HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 281-05"
I··
have been prohibited in residential areas after July 1, 2002. Finally, City crews would be prohibited
from using fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas.
In 2002, the City Council again amended Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, deferring
the prohibition of the use of combustion-fueled blowers in residential areas until July 1,2005. The
amendment was based upon the belief that leaf blower manufacturers would be able to enhance
technology enough to reduce the issues of noise generation and gas emissions during that time
period, would potentially develop a battery-powered blower that would meet the needs of
commercial gardeners and that the prohibition of leaf blowers in residential areas would result in a
substantial financial impact on the City's Community Services and Public Works Departments.
The current ordinance is due to sunset on July 1, 2005. At that time, unless Council directs
otherwise, the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in residential areas by any person, (commercial
gardeners, City staff and crews, and residents) will be prohibited. Due to the complexities of the
issues, staff is requesting that the Council provide policy direction for a revised ordinance and in
order to allow for public discussion on the potential revisions, extending the current ordinance until
December 31,2005.
DISCUSSION
Environmental Issues
There are three environmental issues associated with leaf blowers: noise levels, gas emissions and
particulate matter.
Gas Emissions -To date, most of the requirements have dealt with the reduction of gas emissions.
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase I and II standards basically require
manufacturers to build cleaner engines that will not degrade and release more emissions as they age.
Manufacturers are required to conduct in-house testing of engines to prove that the engine's
performance meets the standards. In essence, EPA is encouraging engine manufacturers to design
new and improved uses of automotive-style overhead-valve (OHV) technology in non-hand-held
engines. EPA's hope is to reduce emissions, as well as improve durability and fuel economy.
The California Air Resource Board (CARB) submitted a report in January 1999 to the State
Legislature that summarized the potential health and environmental impacts ofleafblowers and also
provide recommendations for alternatives to their use and/or development of additional standards to
which manufacturers are to adhere when developing new equipment. CARB recommended that
manufacturers develop technologies that would ultimately reduce the amount of fuel delivered to
the combustion chamber for four and two stroke engines.
CMR:281:05 Page 3 of 13
CARB's phased approach is a three-tier plan to reduce gas emissions from engines in the 20 to 50
cc displacement range. Tier I, which ran from 1995 to 1999, permitted 230 grams of emissions per
kilowatt. Tier II, which ran from 2000 until this year, reduced the grams per emission to 72. Tier
III, which started this year, requires emissions to be reduced to 50 g/Kwh. Attachment A lists those
manufactures that presently produce 2005 Tier III engines as listed by the CARB.
Particulate Matter -There has been a great deal of research done by the CARB and the American
Lung Association of California regarding the issue of particulate matter. Air pollution levels in
California have improved tremendously within the last few decades due to the aggressive controls
on vehicle industry and power tool manufacturers. However, CARB and the American Lung
Association believe Californians are still being exposed to a significant amount of particulate matter
from a wide variety sources.
CARB and the American Lung Association of California report particulate air pollution contributes
to cardiac illnesses, respiratory illnesses and cancer. The number of premature deaths linked to
particulate matter generated from a wide variety of sources are comparable to deaths from traffic
accidents and second-hand smoke. Hospital admissions, emergency room visits and asthma attacks
have increased over the years and population-based studies have linked particulate matter as the
cause. While particulate matter is still being researched, specific regulations and andlor
recommendations have not yet been developed by CARB or the EPA.
Noise -While the technology is slowly improving in this area, significant progress still remains to
be made. Over the last 20 years, noise levels of blowers have decreased from 90 decibels (dBA) to
today's standard of 65 dBA. One manufacturer has developed a blower that is rated at 60 dBA.
In 2002, staff determined that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was aggressively
worked towards developing a portable electric leaf blower that would be suitable for use by
commercial gardeners. In 1998, they contracted with AeroVironment, Inc., which specializes in
new technology development, to assist in prototyping and designing a new leaf blower. Last
December, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power contracted Giltronics Associates, Inc.,
to make the transition from prototype to mass production ofleafblowers.
The new leaf blower requires no power cord, weighs approximately 10 pounds less than a gas-
powered blower and is less than 65 dBA. According to the specifications, the energy source is a
nickel metal hydride battery pack that operates for approximately 45 minutes at 344 cubic feet per
minute. Currently, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has solicited interested
manufacturers through a "Request for Proposal" process, which ended April 22, 2005.
Battery-operated leaf blowers being produced by most manufacturers, however, have their own
problems associated with the handling and disposing of batteries, excessive weight, and poor
performance compared to gas-powered models. There are battery-operated hedge clippers and light
duty string trimmer models, and within five to ten years, technological advances may make this
CMR:281:05 Page 4 of13
creates substantial nOIse Issues, not to mention even greater gas emISSIOns that gas-powered
blowers.
Many of the electric product manufacturers do not furnish dBA ratings. Those that do range from
64 dBA to 69 dBA. A lot depends on the power of the blower itself. The more power, the louder
the motor noise and the noise of the air flow coming out of the tube.
Water -Water has been used in the past in many, places to rid hard surfaces of debris. In non-
drought years, hoses are frequently used in residential areas to 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 leaf blowers. While the use of
water usually does not create air pollution problems, water is a scarce resource that should not be
wasted, especially during drought years. This method creates the situation where particular matter
is washed into the Bay, which could be considered unhealthy to the environment.
Other Tools -The Green Machine has been a useful tool in helping to maintain cleanliness in Palo
Alto's downtown area but it has it 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.
Other Cities' Experience
Cities develop regulations according to their own specific needs and factors such as amount of
commercial and open space areas located within their jurisdiction, the level of cleanliness their
community demands, and the amount of expenditures they determine acceptable for ensunng
compliance to the regulations. Some cities do not regulate the use ofleafblowers at all.
While a number of cities have banned leaf blowers, staff has determined that the enforcement
ranges from minimal to none at all. Many cities in Southern California have banned the blowers.
However, there is minimal enforcement due to the lack of resources available to conduct
enforcement. Many manufacturers mentioned the sales of gas-powered leaf blowers increased in
Southern California over the last several years, which tends to support the lack of enforcement
efforts. The majority of the cities in Santa Clara County allow the use of both gas-powered and
electric blowers, but they may be operated only during specific hours and on specific days of the
week. Attachment B provides a matrix of other California cities regulations on leaf blowers.
Currently, in Santa Clara County, Los Altos is the only city to ban gas blowers. Los Altos has a
system that allows citizens to mail in information about potential violators. Once the information is
received by the Police Department, a warning letter is sent to the home or business owner where the
potential violation took place. After two warning letters are mailed, Section 11.10.060 of the Los
Altos Municipal Code is used, if needed, for compliance. This section makes it unlawful for any
person or entity to maintain, create, cause or permit a public nuisance. Failure to comply may
CMR:281:05 Page 6 of13
,1
.,
some cases no response, to cold theft cases, non-injury accidents, other noise complaints, etc. that
have heretofore been handled by CSOs.
Community Outreach
Staff conducted two publicized open forum meetings to seek community input. The first meeting
was held on April 7, 2005, and was specifically intended to obtain comments from gardeners,
landscapers and other individuals who use leaf blowers as part of their daily job. Approximately
100 professionals attended the meeting. All of the individual gardeners and those representing
larger organizations were unanimous in their strong recommendation to retain gas-powered leaf
blowers. For them, gasoline-powered leaf blowers are critical tools necessary to getting the work
done in an efficient and timely manner. The ban of gas-powered leaf blowers would require sizable
cost increases to customers for the same service. Individual gardeners would no longer be able to
maintain the same number of clients as the time to complete each job would be doubled. Many
spoke of the quietness and clean burning nature of the newer gas-powered leaf blowers.
On April 26, 2005, a second meeting was held to seek input from residents and business owners.
Approximately 80 to 90 people attended, the majority of which wanted a total ban on leaf blowers,
gasoline and electric. Many complained about noise and the exhaust emissions the blowers
produced and how they were detrimental to the environment and people's health. Others expressed
concern about the airborne particulate matter. Some speakers suffer from severe allergies and
asthma and explained how leaf blowers create unhealthy air quality which exacerbates their
condition. The overwhelming majority of those who spoke against the continued use of leaf
blowers were residents who, for various reasons, are normally horne during the day and therefore
are more routinely exposed to the negative impacts of leaf blower use.
As mentioned previously, another frustration raised by residents is the seemingly futility of calling
the police to report violations. Some spoke of firsthand experiences about calling the police, only to
observe the gardeners leave prior to the officers' arrival. Their experience has resulted in their not
reporting violations any longer. A few of the speakers indicated that they did not report leafblower
violations because they did not want to "bother" the police or take them away from more important
concerns.
These meetings and related publicity and news coverage generated numerous other e-mails, letters
and telephone calls from community members, gardeners, and business owners. The opinions
expressed have been comparable to the meetings: residents tended to support a leaf blower ban or
far greater restrictions, and gardeners emphasized the tremendous hardship a ban would create and
pointed to the quietness and efficiency of the newly manufactured leaf blowers as an amicable
solution. Some residents, however, have expressed a desire to not go forward with the ban.
Bay Area Gardeners' Association
CMR:281:05 Page 8 of 13
• The quality of life concerns raised by residents associated with noise, particulate matter,
exhaust emission and topsoil damage would decrease.
• Enforcement ofleafblower violations would be more straightforward, in that operational
noise measurements, proof of gardener certification and equipment compliance
verification would be eliminated.
Cons:
• Most likely would result in sizable cost increases to customers for the same service.
Individual gardeners would need more employees or longer periods of time to complete
the same job sites. Gardeners have informed staff that without leaf blowers, the time to
complete each job is doubled.
• Residents would also be prohibited from using leaf blowers ..
• Apartment complex owners and association-governed complexes would more than
likely pass added maintenance costs on to tenants.
• Absent the use of leaf blowers and the convenience and ease of cleanup they afford,
there is a possibility that the amount of homeowner debris being picked up disposal
would be lessened, consequently there are additional concerns regarding the impact to
storm drains and flow to Bay.
• Residents not cleaning up the sidewalks and gutters can be expected. Residents and
their contractors would no longer be blowing out under parked cars leaving additional
debris to eventually find its way to the storm system.
• There will be significant costs to continue maintaining City parks, open space and
public works projects
• Initially, staff believes there would be an increased number of calls-for-service and a
higher expectation of timely enforcement of leaf blower violations.
2) Prohibit the use of only gas-powered leaf blowers in residential areas:
Pros:
• Exhaust emissions and use of fossil-fuels would be reduced.
Cons:
• Many of the commercial grade electric blowers produce a higher pitched noise level
which some believe to be more intrusive that the newer combustion-powered blowers.
• The use of gas-powered generators, which produce higher noise levels and significant
gas emissions would increase.
CMR:281 :05 Page 10 of 13
• Since City crews would be allowed to operate in residential areas, those citizens who
live in and around these areas would still be impacted by the noise, exhaust emissions,
and damage to topsoil as propagated by City equipment or City contractors.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Depending upon Council's decision, costs associated with maintaining the current level of
cleanliness in City parks and facilities in residential areas would increase to approximately
$1,123,700 annually (Attachment C). Since the City's costs are anticipated to double, it can be
anticipated that homeowners' costs would increase by a commensurate amount.
The cost of a dedicated CSO is $76,682, which includes salary and benefits.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This will be dependant on the decision the City Council makes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it
restricts the use the leaf blowers for environmental protection purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
CMR:352:99
CMR:139:99
CMR:120:00
CMR:202:00
CMR:265:02
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
CMR:281:05
CARB Tier III Complaint Manufacturers List of Certified Small Off-Road
Engine List
Summary of Other City Ordinance
Projected City Costs
Ordinance
Page 12 of 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to revise Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code regulating leaf blowers in the following manner:
1) only leaf blowers that have been pennitted 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 th~ California
air quality standards, and are rated at 62 elBA or less at 50 feet, by the ANSI
standards;
4) leaf blowers must be operated with all extension tubes in place;
5) blowers could be operated only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday;
6) use ofleafblowers would be prohibited on Sundays;
7) the blowing of debris onto adjacent properties would be prohibited;
8) enforcement would be conducted on a proactive basis instead of a complaint basis.
After an initial grace period, citations would be issued for all violations. In those
situations when a commercial gardener is found to be in violation, a notice would also .
be given to the gardener's client infonning them of the violation. If a leaf blower
operator receives two citations, the pennit to operate the blower would be revoked.
9) City crews would only be allowed to operate leaf blowers beginning at 4:00 a.m. in
the downtown area, California Avenue, Midtown area, the Municipal Golf Course, .
and in City parking lots; .
10) City crews would be exempted from these regulations for clean up after special events
and in emergencies;
If Council approves these regulatory measures, staff would return with a draft of a revised
ordinance (Chapter 9.10). Additionally, staff would return with a budget amendment
CMR:139:99 Page 2 of IS
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~rs, and to provide infonnation about the current level of
enforcement and on issues related to .enforcement of any proposed ordinance changes.
Since that time, staff has conducted a considerable amount of research, held meetings with
gardeners and members of the public, obtained infonnation about what other cities are doing,
monitored local and state legislative activities, and perfonned noise level tests on equipment.
The two status reports provided to the Council during the.year (CMR: 216:98 and 341:98)
contain considerable information that is not repeated in this report. This report provides
updated infonnation about the above topics, as well as costs associated with cleaning City
properties and facilities, alternatives for regulating the use of leaf blowers, and specific
recommendations for Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
Alternative Clean-up Tools
Staffhas investigated the types of tools that are used for clean-up purposes and compared the
time it takes to do the work to the time doing the same work using a leaf blower. (It is
important to note that, while the mechanical tool in question is known as a leaf blower, it is
frequently used in the clean up of other debris such as litter, dirt, grass clippings, etc.)
Rakes/Brooms -The most commonly used tools for clean up of yards, open spaces, grounds,
etc., are rakes and brooms. Obviously, brooms are the quietest and result in the least amount
of pollution' (some minimal pollution occurs when dust particles become disturbed during
sweeping and raking). Brooms, however, can only be used on certain types of flat, smooth
surfaces such as asphalt and concrete that are amenable to sweeping. .
The time it takes to sweep an area is considerably longer than the time it takes using a .
blower. Depending upon the reference source, the time differences range from three to five
times longer. According to industry standards published by the California Landscape
Contractors' Association, a nonprofit organization that represents about 2,500 State-licensed
landscapers, there is an average ratio of one hour oflabor using a leaf blower compared to
CMR:139:99 Page 3 or18
five hours for sweeping. In 1997, the City of Santa Barbara conducted its own study
comparing times needed to clean parks with leafblowers and sweeping. While the times
differed depending upon the amount and type of debris, weather conditions, ,the presence of
the public in the park, and the type of surface, they concluded that the average of one hour
of leaf blowing was equivalent to five hours of sweeping. In October 1998, one of Palo
Alto's Public Works employees conducted a time comparison test. The employee used a
broom for one hour to clean the sidewalk area of University Avenue. He swept around tree
wells, along curbs and parking wheel stops. Using a broom, he was able to sweep
approximately two and one-half blocks on only one side of the street. Using a leafblower
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 ofleafblowers in its city, 'the
city detennined that the time needed; to conduct the cleaning of its parking lots and other city
facilities without the use ofleafblowers 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 58-60dBA at 50 feet) and result in
minimal air pollution. However, like brooms, they require additional time to complete the
work. An experiment was conducted by Echo, Incorporated. Echo is one of the largest
manufacturers ofleafblowers 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 le~fblower. The gardener who used the rake took
50 percent more time to complete the job.
Staff has heard on many occasions that a leaf blower ban adversely impacts the earning
'potential of gardeners because it takes longer to do the work. However, to date, no
individual or organization has been able to provide any documentation that indicates that this
has proven to be the case in those cities that have approved ordinances prohibiting the use
of leaf blowers. The California Landscape Contractor Association sent a survey to 1,000
members laSt Fall. One of the questions asked how much a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers
would increase their annual costs. Based upon the survey responses, the average increase
was 20.7 percent. The level of increase was found to be lower for larger businesses (16.6
percent) and higher for smaller businesses (22.3 percent).
Water -Water has been used in the past in many places to rid hard surfaces of debris. In non-
drought years, hoses are frequently used in residential areas' to 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 leaf blowers.
