HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/1994, 1 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PROJECT FOR REGIONAL MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTERQ�V�I��IIIYIIIII�II AnUIN "J a DATE:
c� o r san LuIs oBispo 4
Ifts COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: /
,�--
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared by Harry Watson, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Engineering Project for Regional Multi-Modal Transit Transfer
Center
CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, receive Phase I report and give staff direction
to pursue an off street facility site (Toyota -Dean Witter) between Santa Rosa and Toro
Streets, and Monterey and Higuera Streets as the preferred Regional Transit Transfer
Center site. Authorize an appraisal and staffs preliminary nogotiation on the site. Withhold
authorization for Phase II until a site has been secured.
DISCUSSION
Process:
The consultant, Peter Martin of Wilber Smith Associates will present in some detail the
results of the Preliminary Engineering Project for the Regional Multi-Modal Transit
Transfer Center. After his presentation, the Council can accept public testimony and Mr.
Martin will take questions from the Council. The recommendation of this study will also be
presented to the SLORTA Board by SLORTA staff for their approval. Council's action on
the recommendation will also be presented to SLORTA. Upon joint approval of both
governing bodies, city staff will proceed with property appraisal and with City Council's
further approval, negotiations. Authorization for consultant work on Phase II should not be
considered until land acquisition is assured and a project budget is firmed up.
Added resources to complete the project are a concern, but until property appraisals are
completed, it is difficult to clearly identify what the budget for the project will be.
Background
On July 21, 1993, the City Council authorized the issuance of an RFP for the completion
of a Preliminary Engineering project for a Regional Multi -Modal Transit Transfer Center,
and authorized the City Administrative Officer to sign a contract with the most responsive
vendor within the project estimate.
This project was preceded by an overview site selection effort which was part of the City's
Short Range Transit Plan and the work completed by the Downtown Physical Plan
Committee (DPPC) which identified a conceptual location for such a facility near the
County Government Center. The DPPC identified both a Transfer Center, and a new
parking structure in the same location.
Obtaining a multi-modal transit transfer site was an adopted goal of both SLORTA and the
City Council. In order to achieve the goal, a two phase program was created. Phase I
(subject of tonight's action) is a Preliminary Engineering Analysis to recommend site
selection based on an operations needs. Phase II (next step) is to be an architectural design
including conceptual design, environmental analysis, and an implementation strategy. City
is the lead agency managing the process. The scope of Phase I includes a review of the
concept of a combined Transit/Parking Garage.
Study Ob
jectives
The following specific objectives were included in this project:
1. Program Development
2. Site Selection
3. Functional Layout
4. General Impacts Assessment
5. Joint Development Potential Assessment
6. Engineering Cost Estimate
Project Mana eg ment
Under the direction of the City's Transit Manager, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
was formed to review the results of the project as it progressed and give guidance to the
consultant. The TAC is made up of representatives from SLORTA, Caltrans, County
Administration, Council of Governments, City Parking, Administration, and Engineering.
PROJECT FINDINGS:
Combined Transit/Parking Feasibility
The consultant presented several concepts showing how Transit and Parking have been and
could be combined. Based on his experience, he strongly recommends against a parking
structure being located above the Transit Transfer Center for the following reasons:
1. An enclosed area would trap noise and "create an extremely noisy environment ".
2. Severe air quality problems would result in a "very uninviting environment to board
buses ".
3. "Enclosed areas have invariably been perceived as less safe by motorists and pedestrians.
Concerns regarding security can have significant detrimental affects on transit patronage."
After close questioning of the consultant, the TAC agrees that an overhead parking
structure, while desirable from a land use perspective, does not create a good atmosphere
to promote transit usage.
Site Alternatives
A total of twelve sites were analyzed, eight from the Short Range Transit Plan effort. Four
sites were identified in the Phase I report as viable transit transfer sites. The four viable
sites are:
1. Toyota -Dean Witter Site
2. Mitsubishi Site
3. Palm Street between Osos and Santa Rosa
4. An expanded Osos Street location (existing site)
Numbers 1 and 2 are presented as high cost alternatives while numbers 3 and 4 are
presented as low cost alternatives. All four sites are shown as Exhibits 1-4 as attached.
Site Evaluation
1. Osos Street
An "on street" transfer facility on Osos Street would provide for twelve buses, one
paratransit vehicle and involve the closure of Osos from Mill to Palm streets as well as the
relocation of the ingress /egress to the City Hall parking lot. A traffic signal at Osos and
Palm would be required. Eight buses would use Osos St. and up to six bus bays would be
required on Palm St. Alley access onto Osos would be limited to emergency vehicles only.
At a later date, the pulses of SLO Transit and SLORTA would have to be offset requiring
a fifteen minute delay between some of the transfers. It is estimated that the Osos St.
location would cost $340,000 for necessary improvements such as the realignment of City
Hall's parking lot enterance /exit, a required signal light at Osos and Palm and landscaping.
A long distance between buses would be created as well as up hill considerations for the
disabled. Buses would be spread from mid block on Palm (north side) to both sides of Osos
at Mill Street. No facilities for either drivers rest rooms, or dispatching are provided for.
The "dashing" across the street by riders to make connections with other routes is
perpetuated. The risk of the latter is reduced substantially by eliminating cars on this stretch
of Osos.
2. Palm Street
An "on street" transfer facility on Palm Street would involve the closure of Palm St. from
Santa Rosa to Osos. Access to both the alley way serving the County Government Center
and the parking lot off Palm, near Santa Rosa would need to be maintained. With Palm
St being both longer and wider than Osos St., a modified saw tooth independent parking
layout, as well as planters and adequate passenger shelters would be accommodated.
11.
Fourteen buses would be located on Palm and two buses would be located on Osos.
Adjacent property owners may oppose a transit mall on Palm St. due to noise, air quality,
vandalism and traffic access concerns. County staff has already indicated opposition. It is
estimated that the Palm St. location would cost a minimum of $415,000 in improvements
including proposed mitigation to County building facilities, re- glazing of office buildings
facing Palm Street and a traffic signal at Palm and Osos Streets. This does not include the
purchase of an office proposed by the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) (see
responses received, MTC).
Either of the "on street" transit malls above would have negative impacts on the downtown
traffic circulation requiring additional signing.
As with the Osos Street option, a long block would exist between the further most distant
connecting buses. Unless one of the offices on the north side of Palm is acquired (as
suggested by the MTC), no facilities are provided for drivers rest rooms, dispatching or
transit information and the cost of which would add to the existing estimate.
3. Toyota -Dean Witter
An "Off Street" transfer facility, this site is located mid way in the block bounded by Santa
Rosa, Toro, Higuera and Monterey. The proposed facility site includes all properties
occupied by the current Dean Witter building, the parking lots on both sides of Dean Witter
and a portion of the Spring Toyota facility. One new traffic signal would be required on
Monterey (mid block, bus actuated) and all busses (12) would be located on the site as well
as taxi and paratransit bus stop locations. A drivers rest room, dispatch and transit
information center would be located in a small building on site.
Operationally, this location best meets the needs of both SLORTA and SLO Transit with
easy access in and out from all four directions. Acquisition of the additional land to the east
may facilitate a future parking structure, if desired.
Due to the necessity of expensive private property purchase, the estimated cost of this
alternative is $4,596,000.
Long distances and up hill climbs will be required to access government buildings and the
library. All core destinations will require crossing Santa Rosa twice (a concern of the
disabled community).
4. Mitsubishi
This is an "Off Street" site which consists of the entire parcel at the comer of Monterey and
Toro Streets currently occupied by the Mitsubishi auto dealership. The site would contain
eight buses on -site with four buses parked on Monterey. Additionally, both taxi and
paratransit would be accommodated on site as well as a drivers rest room, dispatch and a
transit information center in a small building. One new traffic signal would be required (bus
actuated). Developmental costs of this location are estimated to be $3,304,000.
Opposition could be expected from adjacent apartment dwellers due to increased noise,as
- well as the residents on Toro Street if buses were introduced onto their street As with
Toyota -Dean Witter, this site would require up hill climbs and repeated crossing of Santa
Rosa. In addition, this property is currently being considered by the County for additional
County office space, or County vehicle parking /fueling facility. Unless the County fails to
complete the acquisition, this site should be dropped from further review.
REVIEW AND COMMENTS BY OTHER PARTIES
As a matter of routine, significant matters affecting the City's transit system are reviewed
by the City's Mass Transportation Committee. With respect to this particular study, there
have been several other interested parties, including the Downtown Physical Concept Plan
Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, County Administration, The Council of
Governments the previously mentioned TAC, and of course the co- sponsor, SLORTA.
Much of the County's interest originated with the County Space Needs Task Force chaired
by Supervisor David Blakely. The task force included representatives from the County and
the City (Councilmember Roalman, former Planning Commissionmember Kourakis and City
staff).
RESPONSES RECEIVED:
Mass Transportation Committee (MTCI
The MTC received the Transfer Center Study at their December 8, 1993 meeting and
reviewed the four locations as to the merits of each. The recommendation was to pursue
the Palm St site. They choose this site due to its affordability, ability to meet the needs of
both transit systems, likelihood of actually being constructed, level topography and not
requiring bus riders to cross Santa Rosa. The MTC further suggested that one of the offices
on Palm be purchased to serve as a Transit pass store, dispatch center and driver facility
location, noting that all of the above could be accomplished within current available funding
sources.
Technical Advisory Committee
The TAC recommended the Toyota -Dean Witter site due to its 'best performance"
evaluation. However, if site acquisition was deemed improbable, the Mitsubishi site was.
recommended for further action. Basically; the TAC felt operational characteristics should
outweigh fiscal consideration thus putting both "off street" sites ahead of the "on street" sites.
Downtown Physical Plan Concept Committee
The Committee recommended the Toyota -Dean Witter site because it is most consistent
with Downtown Plan, has good circulation, and is strategic to future new development (letter
/_460100
attached).
FISCAL IMPACT
Three funding sources totaling $1,580,985 currently exist to support the Center. They are:
1. Proposition 116 $1,016,205 -state
2. Surface Transportation Program (STP) 500,000- federal
3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) 64.780 -state
Total: $1,580,985
As shown on the attached project Cost Estimate (attachment 2 ), the acquisition and-
development cost estimate is $4,596,000 for the Toyota -Dean Witter site. This leaves a
short fall of $3,015,015. Land cost represent 70 %, and leave the project short $1,619,015 for
real estate acquisition alone.
Additional potential funding sources are:
1. Additional Regional Federal STP funds. SLOCOG has a non - allocated category of
"Regional" STP funds which could result in an additional $500,000. In addition (although
unlikely) the recent decision of Arroyo Grande to terminate a Hwy 227 project will mean
a reversion of previously allocated funds for regional allotment if Arroyo Grande is unable
to bring forward another project. Approval of any funds would require SLOCOG Board
action.
2. Additional State TSM funds may be available to be used as our match for the STP funds
(as in the first round allocation).
3. Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) is a 50% grant source which has been programmed
by the COG to meet rail needs through FY 1996/97. The match would need to be a banked
four year contribution of TDA funds by both SLORTA and SLO Transit.This is
unreasonable at a time when both systems are having difficulty securing sufficient operating
budgets.
4. Debt financing is an option, either through revenue bonds, or transit borrowing through
the California Transit Association. Debt financing would have to be repaid using operating
funds which could jeopardize operations for both systems.
5. Parking may be able to play a part if it benefits their program. This could happen if a
parcel larger than is needed for - transit were purchased and it was a desirable location for
a parking facility.
The consultant has been unable to identify any additional funding sources that have a high.
likelihood of closing the shortfall.
CONCLUSION
An effective transit transfer center is one which promotes and encourages transit use while
not disrupting other forms of transportation. The "on street" alternatives, while certainly
financially possible, do not provide the operational benefits of an "off street" facility, while
changing traffic patterns and alienating neighbors (professional offices, county offices, etc).
The "off street" site provides the kind of amenities that are desirable in a successful transit
center. Of the two, the best is the Toyota -Dean Witter site. Should site acquisition become
a major obstacle, and the County fails to complete acquisition, the Mitsubishi site should
be given next priority as only a slight degradation in operational characteristics will occur.
Next St e
If the SLORTA Board endorses the projects findings, staff will proceed with appraisal and
preliminary negotiations with the property owners. With the identified short fall in funding,
even for the land acquisition, additional sources of funds will need to be secured before the
land can be obtained, and Phase II of the project can proceed. The second phase is
primarily architectural design work including conceptual design, environmental analysis, and
implementation strategy as previously mentioned.
ATTACHMENT:
Phase I Project Report
Site layouts Exhibit 1 - 4.
Downtown Physical Plan Concept Committee letter, attachment 1.
Project Cost Estimates, attachments 2 & 3
MMagenda
C
V
0
P
a
e
s
D
e
a
C
O
a
d
O
e.
y
O
r
C
C
sa%jl9fwP
v _ ,- -
J L
H
Exhibit 1
co "
Eli
S
Cg
�6
0
W
W
W
N
N
O
O
0
r
F
N
WMI
C
r
O
z
It
C
P
F
d
9
O
8
A
E
O
C
O
o�
d
C
0
O,
10
O
Ift
3
C
Exhibit 2
Ln P
m
7
�g
d
W
V
Z.
vl
N
N
Q
x
d
W
F
W
W
a
N
J
Q
d
O
r
W
F
N
WA
4
4
0
c
8
I-
93
9
O
a
e
rXu ,
L
oft
m
0
3
C
C
oft
0
Exhibit 3
ma
mZ
�F
6
W
V
O.
V'
FI
N
N
m
N
W
H
H
c
W
S
F
O
c
Q
NO
Exhibit 4
�u
m=
=g
d
W
u
O
u
W
H
N
Q
0
O
H
W
H
N
to
W
8
N
O
z
O
0
D
i
z
O
N
J
W
z
1A
W
t
a
v
0
a
N
a
a
z
0
N
6
2
O
Z
I-
I
W
W
a
Z
N
m
3
December 10, 1993
city of SAn Luis OBISPO
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To: Harry Watson, Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
From: Downtown Physical Plan Concept Committee
Dear Harry:
We convened a special meeting of the Downtown Physical Concept Plan Committee in order to
review the consultant's Phase I Executive surmnary of the Preliminary Engineering Study for the
Multi -Modal Transfer Center and would like to offer the following comments for the council's
consideration.
General Comments
- We agree with all of the problems identified with the present operation.
- We feel that the City should not commit funds to any project that does not provide a n rni
solution to the area's transit needs.
- Long range urban design consequences must be considered with any decision.
- Inadequate potential to be seriously considered for long term use.
- Would not alleviate current hazardous routing patterns which result in many vehiclelpedestrian
conflicts.
Palm Street Site
- Palm Street location would be very destructive to the circumferential "loop" concept that we feel
is central to the success of the Downtown Plan.
- Space availability is inadequate for future expansion of services.
- Activity would be incompatible with surrounding uses.
- Incomoatible with the
uses.
- Impact of bus routing into Toro, Palm, Mill, etc., would be unacceptable-
- Narrow site configuration with severe grade change poses major design problems.
- No through circulation of site is possible.
- Property is more suited to retail/office development as a gateway to downtown.
ATTACHMENT 1 -A
Spring Toyota/Dean i r i
- Most consistent with the goals of the Downtown Plan.
