 70 or 65 dBA limitations. Distances of measurement are consistently at 50
feet. Staff was unable to find any city whose ordinance required less than 65 dBA levels
(except for bans).
Ordinances that include noise level restrictions are not easily enforced as they require the
actual measurement of the blower. This method is time consuming for officers, and
gardeners can alter the noise levels by operating the blower at half-throttle, and with or
without the extension tubes. Additionally, these ordinances usually require the enforcing
agent to witness the blower being operated. This has been the primary reason that many
agencies, including Palo Alto, issue only warnings when decibel levels of a particular blower
are in question. Due to a number of variables, it is difficult to get any prosecution without
an officer personally observing the offender in action.
Area Specific - A number of cities have time and day of week restrictions for residential
areas, and no restrictions in commercial areas. As an example, Los Gatos allows use of leaf
blowers in residential areas between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. during the week, and between
9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. However, blowers can be used.anytime
in commercial areas. Los Gatos includes gasoline lawnmowers, and edge and hedge trimmers
in their restrictions as well.
For those cities that have different restrictions for residential and commercial areas, it is not
uncommon to have distance requirements of 100 or 200 feet from residential zones.
Those agencies who have these types of ordinances report that they are fairly easy to enforce
as long as commercial and residential areas are well defined and easily identifiable by
officers without the need of zoning maps. The cities, like Palo Alto, where there are a
number of mixed use areas, present enforcement difficulties.
Bans - Some cities have adopted ordinances that include various types of bans. The range
of bans includes bans of all types of blowers to bans of only gasoline-powered blowers.
Usually, these types of ordinances have resulted in the greatest amount of debate and
controversy. The bans address the issues of air pollution and environmental concerns together
with .noise levels but are not favored by gardeners or owners of large commercial and public
properties.
CMR:139:99 Page 7 of 18
Enforcement feasibility is directly related to the specific language in an ordinance. As an
example, a prohibition of all types of leaf blowers is quite easily enforced. However, a ban
on only gasoline-powered blowers is harder to enforce as users can fairly easily convert them
to methane or other fuel-powered devices.
EducationalApproach - Some cities, use ordinances predicated on the concept that individual
fights of users and community members in general should be considered and that blowers are
a useful tool if operated properly. These types of ordinances include user guidelines and
emphasize cooperative efforts between gardeners and community members in providing
education on the use of blowers that minimizes the noise levels and environmental issues.
For the few cities, who use this approach, enforcement is almost nonexistent.
Combination - Many cities use a combination of the above approaches to regulate blowers.
Additionally, some cities have added additional types of restrictions in their ordinances.
These include the following requirements: leaf blowers must be muffled; extension tubes
must be used; blowers cannot be used for more than 10 to 30 minutes at one time; or only one
blower may be used at a time on one property parcel.
Depending upon the number and type of variables included in such combination ordinances,
enforcement is usually quite difficult due to the factors noted above.
Update: Other Cities’ Experience
Staffhas continued to research what changes other cities have been making in regulating leaf
blowers. Attachment B provides an updated list, by city, of various types Of ordinances.
Previously, information had been received that Palos Verdes banned gasoline and electric
blowers. While that language still appears in Palos Verdes’ ordinance, in 1991, due to the
drought that was occurring at that time, an amendment was made to the ordinance that
allowed the use 0fleafblowers that are certified by the City. Only those blowers that don’t
produce noise levels of more than 70 dBA at 50 feet are certified. As a result of the
amendment, the ban is not enforced.
In mid-August, the City of Los Angeles stopped enforcement efforts on its ordinance
(applicable only to residential areas) due to the dismissal by a Municipal Court Judge of
tickets issued to gardeners who were cited for operating leaf blowers using methanol fuel.
Because the ordinance only banned gasoline-powered blowers, and since it. is very difficult
by either odor or visual observation to differentiate between gasoline or methanol,
enforcement was curtailed for a period of time. Enforcement efforts have begun again.
When a gardener claims to be using methanol, the inspector and police officer request a
.sample of fuel. Any samples that are taken are sent to a laboratory for analysis.
CMR:139:99 Page 8 of 18
Some cities have recently enacted bans. They include Manhattan Beach (9/98) and Santa
Barbara (11/97).
In October 1998, the Santa Cruz Council conducted a study session on leaf blower regulation
alternatives. At that time, the Council directed that a task force of community members and
gardeners be formed to review the issue. The task force was developed and initial indications
were that it would recommend restrictions, but not a ban. In the interim, the membership of
the City Council changed. The issue of leaf blowers has been put on hold.
Sunnyvale held a noise forum last fall that addressed all types of noise issues. Based upon
the information received, recommendations most likely will be made to Sunnyvale’s Council
that leaf blowers not be singled out from other noise producing tools and that with the
possible exception of reducing the hours of the day that blowers could be used, no changes
be made to current regulations.
Staff has also received a copy of a .court decision that was rendered in New York last
December that ruled that the City of Long Beach, New York’s ordinance prohibiting the use
of power blowers was unconstitutional. The case involved two defendants; a landscaper and
an employee of the local school district, who were charged with violating that city’s four-year
old ordinance that prohibited the use of power blowers. The defendants moved for dismissal
of the charges on the grounds that the ordinance was arbitrary, exceeded reasonable
objectives and was unreasonably burdensome to their landscaping business and school
maintenance program.
Staff had originally planned on providing Council with evaluation of options last fall.
However, due to the Senate Bill that was pending at that time in Sacramento and the ballot
measure activity that were occurring in Menlo Park. However, staff believed it was prudent
to wait until after Menlo Park’s election and a conclusion was reached in the State capital
before requesting Council action. Menlo Park’s ballot measure was defeated and currently
a task force is reviewing options for regulating leaf blowers. Senator Polanco’s bill died
during last year’s session after it reached the Committee on Environmental Quality. Staff
reeently spoke to a representative from Senator Polanco’s office and was told that he is
actively considering proposing a similar type of bill during this year’s session, but that a final
decision will not be made until mid or late February.