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:139:99 Page 4 ofl8.
')
\.
Department personnel, was found to be slightly higher. It is quieter, however, than
the Echo PB46LN which is rated at 65 dBA.
• The Maruyama BL4500 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
engmes.
Staff was interested to learn that although more leafblowers are sold in California than in
any other state in the Country, manufacturers ate considering in the future not selling their
blowers here due to the State's stricter fuel emission requirements and the problemS their
customers face with the various types of ordinances. Apparently due to the increased sales
throughout the rest of the United States, in addition to numerous countries around the world,
the reduction of sales in California does not cause manufacturers much concern. While some
people believe that this trend may be the best possible answer to resolving the leaf blower
dilemma in the future, others are concerned that a general decline in the overall cleanliness
of the state will occur ..
Types of Leaf Blower Regulations
Staff has reviewed more than 45 ordinances from cities in California and found that leaf
blowers are regulated by different cities using various strategies. Cities develop regulations
according to their own specific needs and factors such·as the amount of commercial and open
space areas located within their jurisdiction, the level of cleanliness their community
demands, and the amount of expenditures they determine acc~table for ensuring compliance
to their regulations. Some cities do not regulate the use ofleafblowers at all. Regulatory
strategies fall into six basic categories: 1) time of day/day of week, 2) noise levels, 3) area
specific, 4) bans, 5) educational approach, or 6) a combination of the five.
Time of Day/Day of Week -These types of ordinances regulate by the times of day and days
of week that blowers can be operated. These regulations are the most common fonn imposed
by cities and are based on the premise that leafblower noise is usually most offensive during
certain hours of the day or days of the week. Hour restrictions range from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Some cities totally prohibit the use of blowers on Sundays and holidays, while others
decrease the number of hours per day that blowers can be used on weekends and holidays.
CMR:139:99 Page 6 or18
I
Ordinances using only time of day/day of week restrictions are fairly simple to enforce in that
it is obvious whenthe blowers are operated.
Noise Levels -Some cities regulate the use ofleafblowers based upon noise levels. These
types of regulations address one of the major complaints about leafblowers 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 comniercial areas. As an example, Los Gatos allows use ofleaf
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 .~nytime
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 tiot
uncommon to have distance requirements of 1'00 or 200 feet from residential zones.
Those agencies who h~1Ve these types of ordinances report that they are fairly easy to enforce
as . long as commercial and residential areas are well defined and easily identifiable by
officers without the need of zoning maps. The cities, like Palo Alto, where there are a
number of mixed use areas, present enforcement difficulties.
Bans -Some cities have adopted ordinances that include various types of bans. The range
of bans includes ~ans of all types of blowers to bans of only gasoline-powered blowers.
Usually, these types of ordinances have resulted in the greatest amount of debate and
controversy. The bans address the issues of air pollution and environmental concerns together
with .noise levels but are not favored by gardeners or owners of large commercial and public
properties.
CMR:139:99 Pagc; 7of18
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 faiily easily convert them
to methane or other fuel-powered devices.
Educational Approach -Some cities use ordinances predicated on the concept that individual
rights of users and community members in general should be considered and that blowers are
a useful tool if operated properly. These types of ordinances include user guidelines and
emphasize cooperative efforts between gardeners and community members in providing
education on the use of blowers that minimizes the noise levels and environmental issues.
For the few cities who use this approach, enforcement is almost nonexistent.
Combination -Many cities use a, combination of the above approaches to regulate blowers.
Additionally, some cities have added additional types of restrictions in their ordinances.
These include the following requirements: leaf blowers must be muffled; extension tubes
must be used; blowers cannot be used for more than 10 to 30 minutes at one time; or only one
blower may be used at a time on one property parcel.
Depending upon the number and type of variables included in such combination. ordinances,
enforcement is usually quite difficult due to the factors noted above.
Update: Other Cities' Experience
Staffhas continued to research what changes other cities have been making in regulating leaf
blowers. Attachment B provides an updated list, by city, of various types of ordinances.
Previously, information had been received that Palos Verdes banned gasoline and electric
blowers. While that language still appears in Palos Verdes' ordinance, in 1991, due to the
drought that was occurring at that time, an amendment was made to the ordinance that
allowed the use ofleafblowers that are certified by the City. Only those blowers that don't
produce noise levels of more than 70 dBA at 50 feet are certified. As a result of the
amendment, the ban is not enforced.
In mid-August, the City of Los Angeles stopped enforcement efforts on its ordinance
(applicable only to residential areas) due to the dismissal by a Municipal Court Judge of
tickets issued to gardeners who were cited for operating leaf blowers using methanol fuel.
. Because the ordinance only banned gasoline-powered blowers, and since it, is very difficult
by either· odor or visual observation to differentiate between gasoline or. methanol,
enforcement was curtailed for a period of time. Enforcement efforts have begun again.
When a gardener claims to be using methanol, the inspector and police officer request a
'sample of fuel. Any samples that are taken are sent to a laboratory for analysis.
CMR:I39:99 Page 8 of 18
Some cities have recently enacted bans. They include Manhattan Beach (9/98) and Santa
Barbara (11/97).
In October 1998, the Santa Cruz Council conducted a study session on leaf blower regulation
alternatives. At that time, the Council directed that a task force of community members and
gardeners be formed to review the issue. The task force was developed and initial indications
were that it would recommend restrictions, but not a ban. In the interim, the membership of
the City Council changed. The issue of leaf blowers has been put on hold .
. Sunnyvale held a noise forum last fAll that addressed all types of noise issues. Based upon
the information received, recommendations most likely will be made to Sunnyvale'S Council
that leaf blowers not be singled out from other noise producing tools and that with the
possible exception of reducing the hours of the day that blowers could be used, no changes
be made to current regulations.
Staff has also received a copy of a -court decision that was rendered in New York last
December that ruled that the CIty of Long Beach, New York's ordinance prohibiting the use
of power blowers was unconstitutional. The case involved two defendants, a landscaper and
an employe~ of the local school district, who were charged with violatinKthat city's four-year
old ordinance that prohibited the use of power blowers. The defendants moved for dismissal
of the charges on the grounds that the ordinance was arbitrary, exceeded reasonable
objectives and was unreasonably burdensome to their landscaping business and school
maintenance program.
. .
Staff had originally planned on providing Council with evaluation of options last fall.
However, due to the Senate Bill that was pending at that time in Sacramento and the ballot
measure activity that were occurring in Menlo Park. However, st~ffbelieved it was prudent
to wait until after Menlo Park's election and a conclusion was reached in the State capital
before requesting Council action. Menlo Park's ballot measure was defeated and currently
a task force is reviewing options for regulating leaf blowers. Senator Polanco's bill died
during last year's session after it reached the Committee on Environmental Quality. Staff
recently spoke to a representative from Senator Polanco's office and was told that he is
actively considering proposing a similar type of bill during this year's session, but that a final
decision will not be made until mid or late February.
Pollution Issues
As described in CMR's 216:98 and 351:98, in addition to noise levels, there are two
pollution concerns associated with leaf blowers, gas emissions and particulate matter.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most manufacturers of leaf
CMR:139:99 Page 9 or18
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,. Aero Vironment Incorporated
. conducted a study for the South Coast Air Quality Management District to detemline the
amount of respirable dust (PM-I0) produced by leaf blowers. At that time, it estimated that
PM-I0 emissions from leaf blowers contributed to about 1 percent of the total emissions in
the Los Angeles area. It acknowledged, however, thai it considered this a conservatively .
high estimate that was based upon assumptions and unvalidated information. While it is
obvious that leafblowers do add to particulate matter pollution, until more scientific research .
. using valid information can be completed, it is not 'possible to determine the extent.
Update: Palo Alto Enforcement
During 1998, police personnel responded to 175 leaf blower complaints, an iilcrease of30
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 ofleafblowers range from opponents who are concerned about noise
levels and pollution generation to proponents who cite leaf blowers efficiency, utility and
. economy. Little consensus is shared between people who hold the divergent viewpoints. It
CMR:139:99 Page 10 of18
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 left, has stopped using the blower, or has changed the throttle
level of the blower. Without additional'information by an actual witness, enforcement
is extremely difficult.
As noted in a prior staff report,th~ average amount of time spent on leaf blower
responses is about 30 minutes.
2. Complete ban on all leaf blowers -Staff does not recommend this alternative for
several reasons. As discussed previously, if a ban onthe use ofleafblowers 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 if a 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 fmd any documentation regarding the loss of economic
earnings for gardeners in those cities that have banned blowers, there is no doubt that
clean up of all kinds takes more time without the use of blowers. Gardeners would
then be forced to charge higher fees in order to maintain their same level of income.
Other types of power garden tools produce noise levels that are louder or as loud as
leaf blowers and that add to air pollution problems. While they do not necessarily
produce the same pitch as blowers, there are substantial indications that other types
of tools are as offensive as blowers. A prohibition against just leaf blowers seems
arbitrary ~ If Council desires to prohibit the use of leaf blowers, staff would
recommend the prohibition against other power garden tools, such as lawn mowers,
hedge trimmers, chainsaws and edgers.
3. Ban on Only Fuel Powered Leaf Blowers -While staff considered this alternative, it
is not recommended based upon several factors. While an ordinance banning all fuel
powered (gasoline, "methanol, etc.) blowers would also be easier to enforce than.the
current ordinance, staffhas learned that gardeners and other users of blowers in some
cities have attempted to circumvent the.law by giving the appearance that electrical
CMR:139:99 Page 14 of18
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 staffwould 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.
6. ' 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.
7. 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. Btaff 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. Staff believes that with the extra work load associated with the
issuance of permits for leaf blowers, the provision of proactive 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 staffing needs and if warranted, would return
to Council with requests for additional regular staff. Estimated costs for the initial
implementation include:
Salary
Uniforms/equipment
Supplies, education
materials, permits
Total
CMR:I39:99
$40,000
$ 3,000
$ 3,000
$46,000
Page 16 of 18
· ATTACHMENT A
NOISE LEVELS OF ALTERNATIVE CLEANING EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT 3' 25' 50'
Power Washer 87 76 73
Green Machine 82 69 64/66
Elgin "Cross Wind" Street Sweeper 91 82 78
Elgin "Pelican" Mechanical Broom 91 81 79
Sweeper
..
ATTACHMENT B·
SUMMARY OF OTHER CITIES' ORDINANCES (NON-BANS)'
CITY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TIMES DAYS DECIBEL DESIGNATED CITY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
SPECIFIC OFDAY OF LEVEE AREAS CREW . RESTRICTIONS
TO LEAF WEEK RESTRICTION EXCEPTION
BLOWERS
Belmont 1991 No -gardening 8am.-M-F None NIA 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. ----
equipment 6 p.m. S-S-
Holidays
Burbank 1987 Yes 8a.m.r All days None Applicable to No Can't be operated -
6 p.m. residential longer than 15
zones or within minutes on parcels
200'of less than \.-'2 acre;
residential 30 minutes on
zones parcels more than
\.-'2 acre; not more
than one blower in
operation per
parcel at a time;
prohibits debris
from being blown
into adjacent
properties.
Burlingame 1986/1994 Yes 8a;m.-: M-F None Applicable to Yes ----
7p.m.; residential I I zones I
10 a.m. -Sat.
7 p.m.;
10 a.m.-Sun.!
6 p.m. Holiday-
residents
only
Davis Yes 7 a.m.-M-F 70 dBA at SO' ----Prohibited· use on Decibel level restriction not applicable on
7 p.in.; Sundays except for single family residential property if
operation on operated less than 10 minutes.
9am.-Sat.! single family
Sp.rn. ~Holidays dwelling 10 a.m. -
4 p.m.; operation I
of blowers I
prohibited within
100' radius of
another blower.
- ------_ .. -----------
CITY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TIMES DAYS DECIBEL DESIGNATED CITY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
SPECIFIC OFDAY OF LEVEL AREAS CREW RESTRICTIONS
TO LEAF WEEK RESTRICTJON EXCEPTION
BLOWERS
Foster City --Yes 8 a.m.-M-F None Applicable to Yes -for Prohibited on Nozzle extension must be used in
5 p.m.; residential Utility and Sundays and certain residential zones.
zones or within street repair holidays; prohibits
9 a.m.-Sat. 100' of blowing of debris
5 p.m. residential onto adjacent
zones. properties, streets.
Fresno 1981 No N/A N/A 5 dBA above N/A N/A N/A --
~mbient
Los Gatos 1991 No -all 8 a.m.-M-F None Restrictions Yes --No limitations in connnercial industrial
powered 8 p.m.; applicable only or public space.
equipment for residential
9 a~m.-S-S-or noise
7 p.m. Holidays sensitive zones.
Montebello 1997 Yes N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A Blowers prohibited unless blowers
muffled or equipped with muffler device.
Napa No 7a.m.-All days None Pertains only to N/A N/A --
9 p.m. connnercial
activity on
privately owned
property.
Newport Beach 1995 No -all tools, 7a.m.-M-F 65 dBA at 50' -Yes Prohibited on --
equipment 6:30 Sundays
. p.m.;
8a.m.-Sat.
6-p.m.
CITY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TIMES DAYS DECIBEL DESIGNATE CITY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
SPECIFIC OFDAY OF LEVEL DAREAS CREW RESTRICTIONS
TO LEAF WEEK RESTRICTION EXCEPTION
BLOWERS
San Luis Obispo 1997 Yes 8a.m.-All days 70dBA at SO' Residential No Prohibits use of --
6 p.m.; zones; non-gasoline powered
residential blowers on
7 a.m.-M -Sat. zones. Sunday.
6 p.m.;
8 -a.m.-Sun.
6 p.m.
Santa Rosa 1989 Yes 8 a.in.-M-F None Applicable to No ----
8p.rn.; residential
areas.
9 a.m. -S-S
8 p.m.
Sunnyvale 1997 Revised No -all 7 a.m. -All days --Residential ----NOIse from equipment such as leafbJowers,
10 p.m. zones. edgers, sweepers, etc., are not subject to
regulation when used only on a temporary
or infrequent basis.
----------
• Adopted ban in 1987. Due to drought, amended ordinance per above in 1991, which is currently enforced.
"
ATTACHMENTC .
1998 HISTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date Time Contact Made (CM) or Hundred Block of Reported
Unable to Locate (UTL) Leaf Blower Violations
03-27-98 3:42 a.m. CM* 600 block of Arastradero
03-31-98. 7:41 a.m. eM 200 block of Palo Alto Ave.
04-02-98 7:53 a.m. CM 700 block of Maplewood
04-05-98 3:32p.m. UTL 600 block of Homer
04-10-98 4:51 a.m. CM* 400 block of University
04-14-98 7:27 a.m. CM 300 block of Hamilton
04-17-98 1:04 p.m. CM 500 block of Lincoln
04-25-98 8:44a.m. UTL 3900 block ofEI Camino Real
04-26-98 3:36p.m. UTL 600·block of Homer .
04-27-98 1:51 p.m. CM 4200 block of Wilkie
04-28-98 7:24a.m. CM 300 block of Bryant
04-28-98 7:30a.m. . CM* 200 block of Sherman
04-28-98 5:46p.m. eM 200 block of Curtner
04-29-98 6:18 a.m. CM* 400 block of University
05-03-98 11:47 p.m. UTL 300 block of Waverley
05-06-98 7:33 a.m. CM 300 block of Portage
05-06-98 11:57 a.m. UTL 200 block of Grant
05-07-98 8:57 a.m. UTL 3800 block ofEI Camino Real
05-10-98 11:49p.m. CM* 300 block of Waverley
05-11-98 8:28 a.m .. CM* 200 block of Hamilton
05-13-98 1:25 p.m. UTL 2300 block of Tasso
05-13-98 1:39 p.m. UTL 500 block of Channing
05-15-98 12:08 p.m. CM 200 block of Ed lee
05-17-98 11:22 p.m. CM* 300 block of Waverley
.'