- Efficient through -site circulation potential.
- Adequate space to accommodate future needs.
- Strategic location at center of future new development.
- Efficient regional route access to Highways 1 and 101.
- Entire block should be Master - Planned for compatible uses.
- We disagree with the consultants recommendation to not fully exploit air rights above the transit
center. Structured parking would be a complementary use.
Fundin
- We encourage the investigation of property owner participation in the project as a joint venture
partner or through the transfer of development rights to other parcels thus reducing or
eliminating property acquisition costs.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the preliminary. findings.
Andrew Merriam
Downtown Physical Concept Plan Committee
cc: john Dunn
PR1jm
/�Ij
ATTACHMENT 1 -B
i�
�4
y:
�s.
County Office Expansion Opli
Figure 1. Summary of All Options: Vicinity Map
1 = County -owned parking garage on Monterey (and privately -owned corner parcel)
2 = Additions to Old Courthouse in conjunction with seismic rehab
3 = Sperry Building
4 = "Mitsubishi Motors" site and adjacent gas station
A = Expansion of courts (recommended with all options)
B = Parking structure over transit terminal and service commercial uses
u
IA jl
� I 1I11 I
City Hall I I 1 1
1 I I
i
--
L -- — —
— — - ti
v
City y Count
I lftrary 1 Jf), 3 5ta7 — o
I If I
2 I 2, r
T i I county O :I
,t; GevcmmenL
..1... Lcnter
6 'stew
6dditl0n -- j Story
Addition I ® ,
Old _— --
Andrr:o Leurthouee '� I I Potentlal Gmmnmenc Eapanaion'
Bu�lding I Il Wish Parking Btlmv (3-4 ascrtce)
l
%.I— hlonicrey 5t.cet
�.
Lom =cid — GoJsa
6e=
O i f�(pr^marel�l`. �.' •I
1 T a, •-'I -i ^ rid i._ y...: r
S erry 4 5w i t j - 0rldga •v: <s.:,. .:o Sntke',z: }; I
DuiWing Bulldlrq�'��'
3i Story
V
No BulWing Bua Dipo
H:g.cn 5:rcct
i II i
I1 I ! I I I
- - -- Domlloml 1'I1.%sical Plan -- Design Convnitlee
4
ATTACHMENT 1 —C
11
u
r
d
i
San Luis Obispo Regional Mufti -Modal Transfer Center
WSA
Enpinews44m mere
Table 8
COST ESTIMATE FOR CONCEPT D- MITSUBISHI
San Luis Obispo Multi -Modal Transfer Center
Improvement
Unit Cost
Quantity
Project Cost .
Bldg. Demolition
$10 /cub1c yard
9,100 cy
$91,000
Pavement Demolition
$15 /square yard, parking
4,000 sy
60,000
Grading'
$15 /cubic yard
7,500 cy
113,000
Retaining Wall
300/linear foot
3251
98,000
Utilities
—
Lump Sum
50,000
Paving
$7 /sq It
22,400 sf
157,000
Curbing
$1 5/linear. foot
1,000 If
15,000
Sidewalk
$3.50 /sq it
8,000 sf
28,000
Traffic Control
$125,000 each
one
125,000
Landscape & Irrigation
$4 /sq it
7,300 sf
29,200
Signage
—
Lump Sum
50,000
Lighting
$0.50 /sq ft
48,000
24,000
Bike Racks
$100 /space
20
2,000
Building
$150 /sq ft
500 sf
75,000
Shelters
$18,000 /shelter
6
108,000
Benches & Trash
—
Lump Sum
12,000
TOTAL
$1,037;000
Contingency @ 30%
311,000
Arch., Engr. Fees @15%
156,000
R/W Acquisition
48,000 sf
1,800,000
;TOTAL `
$3,304,000
'Includes $5 /sq yd for haul disposal.
Assessment of Alternative Site Concepts 5-10
R1/S124
P -15
ATTACHMENT 2
r
t
. •e
rA
r]
I
L
I
WSA
San Luis Obispo Reglonal MuRI -Modal Transfer Center Enginews- Planners
Site Plan C would require the acquisition of the Dean Witter Building site and the Toyota Site which
together total about 1.6 acres. The eastern portion of this site at the comer of Toro and Higuera Streets
would be available for resale. Site acquisition is estimated to run $3.2 million for the entire site and $2.5
million net assuming the surplus portion could be resold at $50 per square foot. Site development costs
are estimated to be $1.4 million yielding a total gross cost of $4.6 million and a total net cost of $3.9
million as shown in Table 7.
Table 7
COST ESTIMATE FOR CONCEPT C - TOYOTA/DEAN WITTER
San Luis Obispo Multi -Modal Transfer Center
Improvement
Unit Cost
Quantity
Project Cost
Bldg. Demolition
$10 /cubic yard
7,100 cy
$71,000
Pavement Demolition
$15 /square yard, parking
4,650 sy
70,000
Grading'
$15 /cubic.yard
2,000 cy
30,000
Utilities
—
Lump Sum
50,000
Paving
$7 /sq it
32,700 sf
229,000
Curbing
$15/1inear foot
1,500 If
22,000
Sidewalk
$3.50 /sq it
18,000 sf
63,000
Traffic Control
$125,000 each
one
125,000
Landscape & Irrigation
$4 /sq it
15,000 sf .
60,000
Signage
—
Lump Sum
60,000
Lighting
$0.50 /sq it
42,800
22,000
Bike Racks
$100 /space
20
2,000
Building
$150 /sq it
500 sf
75,000
Shelters
$18,000 /shelter
4
72,000
Benches & Trash
—
Lump Sum
12,000
TOTAL
,.
$963,000 .
Contingency @ 30%
289,000
Arch., Engr. Fees @15%
144,000
R/W Acquisition
42,80061
3,200,000
TOTAL
$4,596,000
'Includes $5 /sq yd for haul disposal.
Assessment of Alternative Site Concepts 5-7 R1/6124
/_/0
ATTACHMENT 3
Mr `NG AGENDA
DArr. ITEM #
January 24, 1994
MEMORANDUM
r.M..,.:x...:M..'..: r0:.ir. r :.n'...v1. ..Sr:... .k :. V .>r.':.dp:.'.n. r..".v:..::A..v:r, n.: :Y.. nk :... x, ?. r Ff:'.n:.:...r.:. : > ,:.r .Y : . i.J.i....r . . . . \. l�. .:"i. . ..J k:.i .. i. .:. : ...r .. :,.:.y. ...:.i...n:........;..,; ... i ..r..r..i..:.i....r..i.v.f....r.. .:. m.:.�.; . y.:...).i.i.r.i:•: :
.n:,:.(. .r..:x...: :..r.. .: .n::..: .. t.. . r :: t...n. .: .r. : i.r.4.'. ..r.. r .i.r. : m?..:n..rk<;:.:.:, v,. :.,]: ::..::,ti::.:.::r:.::r::.'. : . . : rnrY.r:.. : .i..r.. i.ni.:.::.:;.: :. ...: ..::..O....r. .'l...,.J. : :':..i.<•.ry .:: .. i. :J c. .rro'i.:. .::Y.::.:.:.:]::..i'...: :::...i.>:..:.:y:::k.:::r •i.:. : i ..: i... :r :".s »:: ..oi::..::..r:.::.:..:::<'.::.. : .
: � . nY.r:.•: i. . .iri :
i. ' 510. .x :..
'S:ti ;.
. ::
: X. n\:AAl
{,83N U \n .
TO: Council Colleagues _ G
FROM: Penny Rappa
SUBJECT: TRANSIT CENTER v
I'm sorry to miss the discussion on the Regional Transit Transfer Center; however, I have
a few thoughts I want to share with you.
If we are ever to decrease our dependency on the automobile, we need to plan convenient
alternatives. I see the center as the hub of the wheel. Whether riders live in San Luis
Obispo or other communities, they will need the ability to maximize their use of transit by
easy and convenient transfers. Interconnecting the various transit related services is
essential.
I would encourage you to demonstrate leadership and move forward on the Toyota site. It
really offers the most long -term solution. I would hope Council would direct staff to work
with Dean Witter to relocate them. Two possibilities exist: 1) Exchange excess Toyota
property, or 2) Exchange excess Toyota property with vacant, available property nearby
(corner of Toro and Monterey), then relocate Dean Witter.
Perhaps there are some additional ideas for funding: Development Impact Fees by all
participants in SLORTA; incorporating mitigation programs or money as part of a trip
reduction plan; APCG monies (I believe they still have the ability to levy $1.00 more under
the current approved legislation).
Finally, I believe a united front by the City of San Luis Obispo is essential if the SLORTA
Board is to continue to support this project.
PR:ss
1��UNca
moo DIR
❑ FIN DIR
D
❑ F14 CHIEF
EY
Pw DIR
JINN 24 1994
CLERKK RIG
❑ POLICE CHF
CITY COUNCIL
0 MGW TEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑ C.AEAD FILE
❑ UTIL DIR
fig&
❑ PERS DIR
city of San tins OBISpo
JJNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DISCUSSION
Backaround
On January 20, 1993, the City Council responded to complaints by a
citizen (Alan Friedman) about problems associated with leafblowers.
The Council directed staff to research the issue and return with
information on these machines. The project was delayed for several
months because of more pressing assignments, a change in staff, and
requests by Mr. Friedman, who wanted more time to prepare a
presentation to the Council.
EVALUATION
1. What are they anyway? Leafblowers were developed for the
commercial landscaping business about twenty years ago.
Initially, they were heavy and large, and had to be worn as
"backpacks ". Only within the last ten years have some become
lightweight and inexpensive enough to be attractive for home
use.
Blowers use gasoline or electricity to blow debris from
walkways, grass, game courts, and from rough surfaces, such as
rocks. They are also used for cleaning rain gutters and other
hard -to -reach places. They have come to replace brooms,
hoses, and other hand -held equipment. During the recent
drought, blower sales increased significantly, because many
jurisdictions had outlawed hosing down driveways and walks.
City crews have been using blowers since they first came on
the market. Parks maintenance supervisors estimate that the
City uses blowers for approximately ten hours each week, "to
clear sand off walks near play areas, to clean curbs and walks
after edging turf, to clean sports and tennis courts, and to
blow leaves and debris into piles from hard surfaces." (See
attached memorandum from Larry Tolson.) Levels of use by
other governmental or commercial maintenance workers or by
non - commercial users is unknown.
2. What is the problem? Mr. Friedman's letters focus on three
issues: noise, air pollution, and operator behavior. Each of
these concerns is discussed in the following paragraphs:
How noisy are they ?. Sound is measured_ in. .decibels (dB), a
logarithmic scale. .This means that 70 dB is ten times as loud
as 60 dB, and 80 dB is ten times as loud as 70 dB (and 100
times as loud as 60 dB). Normal conversation measures about
60 dB, a washing machine 75 dB, an alarm clock 80, a garbage
truck 100, and a siren 140 dB.
Leafblowers can reach noise levels of 105 dB (Depending upon
nearness to the noise source, among other factors, harmful
01111l1p 11�► city Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold Jonas,
BY: Judith Lautner•
SUBJECT: Council St
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Planner
Item: Leafblowers
MEETING DATE:
REM NUMBER:
Review and file information on leafblowers and take no further
action at this time.
Report -in -brief
A citizen (Alan Friedman) has raised concerns with the use of
leafblowers in this community. The Council directed staff to
review the issue and report to the Council.
Staff has obtained information from the League of California
Cities, Echo Manufacturing, and Alan Friedman, has reviewed
articles on leafblowers at the library, spoken to local dealers,
landscape contractors, -the Echo Public Relations representative,
the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) , and City enforcement and
parks personnel. Essential information has been culled from these
resources and is summarized below.
* Problems. Problems with leafblowers arise from the noise they
make, the air pollution they create, and the tendency of some users
to blow debris onto adjoining property, persons, or the street.
* Solutions. Manufacturers have developed blowers with lower
decibel levels, and noise can be reduced still further by operating
the machine at a lower power level. The California Air Resources
Board has developed standards to be met by two -cycle engines, which
will eliminate much of the chemical pollution. Problems remain
with particulate matter (local pollution) and littering.
* Leafblower use regulations. Some other communities have adopted
laws 1) limiting hours of operation, 2) setting maximum machine
decibel levels, 3) prohibiting littering of other property, or 4)
banning blowers outright or in residential zones.
* The local situation. Few complaints about blowers have been
received by City parks, police, or planning staff. Thus,
leafblowers are apparently not a large problem in San Luis Obispo.
The primary users are commercial gardeners, who use them to blow
debris off hard surfaces and out of small spaces, and who do not
typically use them for long periods of time. According to
observations by police and planning personnel, there is not a
widespread use of leafblowers by San Luis Obispo's citizens.
At this time, specific action to address leafblower problems does
not appear to be warranted.
MEETING DATE-
city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM' NUMBER:
Page 4
develop wind speeds up to 300 miles per hour. These wind
gusts raise dust and debris that are often consciously or
unconsciously deposited on streets or on neighboring property,
and in some cases on persons. The blower leaves the attended
property clean but in many cases creates a greater mess beyond
the property lines. Other equipment does not have this
effect.
4. What lava already regulate equipment? The City has a noise
ordinance. The ordinance specifically prohibits:
9.12.050.B.10 Domestic Power Tools, Machinery.
a. Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically
powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool or
similar tool between ten p.m. and seven a.m., so as to create
a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real
property line.
Further, the ordinance includes a chart of "exterior noise
limits" (attached), that specifies the average decibel levels
permitted within different zones during the day and during the
night. As decibel levels increase, the time limits lessen.
For example, in residential zones, noise levels are not
permitted to exceed 55 dBA continuously, from 7 a.m. to 10
p.m.. If that maximum is exceeded by 5 dB, it may do so for
no more than 15 minutes in an hour. If levels exceed 65 dB in
those zones, they are permitted to do so for no more than five
minutes in an hour. Levels of 70 dB are permitted for only
one minute per hour. Noise levels of 75 dB or more are not
permitted at any time.
It appears that a gas - powered blower (at full power) would
exceed. these noise limits (in residential zones) , and would
therefore violate the noise ordinance, if operated for more
than one minute in an hour. Noise level maximums are higher
for most commercial zones. Blowers at full power could
operate in these zones for five to fifteen minutes in an hour
without violating the ordinance. Blowers can be adjusted,
however, to meet decibel limits.
The City does not regulate air pollution. we rely on the Air
Pollution Control District (APCD), to restrict pollution
produced within the county, and on the California Air
Resources - Board - (CARS) for statewide - regulations. The APCD
does not have any regulations on power blowers or similar
equipment, and is not expected to adopt such regulations in
the near future. The current focus of the APCD is on the
larger sources of pollution (source: telephone conversation
with Larry Allen, APCD, October 1993). The CARB has developed
regulations, to be implemented in stages in 1994 and 1999,
limiting pollution caused by "utility engines ". Manufacturers
city of San Luis OBISPO MEETING DATE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT STEM NUMBER:
Page 3
effects on human ears begin at levels of 80 to 85 dB). Recent
improvements, however, have lowered noise levels of blowers so
that some newer gas - powered models produce noise levels lower
than 70 dB 50 feet from the source, equivalent to freeway
traffic noise at about the same distance. Older models are
still in use, of course, and some heavier -duty backpack models
are louder. Gas - powered blowers are generally noisier than
electric. Many electric - powered blowers measure only 60 dB.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has adopted
standards for measuring decibel levels of power blowers, and
recommends that decibel levels be listed on every machine, so
consumers can make informed choices. Newer models made by the
larger manufacturers tend to follow the ANSI recommendation.
