HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-14 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 CMR: 352:99
REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TH~ USE OF
LEAF BLOWERS IN PALO ALTO
REPORT IN BRIEF
In February 1999, staff provided recommendations for regulating leaf blowers to the Policy
and Services Committee. At that time, Committee members requested some additional
information and asked that staff address certain issues. Specifically, the Committee asked
that: an alternative to the City issuing permits be pursued; the recommended hours for
gardeners use of b!bwers be reviewed; additional consideration be given to areas around
hotels; staff work with the Bay Area Gardeners Association (BAGA) in certification and
training efforts; the use of blowers around residences begin at 6:00 a.m. instead of 4:00 a.m.;
consideration be given to requiring mufflers; and the recommended hours for homeowners
be reassessed. Additionally, the Committee asked that staff provide information as to how
the acceptable noise levels of blowers would be determined, how information about
complaints would be reported to the Council, and why complaints about leaf blowers had
increased over the last few years. This report attempts to answer those questions and
provides revised recommendations that address the issues raised by the Committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff-recommends-that- the--Council- direct-staff-to -revi-se- Chapter-9A-0-o f-the--Palo -Alto ...........
Municipal Code regulating leaf blowers in the following manner:
1) Allow only commercial gardeners/landscapers who are trained and certified by a City-
approved process to operate fuel-powered leaf blowers within the City limits;
2) Allow only leaf blowers (fuel and electric) with manufacturers’ affixed labels
indicating an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) noise level rating of 65
dBA or less at 50 feet to be used within the City limits
3)Encourage the use of leaf blowers (fuel and electric) rate at 62 dBA or less by the year
2003;
................... 4-) ....Altow-the-use-o-f-fuel~poweredqeaf-blowers-betwe~n-theqaours-o f-8:00-a:mz-and-5:00~
CMR:352:99 Page 1 of 9
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
p.m. Monday through Friday;
Allow commercial use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in industrial areas on Saturdays
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.;
Allow residents (and commercial gardeners) to use electric leaf blowers between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10:00-a.m. and 4:00
p.m. on Saturdays and holidays;
Prohibit the use of all leaf blowers on Sundays;
Conduct enforcement on a proactive basis, utilizing citations and an increasing scale
as well as notification of violations to commercial gardeners’ clients at the location
of the violation;
Allow City crews to operate leaf blowers between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the
Downtown area, California Avenue area, Midtown area, the Municipal Golf Course,
and in City parking facilities, with special consideration given to those areas
immediately adjacent to hotels;
Exempt City crews from the regulations for clean up after special events and in
emergencies.
Prohibit City crews and discourage commercial gardeners from using fuel-powered
leaf blowers on Spare the Air Days.
BACKGROUND
Staff provided a list of recommendations regarding the regulation of leaf blowers to the
Policy and Services Committee on February 23, 1999. At that time, Committee members
asked that staff develop an alternative to the City issuing permits; review the hours of use
around hotels; review the hours City crews use blowers around residences; work with Bay
Area Gardeners Association (BAGA) in certification and training efforts; and reconsider the
hours for use by homeowners. Additionally, staff was asked to provide information about
how acceptable noise levels of blowers would be determined; how complaints would be
reported to the Council; and why complaints about leaf blowers had increased over the last
few years. Since February, staff has been meeting with representatives of BAGA and the
California Landscape Contractor’s Association (CLCA), conducted a leaf blower
demonstration for the Council, completed additional research, met with r_epresentatives of
downtown hotels, and monitored legislative activities associated with leaf blower regulation.
DISCUSSION
Legislative Update
Four pieces of legislation associated with leaf blowers were introduced in Sacramento this
year. One resolution was adopted and three proposed bills are in committee.
Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 19 - This resoAu_tio_rt w _as_ad_o_p_te_d_in_May 1_99_9_._2~he
resolution directs the California State Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare and submit
CMR:352:99 Page 2 of 9
a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2000 that summarizes the potential health and
environmental impacts of leaf blowers and provides recommendations for alternatives to their
use. Specifically, CARB staffwill study exhaust emissions, noise, and blown dust associated
with leaf blowers. Additionally, the measure requests that local governing bodies refrain
from enacting any new ordinance that prohibits the use of leaf blowers until the CARB is
able to submit their report.
Staff has been contacted by the CARB representative who is coordinating the report.
Information from CMR: 139:99, the previous staff report on leaf blowers will be included
in its report. A public meeting was held in July in E1 Monte, California for the purpose of
discussing the factual aspects of leaf blowers, soliciting additional information, and sharing
the methodology for conducting the study. Representatives of the CARB anticipate that their
report will be submitted around December 9 and that a public document will be available for
review by November 9. Staff will continue to monitor the CARB’s progress as it prepares
its report, and will provide Council with updated information as it becomes available.
Assembly Bill 1544 - This bill would require local entities that propose tO regulate
commercial use of leaf blowers to contract with an independent entity to perform an
economic assessment of the impact of the proposed ordinance. The bill would prohibit
ordinances that are adopted before January 1, 2000 that completely ban the use of leaf
blowers from being enforced unless approved by the voters of the jurisdiction. In June, the
bill was referred to the Environmental Quality and Legislative Government Committees.
Assembly Bill 1609 - Under this proposed bill, the Salvador Hernandez Lira Gardener Act
of 1999 would be enacted that would authorize local jurisdictions to establish a noise
limitation on leaf blowers of 65 dBA at 50 feet. The bill also provides that noise levels of
less that 65 dBA be established by local agencies based upon testing by an independent
testing laboratory that more than one manufacturer sell leaf blowers in the state that meet the
proposed lower noise level standard. The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from
prohibiting the use of leaf blowers except between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on
weekdays and 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends. This bill has been referred to the Assembly
Committee on Environmental Quality.
Senate Bill 1267 - Senator Polanco introduced legislation that would prohibit leaf blowers
powered by engines that do not meet the CARB’s emissions standards or that are not in
compliance or labeled with noise level specifications established by ANSI from being sold
in California after January 1, 2001. The bill would prohibit cities and counties from
prohibiting or restricting commercial use of leaf blowers between January 1, 2000 and
December 31,2001; would allow local agencies by ordinance to restrict the use of leaf
blowers that do not meet the ANSI standards after January 1, 2002; and allow a prohibition
on the commercial use of leaf blowers after January 1~_2_002 b_y ini_ti_a_tive_.__This_bill_failed
passage in the Environmental Quality Committee, but was granted reconsideration.
CMR:352:99 Page 3 of 9
Certification of Commercial Leaf Blower Users
Staff originally recommended that the City issue permits to leaf blower operators. Based
upon comments from the Policy and Services Committee members, staff has revised that
recommendation. Over the last four months, staff has been meeting with representatives of
BAGA and CLCA for the purpose of developing a certification and educational program for
commercial users of leaf blowers in Palo Alto. Both organizations currently provide training
for their members on the proper use and etiquette on leaf blowers operation. These
organizations have agreed to formalize the training for the purpose of certifying gardeners
to use leaf blowers in Palo Alto. The training would be coordinated by the City, in
conjunction with BAGA and CLCA and-would be mandatory. The elements of the training
would include the following:
Proper use of the blower and it’s efficiency when used in a responsible manner
Safety practices including the use of eye and ear protection
Use of the blower at the lower throttle positions and with extension tubes in place
Proper maintenance of the blower to ensure that appropriate gas-to-oil fuel ratiosare
present to help reduce emissions
Blower etiquette, including the prohibition of blowing debris onto adjacent properties,
streets, or public right-of-ways; and consideration for pedestrians and vehicles that are
in close proximity
A complete understanding of the ordinance and consequences of violations
Gardeners would be required to take a short written or oral test to determine their
understanding of the training. After completion of the training, the gardeners would be
issued a certificate of compliance that they would carry with them. In enforcement
situations, police staffwould easily be able to determine whether a commercial gardener was
permitted to operate a blower in the City.
In order to ensure consistent training, BAGA and CLCA representatives have received a
commitment from the Coalition for Fair Legislation to provide funding in the amount of
$25,000 to $30,000 to pay for the production of a professionally produced training video.
..........Members-of-th~-C~-aliri-o-ti---iii~l~-d~----BlZiG~-CL-CA-, Association of Latin American
Gardeners, San Mateo Gardeners Association, Lawn and Garden Equipment Dealers
Coalition, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association. The video would be produced in Spanish and English. "It is
probable that two versions of the video would be produced: one that is Palo Alto-specific and
one that is more generic that could be used in other cities.
All commercial gardeners, regardless of whether they are members of BAGA or CLCA or
not, would be required to be certified. Non-members of the organizations would need to.pay
a nomlna-l-fge to receive ~h~ing and certificate.
CMR:352:99 Page 4 of 9
Staff proposes that the City provide assistance in the training and certification process by
providing overall coordination and oversight, printing the certificates, and helping to
publicize the training sessions.
Blower Certification- Sound Level and Emission Standards
Staff continues to recommend that blowers that are rated at 65 dBA or less at 50 feet using
ANSI standards be allowed for use in P.alo Alto and that a manufacturer’s label indicating
the rating be affixed to all leaf blowers used in the City. While the leaf blower demonstration
conducted for the Council in May (Attachment A) revealed that sound levels of blowers were
measured at higher levels than the manufacturers ratings, the conditions under which the
measurements were taken did not follow the ANSI protocol. Staff determined that the ANSI
standardsare the only ones consistently recognized and used by federal, state, and local
governmental agencies. Almost all legislation regulating leaf blowers uses ANSI ratings as
the standards.
As an alternative, if the Council. is uncomfortable with using the manufacturer’s label as
certification, the City could require that an independent laboratory certify all blowers used
in the City. However, it should be noted that the some of the makers of leaf blowers already
use an independent laboratory to conduct the tests to determine equipment ratings. As an
example, Maryama Company uses the Underwriter’s Laboratory for the testing of its leaf
blowers. Laboratories follow the established ANSI testing protocol when determining noise
level ratings.
Staff~ original recommendations included one that within two years, only blowers that are
rated at 62 dBA or less at 50 feet be allowed for use in the City. After doing some additional
research, staff has changed that recommendation. While it is apparent that the companies
who make the blowers are moving towards equipment that would meet the 62 dBA rating,
it would be a substantial financial burden on commercial gardeners to purchase new
equipment after only two or three years. Therefore, staff now recommends that the City
encourage the use of blowers that are rated at 62 dBA, but that those rated at 65 dBA would
still be allowed for use for an additional three years, to 2003.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the CARB, leaf blowers that
do not meet the Tier II standards (refer to CMR:341:98) that become effective after January
1, 2000 will not be allowed to be sold in California. Tier II standards will lower hydrocarbon
emissions by about 70% over those allowed in 1995. The intent of the new standards is that
as older, non-compliant equipment that does not meet the higher standards wears out, users
will replace their blowers with those that do meet the new standards. Some companies are
already making blowers that will meet the Tier II standards.
It should be noted that most leaf blowers come equipped with factory-installed mufflers.
CMR:352:99 Page 5 of 9
Days/Hours of Operation
At the February 1999 Policy and Services Committee meeting, there was considerable
discussion regarding staff’s recommendations on the hours/days of week during which leaf
blowers would be allowed to be operated. Staff originally recommended that use of blowers
be allowed by both commercial operators and residents between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday and totally prohibited on Sundays and holidays. In discussions
with representatives of CLCA and BAGA, staff has revised the recommendations as follows:
Commercial use - Leaf blowers could be operated by commercial gardeners and landscapers
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. With the exception
of large properties in industrial and general manufacturing zoned areas, commercial use
would be prohibited on weekends. For those large properties in industrial and general
manufacturing areas, commercial use would be allowed on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m.
Homeowner/Resident Use - Staff recommends that residents (and gardeners) be allowed to
use electric blowers Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturdays
and holidays from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Residents would be allowed to use fuel powered
leaf blowers during the same times and on the same days as commercial gardeners, (i.e.
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Staff is recommending that
extended hours and dayg be allowed for only those residents who use electric leaf blowers.
The reason for this recommendation deals with enforcement. If residents were allowed to
use gasoline blowers at different times/days, police staff would need to determine whether
or not the operator was truly a resident. This sets up a situation that is not only labor
intensive, but also would be objectionable on the part of residents.
City Crews - Staff originally recommended that City crews be allowed to operate leaf
blowers in the Downtown area, California Avenue, Midtown area, the Municipal Golf
Come, and City parking facilities beginning at 4 a.m. At the Committee’s request, staff met
with representatives from the major downtown hotels and agreed that Community Services
and Public Services crews, including contractors, would coordinate their clean-up efforts
around the hotels so that blowers would not need to be used in the ~_e_as.until 2:00_or--7:30 ........
............ g:ifil;-~-fid-th-~--~r~e~-~iiiia-~--~ould be used more frequently in areas like Lytton Plaza.
However, staff does not believe that it is necessary to incorporate this agreement in the actual
ordinance.