Pollution Issues
As described in CMR’s 216:98 and 351:98, in addition to noise levels, there are two
pollution concerns associated with leaf blowers, gas emissions and particulate matter.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most manufacturers of leaf
CMR:139:99 Page 9 of 18
blowers will be able to meet the new Tier II emissions standards that will become effective
next year. The EPA indicated that while electric equipment is cleaner than gas powered
engines, generating the power to run electric equipment does produce pollution as well. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District estimates that yard care equipment is responsible
for 2 percent of total pollution and that leaf blowers are only responsible for about 17 percent
of the pollution associated with yard care equipment. It has been estimated that using a gas-
powered leaf blower for one hour may be equivalent to 34 hours of driving a car; using a
chain saw for an hour may be equivalent to 63 hours of driving, and using a weed whacker
may be equivalent to 21 hours of driving.
The conclusions about particulate matter pollution are much less concrete and questionable
based upon the lack of creditable research and data.. In 1996, AeroVironment Incorporated
conducted a study for the South Coast Air Quality Management District to determine the
amount ofrespirable dust (PM-10) produced by leaf blowers. At that time, it estimated that
PM-!0 emissions from leaf blowers contributed to about 1 percent of the total emissions in
the Los Angeles area. It acknowledged, however, that it considered this a conservatively
high estimate that was based upon assumptions and unvalidated information. While it is
obvious that leaf blowers do add to particulate matter pollution, until more scientific research
using valid information can be completed, it is not possible to determine the extent.
Update: Palo Alto Enforcement
During 1998, police personnel responded to 175 leafblow.er complaints, an increase of 30
compared to the previous year. Of those complaints, by the time the officer responded, the
person using the blower was not located in 67 or about 38 percent of the cases. Out of the
total number of calls, 107 were as a result of the blower being used before the currently
permitted starting time on weekdays and 11:00 a.m. on weekends.
Citations were iSsued on two occasions within the last four months. One was issued in the
downtown area for operation of a blower on a weekday prior to 9:00 a.m. Warnings had
been issue prior to the citation being issued. The other citation was issued in a commercial
area for operating a leaf blower on a Sunday prior to 10:00 a.m.
Attachment C provides a history of the 1998 complaints by date, time of day and location.
Proposed Regulations and Enforcement
Opinions on the use of leaf blowers range from opponents who are concerned about noise
levels and pollution generation to proponents who cite leaf blowers efficiency, utility and
economy. Little consensus is shared between people who hold the divergent viewpoints. It
CMR:139:99 Page 10 of 18
is clear that regardless of Council’s final direction, some members of the community will not
be satisfied. With this in mind, staff recommendations reflect efforts to approach the issue
with a balanced, proactive strategy that should result in considerable noise reduction while
allowing gardeners and others to maintain the cleanliness of the City.
Staffrecommends a decrease in allowable decibel levels of leaf blowers, further restrictions
in the permitted hours and days of operation and a change in enforcement procedures.
Staff has analyzed the information regarding the use of leaf blowers and determined the
following:
Leaf blowers (gasoline and electric) do produce noise levels that are offensive and
bothersome to some individuals.
Leaf blowers (gasoline and electric) blow pollutants including dust, animal droppings,
and pesticides into the air adding to pollution problems.
Gasoline-powered leaf blowers produce fuel emissions that add to the air pollution.
Other garden equipment such as gasoline-powered lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, and
weed wackers also produce similar noise levels and present many of the same
environmental concerns.
While there are other types of tools that can be used, the majority of them require at
least 30 to 50 percent more time to complete the work compared to leaf blowers, and
thus significantly increase the costs to the City for clean up ofpublicfacilities.
Ordinances regulating the use of leaf blowers should be easily enforced and
understood in order to be effective and for compliance to occur.
Staff proposes changing the level of enforcement associated with the recommended changes
to leaf blower regulations from a reactive and complaint basis to a proactive basis. This
recommendation is made based upon the belief that compliance would be more apt to occur
if users of leaf blowers knew that the City’s approach was not complaint-based.
The con.cept of issuing permits, .similar to that procedure used by Palos Verdes, provides two
positive elements. The first is ease of enforcement. As police staff travel around the city and
observe people using leaf blowers, it would be quite easy to determine a violation just by
visually inspecting the blower for an affixed permit. Prior to receiving a City permit, the
blower would be tested once by either City staff using a sound meter or a certificate of
compliance by an independent testing agency such as ANSI would be required. A
manufacturer’s certificate would not be accepted. Permits would need to be obtained for all
leaf blowers, including those used by residents on their private property.
Secondly, at the time permits are issued, City staff would provide education material
CMR:139:99 Page 11 of 18
(bilingual) and instruction to users of blowers on the proper way to use them. As an
example, research revealed that when the extension tubes are used on blowers, they are
quieter than when used without the tubes. According to many sources, many independent
commercial gardeners never receive instruction on the proper use of blowers. This type of
educational assistance would be beneficial in helping to ensure the appropriate use.
Staff is recommending that permits be issued only to those leaf blowers that meet ANSI
standards. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the coordinator and
administrator for the United States private sector voluntary standardization. Underwriters
Laboratories, an independent non-profit organization that has become a recognized leader
in product safety and certification uses ANSI standards when certifying leaf blowers.
Staffbelieves that a stricter enforcement posture that would result in citations being issued
after an initial warning period would help to alleviate many concerns. Staff also recommends
some additional enforcement elements. These include provisions that after receipt of two
citations, the permit for the blower would be revoked. Also, staff proposes that the clients
of commercial gardeners who are found in violation of the ordinance would be notified in
order for them to take more ownership in the issue.