How much do they Pollute? The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that a gas - powered leaf blower produces about
twice as much pollution as an automobile, during the same
amount of time. (Electric blowers do not contribute much in
chemical pollution.) Two- stroke gasoline engines, such as
those used in leafblowers and other hand -held machinery,
release the equivalent of five percent of the hydrocarbons
emitted by automobiles in this state each year, and four
percent of the carbon monoxide. In addition to chemical
pollutants, blowers also lift settled dust, allergens, and
other fine particles into the air, where they create local
particulate pollution.
And how are they operated? Manufacturers, particularly Echo,
make recommendations on the proper use of leafblowers,
suggesting, among other things, that operators clean up debris
that has been blown and that they keep an eye out for persons
in the area, who might be subjected to unwanted gusts of
debris. Unfortunately, some operators do not follow this
advice. Therefore, citizens are sometimes subjected to the
sound of blowers and other equipment early in the morning or
late into the evening, debris often finds its way into the
street and onto property adjacent to the site being cleaned,
and at times passersby are hit by flurries of dust, leaves,
and other material.
3. Other machinery also presents problems, so why single out
power blowers? Hedge trimmers, lawn mowers, string trimmers,
rototillers,.and power.-vacuums are also moisy and polluting,
in some cases more so than power blowers. Any regulations
that restrict the decibel or pollutant levels or hours of
operation of power blowers should be applied equally to other
gardening equipment.
It appears that the unique aspect of power blowers, that
raises objections beyond concerns about other power equipment,
is the "wind machine" aspect. To be effective, blowers
MEETING DATE:
city of San tuts OBISpo
REM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
found bans difficult to enforce. Calls on leafblowers would
take a back seat to more pressing emergency calls, and by the
time officers reached the offender the blowing may be
completed and the machinery put away.
The San Luis Obispo PD (conversation with Capt. Chelquist,
SLOPD, Jan. 1994) notes that in San Luis Obispo, the great
majority of blower -users are commercial gardeners. These
users would soon become aware of a ban and eventually the
primary offenders would be a few citizens. An educational
effort, launched along with a ban, could reach most citizens.
Time. The National Recreation and Park Association estimates
that it takes five times as long to sweep walks by hand than
by power blower (see memorandum from Larry Tolson, attached).
If the same level of service is to be maintained on City
property, the increased time would be the equivalent of one
additional maintenance. person. Commercial landscape
businesses would be similarly affected, if they were to
continue to deliver the same services. Citizens maintaining
their own property would be spending more time to get the same
results.
Water. Some powerblower jobs cannot be accomplished with a
broom, and were previously done with hoses. Water usage for
these tasks would be expected to go up.
conclusion. Obviously, if power blowers were banned, life
would go on. City parks and businesses may not be cleaned as
often or as thoroughly. Other means may be found to
accomplish the work without increasing cost, such as the use
of volunteers (in the case of parks). Cities, such as Los
Altos, which have banned blowers, have found enforcement costs
to lower after a few years of issuing warnings and citations.
Although a ban is possible to enforce and may have a
beneficial effect, before enacting one the Council should make
the determination that the blower problem is large enough to
justify the costs.
7. How pressing a problem is it in San Luis Obispo? San Luis
Obispo citizens are active and vocal. One way to gauge the
extent of a problem is to evaluate the complaints received-by
City departments. The Police Department has received three
complaints specifically about blower noise in the last four
years. The City's Zoning Investigator has received two
complaints in the same period of time. The Parks Division has
responded to a few complaints in its own operation of
leafblowers by using electric blowers in areas near residences
and adjusting hours of operation.
It appears that complaints are more frequent in cities where
there are large affluent neighborhoods with expansive lawn
d -to
j���� city of San LUIS OBI SPO M�NG DATE
JANCIL AGENDA REPORT �^ NUM96i:
Page 5
expect to be able to meet the 1994 standards, but expect that
meeting 1999 standards will be very difficult.
To address blower noise, the City could either choose to step
up enforcement of the noise regulations, or add a section to
the regulations specifically restricting blowers to a certain
decibel level. Staff is not recommending any changes to the
regulations at this time (see discussion below - "How pressing
a problem is it... ? "). Air pollution is expected to be
addressed adequately by the CARB regulations.
5. What are other agencies doing about these issues? Several
organizations are involved in finding solutions to the above
problems. ANSI developed standards for measuring noise levels
of blowers, and recommends that decibel levels be listed on
each model. The Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers
Association proposes 70 dB, as measured by the .ANSI standards,
as a voluntary standard that blowers should be expected to
meet. (In fact, most manufacturers already have met this
standard or expect to meet it soon.) Manufacturers have
developed voluntary "codes of conduct" for operators. The
California Landscape Contractors Association conducts classes
in the proper use of machinery. Some air quality districts
have restricted or banned the use of gas - powered blowers.
Several cities within California have either banned blowers or
restricted their use.
6. Why not ban them? Mr. Friedman would like the city to ban
leafblowers altogether. A few cities have done this. This
seems a simple solution that would address all leafblower
problems. Mr. Friedman and others point out that many jobs
done by the power blower used to be done by brooms, and could
be again. Those who do not use power blowers often tend to
see them as superfluous, because there are other tools that
can do the same job.
The same can be said for any power gardening equipment.
Mowers, hedge trimmers, power vacuums, string trimmers, and
even chain saws have replaced non -power tools. This equipment
allows operators to accomplish tasks they would not be able to
do without help or that would take much longer.
Given the current level of use (virtually every commercial
gardener -uses one and many residents do as well), a ban on
power blowers would have an impact on the following:
Enforcement personnel. Presumably the Police Department (PD)
would be called upon to enforce the ban, especially given that
blowers are most frequently operated outside normal business
hours, when other code enforcement officers are not working.
The noise ordinance also specifies that the. PD respond to
violations lasting less than 48 hours. Some other cities have
a- s
dllq�W§j city of San LUIS OBISPO
MNra JANCIL AGENDA REPORT
Paae 8
9. Background information is available. A packet of information
is available for Council review, in the Council office.
Copies of ordinances and staff reports from other cities,
articles on leaf blowers, letters, and press releases from Echo
have been obtained from the League of California Cities, Mr.
Friedman, and the public relations representative for Echo.
ALTERNATIVES
A. If the Council believes power blowers present a unique problem
for the city that is not addressed by existing or proposed
regulations, then it may direct staff to focus on obnoxious
aspects of blower operation and return with draft regulations.
B. If the Council believes the problems with blowers come less
from the equipment itself than from how it is operated, the
Council may wish to initiate an educational program, possibly
with the assistance of landscape contractors' associations and
retailers. Such a program can alert citizens and landscaping
services of the adverse impacts blowers and other power
equipment have on others, and suggest ways to eliminate
conflicts.
C. If the Council believes the present regulations are adequate
to protect citizens from unnecessary noise and pollution, and
existing problems with blowers are small in number, then it
may find that additional regulation or education is
unnecessary at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
If power blowers are banned, City maintenance crews will have to 1)
be increased by the equivalent of one person; or 2) allocate
resources to those areas that are determined to be most important,
and clean other areas less often. Enforcement costs may increase.
Attached:
Memorandum from Larry Tolson
ANSI standards for testing sound levels
Noise Regulations excerpts
A sampling of various articles on blowers
Available in Council office:
Background information from Alan Friedman, Robin Pendergrast
(representing Echo), and the League of California Cities:
primarily copies of ordinances, staff reports, press releases, and
articles.
I
M1QJQM11JIU city or san Luis osispo
JANCIL AGENDA REPORT
Paae 7
areas. In those areas, it is not uncommon for blowers to be
heard all day long. San Luis Obispo's citizens tend to be
more water - conscious, and as a result we do not see many large
lawns. Blowers in this city are used primarily to blow leaves
and debris off driveways, sidewalks, and other paved areas.
One local gardening firm estimates that less than ten minutes
are spent on blowing in any typical job. It appears that the
greatest use of blowers is in the downtown, where leaves and
trash are blown off sidewalks every morning.
At this time, the leafblower issue does not appear to be a
large one in the public's eye.
8. There are alternatives to poorer blower bans. An outright ban
is the most extreme answer to the issues raised by power
blowers. Other cities have
* restricted hours of operation (for example, allowed
operation only between 8 am and 6 pm weekdays and
Saturday);
* required that machines operate below a certain decibel
level (blowers can be operated at less than full power,
resulting in a corresponding lower noise level. The City
of San Diego, for example, set a limit of 65 dB in
residential or hospital zones.);
* enacted laws prohibiting debris from being blown into the
street or onto adjacent property;
* prohibited or limited use of gas blowers, but not
electric blowers;
* enacted bans only in residential zones.
There are costs and advantages to each of these alternatives.
If they are to be strictly enforced, each would create an
impact on the Police Department or other enforcement persons.
Having such laws on the books may result in a high rate of
voluntary compliance, however. If the Council is interested
in restricting the use of power blowers or other equipment,
staff can return with further information on how effective
such measures have been in other jurisdictions, and how
effective they would be expected to be here.
At this time, further legislative action does not appear
warranted. Virtually all power equipment can be operated in
a way that causes a problem for others. It may be more
beneficial to consider educational programs to address blower
problems, rather than punitive ordinances.
U
how my own family, including my infant son, was struck in the face by the full blast of a
so- called professional gardener with no name or anything on the side of his truck, yet he had on
goggles, ear protection, and a mask! He may be rare, but if you shelve this report as Staff
recommends, he is among those who will not be held responsible for the mis -use of leafblowers.
He will be able to do this again and again because of your inaction!
Under P. 2 92 [noise levels] and continued top of P. 3, even the quietest leafblower is illegal. I
refer to the Ordinance again, P. 190 -4, table no. 1, "EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS," and in any
residential zone 50 or 55 dB, minus 5 d6 "Correction for Character of Sound" brings it down to
45 -50 dB for all residential areas! This means, THE QUIETEST LEAFBLOWER KNOWN IS TWENTY
TO TWENTY -FIVE TIMES LOUDER THAN IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY LAW! See P. 2 q2, "How
bud are they ?" for verification. So, as I stated some time ago, the problem started with the
absolute flat refusal of the City to enforce what is already on the books, is now backed up by
this agenda report!
As I had only six days notice of the 1/25/94 hearing, you will get a shorter letter from me, and
let others cover pages 4, 5, 6 and 8, and move to page 7 of the report to a solution, to a
compromise on my part, if you will. First off, saying that I want a "complete ban" is not
accurate; it is the only way I could see that the noise (especially in residential areas) and
emissions pollution could (or would) be enforced! So, to page 7 q8 ( "Alternatives "): The first
one is unacceptable, for it suggests that we can only disturb the peace and quiet and pollute the
air during certain hours. Point two is way off because of the enforcement problem (many of the
worst violators are not licensed here, not easily traceable, we no longer have a noise control
officer, and as mentioned: by the time the Police Department gets there, the violators are gone,
plus the hours of City payroll which will have to go into any vigorous enforcement. Point three,
same thing: impossible to control particulates or emissions. Now, the last two asterisks
combined, I personally could live with. I cannot speak for any other group, but (1) ban all gas -
powered blowers from the City limits, (2) ban electric - powered blowers from residential areas
only. This is the lesser of all the above evils in that: the residents will say thank you for the
quiet, and the City gardeners will say thank you for a minimal financial impact on work and work
hours, the Police Department will say thank you for the same reasons.
Best of all, I can get back to doing more creative and positive work for our community.
So, for everybody's sake, including yours, please just do it. This issue will never become a
"dead duck," only unresponsive politicians fall into that category.
My complaint was first only about noise. Unnecessary loud, intrusive noise, you bet. Now it is
an air pollution issue: hydrocarbons, particulates, noise. The Sierra Club now has its hands on it,
and soon other groups will be joining, no doubt. So, even if Alan Friedman "goes away," the
issue will not; I am just "carrying the ball" for the time. Someday, sometime, the dollar sign has
got to stop being the only ultimate goal. If we could "buy back" our environment, including clean
air and peace and quiet, God knows we would already have done so. We all need to make a
riving, but not at the expense of the fast disappearing quality of life we all stay here to enjoy.
We must cherish t ' or ourselves and our descendants. Right now, with this issue, you can
make a difference
Alan Friedman
Alan Friedman - Horticulture
Friedman & Sons - Arborists
P.O. Box 3655
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
January 23, 1994
RECEIVED
JAN 24 1994
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISP_O, CA
The Honorable Peg Pinard, Mayor
and City Council of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
MF, A5 AGENDA
DA`Iit 5 -4 ITEM It
After much research (almost three years worth), the leafblower issue is finally before you.
Today (Sunday), I have spent several hours studying the report from Arnold Jones by Judith
Lauther on this item. Overall it is a good report, and I wish to compliment Judy on her work and
thank Arnold for his continued attentiveness to the problem.
Staff informed me last week that you would appreciate a letter from me before the hearing;
therefore, I will now address the report point by point, where necessary, and use page and
paragraph numbers as set up by Community Development Department.
P. 1 Solutions: "Decibel Levels" - unfortunately, most people in Staff, including Rob Brinn, and
former N.C.O. Steven Seybold, go either first or completely to this term to define objectionable
noise(s). Loudness, or dB, are only part of noise disturbances. Please see NOISE CONTROL
(Ch. 9.12) Ordinance P. 190 -4 B. "Correction for Character of Sound" where it mentions, "a
steady, audible tone such as whine, screech, or hum," and also notice Table 1: "EXTERIOR
NOISE LIMITS" and that [in such cases] "standard limits..." "shall be reduced by 5 dB." I will
refer to this section again.
P. 1 "The Local Situation" - Perhaps we need to define 'large problem," "widespread use," 'long
periods of time." I refer you to the Ordinance again: P. 190, IR9.12.040 General Noise
Regulations, which states: "any loud...," "any neighborhood..., "any discomfort or annoyance to
any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area." So, we can throw out all words of
relativity which are hard to define, and know that according to our own City law, a noise need
only bother one person anywhere in the city limits! Plus, numbers of complaints should not be
used as an index- -yet. If this item is ever circulated as a petition for the ballot, then we can
talk numbers. The truth is, "most people" find them objectionable for a variety of reasons but
"most people" either think they must tolerate their use, or that they are a "necessary evil." A
small reminder, with a larger eventual impact here: for those of you who consider yourselves
environmentalists or who spout environmental concern, know that "most people" are about to
find out that they do not have to tolerate leafblower noise or air pollution, and if you consider
"most people" your constituents, then consider that with education of the public this sort of
"tolerance" could be dangerous to any political career based on any environmental issue.