For areas other than those adjacent to the hotels, the following alternatives were considered:
1)Prohibit City crews from use of leaf blowers prior to 6:00 a.m. - This alternative
presents significant problems, especially for cleaning City parking facilities and
sidewalk areas in Downtown and Califo_mia_A_v_enue_areas~-V-el~ieles-be-g, iia-parking
in lots and garages as early as 6:00 a.m. Additionally, pedestrian traffic begins to
CMR:352:99 Page 6 of 9
increase between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. The ability of City crews to e~ciently and
safely clean these areas with pedestrians and vehicles present would be significantly
hampered unless done during hours when there is minimal vehicle and pedestrian
traffic.
Clean these areas every other week - This alternative is not recommended. Due to the
levels of activity in the Downtown and California Avenue areas, frequent and
consistent cleaning is needed. The accumulation of debris over a two-week period
would be unacceptable to business owners, residents, and visitors.
Hand sweep/rake these areas - While this alternative is an option, as reflected in CMR
139:99, the costs associated with it are considerable and as a result this alternative is
not recommended.
After a review of possible alternatives, staff still recommends that City crews be allowed to
operate leaf blowers between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the designated areas with the
exception of the Downtown and California Avenue hotels.
Spare-the-Air Days - Staff has included a recommendation that would prohibit City crews,
including contractors, from using fuel-powered leaf blowers on Spare the Air Days.
Resolutions and ordinances have been passed in other jurisdictions that include similar
prohibitions. Staff also believes the City should strongly encourage commercial and
residential users from using all fuel-powered lawn and garden equipment, but feels
enforcement of a prohibition would be impossible, as Police staff would need to be able to
prove that the violator had prior knowledge of the designation of a Spare the Air Day. While
such designated days are widely publicized, it is definitely possible that a user would not
receive the information.
Proactive Enforcement
Staff continues to believe that proactive enforcement of a revised leaf blower ordinance will
assist in ensuring compliance and keeping complaints to a minimum. Because staff has
eliminated the permit concept, an increasing penalty assessment for subsequent violations
.................. i~-f~SgrNaKrid~-A~-a-ri-~rh~i-~-~ii~-~{r-~t-~i-o]-~v-o-~~r a $25 penalty; the second
violation a $50 penalty, the third violation a $100 penalty, etc. If Council approves this
approach, actual penalty amounts would be determined. This approach has been discussed
with representatives of BAGA and CLCA and they endorse it. Notification of the clients of
violators is also recommended.
Leaf Blower Complaints
At the Policy and Services Committee meeting, Council members asked for some additional
information regarding leaf blower complaints. Specificall¥,_C_o~ncil_members_asked_why_the ..............
number of leaf blower complaints has increased over the last few years and how future
CMR:352:99 Page 7 of 9
complaints would be tracked. While there is no way of knowing for sure, staff believes
several factors have influenced the increased number of complaints. These factors include:
a higher sensitivity and awareness regarding leaf blower use; better documentation and
tracking of complaints; citizen’s knowledge that Community Service Officer (CSO) response
to complaints is usually more expeditious than police officers due to different levels of
activities; and a significant increase in the use of commercial gardeners in the City.
Staff would anticipate tracking leaf blower complaints as well as proactive enforcement
using the same methodology and system that is used now. As CSOs respond to complaints
or take proactive action, the information is communicated to dispatchers in the
Communications Center and entered into a database. With the implementation of the
Computer Aided Dispatch system, this tracking will be significantly easier to do.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
In order to provide consistent proactive enforcement, an additional CSO would be needed
to provide coverage seven days a week. Staff would propose hiring a temporary CSO for the
initial enforcement efforts of a revised ordinance and, if warranted, return to Council with
requests for additional regular staff after a year’s experience. Estimated costs for the initial
implementation include:
Salary $40,000
Uniforms/Equipment 3,000
Total $43,000
If Council approves the staff recommendations, a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) will
be prepared for these costs, as well as any costs associated with the training and certification
of gardeners. The BAO would be presented to the Council at the same time as the revisions
to the Municipal Code are adopted.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
.....S~-fi’~ recommendations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policy to evaluate
changes to the noise ordinance to reduce the impact of leaf blower noise (N61)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental determination would be made at the time a proposed revision to the current
ordinance is presented to the Council for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
CMR:352:99 Page 8 of 9
Attachment A-Results of Leaf Blower Demonstration Conducted for the Council in May,
1999
Attachment B - CMR 139:99.
Attachment C - CMR 341 : 98
Attachment D - P&S Minutes, February 23, 1999
PREPARED BY:Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PATRICK ;E CHIEF
CMR:352:99 Page 9 of 9
ATTACHMENT A
LEAF BLOWER PRODUCT DEMONSTRATION
Echo PB4OOE
(No rating)
74/75
77/76
8!/80
8I
Marayama BL 4500 SP
(Rated 62 DBA)
66/68
68/69
72/73
69/68
E~ho 46LN
(R~ed 65 DBA)
69/68
71/69
72/73
68/70
Stihl 320L
(Rated 70 DBA)
73/70
75/74
Stihl Electric
(Rated 63 DBA)
62/64
64165
T_oro Electric
(No rating)
63/62
59/60
Stihl Vacuum
(Rated 69DBA)
66/67
69/70
M~rayama (tube removed]City Weed Wacker
68/69 77/76
73/72 77/78
Echo ~6 LN (against fence).Echo 46,LN (fence tub,~ oft"!Green Machine
67/68 71/73 69 idle72/73 72/73 68/70 motion
_Echo ~6 LN (on cement)Echo,,,,,,46 LN (ceme,nt no tube_)
70/69 72/7I
74/75 74/73
.................. Ambient42- .......................................................................................................
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
ATI’ENTION:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
CITY I~LkNAGER
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
DEPARTMENT:
CMR:139:99
POLICE
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REGULATIONS
OF THE USE OF LEAF BLOWERS IN PALO ALTO
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report provides ~:ecommendations for r~g~lating leaf blowers. As staffhas conducted
r~search and talked to numerous people, it is clear that there are a wide variety of opinions
and pe~rspectives on the issue. While the r~commendations would not totally eliminate noise
level concerns and do not specifically alleviate the issue of particulate matterpollution, staff
believes it has developed a balaneed, proaetive 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 Ieafblowers that have been permitted for use by the City of Palo Alto may be
operated in the City;,
2)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 California
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 c6uld 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 proaetive 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 downto_wn_ _area,_CalifomiaAvenue,Midtownarea; th-¢-M~rii~-i~5~fl-Gblf-C-6~i’~,- ....
and in City parking lots;
lO)City crews would be exempted from these regulations for clean up after special events
and in emergencies;
If Cotmefl approves these regulatory measures, staffwould return with a draft of a revised
ordinance (Chapter 9.10). Additionally, staff would return with a budget amendment
............. C-MR:1-39:99 Page 2 of 18
ordinance to cover the costs needed to implement the program.
BACKGROUND
In January 1998, Council directed staff to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf
blower noise, to review environmental issues, to provide a survey of what other jurisdictions
have done regarding leaf blow.ers, and to provide information about the current level of
enforcement and on issues related to enforeement of any proposed ordinance changes.
Since that time, staffhas 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 the. year (CMR: 216:98 and 341: 98)
comain 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:~t~ 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 fitter, 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
..........._s.~_e_eping_and_raking)._ _Brooms,-however~-ean- onlybe-usedon-certain ~3rpes of flat,-s-~oth
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 differen.ees 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
............. ClVIR2139:-9-9-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 Uni.versity 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
manufactm’ers 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 incre~e 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 hi__gher for smaller bu~___’_m._~ss_es_(22.3percent).- .....................................
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 areasto clean 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 leafbl0wem.
Staff recently 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-:-1-39~-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. Whi’le 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 Technolo~rv
Manufacturers of leaf blowers have been contacted regarding the status of new technology..
Several things are 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 nan 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 logarithmic formula in determining
decibel levels, this means that leaf blowers could be operated at noise levels abouf?I55
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 produce noise levels of much less than 62
dBA due to the considerable reduction in air.flow, which would be detrimental to their
operation.
_St_aft has_conducted-some-research and-has don-e--so-me g6tiiid-l~d--~-~~
newest equipment and determined the following:
The Echo PB46-LN 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.
Toro Proline BP6900 .claims to be rated at 62 dBA, but when tested by Police
-CM~139.’299 Page ~ of 18
Deparmaent 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
Staff was interested to learn that although more leafblowers 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 ageneral decline in the overall cleanliness
of the state will occur.
Types. of Leaf Blower Regulafi0.ns
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 amotmt of expenditttres they determine acc.eptable 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: !) time of day/day of week, 2) noise levels, 3) area
specific, 4) bans, 5) educational approach, or 6) a combination of the five.
......... _T_~rne_of_Day/SDdy of Week--- These-types-of ordinances-regulate-by the tiiti~s--tf
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 dmSng
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.
~MRI139199-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-enforeement-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.~I-3-9i~9-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’ Ext~erienee
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 of leaf blowers 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__mi_’_d_-A_ugu_s_t,_the_Ci~ _of-Los-Angeles-stopped--enforcement- efforts- onits--ordinan-ce
(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 brained gasoline-powered blowers, and since it. is very difficult
by eitherodor or visual observation to differentiate between gasoline or methan.ol,
enforcement was curtailed for a period of time. Enforcement efforts have begun again.
When a gardener elairns 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.
................ U~’YMR: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
poss~le 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 lastTall.
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, ~affbelieved 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 f0ree is reviewing options for regulating leaf blowers. Senator Polaneo’s bill died
during last year’s session after it reached the Committee on Environmental Quality. Staff
recentl~ spoke to a representative from Senator Polanco’s office and was told that he is
actively considering-proposing-a-similartype-of~bill-during this- year’s- ~iot~ btit-th~t ~-fifi~l
decision will not be made until mid or late February.
P.ollution,,, 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
............. cMRY139.~9-9 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
amotm~ ofrespirable dust (PM-10) produced by leaf blowers. At that time, it estimated that
PM-10 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 Ahto.]Enforeement
During 1998, police personnel responded to 175 leaf blower 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
............ ~It~:1-39:99-Page 10 of 18
is clear that regardless of Council’s final direction, some members of the community will not
be satisfied. With t_h._is 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 ofpublicfaeilities.
Ordinances regulating the use of leaf blowers should be easily enforeed~~ 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 proaetive 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 concept of issuing permits, similar to that procedure used by Palos Verdes, provides two
positive elements. The first is ease of enforcement. As pohce staff travel around the city and
....... 9b_s cry_ ~e.~pe_o_p!__e _us~g !_e_~f _blo~ers,_it _would be -quite-easy-to-determine-a-violation -just-by
visually inspecting the blower for au affixed permit. Prior to receiving a City permit, the
blower would be testedonce 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 properW.
Secondly, at the time permits are issued, City staff would provide education material
................ ~MR:-1~9:99 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 wouldresult 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 proacfive approach to enforce these
ordinances.
Ci.ty Use of Leaf Blowers
Currently, City crews and contractors use leaf blowers to clean City parking lots, downtown
sidewalks, gee 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 JJae frequency these areas are cleaned and the
times of day the cleaning takes place. Additionally, the costs to clean these areas using leaf
_bl_o_ _we_rs_~_b_een__d_~e~_e_d__a!a__d ~ _e__s_timation of Anereased costs should-the-use-ofteaf
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
................ CM1~1-39:99 ...................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 Ieafblowers deals with theactual 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 thatleafblowers 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, staffhas 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.
AL .TE~ATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
Staghas considered alternative options for dealing with the leafb!ower 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 isa 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
......... op_eration,_the_user_must be-observed-by-theofficer; Additionally; decibel-leve-l~-~t~t-
be measured. It is not aneommon for commercial gardeners to use different staffat
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:-139i99-Page 13 of 18
Another problem with enforcement of-the 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 le~, 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 altemative for
several reasons. As discussed previously, if a 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 ira ban were implemented. Staffhas conferred with
representatives of the Palo Alto Unified School District and determined that some
years ago, it was forced to reduce its gardening staffby 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 alternatives of
increased costs or accepting a lower level of cleanliness. ,
While staffhas been unable to find any documentation regarding the loss of economic
earnings fo~ 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
.--re--cp-m-m---~e_n_d__th_e_~_pr_ohibifion against_other-power-garden ~tools,-such as-law,t-hedge trimmers, ehainsaws and edgers.
o 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, staff.has learned that gardeners and other users of blowers in some
cities have attempted to circumvent the.law by giving the appearan(e that electrical
................... ~lVIR:t-39:99 Page 14 of 18
cords are attached to the blowers. Staffhas 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 learned 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 opportuuity 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 lef~ 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 alternative 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 harmfhl rue! 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 .en£oreement 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
. d~s_ignated_types, of- zones. -.’Irhis--would--present problems-in flaat a-blow~t-co~ltl 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.