Currently, Section 9.48.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code prohibits the sweeping,
throwing or placing of dirt, debris, and rubbish onto sidewalks, streets, alleys and gutters.
Staff recommends strengthening this language by including a prohibition against blowing
debris into adjacent properties and adding the proactive approach to enforce these
ordinances.
City_ Use of Leaf Blowers
Currently, City crews and contractors use leaf blowers to clean City parking lots, downtown
sidewalks, tree wells, bike paths, tennis courts, parks, City Hall plaza, athletic fields, City
facilities, and the golf course. Public Works and Community Services staff compiled
information for each of these areas regarding the frequency these areas are cleaned and the
times of day the cleaning takes place. Additionally, the costs to clean these areas using leaf
blowers has been determined and an estimation of increased costs should the use of leaf
blowers be prohibited. Attachment D provides the detailed information. Staff estimates that
the current annual cost of almost $500,700 would be increased by almost four times
($1,979,775) should City crews be prohibited from using blowers. These estimates were
based upon information received from the City’s contractors, cities that have implemented
leaf blower bans, and projections for in-house work.
The blowers used by City crews in the downtown area are the newer models that are rated
CMR:139:99 Page 12 of 18
at 65 dBA. City crews who work in other areas of town use models that are rated at 70 dBA.
All City contractors are required to use blowers rated at 65 dBA.
The other issue relative to City crews using leaf blowers deals with the actual hours of use.
At the time the current ordinance was adopted, Council made a specific exception which
allowed for business district street and public parking lot cleaning to occur between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays. Council recognized that, due to the presence of vehicles and
pedestrians, it is difficult to clean these areas during the times that leaf blowers are normally
allowed to be used (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). The permitted decibel level of the blowers used
by City crews and contractors, however, is at the same 75 dBA at 25 feet that is required for
daytime use. Over the years, staff has received some complaints from people living in the
downtown and California Avenue areas about the noise created by the blowers, especially
in the early morning hours, and street and sidewalk cleaning. The City crews make every
effort to keep ,the noise levels down. Staff believes that the problems associated with
daytime cleaning are still present and as a result are recommending that some specific
exemptions for City crews in certain parts of the city.
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
Staffhas considered alternative options for dealing with the leaf blower issue and discussed
the pros and cons with the members of the public at the three community meetings. (See
attached CMR:341:98). These alternatives, together with the reasons staff has not
recommended them, are listed below for Council consideration.
Make No Changes to the Current Ordinance - Staff believes that~ changes to the
current ordinance are needed and as a result does not recommend this alternative.
While the combination of decibel level limits and hours/time of day is a more
effective regulation than just one or the other, as reflected in the complaint history
over the last few years, enforcement has not been effective for several reasons.
In order to determine whether a violation has occurred during permitted hours of
operation, the user must be observed by the officer. Additionally, decibel levels must
be measured. It is not uncommon for commercial gardeners to use different staff at
the same locations. A complaint may be received about a user one week and the
officer may determine a violation has occurred. Due to the procedure the Department
has used over the years, first offenses result in warnings. The next week, another
complaint about the same location may be received, but the officers frequently find
another individual operating the blower.
CMR:139:99 Page 13 of 18
Another problem with enforcement ofthe current ordinance is created by the fact that
many complaints are made anonymously. As a result, by the time an officer arrives,
the violator has already !eft, has stopped using the blower, or has changed the throttle
level of the blower. Without additionalinformation by an actual witness, enforcement
is extremely difficult.
As noted in a prior staff report, the average amount of time spent on leaf blower
responses is about 30 minutes.
Complete ban on all leaf blowers - Staff does not recommend this alternative for
several reasons. As discussed previously, ifa ban on the use of leaf blowers were to
occur without any exemptions for City crews and contractors, the costs to maintain
the cleanliness of City facilities, parks, parking lots, etc., would increase from
$500,700 to approximately $1,979,775. The City would not be the only public agency
who would incur additional costs ifa ban were implemented. Staff has conferred with
representatives of the Palo Alto Unified School District and determined that some
years ago, it was forced to reduce its gardening staff by about 50 percent. As a result,
it is vital that it use leaf blowers in order to keep the campuses clean. It is diligent
about operating its blowers at half speed and has not received any Complaints about
their use. Should a ban on leaf blowers be imposed, it would face the altematives of
increased costs or accepting a lower level of cleanliness. ,
While staffhas been unable to find any documentation regarding the loss of economic
earnings for gardeners in those cities that have banned blowers, there is no doubt that
clean up of all kinds takes more time without the use of blowers. Gardeners would
then be forced to charge higher fees in order to maintain their same level of income.
Other types of power garden tools produce noise levels that are louder or as loud as
leaf blowers and that add to air pollution problems. While they do not necessarily
produce the same pitch as blowers, there are substantial indications that other types
of tools are as offensive as blowers. A prohibition against just leaf blowers seems
arbitrary. If Council desires to prohibit the use of leaf blowers, staff would
recommend the prohibition against other power garden tools, such as lawn mowers,
hedge trimmers, chainsaws and edgers.
Ban on Only Fuel Powered Leaf Blowers - While staff considered this alternative, it
is not recommended based upon several factors. While an ordinance banning all fuel
powered (gasoline, methanol, etc.) blowers would also be easier to enforce than the
current ordinance, staffhas learned that gardeners and other users of blowers in some
cities have attempted to circumvent the law by giving the appearance that electrical
CMR:139:99 Page 14 of 18
cords are attached to the blowers. Staff has also been advised by officers from some
jurisdictions that have banned fuel powered leaf blowers that because officers still
must personally observe the violation in order for enforcement to occur, few citations
are actually issued. Gardeners in those cities have leamed that they have at least a
three- to five-minute window in which to do their blowing prior to the time an officer
may respond. In many instances, that window of opportunity is even longer due to the
low priority given to these types of calls for service in many cities. As a result, it is
not unusual for the gardener to have either left the location, or at the very least,
stopped using the blower prior to the officer’s arrival.