P. 2 item 1 92: Along with ''blow debris," should- state re- particulate matter, for it goes into the
air, in your face, up your nose, in your window, on your car, etc. I refer you to the letters from
the Air Pollution Control District, Sept. 17, 1992 (Larry Allen), and the letter from Supervisor
Laurent, Sept. 1, 1992, wherein we are reminded that because of reparticulation, "their use does
not clean up anything." So, I agree and must object to use of the word "clean" as used
throughout the report. This is no longer debatable as on P. 3 of Staff report under 93, "How
much do they pollute?" and 914, "And how are they operated?" My previous letter. describes
ErqMNCIL
RTCDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
I
�
❑FIRE CHIEF
EY
QPW DIR
CLERKK RIG
❑ POUCE CHF
• MGWr TEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑ FILE
13 UTIL DIR
/E�,AD
❑ PERS DIR
After much research (almost three years worth), the leafblower issue is finally before you.
Today (Sunday), I have spent several hours studying the report from Arnold Jones by Judith
Lauther on this item. Overall it is a good report, and I wish to compliment Judy on her work and
thank Arnold for his continued attentiveness to the problem.
Staff informed me last week that you would appreciate a letter from me before the hearing;
therefore, I will now address the report point by point, where necessary, and use page and
paragraph numbers as set up by Community Development Department.
P. 1 Solutions: "Decibel Levels" - unfortunately, most people in Staff, including Rob Brinn, and
former N.C.O. Steven Seybold, go either first or completely to this term to define objectionable
noise(s). Loudness, or dB, are only part of noise disturbances. Please see NOISE CONTROL
(Ch. 9.12) Ordinance P. 190 -4 B. "Correction for Character of Sound" where it mentions, "a
steady, audible tone such as whine, screech, or hum," and also notice Table 1: "EXTERIOR
NOISE LIMITS" and that [in such cases] "standard limits..." "shall be reduced by 5 dB." I will
refer to this section again.
P. 1 "The Local Situation" - Perhaps we need to define 'large problem," "widespread use," 'long
periods of time." I refer you to the Ordinance again: P. 190, IR9.12.040 General Noise
Regulations, which states: "any loud...," "any neighborhood..., "any discomfort or annoyance to
any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area." So, we can throw out all words of
relativity which are hard to define, and know that according to our own City law, a noise need
only bother one person anywhere in the city limits! Plus, numbers of complaints should not be
used as an index- -yet. If this item is ever circulated as a petition for the ballot, then we can
talk numbers. The truth is, "most people" find them objectionable for a variety of reasons but
"most people" either think they must tolerate their use, or that they are a "necessary evil." A
small reminder, with a larger eventual impact here: for those of you who consider yourselves
environmentalists or who spout environmental concern, know that "most people" are about to
find out that they do not have to tolerate leafblower noise or air pollution, and if you consider
"most people" your constituents, then consider that with education of the public this sort of
"tolerance" could be dangerous to any political career based on any environmental issue.
P. 2 item 1 92: Along with ''blow debris," should- state re- particulate matter, for it goes into the
air, in your face, up your nose, in your window, on your car, etc. I refer you to the letters from
the Air Pollution Control District, Sept. 17, 1992 (Larry Allen), and the letter from Supervisor
Laurent, Sept. 1, 1992, wherein we are reminded that because of reparticulation, "their use does
not clean up anything." So, I agree and must object to use of the word "clean" as used
throughout the report. This is no longer debatable as on P. 3 of Staff report under 93, "How
much do they pollute?" and 914, "And how are they operated?" My previous letter. describes
METING AGENDA
DA ° X ' 5�Q ITEM #
0"090UNCIL
WCDD DIR
Er�PAO
0 FIN DIR
O
0 FIRE CHIEF
EY
January 19. 1994 oL'E'ZZ
O PW DIR
G
O POLICE CHI
0 MGMT TEAM
0 REC DIR
U J(.E
0 UTiL DIR
Dear Mayor t�inard,
0 PERS DIR
I heard you on KVEC this morning asking SLO residents to voice there
opinion on leaf blowers. I hate them. I would never own one because the
noise they make is unbearable. I realize many landscapers feel they need a
Ieaf blower to clean yards efficiently. As a compromise to the outright
banning of this dubious tool why not require a very strict decibel rating
for it to be used in the city? If more and more communities had such a
requirement I know the manufacturer would improve the design to reduce
the noise. We Americans are much too tolerant of noise. Our typical leaf
blower would never be allowed in Germany. I would like to see the Council
adopt a strict noise ordinance based on the European standard and
eliminate this ear shattering intrusion from our neigborhoods.
On another subject... I love the new bikeianes on Grand Ave and the four -
way stop sign at Grand and S'.ack. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David J. Sheridan
2061 Slack St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93,405
544 -4192
RECEIVED
JAN 24 1994
SAN I
LUIS p ISpp, CA
Chumash Village G�;i ' "G R��A z
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
From: Chumash Village Homeowners Association
January 20, 1998
The Board of Directors of Chumash Village Homeowners Asssociation has voted
unanimously to ban the use of gas blowers in the park. (Chumash Village is a mobilhome
park converted to a condominium.)
Our reasons for doing so are as follows:
1. Noise
2. High velocity of air from a gas blower creates more dust.
3. Danger due to flying debris.
4. Flying spores which could carry "Valley Fever" or pesticides.
Electric blowers are allowed since they create less noise and have a lower velocity of air
flow.
We believe our rule is justified, but is hard to enforce without City backing. We also
believe that gas blowers exceed San Luis Obispo City noise standards. Any attempt to
enforce our ruling by calling the police would be useless, since the gas blower would be
turned off by the time the police. arrived and we couldn't take a Polaroid of a noise level.
We could take a Polaroid of someone using a gas blower to give to the police on their
arrival. Please pass a law regulating gas blowers in residential zoning and make it
enforceable in our situation.
'ter d n �o d
Chumash Village Homeowners Association
I r POUNCIL
WCDD DIR
eCAO
❑ FIN DIR
VA AO
❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY
❑ PW DIn
V LERKIOFUG
❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM
❑ REC DIR
CyREA4
❑ UTIL DIR
Q/ i IL
❑ PERS DIR
RECEIVED
JAN 24 1994
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
3057 South Higuera Street / Son Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
- rIECNO.
ECmo INCOAPOAATM
400 OAKWOOO AOAO
LAKE ZLIFIIC .; IL 60047
(708) 64048400
(708) 640 -8493 PAX
r.p-
s
adep{ed b A-ivSL
,j0431 9)17�.A -lggd
sound Level Labeling Standard
for Hand Held and Back Pack
Gasoline Engine Powered Blowers
April 18, 1989
, —L V
MEMORANDUM
October 8, 1993
To: Ron Whisenand
From: Lawrence S. Tolson 4.5 T
Subject: Power blowers
As requested I am providing information regarding the use of power blowers by the Parks
Division staff. Both gasoline and electric powered blowers are used at various locations
throughout the city. Normal hours of operation are between 7:00 A.M, and 4:00 P.M.. Parks
personnel have been trained in the safe and appropriate use of power blowers with periodic
reviews of procedures and policies.
Power blowers are used to clear sand off walks near play areas, curbs and walks after edging
of turf, to clean sports and tennis courts and to blow . leaves and debris into piles from hard
surfaces. Some areas are cleaned daily, with others either weekly or as needed. The amount
of time for these uses total approximately 10 per week The National Recreation and Park
Association in the 1986 Park Standards report that it takes 5 times as long to sweep walks
by hand than it does by power blower. The use of water to clean hard surfaces is an against
city policy unless it is a health and safety concern. Water sources are not available at all
locations.
Please contact me with any questions regarding this information or need for further
information concerning power blowers.
CC. Mike McCluskey
Proposed Slower Standard
April 18, 1989 Draft
Page 3
Index
Section Page
1.• Scope ........ ............................... 4
2. Definitions ...................... 4
3. Sound Level Test Procedure .................. 5
4.
Labeling ..... ...............................
8
5.
Safety Precautions ...........................9
6. Hours of Use .... .............................10
ii
a-la
5C
Proposed Blower Stardard
April 18, 1989 Draft
Page 2
�9
Foreword
This standard sets forth Psto evel labeling
requirements and test procedur evaluate the sound
level of gasoline powered back pack and hand held blowers.
This standard was developed under the supervision of
the ASC B175 American National Standards Committee. The
Committee is comprised of several organizations and
individuals interested in these products. The Committee's
membership includes representatives from the following
groups: users, testing laboratories, servicing dealers,
universities, the Federal Government, manufacturers, and
individuals.
The standard was developed in response to the needs
expressed by various county and municipal governments,
professional and consumer users.
Recommendations to modify this standard may be
submitted to the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers
Associaton. PPEMA is the secretariat for the ASC B175
Committee, and is located in Bethesda, Maryland.
Rationale for Sound Level and Labeling Standard
In the Committee's deliberations, it was decided to
give priority to the development of uniform sound level
test procedures and labeling requirements because of the
needs expressed by various local communities.. For
example, several ordinances passed at the city or county
level of government do not have a uniform test procedure.
In addition, the Committee wanted to assist product users
in making an informed choice using sound levels as one of
several determining factors in making their purchasing
decision.
It is the Committee's intention to'develop additional
product requirements similar to that for other gasoline
powered equipment, as necessary.
i
4.
Proposed Blower Star and
April 18; 1989 Drar
Page 5
3. Sound Level Test Procedure
3.1 Scope. This test procedure establishes the
instrumentation, test site, blower operation and
measurements for determining the sound level of blowers.
3.2 Instrumentation. The following instrumentation shall
be used:
3.2.1 A microphone. A foam windscreen may be used with
the microphone. The wind screen shall not
affect the overall reading by more than +/-
0.5 dBA for the sound source that is being
measured.
3.2.2 Either of the following systems may be used:
(A) A precision sound level meter that meets the
Type I requirements of American National Standard
Specification for Sound Level Meters, ANSI
S1.4 -1983 for direct measurements; or
(B) A data acquisition system which meets the
requirements of the American National Standard for
Qualifying a Sound Data Acquisition System,
ANSI /SAE J184a may be used.
3.2.3 A sound level calibrator (See 3.6.2.4).
3.3 Test Site.
3.3.1 Measurement of sound in free field.
(1)The test area shall be a flat, open space that
could be covered with turf not exceeding 3 inches (76 mm)/A) HOIC+
and free of any large reflecting surfaces such as
signboards or buildings for a minimum distance of 100 ft
(30 m) from the blower.
. (2) The ambient sound level at the point of
measurement (including wind effects) coming from sources
other than the blower being tested shall be at least 10dB
lower than the sound level of the blower.
(3) Measurement shall be made only when wind gusts are
below 12 miles per hour (5.4 m /s).
Proposed Blower Standard
April 18, 1989 Draft
Page 4
1, Scope.
The requirements of this standard apply to portable,
back -pack and hand -held gasoline engine powered blowers,
including *_hose blowers which accept vacuum attachments.
(Note: metric units are included for information only.)
2. Definitions.
2.1 Blower. A device which propels an airstream in a
directed manner.
2.2 Blower Tubes. Devices which direct the blower
airstream.
2.3 Handle(s). Hand grip(s) on unit.
2.4 Harness. Adjustable strap(s) by which the weight of
the unit is suspended from the operator.
2.5 Muffler. Device for reducing engine exhaust noise and
directing the exhaust gases.
2.6 Nozzle. The opening at the end of the blower tube
from which the airstream exits.
.S
2.7 On /Off "Control. A control to allow the engine to
run or to stop the-engine.
2.8 Primer. A device for supplying extra fuel for engine
starting.
2.9 Spar Arrestor. A device through which exhaust gases
pass to owing particle emissions.
2.10 Starter. A mechanism that rotates the engine to
start it.
2.11 Throttle Latch. A device to temporarily set the
throttle partially or fully open.
2.12 Throttle Control. A part of the unit actuated by the
operator to regulate the throttle.
2.13 Throttle. A control that adjusts the volume of air
and fuel delivered to the engine.
2.14 Vacuum Attachment.o. A device(s) that converts the
blower from the blowing mode to the vacuuming mode.
a'i+3
Proposed Slower Standard
April 18, 1989 Graft
Page 7
(5) The reported sound 'level shall be che'arrthmetif.
average of the eight recorded readings rounded to the
nearest whole dec:bel.
3.6 General Comments.
3.6.1 Recommendations. Technically trained persurne:
should select the equipment and conduct the test.
3.6.2 Precautions.
(1) Proper use of all test instrumentation is
essential to uutain valid measurements.
(2 ) Operat r rig manuals and other 1 i ter•ature furnished
by the instrument manufacturer should be referenced.
(3) Specific items to be considered are.descrrbed in
3.6.2.1 through 3.6.2.5.
3.6.2.1 Instrumentation. The type of microphone and its
orientation relative.to the source of noise should be
considered.
3.6.2.2 Weather: The effect of ambient weather conditions
on the performance of all instruments (temperature,
humidity, and barometric pressure) should be taken into
consideration.
3.6.2.3 Equipment Installation. Proper signal levels,
terminating impedances, and cable lengths on
multi - instrument measurement systems should be checked.
3.6.2.4 Calibration..
(1) Proper acoustical calibration procedures shall be
observed, including the influence of extension-ca . bles,
etc.
(2) Field calibration shall be made immediately before
and after each test sequence. Either an external
calibrator or internal calibration means is acceptable.
(3) All test results shall be considered-invalid if
the recheck by external calibration is not within 0.5 dB
of the initial calibration.
r
Proposed Slcwer Standard
April is, 1589 Draft
Page 6 .
3.3.2 Measurement of noise in sound room (alternate
method).
1 1 n arecY,c• rc or s'ern i-aflecho Ic charrioer -nay be used
f ductrng nose tests, provided that the results
�un
dun t vary more than +/- 1 dBA from the free yield test•
]ol3dT (2) Sound levels for distances exceeding the
d i mens 1 oils of the _;hairiber , may be ca i cu 1 aced f rum
measurements taken in the chamber, provided sufficient
data is available to substantiate such calculations.
(3) Artificial grass (such as "Astroturf") is
acceptable as a floor covering in the chamber.
3.4 Blower Operation.
(1) The blower shall be adjusted in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions.
(2) The blower shall be operated by a person using the
product.as intended by the manufacturer.
(3) The blower shall be evaluated with each of the
attachments which are shipped with the unit.
(4) The attachments shall be mounted in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions.
(5) A11 readings shall be taken with the blower at
wide open throttle with the lowest part of the nozzle 1 -3
inches i.25 -71& mm) from the ground cover.
3.5 Measurements.
(1) The sound level meter shall be set for slow
response and the A- weighting network.
(2) Measurements shall be taken at every 45 degrees (a
total of 8 readings) with the microphone 50 ft. (15m) from
the blower and 4 ft. (1.2m) above the ground.
(3) The observer reading the meter shall be at least 8
ft. (2.4m) from the microphone.
(4) It is acceptable to either move the microphone
around the blower in a circle, or turn the operator and
blower 360 degrees with the microphone in a fixed
pos i t i on.
a -.5
Proposed Blower Standard
April 18, 1989 Draft
Page 9
(1) If a power un1L IS
attachment, the h!ghest SO
Sectiurt 3 Shall be i)ear I,v
arid I den L I f i ed az; rye:_ I be i s
CharacLers aL least, .23 111
ol-her aLtaChmenLs nrey also
.Shipped w i Lh rnur a Lrlan _+ne
and ievel as deLerInineu in
and durab I y rnark _d Uri Lhe un I L .
rdBAi us!ny Simple block
(b mrn) hlyh. Sound i.e.els wiLri
Ue marked Orr LPIe power urI I L.