Further Restriet 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. Sta.ffbelieves 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 smffwould 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.
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 of proaetive 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, staff would propose to hire a temporary CSO. After gaining some experience with
the program, staff would evaluate additional stuffing needs and if warranted, would return
t~__~9_upg_i!_~ _r_~_q~___e_s~__ for_ additional-regul~ stafL- Estimated -costs ~--for -the-initial
implementation include:
Salary $40,000
Uniforms/equipment $ 3,000
Supplies, education
materials, permits $ 3,000
Total $46,000
.......... C-MR:t39:99 ...........................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 IMPLICA~O~S
Staff’s recommendations are consistent witth 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.
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
............. ClVIRIl39~-99-Page 17 of 18
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PATRICK DWYER, L~’~F OF POLICE
.............. CMR:-139:99 ..........................................................
Page 18 of 18
ATTACHMENT A
NOISE LEVELS OF ALTERNATIVE CLEANING EQUIPMENT
Pow~ Washer
Green Machine
Elgin "Cross Wind" Street Sweeper
Elgin "Pelican" Mechanical Broom
Sweeper
3 ~
87
82
91
91
25’
76
69
82
81
50’
73
64/66
78
79
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date Time Contact Made (CM) or Hundred Block of Reported
Unable to Locate (UTL)Leaf Blower Violations
01-14-98 7:29 a.m.CM 700 block of Middlefield
01-17-98 9:56 a.m.CM 1100 block of Hamilton
01-20-98 7:19 a.m.UTL 100 block of El Camino Real
01-28-98 7:59 a.m.UTL 30(~ block of Pastuer
01-28-98 11:55 a.m.CM 800 block ofMoana Ct.
01-30-98 8:48 a.m.UTL 300 block of Cowper
01-30-98 4:11 p.m.CM 500 block of Lincoln
02-14-98 8:56 a.m.CM 1700 block of E1 Camino Real
02-20-98 8:45 a.m.CM 200 block of Tennyson
02-20-98 10:36 a.m.UTL 1700 block of Emerson
02-20-98 10:51 a.m.CM 3300 block of St. Michael
02-21-98 1:53 p.m.CM 800 block of Miranda Green Ct.
02-23-98 7:58 p.m.CM 100 block of Lytton
02-26-98 8:57 a.m.CM 1800 block of Waverley
03-03-98 7:44 a.m.CM ~ 1300 block of Newell
03-05-98 12:17 p.m.CM 600 block of Kingsley
03-09-98 8:14 a.m.CM 300 block of Cttrtner
03-09-98 8:45 a.m.CM 900 block of Amarillo
03-10-98 7:42 a:m.-UTL ......2800 block~fMidttlefi~Id
03-10-98 4:59 p.m.CM 500 block of St. Clair
03-11-98 6:22 a.m.CM 100 block of California
03-12-98 7:42 a.m.CM 1000 block of Colorado
03-23-98 3:43 p.m.CM 700 block of Loma Verde
03-26-98 11:20 a.m.CM 2500 block ofW. Bayshore
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
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
Time
3:42 a.m. CM*
7:41 a.m. CM
7:53 a.m. 1 CM
3:32 p.m.UTL
4:51 a.m.CM*
7:27 a.m.
1:04 p.m.
8:44 a.m.
3:36 p.m.
1:51 p.m.
7:24 a.m.CM
7:30 a.m.CM*
5:46 p.m.CM
6:18 a.m.CM*
11:47 p.m.
7:33 a.m.CM
11:57 a.m.UTL
8:57 a.m.IYrL
1-1:49 pan, ....
8:28 a.m..CM*
1:25 p.m.UTL
1:39 p.m.UTL
12:08 p.m.CM
11:22 p.m.CM*
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
600 block
200 block
700 block of Maplewood
600 block of Homer
400 block of University
300 block of Hamilton
500 block of Lincoin
of Arastradero
of Palo Alto Ave.
3900 block of E1 Camino Real
600"block of Homer
4200 block 0fWilkie
300 block of Bryant
200 block of Sherman
200 block of Cttriner
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
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
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
O6-23-98
06-23-98
06-23-98
-06-23~98-
06-24-98
06-25-98
06-25-98
06-26-98
06-27-98
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
8:19 a.m.
7:42
3:40 p.m.
7:42 a.m.
7:40 a.m.
7:32 a.m.
~ 5:2Yp.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)
UTL
CM
UTL
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
700 block of Sutter
600 block of Wawrley
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 bl0c-k bfNo~pt0n
700 block of Pag~ Mill
3800 block of E1 Camino
500 block of C~ater
3300 block ofW. Bayshore Rd
1500 block of Portola
CM
CM
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date Hundred Block of Reported
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
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.m.
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
CM
CM
CM
CM*
CM
CM
CM*
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
I00 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 AIexis
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
! -3300b10~k-df St. bi~Iiizlaa~l .....
4200. block of MeKellar
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
07-1~-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~I4z98- "
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 pma.
7:34 a.m.
8:31 a.m.
6:47 a.m.
6:19 p.m.
7:46 p.m.
7:55 am.
6:37 a.m.
6:37 a.m.
8:09 a.m.
-- 6:37a.ifi.--
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
CM
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
500 block of Arastradero
1200 block of Newel1
400 block of Cowper
3700 block of E1 Camino Real
400 block of San Antonio
1200 block of Newell
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 o£Newell
400 block of University
400 block of University
1200 block of Forest
UTL..... ..........~00 bi0ck-~f~dv~le~ -
2300 block of Wellesley
1800 block of Emerson
4200 block of Wilkie Way
1200 block of Forest
2300 blo.ek 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
O9~16-98
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 am.
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
Hundred Block of Reported
Leaf Blower Violations
400 block of Kipling
200 block of Scale
700 block of Garland
¯ 200 block of University
3000 block of E1 Camino Rea!
2400 block of E1 Camino Real
2800 block of Middlefield
500 block of Channing
500 block of Arastradero
600 block of Channing
900 block of Hansen
400 block of University
2100 block of Greet
100 block of College
700 block of Emerson
600 block of Homer
900 block of Dennis -
700 block of Colorado
500 bloekOfUniv~r~ity- -
400 block of Urtiversity
500 block of Alger
100 block of Lincoln
300 Mock of Sheridan
1200 block of Forest
ATTACHMENT C
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
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
I0-27-98
10-28-98
5:18 p.m.
8:31 a.m.
¯ 8:06 a.m.
6:50 p.m.
7:52 a.m.
10:28 a.m.CM
3:13 p.m.CM
9:34 aan.CM
8:17 a.m.CM
6:29 aan.CM*
12:27 a.m.CM
7:49 a.m.CM
8:43 aan.CM
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate (UTL)
CM - citation issued
CM
CM
10-28-98 7:47 a.m. CM
10-28-98 7:37 aan. 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
Amtraek Depot - University Circle
4100 block of MacKay ~.
700 block of Layne Ct.
100 block of Middlefield
900 block of Scott
10-3 i-98
11-02-98
-11-05-98
11-05-98
11-07-98
11-08-98
11-09-98
1:25 p.m.
3:25 pan.
- 8:42 aan.
1:21 p.m.
12:01 p.m.
8:40 a.m.
8:35 aan.
UTL-
UTL
CM
CM - citation issued
2700 block of Waverley
300 block of College
1200 bl0ek Of Gr6enwood
1200 block of Wilson
2700 block of Waverley
1700 block of Embarcadero
2200 bloekof Gmer
11-10-98 1:13 am. UTL 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 ]~ISTORY 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
CM
CM
* = 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 bloek of Forest
300 block of Ruthven
ATTACHMENT D
COMPARISON BETWEEN CUR.RENT CITY COSTS AND ESTIMATED
COSTS IF LEAF BLOWER BAN IMPLEMENTED
pUBLIC WORKS
IAREAS BLOWERS USED [FREQUENCY TIMES CURRENT ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR
COSTS COSTS USED
1 / week 11 p.m. - 7 a.m.$15,550 $31,300 YesCity Parking Lots
Downtown
Civic Center
Cubberley
Misc, Parking Lots I / week I 1 p.m. - 7 a.m.$21,700 $43,400 No
Bike Paths 1 / week 9 am. - 3:30 p.m.$4,1(~$8,200 No
Dead Ends I / week 9 a.m. - 3:30 pan.$2,250 $4,500 No
Downtown Sidewalks 3 / week 4 a.m. - 7 a.rrL $8,000 $24,000 No
Tree Trimming Varies g a.rr~ - 4 p.m.$12,509 $25,000 Yes
In-House Tree Trimming Varies 8 a.rn. - 4 p.m.$12,500 $25,000 No
SUBTOTAL $76,700 $161,400
COMMUNITY SER VI~TES
AREAS BLOWERS USED
Tennis Courts
Downtown Tree Wells
Parks
City Hall Plaza
Other City Facilities
Conwact Inspection
Athletic Fields
City Facilities - Higher Use
SUBTOTAL
COSTS ....COSTS USED
2 / month 9 a.m. - 4 p.m.~Yes
3 / week 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
~
Yes
5 / week 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.Yes
3 / week g a.m. - 3 p.m.~Yes
3/-we~k
5 /week 7 ~-m. - 3 p.m.$9,245 $21,500 No
3 / week No
3-5 / week No
5/~beek No
9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
9 a.~n. - 3 p.m.
6 a.m. - 3 p.m.$27,375
$1,818,375I
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 STA~S REPORT
This is an int’ormational 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 jurisdictiom
have done regarding leaf blowers, and to return in 90 days with a report.. Council also
requested .that staff provide information about the ¢m-reut 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 cm’rent enforcement efforts; pollution
information; and pending legislation concerning leaf blowers.
-S.~mmary of LeafBlower Control in Palo -Alto
In 1972, the City established noise standar& with the adoption ofPalo Al~0 Municipal Code,
Chapter 9.10. In 1986, as a result of numerous complaims about noise from equipment used
by gardeners and Public Works employees and City contractors, thePolice 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
concluded that the noise ordinance was restrictive and needed to b~ reviewed for changes.
~ 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 d gasoline le~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 2~ feet between I0:00 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 dedbds to 82 decibds and a further reduction
to 75 decibels a&’r. July 1, 1989, and a change inhours from 9:00 am. 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 2S feet
(reduced to 75 decibels at 25 feet on July I, 1989) to clean City parking lots between the
hours of I0:00 p.m. and 7:00 am:, 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 Qulef’ program sponsored by the National Institute of.
Governmental Pro’chasing.
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 certifioation from the Police
Department that the equipment was not able to produce noise levels in ~xcess 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
i~itiafive fai!¢d by 3,333 vo~t~S .......... --
Enforcement of Ordinance
The Police Department has enforced the ordinance regarding the use of leaf blowers on a
complaint basis for the last llyears. 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
~:216:98 -I~age-2 of 8
fo~ service at ~e time, the calls a~e normally handled wkhin one hour o~the receipt of the
call. It is not uncommon for the users of the leaf blower to have le~t prior to the offc~r’s
arfi~l. Oilentimes, fl’the user is present, they will reduce the power of the equipment once
they see the officer sn’~ve. While the current ordh~nce prohibits leaf blowers which
produce noise levels in excess of?5 decibels, without testing each piece of equipment at
throt~e with a sound meter it is not possible for the officer to determine i~ they are in
violation.
The majority of complaints associated with leaf blowers concern their use prior to the
p~mitted 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, 1995 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 1995, 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.
S_o.und Levels of Equipment
The Police Department uses calibrated sound meters that meet the standards of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) to measure decibel levels. It should be noted that ANSI
ratin~, that come with most leaf blowers areusually 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, ff any, gasoline powered leaf blowers produced noise levels below 70 decibds
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,
mo~ g~_o._ ’!ine_ p_o.~¢~. ~d ! _e~_ _b!owcrs produ~, less noise than earlier models,_but stillhave 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 4dLN
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,
C~2!6_~98 ................ ......................................................................................Page 3 of 8
air volume/flow. (nonnally measured in cubic feet per minute), muffler and impeller.-
According to information received fi’0m 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, smffleamed 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.
There are two poUuf!on concerns associated with leaf blowers: gas emissions and
dust/pollen.. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (]SPA) has e "stimated that
garden equipment accounts for five percent of the air pollution in the country. Exhaust
emissions fi-om these engines contain hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and particulate matter. These emissions are/he result of fuel and air.being
mixed and burned to produce the power needed for the operation of/he engine. According
to the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, evaporative emissions occur in
several ways. The majority occur during refueling and sp’filage. These types of emissions
are generally smaller compared to the hydrocarbon emissions. In an article fi’om 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 ~si0ns, ~e EPA_~ ad_ .d~’essedall types of equipment and has not singled:out
leaf bi0-~ers.
In June 1995, the EPA finalized the first national, regulations affecting small gasoline
powered engines used ingarden 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 detemfined. Currently, the EPA is working with state
CMI~216:gg ................ .................~---’~"’-Page-~’of’8 ..............
and industry representatives to structure Phase 2 standards that would result in an additional
30 percent reduction below the Phase I levels.