Because it would be extremely difficult for City crews/contractors to use electric
blowers due to the lack of accessible power outlets in many of the areas cleaned, staff
believes the cost impact for this altemative would be equivalent to that in alternative
#1. While it is possible to connect these blowers to generators, the noise and fuel
emissions created by the generators are frequently worse than gas powered blowers.
There are also safety, issues concerning the potential for electrical shock when cords
come into contact with wet surfaces. Because of this hazardous condition, two people
are usually needed to operate an electric leaf blower, one to operate the blower and
one to ensure that the cord does not come into contact with water or other liquids.
Based upon sound meter tests, electric leaf blowers are as loud as or louder than
gasoline-powered blowers. While they do not emit harmful fuel by-products, they
disturb the equivalent amount of particles that add to air pollution concerns.
Allow the Use of Leaf Blowers Only in Commercially Zoned Areas - Staff also
looked at this alternative and identified some positive factors. As one example, this
alternative would permit City crews to use blowers in such areas as the downtown,
California Avenue, etc., and as a result, the cost impact to the City would not be as
significant as bans. However, the primary reason staff has not recommended this
option deals with the difficulty in enforcement of such an ordinance. Police staff
would need to rely on City zoning maps in order to determine the designation of a
specific property. Additionally, there are a number of places in the City where
commercially zoned properties abut or are across the street from residential or other
designated types of zones. This would present problems in that a blower could be
legally used on one side of the street, but cause an annoyance on the other side of the
street. This would create confusion and frustration. Enforcement would be almost
as labor intensive as the current ordinance.
J Further Restrict the Hours of the Day and/or Days of Week Leaf Blowers may be
Operated - As an example, allowable times could be reduced to 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. or use could be prohibited on weekends and holidays. Staffbelieves ordinances
CMR:139:99 Page 15 of 18
just restricting times and locations are confusing to users, difficult to enforce and do
nothing to address the noise level concerns. Under this option, if City crews were not
exempted, additional staff would still be needed or contractors hired if the same level
of cleanliness was to be maintained. The amount of additional costs would be
dependant upon the number of hours and/or days of weeks that would be further
considered restricted.
o
Allow Leaf Blower Use Only by Private Citizens on Their Own Property - In addition
to the cost impact to the City for cleaning City facilities and properties, a regulation
such as this would be difficult to enforce. Officers would have to verify the identity
of the user and the ownership of the property. Additionally, it does not address the
noise issues that are of the greatest concern. Staff also believes it unfairly targets the
commercial gardeners while allowing residents unlimited usage.
Other Ideas - During the public meetings, other ideas surfaced such as allowing leaf
blowers to be used only in increments of 15 minute periods and dividing the City into
different zones and allow blowers to be used in specific zones on certain days of the
week. Staff determined that the confusion on the part of users, together with the
difficulty in enforcing such regulations, make this an unrealistic approach to dealing
with the issue and as a result has not recommended it.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Currently, three Community Service Officers (CSO) are assigned to the patrol division to
take minor accident and crime reports, handle abandoned vehicles, perform traffic control,
respond to noise complaints. Staffbelieves that with the extra work load associated with the
issuance of permits for leaf blowers, the provision ofproactive enforcement, and in order to
provide seven-day-a-week coverage, some additional staffing would be needed. Because
information about the number of leaf blowers in the City that would require permits is not
known, staffwould propose to hire a temporary CSO. After gaining some experience with
the program, staff would evaluate additional staffing needs and if warranted, would return
to Council with requests for additional regular staff. Estimated Costs for the initial
implementation include:
Salary $40,000
Uniforms/equipment $ 3,000
Supplies, education
materials, permits ~
Total $46,000
CMR:139:99 Page 16 of 18
In staff’s recommendation, a fee for leaf blower permits would be charged on an annual
basis. While a specific amount has not been determined, staff anticipates that a fee in the
area of about $10 would be reasonable and would assist in helping to offset the operational
costs of the proactive program. The fee revenue would be determined by the number of users
of leaf blowers who obtained the permits. Should Council approve the staff
recommendation, staff would return with specific recommendations for the amounts for
penalties that would be assessed against violators. Currently, the fine for violation of the
ordinance is $35, with a $69 penalty assessment for a total of $104.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff’s recommendations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s policy to evaluate
changes to the noise ordinance to reduce the impact of leaf blower noise (N61). As stated
previously, staff’s recommendation does not significantly address particulate matter
pollution, but instead attempts to have a significant impact on the noise levels and tries to
balance the concerns of as many involved parties as possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental determination would be made at the time the proposed ordinance returns
to Council for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Results of Sound Meter Readings of Other Types of Equipment
Attachment B - Summary of Additional Cities’ Ordinances
Attachment C - History. of 1998 Leaf Blower Complaints
Attachment D - City Cost Comparisons Ban/No Ban
CMR:341:98
CMR:216:98
PREPARED BY:,Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
Don Hartnett, Police Lieutenant
CMR:139:99 Page 17 of 18
REVIEWED BY:
PATRICK DWYER, CHIEF OF POLICE
APPROVED BY:
CMR:139:99 Page 18 of 18
ATTACHMENT A
NOISE LEVELS OF ALTERNATIVE CLEANING EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT 3’25’50’
Power Washer 87 76 73
Green Machine 82 69 64/66
Elgin "Cross Wind" Street Sweeper 91 82 78
Elgin "Pelican" Mechanical Broom 91 81 79
Sweeper
o
o
o o
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date
01-14-98
01-17-98
01-20-98
01-28-98
01-28-98
01-30-98
01-30-98
02-14-98
02-20-98
02-20-98
02-20-98
02-21-98
02-23-98
02-26-98
03-03-98
03-05-98
03-09-98
03-09-98
03-10-98
03-10-98
03-11-98
03-12-98
03-23-98
03-26-98
Time
7:29 a.m.