(2 r The wort) i rry "per ANSI [ j shall aCC:umparry :rle
numerical noise level.
(3) wARNINra! Read arid follow all safety precauLiOr1S irr
Lhe '-perator's Manual. Failure to follow these
instructions could result in Serious injury!
5. The safety Precautions set forth below may be used
ver-baL )m or- suitably paraphrased i rr Lhe oper aLor's manual.
Pictorial or graprriC: iliustraLlons may be substituted in
lieu of or- used irl addition to Lhe written statements:
5.I TO reduce Lhe risk of hearing loss associated with
sound levei(Si, hearing protection may be required.
5.2 To reduce the risk of injury associated with thrown
objects:
(1) Always wear eye protection.
(2) Do not allow bystanders in work area.
(3) Do riot point the blower no «le in Lhe direction
of people or pets.
5.3 To reduce the risk of injury associated with objects
being drawn into the rotating parts, do riot wear
loose clothing, scarfs, neck chain, unconfined long
hair, etc.
5.4 To reduce the risk of injury associated with Lhe
inhalation of dust, use a face filter mask in dusty
conditions.
5.5 To reduce the risk of injury associated with
contacting rotating parts, stop the engine before
installing or removing attachments. Do riot
operate without guard(s) in place.
5.6 To reduce the risk of.irrjur•y associated with exhaust
fume inhalation, do not operate in unventilated area.
01-IT
110
Proposed Blower standard
April 18, 1969 Draft
Page 8
3.6.2.5 Other Influences. Because Dy:Larider•zi may tiatie ail .
appreciable i of I ueHLe un rneLer r tsponse wreerl Lhe; At -j , rl
Lhe v ic: In I Ly of Lhe u luwel ur Lhe- rn Icrupht;iie, rwL mur e
than une person uL tier Chan tree u0ser ver rend Iny Lrie m =Ler
dnu the uper atur =jIr•3I I oe w i Lli rn 50 f L. (I5rnr of LIi6
blower car- ul i Lruphurle, and LhaL per sun sha I 1 be d i reL L I y
berg ind Lhe observer r eau ing the rneLer, , un a line tliruugh
the rniGrophune and Lhe ubserver.
3.7 Test Data To Be Recorded.
The recurded test data shuuId Include Lhe followifly:
(1) Geographical location.
(2) Date and time.
(3,) Name of olower operator, sound level meter
reader, and observer(s).
(4) Weather conditions, including ambient
cemperaLure, wind velocity, and barometric
pressure.
(5) Make, type, 'arid serial number of measuring
equipment.
(6) Make, Inuclel, dry weight, displacement and serial
number of blower being tested.
(7) Type of blower (hand held or back pack) and all
attachments.
(8) All sound level readings taken.
(9) Engine speed (rpm).
(10) Sketch or photograph of microphone, blower arid
attachment orientation.
4. Labe 1 i-ng .
The power unit shall be clearly and durably marked
with the following verbatim or suitably paraphrased
statements (pictorial or graphic illustrations may be used
in lieu of or in addition to written statements):
a -17
Pr upused 61 Uwe r SLdfidaf d
April 18, 1989 Gr of 1.
Page 10
5. i To reduce Lhe r I S1, of f i re anti bur n I njul f :
i I i riandle Foe! r+iLI, mare. is le Illyl, ly f ianena:t _.
i.?r uU n(-,L = mr:l.e Nillle haled) illy fuel.
(21 u.-) nuL refuel a hUL engine.
(4) Do not refuel a running ellyine.
t -) Avoid spilling fuel or oil. A)ways wipe urliL
dry uefur a using.
la) Move aL least 10 rEEr (s rneLers) awry from Lhe
fueling poirrL before.sLartiny engine.
(i ) Always S Lure yasu 1 l ne in appruved can La i ner'.
Q.COUA C 'r"t tLtsr oG
,Lg) Male sure Live unit is properly assembled and in
good oper aL ing cued i L iun.
G. Hours of Operation
Hours of operaLion in residential areas may be
limited by local ordinances.
. .
a -�q
this section exists include, but are not limited to,
the following:
A. The sound level ofthe objectionable noise;
B. The sound level of the ambient noise; .
C. The proximity of the noise to residential
sleeping facilities;
D. The nature and zoning of the area within
which the noise emanates;
E. The number of persons affected by the
noise source;
F. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
G. The duration of the noise and its tonal,
informational or musical content;
H. Whether the noise is continuous, recur-
rent or intermittent;
I. Whether the noise is produced by a com-
mercial or noncommercial activity. (Ord. 1159 §
4,1990: Ord. 1032 § 2 (part), 1985)
9.12.050 Prohibited acts.
A. Noise Disturbances Prohibited. No person
shall make, continue or cause to be made or
continued, or permit or allow to be made or
continued, any noise disturbance in such a man-
ner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty
feet from the noisemaker, provided, nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit any
noise which does not penetrate beyond the
boundaries of the noisemaker's own premises or
does not constitute an unreasonable disturbance
to people lawfully on said premises.
B. Specific Prohibitions. The acts, as set forth
in subsections B 1 through 8 of this section, and
the causing or permitting thereof, are declared to
be in violation of this chapter.
1. Radios, Television Sets, Musical Instru-
ments and Similar Devices. Operating, playing
or permitting the operation or playing of any
radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical
instrument, or similar device which produces or
reproduces sound:
a. Between the hours of ten p.m. and seven
a.m. in such a manner as to create a noise distur-
bance across a residential or commercial real
property line or at any time to violate the provi-
9.12.050
sions of Section 9.12.060 of this chapter, except
for activities for which a exception has been
issued by the noise control office.
b. In such a manner as to exceed the levels set
forth for public space in Table 1 of Section
9.12.060 of this chapter, measured at a distance
of at least fifty feet. (fifteen meters) from such
device operating on a public right -of -way or pub-
lic space.
2. Loudspeakers (Amplified Sound). Using or
operating for any purpose any loudspeaker,
loudspeaker system or similar device between
the hours of ten p.m. and seven am., such that
the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance
across a residential real property line, or at any
time violates the provisions of Section 9.12.060
of this chapter, except for any noncommercial
public speaking, public assembly or other
activity for which an exception has been issued
by the noise control office.
3. Street Sales. Offering for sale, selling any-
thing or advertising by shouting or outcry within
any residential or commercial area of the city
except by exception issued by the noise control
office. The provisions of this section shall not be
construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of
merchandise, food and beverages at licensed
sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses or other
similar licensed or permitted public entertain-
ment events.
4. Animals and Birds. Owning, possessing or
harboring any animal or bird which frequently or
for long duration, howls, barks, meows, squawks
or makes other sounds which create a noise dis-
turbance across a residential or commercial real
property line or within a noise sensitive zone.
5. Loading and Unlo9ding. Loading, unload-
ing, opening, closing or other handling of boxes,
crates, containers, building materials or similar
objects between the hours of ten p.m. and seven
a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise distur-
bance across a residential real property line or at
any time to violate the provisions of Section
9.12.060 of this chapter.
190 -1
y
��vo
L `` C n Luu Ob spo 7.90)
a -a
9.12.050
6. Construction /Demolition.
a. Operating or causing the operation of any
tools or equipment used in construction, drilling,
repair, alteration or demolition work between
weekday hours of seven p.m. and seven a.m., or
any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the
sound therefrom creates a noise • disturbance
across a residential or commercial real property
line, except for emergency work of public service
utilities or by exception issued by the community
development department. (This section shall not
apply to the use of domestic power tools as spec-
ified in subsection B 10 of this section.
b. Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties.
Where technically and economically feasible,
construction activities shall be conducted in such
a manner that the maximum noise levels at
affected properties will not exceed those listed in
the following schedule:
i. At Residential Properties.
!Mobile Equipment I
Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled. intermittent. short-
term operation (less than ten days) of mobile equipment:
Single- Muld- Mixed
Family family Residential/
Residential Residential Commercial
Daily. except
Sundaysand
legal holidays
7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
Daily. 7:00
p.m. to 7:00
a.m. and all
day Sunday
and legal
holidays 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Stationary Equipment
Maximum noise levels for repetitively scheduled and rela-
tively long -term operation (periods often days or morc) of station-
ary equipment:
Single- Muld- Mixed
Family family Residential/
Residential Residential Commercial
Daily. except
Sundaysand
legal holidays
7 :00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Daily. 7:00
p.m. to 7:00
a.m. and all
day Sunday
and legal
holidays 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
il. At Business Properties.
Mobile Equipment
Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled,
intermittent; short-term operation of mobile
equipment: Daily, including Sunday and legal
holidays, all hours; maximum of 85 dBA.
Stationary Equipment .
Maximum noise levels for.repetitivelysched -
uled and relatively long -term operations of sta-
tionary equipment: Daily, including Sundays
and legal holidays, all hours; maximum of 75
dBA.
All mobile or stationary internal combustion
engine powered equipment or machinery shall
be equipped with suitable exhaust and air intake
silencers in proper working order.
7. Vibration: Operating or permitting the
operation of any device that creates a vibration
which is•above the vibration perception thresh-
old of an individual at or beyond the property
boundary of the source if on private property or
at one hundred.fifty feet (forty -six meters) from
the source if on a public space or public right -of --
way.
8. Powered Model Vehicles. Operating or per-
mitting the operation of powered model vehicles:
N o 1sE-
rams
ad-m PT
Obispo 7.901 190-2
a. Between the hours of seven p.m. and seven
a.m. so as to create a noise disturbance across a
residential or commercial real property line or at
any time to violate the provisions of Section
9.12.070 of this chapter.
b. In such a manner as to exceed the levels set
forth for public space land use in Table 1 of
Section 9.12.060 measured at a distance not less
than one hundred feet (thirty meters) from any
point on the path of a vehicle operating on public
space or public right -of -way.
9. Emergency Signaling Devices.
a. The intentional sounding or permitting the
sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar or civil
defense alarm, siren, whistle or similar stationary
emergency signaling device, except for emer-
gency purposes or for testing, as provided in sub-
section B 9 b of this section.
b. i. Testing of a stationary emergency signal-
ing device shall not occur before seven a.m. or
after seven p.m. Any such testing shall use only
the minimum cycle test time. In no case shall
such test time exceed sixty seconds.
ii. Testing of the complete emergency signal-
ing system, including the functioning of the sig-
naling device, and the personnel response to the
signaling device, shall not occur more than once
in each calendar month. Such testing shall not
occur before seven a.m. or after ten p.m. The
time limit specified in subsection B 9 b i of this
section shall not apply to such complete system
testing.
c. Sounding or permitting the sounding of
any exterior burglar or fire alarm or any motor
vehicle burglar alarm unless such alarm is termi-
nated within thirty minutes of activation.
10. Domestic Power Tools, Machinery.
a Operating or permitting the operation of
any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill,
grinder, lawn or garden tool or similar tool
between ten p.m. and seven a.m., so as to create a
noise disturbance across a residential or com-
mercial real property line.
b. Any motor, machinery, pump. such as
swimming pool equipment, etc.. shall be suffi-
9.12.060
ciently enclosed or muffled and maintained so as
not to create a noise disturbance in accordance
with Section 9.12.060 of this section.
11. Residential Air - Conditioning or Air -Han-
dling Equipment. Operating or permitting the
operation of any air - conditioning or air - handling
equipment in such a manner as to exceed any of
the following sound levels:
Units
Units
Installed
Installed on
Before
or After
1 -1$0
1 -1-80 dB(A)
Measurement Location db(A)
Any point on neighboring prop-
erty line. five feet above grade
level. no closer than three feet
from any wail 60 55
Outside the neighboring living
area window nearest the equip.
ment location. not more than
three feet from the window open -
ing. burst least three feet from any
other surface 55 50
(Ord. 1159 § 5, 1990; Ord. 1032 § 2 (part), 1985)
9.12.060 Exterior noise limits.
A. Maximum Permissible Sound Levels at
Receiving Land Use.
1. The noise standards for the various catego-
ries of land use identified by the noise control
office(r) as presented in Table 1 of Section
9.12.070 shall, unless otherwise specifically indi-
cated, apply to all such property within.a desig-
nated zone.
2. No person shall cause or allow to cause, any
source of sound at any location within the incor-
porated city or allow the creation of any noise on
property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise
controlled by such person, which causes the
noise level when measured on any other prop-
erty, either incorporated or unincorporated, to
exceed:
a. The noise standard for that land use as
specified in Table 1 of Section 9.12.070 for a
cumulative period of more than thirty minutes
in anv hour, or
b. The noise standard plus 5 dB for a
cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes
190 -3 /l iVI S:U /2f'GG
415' .PT
(San Luis Obispo 7.90
d 4A
12.060
in any hour, or
c. The noise standard plus 10 dB for a
cumulative period of more than five minutes in
any hour, or
d. The noise standard plus 15 dB for a
cumulative period of more than one minute in
any hour, or
(e) The noise standard- plus 20 dB for any
period of time..
3. If the measured ambient level differs from
that permissible within any of the first. four noise
limit categories of this section, the allowable
noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in 5 dB
increments in each category as appropriate to
encompass or reflect said ambient noise level.
In the event the ambient noise level exceeds
the fifth noise limit category, the .maximum
allowable noise level under this category shall be
increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise
level.
4. Ifthe measurement location is on a bound-
ary between two different zones, the noise level
limit applicable to the lower noise zone plus 5 db,
shall apply.
5. If possible, the ambient noise should be
measured at the same location along the property
line utilized in Section 9.12.060, with the alleged
offending noise source inoperative. If for any
reason the alleged offending noise source cannot
be shut down, the ambient noise may be esti-
mated by performing a measurement in the same
general area of the source but at a sufficient
distance such that the noise from the source is at
least 10 dB below the ambient in order that only
the ambient level be measured. If the difference
between the ambient plus the noise source and
noise source is 5 to 10 dB, then the level of the
source itself can be reasonably determined by
subtracting a one decibel correction to account
for the contribution of the source.
B. Correction for Character of Sound. In the
event the alleged offensive noise, as determined
by the noise control officer, contains a steady.
audible tone such as whine, screech or hum, or is
a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting,
or contains music or speech, the standard limits
set forth. in Table I of Section 9.12.060 of this
section shall be reduced by 5 dB.
Table No. l
EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS
(Levels Not To Be Exceeded More Than Thirty
Minutes In Any flour)
Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
R I and R2 C /OS
Low Density
Residential 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 am. 5o
7.00 a.m. — 10.00 p.m. 55
R3 and R4
High Density
Residential 1000 p.m. — 7 :00 am. 50
7:00 Lm. — 10.00 p.m. 55
O. PF
Ltd. Commercial 1000 p.m. — 7:00 am. 55
7:00 am: —1000 p.m. 60
C -N. C -R. C-C.
C -T. 60
Commercial 1000 p.m. — 7:00 am. 60
7:00 am. — 1000 p.m. 65
C -s
Light Industrial Any Time 70
M
Heavy Industrial Any Time 75
(1) The classification of different areas of the
community in terms of environmental noise
zones shall be determined by the Noise Control
Office(r), based upon community noise survey
data. Additional area classifications should be
used as appropriate to reflect both lower and
higher existing ambient levels than those shown.