Staff is still in the process of attempting to gathe~ 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 s~-ingent 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 o~dinance in 1996,
opponents went to court in an attempt to get the ordinance declared unconstitutional. Some
cities have considered bans (e.g. Palm Springs) but have decided against .them for .various
reasons. 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 s’nnilar
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 proln’bit only the use of.gasoline powered blowers; a few
others have outlawed gasoline, electric and battery operated blowers. Enforcement is ..mually
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. Because some blowers have the capability of also
being used as vacuums, some users also circumvent leaf blower bans by using the valuta
capability to pick up leaves and debris.
Staffhas also learned tha~, depending upon be size of the city, without an exemption for city
crews, a _d_ec_r_e~e_ "m ~.e levi of m.a~int~nm_ee .to city s_~e~, p_ark__s, ~d fa_e_’_flifies 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/moil.on studies and have concluded that
production rates vary depending upon the amount/type of debris, weather conditions, type
of sin-face, and the number of people occupying the area that is being cleaned. In !99% the
City of Santa Barbara estimated that a change from leaf blowers to sweeping/raking would
CMR:216:98 "_ ....................................._- ........p_ag_~ 5 of 8
increase costs to maintain its golf course, parks, downtown, and parking facilities by m
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 lea~blowers to brooms,
its park maintenance costs increased without receiving commensurate increases in its
budge"s, 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 redr~nents 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 fe~t:
Blower
Broom .................
Hose down
Walk behind vacuum
2.25 hours
282 hours
76 hours
18 hours
COST
$32.06
$4,018.50
$1,083.00
$256.06
Pending Le~slation
On February 13, 1998, Senator Polanco introduced Senate Bill 1651. This bill was initially
introduced with language that focused on gasoline powered teaf blowers. It would require
the State Department of Consumer Affairs to establish a testing and certification program by
July l, 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
aRer January l, 2000 would need tomeet a maximum noise level of 65 decibels at 50 feet.
The bill would permit homeowners to use non-qualifN~g blowers on their own property after
January 1, 2000. Additi0~y~_ the b’_~ would.prohibit localagencies from-regulating the use
dr leafblowe~s e~cep~ l~tw~n the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and 5:00
p~m. and 9:00a.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, 199g. 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 ................................................Page6 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 amen~led to
address leaf blowers in general without regard to power source. The amended bill
reconsidered on April 21 and farther amendments were made. The most recent amendments
include language that would require the State Department of Consumer AJ~airs to certi£y leaf
blowers as meeting a specified maximum noise level based upon data provided by
mannfacturers. Additionally, the bill has been changed to allow local initiative measures
Which contained more strident requirements on the hours or manner of use of leaf blowers
to supersede the bill’s provisions. The bill failed passage tu the first hearing of the Revenue
and Taxation Committee, but will be ~econsidered.
Anticipated Additional StaffWork to be Completed
Prior to returning to Council with some options for consideration, staff" will complete the
research phase of the assignment. With that information, meetings will be conducted with
residents, gardeners, and other interested parties to obtain, feedback on the issues and on the
pros!cons~ of alternatives. Staff" will then finalize options and return to. Council. Staff
anticipates the remaining work on the assignment to take about two to three months,
depending upon the input received at the meetings with various groups.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
When smffretums to Council with options, cost estimates associated with each option will
be provided based upon enforcement, as well as any resource impacts to City operations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Two-Year Histo.ry 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
REVIEWED BY:Chris Durkin, Police Chief
APPROVED BY:
CMR:216:98
Page 8 of’ 8
ATrACItMENT A
TWO-YEAR ttlSTORY OF LEAF BLO3VER COMPL~NTS
Date
12-31-97
12-31-97
12-30-97
12-28-97
12-2g-97
12-2g-97
12-24-97
12-24-97
12-17-97
i2-i4-97
12-6-97
12-4-97
12-4-97
12-4-97
12-3-97
12-1-97
11-28-97
11-28-97
Contact Made (CM) or
Unable to Locate
(VTL)
UTL 400 block of Forest
CM 400 block of San Antonio
CM 300 block
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
Hundred Block of Possible Leaf
Blower Violations
of High
of Homer600 block
700 block of Ros~vood
2000 block of Channing
3600 block of El Camino
Bryant @ Channing
400 block of IGpting
800 block of Middlefidd
600 block of Homer
4100 block of Crosby P1
100 block of Walter Hayes
2700 block of Middlefield
200 block of Waverley
700 block of Arastradero
4100 block of Cros_by
900 block of Scott
11-27-97 600 block of Grimm
11-26-97 Moana Ct
11-25-97 200 block of Grant
11-24-97 300 block of Curtner
11-20-97
11-20-97
11-07-97
11-04-97
11-3-97 -
10-30-97
600 block of Bryson
300 block of Forest
4100 block of Baker
Birch @ California
400 block of Kipling
Bryson @ Middlefidd.
10-30-97
10-27-97
10-26-97
10-24-97
10-23-97
-10-20-97
10-17-97
10-15-97
10-08-97
10-6-97
10-3-97
9-30-97
9-3O-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
CM
CM
CM
CM
2000 block of Oberlin
00 block of University
400 biock of Kipling
400 block of Lytton
I900 block of Waverley
Bryson @ l~idglefield
Sheridan @ E1 Camino
Seale@ Webster
3700 block of El Camino
2300 block of St. Francis
400 block of Kipling
3600 block of El Camino
900 block of Waverley
00 block of University "
400 block of Alma "
500 Hock of Channing
2200-biock of St. Francis
3500 block of Laguna
400 block of Addison
2200 block of Yale
3000 block of Middlefield
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-I-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
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
UTL
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
400 block of Lincoln
1500 block of Mariposa
400 block of Guinda
1500 block of Escobita
2300 block of Webster
800 block of Los Robles
4000 block of Middlefield
500 block of Everett Ct
¯ Ruthven
100 block of Middlefield
1000 block of Forest
3200 block of Ramona
Kipling @ Lytton
Curtner. @ El Camino
500 block of Everett Ct
Webster @ University
00 block of University
3500 block of Greet
ChurCliill @ 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
6-2%97
6-27-97
6-25 -97
6-24-97
6-21-97
canceled
CM
UTL
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
P~rtola @ .Sequoia
Torreya Ct
300 block of Lytton
100block of El Camino
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
1900 block of Waverley
Forest @ Bryant
3300 block of Middlefidd
400 block of Forest
4100 block ofPena Ct
800 block of Lytton
3300 block of I-Iillview
Cowper @ Hamilton
700 block of Middlefidd
900 block of Bryant
2000 block of Oberlin
900 block of Bryant
700 block of Colorado
By;on
2000 block of Oberlin
1400 block of Bryant
Forest @ ~lman
200 block of Edlee
CM
Forest @ Gilman
300 block of Cowper
1700 block of Middlefi¢ld
4100 block of Middlvfidd
800,block of-UniversitY, .... ~,,,,’
5-14-97
5-14-97
5-14-97
5-12-97
5-9-97
5 -9-97
CM
3-21-97
3-20-97
3-14-97
3-10-97
3-8-97
CM
CM
CM
CM
unit canceled
CM
CM
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
O0 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 I-Iamilt0n
400 block of Forest
Cowper @ Everett
Park @ Edlee
CM3-3-97
3-3-97
3 -2-97
3-I-97
3 -7-97
Guinda @ Homer
500 block of Hamilton
500 block of San Antonio
Bryant @ Kellogg
300 block of Lytton
1600 block of El Camino
CM ........’ ...........I t00block-of Cowper
3-i-97
2-27-97
2-21-97
2-18-97
2-14-97
2-13-97
1-27-97
CM
Hamilton @ Cowper
2000 block of Channing
Hamilton @ Lincoln
4 I00 block of El Camino
Louis @ Embarcadero
Bryant @ C"hurchill
400 block of Alma -
1-25-97
1-21-97
1-14-97
1-10-97
1-27-97
1-14-97
1-9-97
I-7-97
CM
UTL Chamlng
CM Columbia
UTL 400 block
Lincoln @ Webster
Channing @ Webster
@ Cowper
@ Stanford
of Alma
Channing @ Cowper
Columbia @ Stamford
Clianuing @ CowperCM
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 300 block of S~le
400 block of Forest
3700 block of.Wright
400.block of High
3800 block ob M~aolia
400 block of Col_eridg¢
400 block of Hamilton
500 block of Hamilton
4100 block of Hubbart
700 block of San Antonio
CM 700 block of Channing
CM
CM
11-13-96
11-13-96
iI-13:96
1 I-7-96.
10-31-96
10-25-96
10-24-96
10-24-96
I0-16-96
CM Forest @ Gilman
CM 4200 block of Pomona
CM Lytton @ Emerson
CM 300 block of Seale
CM
CM
CM
3200 block of Middlefield
4100 block of Sutherland
600 block of Olenbrook
3200 block of Middlefield
Forest @ Bryant
10-12-96
10-11-96
I0-II-96
10-9-96
10-9-96
10-9-96
I0..7-96
10-6-96
10-5-96
UTL
UTL
CM
UTL
UTL
CM
CM
CM (eleCtric blower)
CM
CM
CM
CM
10-3-96
10-2-96
10-1-96
9-27-96
9-26-96
9-26-96
9-23-96
9-21-96
9-19-96
Bryant @ Forest
700 block of Sutter
500 block of University
Emerson @ Churchill
University @ Cowper
400 block of High
200 block of Cowper
1100 block of Hamilton
500 block of Hamilton
Loma Verde@ Middlefield
Forest @ Gilman
2200 block of Wellesley
400 block of Femando
400 block of Femando
Hamilton @ Gilman
00 block of University
Lot J"
200-block 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
unfounded
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Hawthorne @ Cowper
400 block ofFemando .
Sheridan @ El Camino
Middlefield @ LoresVerde
400 block of F~mando
California @ Columbia
100 block of Heather
Colorado @ Mid.dlefidd
400 block of University
3800 block of Magnolia
400 block of Femando
Waverley @ Embarcadero
300 block of Bryant
200 block of High
@
400 block of Grant
Oregon @ W. Bayshorv
4100 block of Morris
300 block of Univvrsity
800 block of Hansen
800 block of Hamilton
7-5-96
7-3-96
7-3 -96
6-30-96
6..30-96
6.-24-96
CM 400 block of Hamilton
UTL _ _ _900_ block of Matadexo ....
CM 1900 block of Waverl~
1100 block of Parkinson
800 block of San Antonio
Hamilton @ Cowper
7-13-96
7-10-96
7-17-96
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-I7-96
5-16-96
5-14-96
5-13-96
5-13-96
5-8-96
5-8-96
5-7-96
5-6-96
5-5-96
5-3-96
5-3 -96
4-29-96
4-26-96
4-24-96
4-23-96
4-22-96
CM
500 block of Center
Wellesley @ California
700 block of San Antonio
unfounded
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
unit
CM
unfounded
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM.
CM
canceled
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.ersi~
1500 block of Page Mill
Middlefield @ Homer
200 block of California
1900 block of Waverley
Univenity @ Tasso
@
2000 block of Channing
1100 block of .Greenwood
Universi~! @ Cowper
600 block of Guinda
.500 block of University
North California
University @ Alma-
700block of Page-Mill
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
.1-10-96
1-10-96
1-8-96
1-6-96
trait canceled
CM
CM
1-6-96
IIII
1-6-96
1-5-96
1-5-96
CM
CM
CM
North California
Forest @ Waverley
Gilman @ Forest
Stanford @ Bowdoin
500 block of University
3200 block of G-reef
1400 block of Bryant
400 block oft-Imafilton
Everett @ Bryant
300 block of Forest
3600 block of E1 Czmino
Columbia @ Stanford
700 block of Cminda
2200 block of Park
2200 block of Park
300 block of Cm’tner
200 block of Univexsity
Stanford @ Columbia
600 block of Channing
2000 block ot’Edgewood
2000 block of Bryant
400 block of Grant
400 block of Newell
Casfilleja @ Miramonte
1700 block of E1 Camino
1500 block of California
1900 block of Waverley - "
3300 block of Alma
Company
Stihl
Echo
Echo
Stihl
Stild-
Sti~
Honda
Honda
Blk-Decker
Honda
Seags
Echo
A’VI’ACBMY_,NT B
DECIBEL LEVEL MATRIX OF GARDEN EQUIPMENT
Model
PB400E leaf’blower
BR400 leaf’blower
PB46LN leaf blower
PB46LN ~ reduced power
PB400E (with elbow tube removed)
[BR320L leaf blower
BG75 hand held leaf blower
BE55 electric leaf blower
BE55 @ ½ power
electric leaf blower
metal leaf rake on lawn steps
I-1RC21~ lawn mower
HRC21~ with blade off
electric lawn mower
T260 line trimmer
GX22 line trimmer
old eh~’tfic line .trimmer
..... cs34oo, ,, , w ,, ,
Company
50’ dBa
rating
74
75 ?