9:56 a.m.
7:19 a.m.
7:59 a.m.
11:55 a.m.
8:48 a.m.
4:11 p.m.
8:56 a.m.
8:45 a.m.
10:36 a.m.
10:51 a.m.
1:53 p.m.
7:58 p.m.
8:57 a.m.
7:44 a.m.
12:17 p.m.
8:14 a.m.,
8:45 a.m.
7:42 a.m.
4:59 p.m.
6:22 a.m.
7:42 a.m.
3:43 p.m.
11:20 a.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
700 block of Middlefield
1100 block of Hamilton
100 block of E1 Camino Real
300 block of Pastuer
800 block ofMoana Ct.
300 block of Cowper
500 block of Lincoln
1700 block of E1 Camino Real
200 block of Termyson
1700 block of Emerson
3300 block of St. Michael
800 block of Miranda Green Ct.
100 block of Lytton
1800 block of Waverley
1300 block of Newell
600 block of Kingsley
300 block of Curtner
900 block of Amarillo
2800 block of Middlefield
500 block of St. Clair
100 block of Califomia
1000 block of Colorado
700 block of Loma Verde
2500 block ofW. Bayshore
Date
03 -27-98
03-31-98
04-02-98
04-05-98
04-10-98
04-14-98
04-17-98
04-25-98
04-26-98
04-27-98
04-28-98
04-28-98
04-28-98
04-29-98
05-03-98
05-06-98
05-06-98
05-07-98
05-10-98
05-11-98
05-13-98
05-13-98
05-15-98
05-17-98
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Time
3:42 a.m.
7:41 a.m.
7:53 a.m.
3:32 p.m.
4:51 a.m.
7:27 a.m.
1:04 p.m.
8:44 a.m.
3:36 p.m.
1:51 p.m.
7:24 a.m.
7:30 a.m.
5:46 p.m.
6:18 a.m.
11:47 p.m.
7:33 a.m.
11:57 a.m.
8:57 a.mo
11:49 p.m.
8:28 a.m..
1:25 p.m.
1:39 p.m.
12:08 p.m.
11:22 p.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (IJTL)
CM*
CM
CM
UTL
CM*
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM*
CM
CM*
UTL
CM
UTL
CM*
CM*
UTL
UTL
CM
CM*
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
600 block of Arastradero
200 block of Palo Alto Ave.
700 block of Maplewood
600 block of Homer
400 block of University
300 block of Hamilton
500 block of Lincoln
3900 block of E1 Camino Real
600 ’block of Homer
4200 block of Wilkie
300 block of Bryant
200 block of Sherman
200 block of Curtner
400 block of University
300 block of Waverley
300 block of Portage
200 block of Grant
3800 block of E1 Camino Real
300 block of Waverley
200 block of Hamilton
2300 block, of Tasso
500 block of Channing
200 block of Edlee
300 block of Waverley
Date
05-25-98
05-27-98
06-01-98
06-02-98
06-03-98
06-05-98
06-11-98
06-15-98
06-15-98
06-16-98
06-17-98
06-17-98
06-18-98
06-22-98
06-22-98
06-23-98
06-23-98
06-23-98
06-23-98
06-24-98
06-25-98
06-25-98
06-26-98
06-27-98
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Time
1:50 p.m.
5:19 a.m.
8:12 a.m.
7:53 a.m.
10:25 a.m.
1:48 p.m.
8:39 a.m.
7:36 a.m.
7:57 a.m.
7:56 a.m.
6:32 a.m.
7:41 a.m.
8:19 a.m.
7:42 a.m.
3:40 p.m.
7:42 a.m.
7:40 a.m.,
7:32 a.m.
5:25 p.m.
7:38 a.m.
8:16 a.m.
8:31 a.m.
5:54 a.m.
1:35 p.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
CM*
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
700 block of Sutter
600 block of Waverley
3500 block of Laguna
1200 block of Harriet
3100 block of Waverley
1200 block of Wilson
3800 block of E1 Camino Real
100 block Middlefield
1200 block of Newell
2600 block of Birch
500 block of University
3500 block of Arbutus
3400 block of Ross
700 block of Page Mill
700 block of San Antonio
700 block of Page Mill
200 block of Sherman
100 block of Middlefield
700 block of Northampton
700 block of Page Mill
3800 block of E1 Camino
500 block of Center
3300 block ofW. Bayshore Rd
1500 block of Portola
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date
06-29-98,
06-29-98
06-29-98
06-29-98
06-29-98
06-30-98
06-30-98
06-30-98
07-01-98
07-03-98
07-04-98
07-05-98
07-06-98
I"
07-08-98
07-08-98
07-09-98
07-09-98
07-10-98
07-10-98
07-11-98
07-12-98
07-13-98
07-13-98
07-15-98
Time
7:30 a.m.
8:26 a.m.
7:40 a.mo
1:11 p.m.
9:01 p.m.
7:57 a.m.
8:28 a.m.
6:04 p.m.
7:30 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
11:31 a.m.
8:24 a.m.
8:40 a.m.
7:37 a.m.
7:27 a.m.
8:22 a.m:
8:40 a.m.
8:20 a.m.
10:14 a.m.
2:48 p.m.
4:56 a.m.
7:19 a.m.
7:38 a.m.
8:34 a.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM*
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM*
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM*
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
700 block of Guinda
3100 block of Manchester Ct.