Industrial noise limits are intended primarily for
use at the boundary of industrial zones rather
than for noise reduction within the zone. (Ord.
1032 § 2 (part), 1985)
(San Luis Obispo 7.90) 1904 ry—&-ye
1 a -a3
UNCOMMON SENSE
Sound Advice
Gardening doesn't have to hurt your ears
Roger B. Swain
LOWING WITH OXEN is a tranquil pursuit.
The cheory is easy. Jochen Welsch cells
me, "Simply pull the handles to the left to
make the plow go right, to the right when you
want to go left. Lift up co sink the plowshare;
push down to raise ic." It's clue learning curve
chat's tough. Welsch steps to the herd of his
cram, says, -Come up.- and suddenly terrible
things are happening. I'm running to keep up
and grubbing desperately at the plow, which
alternately huunces alone the surface of the
ground, or buries itself and veers off at a 90-
degree angle coward a row of 'Baldwin' apple
trees. The crowd of visitors hanging over the
fence at Old Sturbridge Village is amused. The
oxen, Zephaniah and Red Top, are less so. They
halt and let me regroup. In theory they are the
ones who are doing the work. They are the ones
shouldering the 75 -pound rock -maple yoke with
its steam -bent hickory bows, its iron ring, the
heavy chain, and the attached plow. If there is to
be any swtaring or heavy breathing, it should lx
SCRUSH YOUR BOOTIES
1:1t•1•,Lel ellrla( fill- trnc•kintrIMIM.,
I11- •%rs. diet. slt rr innnurr, drab snail
91 r t s fard at hrt-garrien drt ri t us into file
";,:' •..
111311sr.,1 rin, till file tirae tinl'rrinit a
titrushr •r®bvIhr hark d(ar,AScrusher ®':= ' 'r
i s the lwxt lm)rrf and shor clenner made.
1lr�n•vdufr,filesurt van/ Irndaround
dairies- frinns, industrial plants and '
�ru! /'crnnsas The franteis steel, solidly °+ g
u•rldldSits ill) nn %ourIegssoyoucall
ha l'(7n•(!I'If'Itrlt t4nr':Krt(sh"nff.Tile
/r•r'l acre nllerl tin 11011 Cant fastelr it
don•lr ifrvu nvtul.711C franceholtls five
replrurable brushes frith tou,Kh rcvlon
bristles anchor rel in run plc bk)cks. Tile
flares Ix)ltorr) brux1les liavrshort, extra-
still•bris(les /nrscrubl)ingyoursoles
And llfe- v rrn)nrrnfcd in stagigered - t
hcitd1(sso i(ur rlrnq tvnrr foot through ;�� >�`` "'"c• �1 �!!. rsrty�l
at it cantf)rtablentigle. Thetivoside
brusites lift er lon.9e; not- as- stiffbris- tt &91 SCRUSHERm
Iles f)rless rarar- and- tearonyour &57 �
sltrx:s'rtplx•rs. TlteLigltt DutyScruslter® " '• -'�; "._
r :.r
lurson (- IvmIx)ftont brush. and they're " ^ --
sc( level intend ofat an angle Its
bristicsttremtiei Ixilvpropyiene Tile `' y
frnnrc larks k ns.(Whenvi e,thequality
isthemiale. M92 LIGHTDUTYSCRUSHFAOSZ9
LONG PLOUGH
For more than 2000 years Korean
farmers have used this tool tocultivate.
Its graafi1ll),curvin head isshaped
like a Cnlndium &4. The (lead is hand -
forggcd, you can see file hammer marks
in tltesteel. We've slwrpened the two
blade edges to make it more versatile
Now it's a superb cultivator, a great
"ceder and orle flneclod buster. Use it to
rip deep furrows and draw shallowseed
lines. Thesharp point is useful for rock-
ery work and precise weeding around
shrub roots Tire broad blade pushes
and pulls dirt efficiently. Ourstandard
version of this tool has a sir -inch .
handle This "long -arm •' version has a
13 -inch ash handle with a heavy -gadge
-steel ferrule. A steel pin locks the head
into the handle
City_ Statc zip
Quaotilr Ilan d Ilcxrriptian Prierench Price
All priers irtdudc.-ddppirrgand ltandlirr,5 5lrbmtrr(:
(i► rrstrlrnrsadd &tit" ta.r
tbfal enclurrt:
Crerlitrr+r'd p Etpiratiundate
DE NT4AN & C OM PA NY
theirs, not mine. I straighten the plow,
and we start off again. This time I cur a
furrow, sinuous to be sure, buc at least
continuous, running the rest o(the way
across the field at Pliny Freeman's Farm.
"Whoa; says Welsch at the end of
the field, and the oxen pivot as I lift the
plow, rum it around, and position it for
the rerum passage. Each pass of the plow
across the field inveru a four- to six -inch-
wide scrip of soil, and with a ream char
has spent the summer feeding on fresh
grass like this one has, . one should be
able to cum over an acre of ground in a
10 -hour day.
By lunch, I have achieved a measure of
control, if not mastery. By the end of the
day I ve learned char oxen are called work-
ing sreecs until they are four years old and
char a team shouldn't be the same size
since the "off ox --che one on the right,
or opposite, side of the driver —walks in
the furrow. Thus it is appropriate that
Red Top is a half -foot taller than
Zephaniah, the -nigh ox; although both
weigh roughly 2,000 pounds. rve learned
the exemplary disclaimer, "I wouldn't
know him from Adam's off ox," and I'm
trying to figure out where to insert the
word kov*bedoa into ordinary conver-
sation. (It refers m chose ancient methods
of writing in which lines nm alternately
from left to right and right to left, liter-
ally as the ox turns in plowing.)
Bur the most important lesson I cake
home doesn't become apparent to me
until the next day, when I am suddenly
struck by how quiet it all was. Yes, my
heart was booming and I was panting.
But the oxen weren't. Welsch didn't have
to shout his commands co the animals, or
his instructions to me- We could hear
the sounds of the birds drawn to the
overarmed earth, the charter of voices
from across the field. And when I'd got:
the hang of steering, which was really
my only responsibility, the loudest sound
was the susurration of the soil sliding
over the iron moldboard of the plow.
We are so accustomed to being sur-
rounded by the roar of traffic and heavy
machinery char we fund it strange co be in
a water - powered sawmill where you can
hear the teeth of the blade chewing into a
pine log, or in a vehicle where the buggy
springs are louder than the clop -clop of
the horses' hooves. Herr I'd had enor-
mous power at my disposal, an engine
weighing a couple of tau, traveling at
two or three miles an hour—arid making
scarcely a sound. it isn t the architecture Q7
that distinguishes Old Sturbridge Village,
a historical reconstruction of an 1830s
our.... r_..r... r .. ..
F R E E S E E D S
ORNAW- PrrAas
C..+... C....
M1..g.in.illa. c.rhe. Oaeir, 0.
St kd n.. Ce
luny. All.n .d; VW mow nda.•�
Gyp.. M mL A uic jaunin., • -.: J.
lum.pe. Gri..., el.us.p.um. r
Ylmm.dn. Plun&amg 4 16hocvy �- .. -
Cnwcs..ul v..:..:e
C� C....
.. crown t on.41ey Lira
� Tanaed,e,.
c
routs % /
C.wi... C....
C wR.drnsa seam.
windnan.Phoe.ia
an.h.uin.
wa.hi" onia
a.b.n wa.hid,6,retia
rdikm Meditmranern 1
Fan Hlan
RO
CROCKEITS
r _ TROPICAL PLAINTS
c P. O. Box 1150H
s, s� Harlingen. TX 78551
..n
r
a r.
Now you can
do some
9 about
the weather
5119' Our new Home Weather Sta-
tion helps you plan your day,
safeguard your family and prop
>: enybyaleningyoutoLqlaiweather
conditions that often vary from distant forecasts.
Tells you to: Warn loved odes when wind chill
threatens frostbite... Secure outside belongings
against unexpected gusts... Protect planes when
an alarm signals dangerous heat or cold .. .
Increase watering when rainfall is too low —and
much more.
Designed to far outlast all others. the
1)LTIMEM If gives you over 20 most -Wetted
features including
• Rind Speed and Direction
silo• Temperature • Chill factor
• Alarms • HighsAowst
times/datet • S1etriclEnglish
• Quick -Moam (no tools)
masthead mounting • Fsu.eaay'Point & Pluedime.
tion calibration (pat. pending) • Optional self-empty-
ing rain gauge -:0-4v money backgtvrantee • One.
year warranty • PLUS = introductory savingx
Home Weather Station reg. 5179 _awly 5149
As above, without wind direction senor—s119
1h.t. in Ix wad Gt21 shipping & inmrad.e. Ni dew dd c ra
CISA/NCpinmewderc rkn-pSA- PELr(9742-VM).
Of swW chr.-k. ln.u. w credit .vd am and eq. due lo:
PEEP BROS. COMPANY 6111 -2110W ,d lsMRd..
u•. Almhn.n S.l a -u
F'nr lindrhum 0.r 171h I'mr
IN 11..".. � � \ ... ..... I_, I - .I
bastion ctoginc•. Its hi:_h Ixnvtr -a.- weight
ratio has made is the engine of choice•
for trucks and tctetors, airplanes and
automobiles. And these same engines
power it hour of familiar garden calls. 1
own a enesor, circa• rotary mowers, a
sickle -bur mowm a mrociller, a i0- gallcni
power sprayer, a shrdderahiplter, two
chain saws, a brush curter, and a string
trimmer. I'm not a Ixnver -reel fanatic;
dust• are just tools char I have a regular
need for. Lcx)k in garages across America,
and you will find simihareollecriorm The
hirch is char These machines all ear gaso-
line instead of grass, and give back not
manure bur noise, lots of noise.
The ratr of a lawn mower scarring up
on a Saturday morning, cut off the bird -
songs, the rustling grass, cite gurgle of
water in the brook. At best the noise
simply intrudes on breakfisr cable calk; at
worst all conversation ceases. It seems
exceedingly ironic char so much of gar-
dening, a profession chat is often
described as an attempt to create an
earthly paradise, has become dependent
on making such a din.
Part of the reason we have been so
quick to embrace the gasoline engine is
char is allows us to rend our gardens with
less rime and etforr. And so the push reel
mower has been replaced with che self -
propelled rotary, the sickle with the siring
trimmer, the axe with the chain saw.
Increasingly gardening activity begins
with the first pull of a scarcer cord, and
ends when the Iasi engine is shut down.
"Mow, blow, and go" gardening is the
term chat Californians use to describe the
proliferation of landscape services chat roar
through suburbia, mowing, Trimming,
and manicuring the grounds.
I cant hear the sound of the earth when
I'm running my own rorotiller. I can't
even hear my wife unless she comes up
next To me and shouts something in my
ear. When the machine is running, I'm so
wrapped in a fog of noise char I'm cut off
from almost all other sounds. And noise
this loud doesnt just cause a temporary loss
of awareness; unless I'm carefid it can cause
a loss char's permanent.
We all lose some of our hearing as we
grow older. It is a normal parr of aging.
Older adults, for example, cant hear the
high - pitched sounds char children can.
Bur exposure to loud noise is deafening
many of us prematurely. There's no such
Thing as roughening our ears, no way to
put calluses on the nerves. If someone says
that they have become used to a loud
noise, it is because dry can no longer hear
ir. According to the American Medical
Assmiariom, some 30 million Americans
art rct;ularly exlx AxI to noises loud enough
to lx h tnnlirl. and scone 10 million h.
already sulfrrcd noise- induced bean
loss. They aren't all neck musicians, j:
hammer optmtrors. or jet plane mc.•I,nn
Some of them are gardeners.
Tlie intensicyt or loudness, of
is measured in decibels (dBs). This is
logarithmic scale, sit char 80 dBs is
times is lotld as 70 dBs. and X) dBs
100 times its loud. At one end of c.
scale :tie such barely audible sounds as t
ticking of watches (30 dBs), at the orb
the sound of firturnis discharging (I40
170 dBs). The danger zone for cl
human err begins at SO ro 85 dBs, whir
is the noise generated by children on
crowded school bus.
Mosc of the garden power equir.
menc char I own is in the SO to 105 d:
range, bur because I have no precis
way of measuring it. I rely on a simpl
rule of thumb. If I have to raise m
voice ro calk ro someone three feet awat
then the noise of the machine is lout
enough To be hurting my hearing. Th:
louder a noise is, or the longer I. an
exposed co ic, or the closer I am to irk
source, the more damaging it is likely a
While hile I can cur buck on the lours o:
mowing I do ac a srrerch, there's n(
gerring around the fitcr char I have to sir
on my cracror to operate ir. And 5 n
to protect my ears.
For this I have a choice between
earplugs and earmuffs. Earplugs are those
small inserts char fic inm the outer ear
canal. They must be airtight co be effec-
tive. Wads of cotton scuffed into the ear
do a poor job, reducing the noise only by
about 7 dBs. Good foam - cylinder
earplugs, which can cosr as lirde as a dol-
lar a pair, can have a noise reduction rar-
ing (NRR) of 15 to 30 dBs. (Ihe rating is
printed on the side of the pack--age.)
Earmuffs are larger and more expen-
sive. They resemble the ones we used co
wear against frostbite, only these are
made of plastic with foam -lined inceri-
ors. Again, these have noise reduction
ratings of between 15 and 30. Used in
combination, earplugs and earmuffs will
provide an additional 10 to 15 dB reduc-
tion over using either one alone. Bur
neither will work unless fitted properly.
When my own voice sounds louder and
deeper to me, then I know I am wearing
them correctly.
Rock musicians and their audiences
prefer earplugs because they are incon-
spicuous. Gardeners, however, a,
ruled by fashion in their choice of :
and I'd much rather wear ea toffs. A10y
are big enough char they d�t
misplaced, I don't have uss licring
them into my ear canals, and they clearly
signal to other Ixople char I probably cant
hear them. At our house we have half a
dozen pairs, in part so that we can outfit
groups when we need to, but more so char
them is always a pair handy. When I m fin-
ished with one machine, 1 just shove the
earmuffs back and leave them clipped
around my neck so char dwyll be ready for
when f rum on the next.
Protecting the operator from the noise
of garden power equipment is one thing,
but .what about the public at large?
Although the decibel level drops with
distance from a machine, there can still be
plenty of noise hundreds of feet away.
This secondhand noise is every bit as
irritating as the secondhand smoke from
cigarettes. Noisy environments have been
shown to increase blood pressure, flange
the way the heart bears as well as the
race of breathing, cause an upset stomach
or an ulcer, make is difficult to sleep
even after the noise ceases, and contribute
co the premature birth of babies. Even
something as commonplace as a single
lawn mower operating in the neighbor-
hood can have surprising effects. In one
experiment researchers studied the
response of passersby to a woman with a
broken arm in need of help. When a
Resources
Outdoor Power Equipmenr
Institute, Inc.
341 South Patrick Street
Alma idrq VA 22314
(703) 549 -7600
This trade aganiwim omm the manrr-
fam7m of pouer egrr#==
National Information Center on
Deafness Gallaudec University .