65
69
50’ field 25’ field
test test
79-84
82-84
73-78
68-72
79-84
78-80
73-78
73-77
70-73
68-73
63 -70
81
72
70
77-79
77-80
67-70
3’ fidd
test
91-104
90-100
89-95
85-88
91-104 "
88-98
88-96
89
85
84
75-82
93
388
476
370
382
377
362.65
71-78
72-77
70-73
60-64
73-79
72-75
62-72
66-68
62-65
61-63
58-60
68
62
62-63
72-76
71-74
60-61
75-82 81-88
86
81-84
94-98 ¯
92-97
80
99-106
Miscellaneous Noise Source
Loud dog barking at approximately 35 f~’t
Voices during city staff meeting
City Hall plaza at lunch time
,Train arriving at University Ave station meamred at 25 feet
Car going by on quiet residential stre~ 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 hous~
Back porch of above house (some freeway noise and wind in trees)
dBa’s
78-80
55-65
58-65
85-92
62-76
81
¯ 42
CFM is the cubic feet per minute of air produced by a lea~’blower. All measurements were rounded
down to the nearest whole number. Field tests were conducted under ~,rcumstances that an officer would
likely encounter, but do not meet the ANSI testing standards which re.quire the use of a sound room or
stadium. All of the tested equipment is gasoline operated, unless othm’wise noted. Sound measurements
of garden equipment varied based on the four 90 degree turns made by the operator.
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 10, 1998
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
-BONORAB~t~tI f COurt, try"
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
CMR:341:98
LEAF BLOWER ASSIGNMENT - SECOND STATUS REPORT
REPORT IN BRIEF
In response to a Council assignment to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf"
blower noise and environmental issues, staffhas continued m 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 onmmity 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 i of 7
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
This report provides additional information on the Council assignment to evaluate options
for addressing leaf blower noise, to.review environmental issues, andto get community input
On potential impact associated with options. Specifically, this report includes updated
information on pending legislation, experiences of additional cities that have banned blowers,
and the process used and opinions obtained from the community. Staff anticipates
agendizing the item for discussion and action at the Policy and Services Committee meeting
of October 6. Due to the interest level on this issue, staffwill include the third staff report
in the Council packet soon aRer the Council returns from vacationin order to allow for
wider and timely distribution.
Other Cities’ Exp~jenc~
Staff has conferred with several other cities regarding their enforcement of leaf blowers.
Contact was made with the Cities of Piedmont, Lawnda!e and De! 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 enforcernent personnel and they respond to 15-25
complaints a month.
Lawndale-just enacted its ordinance one year ago. They allow homeowners and gardeners.
with a business license to operate electric blowers. Its code enforcement officers enforce the
ordinance and respond to about six complaints a week.
Due to the fact that over half of the cities that have banned leaf blowers are much smaller
than Palo Alto and as a result usually do not have large commercial and industrial areas,
numerous city facilities/properties or vibrant downtowns, staff has contacted some of the
larger cities to determine how they deal with the cleanliness issues in these areas without leaf
blowers.
Sin~ 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
lX~Sonnd e~oreement a~hority, as significant police ofl~ce~ time has been spent in dealing
with the mmber of comphi~. The City of Los Angeles has also allocated S1 million to its
Depmmmnt of Water and Power to develop a battery-operated prototype leaf blower that is
quiemr and as powerful as gas-powered blowers. Bemuse city workers use brooms, many
areas of the city are not cleaned as oi~en. 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 ~rom increased’liability claims.
The City of West Hollywood has used gemetal reliefworkers who are on .unemployment and
welfare to perform some of the extra nmuual 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 Mmlo 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 Marco County Board of’SupervLmrs recently adopted a resolution that prohibits use
of any polluting garden and utility equipment by any County department or independent
toners 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 po~uting activities.
Attachraent A provides an updated list of cities that have banned leaf blowers.
Pending Le#slafion
Senate Bill 1651, that Senator Polanco introduced in February 1998, died in the Senate
Appropriations Committee due to the language that required the State Department of
Consumer Affairs to provide for certification of blowers. However, Senator Polanco has
amended Senate Bill 14, which .originally dealt with jury service, and substituted leaf blower
language in this bill. Senate Bill 14 had already passed the Senate with its original language
and is currently pending in the Assembly. If passed, SB 14 would: prohibit cities from
establishing noise limitations on leaf blowers emitting noise levels of 65 decibels or less at
50f.eet; 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 am. 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 aider January I, 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.
CMP,:341:98 - Page 3-of7
Sta~ has received informa~on regarding associated pollution issues from the California
Enviromnental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CEPARB), the Environmental
Prom~on Agency (EPA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distri~ the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quali’ty Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality
Manag~nent District.
The EPA initially adopte~l Tier i ~missi~m standar& for utility engines (engines used in hwn
and gard~ 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 I[
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 dcvdoped by the CEPARB some years ago reve~led that the amount of patti. "culate
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 problams. The California particulate matter standard that was adopted in
1982 is 50 micrograms per cubic meter in a 24-hour period. The national24-hour standard,
adopted in 1987 (]SPA is currently revising), is 150 micrograms per cubic meter, not to be
exceeded more than once per year averaged over three years. While most particulam 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 ~immers,
EPAdocuments acknowledge that hand-held equipment is primarily powered by two-stroke
engines because, unlike a four-stroke design, two-stroke engines have more operational
capability and are significantly lighter than four-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines,
however, emit higher levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particle matter. The
EPA has also recognized the industry’s progress towards lowering emission levels is
."significanf’ andis 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 thatwill bring them into compliance with the Tier II standards.
CMP.:341:98 .Page 4 of Q
COmmunily Outreach/Re@once
After receiving considerable information from other cities and based upon staffresearch,
seven options were presented as a basis for. the community outreach mee..tings."
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 th~ are currently
allowed.
An ordinance pmnitling the use of leaf blowers that are certified that they cannot be
operated at higher than 65 decibels at 50 feet and that are permitted by the City for
use in Palo A~to..
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 m~tings staff has conducted with the various interested groups, feedback on
the issues and the pros/cons of optiom have been obtained. Some additional ideas that were
presented at the meetings include:
¯
The use of leafbtowers 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 ou~each to lea~ blower users on’proper use.
Regulate leaf blower use based upon duration of time used (e.g., 15 minutes in m
horn’).
Use mediation to settle issues between users/complainants.
Staff. has met-with" representatives from Echo Corporation, the largest manufacturer of
commercial leaf blowers in the Country. Additionally, information from other manufacturers
has been collected. On June I0, staff held a meeting that was attended primarily by
gardeners and laudscapers. Twenty-one people attended that meeting. The first generalI
community meeting was held on June 17. Community members were notified of this
meeting in several ways. ~ 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 m~ting was held on
July 15. Staff especially invited residents and business owners who hired gardeners who
used leaf blowers, as this was one segment of the community that staffhad not heard from.
CMK:341:98 .................................Page 5’ o’f7
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 o£1est’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 regnladon/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
Staff is 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 conside.ration.
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 estinmfing costs associated with the options.
ATI~ACHMENTS
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 Co _mmunlty Meetings
PI~PAR~D BY:Lyrme Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
CM~:341:98 _.Page 6 of 7
REVIEWED BY:
APPKOVED BY:
~’~fmCK DWY~
CMR.:341:98 Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT B
EPA’s HAND-HELD EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Year Displacement }HC CO NOx !PM
1995-98 Less than 20¢c 220g/bhp-hr 600g/bh~hr 4.0g/bhp-hr n/a
20¢. less than 50e~180 600 4.0 n/a
50e~ and greater 120 300 4.0 n/a
2000 All 50 130 4.0 .25
HC - Hydrocarbons
CO - Carbon Monoxide
N0x- Oxides of Nitrogen
PM - Particulate Matter
g/bhp-h~ - grams per brake-hors~ower-hour
AI"i’ACHMENT C
Leaf Blower Options ,Gardener,s Meetino_ June 10. 1998
Complete ban on all leaf blowers.
Pros: 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 request/use of gardeners - seniors
¯clients opted for less services when prices would increase
¯3rd party intervention is the problem - should be between client and gardener
Ban on only fuel powered leaf blowers.
Pros: 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.
Pros: 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
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
C~ty..
Hillsborough uses this
would assist in recovery/identification of stolen blOwers
would eliminate use of older units
easy to enforce
training could be mandatory
would help drive technology
some people might not maintain their equipment
¯65 dba now, few years 60 dba
¯companies (responsible) put down safe mulch
¯more particulate matter disturbed by vehicles
Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own
property.
¯Gardeners could sell their old blowers
¯problem for gardeners
¯most people in Palo Alto have gardeners
¯discriminates between
¯homeowners would tend t’o be noisier - older equipment - 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
¯
Hillsborough uses this
would assist in recovery/identification of stolen blowers
would eliminate use of older units
easy to enforce
training could be mandatory
would help drive technology
¯
¯
¯
¯
manufacturers won’t be inclined to solve problem
hard to enforce
continued levels of complaint .
doesn’t resolve issue
if state passes legis.lation, current ordinance couldn’t be used
Other Ideas
divide City into districts - only allow use on certain days in certain districts to
coincide with garbage pick up days
General Comments
¯would assist in education; some commercial clients have offered to provide
space
¯63% gardeners 2-5 employees; 21% gardeners 5-10 employees; 5,3%
gardeners’25 + employees
¯they are willing to .work with City
¯key is training on operation of blowers
¯taking leaf blower away from trade is equivalent to prohibit ele(~tric vacuums
in house cleaning
¯weather causes back-ups
¯people see constant blower use all day long
¯would rather work .with reasonable restrictions than not work at all
¯ -example: MP ban - he raised rates - lost 11 clients; these clients hired others
who do less quality work; 15-30% increase in fees
- another lost 7 clients
¯vacuums also disturb air - dust
¯
¯
¯
brooms kick up dust
dust/particles accumulate without blowers - becomes issue with wind
force manufacturers to give training
50-60% belong to organization; is increasing
multi-language handouts for training
Brands of Leaf Blowers
¯Echo - newer models are heavier
¯Stihl- 320L
¯Red Max
¯Astron
¯Shindawa
Leaf B!ower O.Dtions -Community Meeting June 17.19~B
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)
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
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
Ban on only fuel powered leaf blowers.
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
C.prnments:
¯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.
Pros: 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 s.m.- 4 p.m., Monday-Friday).
Pros: 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 st 50 feet and require permits issued by the
City.
based on noise standard, not on single piece of equipment
could provide an educational component (could track # of complaints to revoke
if too many)
certification by manufacturer is like fox guarding hen house
noise level still too high
some lots only 50’ wide
still takes time to enforce
¯ hard to measure leaf blower annoyance in decibels - pitch the issue
cost of administration, issuance of permits
dust pollution still a problem
not a good use of police resources
Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own
property.
would result in overall less leaf blower use
unenforceable - proof of ownership
still creates noise, dust, emission problems
could resultin ne.ighbor conflicts
could put some gardeners out of work
~: No change to current ordinance.
Pros: 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 min in an hour)
General Comments:
¯ -needs to be evaluated in context of all noise, e.g., Caltrain, highway
¯would like to see the complaints info mapped - may not be a problem in all
neighborhoods
¯decisions shouldn’t be based just on the # of complaints - some people don’t
complain
ask the question - what are leaf blowers trying to do
current ordinance hard to enforce "
gardeners who don’t use leaf blowers are efficient and effective
if Council bans blowers for residents, should ban for City use
people who use blowers (City workers in parks) wearing hearing protection
noise harmful to especially children
police enforce all sorts of bans, illegal activity
use of police to enforce noise not a good use
responsibility should be on homeowners who hire gardeners who use leaf
blowers
¯LA green card - English and Spanish
¯use water instead
¯people can chose to pay more or have reduced level of cleaning
Leaf Blower Meeting - July 15, 1998
J~tigJ3._l.: 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 pollulion.-
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 ~elp to get rid of dust and have it carried away by gardeners,
Ban on only fuel-powered leaf blowers,
o
¯
Would eliminate gas emissions.
Makes a hum, not a screech; more palatable.
Cost to gardeners is less for equipment/maintenance.
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 lar.ge 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.
JZO.tJgO..~: Further restrict the hours of the day and days of week leaf blowers may
be operated (e.g., 10 a;m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday).
Alternative:Prohibit Saturday-Sunday-Federal holidays for commercial use, Should.
apply to the City of Palo Alto,
Better than complete ban.
o
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
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 ~
Pros: None given
Unfair - neighbor might have old noisy blower.
Unrealistic as many residents hire gardeners.
No change to current ordinance.
No change would be simple.
Vast majority of-residents don’t complain.
All cons from other options.
NOt working now.
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 and
mandate membership in professional association,
¯Would raise competence level of gardeners.