700 block of Page. Mill
200 block of Lowell
200 block of Sherman
700 block of Page Mill
100 block of Middlefield
500 block of Matadero
700 block of Page Mill
3700 block of E1 camino Real
400 block of Ruthven
3100 block of Alexis
100 block of Middlefield
200 block of Forest
700 block of Page Mill
500 block of Center
1300 block of Newell
1100 block of Greenwood
3300 block of St. Michael
4200, block of McKellar
1500 block of Page Mill
800 block of Hansen
3600 block of Whitsell
200 block of Forest
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date
07-15-98
07-16-98
07-17-98
07-18-98
07-22-98
07-23-98
’07-23-98
07-24-98
07-25-98
07-27-98
07-28-98
08-03-98
08-03-98
08-03-98
08-04-98
08-05-98
08-07-98
08-11-98
08-14-98
08-14-98
08-17-98
08-17-98
08-18-98
08-18-98
Time
8:56 a.m.
8:23 a.m.
6:41 a.m.
7:15 a.m.
8:33 a.m.
8:13 a.m.
8:27 a.m.
11:11 a.m.
1:35 p.m.
7:34 a.m.
8:31 a.m.
6:47 a.m.
6:19 p.m.
7:46 p.m.
7:55 a.m.
6:37 a.m.
6:37 a.m.
8:09 a.m.
6:37 a.m.
10:45 p.m.
8:46 a.m.
11:55 a.m.
8:09 a.m.
3:27 p.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
UTL
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM*
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM*
CM*
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
500 block of Arastradero
1200 block of Newell
400 block of Cowper
3700 block of E1 Camino Real
400 block of San Antonio
1200 block of Hewell
3800 block of Corina
100 block of Churchill
2700 block of Waverley
200 block of Hamilton
1200 block of Forest
400 block of University
700 block of Colorado
2900 block of Alexis
1200 block of Newell
400 block of University
400 block of University
1200 block of Forest
500 block of Waverley
2300 block of Wellesley
1800 block of Emerson
4200 block of Wilkie Way
1200 block of Forest
2300 block of Middlefield
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date
08-21-98
08-21-98
08-21-98
08-24-98
08-24-98
08-24-98
08-25-98
08-25-98
08-25-98
08-27-98
08-27-98
08-28-98
08-30-98
09-04-98
09-06-98
09-08-98
09-12-98
09-15-98
09-16-98
09-17-98
09-18-98
09-23-98
09-23-98
09-25-98
Time
7:18 a.m.
8:51 a.m.
8:58 a.m.
6:39 a.m.
8:41 a.m.
8:59 p.m.
7:25 a.m.
1:33 p.m.
6:48 p.m.
10:56 a.m.
8:33 a.m.
6:31 a.m.
12:43 p.m.
7:46 a.m.
7:22 a.m.
8:31 a.m.
8:25 a.m.
7:12 a.m.
5:30 a.m.
4:23 a.m.
9:30 a.m.
9:42 a.m.
12:12 p.m.
8:03 a.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
CM
CM.
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM*
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM*
CM*
CM
CM
CM
UTL
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
400 block of Kipling
200 block of Seale
700 block of Garland
200 block of University
3000 block of E1 Camino Real
2400 block of E1 Camino Real
2800 block of Middlefield
500 biock of Channing
500 block of Arastradero
600 block of Channing
900 block of Hansen
400 block of University
600 block of Homer
2100 block of Greer
100 block of College
700 block of Emerson
900 block of Dennis
700 block of Colorado
500 block of University
400 block of University
500 block of Alger
100 block of Lincoln
300 block of Sheridan
1200 block of Forest
Date
09-25-98
10-02-98
10-06-98
10-06-98
10-08-98
10-09-98
10-11-98
10-13-98
10-17-98
10-18-98
10-20-98
10-27-98
10-27-98
10-28-98
10-28-98
10-28-98
10-31-98
11-02-98
11-05-98
11-05-98
11-07-98
11-08-98
11-09-98
11-10-98
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Time
5:18 p.m.
8:31 a.m.
¯ 8:06 a.m.
6:50 p.m.
7:52 a.m.
10:28 a.m.
3:13 p.m.
9:34 a.m.
8:17 a.m.
8:11 a.m..
6:29 a.m.
12:27 a.m.
7:49 a.m.
8:43 a.m.
7:47 a.m.
7:37 a.m.
1:25 p.m.
3:25 p.m.
8:42 a.m.
1:21 p.m.
12:01 p.m.
8:40 a.m.
8:35 a.m.
1:13 a.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
CM - citation issued
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM*
CM*
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM - citation issued
CM
UTL
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
2000 block of Channing
600 block of Waverley
600 block of Emerson
800 block of Ross Ct.
1600 block of Edgewood
1900 block of Waverley
400 block of Forest
1000 block of Cowper
200 block of Rineonada
2900 block of Middlefield
200 block of Cambridge
Amtrack Depot - University Circle
4100 block of MacKay
700 block of Layne Ct.
100 block of Middlefield
900 block of Scott
2700 block of Waverley
300 block of College
1200 block of Greenwood
1200 block of Wilson
2700 block of Waverley
1700 block of Embarcadero
2200 blockof Greer
Amtrack Depot - University Circle
Date
11-11-98
11-14-98
11-15-98
11-17-98
11-19-98
11-23-98
11-24-98
11-24-98
11-24-98
11-27-98
12-03-98
12-08-98
12-09-98
12-14-98
12-16-98
12-17-98
12-26-98
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Time
5:25 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
11:23 p.m.
5:18 p.m.
8:51 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
8:32 a.m.
1:26 p.m.
3:55 p.m.
7:35 a.m.
12:28 p.m.
7:14 a.m.
7:50 a.m.
7:33 a.m.
8:47 a.m.
10:10 a.m.
2:59 p.m.
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
* = City employee or
City subcontractor
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
400 block of Meadow
200 block of Tennyson
3900 block of Middlefield
800 block of Richardson Ct.