800 Florida Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20W2
(202) 651 -5051
(202) 651 -5052 (MD) -
A amtralizad irp-ta daunow of ironw
liar err bearing lam —RBS
lawn mower was running, no.one stopped
to help her pick up the books she had
dropped. When the mower was shut off
and the experiment repeated, people has-
tened to help her
All of us differ in our tolerance for
environmental noise. Certain classical
music sea my teeth on edge, while some
of my own whistling does the same to
others. But the one sound chat has
achieved almost universal unpopularity is
"Thoroughly convincing
At fine bookstores.
For credit card orders, call the Putnam
Publishing Group mail order
department, toll - freer- 800 -631 -8571.
Postage and handling additional. er16
the sound of a leaf blower. Here in the
East they are used principally in the 611,
bur in the West they are used year -round.
Their use dares from the drought years of
the late 1970s when Califomia munici-
palities banned residents fiom using hoses
to wash dust and grass clippings off walks
and patios. In response gardeners cumed
to leaf blowers whose engines deliver a
high -speed blast of air. The problem is
chat they also deliver a great deal of noise.
A number of cities from Beverly Hills to
Santa Monica banned the machines' use
outright. Others, such as Los Angeles,
after impassioned debate, compromised
with homeowners and landscaping ser-
vices by regulating the hours during
which they can be used.
The manuFuturim of leaf blowers and
ocher power equipment have responded
with an educational campaign and some
quieter technology. The noise. of any
machine can be traced in part to such
things as air flow, sheer metal vibration,
and blade impacr, but the engine is typ-
ically the chief culprit. Here the quality of
the muffler can make a big difference,
and some of the quietest outdoor power
tool models simply have bigger, better
mufflers.
—as genuine, moving, and implausible as the first
caressing breeze of spring."—New York Times
New and Selected Poems
Mary Oliver
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize
for Poetry
$20.00 hardcover 0- 8070 - 6818 -7
The most exciting
Y
travel writing I have read in ears." V
—Robert finch; co- editor of The Norton Book of Nature Writing
The Very Rich Hours
Travels in Orkney, Belize,
the Everglades, and Greece
Emily Hiestand
$20.00 hardcover 0- 8070- 7118 -8
IMe a�a
The '
Approac
Independent Publishing Since 1854
0
0
e
°s
he Garden Too[ Gift
Pack by Snow & Nealley.
Three classic, hand forged
garden tools that bring; a
hint of spring to your
holiday.
Beautiful, richly grained
handles of native Maine
Ash. Strang, high carbon
steel blades and tines. And
a convenient roof hag for
storage, too. The Snow & I
Nealley Garden Tool Gift Garden Tool Gill Pack Includes
Pack is a.wonderful present to leave under any ♦ Transplanting Tnrwel
gardener's tree. CUw
Snow & Nealley Garden Tax,ls are available at * Cape C`d Weeder
fine retailers everywhere. Call us for the name ;
of one near you. (207) 947 -6642 �1
The roots that last forgeneratimts► �3[�OC� (• C�(l:1ddC�l
Bangor, Maine
9
NEW! ZoneUppaL
Guards plants and shrubs against wind burn, sun scald and the effects of biting cold.
Ideal for roses, evergreens, rhodies, hibiscus, camellias and other landscape plants.
• Two heavy duty wind - blocking, water resistant outer layers.
• Eight insulating layers of high R value foam.
• Innovative modular design lets you combine as many as you need to protect
even the largest specimen.
P.C.I. 340 Commercial, Manchester, N.H. 03101
2S To order call 1- 800 - 227 -2656. Visa. Mastercard. Check, Money order.
There is no way, of course, that am
can cell what a machine will sound
wichourc hearing it running. Some )
ago, the Outdoor Power Equipm
Insrirure urged manufacturers ,
meet a voluntary "hang-°S pt
which the decibel levels of each macs
would be displayed on it, btu This n,
caught on. It is high time chat such a I
gram be reinstated, and we consumers
in the best position to see that is is. Ri .
now, the manufacturers' principal worr
the prmpxt char air-qualicy emission re
lations will be applied to outdoor po-
equipment But they should remem
Char noise is an emission, too.
While we wait for listings of deci
outpua, the best char we gardeners ,
do is rest various machines before buys
them, paying accenrion not just to ;
weight, aorismution, horsepower; and e
of use, but to the sound char they ma
One of the reasons chat I like electric po
er tools —fmm lawn mowers to ch:
saws —is chat they are so much quie
than theugasohne- powered councerpw
As for those machines that we alrea
own, a little acoustic edquecte is in ord
Done mow your lawn before eight
the morning or after dark, no main
how bright the moonlight. Don c w:
umril your neighbors are having a parry
blow out your gucrers. Don't it
wood on Sunday morning. An, ya
are called away to answer a celephon
call, turn off the machine you are usit
first This should all be common seas
common courtesy. It shouldn't requi
andnoise legislation.
Here in the country, where the hoes
are separated by a quarter of a mile ,
more, we can be more indulgent win
the noise char we make. But neverth,
lea I find myself periodically choosin
on trim the lawn edge of the perenni .
border with a pair of old- fashioned shee
shears ra than my string trimmer C
I reach for a handsaw in lieu of a chaff
saw. Ic isn't just the prospect of the noi!
aaaulting me or others around me ch:
causes me to limit my use of power egwl
went in the garden. Ic is the way the
the noise separates me from nature.
want to be able co hear the wind corn
down the hill through the pines. I want r
hear the cooing of the mourning clove:
the rustle of a chipmunk in the blackber
rim These are the sounds of reassurance
proof char the world I care for is aliv
and well. The Amish have a pl• fo
this kind of gardening. They : X/,
are the quiet on the land." ur
roger B. Swain is science ed10ro fi nmga
Publ1
tit
lkf
I
<�.i.. � con.- - �•. * s ' �.
Leaf Blower Bans Could Be Expensive
THE gasoline- powered leaf blower is a
proven useful and versatile portable
power tool for municipal maintenance
work. But bemuse of the noise and other
problems associated with their user
misuse — several attempts have been made
in California to ban them. Ey"pening
municipal cost-benefit studies have been
conducted to show just how valuable
these units are when compared to manual
labor, and just how inappropriate most
alternatives to their use would be.
Gasoline- powered portable leaf blow-
ers are used by municipalities for park
and recreation area maintenance of ten-
nis courts, swimming pooh, parking lam,
and stadiums. Blowers are used to remove
litter, for drying wet surfaces, and even
for restoring sand traps and tending
greens on municipal golf courses.
In several California communities,
however, citizens have petitioned their
city councils to ban the gasoline- powered
blower. At community hearings held
across the state, the same theme emerges:
power blowers are interrupting sleep at in-
appropriate hours. Most complaints in-
volve use of leaf - blowers by commercial
lawn care crews. But banning the equip-
ment would also take it out of the hands
of municipal maintenance departments.
The Berkeley, California Department
of Public Works uses blowers to clean
tennis, basketball, and volleyball courts
weekly; to clear walks and curbs after
edging; and to blow leaves and debris in-
to piles for pickup. The city has five land-
scape maintenance crews who use their 12
blowers about 70 hours per weep for nine
months and about 35 hours per week for
three months. Total annual usage is 3,150
hours, or about 1.5 full time equivalent
positions.
City landscape gardeners do not use the
backpack blowers before 8 am., they do
not use them around groups of people,
and they operate the equipment at the
lowest speed necessary to do the job. In
addition, the city buys the blowers with
the lowest decibel rating available. Cur-
rent blowers have a rating of 70 decibels
or less at 50-ft distances.
Blower Alternatives
William Montgomery, Berkeley
Parks/Marina Superintendent, investi-
gated alternatives to the gas- powered
Lro
blowers, one of which was electric
blowers. Electric blowers, however re-
quire power sources and cords, facilities
that are neither feasible nor available at
many city locations.
Another alternative would be to hire
sufficient landscape gardeners to make up
for the lack of blowers. If blowers are
currently used 3,750 hours annually, and
it would take four times as long to do the
same work without blowers, an additional
9,450 hours would be required. This is the
equivalent of an additional 4.5 full -time
employees, with a personnel cost of
5202,000 annually. .
Otherwise, the city could either reduce
services —lo cleanups monthly instead of
weekly, leave edging debris on sidewalks,
etc. —or consider the use of water as an
alternative, which is virtually impossible
in drought - stricken California
Montgomery concludes: "Backpack
blowers can be annoying bemuse of the
noise they create, but have become an
essential part of large scale landscape and
recreational facility maintenance. The
City of Berkeley has tried to lessen the
negative impacts of use by developing
operating rules and purchasing the quiet-
est blowers available. Loss of gasoline
powered blowers would have a major im-
pact on Berkeley maintenance."
The impact of a ban on gasoline-
powered leaf blowers was also studied in
the City of Commerce, California City
of Commerce uses the equipment in much
the same ways as Berkeley, and it in-
vestigated the same alternatives—electric-
powered units, hire additional park
maintenance personnel, and reduced
maintenance. The drawbacks of the
electric- powered equipment and reduced
maintenance were essentially the same as
in Berkeley.
City of Commerce currently dedicates
3,371 hours to backpack blowing respon-
sibilities at a cost of 540,726, not in-
cluding fringe benefits. Using National
Recreation and Park Association stan-
dards, the city estimated that sweeping
would require five times the number of
manhours as opposed to blowing down,
resulting in an increase of 16,855
manhours at a cost of $231,745, not in-
cluding fringe benefits.
Jim Jiminez, City of Commerce Assis-
ant Director of Parks and Recreation
summarized: "The elimination of back-
pack blowers from the daily operations
of the city's park maintenance division
will have a negative impact as we see than
today, requiring either a reduction in the
maintenance of city property, an increase
of approximately 5232,000 annually (not
including fringe benefits), or making the
department exempt from the proposed
ban.••
Expensive Ban
Richard C. Johns, Santa Barbara,
California Parks and Recreation Direc-
tor, estimates that a total ban on gasoline-
powered portable leaf blowers would cost
the department $161,470 a year for per-
sonnel (two full -time grounds mainte-
nance workers plus 13,000 hours of part
time help) and an additional $70,000 in
costs for vacuum equipment.
And the Sacramento, California
Department of Parks and Community
Services provided the following informa-
tion when asked to react to a proposed
ban on portable gasoline- powered
blowers:
"The department uses portable
gasoline - powered blowers for park
maintenance, to clear leaves from grass
areas, and perhaps more important, to
dear debris from hard surfaces such as
walkways, bikeways, basketball courts,
tennis courts, parking lots and the K
Street Mall/Convention Center area. Us-
ing water to wash down these surfaces is
not an alternative available to the depart-
ment. Nor is a return to hand sweeping
feasible. The department's park mainte-
nance resources were reduced significant-
ly in the 91 -92 and 92 -93 budget process.
The department lost full -time equivalent
positions, assumed maintenance respon-
sibility for an additional 60+ acres of
street medians previously maintained by
outside contractors, and has several ad-
ditional new park developments to main-
tain. The limited number of employees
available to maintain parks and other
areas requires the use of up- to-date
technology."
Most agree that the problem with '
gasoline- powered blowers lies not with the
equipment, but with the operators. Echo,
Inc. (Lake Zurich, Illinois), a major
manufacturer of power blowers, has in-
(Continued on page 75) &�3
PUBLIC WORKS for October, 1992
.:B.L
.r-
OMOhnb*A*vftnj~lk
rhe. nact
A wnman Pv-* i;— .n U..- I i°I ..L - ._:,
By Bob Syl.s
e..smra,ccw
Old-fashioned, yes,
n a normal year, according to informed authorities on fall, the city's
I vaunted
off a sandstorm of fleas, shed wine 65,000 tons of leaves.
but for many
Depending on your diepositian, it is a radiant spectacle, a flutter -
ingoforange. scarlet, butteryyellow ,atingeofpoetry,aportentofdoom.
Then, again, marry of those l eaves, those wind-swept couplets, seem
gardeners theres
to teat an unerring, instinctive path to your house, youryord— making
it a carpet of crimson recrimination.
Without metropolitan peer, autumn here is a prodigious feet of decidu-
()111 }' UIl (: iYily t()
ousness. Since the piles of leaves are methodically herded up and carted
off by scrambrrng sI f crews, in a rudely graceful routine that rivals
some mechanized cattle drive, the above cited tonnage figure is pretty
t<ICltle fall's
and botenicallymind •boggling.
Imagine
Imagine columns of loaded freight-car gondolas like clogged gutters
Windows of leaves like w many Arco Arenas on the horizon. A wispy
111Ullilta111 of leaves
aFortunatel
ye mandoesnotface thivleafyassaultunarmedorempty.
handed. Last year, in a throttling countered against dirt, dust, debris
and, for good measure, inviable demons, some 760,000 gas-power leaf
Pk..e.ca RAICLPweAM
rhe. nact
A wnman Pv-* i;— .n U..- I i°I ..L - ._:,
copies. The Executive Summary of thr
Plan (20 pages) is available separately for
$20 a copy for the lust four copies, S15
each for five or more copies. For order-
ing information contact the Intelligent
Vehicle Society of America, 1776 Massa -
chusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 510, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20036 -1993; phone-. (202)
857 -1202; fax: (202) 296 -5408.
Other Articles
"Changes in Intersection Sight Distance
Standards and Their Imptlestions." The inter-
section sight distance requirements for two
cases described in the 1984 and 1990 editions
of the Green Book are compared. By Russi P.
Bhe inia, manager, Transportation and Design
Section, Engineering Division, Public Works
Department, Kansas City, Mssoun. ITEJour-
nal, August 1992, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Washington, D.C.
"Transportation Policy and Development in
the New York City Area." A look at the
transportation system for the New York City
metropolitan area and the need for improve-
ments. By Herbert L. Levinson, transportation
consultant. Transportation Quarterly, July
1992, Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc.,
Westport, Connecticut.
a a a
Leaf Blower Bans
(Continued from page 60)
stituted a "Be Smart" program for users
that consists of brochures and posters.
Several tips for proper usage follow:
• Use the best size blower for your par-
ticular needs.
• Operate blowers only at reasonable
hours —not early n the morning, late at
night, or at other times when people
might be disturbed.
♦ Keep your machine in good working
order. Routinely check the muffler, air in-
takes, and air filter to make sure it is
working properly.
4 Do not automatically set your
machine at full throttle. Half - throttle will
clean up leaves, grass, and twigs as effi-
ciently, but much more quietly, than at
full- throttle.
♦ Collect debris in a centralized loca-
tion and dispose of the waste in a trash
barrel or chipper /shredder. Do not blow
debris onto adjacent properties.
♦ Avoid open windows, children, and
pets at play by pointing the blower noz-
zle the other direction so any dust or
debris is sent out of harm's way.
• Use all the attachments that come
with the blower when you need them.
Minimize the dust you raise by using the
full extension of the nozzle blower. This
keeps the air stream close to the ground
so you can work more efficiently and
neatly. If conditions are very dry and dus-
ty, use the mister attachment.
Using power blowers and other gas-
oline- powered equipment correctly and
courteously will ensure that power
blowers can continue to act as tremen-
dous labor- saving devices without being
viewed as annoyances. 000
Qqest
Join the hundreds Maintenance
of satisfied users! Management
Only Software
$595.°°
• Preventive Maintenance • Work Orders
• Repair Histories Parts Inventory
• Budget Analysis • Labor Reports
Qgest Maintenance software is the fastest selling maintenance software
on the market today. The system features flexible preventative maintenance
schedules and a user-friendly interface. Save time & money with Qqest!