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
05-25-98 1:50 p.m. CM 700 block of Sutter
05-27-98 5:19 a.m. CM* 600 block of Waverley
06-01-98 8:12 a.m. eM 3500 block of Laguna
06-02-98 7:53 a.m. UTL 1200 block of Harriet
06-03 .. 98 10:25 a.m. eM ' 3100 block of Waverley
06-05-98 1:48 p.m. UTL 1200 block of Wilson
06-11-98 8:39a.m. UTL 3800 block ofEI Camino Real
06-15-98 7:36 a.m. UTL 100 block Middlefield
06-15-98 7:57 a.m. eM 1ioo block of Newell
06-16-98 7:56a.m. eM 2600 block of Birch
06-17-98 6:32 a.m. UTL 500 block of University
06-17-98 7:41 a.m. eM 3500 block of Arbutus
06-18-98 8:19 a.m. eM 3400 block of Ross
06-22-98 7:42 a.m. eM 700 block of Page Mill
06-22-98 3:40p.m. UTL 700 block of San Antonio
06-23-98 7:42 a.m. UTL 700 block of Page Mill
06-23-98 7:40a.m. UTL 200 block of Shennan
06-23-98 7:32 a.m. UTL 100 block of Middlefield
06-23-98 5:25 p.m. UTL 700 block of Northampton
06-24-98 7:38 a.m. UTL 700 block of Page Mill
06-25-98 8:16 a.m. CM 3800 block ofEI Camino
06-25-98 8:31 a.m. UTL 500 block of Center
06-26-98 5:54 a.m. eM· 3300 block ofW. Bayshore Rd
06-27-98 1:35 p.m. eM 1500 block of Portola
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
06-29-98 7:30a.m. eM 700 block of Guinda ,
06-29-98 8:26 a.m. UTL 3100 block of Manchester et. .
06-29-98 7:40a.m. UTL 700 block ofPag~ Miil
06-29-98 1:11 p.m. eM 200 block of Lowell
06-29-98 9:01 p.m. CM* 200 block of Sherman
06-30-98 7:57 a.m. eM 700 block of Page Mill
06-30-98 8:28 a.m. UTL 100 block of Middlefield
06-30-98 6:04p.m. eM 500 block ofMatadero
07-01-98 . 7:30a.m. UTL 700 block of Page Mill
07-03-98 8:30a.m. UTL 3700 block orEI ea.rnino Real
07-04-98 11:31 a.m. eM 400 block of Ruthven
07-05-98 8:24a.m. UTL 3100 block of Alexis
07-06-98 8:40a.m. eM 100 block of Middlefield
07-08-98 7:37 a.m. eM 200 block of Forest
07-08-98 7:27 a.m. CM 700 block of Page Mill
07-09-98 8:22 a.m. eM 500 block of Center
07-09-98 8:40 a.m. CM* 1300 block of Newell
07-10-98 8:20a.m. . UTL 1100 block of Greenwood
07-10-98 10:14 a.m. eM 3300 block of St. Michael
07-11-98 2:48p.m. UTL 4200. block of McKellar
07-12-98 4:56 a.m. eM 1500 block of Page Mill
07-13-98 7:19 a.m. eM 800 block of Hansen.
07-13-98 7:38 a.m. UTL 3600 block of Whitsell
07-15-98 8:34 a.m. eM* 200 block of Forest
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
0.8-21-98 7:18 a.m. CM 400 block of Kipling
.08-21-98 8:51 a.m. CM 200 block of Seale
08-21-98 8:58 a.m. CM 700 block of Garland
08-24-98 6.:39 a.m. CM 200 block of University
08-24-98 8:41 a.m. CM 3000 block ofE1 Camino Real
'08-24-98 8:59p.m. UTL 2400 block ofE1 Camino Real
08-25-98 7:25 a.m. CM 2800 block of Middlefield
08-25-98 1:33 p.m. UTL 500 block of Channing
08-25-98 6:48p.m. UTL 500 block of Arastradero
08-27-98 10:56 a.m. CM 600 block of Channing
08-27-98 8:33 a.m. CM 900 block of Hansen
08-28-98 6:31 a.m. CM* 400 block of University
--
08-30-98 12:43 p.m. CM 600 block of Romer
09-04-98 7:46 a.m. CM 2100 block of Greer
09-06-98 7:22 a.m. UTL 100 block of College
09-08-98 8:31 a.m. UTL· 700 block of Emerson
09-12-98 8:25 a.m. CM 900 block of Dennis .
09-15-98 7:12 a.m. UTL 700 block of Colorado
09":16-98 5:30 a.m. CM*' 500 block of University
09-17-98 4:23 a.m. CM* 400 block of University
09-18-98 9:30a.m. CM 500 block of Alger .
09-23-98 9:42 a.m. CM 100 block of Lincoln
09-23-98 12:12 p.m. CM 300 block of Sheridan
09-25-98 8:03 a.m. 'UTL 1200 block of Forest
concluded that the noise ordinance was restrictive and needed to be reviewed for changes.
After a Council study 'session on the issue ~arly in 1987, staff presented three options to the·
Council specifically related to leaf blowers, including: 1) a ban on the use of gasoline
powered leaf blowers, 2) a prohibition on the use of gasoline leaf blowers within 250 feet
of a single family or multiple family residence~ and 3)8 prohibition on the use of a gasoline
leaf blower exceeding 90 decibels at a distance of25 feet between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, and total prohibition on Sundays and holidays. Th~ Council
approved the third option with some modifications as an ordinance amendment. The
modifications included a reduction from 90 decibels to 82 decibels and a further .reduction
to 75 decibels after July 1, 1989, and a change in hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. At the time
of the second reading of the ordinance amendment, there was considerable discussion
concerning a possible exemption for City crews who used leaf blowers to clean parking lots
during nighttime hours due to the anticipated increase in costs and a decrease in the standard
of cleanliness. Direction was given to staff at that time to prepare a policy for pUrchasing
quieter equipment. In August 1987, Council approved an amendment to the noise ordinance, '
which pennitted the use of gasoline leaf blowers not exceeding 82 decibels at 25 feet.
(reduced to 75 decibels at 25 feet on July 1, 1989) to clean City parking lots between the
homs of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m;, Monday through Friday. A~ditionally, 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 reduc~g equipment noise
emissions in the future; current operating decibel levels of equipment used by the vendor;
the ability of the vendor to provide equipment designed to reduce noise; and the vendor's
commitment to the "Buy Quiet" program sponsore~ by the National Institute of,
Governmental Purchasing.
A leaf blower control initiative was placed on the November 1987 ballot, which would have
prohibited the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers exceeding 70 decibels at 25 feet and
would have required users of leaf blowers to get written certification from the Police
Department that the equipment was not able to produce noise. levels in excess of 70 ,decibels.'
During the tUne prior to the election, it was estimated by representatives of both sides of the
initiative that costs for homeowners and the City would increase by 20 to 30 percent. The
initiative failed by 3,333 votes~· .
Enforcement of Ordinance
The Police Department has enforced the ordinance regarding the use of leaf blowers on a
complaint basis for the last 11.years. Calls received concerning leaf blowers are assigned
to a police or community services officer for investigation. Response to these calls falls
within the non-emergency response categOIY and, depending upon other higher priority calls
CMR:216:98 Page 2 of8
·' for service at the time, the calls are nonnally handled within one hour of the receipt of the
call. It is not uncommon for the users of the leaf blower to have left prior to the officer's
arrival. Oftentimes, if the user is present, they will reduce the power of the equipment once
they see the officer· arrive. While the current ordinance prohibits leaf blowers which
produce noise levels in excess of75 decibels, without testing each piece of equipment at full
throttle with a sound meter it is not possible for the officer to detennirie if they are in
violation.
The majqrity of complaints associated with leaf blowers concern their use prior to the
pennitted hours of operation. Very few complaints have been received about their uSe after
. the pennitted time. Attachment A provides a listing of leaf blower complaints received by
the Police Department from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, providing the
location of the complaint, and whether the officer was able to contact the alleged violator.
For the first offense, a written warning is issued to the user. The officer completes a noise
violation fonn and infonnation is maintained by location, name of user, and the action taken.
It is extremely rare to encounter repeat offenders .. During 1996, the Police Department
responded to 123 leaf blower complaints; in 1997, the number increased to 145. It ·takes an
average of about 30 minutes for an officer to respond, investigate and document a leaf
blower complaint.
Sound Levels of E(}llipment
The Police Department uses calibrated sound meters that meet the standards of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) to measme decibellev:els. It should be noted that ANSI
ratings. that come with most leaf blowers are ·usually obtained by taking measuremel:lts 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, ifany, gasoline powered leaf blowers produced noise levels below 70 decibels
at 25 feet Staffhas recently taken sound meter readings of various brands of gasoline and
electric leaf blowers, other commonly used garden equipment, and for comparison purposes,
ambients of other areas. Attachment B provides a detailed listing·ofthe results. Generally,
most gasoline powered leaf blowers produce less noise than earlier models, but still have the ..
capability of reaching the mid to high 80 decibel level. Electric leaf blowers tend to be
slightly less noisy, but not significantly so. Manufacturers are finally beginning to design
and distribute blowers with even lower noise emissions. As an example, . the Echo 46LN
model used by City workers has the capability of emittiiig only 65 decibels measured at SO
feet per the ANSI tesiingstandards. In field tests, depending upon the ambient and other·
factors, the equipment produces up to 73 decibels at 50 feet. As with other types of garden
equipment, there are four noise sources associated with leaf blowers of any type, the engine,
CMR.:216:98 Page 3 of8
air volume/flow (nonnally measmed in cubic feet per minute), muffier and impeller.'
According to infoimation received from manufacturers, for the models that produce only 65
decibels the engine noise is about the same as the air volume noise.
It is important to note because a logarithmic fOl1llula is used in calculating noise levels, a
blower that produces 70 decibels is actually one-fourth as loud as one $at produces 90
decibels. A change of three decibels is barely noticeable to the human ear while a five
decibel change is noticeable, ~ut not dramatic.
In researching the issue, staffleamed that the way blowers are altered or changed also affect
noise levels. As an example, most blowers are equippeq with removable tube segments.
While it is presunlably 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 somce is annoying is not solely determined by the
. decibel level .. Other pieces of garden equipment such as lawn mowers and weed trimmers .
can produce the same decibel levels, but are not as annoying due to differences in tone, pitch,
and/or duration of use.
Pollution Issues .
There are two pollution concerns associated with leaf blowers: gas emissions and
dust/pollen. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that
garden eqwpment accounts for five percent of the air pollution in the country. Exhaust
emissions from these engines contain hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, .
carbon dioxide, and particulate matter. These emissions are the result of fuel and air .being
mixed and burned to produce the power needed for the operation of the engine. According
to . the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, evapQrative emissions occm in
several ways. The majority occur during refueling and spUlage. These types of emissions
are generally smaller compared to the hydrocarbon emissions. In an article from the Bay Air
QUality Management District, it was noted that a gasoline powered leaf blower emits as
much pollution homly as a car driven 100 miles, a lawn mower 50 miles, and a chaUi saw
200 miles. Because other gasoline powered garden equipment produces equivalent amounts .
of exhaust emissionS, the EPA has ad~essed all types of equipment and has riot singled. out·
leaf blowers.
In June 1995, the EPA finalized the first national regulations' affecting small gasoline
powered engines used in garden equipment. Phase i regulations became effective in 1997
and were expected to result in a 32 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. Because
the Phase I regulations affected all new garden equ~pment manufactured after August 1,
1996, the full impact has not yet been detennined. Currently, the EPA is working with state
CMR:216:98 Page 4 or8
0' , ,
and industry representatives to structure Phase 2 standards that would result in an additional
30 percent reduction below the Phase 1 levels.
Staff is still in the process of attempting to gather infonnation 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 respiratoty illnesses.
Other Cities' Experienc,e
Staffhas checked with other cities regarding their enforcement of leaf blowers. Most cities
have ordinances similar to Palo Alto's in 'that they attempt to control the use of leaf blowers
by regulating certain decibel levels, hours of pemiitted use and distances from residential
areas. Some cities have included such stringent distance requirements that the ordinance
actually serves as a ban. Los Angeles~ as an example, prohibits' gasoline leaf blowers within
500 feet of a residential zone. After passage of the Los Angeles ordinance in 1996,
opponents went to court in an attempt to get the ordinance declared UIiconstitutional. 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 leaf blowers, an initiative
was placed on the 'ballot and was approved by the voters last November. Howev~r, a shniIar .
advisoty ballot proposal was defeated in the City of Burbank. Attachment C shows those' ,
cities that have adopted ordinances that totally ban leaf blowers. The majority of those cities
that have enacted a leaf blower ban prohibit only the use of-gasoline powered blowers; a few
otherS have outlawed gasoline, electric and battery operated blowers. Enforcement is usually
done on a complaint basis and response is a low priority., Staffhas iearned that in order to
circumvent the language of some bans, people have changed the type of fuel they use from
gasoline to alternative fuels like methane. Because some blowers have the capability of also
being used as vacuums, some users also circumvent leaf blower bans by using the vacuum
capability to pick up leaves and debris.
Staffhas also learned tha£ depending upon the size of the city, without an exemption for city
crews, a decrease in the level of maintenance to city streets, parks, and facilities or an
increase in costs resulted when a total ban occurs. IndustIy 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/mo~on studies and have concluded that
production rates vary depending upon the amoimtltype of debris, weather conditions~ type
. of sunace, and the number of people occupying the area that is being cleaned. In 1997, the
City of Santa Barbara estimated that a change from leaf blowers to sweeping/raking would
CMR:216:98 ' Page 5 or8
-. .
..
ATTACHMENT A
TWO-YEAR mSTORY OF LEAF BLOWER COMPLAINTS
Date Contact Made (CM) or Hundred Block of Possible Leaf
Unable to -Locate -Blower Violations
(UTL)
12-31-97 UTL 400 block of Forest
12-31-97 CM 400 block of ~an Antonio
12-30-97 CM 300 block of High
12-28-97 CM 600 block of Homer
12.;28-97 UTL 700 block of Rosewood
12-28-97 CM 2000 block of Channing
12-24-97 CM-3600 blockofEI Camino
12-24-97 UTL Bryant @ Channing
12-17-97 UTL 400 block of Kipling
12-14-97 -UTL 800 block ofMiddlefieid
12-6-97 CM 600 block of Homer
12-4-97 CM 4100 block of Crosby PI
-12-4-97 CM 100 block of Walter Hayes
12-4-97 CM 2700 block of Middlefield
12-3-97 CM 200 bl~ck of Waverley
12-1-97 UTL 700 block of Arastradero
11-28-97 CM 4100 block of Crosby
11-28-97 UTL 900 block of Scott
11-27-97 UTL 600 block of Gilman
11-26-97 UTL MoanaCt
11-25-97 CM 200 block of Grant
11-24"'97 UTL 300 block of Curtner _
..:
11-20-97 UTL 600 block of Bryson
11-20-97 UTL 300 block of Forest·
11-07-97 CM 4100 block of Baker
11-04-97 CM . Birch @ California
11-3-97 . CM 400 block of Kipling
10-30-97 UTL Bryson @ Middlefield
10-30-97 CM 00 block of University .
10-27-97 UTL 400 block of Kipling
10-26-97 CM 400 block of Lytton
10-24-97 UTL 1900 block of Waverley
10-23-97 ' UTL Bryson @ Middlefield
·10-20-97 CM Sheridan @ EI Camino
10-17-97 CM Seale @ Webster
10-15-97 CM 3700 block ofEI Camino
10-08-97 eM 2300 block of St. Francis
10-6-97 CM 400 block of Kipling
.,
10-3-97 CM 3600 block ofEI Camino
9-30-97 UTL 900 block of Waverley
9-30-97 CM 00 block of University .,
9-08-97 CM 400 block of Alma
9-25-97 CM 500 block of Channing
9-24-97 CM 2200 block of St. Francis
9-24-97 UTL 3500 block of Laguna
9-23-97 CM 400 block of Addison
9-22-97 CM 2200 block of Yale
9-19-97 CM 3000 block of Middlefield .
9-18-97 CM 2000 block of Oberlin
7-9-97 CM Portola @ Sequoia
7-7-97 CM " TQrreya Ct
7-7-97 UTL 300 block of Lytton
7-6-97 CM 100 'block of El Camino .