1300 block of Greenwood
3100 block of E1 Camino Real
900 block of Cowper
300 block of High
2000 block of Oberlin
3700 block of E1 Camino Real
200 block of Edlee
2200 block of Birch
700 block of Middlefield
800 block of Webster
1800 block of Emerson
400 block of Forest
300 block of Ruthven
ATTACHMENT D
COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT CITY COSTS AND ESTIMATED
COSTS IF LEAF BLOWER BAN IMPLEMENTED
PUBLIC WORKS
AREAS BLOWERS USED
City Parking Lots
Downtown
Civic Center
Cubberley
Misc. Parking Lots
Bike Paths
Dead Ends
Downtown Sidewalks
Tree Trimming
In-House Tree Trimming
SUBTOTAL
FREQUENCY
1 / week
1 / week
1 / week
1 / week
3 / week
Varies
Varies
TIMES
11 p.m.- 7 a.m.
11 p.m.- 7 a.m.
9 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
9 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
4 a.m. - 7 a.m.
8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
CURRENT
COSTS
$15,650
$21,700
$4,100
$2,250
$8,000
$12,500
$12,500
$76,700
ESTIMA TED
COSTS
$31,300
$43,400
$8,200
$4,500
$24,000
$25,000
$25,000
$161,400
CONTRACTOR
USED
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
COMMUNITY SER VICES
AREAS BLOWERS USED FREQUENCY TIMES
Tennis Courts
I"
Downtown Tree Wells
Parks
City Hall Plaza
Other City Facilities
Contract Inspection
Athletic Fields
City Facilities - Higher Use
Golf Course
SUBTOTAL
2 / month
3 / week
5 / week
3 / week
3 / week
5 / week
3 / week
3-5 / week
5/week
9 a.m. - 4 p.m.
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
8 a.m. - 3 p.m.
8 a.m. - 3 p.m.
7 a.m. - 3 p.m.
9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
6 a.m. - 3 p.m.
CURRENT ]ESTIMATED
COSTS COSTS
$9,245 $21,500
:$45’,000~ ¯ ’~, i ’$227,500
$9,125i $27,375
$423,37.0 $1,818,375
!TOTAL I $500,070 ]$1,979,775 ]
CONTRACTOR
USED
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
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 staffto 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 staff provide 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.
In 1972, the City established noise standards with the adoption ofPalo AI~0 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
CMP,:216:98 Page 1 of 8
concluded that the noise ordinance was restrictive and needed to be reviewed for changes.
After a Council 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
leaf blower 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 in hours 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
Department 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.
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.
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, ffany, gasoline powered leaf blowers produced noise levels below 70 decibels
at 25 feet. Staffhas 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 in 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, staffleamed 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 es ".thuated 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 airbeing
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 finalized 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
CMK: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 1 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 inthat 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. Pahn Springs) but have decided against.them for various
reasons. After Santa Barbara’s .City Council decided not to ban all leafbl0wers, an initiative
was placed on the ballot 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. Staffhas 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. Became 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 tha~, 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 mi
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 reports 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:
COSTTIIVlE
2.25 hours
282 hours
76 hours
18 hours
Blower $32.06
Broom $4,018.50
[....Hose down $1,083.00
Walk behind vacuum $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 tomeet 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 hearing 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.
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.
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
C/vlR:216:98 Page 7 of 8
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Chris Durkin, Police Chief
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
(VTL)
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
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 Pl
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 Curtner
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
t0-20-97
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
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
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 biock of Kipling
400 block of Lytton
1900 block of Waverley
Bryson @ Middlefield
Sheridan @ El Camino
Seale @ Webster
3700 block of El 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
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
Curmer @ El Camino
500 block of Everett Ct
Webster @ University
00 block of University
3500 block of G-reef
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
UTL
CM
unit canceled
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
P~rtola @ Sequoia
Torreya Ct
300 block of Lytton
100block 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
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
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 Hamilt0n
400 block of Forest
Cowper @ Everett
Park @ Edlee
Guinda @ 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 El 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
11-13-96
11-13-96
11-7-96,
10-31-96
10-25-96
10-24-96
10-24-96
10-16-96
10-12-96
10-11-96
10-11-96
10-9-96
10-9-96
10-9-96
10-7-96
10-6-96
10-5-96
10-3-96
10-2-96
10-1-96
9-27-96
9-26-96
9-26-96
9-23-96
9-21-96
9.19296
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
(eleetrio blower)
Forest @ Gilman
4200 block of Pomona
Lytton @ Emerson
300 block of Seale
3200 blook of Middlefield
4100 block of Sutherland
600 blook of Glenbrook
3200 blook of Middlefieki
Forest @ Bryant
Bryant @ Forest
700 block of SuRer
500 block of University
Emerson @ Churchill
University @ Cowper
400 blook of High
200 block of Cowper
1100 block of Hamilton
500 block of Hamilton
Loma Verde@ Middlefield
Forest @ GiLman
2200 blook of Wellesley
400 block of Femando
400 block of Femando
Hamilton @ Gilman
00 block of University
Lot J
200 blook of Alma
9-16-96
9-16-96
9-13-96
9-12-96
9 - 11-96
9-9-96
9-4-96
8-31-96
8-30-96
8-27-96
8-26-96
8-16-96
8-14-96
8-9-96
8-8-96
8-8-96
7-27-96
7-18-96
7-17-96
7-13-96
7-10-96
7-5-96
7-3 -96
7-3 -96
6-30-96
6-30-96
6-24.-96
CM
UTL
CM
CM
unfounded
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
Hawthorne @ Cowper
400 block of Femando .