Would need to be a state license so gardeners don’t have to have multiple
licenses.
Not practical.
Difficult for independents,
General Comments
¯Alternatives to leaf blower could also have some air pollution problems.
¯We don’t know how much particulate matter is stirred up in air in Palo Alto
with blowers.
¯No one 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.
¯W!~en compared to trucks, planes, cars, leaf blowers not a real issue.
¯Blowers help to keep city beautiful.
Beauty 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 brower has been singled out to be banned - there must be a reason,
Leaf blowers benefit the few at the expense of many.
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
REPORT IN BRIEF
In response to a Council assignment to identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf
blower noise and environmental issues, staff has continued to conduct research, contacted
additional cities that have implemented blower bans, and has held some community outreach
meetings to receive input on the options. This report provides an update on the research,
includes information received from gardeners and community members about their concerns,
ideas and suggestions, and status report on pending legislation. Staff will return to Council
soon after Council’s vacation with specific recommendations.
CMK:341:98 Page 1 of 7
This is an informati6nal report and no Council action is required.
]~ACKGROUND
This report provides additional information on the Council assignment to evaluate options
for addressing leaf blower noise, to review environmental issues, and to get community input
on potential impact associated with options. Specifically, this report includes updated
information on pending legislation, experiences of additional cities that have banned blowers,
and the process used and opinions obtained from the community. Staff anticipates
agendizing the item for discussion and action at the Policy and Services Committee meeting
of October 6. Due to the interest level on this issue, staffwill include the third staff report
in the Council packet soon after the Council returns from vacation in order to allow for
wider and timely distribution.
Other Cities’ Experience
Staff has conferred with several other cities regarding their enforcement of leaf blowers.
Contact was made with the Cities of Pied_mop& Lawndale and Del Mar. The City of
Piedmont implemented a ban on fuel-powered leaf blowers in 1990. One problem it has
encountered is that gardeners use gas-powered generators for the electric blowers that are as
loud and create as many pollution problems as leaf blowers.
Del Mar adopted its ordinance banning portable, gasoline-engine blowers in 1989.
Its ordinance is enforced by code enforcement personnel and they respond to 15-25
complaints a month.
Lawn.dale just enacted its ordinance one year ago. They allow homeowners and gardeners
with a business license to operate electric blowers. Its code enforcement officers enforce the
ordinance and respond to about six complaints a week.
Due to the fact that over half of the cities that have banned leaf blowers are much smaller
than Palo Alto and as a result usually do not have large commercial and industrial areas,
numerous city facilities/properties or vibrant downtowns, staff has contacted some of the
larger cities to determine how they deal with the cleanliness issues in these areas without leaf
blowers.
CMR:341:98 Page 2 of 7
Since adopting its ordinance, the City of Los Angeles has received so many complaints that
it is in the process of adopting another ordinance that would give its code enforcement
personnel enforcement authority, as significant police officer.time has been spent in dealing
with the number of complaints. The City of Los Angeles has also allocated $1 million to its
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 often. Due to its concem 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’hability 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 Marco 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 Dish/or requests the pubhc refrain from engaging in polluting activities.
Attachment A provides an updated list of cities that have banned leaf blowers.
Pending Legislation
Senate Bill 1651, that Senator Polanco introduced in February 1998, died in the Senate
Appropriations Committee due to the language that required the State Department of
Consumer Affairs to provide for certification of blowers. However, Senator Polanco has
amended Senate Bill 14, which originally dealt v, Sth j~-~- se~ee, and substituted leaf blower
language in this bill. Senate Bill 14 had already passed the Senate with its original language
and is currently pending in the Assembly. If passed, SB 14 would: prohibit cities from
establishing noise limitations on leaf blowers emitting noise levels of 65 decibels or less at
50 feet; prohibit cities from regulating leaf blowers except between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
on weekdays and 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends; allow cities to regulate the manner
and use of leaf blowers used to blow debris into sidewalks or gutters; require leaf blowers
used commercially after January I, 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 !ots, 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 certainportion of this pollution.
However, the EPA and CEPARB do not singleout leaf blowers as offenders, but include
all fuel-powered lawn and garden equipment such as mowers, chain saws, edge trimmers,
etc.
EPA documents acknowledge that hand-held equipment is primarily powered by two-stroke
engines because, unlike a four-stroke design, two-stroke engines have more operational
capability and are significantly lighter than four-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines,
however, emit higher levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particle matter. The
EPA has also recognized the industry’s progress towards lowering emission levels is
"significant" and is being accomplished through relatively simple engine modifications. As
a result, the CEPARB concludes that the industry is on schedule with its research and
development efforts that will bring them into compliance with the Tier II standards.
CMK:341:98 Page 4 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 n6ise 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
Staff is 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, staffwill develop recommendations for Council consideration.
In order to provide a wide and timely distribution of the staff report containing
recommendations to interested community members, statTwill 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.
A’I’q’ACttMENTS
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
Commurti _W Outreach/Ke~ponse
After receiving considerable information from other cities and based upon staff research,
seven options were presented as a basis for the community outreach meetings:
2.
3.
4.
A ban on all types of leaf blowers.
A ban only on fuel-powered leaf blowers.
A ban on the use of leaf blowers except in industrial parks and commercial areas.
Further restrictions on the hours of the day and days of the week they are currently
allowed.
An ordinance permitting the use of leaf blowers that are certified that they cannot be
operated at higher than 65 decibels at 50 feet and that are permitted by the City for
use in Palo Alto.
An ordinance allowing leaf blowers to be used only by private citizens on their own
property.
No changes to the current ordinance.
At each of the meetings staffhas conducted with the various interested groups, feedback on
the issues and the pros/corn of options have been obtained. Some additional ideas that were
presented at the meetings include:
The use of leaf blowers on "Spare the Air Days."
Divide the City into districts and allowing leaf blowers to be used in districts on
certain days of the week.
Conduct more educational outreach to leaf blower users on proper use.
Regulate leaf blower use based upon duration of time used (e.g., 15 minutes in an
hour).
Use mediation to settle issues between users/complainants.
Staff has met with’ representatives from Echo Co~oration,-the largest manufacturer of
commercial leaf blowers in the Country. Additionally, information from other manufacturers
has been collected. On June 10, staff held a meeting that was attended primarily by
gardeners and landscapers. Twenty-one people attended that meeting. The first general
community meeting was held on June 17. Community members were notified of this
meeting in several ways. Letters were sent to each neighborhood association and to over 70
people who had voiced opinions via letter, e-mail, telephone or oral communications at
Council meetings. A notice was included in the City’s Web page and a press release was
issued. Twenty-six people attended this meeting. Another community meeting was held on
July 15. Staff especially invited residents and business owners who hired gardeners who
used leaf blowers, as this was one segment of the community that staffhad not heard from.
CMR:341:98 Page 5 of 7
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
CMR:341:98 Page 7 of 7
Z
Chairperson Eakins called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the
Palo Alto Art Center, 1313 Newell Road, Paio Alto, California.
Present:Eakins, Kniss, Ojakian
Absent:Schneider
I. Oral Communications
None
2. Proposed 1999 Legislative Objectives
Senior Executive Assistant Audrey Seymour said, a platform of
legislative objectives, upon which staff focused during the year,
were brought to the Policy & Services (P&S) Committee each year.
Staff refined the process to focus the platform on issues which
were important to the City, where meaningful action could be taken,
and where forces could be joined with others sharing the same
interests. Palo Alto’s priorities were ones in which the League of
California Cities (LCC), Santa Clara County Cities Association
(SCCCA), and other groups were also interested. The staff report
(CMR:153:99) was consistent with staff’s prior practices in
bringing forward the Legislative Objectives.
Council Member Kniss asked whether staff saw any legislative
objectives germane to the City that Council Members could pursue at
the state or national level.
Council Member Kniss asked about the legislative objectives related
to revenue protection.
Ms. Seymour responded that the objectives addressed several recent
state actions; for example, the Educational Revenue Augmentation
Fund and Internet taxation, that had taken funding from local
governments, therefore jeopardizing critical City services.
Council Member Kniss said people needed to recognize how cities
constantly struggled to protect taxation dollars .and how
constantly, either through mandates or Federal programs, funds were
pulled from cities that had very little power to protect the funds.
She was also sure the Internet issue would be closely watched.
Ms. Seymour replied yes. The basis of the platform came from the
LCC and included several state and nationa! issues, such as a
social security mandate.
Council Member Ojakian said page 3 of Attachment A of the staff
report (CMR:153:99)under the Revenue and Taxation section indicated
possible revenues that might be protected.
02/23/99 P&S: 2
Ms. Seymour said Council Member Ojakian was correct. Preliminary
discussions had occurred regarding revisiting the Vehicle Licensing
Fee issue.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the wording should be changed
from "may" to "must include the following."
Ms. Seymour said the intention of the wording was to indicate staff
would attempt to protect local revenues of any sort, .l.isting a few
as examples of areas staff was able to identify at the current
time, but not precluding any other threat to local revenues.
Council Member Ojakian was interested in seeing some of the items
happen.
Council Member Kniss requested staff provide her with specific
information with regard to housing since she was recently asked to
participate on a nationa! community development committee dealing
primarily with funding for housing.
Ms. Seymour said several objectives dealt with housing, such as
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and others dealt with
low-income housing and tax initiatives. Staff hoped to communicate
such issues to associations to which the City belonged. Once the
platform was adopted, staff would share the information with
friends at the LCC and SCCCA and ask all Council Members to share
the platform.
Council Member Kniss appreciated Ms. Seymour’s efforts on the
legislative platform. The targeted audience did not always receive
the information.
Council Member Ojakian indicated items of particular interest to
him: !) the second item under Community Services on page 1 of
Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:153:99), "Support efforts to
fund support services such as child care and transportation for
low-income working people, tailored to fit the needs of those they
serve;" 2) the first two items under Emergency Management on the
same page, which were critical given the recent occurrences in Palo
Alto over the past year; 3) the fourth item under Public Safety on
page 3 of Attachment A, "Support legislation to al!ow local
agencies to use radar for speed enforcement on residential arterial
streets without the raising of speed limits;" and 4) the first item
under Utilities on page 3 of Attachment A, "Support local control
of decision-making for local utilities, including: rate-making;
regulatory authority; utility transfers to the general fund;
bundling of telecommunications services with electric or other
utility services; use of poles, conduits and other utilities
infrastructure; water purchases and implementation of the Best
Management Practices of the California Urban Water Conservation
Council."
02/23/99 P&S: 3
Chairperson Eakins asked about the process staff used to find
relevant pieces of legislation to support or oppose.
Ms. Seymour said staff primarily found relevant legislation by
staying in touch with larger groups with larger staffs to track
such information. She attended meetings of the Legislative Task
Force of the SCCCA, the LCC issued bulletins, and City staff was in
touch with a number of associations faxing alerts. She then
reviewed all of the items with the Mayor. Once the City knew about
a bill, the City could track the bill through subscription on the
Internet and obtain updates. Staff relied on such associations to
assist in finding the bills of interest to the City.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Ojakian, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council adopt the
proposed 1999 legislative objectives as the basis for the City’s
legislative advocacy in 1999.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Schneider absent.
Ms. Seymour said the item would return on a future Council Consent
Calendar.
Recommendations Reqarding th~ Regulations of the Use of Leaf
Blow~r~
Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said staff attempted to
provide as much information in the staff report (CMR:139:99) as
possible. She said the staff recommendations in the report should
be ammended to include the prohibition of leaf blowers on Sundays
and holidays.
Chairperson Eakins clarified the additional language should be
included under Item 6 on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:139:99).
Ms. Johnson replied yes. Senator Polanco’s office confirmed he was
99.9 percent sure he would introduce legislation regarding leaf
blowers; however, his approach would differ from the one he had
taken the prior year. The details were being worked out, but she
understood the legislation would put a moratorium on any ban for
two years throughout the State and then work under State
guidelines, particularly to address the noise issue, using the
normally accepted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
standards for noise level determinations. After Friday, the final
day for introduction of bills, more information would be
forthcoming. A great deal of interest had been raised throughout
the State and country on the leaf blower issue. Recently, she had
spoken with a representative from the Portable Power Equipment
Manufacturers Association (PPEMA), currently working on a program
with companies to affix a permanent label on leaf blowers to
indicate that the decibel level of the blower met the ANSI noise
level standard. PPEMA was currently in the process of working with
02/23/99 P&S: 4
ANSI to develop more refined and restricted testing protocol. In
a prior staff report, staff had indicated how the results of leaf
blower tests could vary depending upon certain conditions. For
example, testing a leaf blower in an enclosed room would differ
from a test in an open field. PPEMA and ANSI recognized that a
number of factors affected results and would work to make testing
more consistent.
Chairperson Eakins asked Ms. Johnson to elaborate on the process
for developing the recommendations in the report.