7-5-97 unit canceled 1900 block ofWavetley'
7-4-97 UTL Forest @ Btyant
6-27-97 CM . 3300 block ofMidc;Uefield
6-27-97 CM 400 block of Forest
6-25-97 . UTL 4100 block ofPenaCt
6-24-97 CM 800 block of Lytton
6-21-97 CM 3300 block of Hillview
6-19-97 CM Cowper @Hamilton
6-18-97 CM 700 block of Middlefield
6-16-97 CM 900 block of Bryant
6-12-97 CM 2000 block of Oberlin
. -
6-10-97 . UTL 900 block of Bryant
6-6-97 UTL 700 block of Colorado
6-5-97 UTL Byron
6-4-97 CM 2000 block of Oberlin
6-2-97 UTL 1400 block of Bryant
6-1-97 UTL Forest @ Gilman
5-30-97 CM 200 block of Edlee
5-24-97 CM Forest @ Gilman
5-24-97 CM 300 block of CoWper
5-21-97 CM 1700 block of Middlefield
5-16-97 CM 4100 block of Middlefield
5-15-97 CM 800 block 'of University
3-1-97 utL Hamilton @ Cowper
2-27-97 UTL . 2000 block of Channing
2-21-97 CM HamiJton @ Lincoln
2-18-97 CM 4100 block ofEI Caniino
2-14-97 CM Louis @ Embarcadero
2-13-97 CM. Bl)'ant @ Churchill .
"
1-27-97 UTL . 400 block of Alma
..
1-25-97 UTL Lincoln @ Webster
1-21-97 CM Channing @ Webster
1-14-97 . UTL Channing @ Cowper
1-10-97 CM Columbia @ Stanford
1-27-97 UTL 400 block of Alma
1-14-97 UTL Channing @ Cowper
1-9-97 'CM Columbia @ St&:nford
1-7-97 CM Channing @ Cowper "
.
12-26-96 .UTL 300 block of Seale
12-22-96 UTL 400 block of Forest
12-6-96 CM 3700 block of Wright
12-4-96 CM 400.block of-High
12-3-96 CM 3800 block ob Magnolia
11-28-96 CM 400 block of Coleridge
11-24-96 CM 400 block of Hamilton
11-23-96 CM 500 block of Hamilton
11-23-96 CM 700 block of Channing
11-22-96 CM 4100 block of Hubbart
11-20-96 CM 700 block of San Antonio
11-14-96 CM Kingsley @ Webster
9-16-96 CM· Hawthorne @ Cowper
9-16-96 UTL 400 block of Fernando .
9-13-96 CM Sheridan @ EI Camino
9-12-96 CM Middlefield @ Lorna Verde
9-11-96 unfounded 400 block of Fernando
9-9-96 CM California @ Columbia
9-4-96 CM 100 block of Heather
8-31-96 UTL Colorado @ Mid.d1efield
8-30-96 CM 400 block of University
8-27-96 CM 3800 block of Magnolia
8-26-96 UTL 400 block of Fernando
8-16-96 CM Waverley @.Embarcadero
8-14-96 CM 300 block of Bryant
8-9-96 UTL 200 block of High
8-8-96 CM Ash@Grant
8-8-96 CM 400 block of Grat)t
7-27-96 CM Oregon @ W. Bayshore
7-18-96 UTL 4100 block of Morris
7-17-96 CM 300 block of University
7-13-96 CM 800 block of Hansen
7-10-96 CM 800 block of Hamilton
7-5-96 CM 1900 block of Wave dey
7-3-96 CM 1100 block of Parkinson
7-3-96 CM 800 block of San Antonio
6-30-96 UTL Hamilton @ Cowper
6-30-96 CM 400 block of Hamilton
6-24-96 UTL 900 block of Matadero
6-22-96 CM 500 block of Center
6-14-96 UTL Wellesley @ California
6-3-96 CM 700 .block of San Antonio
5-31-96 UTL 500 block of Lowell
5-30-96 unfounded. 100 block of Emerson
5-23-96 . UTL College @ Ash
5-23-96 CM Gilman @ Forest
5-22-96 CM 100 block of Heather
5-19-96 CM 600 block of Wildwood
5-17-96 CM Emerson @ University
5-16-96 CM 500 block of Lincoln .
5-14-96 eM 400 block of San Antonio
5-13-96 . CM 200 block ofUniv~rsity
5-13-96 unit canceled 1500 block of Page Mill
5-8-96 CM Middlefield @ Homer
5-8-96 unfounded 200 block of California
5-7-96 eM 1900 block of Waverley
5-6-96 UTL University @ Tasso
5-5-96 UTL Alma @ Lytton
5-3-96 eM 200.0 block of Channing
5-3-96 CM 1100 block of Greenwood
4-29-96 eM . University @ CoWper . ..
4-26-96 eM 600 block of Guinda
4-26-96 UTL ·500 block of University
4-24-96 eM· North California
4-23-96 UTL University @ Alma .
4-22-96 eM 700 block of Page Mill
ATTACHMENTB
DECmEL LEVEL MATRIX OF GARDEN EQUIPMENT 0
Company Model CFM Company SO' field 15' field 3' field
SO'dBa test test test
: 00, rating
Echo PB400E leaf blower 388 74 71-78 79-84 91-104
Stihl BR400 leaf blower 476 75 ? 72-77 82-84 90-100
Echo PB46LN leaf blower 370 65 70-73 73-78 89-95
Echo PB46LN @ reduced power nla 60-64 68-72 85-88
Echo PB400E (with elbow tube removed) nla 73-79 79-84 91-104 '
Stihl 'BR320L leafblower 382 69 72-75 78-80 88-98
Stihl BG75 hand held leaf blower 377 o 69 62~72 73-78 88-96
Stihl BESS electric leafblower 3620 65 66-68 73-77 89
Stihl BESS @ ~ power , 62-65 70-73 o 85
Roybl electric leafblower 61-63 68-73 84
metal leaf rake on lawn steps S8~60 63-70 75-82
Honda HRC216HXA lawn mower -0 68 81 93
Honda HRC216HXA with blade off 62 72 86
Blk-Decker electric lawn mower 62-63 070 81-84
Shindaiwa T260 line trimmer 72-76 77-79 -94-98 '
Honda GX22 line trimmer 71-74 77-80 92-97
Sear~ old electric line trimmer 60-61 67-70 80
Echo CS3400 chain saw (small) 75-82 81-88 99-106
Miscellaneous Noise Source dBa's
Loud dog barking at approximately 35 feet 78-80
Voices during city staff meeting 55-65
City HaIl plaZa at IUrich time 58-65
"Train ~ving at University Ave station measured at 25 feet 85-92
Car going by on quiet residential street measured at 25 feet 65
Vehicle"traffic at Alma & Churchill during heavy traffic 62-76
Car with bad muffier at Alma & Churchill 81
Inside a quiet house 42
Front porch of above house 43
Back porch of above house (some freeway noise and wind in trees) 49
" CFM is the cubic feet per minute of air produced by a leaf blower. All measurements were rounded
down to the nearest whole number. Field tests were conducted under circumstances that an officer would
likely encounter, but do not meet the ANSI testing standards which require the use of a sound room or
stadium. All of the tested equipment is gasoline operated, unless otherwise noted. Sound measurements
of garden equipment vaIied based on the four 90 degTcc turns made by the operator.
CITY YE4R TYPE PROHIBITED CITY ENFORCEMEM' COMMENTS
PASSED EXCEPTION
Indiillll Wells 1995 No gasoline or electric Yes; golf Complailllt basis only. Average 3 complaints per week.
use by gardeners. courses are only
Residents may use exception.
.. electric only on their
property.
Lagwta Beach 1993 : Gasoline and electric No Complaint basis only 1-2 complaints per week.
Lo:. ... tos 1990 Gasoline No Complaint I Proactive 6-10 complaints per week.
Los Aogeles 1998 Prohibit use of gasoline No Complaint only I Low priority
I blowers within soot of
residential zone.
Malibu 1993 Gasoline No Complaintl basis only 1 complaint per week.
M,1l Valley 1993 Gasoline No Complaint basis only Very few complaints.
Palos Verdes 1987 Gasoline and electric No nla nla
Santa Barbara 1997 Gasoline Yes, 7:00-9:00 nla Residents have cOmplained about increase in gardener
a.m., Monday-rates; phased in total ban; very few complaints.
Saturday on
City parking
lots -,
Santa Monica 1991 Gas and electric No Proactive Average 40 complaints per week.
SouUt Pasadena 1991 Gasoline; electric I No Complaint basis only' 233 complaints last year; 3 cases went to court.
battery allowed only
between 8:00 a.m.-8:00
p.m. weekdays; 10:00
a.m. -6:00 p.m.
weekends.
Jlest Hollywood 1997 Gasoline No Complaint basis only Few complaints.
--
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 uview environmental issues, and to get community input
on potential impact associated with options. Specifically, this report includes updated
infonnation on pending legislation, experiences of additional cities that have banned blowers,
and "the process used and opinions obtained from the community. Staff anticipates
agendizing the item for discussion and action at the Policy and Services Committee meeting
of October 6. Due to the interest level on this issue, staff will include the third staff report
in" the Council packet soon after the Council returns from vacation m order to allow for
wider and timely distribution.
DISCUSSION
Other Cities' Experience
Staff has conferred with several other cities regarding their" enforcement of leaf blowers.
Contact was made with theCiti~s of Piedmont, Lawndale and Del Mar. The City of
Piedmont implemented a ban on fuel-powered leaf blowers in 1990. One problem it has
encountered is that gardeners use gas-powered generators for"the electric blowers that are as
loud and create as many pollution problems as ieafbiowers.
Del Mar adopted its ordinance banning portable, gasoline-engine blowers in 1989. ,
Its ordinance is enforced by code enforcement personnel and they respond to 15-25
complaints a month. .
Lawndalejust enacted its ordinance one year ago. They allow homeowners and gardeners"
with a business license to operate electric blowers. Its code enforcement officers enforce the
ordinance and respond to about six complaints a week. .. "
Due to the fact that over half of the cities that have banned le"af 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 detennine how they deal with the cleanliness issues in these areas without leaf
blowers.
CMR.:341 :98 Page 2 of7
.' .. 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 auihority, 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 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 ~o protect the city from increased liability claims.
The City of West Hollywood has used general relief workers who are on unemployment and
welfare to perform some of the extra manual labor that was needed when its ordinance
became effective in 1984. The cleaning of the city's large parking lots is contracted out and
the associated costs have increased, but actual figures were not available:
In response to the City of Menlo Park's ban, a petition drive to put the issue to the vote of .
the people was successful and it will be included on the November 1998 ballot.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors recently adopted a resolution that prohibits use
of any polluting garden and utility equipment by any County department or independent
contractOrs working for the County on "Spare the Air Days" or other days that the Bay Area
Air Quality District requests the public refrain from engaging in polluting actiVities.
Attachment A provides an uPclated list of cities that have banned leaf blowers .
.
Pendin& Lecislation
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 Qriginally dealt withjwy service, and sub~tituted 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·fe.et; prohibit cities from' regulating leaf blowers except betweeri 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 Janumy 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 of7
Pollution IssUes
Staff has received information regarding associated pollution issues from the California
Environmentai 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 unti11995. Tier n standards were originally scheduled to become effective in 1999;
the implementation of those standards 'has been delayed until 2000. Under the Tier n
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 CEP ARB some years ago revealed that the amount of particulate
matter that is emitted from a leaf blower is equivalent to. the surface dust that might be
caused by the wind blowing on a paved road or about five pounds an hour per leaf blower.
They also noted that leaf blowers are frequently used to clear paved areas such as driveways,
parking lots, etc., and thus become "dust" blowers. In a 1991 report, the CEPARB
concluded that particulate matter can cause serious health problems, especially pulmonary
and respiratory problems. The California particulate matter standard that was adopted in
1982 is 50 microgrCliils per cubic meter in a 24-hour period. The national 24-hour standard,
adopted in 1987 (EPA is currently revising), is 150 micrograms per cubic meter, not to be
exceeded more than once per year averaged over three years. While most particulate matter
is emitted from motor vehicles, off-road engines or· engines used for lawn and garden
equipment, . including leaf blowers, are responsible for a certain' portion of this pollution.
However, the EPA and CEPARB do not single out leBfblowers as offenders, but include
all fuel-powered lawn and garden equipment such as mowers, chain saws, edge trimmers,
etc.
EPA docunlents acknowledge that hand-heldequ~pment is primarily powered by two-stroke
engines because, unlike a four-stroke design, two-stroke engines have more operational
capability and are significantly lighter than four-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines,
however, emit higher levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particle matter. The
EPA has also recognized the industry's progress towards lowering emission levels is
.&'significant" andis being accomplished through relatively simple engine modifications. As
a result, the CEP ARB concludes that the industry is on schedule with its research and
development efforts that will bring them into compliance with the Tier II standards.
CMR:341:98 Page 4 of7
...
. .
Twenty people attended this meeting, seven of whom had attended one of the previous
meetings. "Attachment C provides the unedited responses received at each oftlte meetings.
" The opiliions 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 l~afblow~rs due to the noise and pollution issues. Others have
strong feelings that blowers are a necessary tool to help keep the community clean. There
is general consensus that whatever regulation/option is selected, it needs to be easy to
understand and enforce, and that the City should adhere to the same regulations as
homeowners~ gardeners or businesses.
Additional Staff Work to be Completed
Staff is finalizing the research phase of the assignment and in the process of detennining cost
impacts to the City for the various options. Additionally, using all the infonnation obtained
:from the community outreach, staff will develop recommendations for Council consideration.
In order to provide a wide and timely distribution of the staff report containing
recommendations to interested community members, staff will agendize the item for referral
to the Policy and Services Committee once the" Council returns from vacation and agendize
the "discussion at the Policy and Seivices Committee meeting on October 6.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Staff is still in the process of estim~ting costs associated with the options.
ATfACHMENTS
" Attachment A -Revised List of Cities Who Have Banned Leaf Blowers
Attachment B-EPA's Hand-Held Equipment Emissions Standards
Attachment C -Unedited Responses From Community Meetings
PREPARED BY: Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
CMR:341:98 Page 6 of7
--
CITY YEAR TYPE PROHIBITED CITY ENFORCEMENT COMMENTS
PASSED EXCEPTION
Laguna Beach 1993 Gasoline and electric No Complaint basis only 1-2 complaints per week.
·Lawndale 1997 Gasoline No Complaint I Proactive 6 complaints per week. Enforced ~ code compliance
staff.
Los Altos 1990 Gasoline No Complaint I Proactive 10 cOmplaints per week.
Los Angeles 1998 Prohibit use of gasoline No Complaint only I Low priority Nuinerous complaints. Seeking authority to allow
blowers Within 500' of code enforcement staff to enforce.
residential zone.
Malibu 1993 Gasoline No Complaint basis only 1 complaint per week. -
AMenlo Park 1998 Gasoline No i
Mill Valley 1993 Gasoline No Complaint basis only Very few complaints.
Palos Verdes 1987 Gasoline and electric No nla nI~
·Piedmont 1990 Fuel-powered Yes Complaint basis only Two complaints per month. Some gardeners use gas
generators to nmelectric blowers that are louder than
leaf blowers.
Santa Barbara 1997 Gasoline Yes, 7:00-9:00 nla Residents have complained about increase·in gardener
a.m., Monday-rates; phased in total ban; very few complaints.
Saturday on .
City parking
lots ---
Santa Monica 1991 Gas and electric No Proactive Average 40 complaints per week.
South Pasadena 1991 Gasoline; electric I No Complaint basis only 233 complaints last year; 3 cases went to court.
battery allowed only
I between 8:00 a.m.-8:00
I p.m. weekdays; 10:00
a.m. -6:00 p.m.
weekends.
West Hollywood 1997 Gasoline No Complaint basis only Few complaints.
---
ATTACHMENT C
Leaf Blower Options -Gardener's Meeting June 10, 1998
Option '1: Complete ban on all leaf blowers.
Ems: None given
~:
• would take more time t~ do the work
• increase costs to customer/City
• vacuums won't work (cornets)
• 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 ~oise issues
Comme'Dts:
• newer equipment IS much quieter
• more homeowners can have a beautiful garden with use of blowers
• increase in request/use of gardener~ -seniors
• clients opted for less services when prices would increase
• 3rd party intervention is the problem -should be between client and gardener
Option #2: Ban on only fuel powered leaf blowers.
fr.o.6: None given
. ,Com:
• 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
Comments:
• hatchet approach
Option #3: Allow leaf blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas.
f.J:Qs: None given
t.nns.:
• some types of commercial areas require quiet
• mixed use becomes· an issue
. • double ,equipment needed for gardeners who do both ·residential and
commercial
• enforcement could be an issue
..