Qqest Software Systems
P.O. Box 57983 Murray, UT 84157 -0983
1 -800- 733 -8839
For details circle
Bridges Shipped From Stock
Whether you need an emergency replacement, construction by -pass, or per-
manent bridge, we've got one that will do the job, right in our yard, ready for
shipment, at a price that won't break your budget. All new, galvanized steel.
Our bridges go together fast, and can be erected on most sites in a mat-
ter of days. Call our engineering staff at 1 -800- 524 -1363. They will work with
you on design engineering, and are available to go on -site to facilitate erection.
Acrow Corporation of America
®�'�Wl� 396 Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 812
IOW Panel Bridges Caristadt, NJ 07072 -0812
(201) 933 -0450 • FAX (201) 933.3961
For details circle No. A -44 on card
a -3/
PUBLIC WORKS for October. 1992 75
� 5 He
o
A ' e
e� 1
•� w$
•(+mil 53 s
El 3
44 s 6 +
Cd
(1)
C
•0 ^
VV
(� J •11 '�I
0
-J
CIS
U
$55:
0
cd
Cd
U
V 1
iro
�T
ar
�s e°
.!t
i�a
a- .:
.E S_-S -a L �•s n 3 r .gi
.. 5
EAU
{ 8
i .E . c �._
i� �3 =...y°caG`Si.=E :wS.s E::�: 3s°Yi•t.3c
F• 2 eEa 5P eE °c BE_�Eussr'$a
.: Jir•io= °C.- o.�t�° �. a ...-
`e of ig� °caw cc c° �Erc+i3
Z° c.sve E r,oA °R .:23° -a. 1ti ;d
.r. < -C7 auo LL. �.s. 'go`P" S3 i53c`e
sad:% 75.5-...c�
Egg-
f Lq °
Rd S d
=LaE
re
p Oat'
caS or
a:
L99m`.s7 Ad
boat'
E SiY .44 �{ s
�.5.�4- �L cY�. -aTC c te
E.3 ..5e7 -
8 5 .
o? �=rE =
c3E3v E5.a °f'
C t' yl c
wsi • -Ec :r v
Ez:? =�3co
3 2 Ls aOal V ES
.e�.�j.g r °55Lei
5E-epa =cB;C,ET
�S: vm L i.5c
L �
E° 'Q° W °$ 5
;`eyba5
Y i L
E . a
sJ c 50S E
�j ° 7 ea
P
5 0585 Co.
c 7aE 5 3` €22EE $� °-3gw°
Ve °Je= �•':SeS
:5'$
• FJ ° e° 73i` ua°. E r
y�egC Je . Y. .
Y: 5 c
�-I-E!
co
"
MR s —S-'sae "
e .[ .re $...c •
ea r3�G aO? o r.a a 7v
ry. e5o °LTt ea. q5v°
e
tLs5s:�5=P: SE:
'n`3Ee °cam.- .s.0a °. C ° =P =.S.; E 5y ��e a .5'ee o °Src'a
. E E �YS_b' w et S °e�"r.3 E TsTj �� _tr �$ .a _O �
�3$ ia`i�°e'3� +a EEs.i $� =��`� ec=8 ,7Zi ab ° °s aYz D2
Ss aE- c$v_ °7_'° -a. of 5 °o oFa�i° w�$Y -.g_ j,= -..�3
S 9a.2 6C.0 n� -i7oa ; i5E ~g..� v� e.. `ec� ec E° v
3 '�?' -_'Ses �`e Ss•Ca Q>p Ya �B =E
°s tg` y �.°. s.: i,.7 r .4L
SAU= -S.r r e.eSo9 =6 $EQQ°C7� a�. C °<o!Lot .. __Se. 3L �.w i.1Y
E..t.E.. i va rq:m-
es °3Le. -0$0 �}��w. =1° �s g. >..
°cy5 e a .`e: n��` ai L °'�. c'.� u .3. °e c8
e e . C u
_ s t
cr• -E P.� -eE:c o i,3ii .vr >:i 5 _Sc .s°r L'$rE87�"'S i sit 2i
.cE jY> .. > t =Y..°. o: .�'YSi a we 5r. . Ya- %. -:>.� SP$s $?
s -- n ° S a= 3 r 6i e v u
=S ce c—. S iL Tiucy r r. 1°- SrB��.S Se ° °Ee } °°.
e"_ e o"- _�' °F!•� e $ .'C C w �•= o
T�.Sa1 Y °.5- E C..E S p. F 9 0�fYw9 E Ytrlr <. Y 3 r
Crt �w Lam• n. �'<. w`'w C-YY i. =.C`C .J fra er S, of: -bCwC
.,LrsS EO -Y8 c • s36U Y b'o°3 : fiW33 °fin 95 c5E °i5 YO$aa
6JI -33
•
Inustralion by Terry Goodin,
from fie Serwang Dealer.
L_
What is noise? The dictionary says
it's "any loud, discordant, or disagreeable
sound or sounds (discordant is defined
as something that is "out of harmony,
different or harsh ")."
That leaves a lot of room for personal
opinion and that's exactly what comes
into play whenever the subject of the
gas- powered leaf blower comes up.
Headlines and letters to newspaper edi-
tors throughout the state have reflected
an anti - blower stance that is growing.
Blower noise is at the root of the issue,
but there's more to it than that.
"There's no question about it; in the
wrong hands, blowers can be annoying
to the point of being excruciating," says
Tony Bertotti, current president of the
California Landscape Contractors Asso-
ciation. "Nobody should have to wake
up to the early morning sound of a leaf
blower, or any other noise - making
device for that matter.
"But banning the leaf blower without
even considering workable solutions will
deny the benefits that made leaf blowers
so popular in the first place. And they
don't necessarily address the real prob-
lem, and that's the way people use the
equipment," he adds.
NOT A NEW PRODUCT OR PROBLEM
Power blowers were introduced to the
grounds maintenance community during
the water shortage of the mid -1970s
when they began to replace the broom
doubtfor
RS A,
Is the power blower a tool
of the trade or a tool of
the devil? In some
places blowers are
already illegal,
while other
communities are
leaning in
that direction.
by A. D. Ham
and garden hose for cleanup chores.
They became even more popular when
users found that they could do so much
more with these versatile tools. Accord-
ing to industry statistics, about 50,000
gas- powered blowers were sold in 1980.
As professionals. and homeowners
learned more about these tools, more
were sold and taken to the field. Last
year, about 700,000 were sold.
As the number of blowers being used
increased, so did the number of com-
plaints about misuse and noise. It didn't
take long for governments to get into
the act.
In 1976, when residents of Beverly
Hills complained about noise, the city
council banned blowers — a ban that a
May 92 • California LANDSCAPING • IS
has proven to be unenforceable.
For almost 10 years, the leaf blower
was used (and abused) without further
public outcry. But, in the late 1980s,
with the growth of smaller lawn care
asinesses, the number of complaints
began to rise. Since 1986, the number
of communities considering strict con-
trol or outright bans on blowers has
also increased dramatically.
Why?
It's not because the machines are mak-
ing more noise. Actually, two generations
of power blowers have come and gone
and today's models are quieter than ever.
It's mostly because operators don't con-
sider the consequences of their actions
when they start that piece of equipment.
"Professional maintenance people
have ignored the appropriate use con-
cern for too long," says Robin Pender-
grast, a public relations specialist who
has been working with California com-
munities, user groups and Echo Inc., one
of the world's leading manufacturers of
blowers, since the 1980s. "The answer is
not that leaf blowers are the problem,
people are the problem," he says.
"And when operators fail to use the
machines properly, they somerimes lose
e opportunity to use them at all,"
adds.
Cities such as Los Angeles, Santa
Barbara, Palo Alto, Santa Monica,
Carmel, Hermosa Beach and Los Altos
have passed ordinances to regulate blow-
ers and these laws are the result of mis-
use of power equipment in general, nor
just leaf blowers.
The misuse of the tool — at inappro-
priate times and in inappropriate ways
— has led to Strong cases against its
continued use. As Bertotti says, nobody
wants to be awakened by a blower, chain
saw or loud motorcycle or "find that
their new car has been `sandblasted' by
an unconcerned blower operator."
HIDDEN COSTS
Pendergrasr estimates that the situa-
tion will get worse before it gets better.
He has worked with about 80 cities
around the country and the same theme
continually comes up: blowers are too
noisy and are not really necessary.
"We are always hearing how the work
be dune with a rake or a broom," he
;ays. "People are quick to point out how
much quieter that would be and how it
.vould save glaSOline and not pollute the
16 • California LANDSCAPING • May 92
air. They don't understand box cua-
effective the power blower is as a
professional's tool."
"Timm- saving is the first benefit that
comes to mind for blower users," says
Bertotti. "Blowers can save up to 30 per-
cent of the time needed to clean areas as
compared to using water. A rake and a
broom would take even longer.
"For fimu specializing in landscape
maintenance, that translates into both
people and money. For some, unless they
pass the increased costs on ar their cus-
tomers, they will not be able to stay in
business without the use of blowers,"
he adds.
Time is money in this business. Indus -
m• estimates suggest that what it would
take a good employee about 32 minutes
to clean up with a broom and rake would
take that same employee about 6 min-
utes to do with a power blower.
It used to take a cleanup crew of 80
people at the Rose Bowl more than two
full 8 -hour days to clean up after the big
ew bear's Day game. Now, with blow-
ers, it's dune by six people in the same
amount of time.
"The biggest benefit is in water saving.
By 'dry cleaning' with a blower instead
of spaying, we can save an incredible
amount of .cater," Bertotti continues.
"One study estimated that a power blow-
er ban in a city of 220,000 people would
result in an additional 70 million gallons
of water being used in a single year. Iron-
ically, cities that use power blowers as
tools of the city public maintenance
programs .could also incur additional
costs if bans are imposed."
In Santa Barbara, where two possibili-
ties were originally discussed, some
revealing numbers came up. According
to reports from city departments, a ban
on the use of power blowers in residen-
tial areas would cost the city about
$298,500 in the first year and about
$250,000 a year from then on. A total
ban would cost the city an additional
$416,358 in the first year and about
$350,000 a year from then on.
Thais tax money. Where would it
come from?
It would, officials concede, result in
reduced services and reduced mainte-
nance in city parks and recreational
facilities.
There are additional costs when the
"long arm of the law" is called out to
police noise complaints.
Los Altos is another example of the
cost involved in controlling blowers.
Since Los Altos passed its blower control
ordinance last June, the police have
been called upon to handle more than
400 complaints. Of those, about 10
percent have resulted in citations.
In March of this year, when the city
council was considering a total ban on
blowers, the city Planning Director
issued a staff report that outlined plans
for reduced service to the city parks and
recreational facilities. It pointed out that
these areas will be cleaned less often
once blowers are outlawed.
COMMON SENSE — NOW!
In Los Altos and elsewhere, this has
become an emotional issue. People
"When operators
fail .to use their
machines properly,
they sometimes lose
the opportunity to
use them at alle"
launch crusades and egos are making
headlines on both sides. It's time for
common sense to prevail.
The people pushing for a total ban
didn't foresee the loss of service within
their community, nor the potential tax
burden that such a regulation could
bring with it.
Now, when both sides of the issue
have facts and figures to work with, per-
haps common sense will come into play.
With figures like these available to
them, city-officials are working on
30 Feet and "Rising"
NO, IT'S NOT A FLOOD WARNING— just a retrunder
that WHITE TANK PALMS has uniform, high quality,
cultivated MEXICAN FAN PALMS up to 30 trunk feet tall.
Now there is no need to buy `orphaned," salvaged palms when
you can move up to the quality, selection and service that have
made White Tank Palms the southwest's leading palm grower.
White Tank Palms, 74991 Joni Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
idelines for blower use as an alterna-
tive to a complete ban. The key is educa-
tion. Using the machine in a responsible
manner for appropriate rasks at appropri-
ate times sounds easy. But it isn't.
"I've talked with engineers and
designers and they assure me that it is
possible to build a truly quite power
blower," Pendergrast says. "But you
won't be able to carry it, nor will
you be able to afford it.
"Echo already has a series of blowers
that meet or exceed -the noise standard
suggested by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and has
equipped specific models with throttle
limiting devices so they cannot be run
at full - speed.
"But all the technology in the world
isn't going to solve the problem if people
don't use the equipment properly. The
problem is at the people end," he con-
cludes.
To become a part of the battle the pro-
fessional landscape contractor or land-
scape maintenance contractor has to do
everything in his or her power to educate
everyone who comes in contact with a
leaf blower. That means that each and
White Tank Palms
Ei For Arailahilin' & Quotes:
Randy Myers
(619) 776-4834
.„ (800) 252 -PALM
Circle inquiry number 508 May 92 • California LANDSCAPING • 17
Echo's Be Smart program offers tips on blower use and etiquette in several languages.
every member of your staff must know
how and when a blower is to be used.
The next step is to work with cus-
tomers and would -be customers so they
know how valuable the blower is as a
maintenance tool and how big a role it
plays in keeping property — both public
and private — looking the way they
want it to look.
When dealing with consumers, the
key words deal with cost - effective main-
tenance, efficiency and quality. Point
out how the quality of the environment
around them would suffer without the
The ED90 places the power of a
"2 man" in the hands of one
Operator fatigue is minimized
as torque kick -back is eliminated
by the unique right -
angle drive design. e�
Three handle
bar positions
give the operator
freedom to digs
up against walls, a,
buildings, or
fences. A choice
of three auger styles
ranging from 2 —
inches in diameter
to 12 inches, is �AK
available for the �
best results in X40
different soil IIIIIIIIIIIIII10%
conditions. _
MODEL
ED90
MADE W usA
C/°ARLSON
INUUSTRIE�
INC.
15010 E. 5TH St., Unit B, San Bernardino, CA 92410
P. O. Box 917, Highland, CA 92346 CFO]
888 -4882 • FAX (714) 889 -5855
:ircle inquiry number 509
18 a California LANDSCAPING • May 92
iency of the tools you use. Don't
tply that you'll have to work harder
without the blower — a lot of these
people don't think you work all that
hard right now!
THERE IS A BRIGHTER SIDE
Echo has beefed up its program for
user and consumer education and has
helped Pendergrast to present the blow-
er's side of the issue to literally dozens
of public hearings around the state. As
a result of this and other efforts, the city
of Irvine instituted what may be a land -
mark program of licensing, training and
control while issuing guidelines for hours
of use and decibel levels.
Irvine has reported great success with
the program and about 90 percent of its
noise complaints have disappeared.
San Diego, Pasadena and other com-
munities are using or considering similar
programs of control.
The power blower, like any other tool,
is only as good or as bad as the people
who handle it. Right now, if you don't
make sure it's handled right, you'll lose it!
V
Circle inquiry number 510
MAKE Tim CONNEC,'TION
FOR
freshness,
variety,
flexibility,
4
fair prices,
locations
-blends and
at
service.
your
1�
WE
fingertips.
®®
DELIVER
Civu
us
,
a
call.
Albright Seed Company
1- 800 -423 -8112
A-3
Circle inquiry number 510