HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-20 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 14
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE
DATE:MAY 20, 2002 CMR:265:02
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 9.10 REGULATING LEAF BLOWERS
EXTENDING PROHIBITION OF COMBUSTION-POWERED
BLOWERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS UNTIL 2005
REPORT IN BRIEF
In 2000, the City Council adopted an amendment to Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code regulating leaf blowers. The first phase of the revisions requiting all commercial
gardeners to receive training and to be certified to use gas-powered leaf blowers has been
implemented. Another provision that wouldprohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in
residential areas is scheduled to become effective July 1, 2002. Due to the increased costs for
the City and for the gardeners, staff is recommending that this effective date be postponed until
July 2, 2005.
CMR:265!02 Page 1 of 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffrecommends that Council amend Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regulating
leaf blowers to defer the prohibition of the use of combustion-fueled leaf blowers in residential
areas from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2005.
BACKGROUND
On May 1,2000, the City Council adopted a revision to the leaf blower ordinance. A portion of
the ordinance that became effective on January 1,2001, requires all commercial operators be
trained and certified on the ordinance and proper use of leaf blowers. Additionally, the
ordinance allows the use of only City-approved leaf blowers. A secondary provision of the
ordinance, which was to take effect on July 1, 2002, would prohibit the use of combustion-
powered leaf blowers in residential areas.
Training and Certification of Commercial Users
In June 2001, Police Department staff met with representatives of the Bay Area Gardeners’
Association (BAGA) and the California Landscape Contractors’ Association (CLCA) to discuss
the ongoing training and certification process. Prior to that date, the training and certification
process had been administered by Police Department staff several times each month. To date,
over 1,600 gardeners have been trained and over 1,100 have been certified. A decision was
made to have BAGA take over administration of the process, with training/testing sessions
being held at its Redwood City facility. A Police staffmember usually attends the sessions and
is responsible for correcting the tests and issuing the certification cards. An average of 30
gardeners per training session are being certified. As the number of gardeners requiring
certification has declined since the process was initiated, testing is currently being conducted
every other month. Representatives of both BAGA and CLCA have been very helpful in this
process and have strongly advocated strict enforcement of the ordinance since the training and
certification process has been implemented. Staff has recently learned that other cities in the
area and throughout the State are looking at Palo Alto’s training and certification process as a
way to more equitably deal with leaf blower issues.
Enforcement
Although provisions of the leaf blower ordinance became effective on January 1, 2001, the
Police Department did not begin proactive enforcement until the first part of 2002, for several
reasons. Staff had underestimated the numbers of commercial gardeners who would need to be
CMR:265:02 Page 2 of 7
trained and certified. Due to the large numbers, the training/certification process ~ook
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
of this 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 call~-for-service related to leaf blowers is decreasing. For the time period
between January through April of this 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 of 2001. 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 2001. 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 of LADW-P
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 of battery 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 agencies 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 leaf blowers 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 are two-fold. The ban of gas-powered leaf blowers 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 performing this
work manually wouldincrease 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 inorder
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 turn around in
the next year or so, there are still many uncertainties especially due to the State’s budget
issues. Assuming the City’s financi!l 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. Staff believes that the priority to address
expenditures for those deferments would be higher than those associated with the
prohibition of gas-powered leaf blowers. Additionally, the Council has been discussing
a number of new programs and projects such as additional library staffing and 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 lear~ blower is encouraging. However, it will be at least another three years
before other cities may be able to purchase them and 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 necessary. 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 of leaf blowers 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 of the noise and the amount of
dust particulates would be obtained through a complete fugitive dust emission study. However,
such a study would cost over $1million 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
postponement of the implementation date. Given the current economic situation, the
implementation of this ordinance with the associated cost, would require a Budget Amendment
Ordinance from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). This increase in
expense would deplete the current projected surplus and would significantly impact the City’s
ability to fund the General Fund Infrastructure Reserve, as this would draw the BSR below the
target level and require that any surpluses be used to fund the BSR.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does represent a change to the existing City policy that would prohibit the
Use of fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas effective July 1, 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project is categorically exempt from the California Env~ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
it restricts the use the leaf blowers for environmental protection purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Projected City Costs for 2003
Attachment B: Draft Ordinance
PREPARED BY:
LESLIE~
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JOHNSON
Assistant Police Chief
PATRICK
Chief of Police
CMR:265:02 Page 6 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:’ .
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:265:02 Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECTED CITY COSTS 2003
WITH CURRENT JULY 1, 2002 PROHIBITION
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
FREQUENCY CURRENT ESTIMATED CONTRACTOR
COSTS COSTS
l/week $17,650 $ 36,308 Yes
l/week
l/week
l/week
3/week
Varies
Varies
2/month
3/week
5/week
3/week
$24, 304
$ 4,592
$ 2,520
$ 8,960
$14,000
$14,000
$86,026
$ 50,344
$ 9,512
$ 5,220
$ 27,840
$ 29,000
$ 29,000
$187,224
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5/week $ 20,220
$ 560,620
$ 646,646
50,400*$ 263,900*
$ 31,755
$2,255,655
$2,442,879
No
3/week
3-5/week
3/week
$ 490,000*$1,960,000"
No
Yes
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING TITLE 9 (PEACE,MORALS,AND
SAFETY), CHAPTER 9.10 (NOISE), SECTION 9.10.60
OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFER THE ¯
PROHIBITION ON COMBUSTION-POWERED LEAF BLOWERS
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I. The Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) On May i, 2000, the Council adopted revisions to the
noise regulations for leaf blowers contained in Title 9, Chapter
9.10, Section 9.10.60,. Subsection 9.10.060(f), with the intent
of further restricting and regulating the noise and dust
emissions of leaf blowers throughout the City.
(b) Included within these revisions was a prospective
prohibition on the operation of combustion-powered leaf blowers
in residential zones to become effective on July I, 2002. The
purpose of that prohibition was to encourage the production and
usage of battery operated leaf blowers which were anticipated to
be near development and which would significantly lower noise
and pollution emissions compared to combustion-powered leaf
blowers.
(c) The Council now finds and determines that battery
powered leaf blowers cannot be anticipated to be commercially
available in acceptable products and quantities until at least
2005, and the Council therefore intends to defer the prohibition
on combustion-powered leaf blowers to July.l, 2005.
(d) Minor editorial changes are also required to clarify
the restrictions on leaf blower noise emission previously
adopted.
SECTION 2. Title 9 [Public Peace, Morals, and Safety],
Chapter 9.10 [Noise], Section 9.10.060 [Special Conditions],
Subsection 9.10.060(f) [Leaf Blowers] of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(f) Leaf Blowers.
(i) 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
1
020513 cl 00441’61
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 provided 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 extension tubes supplied by
the manufacturer for that leaf blower.
No person shall operate any leaf blowers within a
residential zone except during the following hours : nine a.m.
and five p.m. Monday through Friday and ten a.m. and four p.m.
Saturday. No person shall operate any leaf blower ......~; by ~
~ ....~~ ....~ ~~i ithi id ti....cn nc w n an}[non-res en al 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 on Sundays and holidays.
No person shall operate any leaf blower powered by an internal
co~ustion engine within, any residential zone after ~-
Commercial 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,
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 mode! 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 CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act.
//
//
//
2
020513 el 0044161
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:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Police Chief
020513 el 0044161