Option #4: 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)
fall:
• better than ban
• when tube requirement added, this solves the complaint problem (San Mateo)
.c.o.ns:
• would beat peak hours for commercial
• some clients prefer work done on weekend
• gardeners need to work eight hours
Comments:
• use on Saturdays
• use on Sundays isn't significant; they do work holidays
Option #5: Allow leaf blowers that cannot be op.erated at higher than 65 decibels
as certified by manufacturer at 50 feet and require permits issued by the
City •.
Ems:
• 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
.c.ans:
• some people might not maintain their equipment
COmments:
• 65 dba now, few years 60 dba
• compan~es (responsibl~) put down safe mulch
• more particulate matter disturbed by vehicles
Option #6: Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own
property.
~:
• Gardeners could sell their old blowers
. Cnns:
• problem ·for gardeners
• most people in Palo Alto have gardeners
• discriminates between
• homeowners would tend to be noisier -older equipment - 1 week 15 minute
use compared commercial use
• noise level could go up if more homeowners used, especially Sundays
Option #7: No change to current ordinance.
• 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 legi~lation, currerit ordinance couldn't be used
Option #8: Other Ideas
• divide City into' distri'cts -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; 5.3'0/0 .
gardeners 25 + employees .
• they are willing to work with City
• key is training on operation of blowers
• taking leaf blower away from trade is equivalent to prohibit electric vacu'ums
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 -du'st
• brooms kick up dust
• dust/particles accumulate without blowers -becomes issue with wind
• force manufacturers to give training
• 50-60% belong to organization; is increasing
• multi.:language handouts for training
Brands of Leaf Blowers
• Echo -newer models are heavier
• Stihl -320L
• Red Max
• Astron
. • Shindawa
Leaf Blower Options -Community Meeting June 17. 1998
Option '1: Complete ba~ on all leaf blowers.
f.ms:
•. 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)
• 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 creat~s noise
• shock hazard in wet areas
• still could be hard to enforce as people can't differentiate between noise of gas
vs electric
Comments:
• takes less tim~ with gas powered so noise isn't heard for as mU,?h time
• if you water surface prior to' blowing, only leaves get blown
• battery powered electric broom is quieter
Option #3: Allow leaf blower use only in industrial parks or commercial are~s .
.f.rns: None given
.cno.s.:
• discriminatory based upon areas
• mixed use, peQple 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
Option #4: 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).
Ems: None given
ems:
• would result in overall less leaf blower use
.t.nos: .
• unenforceable -proof of ownership
• still creates noise, dust, emission problems
• could result in neighbor conflicts
• could put some gardeners ~ut of work
Option#': No change to current ordinance.
ems: None given
CnoS:
• use aI/ 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
Comments:
• begs question on how it is enforced
. .
• ordinance might not be the problem, but enforcement of it
Option #8: Other Ideas
A. San Mateo County
county operated equipment
not allowed to use on "spare the air" days
adopted" purchasing g,uidelines
covers county contractors
B. Educational outreach needed
C. Mediation could be an option
D. oRegulate by duration of noise (time used -e.g., 15 min in an liouor)
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 haord 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 0
noise harmful to especiaiiy children
potice enforce all sorts of bans, illegal activity
use of police to enforce .noi~e not a ogood use
responsibility should be on homeowners who hire gardeners who use leaf
blowers·
• LA green card -English 0 and Spanis~
• use water instead
.. people can chose to pay more o( haveo reduced level of cleaning
Leaf Blower Meeting -July 15, 1998
Option 1: Complete ban on all leaf blowers.
.fm.s:
• More gardeners would be needed so more gardeners would be employed.
• Conflicts with ·peacefulness associated with "gardens. II
• Is enforceable.
• Promotes clean/healthy air.
• More peaceful community.
• Protects gardeners.
• Improves quality of life.
• Helps people who work at home; noise affects productivity.
• Two cycle engines add to global warming.
• .In downtown areas, businesses get dirty, cars get dirty with dust blown up.
• Experience of cities who have banned no increased rates/less pollution ..
~:
• Used to clean sidewalks, lots, not just yards. Increases liability for land owner.
• Ban· in commercial areas would increase maintenance costs, cost to' land
ownsis/tenants; rents would increase •.
• May result in lawsuits to City by employees due to injuries.
• Commercial properties would be impacted more as they have larger problem.
• People working at home who object .could lead to cost increases for everyone.
• Blowers help to get rid of dust and have it carried away by gardeners.
Option 2: Ban on only fuel-powered leaf blowers .
. . f.ms:
• 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 •
.t&M: "
• 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 blow.er.
• Hazard on larger properties with extension cords; some homes don't have
~Iectrical outlets.
• G~nerators are noisy (used for electric) .
• Units used by gardeners are just as costly as fuel powered .
Option 3: Allow leaf blower use only in industrial parks or commercial areas.
f.m&:
.. Would allow for cost-effective cleaning of large areas.
• For commercial properties, they are economic necessity.
Cnns:
• Not fair to adjacent resjdential 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.
Option 4: Further restrict the hours of the day alid days of week leaf blowers may
be operated (e.g., 10 a~m. to 4 p.m., Monday thro~gh Friday).
Alternative: Prohibit Saturday-Sunday-Federal holidays for commercial use. Should·
. .
apply to the City of Palo Alto.
fms.:
• Better than complete ban.
~:
• Nurses, police officers sleep during the day -would help them.
• Unfair to people who work at home.
• Still hard to enforce.
• Increased costs due to decrease in working hours without any real benefit.
• Unfair to everyone at home -more people work at home ..
• Most .complaints come in early in the morning.
Option 5: . Allow leaf blowers that cannot be.operated.at higher than 65 decibels
at 50 feet and require permits issued by the City.
f.c.a.s:
• 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.
,C.QDS.:
• Not workable -people will ignore.
Option 6: Allow use of leaf blowers only by private citizens for use on their own
property.
. educational requirements; require certain number of hours of schooling and
mandate membership in professional association.
ems:
• Would raise competence level of gardeners .
.cons: . .
• 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 differen~ 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. re·viewed 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 se~ difference in air pollution between fuel/electric
-powered.
• When compared to trucks, planes, cars, leaf blowers not a real issue.
• Blowers help to keep city beautiful.
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
p.m. Monday through Friday;
Allow commercial useoffuel-powered leafblowers iIi industrial areas on Saturdays
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.;
Allow residents (and commercial gardeners) touse electric leaf blowers between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 1 0:00a.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 (BAG A) 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
rep'orted 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 BAG A and the
California Landscape Contractor's Association (CLCA), conducted a leaf blower
demonstration for the Council, completed additional research, met with representatives 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 resolution was adopted in May 1999. The
resolution directs the California State Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare and submit
CMR:352:99 . Page 2 of9
Staff proposes that the City provide assistance in the training and certification process by
providing overall coordination and oversight, p~nting the certificates, and helping to
Pllblicize 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 Palo 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 (Attachinent 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
standards are the only ones consistently recognized and used by federal, state, and local
governmental agencies. Almost all legislation regulating leafblowers 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 ofleafblowers 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 detennining noise
level ratings.
Staffs 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 leafblowers come equipped with factory-installed mufflers.
CMR:352:99 Page 5 of9
Days/Hours of Operation
At the February 1999 Policy and Services Committee meeting, there was considerable
discussion regarding staffs recommendations on the hours/days·ofweek during which leaf
blowers would be al10wed to be operated. Staff .)riginally 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 ofCLCA and BAGA, staffhas revised the recommendations as follows:
COnimercial 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, cOn1mercial 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
4:00p.m.·
HomeownerlResident 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 days be allow~d for only those residents who use electric leafblowers.
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
Course, 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 thl::: areas until 7:00 or 7:30
a.m., and the green machine would be used more frequently in areas like ~ytton Plaza.
However, staffdoes not believe that it is necessary to incOIporate 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 aJternative
presents significant problems, especially for cleaning· City parking facilities and
sidewalk areas in Downtown and California Avenue areas. Vehicles begin parking
in lots and garages as early as 6:00 a.m. AdditiomilIy, pedestrian traffic begins to
CMR:352:99 Page 6 of9
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. AsCSOs respond to complaints
or take proactive action, the infonnation 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 eso 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
Uniforms/Equipment
Total
$40,000
3,000
$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
Staffs recommendations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policy to evaluate
changes to the noise ordinance to reduce the impact ofleafblower noise (N61)
ENVIRONMENT AL 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 of9
ATTACHMENT A
LEAF BLOWER PRODUCT DEMONSTRATION
Echo PB400E
(No rating)
74175
77176
81/80
81
Stih13'JOL
(Rated 70 DBA)
73170
75174
Stihl Vacuum
(Rated 69DBA)
66/67
69170
Echo 46 LN (against fence)
67/68
72/73
Echo 46 LN (on cement)
70/69
74/75
Ambient 52
Marayama BL 4500 SP
(Rated 62 DBA)
66/68
68/69
72173
69/68
StihI Electric
(Rated 63 DBA)
62/64 T
64/65
Marayama (tube removed)
68/69
73172
Echo 46 LN (fence tube of 0
71173
72173
Echo 46 LN (cement no tube)
72/71
74/73
Echo 46LN
.(Rated 65 DBA)
69/68
71/69
72173
68170
Toro Electric
(No rating)
63/62
59/60
City Weed Wacker
77176
77178
Green Machine
69 idle
68170 motion
13) Prohibit the blowing of debris onto adjacent properties. :
14) Include all contractors directly hired by the City under the definition of City crews;
BACKGROUND
At the Policy and Services Committee meeting of September 14, 1999, staffrecoI11.1p.ended that the
Council direct staff to revise Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 governing leaf blower use. Staff
presented a list of regulations that would be included in the revised ordinance. Staff had inadvertently
excluded several regulations from that list. Additionally, Committee members requested the following:
that consideration be given by City crews of their use of leaf blowers between 4:00 a.m. and.8:00 a.m.
not only adjacent to hotels, but also to residential properties; that staff further study leaf blower use in
commercial areas adjacent to non-residential, private properties; and to inciude in the definition of City
crews any contractors directly employed by the City.
DISCUSSION
This report provides a list of regulations that have been revis~d according to the Committee direction
and updated information. regarding the California Resources Board report on leaf blowers.
Regulation #2 was revised to incorporate the suggestion by Council member Rosenbaum that accepted
leafblower model numbers be used in conjunction with manufacturers' labels for enforcement purposes
to help ensure that labels were not attached to noncompliant blowers.
Staff concurs with the Council direction to in~lude in the definition of City crews all contractors
employed directly by the City, and regulation #12 has been added to the list. This would clarify that
under the City'S contractors would also be prohibited from using fuel-powered leaf blowers on Spare
the Air Days.
Under the· current ·ordinance, City crews have been allowed to use leaf blowers between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Due to the number of noise complaints received, the schedule was changed two to three years
ago to 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. In February, staffproposed codifying the change in the revised ordinance
that would allow City crews to operate blowers between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., hours that would
represent an exception to the permitted hours by non-City crews. At that time, the Committee asked
staff to review the hours of use around hotels. Staff met with representatives of two downtown hotels
and agreed that Community Services and Public Works crews would coordinate their clean up efforts
around the hotels so that blowers normally would not be used until 7:00 or7:30 a.m. Stafftherefore
recommended to the Policy and Services Committee in September, that City crews be allowed to use
leaf blowers between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. with consideration being given to areas directly adjacent
to hotels. At that time, the Committee directed staff to include the same considerations immediately
adjacent to residential properties. While staff believes this consideration could usually be given to the
cleaning of City streets and facilities that are adjacent to residential areas, it would be important to
CMR:412:99 Page 2 of 4
maintain some flexibility to deal with the change of routine s~hedules associated with employee
illnesses, vacations, etc. Staff therefore does not recommend a complete prohibition against the use of
leafblowers in these areas during the early morning hours.
Policy and Services Committee members also directed staff to study leaf blower use in commercial
areas that were not adjacent to residential and private properties. The Committee's direction was
associated with regulation #6 that would allow commercial use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in
industrial areas on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. Staff has begun reviewing this concept
and believes that it would be possible to draft an ordinance that would be easily understood by
gardeners and Police staff. As an example, language could be drafted such that blowers would be
allowed within a certain distance from R-1 zones. However, there are some problematic issues
surrounding mixed-use areas of the City, which staffis still reviewing. Staffwill include more detailed
information and specific language at the time the draft ordinance is p~esented to the Council.
California Air Resources Report Update
Staff received a copy of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) draft report entitled "Potential
Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers." This report (see attached) was requested by the
California Legislature. A second public hearing was held in El Monte, California on September 28,
1999 for the purpose of discussing the draft report with the pUblic. Because the report is still a draft,
the CARB has asked that it not be cited or quoted. The final draft will be.presented to the CARB
around November 11 and will be voted on at its meeting of December 9. After that meeting, the report
will be presented to the legislature.
Pending Legislation Update
There are three bills pertaining to leaf blower regulations that were proposed during the first year of the
Legislature's term that were held in Committee. Staff has learned that at least one of the bills will be
pursued when the Legislature goes back into session.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Estimated costs for implementation of proactive enforcement are $43,000. If Council approves staffs
recommendations, a Budget Amendment Ordinance would be prepared and presented to the Council
at the time a draft ordinance was agendized for Council consideration.
POLICY IMPLI CATIONS
Staffs recommendations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy to evaluate changes to the
noise ordinance to reduce the impact ofleafblower noise (N61) and with Policy and Services direction.
CMR:412:99 Page 3 of 4
·, ... ". . .. ~
RECOMMENDATION
At City Council direction, staff has prepared draft ordinances amending Chapter 9.10 of the
~ ....................... '""" .... * .. P-'-aale-AJi€FMYR4~QQi4hat would .. prohihit.tbe...,use_ .. offnel;.powered Jeaf. blowers in .... _.
residential areas effective January 1, 2001, and an amendment to Chapter 9.48 that would
prohibit the blowing, sweeping, or placing of debris onto adjacent properties. Staff also
recommends that an amendment to Chapter 9.10 include more specific language regarding
public property noise limits. '.
BACKGROUND
In January 199.8, Council directed staff to identify and evaluate options for addreSSIng leaf
blower noises, to review environmental issues, to provide a survey of what other jurisdictions
have done regarding leaf blowers, and to return with a report. Attached is a staff report
(CMR:412:99) that provides detailed information about the work that has been done over the
last two.years. At the Council meeting of November 15, 1999, staff presented recommended
revisions to the Palo Alto Municipal Code regulating leafblowers. At that meeting, the Council
directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance banning the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in
residential areas to become effective in one year.
DISCUSSION
. Draft ordinance amendments that would ban the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential"
areas and would prohibit the blowing or placing of debris onto adjacent properties are attached.
Based upon Council discussion at the November 15, 1999 meeting, staffhas included some of
the other elements from the list of original recommendations. This report provides a description
of the elements of the amendments
Limitations on the Use of Leaf Blowers
The draft amendment to Chapter 9.10 would prohibit the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers by
any person in residential areas. Because the designation of residential areas must be clear and
precise for enforcement purposes, staff has used the designation found in Chapter 10.44
regulating stopping, standing and parking for purposes of this ordinance. Therefore, as
proposed, residential areas would include all properties located witpin RE, Rl, R2, RMD, RM-
15, RM-30, RM-40, and PC zones where the principal use is residential. Fuel-powered leaf
blowers could only be used in PC zones that are exclusively commercial. The use of these
CMR:120:00 Page 2 of8
Under the current ordinance, public property noise limits cannot exceed 15 dBA above the local
___ ambienLwllen_measurecLat.25_feet. __ As~written,:.itjs_ambiguolls_w.here_the-IDeasurements-Illay ___ "_,,,
be taken. Staff believes the Hmg1!age included in the amendment 'clarifies that measur'ements
must be taken 25 feet from the property plane.
