HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1994, 5 - RESPONSE TO COUNCIL REQUEST: Status of Power Blower Educational Program MEETING DATE:
�u�i�►�Ipl���la l��l�l� city.of san tuts OBlspo Sept. 20 1994
Now COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development DirectoFa,,-,(,.,,- �-
BY: Judith Lautner;" ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Response t Council request:
1. Status of power blower educational program;
and
2 . Discussion of possible ban of power blowers.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Review progress of educational program;
2. Review program to phase out power blowers.
3 . Direct staff to continue working with the California Landscape
Contractors' Association (CLCA) to refine and improve the
educational program, and to return to the Council with an
ordinance regulating the use of blowers.
Background
On January 20, 1993, the City Council responded to complaints by a
citizen (Alan Friedman) about problems associated with leaf blowers.
The Council directed staff to research the issue and return with
information on these machines.
On January 25, 1994, the Council held a public hearing to review a
report on these machines. After taking public testimony and
discussing the issue, the Council directed staff to work with the
California Landscape Contractors' Association (CLCA) to 1) prepare
amendments to the noise regulations to limit further the hours that
power blowers may operate; and 2) develop an educational program to
inform landscape workers of the proper ways to use these machines.
On April 19, 1994, the Council held a public hearing to review
amendments to the noise ordinance and to review a draft educational
program. The Council passed to print an ordinance limiting the use
of power blowers to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. , and
accepted the educational program. The Council also directed staff
to return in September with "proposed limits . for gas powered
blowers and the potential phased sunset of power blowers". The
Council voted to review the progress of the educational program in
September (see minutes, attached) .
Because of concerns raised by the Public Works Director, the
Council delayed final action on the noise ordinance change until
July 19, 1994. At that time the changes were finally passed as
initiated.
Now staff is returning with a progress report on the education
program and a discussion of the phasing out of power blowers.
�— I
��u�i���lllllp�p��u�►�I��I city of san tins osispo
iNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
DISCUSSION
1. A quick overview. Why blowers are popular: Since their
development in the early 1970's, blowers have been found to
serve many purposes. They replace brooms, hoses, and rakes,
and perform some functions, like cleaning gutters and
dispersing puddles, that no other tool has been found to do as
effectively. Blowers are even used in fighting wildfires, as
they can actually blow out smaller flames without the use of
water or electricity.
City crews use blowers in parks and around public buildings.
The total time City workers spend using blowers is about ten
hours per week. Maintenance supervisors estimate that it
would take about 50 hours to do this work without blowers, and
much of the work would require the use of water. Private
maintenance businesses would be similarly affected. The
bottom line is that without blowers, government, private
maintenance companies, and residents would have to spend more
money or time on outdoor work, or accept a lower level of
upkeep.
Why they are a nuisance: Power blowers present three kinds of
problems: noise, air pollution, and inappropriate use. The
specific nature of these problems was discussed in the January
staff report, attached.
What's being done about it: Noise levels are currently being
lowered in newer blowers by most blower manufacturers, who
have voluntarily adhered to a standard maximum of 70 dB fifty
feet from the source. The nature of the noise - a steady whine
- is irritating at full power, but changes considerably at
lower speeds. The noise comes from the fan, and when air is
going through it at a lower speed, the sound becomes lower in
pitch and is therefore not as annoying. Air pollution from
the engines is being addressed by Environmental Protection
.Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB)
standards. Pollution from the lifting of dust into the air is
essentially a localized problem, the severity of which has not
yet been documented because of the difficulties in separating
sources. There is no question that this can be a significant
temporary effect for persons with allergies.
Inappropriate use is the blowing of debris onto other
property, the street, or other persons. It is also
inappropriate to blow at higher speeds than necessary to do
the job. Other than banning power blowers altogether, an
educational program is the best hope for dealing with this
type problem.
2. Education program. The educational program accepted by the
Council, developed by representatives of the California
- 2—
1111 ►1IIIII1111► ►���11 city of San tins osIspo
IPJJNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Landscape Contractors' Association and City staff, contains
four components:
* Donation of a video on the proper use of small power
equipment to the City-County library.
CLCA has obtained and donated the video to the library.
* Distribution of leaflet describing proper operating
procedures for power blower use to contractors and
property managers.
CLCA and City staff have compiled a comprehensive mailing
list. Leaflets. which were co-written by Echo and CLCA,
are being provided by Echo. Cover letter is being
written by CLCA board.
* Distribution of leaflets and other information at CLCA
educational seminars.
The next educational seminar is scheduled for September
or October. CLCA plans to provide information and usage
rules on power blowers at the meeting.
* Use of public service opportunities to inform residential
users of proper use of equipment.
Work has not yet begun on this aspect of the program. We
expect this to be the most visible and possibly most
effective effort.