Sheridan @ El Camino
Middlefield @ LomaVerde
400 block of Femando
California @ Columbia
100 block of Heather
Colorado @ Middlefield
400 block of University
3800 block of Magnolia
400 block of Femando
Waverley @ Embarcadero
300 block of Bryant
200 block of High
Ash @ Grant
400 block of Grant
Oregon @ W. Bayshore
4100 block of Morris
300 block of University
800 block of Hansen
800 block of Hamilton
1900 block of Waverley
1100 block of Parkinson
800 block of San Antonio
Hamilton @ Cowper
400 block of Hamilton
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
~b26-96
4-26-96
4-24-96
4-23-96
4-22-96
CM
UTL
unfounded
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 Univ.ersity
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
i-6-96
1-5-96
1-5-96
UTL
unit canceled
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
North California
Forest @ Waverley
Gilman@ Forest
Stanford @ Bowdoin
500 block of University
3200 block of Greet
1400 block of Bryant
400 block of Hamilton
Everett ~ Bryant
300 block of Forest
3600 block of El 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 Bryaut
400 block of Grant
400 block of Newell
Castilleja @ Miramonte
1700 block of El 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
Model
ATTACHMENT B
DECIBEL LEVEL MATRIX OF GARDEN EQUIPMENT
CFM
388
476
370
382
377
362
Company
50’ dBa
rating
74
75 ?
65
n/a
rda
69
69
65
PB400E leaf blower
BR400 leaf blower
PB46LN leafblower
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
HRC216HXA with blade off
electric lawn mower
T260 line trimmer
GX22 line-trimmer ..
01d electric line trimmer
CS3400 chain saw (small)
50’ field
test
71-78
72-77
7O-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
7O
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
Loud dog barking at approximately 35 feet
Voices during city staff meeting
City Hall plaza at lunch time
Train an’i.’ving at University Ave station measured at 25 feet
Car going by on quiet residential street measured at 25 feet
Vehicle traffic at Alma & Churchill during heavy traffic
Car with bad muffler at Alma & Churchill
Inside a quiet house
Front porch of above house
Back porch of above house (some freeway noise and wind in trees)
dBa’s
78-80
55-65
58-65
85-92
65
62-76
81
42’
43
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
TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 10, 1998 CMR:341:98
SUBJECT: LEAF BLOWER ASSIGNMENT - SECOND STATUS REPORT
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 fi’om 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, staffwill include the third staff report
in. the Council packet soon after the Council returns f~om vacation in order to allow for
wider and timely distribution.
DISCUSSION
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 forthe 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.
Lawndalejust 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
Department 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 oiten. 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 increased’liability 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.
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 0dginally 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
50feet; 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 alter 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 standards.has 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 CEPARB 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.
EPAdocuments acknowledge that hand-held equ!pment 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 _w 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 Pal. 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."
Dividethe 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 nsers/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 in’st generalI
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. Stuff especially invited residents and business owners who hired gardeners who
used leaf blowers, as this was one segment of 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.
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:Lyrme Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
CMR:341:98 Page 6 of 7
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
P~ICK DWY~R ~-
POLICE CHIEF ..
MANAGE .~
CMR:341:98 Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT B
EPA’s HAND-HELD EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Year Displacement HC O,, , , ........NOx PM
1995-98 Less than 20c.c 220g/bhp-hr 600g/bhp-hr 4.0g/bhpohr n/a
20cc - less than 50~180 600 4.0 n/a
50cc and greater 120 300 4.0 n/a
2000 All 50 130 4.0 .25
HC - Hydrocarbons
CO - Carbon Monoxide
NOx- Oxides of Nitrogen
PM - Particulate Matter
g/bhp-hr - grams per brake-horsepower-hour
ATTACHMENT C
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
newer equipment is much quieter
more homeowners can have a beautiful garden with use of blowers
increase in requestluse 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.
~rJ;~: None given
in 1.5 years, 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 ~
hatchet approach
Allow leaf’ blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas.
~LO~: None given
some types of commercial areas require quiet
mixed use becomesan issue
double .equipment needed for gardeners who
commercial
enforcement could be an issue
do both residential and
o
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
use on Saturday~
use on Sundays isn’t significant; they do work holidays
Allow leaf blowers that cannot be op.erated at higher than 65 decibels
as certified by manufacturer at 50 feet and require permits issued by the
City..
Hilisborough 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
65 dba now, few years 60 dba
companies (responsible) put down safe mulch
more particulate matter disturbed by vehicles
QP.tJgJ3_~:Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own
property.
¯Gardeners could sell their old blowers
o
°
o
0
problem for gardeners
most people in Palo Alto have gardeners
discriminates between
homeowners would tend to be noisier - older equipment o 1 week 15 minute
use compared commercial use
noise level could ,go up if more homeowners used, especially Sundays
~: No change to current ordinance.
o
°
o
o
Hillsborough uses this
would assist in recoverylidentification 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
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; 15o30% increase in fees
-another lost 7 clients
vacuums also disturb air - dust
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
o Stihl- 320L
¯Red Max
¯Astron
¯Shindawa
Qg.tJg1Lt~: Complete ban on all leaf blowers.
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)
o
o
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
O
O
0
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 arbit.rary
singles out one tool
¯2 stroke engines the-problem
O_otion #2: Ban on only fuel powered leaf blowers.
o
o
-o
o
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
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 lea~ blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas.
P_r_~: 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).
None given
unenforceable
stiil 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
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)
o
o
o
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 o~ut of work
~: No change to current ordinance.
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 bethe problem, but enforcement of it
Other ideas
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 rain in an hour)
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 ha’rd 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..
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 rhelp to’get rid of dust and have it carried away by gardeners.
Ban on only fuel-powered leaf blowers.
Would eliminate gas emissions.
Makes a hum, not a screech; more palatable.
Cost to gardeners is less for equipment/maintenance.
Air pollution still a problem healthwise.
Top soil disturbed in yards.
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.
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.
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 afford gardeners.
Increased costs for some users.
Hard to enforce.
Further restrict the hours of the day and days of week leaf blowers may
be operated (e.g.o 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.
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.
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.
~j:~: None given
Unfair - neighbor might have old noisy blower.
Unrealistic as many residents hire gardeners.
J~.gtigJ:~: 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 0nly 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 end
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.
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 talks 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 beautiful.
BeauS/disturbed.
Abuses should be handled by neighbors/gardeners association.
OSHA requires respirators/hearing protection 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.