Potential Health and Environmental Issues'
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) report (attached) on the potential health and,
environmental impacts ofleafblowets has been fmalized. The report is agendized for the CARB
meeting of January 27, 2000. After approval by CARB, it will be forwarded to the State
Secretary of Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor for approval. CARB staff
anticipate the legislature will formally review it in March. The report ~oncludes, that based
upon the lack of available data, recommendations for alternatives to the use of leaf blowers
w9uld be premature. Further, the report ~hows that exhaust standards have already been met
. by leaf blower manufacturers and that many have reduced these emissions further than what is
required by law. Because the CARB did not have legislative direction regarding noise levels
ofle~fblowers, the report explains that quieter leafblowers would reduce worker,exposure and
any negative impacts on the general public. ·\\·,. ..... nile the report concludes that banning or
restricting the use of leaf blowers would reduce fugitive dust emissions, there is no data on the
amount of similar emissions cre~ted by brooms, vacuums, and rakes. The report suggests that
those people who are opposed to leaf blowers should propose methods for leaf blower use that
would reduce dust emissions and noise levels and develop codes of conduct to be followed by
operators of blowers.
It should be noted that the Cities of Davis and Sunnyvale recently concluded processes similar
to Palo Alto's regarding the regulations ofleafblowers in their cities. In Davis, the City Council
decided not to amend the current ordinance that allows the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers,
but added a public awareness and education program, a buy-backltrade-in program, and
established a certification/license component for leaf blower usage.,
The City of Sunnyvale amended its ordinance in June 1999 to inelude a provision that became
effective January 1, 2000. Its amendment stipulates that leaf blowers used in residential areas
shall not exceed a' noise level of 65 dBA when measured at 50 feet as determined by a test
conducted by the American National Standards Institute or an equivalent.
CMR:120:00 Page 5 of8
:,' ..
Pending Legislation
---There-are-onl;)Ltbree_bills_currentLy_p.endinginBacramento_thaLar_e~as.s_o_ciated with leaf blower
regulations and all have been held in Committee. The subject oflast year's Assembly Bill 1544
has been changed from leaf blower regulation to redevelopment.
Technology Update
On January 24,2000, the Bay Area Gardeners Association and ECHO Incorporated held a press
conference in Palo Alto. The purpose of the press conference was to unveil two new leaf
blowers .. Echo has spent $1.5 million in development for the prototype of a battery-operated
bl9wer. Because it is battery operated, all exhaust emissions are eliminated. The battery utiit
could be used for other tools such as weed whackers and edge trimmers. Echo has just
completed the second-generation prototype, but will not make a decision regarding actual
production until after feedback is received from' cities throughout California. The unit uses a
compressor so the hi·gh pitch. noise frequently heard in ·fuel-powered blowers is non-existent.
While a specific ANSI ratjng has not been determined, representatives of Echo believe it will
be rated at about 56 dBA. .
. .
Echo also provided a demonstration on a new fuel-powered leaf blower, the PB261L that was
recently released f<?r sale. While the ANSI rating is 65 dBA, it has also been tested at 63 dBA
using ANSI protocol. Due to changes to the. motor, the high pitch noise has been reduced
significantly, especially when used at low throttle. This unit meets the new Environmental
Protection Agency's Tier II standards that became effective on January 1.
Staff conducted s·ound meter tests on both of the units. Because of the wet weather and other
factors, the results should be taken only for comparison purposes because the ANSI protocol
was not close to being duplicated. At 50 feet, the battery-powered unit tested between 63 and
69 dBA and the PB261L unit was tested between 64 and 72 dBA. Staff also tested the Echo's
46LN, the blower is the one the majority of gardeners use. The results.for the 46LN ranged
from 70 to 73 dBA.
Training Video
As mentioned in CMR:352:99, the Coalition for Fair Legislation composed of leaf blower
manufacturers and distribu~ors, BAGA, California Landscape Contractor's Association, Latino
Gardeners Association of Los Angeles, and the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers
Association have begun work on the production· of a training video on leaf blower usage. This
CMR:120:00 Page 6 of8
therefore does .not require environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION ~ 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
. Senior Asst. City Attorney
Police Chief
2
000114 syn 0043972
. follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
f..MENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF TITLE 9 (PEACE, MORALE),
AND SAFETY) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATING NOISE FROM LEAF BLOWERS
The ~ouncil of. the City of Palo Alt·o does ORDAIN as
SECTION 1. The Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) Leaf blowers' are commonly. used for commercial as
well as residential landscape mairitenance to the extent .that they
are viewed as being economically essential to professional
contractors, but they present a unique nuisa~ce because of the
character and volume of their noise and'pollution emiss-ions and
. the dust ·and debris they projebt.
(b) Existing restrictions on leaf blower noise emission
in Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Al to Municipal Code constrained all
gasoline powered leaf blowers to seventy-five dBA and allowed
their use only between nine a. m. and five p. m. Monday' through
Saturday and from ten a.m. through four p.m. on Sundays and
holidays. Electric powered leafblowers are constrained as
"residential power equipment" to ninety-five dBA and allowed from
eight a.m. to eight p.m. Monday through Friday, from nine a.m. to
six p.m. on Saturday, and from ten a.m. to six p.~. on Sundays
and holidays.
(c) Increasing citizen complaints about the noise, dust,
and debris emitted from leaf blowers have led to extensive staff
investigations of the need and feasibility for further
restrlcting leaf blowers~ These investigations have confi~med
that manufacturers are facing increasingly restrictive state air
pollution regulation. Additionally, manufacturers and landscape
maintenance professionals are recognizing the widespread
resistance many communities now present to the use of leaf
blowers because of their noise and air pollution emissions, and
in response manufacturers are developing technologies which
better muffle their noise and reduce their pollution emissions.'
Noise emission reduction to a maximum of sixty-five dBA at a
distance of fifty feet, measured using standards adopted by the
American National Standards Institute" is currently available in
new machines, and further reductions are likely in the next few
years. These advances are reflected in staff recommendations to
limit all types of lea! blowers t6 sixty-five dBA at fifty feet
using' ANSI standards. Electric leaf blowers were recommended to
be constrained in both residential and non-residential zones·to
the hours of eight a.m. to six p.m. Monday 'through Friday and ten
1
000114 syn 0043971
a.m. to four p.m. on Saturday, with no allowance for electric
leaf blowers on Sundays or holidays. However, in recognition of
the greater noise emissions typical of internal combustion
powered leaf blowers, staff recQmmended that these be further
constrained to operation in residential as well as . non-
residential zones between eight a.m. and five p.m. Monday through
Friday but that .on Saturdays they be permitted in non-residential
zones only between .. t'he hours of ten a.m. and four p.m.; their
operation on Sundays and holidays was banned entirely.
(d) Following extensive public .hearings before the
Council, and .. in recognition of the. greater noise emissions
typical of internal combustion powered leaf blowers, this Council
has· determined that those types of leaf blowers should be
prohibited from operation in residential zones entirely. In non-
residential zones·, leaf blowers powered by internal combustion
engines should be permitted to operate between eight a.m. and six
p.m. Monday through Friday and between ten a.m.· and four p.m. on
Saturday, but not on Sunday or holidays.
(e) The Council adopts the staff recommendations for
electric powered leaf blowers allowing their operation only if
they have a manufacturer's label affixed confirming a maximum
noise emission of sixty-five dBA and limiting· electric leaf
blowers. in both residential and non-residential zones to the
hours of eight a.m. to six p.m. Monday through Friday and ten
a.m. to four p.m. on Saturday, with no operation by electric leaf
blowers on Sundays and holidays.
(f) Council also adopts staff recommendations that leaf
blowers be required to use all manufacturer-supplied mufflers and
extension tubes and that all commercial landscape maintenance be
subj ect to .training and certification aimed at assuring this
equipment is used with the least possible noise and dust impacts.
(g) In recognition of the intensive public use of
business district streets and parking lots and in public parks
during. daylight hours as well as in the evenings, the Council·
determines that city crews and contractors should.be permitted to
use leaf blowers between four a.m. and eight a.m.
(h) The Council determines that these additional
restrictions best balance the competing needs for using leaf
blowers with the objections to their noise and dust. However, in
order to provide a transition period for implementing these new
restrictions; the Council has decided to make the restrictions
effective on January 1, 2001.
2
000114 syn 0043971
with a precision sound level meter, using slow response
and "A" weighting. The minimum, sound level shall be
determined with the noise source at issue silent, and
in the same location as the measurement of the noise
level of the source or sources at issue. However, f6r
purposes of this chapter, in no case shall the local
ambient be considered or determined to be less than:,
(1) Thirty dBA ,'for interior . noise in Section
9.10.030(b)f (2) Forty dBA in all other sections. If a
significant portion of the local ambient is produced by
one or more individual identifiable sources which would
otherwise be operating continuously during the six-
minute measurement period and contributing
significantly to the ambient sound level, determination
of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these
separate identifiable noise sources silent.
(e) "Vehicle" means any device by which any
person or prop~rty may be propelled, moved, or drawn
upon a highway or street.
(f) "Property plane" meahs a
including the property line which
property boundaries in space.
vertical plane
determines the
(g) ,"Emergencies" . mean essential activities
necessary to restore, preserve, protect or save lives
or property from imminent danger of loss or harm.
(h) "Combustion engine Leaf blower" means a,ny
portable machine pOT,/ered '.lith a gasoline engine used to
blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks,
driveways, lawns or other surfaces.
(i) "Residential power equipment'" means' any
mechanically powered saw" sander, drill, grinderT
electric leaf blmv'er, generator, lawnmower, hedge
trirniner, edger, or' any other similar tool or device
(other than leaf blowers) .
(j) "Residential zone" means all lands located
wi thin the following zoning districts: RE, Rl, R2,
RMD, RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40; "residential 'zone" also
means any lands located wi thin Planned Community (PC)
zoning districts actually used for authori zed
residential purposes. Any zoning district other than
those defined as residential zones are classified as
non-residential zones for purposes of this chapter.
4
000114 syn 0043971
(k) "Holiday" means and includes New Year's
Day (January 1), Martin Luther King Day (the third
Monday in January), Washington's Birthday (the third
Monday in February), Memorial Day (the last Monday in
May), Independence Day (July 4), Labor Day (the first
Monday in September), Columbus Day (the second Monday
in October), Veteran's Day (November 11), Thanksgiving
--~-.-:-.---------B-ay:-·-(--t-h-e-. four-t-h--~T-hu-rs-da-v--±-n-Novernb-e-r-h---a-n-d--e-h-r-i-s--e-m-a-s------:-----------
Day (December 25) .
9.10.030 Residential property noise limits.
(a) No pers·on shall· produce, suffer or allow to
be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any
combination of same,· on· residential property, a noise
level more than ·six dB above the .local ambient at any
point outside of·the property plane. .
(b) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to
be produced by any machine,' animal, or device, or any
combination . of same, on multi-family residential
property, a noise level more than' six dB above the
local ambient three feet from any wall, floor, or
ceiling inside any dwelling unit on the same property,
when the windows and doors'· of the dwelling unit are
closed, except wi thin . the dwelling unit in which the
noise source or sources may be located.
9.10.040 Commercial and industrial property noise
limits ..
No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be
produced by any machine or device, or any combination
of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise
level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any
point outside of the property plane.
9.10.050 Public property noise limits.
(a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to
be produced by any machine or device, or any
combination of same, on public property, a noise level
more. than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a
distance of twenty-five feet or mor~ from the property
plane, unless otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)
exceeding
feet are
therefor
000114 syn 0043971
Sound performances and special events not
eighty dBA measured at a distance of fifty
exempt from this ch~pter when approval
has been obtained from the appropriate
5
governmental entity, except as provided in Section
22.04.180 of this code.
(c) Vehicl~ horns or other devices primarily
intended to create a loud noise for warning 'purposes,
shall not b~ used when the vehicle is at rest, or when
a situation endangering life, health or property is riot .
-.. ---.-----·-:i:mm±nen-t--;-. --. -._--.... -.-.-. -------....:....--------.~----.----
J
9.10.060 Special provisions.
The special exceptions. listed in this section
shall apply, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections
9.16.030 through 9.10.050. Said exceptions shall apply
only to the extent and during. the hours specified in
each of the following enumerated exceptions.
(a) General Daytime Exception. Any noise source
which does not produce a noise level exceeding seventy
dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet under its· most
noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the
provlslons of Sections 9.10.030(a),· 9.10.040 and
9.10.050(a) between the hours of eight a.m. and eight
p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on
Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the
exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six
p.m.
(b) Construction. Except for construction on
residential property as described in subsection (c) of
~his secti6n, construction, alteration and repair
activities, which are authorized by valid city permit
shall be allowed between the hours of eighta.m~ and
eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and.eight
p.m. on Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m. on Sundays
and holidays, if they meet at' least one of' the
following standards:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall
produce a noise level exceeding one hundred ten dBA at
a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device. is housed
wi thin a structure on· the property, the measurement
shall be made outside the structure at a distance as
close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as
possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane of the project shall not exceed one
hundred ten dBA. Posting notice of construction hours
is required. The holder of a valid construction permit
6
000114 syn 0043971
a distance of twenty~five feet. If the device is houSed
within a structure on the property, the measurement
shall be made outside the structure at a distance as
close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as
possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside qf
---+-Lhe-prop-e-rty.pi-an-e-:-:o-f-t-he--p-roj-ect-s-ha-rI--not-e-xce-e-d-o-n-e-----
hpndred ten dBA. .
(d) Other Equipment. Equipment used by city
employees, city contractors, or public utility
companies or. their co.ntractors, not covered by
subsections (b) and (c) of this section, shall be
allowed during the same hours as the exception set
forth in s~bsection(b) of this section, providing no
piece of equipment shall produce a noise level which
exceeds one hundred ten dBA, measured at a· distance of
twenty-five feet from the equipment.
(e) Residential Power Equipment. Residential
power equipment shall be allowed during the hours of
eight a. m. and eight p. m. Monday through· Friday, nine
a.m. and six p.m. Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m.
on Sundays and holidays, providing it does not produce
a noise level that exceeds ninety-five dBA measured at
twenty-five feet from the equipment.
(f) Gas Powered Leaf Blowers. Until July 1, 1989,
gas po',,'ered leaf blO'llCrs Hhich do not produee a noise
level in mwess of eighty blO dBA 'iJhen measured from a
distance of b;enty five feet shall be allo',Jed during
the follO'ldng hours: nine a.m. and five p.m. Honday
through Saturday and ten a.m. and four p.m. Sundays and
holidays. On July 1,· 1989, and thereafter, only gas
pO'llCred leaf blO'llCrs ',fhich produce a noise level of
seventy fi'le dBA or less, shall be allO\lCd during the
permitted hours, specified in the preceding sentence.
No person ·shall operate any leaf blower which.does not
bear an affixed manufacturer's label . indicating the
model number of the leaf blower and designating· a noise
level not in excess of sixty-five dBA when measured
from a distance of fifty feet ·utilizing American
National. Standard Institute methodology. Any leaf
blower which bears such a manufacturer's label shall be
presumed to comply with any noise level limit of this
chapter pr·ovided that it is operated with all mufflers
and full extension tubes supplied by the manufacturer
for that leaf blower. No person shall operate any leaf
blower without attachment of all mufflers and full
8
000114 syn 0043971
( . ) J.
chapter.
Emergencies. Emergencies are exempt from this
(k) Public Parking Lot Cleaning. Cleaning
equipment (other than leaf blowers), when used in
public parking lots, shall be allowed during the hours
of ten p~m. and seven a.m., Monday through Friday,
providingrl.o .such piece of· equipment. shall produce a
noise level that exceeds eighty-two dBA measured at a
distance of twenty-five feet until July 1 ~ 1989, and
seventy~fi~edBA measured at a distance of twenty-five
feet thereafter.
(I) Business District Street Cle·aning. Cleaning
. equipment (other than leaf blowers), when used in public
streets in business, districts shall be allowed during
the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., Monday through
Friday, providing no such piece· of equipment shall
produce a noise level that· exceeds eighty-two dBA
measured at a distanc~ of twenty-five feet until July
1, 1989', and seventy-five dBA measured at a distance of
twenty-five feet thereafter.