Staff has been reviewing educational programs developed in
other jurisdictions, and will be working with the CLCA to'
improve our program. Additional suggestions for education are
discussed below, under "Some interesting alternatives" .
A typical way to measure the success of an educational program
is to compare the number of complaints over time. In this
city, complaints about leafblower noise have been so few that
a lower number would not be statistically significant. (Our
experience contrasts with the city of Los Altos, for example:
that city received 386 leafblower complaints in 1991. )
Nevertheless., an educational program can be an effective way
to avoid problems and complaints in the future. • Informed
gardeners and citizens are likely to be more considerate.
3 . Bans of power blowers. The Council directed staff to discuss
the "potential phased sunset of power blowers" . There are
many ways to phase out blowers:
* Ban all power blowers from all parts of the city.
�'��H�� ��Ilfil��pn�►u���U city of San tins OBIspo .
rq JNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
* Ban gas-powered blowers only.
* Ban all blowers from residential areas only.
* Ban gas-powered blowers from residential areas only.
* Ban gas-powered first, then electric blowers.
* Ban blowers during summer months only. (more common in
eastern cities) .
Bans can be effective 30 days after final passage of the
ordinance, or may be effective at some later date.
Most cities that have banned blowers have taken the simplest
approach, outlawing blowers in all parts of the city,
effective in 30 days. Our latest information indicates that
about 16 cities in the United States, 12 of which are in
California, have banned power blowers. Seven of the
California cities banned gas-powered blowers, four outlawed
all types, and one banned gas-powered and "noisy" electric
blowers. (One of these cities, Palos Verdes, has suspended
the ban because of drought conditions. )
In addition to the above 12 cities, Santa Barbara City banned
the use or sale of blowers that do not meet certain noise
standards. (Copies of all of these ordinances are available in
the Council reading file and in the Community Development
Department. )
3 . Why phase? The Council asked for a . plan to phase out power
blowers. Staff's contacts with cities that have banned
blowers indicates that only one of these cities provided any
delay between the time of ordinance passage and its effective
date, and in that case the effective date was four months
after passage. In these cities, the number of complaints
usually compelled the cities to institute immediate bans.
Because of this approach, the banning cities did receive
complaints and protests from gardeners and residents who were
affected financially by the ban. It appears that the Council's
reason for asking for a phasing plan is to make the transition
easier for users. Providing time between the passing of an
ordinance and its effective date could allow for a completion
of a notification program to reach most users within the city
limits. With adequate lead time, users would be able to sell
or otherwise dispose of their equipment and shops would be
able to arrange for stocking of other types of tools.
Because the number of complaints in this city has been small,
staff suggests that if the Council chooses to ban blowers,
that the ban be effective at least one year later. The owner
city of San lues OBISp0
i0i
r I;OVNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
of the major local supplier of power blowers (Noble Saw)
recommends that any ban be effective two years after passage,
to give commercial gardeners adequate time to switch to other
types of equipment without significant loss.
4. The effects. The January 1994 Council report (attached)
briefly outlines the types of effects a ban on power blowers
would have. Effects would primarily be on enforcement
personnel (the Police Department) , maintenance time (it will
take longer to . get the same results) , and water (some jobs
will require the use of water if blowers cannot be used) .
Because of restrictions on water use, some jobs would not be
done at all.
Landscape maintenance businesses in other areas estimate that
their costs (and therefore their charges) will increase from
20 to 40% if they are to perform the same functions without
power blowers. We don't have estimates from local businesses,
but a common way to determine cost is to multiply the time
spent using blowers by five. If, as is estimated by one local
maintenance business, blower use currently accounts for about
ten minutes in an average residential job, then the equivalent
time using brooms, vacuums, and other equipment would be 50
minutes. Every full-time landscape business owns at least one
gas-powered blower, and typically has one blower per crew.
City crews and private companies that have contracts with the
city will be affected as well. The Public Works Director
feels the effects will be "substantial", and that the City
will have to accept a lower level of service if a ban is
passed and no additional funds are available for alternative
services, like sweeping. (See attached memo from Mike
McCluskey. )
Enforcement costs are impossible to determine at this time.
The Police Department would be charged with enforcement of a
ban. Representatives from that department do not expect to be
greatly affected by a ban. Cities with blower bans have
widely varying enforcement experiences, ranging from "a joke"
(West Hollywood) to a minor concern (Piedmont) . Citation
averages vary as well, from an average of six per year
(Piedmont) to 1-2 per week (Del Mar) .