Ms. Johnson said staff spoke with people advocating bans on leaf
blowers, people who supported keeping the leaf blower as a too!
while mitigating the noise and pollution issues, people in
different cities throughout the state, and people from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Air Quality Management
District (AWMD). Staff had tried to compile the information into
a report in such a way as to provide the Council with as much
information as possible.
Chairperson Eakins asked whether staff had held a series of public
meetings.
Ms. Johnson said staff had held three meetings. One was
specifically directed at landscapers and gardeners, although others
from the community attended all of the meetings. Another meeting
was targeted at residents of the community, and the last was an
attempt by staff to target the residents who hired gardeners and
landscapers who used leaf blowers.
Council Member Kniss thought staff had done an unusually good job
on the staff report (CMR:139:99). The issue was difficult. Not
everyone involved would be pleased with the decision. After having
looked at other cities and other ordinances, she asked whether
staff thought its recommendation was balanced overal!.
Ms. Johnson said Council Member Kniss was accurate. Staff realized
it was in a no-win situation. Staff understood that a large group
of people were adamant about complete bans. However, some people
used leaf blowers to clean a variety of large commercial areas, not
just to blow leaves. Staff examined how City crews and contractors
cleaned. Staff had been unable to find any valid documented
information on the actua! pollution and particulate matter issues.
The ratio of one hour use of leaf blower to. the number of hours a
car was driven depended upon the source of information. The staff
needed to compile information on the community, city parks, open
spaces, and commercial areas and compare the information to other
cities that had implemented bans. Staff tried to customize the
recommendations based on its knowledge of the community.
02/23/99 P&S: 5
Council Member Kniss said the comment on page 6 of the staff report
(CMR:139:99) regarding the reduction in the sale of leaf blowers in
California was unusual.
Ms. Johnson said after having received the information, she had
heard that more leaf blowers were sold in California than any other
state and the numbers were increasing. Even cities where bans had
been implemented had seen increases in the number of leaf blower
sales.
Council Member Kniss assumed living in a state like California was
different. She asked whether snow blowers in the east caused the
same kinds of problems. For some reason, people would not complain
about the noise of a snow blower or snow plow.
Council Member Ojakian referred to Council Member Rosenbaum’s first
point in his February 18, 1999, e-mai!, "Our current ordinance
specifies db levels at 25 feet. Your proposed regulations are at
50 feet. Is there an accepted way to compare levels at the two
distances, i.e., if I know the level at 25 feet, can I predict the
level at 50 feet? In Attachment A of CMR:139:99, the difference is
2 to 5 db. However, in Attachment B of CMR:216:98, the difference
is 3 to 13 db."
Ms. Johnson said the 50-foot distance was recognized by ANSI and
most ordinances reviewed by staff. Depending on the piece of
equipment being measured, a 5 dBA average difference occurred
between 25 and 50 feet because of various factors. Under the
City’s current ordinance, older leaf blowers could not be used at
full throttle or the noise ordinance would be exceeded. Many
times, older leaf b!owers were used at half-throttle. Under the
proposed recommendation, the older leaf blowers could be used at
full throttle and achieve 65 dBA at 50 feet instead of 25 feet.
Council Member Rosenbaum’s second observation, "I don’t believe the
percentages on page 5 of CMR:139:99 have any relation to noise
perception (you can’t have a reduction exceeding 100%). A more
meaningful and generally accepted conclusion about relative noise
levels is given in the first paragraph of page 4 in CMR:216:98,"
was also good. A more accurate way of explaining the reduction was
understood from noise experts that for every i0 dBA reduction,
noise levels were reduced by half; for example, 65 dBA was half as
loud as 75 dBA because of the !ogarithmic formula used to determine
noise levels.
Traffic Division Lieutenant Don Hartnett said staff attempted to
ensure the latest technology, which produced the least amount of
noise and pollution, was used by gardeners. If nothing else, the
ordinance should be changed to reflect the fact improved technology
was available. The recommendations in the staff report
(CMR:139:99) would make the Police Department’s enforcement job
easier, would give industry targets to work for, and in some cases
an incentive for manufacturers to meet the targets in the
02/23/99 P&S: 6
ordinance. Less confusion would result if the standards in the
staff report were adhered to. Short of a ban, the recommendation
would result in the most restrictive ordinance.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the second recommendation on
page 2 of the staff report (CMR:139:99), "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)," was compatible with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Johnson said the Comprehensive Plan was not specific with
regard to leaf blowers. The policies indicated a desire to find
ways and strategies to reduce noise levels associated with leaf
blowers.
Chairperson Eakins asked about proactive enforcement. People who
complained about leaf blowers indicated the offender would have
left by the time a police officer arrived. She assumed the
situation would be addressed, in part, by being more proactive.
She also asked whether sworn officers or code enforcement officers
would be used.
Ms. Johnson said the enforcement effort would not completely
eliminate the scenario described by Chairperson Eakins; for
example, staff would not be able to guarantee an officer could
, arrive prior to the offending party’s departure. Proactive
enforcement involved not waiting until complaints were received.
Normal controls would be on the lookout for someone using a leaf
blower to ensure a permit was being carried. With the permit
concept, it would be easy to determine whether or not the leaf
blower was in violation. Officers would continue to respond to
complaints, but no guarantees could be made about response times or
finding a violator in action. The permit concept would make
enforcement easier when an officer arrived on the scene and found
someone who was using a leaf blower.The Community Service
Officers (CSO) would handle enforcement.If the Council approved
the recommendation, staff would request temporary funding for
another C$0 to provide the needed coverage. Action would be taken
when a patrol officer witnessed leaf blowers.
Chairperson Eakins asked whether someone like her neighbor, who
owned his own equipment, would be affected.
Ms. Johnson said staff had recommended applying the prohibition to
everyone, including homeowners. An officer who saw someone using
a leaf b!ower on a Sunday would have a difficult time determining
whether or not the person actually lived at the residence. It
could be done, but was more difficult with regard to enforcement.
David Schrom, 381 Oxford Avenue, spoke in opposition to leaf
blowers due to the impact on global environmental pollution. The
02/23/99 P&S: 7
economic analysis in the staff report (CMR:139:99) was shallow,
since the number of people affected by the noise of leaf blowers
resulted in such a high cost to the community. A more honest
estimate of the cost of leaf blowers might result in a very
different answer.
Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road #108, said one comment on page
!i of the staff report (CMR:139:99), "leaf blowers...do produce
noise levels that are offensive and bothersome to some
individuals," was highly understated. On the same page, the
comment was made that "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 b!owers..."
However, in her apartment complex when rakes were used, the workers
were very fast and efficient. Leaf blowers usually blew leaves
into the street which was illegal and created a hazard for
bicyclists. Police officers rarely cruised neighborhoods, where
most of the leaf blowers were used. She asked how a homeowner
could handle a neighbor’s noisy leaf b!ower.
Council Member Kniss said Ms. Fletcher was on the City Council when
the issue of leaf blowers was addressed and asked why the
recommendation had been so resoundingly defeated in 1987.
Ms. Fletcher said the proposed recommendation meant that for the
first time noise and time limits would exist for leaf b!ower use.
Older homeowners opposed a ban on leaf blowers because their
gardeners threatened not to work without the use of leaf blowers.
Leaf blower manufacturers had also made a case about the noise
level reductions that would appear with newer models.She and
former Council Member Pati~ucci had fought for the ban.
Kathleen Haney, Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue, spoke in
support of the staff recommendation, but preferred an outright ban
on leaf blowers. Leaf blower noises in the Downtown area in the
late evening bounced off of buildings, unlike residential areas
where trees and grass softened the noise levels. The P&S Committee
was asked to consider the noise levels Downtown and include
restrictions in the hotel zone during the evenings.
Lorilee Houston, Garden Court Hotel, 520 Cowper Street, agreed with
Ms. Haney about the need for restrictions on leaf blowers in hote!
zones in the evenings and early mornings.
Council Member Kniss asked about the parameters for a hotel zone.
Ms. Haney said the hotel owners were willing to work with staff on
the parameters.
Terry Burnes, 183 Eerne Avenue, spoke in favor of the staff
recommendation, but asked that the location of violations from the
past year be plotted out on a map. Some areas were worse than
02/23/99 P&S: 8
others. Leaf blowers were not a problem in his neighborhood, even
though the noise from leaf blowers might bother someone
occasionally. He queried how a private individual would know
whether or not a leaf blower purchased in Palo Alto was going to be
legal. The materials were unclear about whether leaf blowers would
be certified based on a rating affixed by the manufacturer or
tested by the City. Staff was encouraged to focus on a standard of
pre-established ratings so individuals would know at the time of
purchase whether a blower would be lega! or not. Under the
proposal, individuals like himself who worked full time and cleaned
their own yards would only be able to clean yards on Saturdays. He
requested extended evening hours or Sunday hours from Ii a.m. to 3
p.m., particularly during the summer, to allow use of leaf blowers
after work. Having police officers stop in neighborhoods to check
leaf blowers for compliance seemed q’heavy handed." He urged
handling of the issue differently, particularly with regard to
residents. He appreciated the attempt to reach a compromise.
Yasuo Shinozuka, 894 Cabot Lane, Foster City, spoke in favor of the
staff recommendation with minor changes. The revoking of a license
as a penalty seemed strict. Gardeners being penalized the same way
for not using an extension tube as for exceeding 65 dBA was unfair.
More flexible hours to provide laborers with more time to work was
encouraged; for example, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. or even 8 a.m. to
6 p.m. Small business gardeners were often unable to complete work
in the time allotted.
Chairperson Eakins asked what Mr. Shinozuka meant by his comment
regarding extension tubes.
Mr. Shinozuka referred to item 4 on page 2 of the staff report
(CMR:139:99), "leaf blowers must be operated with all extension
tubes in place."
Chairperson Eakins asked why gardeners would not want to use the
tubes.
Mr. Shinozuka said vendors sold the extension tubes longer than
gardeners might want them. The longer tubes were for under shrubs,
similar to an extension for a vacuum cleaner.
Chairperson Eakins asked whether the ordinance should allow for
shorter tubes.
Mr. Shinozuka replied no. The long tube was fine, but someone with
a short tube might be caught by a police officer and have their
license revoked.
Mr. Burnes thought Mr. Shinozuke was trying to say that putting
someone with two violations out of business was unfair when the
violation might be as simple as merely using the wrong extension
02/23/99 P&S: 9
tube. He thought Mr. Shinozuka was saying a citation should not be
written for using the wrong combination of tubes.
Chairperson Eakins asked whether that was Mr. Shinozuka’s point.
Mr. Shinozuka replied yes.
Chairperson Eakins asked staff to respond to the questions raised
by members of the public at the end of the meeting.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke in favor of a total ban
on leaf blowers. However, support was given to staff’s enforcement
plan if the ban was not possible. The 65 dBA ANSI standard had
been supported by the environmental coalition. Support was given
to the prohibition of leaf blowers on holidays. The P&S Committee
was encouraged to provide the Police Department with all the
assistance necessary to carry out the ordinance via the CSOs. The
comment on Attachment D of the staff report (CMR:139:99) indicating
the total cost of using leaf blowers in parking lots of
approximately $37,000 would double under a complete ban was in
error. Prior speakers’ recommendations to disallowing leaf blowers
until at least 7 a.m. in parking lots was encouraged, particularly
near hotels. A revisitation of the issue in a year was supported.
Frank Manocchio, 2115 White Oak Way, San Carlos, spoke on behalf of
, the California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA), and
thanked the City for the professionalism and objectivity of the
staff report (CMR:139:99). The CLCA represented a variety of
contractors. In general, the staff recommendation was supported.
Some CLCA members might consider the hours or days a little
restrictive, but the CLCA thought it should be part of the solution
and not part of the problem. As one of the technology centers of
the world, Palo Alto should recognize the benefits of technology.
Small engine motors would be dramatically less polluting and
quieter in the following years.
Henri Ocafrain, 1860 Palm Avenue, Redwood City, had worked in Palo
Alto for 30 years using leaf blowers. The Bay Area Gardeners
Association (BAGA), of which he was a member, tried to cooperate
with the desire of Bay Area cities to reduce noise and pollution
levels resulting from the use of leaf blowers. The City was asked
to change the hours of use to 8 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Kathy Strephmouis, 6 Delmar Court, Redwood City, spoke as a small
gardening business operator who worked in residentia! areas and
used the gardening tools minimally and quietly. Her business
recently purchased a 62 dBA leaf blower for $450, a high price for
a smal! business owner. Snow blowers had only two-cycle engines
rather than the four-cycle engines used in leaf blowers. The staff
report (CMR:139:99) provided very good reasoning, leaving gardeners
to do their job without being disturbed. Gardeners were willing to
cooperate with the rules.
02/23/99 P&S:I0
Rafael G. Madriz, 342 Beverly Avenue, Millbrae, spoke as a member
of BAGA which was trying hard to use the best tools possible.