9.10.070 Exception permits.
If the applicant can show to the city manager or
his designee that a diligent investigation of available
noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate
compliance with· the requirements of this chapter would
be impractical or unreasonable, a permit to allow
exception from the provisions contained in all or a
. portion of this chapt~rmay be issued, withappropriat~
conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by
such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short
duration as possible up to six months, but renewable
upon a showing of good cause, and shall be conditioned
by a schedule· for ,compliance and details of methods
therefor in appropriate cases. ,Any person aggrieved
with the' decision of the city manager or his designee
. may appeal to the city council pursuant to Section
16.40.080 of this code.
9.10.080 Violations.
Any person who violates Section 9.10.060 (e) or
9.10.060(f) shall be guilty of an infraction. Any
person who violates any of the other pr?v~sions of this
chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
10
000114 syn 0043971
Electric Leaf Blowers: Use of approved electric leaf blowers will be allowed anywhere in the
city Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Effective January 1,2001, approved electric leaf blowers will be those which have a
manufacturer's label indicating the model number certifying that the noise level does not exceed
65 dBA when measured at 50 feet using the current American National Standard Institute
methodology.
Other Requirements -All leafbl~wer operators, including residents, will be required to use
mufflers and full extension tubes supplied by the manufacturers of leaf blowers.
Commercial users of any type ofleafblower will be required to obtain and display a certificate
that verifies· that he/she has been trained to operate the blower according to standards approved
by the City.
Effective Dates -Per Council direction, the effective date for the prohibition of fuel-powered
leaf blowers in residential areas will be July 1, 2001. In order to provide regulations applicable
to electric leaf blowers until that time, Section 9.1 0.060(f)(3) has been added that will allow the
use of electric blowers which produce noise levels not exceeding 75 dBA when measured at 25
feet between the hours of9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mond~y through Saturday and 10:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays. Beginning on January 1,2001, both e1ectricand fuel-
powered blowers will be subject to the 65 dBA noise limit and the other restrictions including
hours of operation and use of mufflers and extension tubes. The regulations pertaining to the
use of combustible engine blowers will remain unchanged until July 1, 2001.
The effective dates for the amendment to Chapter 9.48 prohibiting the blowing of debris onto
adjacent properties and Section 9.1 0.050 regulating public property noise limits will be 31 days
after the second reading.
Use of Blowers by City Crews -Included in the changes made by the Council, City crews would
be prohibited from using fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas as defined by the
ordinance. Current ordinance language would allow City crews to use fuel-powered leaf
blowers in City parks as they are zoned Public Facility (PF). Additionally, the cleaning of
public streets, sidewalks, parking lots in business districts, the Municipal Golf Course and City
parks may be cleaned between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Enforcement -It is important to emphasize that after the ordinance becomes effective, leaf
blower regulations will not be enforced using noise meters to determine noise levels of blowers.
CMR:202:00 Page 2 of 4
Instead, enforcement will be based upon the manufacturers' labels and model numbers~ location
of use of combustible engine blowers; and time and day of use.
Staff has learned that the Board of Directors of the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers
Association (PPEMA) recently approved a resolution that called on all manufacturers of leaf
blowers to commit to sound level labeling for their blowers. PPEMA will facilitate the effort
through the development of a blower-labeling program. Companies that participate in the
program must certify that blowers carrying the PPEMA label conform to the latest ANSI
standards. The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEl) also recently approved a third party
certification program. Under the program, leaf blowers will be inspected by the U.S. Testing
Company for conformance to the current ANSI standard.
Progress Reports to Council -Staffwill provide the first statUs report in October 2000. At that
time, specific manufacturers and models of blowers that meet the 65 dBA standard will be
provided. The report will also provide information about the progress, if any, of manufacturers'
efforts regarding the production of battery-operated leaf blowers.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Cost estimates fora temporary Community Service Officer (CSO) that would allow for seven-
day a week proactive enforcement remain at about $43,000.
Staff will include revised cost estimates needed for City crews and contracts for areas in
residential areas in the October status report.
A placeholder of $250,000 has been placed in the proposed FY 2000-2001 budget pending
further Council· direction.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The attached ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's policy to evaluate changes
to the noise ordinance to reduce the impact of leaf blower noise (N16).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CMR:202:00 Page 3 of 4
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
as it further restricts the use ofleafblowers for environmental protection purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
PREPARED BY: Lynne Johnson, Assistant Police Chief
DEPARTMENT HEAD: .. -?a~c{c~r IJr=
. Patrick Dwyer, Chief 0 ollce
. ----rr' LI ~
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: '-~J.l)'4.A~
. . . Emily mson, Assistant City Manager
CMR:202:00 Page 4 of 4
be constrained in both residential and non-residential zones'to
the hours of eight a.m. to six p.m. Monday through Friday and ten
a.m. to four p.m. on Saturday, with :no allowance for electric
leaf blowers 6n Sundays or holidays. However, in recognition of
the greater noise emissions typical of internal combustion
powered leaf blowers, staff recommended that these be further
constrained to operation in residential as well as non-
residential zones between eight a.m. and five p.m. Monday through
Friday but that on Saturdays they be permitted in non-residential
zones only between the hours of ten a.m. and four p.m.; their
operation on Sundays and holidays was banned entirely.
(d) Following extensive public hearings before the
Council, and in recognition of the greater noise emissions
typical of'internal combustion powered leaf blowers, this Council
has determined that those types of leaf blowers should be
prohibited from operation iri residential zones entirely. In non-
residential zones, leaf blowers powered by internal combustion
engines should be permitted to operate between eight a.m. and six
p.m. Monday through Friday and between ten a.m. and four p.m. on
Saturday, but not ori Sunday or holidays.
(e) The Council adopts the staff recommendations for
electric powered leaf blowers allowing their operation only if
they have a manufacturer's label affixed confi'rming a maximum
noise emission of sixty-five dBA and limiting electric leaf
blowers in both residential and non-residential zones to the
hours of eight nine a.m. to ~ five p.m. Monday through Friday
and ten a.m. tOfour p.m. on Saturday, with no operation by
electric leaf blowers on Sundays and holidays.
(f) Council also adopts staff recommendations that leaf
blowers be required to use ,all manufacturer-supplied mufflers and
extension tubes and that all commercial 'landscape maintenance be
subject to training and certification aimed at. assuring this
equipment is used with the least possible noise a~d dust impacts.
(g) In recognition of the intensive public use of
business district streets and parking lots and in public parks
during daylight hours as well as in the evenings, the Council
determines that city crews and contractors should be permitted to
use leaf blowers between ~our a.m. and eight a.m.
(h) The Council determines that these additional
restrictions 'best balance the competing needs for using leaf
blowers with the objections to their noise and dust. However, in
order to provide a transition period for implementing, these new
restrictions, the Council has decided to make the restrictions
effective on January 1, 2001. In order to provide a ·further
transi tional period for the additional prohibition against the
use of leaf blowers powered by internal combustion engines within
2
nnn?17."n 00<1"1071
meter should be arranged to the setting appropri~te to
the type of noise being measured.
(d) "Local ambient" means the lowest sound level
repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured
with a precision sound level meter, using slow response
and "A" weighting.' The minimum sound level shall be
determined with the noise source at issue silent, and
in the same location as the measurement of the noise
level of the source or, sources at issue. However, for
purposes of this chapter, in no case shall the local
ambient be considered or determined to be less than:
(1) Thirty dBA for interior noise ln Section
9.10.030 (b); (2) Forty dBA in all other sections. If a
significant portion of the local ambient is produced by
one or more individual identifiable sources which would
otherwise be operating continuously during the six-
minute measurement period and contributing
significantly to the ambient sound level, determination
of the local ambient shall be accomplished with these
separate identifiable noise sources silent.
(e) "Vehicle" means any device by which any
person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn
upon a highway or street.
(f) "Property plane" means a
including the property line which
property boundaries in space.
vertical plane
determines the
(g) "Emergencies" mean essential activities
necessary to restore~ preserve, ptotect or save lives
or property from imminent danger of loss or harm.
(h) "Combustion engine Leaf blower" means any
portable machine pm,'ered ',,'ith a gasoline engine used to
blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks,
driveways, 'lawns or other surfaces.
(i) "Residential power equipment" means any
mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder,
electric leaf blm,'er, generator, lawnmower, hedge
trimmer, edger, or any other similar tool or device
(other than leaf blowers) .
(j) "Residential zone" means all lands located
wi thin the following zoning districts: RE, R1, R2,
RMD, RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40; "residential zone" also
means any lands located within Planned Community (PC)
zoning districts actually used for authorized
residential purposes. Any zoning district other than
those defined as residential zones arc classified as
non-residential zones for purposes of this chapter.
4
000217 svn 0043971
governmental entity, except as provided in Section
22.04.180 of this code.
(c) Vehicle horns or other devices primarily
intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes,
shall not be used when the vehicle is at rest, or when
a situation endangering life, health or property is not
imminent.
9.10.060 Special provisions.
The special exceptions listed in this section
shall apply, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections
9.10.030 through 9.10.050. Said exceptions shall apply
only to the extent and during the hours specified in
each of the following enumerated exceptions.
(a) General Daytime Exception .. Any noise source
which does not produce a noise level exceeding seventy
dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet under its most
noisy condition of use· shall be exempt from the
provisions of Sections 9.10.030(a), 9.10.040 and
9.10.050(a) between the hours of eight a.m. and eight
p.m~ Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight p.m. on
Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the
exemption herein shall apply between ten a.m. and six
p.m.
(b) Construction. Except for construction on
residential property as described in subsection (c) of
this section, construction, alteration and repair
activities, which are authorized by valid city permit
shall be allowed between the hours of eight a .m. and
eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine a.m. and eight
p.m. on Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m. on Sundays
and holidays, if they meet at .least one of the
following standards:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall
produce a noise level exceeding one h~ndred ten dBAat
a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed·
wi thin a structure on the property, the measurement
shall be made outside the structure at a distance as
close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as
possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane of the project shall not exceed one
hundred ten dBA. Posting notice of construction hours
is required. The holder of a valid construction permit
for a construction project within this city, which
project is located within five hundred feet of any
residential zone, shall post a sign at all entrances to
6
nnf\.".., ... .,n nnA':J0'71
(2) The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane of the project shall not exceed one
hundred ten dBA.
(d) Other Equipment. Equipment used by city
employees, ci ty contractors, or public utili ty
companies or their contractors, not covered by
subsections (b) and (c) of this section, shall be
allowed during the same hours as the exception set
forth in subsection (b) of this section, providing no
piece of equipment shall produce a. noise level which
exceeds one hundred ten dBA, measured at a distance of
twenty-five feet from the equipment.
(e) Residential Power Equipment. Residential
'power equipment shall be allowed during the hours of
eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday through Friday, nine
a.m. and six p.m. Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m.
on Sundays and holidays, providing it does not produce
a noise level that exceeds ninety-fiv~ dBA measured at
twenty-five feet from the equipment.
(f) Gao Powered Leaf Blowers.
(1) Until July 1, 1989, gas-powered leaf
blowers which do not produce a noise level in excess of
eighty-two dBA when measured from a distance of twenty-
five feet shall be allowed during the following hours:
nine a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Saturday and ten
a.m. and four p.m. Sundays and holidays.
~ On July 1, '1989, and thereafter, only
gas-powered leaf blowers which produce a noise level of
seventy-five dBA or less, shall be allowed during the
permitted-hours, specified in the preceding sentence.
(3) Between July 1, 2000 and January 1,
2001, no person shall operate an electric powered leaf
blower which produces a noise level in excess of
seventy-five dBA when measured from a distance of
twenty-five feet, and no person shall operate an
electric powered leaf blower except during the
following hours: nine a.m. and five p.m. Monday
through Saturday and ten a.m. and four p.m. Sundays and
holidays.
(4) No person shall operate any leaf blower
which does not bear an affixed manufacturer's label
indicating the model number of the leaf blower and
designating a noise level not in excess of sixty-five
dBA when measured from a distance of fifty feet
utilizing American National Standard Institute
8
000217 ~vn 004~Q71
a noise level in excess of ninety-five dBA measured at
a distance of twenty-five feet from the activity.
(i) Safety Devices. Aural warning devices which
are required by law to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the community shall not produce a noise
level more th.an three dBA above the standard or minimum
level stipulated by law.
(j) Emergencies. Emergencies are exempt from this
chapter.
(k) Public Parking Lot Cleaning. Cleaning
equipment (other than leaf blowers), when' used in
public parking lots, shall be allowed ~uring the hours
of ten p.m. and seven a.m., Monday through Friday,
providing no such piece of equipment shall produce a'
noise level that exceeds eighty-two dBA measured at a
distance of twenty-five feet until July 1, 1989, and
seventy-five dBA measured at a distance of twenty-five
feet thereafter.
(I) Business District Street Cleaning .. Cleaning
equipment(other than leaf blowers), when used in p~blic
streets in business districts shall be allowed during
the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., Monday t.hrough
Friday, providing no such piece of equipment shall
produce a noise level that exceeds eighty-two dBA
measured at a distance of twenty-five feet until July
1, 1989, and seventy-five dBA measured at a distance of
twenty-five· feet thereafter.
9.10.070 Exception per.mits.
If the applicant can show to the city manager or
his designee that a diligent investigation of available
noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate
compliance with the requirements of this chapter would
be impractical or unreasonable, a permit to allow
exception from the provisions contained in all or a
portion of this chapter may be issued, with appropriate
conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by
such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short
duration as possible up to six months, but renewable
upon a showing of good cause, and shall be conditioned
by a schedule for compliance and details of methods
therefor in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved
with the decision of the city manager or his designee
may appeal to the city council pursuant to Section
16.40.080 of this code.
10
00n?17ovn 004"1Q71
..... ,
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ---ORe:NANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMLWING SECTION .9.48.040 OF CHAPTER 9.48 OF
TITLE 9 (PEACE, MORALS, AND SAFETY) OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING DISPOSAL OF
RUBBISH, DIRT, LEAVES OR DEBRIS ON STREETS AND
OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
SECTION 1. The Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The existing provisions of Section 9.48.040 of
Chapter 9.48 (Obstructing Streets and Side~alks) of Title 9
(Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the' Palo Alto Municipal
Code prohibit the deposit of rubbish, dirt, debris or discarded
materials on city streets and sidewalks.
(b) In consideration of additional restrictions on the
use of le'af blowers, the Council intends to clarify that Section
9.48.040 prohibits, among other things, using leaf blowers to
blow dirt, leaves, and debris both onto city streets ~nd
sidewalks and onto other public and private properties where that
is unauthorized.
SECTION 2. Section 9.48.040 of Chapter '9.48
(Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks) of Title 9 (Public Peace,
Morals, and Safety) of the. Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.48.040 Throwing rubbish on streetsDiscarding
rubbish, dirt, leaves, debris or discarded material on
streets or other public or private properties.
, .
No person shall put, place, sweep, throw, brush,L
blow or in any other manner deposit any rubbish, dirt:-
leaves, debris or discarded material of any kind or
character upon any sidewalk, street, alley, gutter or
other place. in the city, nor shall any person throw,
sweep, blow or brush any sidoialk rubbish, paper
sweepings, leaves or dirt from any residence or other
building or grounds onto any sidewalk, street or alley
or onto any other public or private property without
authorization.
SECTION ~ 3. This ordinance
project --::----,------having potential effects upon
1
000114 syn 0043972
does
the
not constitute a
environment and
therefore does not require environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION ~ 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Police Chief
2
000114 syn 0043972
'-
trained and certified. Due to the large numbers, the training/certification process took
significantly longer than originally anticipated. A part-time Community Service Officer (CSO)
position was approved in the FY 2000-01 budget to assist with the proactive enforcement. This
position was filled in March 2001, and Council approval was obtained for enforcement
authority for CSOs under the City's administrative penalty process. Due to other changes in the
noise ordinance regarding construction noise, training for CSOs and officers was delayed until
December 2001. As a result, full proactive enforcement efforts actually began in the first part
ofthis calendar year. Enforcement efforts have focused on use of approved blowers (checks of
manufacturers' labels and model numbers), . gardener certification, and time and day of use. .
The number of calls-for-service related to leaf blowers is decreasing. For the time period-
between January through April ofthis year, there were 37 calls-for-service compared to 48 for
the same time in 2001. Using this number to forecast for the entire year, calls-for-service would
total 89. This would compare to 131 for the entire year of2001. This year, no warnings have
been given, but seven citations were issued compared to five warnings last year and only one
citation last year.