People unhappy about leaf blowers should contact the manufacturers
of the tools to ensure the best equipment was being produced to
meet community requirements. The staff report (CMR:139:99) was
appropriate, except for the hours of operation and the permit
requirements because of the expenses.
Valentin Gonza!ez, 312 Semicircular Road, Menlo Park, spoke in
favor of the leaf blower recommendations but opposed the
restriction on hours of operation. Another concern was whether, in
two years, leaf blowers would be manufactured to meet the more
stringent regulations. The hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. were
suggested.
Robin Pendergrast, Echo, Inc., Lake Zurich, Illinois, spoke as a
representative of a major manufacturer of leaf blowers. Staff was
complimented on the complete and professional report (CMR:139:99).
In 1987, the average leaf blower emitted 78 dBA, which had since
been reduced to the 65 dBA level. Progress was made from a
technica! standpoint. Courtesy was an issue that had not been
addressed. In dealing with cities across the country, it was
obvious the problem centered on a few individuals who would not
respect their neighbors, communities, or employers. Echo, Inc.
produced a good number of leaf blowers. Even if manufacturers
created b!owers which were quieter, the blower had to be used with
the tubes attached and in the appropriate settings.
Chairperson Eakins asked how soon four-cycle engines would be
available in leaf blowers.
Mr. Prendergast said the four-cycle engine was far from being
perfected. The tier-two carburetor standards, which would come
into effect on January I, 2000, detailed specific emission
requirements which would be met by two-cycle engines. From Echo’s
perspective, the four-cycle engine was not in the planning stages.
Quieter, battery-operated blowers were possibilities. However, the
four-cycle engine involved many design and carburetion issues
making it very difficult to design to leaf blower applications.
Chairperson Eakins asked about certification. Mr. Burnes had spoke
of pre-certifying units so the City would not have to go through a
permitting process°
Mr. Prendergast said a self-labeling standard was currently being
structured, ~which meant a very specific legal parameter would be
used. The same type of approach was used in positioning engines to
meet carburetor standards for the year 2000, with specific
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards as far as £he
testing process. A check system was in place to make sure all
manufacturers met the standards. The same was true for self-
labeling standards. Home Depot, Orchard Supply, or any dealership
02/23/99 P&S:II
provided a dBA rating based upon a specific ANSI standard. PPEMA
represented the major manufacturers and recognized the importance
of maintaining the integrity of the testing and labeling standard.
Council Member Ojakian asked for clarification of the statement
about dBA level changes from 78 dBA in 1987 to the current level of
65 dBA.
Mr. Prendergast said currently, one manufacturer produced a
backpack leaf blower lower than 65 dBA. The 62 dBA level mentioned
in the staff report (CMR:!39:99) was being challenged because it
had not actually been tested to the ANSI standard. Some challenges
were being waged against a few small manufacturers.
Council Member Ojakian asked where the process was headed.
Mr. Prendergast said to go from 78 dBA to 65 dBA in 12 years was an
accomplishment and a move down to 62 dBA might be possible within
a few years. The 65 dBA blower was substantially quieter than
other pieces of lawn and garden equipment.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the third recommendation on
page 2 of the staff report (CMR:139:99), "in two years, permits
would be issued only for blowers that meet the California air
quality standards, and are rated at 62 dBA or less at 50 feet, by
the ANSI standards," was reasonable to expect.
Mr. Prendergast said he could n6t guarantee that leaf blower levels
would be down to 62 dBA in two years; however, manufacturers were
often able to do amazing things when challenged to do so.
Gerardo Lombera, 438 Stamford Avenue, Redwood City, member of BAGA,
said gardeners understood the noise problem and were working hard
to regulate the noise. BAGA was holding seminars to educate
gardeners about and chemicals. BAGA was willing to work with all
of the cities to prevent the problems and invited the City to
attend a BAGA meeting to work together for a solution.
Council Member Kniss asked that a BAGA member provide the City with
more information about the organization and extend an invitation to
a meeting.
Terry Trumbull, American Lung Association, 1011 Lincoln Avenue,
spoke in support of the staff recommendation. The staff report
(CMR:139:99) had appropriately pointed to several major air quality
problems. Ozone standards had been violated in the Bay Area since
1980, and combustion system in leaf blowers was the primary source
of the ozone problem. The second-problem was the massive dust
generated from the blowing capacity, since the dominant source of
problems violatfng Federal and State standards was dust. The City
was encouraged to work with the gardeners and to adopt standards,
related to available technology. The two-cycle engine, was likely
02/23/99 P&S:I2
to be banned within the next two years because of air quality
standards. Moving to electrical units within one or two years was
also encouraged. Electrical plug usage was limited to a specific
range, so an exception for larger distances could be accommodated
to allow gas-based tools.
Chairperson Eakins asked Mr. Trumbull to provide City staff with
materials on establishing and implementing technology improvement
standards.
Mr. Trumbull agreed.
Ramon Quezada, President BAGA, 445 Lancaster Way, Redwood City,
congratulated the staff for demonstrating democracy. The BAGA was
involved in training its people. The staff report (CMR:139:99) was
good, but more clarification about permits was requested. Most
BAGA members already had leaf blowers, so to purchase a new blower
as wel! as pay a permit fee seemed unreasonable. The two-year
limit of 62 dBA was also difficult, since the purchase of a 65 dBA,
with a lifetime of 3 to 5 years, resulted in an ultimate !oss for
individuals with very small incomes. The BAGA was willing to hold
a meeting in Palo Alto’s City Hall.
Chairperson Eakins thought staff would be very interested in
working with BAGA.
Mr. Quezada said BAGA was interested in working with the City.
Once the organization understood the problems, efforts were made to
alleviate the problems. Palo Alto’s actions were applauded.
Police staff were very helpfu! and should be commended.
Franscisco Quezadaz, 208 4th Avenue, Redwood City, member of BAGA,
said the BAGA membership was primarily represented by small
businesses with one or two helpers. Purchasing licenses, permits,
and related fees from various cities was a burden to small
companies. The requirement for a 62 dBA leaf b!ower within two
years was an additional expense. Certifying every individua! who
operated leaf blowers would also be an expense to a small company.
BAGA tried to train itself, ensuring helpers were also trained, and
do as much as possible to comply with the requirements, while
keeping costs to a minimum.
Recess: 9:$Q 9:25 p.m.
Miguel Sanchez, 240 Mt. Home Road, Woodside, Member of BAGA, spoke
regarding the desire of the BAGA to work with the City. The issue
of purchasing leaf blowers every two years was very difficult for
gardeners. Manufacturers were trying to reduce noise levels, but
the rule was analogous to requiring individuals to purchase a new
car every two years. The gardeners worked hard to satisfy
customers and beautify the City.
02/23/99 P&S : 13
Anne C. Fletcher, 2020 Waverley Street, spoke in support of leaf
blowers. People who complained about leaf blowers could purchase
ear plugs for the 15 minutes it took to clear a yard as a sign of
cooperation between neighbors. Mildew and mold resulting from
Ieaves sitting for several weeks created allergy problems.
Gardeners should not have to pay for permits. Raking was
unsatisfactory for yards such as hers which had large flower beds
and ivy.
Chairperson Eakins wanted the P&S Committee to discuss the issue
and to make a field excursion to observe a demonstration of leaf
blowers in action.
Council Member Kniss presented a list of questions staff could
address within the confines of the issue: i) the ~grandfathering"
issue with regard to homeowners purchasing leaf blowers and the
appropriate restrictions; 2) the hours with regard to gardeners and
full-time workers who cared for their own gardens; 3) exact
language regarding extension tubes and other tools, perhaps
explained within the demonstration; 4) proactivity, i.e., whether
residents would feel threatened with arrest because of using their
own blower during a prohibited time; 5) hote! hours, including
holidays and Sundays; 6) tags on machines; 7) certification and
training; 8) working with BAGA and how the City could be more
interactive and supportive; 9) whether or not to charge for the
permits; I0) education and seminars; and ii) the different types of
machines. The questions could be answered at the next P&S
Committee.
Council Member Ojakian presented a list of questions: I) why the
number of violations resulting in a revoked permit had been set at
two; 2) whether after permitting a machine at 65 dBa according to.
the second recommendation, recommendation three also had to be
followed; 3) how to determine noise levels of machines; for
instance, manufacture’s certified information or the City’s own
testing, and how it would be performed; 4) how the information
would be reported back to the Counci!; such as, measuring
complaints or using a matrix of the information gathered; 5) why
had complaints increased percent per year; and 6) why not require
mufflers as legislation in other cities had. The use of equipment
anywhere near residences at 4 a.m. was unreasonable. A more
rational time to start was 6 or 7 a.m. Staff’s approach to find
common ground to satisfy most people was appreciated. The report
was thorough and objective and data provided on other city’s
ordinances was helpfu!.
Council Member Kniss commended staff’s extensive work and research.
Much of the issue was dependent on compromise. Staff had made an
excellent start.
Chairperson Eakins thanked staff for the organized and complete
report that was easy to read, with good information and background.
02/23/99 P&S:I4
The speakers were thanked for their courtesy in their
presentations. Regarding the question of noise, other noise
situations existed; such as, tennis courts, Downtown music, and
sound walls. People had different reactions to various types of
noises. Someone might not be willing to live near a train but had
no problem with leaf blowers. Some sounds were considered hostile
and some comforting. She appreciated the spirit of compromise and
accommodation. A solution should be found which allowed everyone
involved to maintain respect. The education BAGA provided was
appreciated. Perhaps homeowners and gardeners not in the
organization could participate in the training for certification or
accreditation, which would work better than a permit system which
required so much administration. Some leaf blowers "chased every
crumb," as Ellen Fletcher stated, and pushed debris into bicycle
lanes. Although not all gardeners participated in such a practice,
some tools were able to perform a very efficient job. The self-
labeling standard might be pursued with manufacturers and industry
groups, to develop a standard the City could accept and depend
upon, and residents would be comfortable with. Staff was asked to
elaborate and explain some of Mr. Trumbull’s comments on technology
and standards.
Ms. Johnson said a demonstration could easily arranged and asked
whether the P&S Committee wanted the demonstration organized in a
meeting setting.
Chairperson Eakins suggested providing the demonstration for the
entire Counci!.
Ms. Johnson assumed staff would bring in various models of leaf
blowers to the demonstration that were rated at different dBA
levels to assist in determining differences.
Chairperson Eakins was interested in seeing the different fuel
options, including electric.
Council Member Ojakian said the distance factor was also important.
Chairperson Eakins was interested in seeing a demonstration of the
green machine.
Ms. Johnson asked whether the P&S Committee was interested in any
other types of gardening tools or just leaf blowers and the green
machine.
Chairperson Eakins said leaf blowers and the green machine were
sufficient.
Council Member Ojakian was also interested in seeing an electric
leaf blower for comparison.
02/23/99 P&S:I5
Ms. Johnson asked when the P&S Committee was interested in seeing
the demonstration.
Chairperson Eakins suggested April. Ms. Seymour would need to
provide assistance with scheduling. The City might have a trial
plot where non-gasoline powered tools were used and might look into
demonstration of landscaping. The Bay Area Quality Board (BAAQB),
which had encouraged the City to consider wood smoke, would also
look into a horticultural tool ordinance.
Council Member Kniss presumed no changes would be made to the
current ordinance until the item returned to the P&S Committee and
the Council.
Ms. Seymour said the item would remain in committee until the P&S
Committee was prepared to make a recommendation to the Council and
the Council approved the recommendation.
Council Member Kniss clarified nothing was altered, so the public
could be assured of the conditions of the current ordinance, until
the Council passed a new ordinance.
Ms. Johnson said the Council had given staff direction in the past
to develop a permit fee that was cost-recovery. She asked whether
that was an issue for leaf blower permits.
Council Member Kniss said the P&S Committee had not been given
sufficient information on which to make such a decision, which she
hoped would become evident after staff addressed the questions
posed that evening. Prior to the current meeting, she had not
realized gardeners needed permits in every community in which they
worked. The financial impact to gardeners should be examined.
Council Member Ojakian said it was difficult to answer the question
since the program might have additiona! costs. The cost recovery
issue might involve penalties, so to determine how people would be
permitted, the dollars received for the permits plus the citations,
would be necessary.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to
continue the issue regarding the regulations of the use of leaf
blowers in Palo Alto to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Schneider absent.
4. Discussion fQr Future Meeting S~hedu.!e8 and Aq~ndas
Senior Executive Assistant Audrey Seymour said the next P&S
Committee meeting was scheduled for March 9, 1999. Council Members
Eakins and Schneider would be absent, so an alternate would be
necessary for a quorum. The topics would include oyez-night parking
and flood hazard regulations. Topics for the April 13, 1999 P&S
02/23/99 P&S:I6
Committee meeting would be median/driveway solicitation and a stop
sign intersection update.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at i0 p.m.
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City
Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for
the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the
meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
02/23/99 P&S:I7