For the next few months, -a police reserve officer will be used to enhance the proactive
.enforcement of the ordinance.
DISCUSSION
In previous status reports, staff discussed a $1.5 million grant awarded to the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for the development of an alternative battery-
powered blower. The original design of the new electric blower was 99 percent complete as of
November 2000, and distribution of 1,500 pre-production test units was to occur by late fall or
winter of 200 1. Unfortunately, the LADWP project was delayed for at least a year, due to the
selected manufacturer's inability to produce the unit as designed. A representative ofLADWP
indicated the agency is preparing to award a contract with a manufacturer. If all goes well, it
expects to see first generation production by February 2003. It has apparently solved the weight
issue associated with the battery. However, due to the type ofbattery being considered, the cost
for the blower and one battery is expected to be about $800. It is initially planning on providing
these blowers to Los Angeles City crews and contractors. It is possible it may offer other
governmental agen~ies the ability to purchase the blowers several years after that. While it
currently has no plans to provide them to commercial gardeners, that possibility is being
-discussed with prospective manufacturers.
CMR:265:02 Page 3 of 7
A year ago, only three manufacturers produced a total of six gas-powered leafblowers that met
the 65 dBA level. This year, there are four manufacturers that produce seven gas-powered
blowers that are rated 65 dBA or less.
Impact of Leaf Blower Prohibition
The ·next phase of the ordinance, the complete prohibition of gas-powered leaf blowers in
residential areas, is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2002. Staff is recommending that
Council postpone this provision .of the ordinance until July 1, 2005. The reasons for this
recommendation ar~ two-fold. The ban of gas-powered leafblowers in residential areas would
result in a substantial financial impact on the City's Community Services and Public Works
Departments. Crews in both of these departments currently use City~approved gas-powered leaf
blowers for a great deal of their work. In order to maintain the same level of cleanliness in the
City, staff estimates that the ban on these blowers and the resultant switch to perfonning this
work manually would increase costs by over $2 million. In light of the current economy and the
City's budget situation, staff is recommending the postponement of the leaf blower ban in order
to avoid the substantial expense that the City would incur.
Secondly, because the technology which would enable the switch from gas-powered to electric
or battery-powered leaf blowers is not yet available, a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers in
residential areas would create a tremendous hardship on the part of commercial gardeners. In
recent discussions with representatives from BAGA and CLCA, staff determined that many
gardeners already have felt the effects of the economy as a number of their clients have
. discontinued their service. As a result of the current ordinance, almost all gardeners working in
Palo Alto have already purchased the quieter, City-approved blowers. A prohibition of gas-
powered blowers in residential areas would require gardeners to either raise their rates or reduce
the number of clients in order to get the work done. Either alternative would pose significant
financial problems for the gardeners.
While staff considered several alternative effective dates, the three-year postponement is
recommended due to the following:
While hopefully both the City and the country's economic situation will turnaround in
the next year or so, there are still many uncertainties especially due to the State's budget
issues. Assuming the City's financial situation improves for 2004, due to the number of
cost savings strategies that the City has implemented, there will be a number of things
that the City has deferred that would need to be addressed prior to costs associated with
the prohibition of gas-powered leaf blowers. Some examples include the City's
deferment of the costs associated with the replacement of vehicles and computers for
CMR:265:02 Page 4 of 7
. ;
another year and the freezing of 13 positions. Staffbelieves that the priority to address
. expenditures for those deferments would be higher than those associated with the
prohibition of gas-powered leafblowers. Additionally, the Council has~een discussing
a number of new programs and projects such as additional library staffing atld other
capital projects that will require funding. Staff believes that in three years, the Council
will have more definitive information to use for prioritizing those programs and projects.
The postponement until 2004 should allow ample time to address these concerns and
issues.
The information coming from LADWP about the development of a quieter, battery-
powered leaf blower is encouraging. However, it will be at least another three years
before other cities may be able to purchase them anq. another four years before
commercial gardeners may be able to obtain them.
California Air Resources Board Report
In 1999, the California legislature requested that the California Air Resources Board prepare a
report on the' potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers to include
recommendations for alternatives if alternatives were deemed necessaf'j. A draft report was
prepared and discussed at several public meetings. In February 2000, the final report was
published. The report made no recommendations for alternatives and stated that, based upon
the lack of available data, conclusions regarding the impacts ofleafblowers are premature. The
report indicated that exhaust standards already in place have reduced exhaust emissions and
manufacturers have significantly reduced carbon monoxide emissions further than required by
standards. While the report included information that fugitive dust emissions were problematic,
because there is not enough reliable data on the dust emissions from vacuums, brooms, and
rakes, recommendations regarding alternatives to leaf blowers could not be made. The authors
of the report suggested that a more comprehensive understanding ofthe noise and the amount of
dust particulates would be obtained through a complete fugitive dust emission study. However,
such a study would cost over $lmillion to complete and would take two to three years to
complete. To date, the Legislature has not directed such a study to be undertaken.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Attachment A depicts the projected increased costs for City crews and contractors to maintain
the current level of cleanliness should the July 1, 2002 combustion-powered leaf blowers in
residential areas remain in place. These costs are currently not in the proposed 2003-2004
budget. At the Finance meeting of May 6, 2002, the Committee tentatively approved the
CMR:265:02 Page 5 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROV AL:~.· tL.£)
EMIr HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:265:02 Page 7 of 7
AREAS
BLOWERS USED
Public Works
City Parking Lots
(Downtown,
Civic Center,
Cubberley)
Misc. Parking Lots
Bike Paths
Dead Ends
Downtown
Sidewalks
. Tree Trimming
Tree Trimming In-
house
Subtotal
Community
Services
Tennis Courts
Downtown Tree
Wells
Parks
City Hall Plaza
Other City Facilities
*Total of all in this
Section
Athletic Fields
City Facilities
Higher Usage
*Total of all in this
Section
Golf Course
Subtotal
TOTAL
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECTED CITY COSTS 2003
WITH CURRENT JULY 1,2002 PROHIBITION
FREQUENCY CURRENT ESTIMATED
COSTS COSTS
IIweek $17,650 $ 36,308
IIweek $24,304 $ 50,344
IIweek $ 4,592 $ 9,512
IIweek $ 2,520 $ 5,220
3/week $ 8,960 $ 27,840
Varies $14,000 $ 29,000
Varies $14,000 $ 29,000
$86,026 $187,224
2/month
3/week
5/week
3/week
3/week
$ 490,000* $1,960,000*
3/week
3-5/week
$ 50,400* $ 263,900*
5/week $ 20,220 $ 31,755
$ 560,620 $2,255,655
$ 646,646 $2,442,879
CONTRACTOR
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
ATTACHMENT B
Cupertino 40S.777.31S2 Jeff Tribas Code Enf 2001 Gas & Electric No Noise allowed M-F SAM -SPM No specific They tried to
Officer are allowed Weekends from 9AM dBL, but have pass an
Enforcement: either the Code to run at least ordanance to
Enforcement Officer or Deputy amount of ban all
Sherif is dispatched. Knows of no noise and blowers a few
citations being written -just verbal. . lowest speed years ago, but
as possible didn't get
and have a passed.
muffler on the Knows of no
blower. current plans
to change the
code.
Del Mar 858-793-3072 Mike Emerson 1989 Gas & Electric No None None No
Hermosa 310-318-0360 Terri Dinubilo 2001 Gas & Electric No None None No
Beach
Hillsborough 650.375.7470 http://bpc.iserver.net/co 1994 Gas & Electric No . M-F 9 AM - 5 PM; Sat & Sun not 75 dBA; No;
des/hillsbo/index. htm allowed allowed. emmissions Ordinance
allowed No. 8.32.040
Indian Wells 760.836.3215 http://www.amlegal.com 1995 Gas except on No M-F 7 AM - 5 PM; Sat 8 AM - 5 70 dBA, no No
!indian_wells_cal golf courses PM; Sun not allowed mention of
emissions
Laguna 949.497.0382 http://www.lagunabeach 1993 Gas & Electric No None None No
Beach city.net/search/municipa
Icode.htm
Lawndale 310.219.2750 Jorge Juarez 1997 Gas No Seven days a week between 7 AM No mention No
to 6PM
Los Altos 650.947.2772 CSO, Code 2001 Gas NO M-Sat 7 AM -7PM; Sun allowed 50 75 dBA; 50 on Yes wlin one
Enforcement Janice dBA Enforcement: They used to Sun; year; want to
Torsha send out a CSO, but they rarly emmissions mention
cought the violator. Now (seven allowed he/she has to
months ago they canged the way have updated
they enforce) when someone calls equipment,
in to complain, they fill out a enforcing
warning and send it to the under Noise
homeowner. If they are found in and low
violation again, they receive a emissions
citation. The homeowner then sets
--the qardner straiqht.
ATTACHMENT 8
Los Gatos 408.354.5257 Roy Alba None Gas and No . Leaf blowers shall be operated only No mention He hasn't
Electric is during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to heard of any
allowed 8:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. plans for
to 7:00 p.m. weekends and changing the
holidays in residential or noise ordinance
sensitive zones. The use of regarding leaf
powered equipment in commercial, blowers.
industrial or public space shall not
be time limited. Enforcement:
They don't respond unless it's out
the time limit. An officer will be
dispatched.
Los Angeles 213.847.4882 http://lacodes.lacity.org/ 1998 Gas & Electric No Seven days a week between 7 AM 65 dBA; no No I NXT Igateway.dll?f=tem allowed, but to 10PM mention of
plates&fn=default. htm no gas emissions
allowed within
500 ft of
residence
Malibu 310.456.9982 http://municipalcodes.le 1999 Gas No Seven days a week 7AM -10PM; No mention No
xisnexis.com/codes/mali not allowed within 500 ft of
bul residence
Menlo Park 650-330-6376 http://ordlink.com/codes 1999 Gas & Electric No M-F 8AM to 5PM; Sat 11AM to 65 dBA; no No
Liz Fambrini Imenloparkiindex. htm allowed 3PM; not allowed on Sundays, mention of
Code holidays; and on Spare the Air emissions
Enforcement Days. Electric and Gas can be
Officer used by the homwowner on Sat.
Enforcement: Code Enforcement
Officer or patrol goes out and
tickets. The primary responsibly
person is the homeowner.
Mill Valley 415-389-4100 http://www.cityofmillvalle 2001 Gas No M-F 7 AM - 9 PM; Sat & Sun 9 AM 80 dBA; no No
y.org/municode-9 PM; mention of
main.html emissions
ATTACHMENT B
Milpitas 586-2525 Sgt. Nobida 1997 Gas & Electric No 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on No mention
allowed weekdays and weekends. What
constitutes a public nuisance if said
violation disturbs the peace and
quiet of one (1) or more persons in
at least two (2) households. (Ord.
196.5 (part), 10/7/97; Ord. 196
(part), 6/7/77)
Monte 408.354.7635 She didn't Gas & Electric No It shall be unlawful for any person No mention No talk of !
Sereno know and allowed within a residential zone other than updating it
it's not the owner or the tenant of the anytime soon.
mentioned property, as the case may be, to
in the operate any portable machine
Muni powered with a gasoline engine or
Code. by electricity used to blow leaves,
dirt, grass cuttings, paper, trash,or
any other type of unattached debris
or material off sidewalks,
driveways, lawns, or other surfaces
before the hour of 8:00 a.m. or /
after the hour of 5:00 p.m. on any
Monday through Friday; or before
the hour of 9:00 a.m., or after the
hour of 5:00 p.m. on any Saturday;
or any time on Sundays or public
holidays. Enforcement: Los Gatos
police officer will be dispatched.
!
Mt. View 650-526-7713 ? Don't have Gas & Electric No 24X 7 Allowed No
one allowed
Palos Verde~ 310-544-5228 http://www.palosverdes. No mentio Gas & Electric No M-F 8AM to 5PM; Sat 9AM to 4PM; No mention No
com/rpv/cityclerklmunid allowed not allowed on Sundays, holidays
atabase/index. cfm
Piedmont 510.420.3010 http://www.ci.piedmont.c 1990 Gas Yes No mention No mention No
a.usl
Redwood Cit 650.780.7100 ? Don't have Gas & Electric No 24X 7 Allowed No
one allowed
'------
ATTACHMENT B
San Jose 408.277.4 703 Code Enforcement Don't have Gas & Electric No Blowers being used prior to 8 a.m. Allowed The issue was
Officer Jamie Matthews one allowed -or after 10 p.m. may be considered brought
or Sandra Ketchum a disturbance and regulated based before the
on call priority by SJPD City Council a
number of
years ago and
the Council
was met by
significant
concern by
nrlrrlpninn
San Mateo 522-7710 Leon Nickolas, Code 1997 Gas & Electric Yes No mention of No
Enforcement allowed dBA, but does
state lowest
speed and
have to use a
nozzel.
Santa Clara 408.615.4700 Allison Don't have Gas & Electric No Allowed No
one allowed
Santa Monic 310-395-9931 http://www.codemanage 2004 Gas & Electric No M-F 7 AM to 10PM; Sat & Sun 8AM 65 dBA; no No
.com/santamonica/ allowed to 10PM. Commercial: 27 X 7 from mention of
7AM to 10PM emissions
Saratoga 408-868-1200 Jenna Code 2000 Gas No Gasoline powered leaf blowers No mention
Enforcement Specialist may be utilized between 8:00 A.M.
and 5:00 P.M. Monday through
Saturday only. No gasoline
powered leaf blowers shall be
allowed on Sundays. The noise
level of all garden tools including
gasoline powered leaf blowers
shall not exceed seventy-eight dBA
at any point twenty-five feet from
the source of noise.
ATTACHMENT B
Sauth 626.403.7270 http://www.cademanage 1996 Gas N Leaf Blawers -SPMC 19A12 Na mentian N
Pasadena .cam!sauthpasadena! prahibits the use .of gasaline
pawered leaf blawers. Electric .or
battery pawered leaf blawers may
.only be .operated between
weekdays 8:00 AM. ta 7:00 P.M.
and weekends 10:00 AM. ta 7:00
P.M
Santa 805.897.2300 httQ:llwww.secure.ci.san 1997 Gas Na M-Sat 9AM ta 5PM; Sunday and 65 dBA; na Na
Barbara ta-Halidays, nat allawed mentian .of
barbara.ca.us/deQartme emissians
nts!administrative servi
ces!city clerklmunicade
/titles/sbmc title 09 QU
blic Qeace and safety.
doc
Sunnyvale 408.730.7100 http://municipalcades.le 2000 Gas & electric No Operate between the haurs .of 8:00 65 dBA; na Na
xisnexis.com/cades/sun allawed a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Effective mention of
nyvalel .or Rabin Smith January 1, 2000, all leaf blowers emissians
operated in or adjacent ta a
residential area shall .operate at .or
below a noise level .of 65 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet. Enforcement:
A swarn officer would be
dispatched and cite the Qardner.
West 323.848.6371 http://nt2.scbbs.cam/cgi-1990 Gas & electric Na Nane Nane Na
Hollywaod bin/omjsapi.dll?clientl D
=118885&infabase=pro
code-
6&saftpage=reCMainVi
ew
NOT YET APPROVED
operate any leaf blower within any non-residential
zone except during the following hours: eight a.m. and
six p.m. Monday through Friday, and ten a.m. to four
p.m. Saturday. No person shall operate any leaf
blowers 011. Sundays and holidays. No person shall
operate any leaf blower powered by an internal
combustion engine wi thin any residential zone after
December .31-,-2005. Conunercial operators of leaf
blowers are prohibited from operating any leaf blower
within the city if they do not prominently display a
certificate approved by the Chief of Police verifying
that the operator has been trained to operate leaf
blowers according to standards adopted by the Chief of
Police. In addition to all authorizations and
restrictions otherwise provided in this chapter,
public streets, sidewalks I and parking lots in
business districts and at the Municipal Golf Course
and all city parks may be cleaned between 4: 00 a.m.
and 8:00 a.m. using leaf blowers which bear an affixed
manufacturer's label indicating the model number of
the leaf blower and designating a noise level not in
excess of sixty-five dBA when measured from a distance
of fifty feet utilizing American National Standard
Institute methodology.
SECTION 3. This ordinance does not constitute a project
having potential effects upon the environment and therefore does
not require environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
2
050524 syn 0120026