5. Should this city ban power blowers? Instituting a ban on
power blowers is simple. Most of the ordinances staff has
reviewed are essentially one paragraph. Enforcement may not
even be significant in this city. Little time would be
required 'to write or enforce such an ordinance. However, the
effects on City staff time should not form the basis of a
decision. Staff continues to recommend against banning power
blowers. A ban appears to be an over-reaction to problems
that are more effectively addressed in other ways. Unlike
5
����n�► �IIIIII�II�►�Nuu�@�N city of San tins osIspo
M"oVVrQVcovers
gNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
some other California cities (which have banned blowers) , San
Luis Obispo is a water-conscious community of modest means,
where large expanses of lawn are uncommon and the use of
blowers is limited to about ten minutes in an average
maintenance job, much less than is usually spent on mowing,
string-trimming, or hedge-trimming. Complaints against
blowers are few, and those few complaints are usually directed
against a small number of commercial operators. On the other
hand, a ban would affect a large number of businesses,
residents and the City Parks Department as well. In many
cases, a ban could result in higher water use.
6. some interesting alternatives. There are several alternatives
to blower bans, ranging from the simple to the extremely
complex. Some feasible alternatives:
* Prohibit improper use. Several cities prohibit blowing
into public spaces or onto adjacent property, require
speed control limiters, mufflers, or nozzle extensions,
prohibit blowing in certain spaces (within ten feet of
openable doors or windows, for example) , or require
annual training for all commercial users.
* Institute educational proarams. Such programs would
include training in appropriate use, targeting use of
speed controls, cleanup, avoidance of noise- and dust-
sensitive areas, and other related techniques. Such
training can be offered by the City or by landscape
associations, and attendance would be voluntary.
Landscape maintenance associations can encourage
participation by informing members that proper use will
likely avoid complaints and future official action
against blowers.
The City-CLCA educational program is only just getting
under way. It has not been fully developed or initiated.
* Prohibit noisy, higher-polluting machinery. Now that
lower-decibel, less-polluting blowers are on the market,
some cities (notably Santa Barbara and Irvine) have
prohibited the noisier machines from sale or use in the
city. Enforcement of such a ban may be by development of
a list of "offending" (or complying) machines that can be
used by police officers responding to a complaint, or by
development of testing facilities and a requirement that
all blowers be tested and certified as complying with the
standards.
Those cities that have this type ordinance typically
institute certification programs and require testing
every year or two years. Common elements of such
programs are:
'''��� ►�I�IIp����� `I city of San tins OBISpo
re NCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7
O Designation of City Manager or other official to
oversee program;
O Annual testing at a location designated by the
official;
O Attachment of label in conspicuous location,
confirming that machine complies with ordinance
restrictions;
O Training of blower users annually or semi-
annually;
o Issuance of certificates to users having
completed training;
O Requirement to show certificates when renewing
business tax certificates or when requested by
enforcement officer.
O Collection of small fee to cover expenses of
program.
One community (Redondo Beach) is developing a "buy-back"
program, using state clean-air funds to purchase older,
more-polluting blowers, thereby assisting users in
purchasing newer, quieter and less-polluting equipment.
The owner of Noble Saw has indicated a willingness to
perform the testing and educating functions of this
program, if requested, with reasonable compensation.
Other equipment suppliers may be interested as well. If
properly designed, such a program can be more effective
than voluntary programs yet involve little or no cost to
the City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may direct staff to return with an ordinance to
ban blowers. If this is the action preferred by the Council,
staff recommends that the ban be of gas-powered blowers only,
and become effective in 1996 (two years after final passage) .
2 . The Council may direct staff to draft an ordinance to ban the
sale and use of blowers that create noise greater than 70 dBA
at fifty feet at full throttle, measured in accordance with
ANSI standards. Staff recommends that . a certification
program, as discussed above, be included in the ordinance.
3 . The Council may continue action, with direction to staff.
5- 1
city of San LUIS OBISpo
rQ2.14IIVCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 8
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works Department comments are summarized above and are
attached to this report. Police Department comments are noted
above. other agencies, including the Air Pollution Control
District, were consulted in 1993 and those comments are included in
the January report, attached.
Attached:
January 25 City Council report
Educational program
Memo from Mike McCluskey
Additional information is available in the Council reading file.
Qlly�lypinllll11nl Wlj$ "J f MEETING DATE:
IOIpIW uIIIIIIIIII city o san tuts osispo -as
COUNCIL AGENDA_ REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Directorsn
BY: Judith Lautner•, ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Council Stu y Item: Leafblowers
Y
CAO RECOMMENDATION
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.
�p
city of San tins OBISpo
rJPJJNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
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
a7���
�IIy�ylll��l�ln'Ill �nll city o san tuts oBispo
MEETING DATE:
mllp� IIIIII lullUll
rCAQJANCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM 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 leafblower 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 noisy 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
^ I
Q��^Il^'llllln`I� II city o san tuts osispo MEETING DATE:
II W IllullA�� ci
!! ,,NCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
r`S'l�eT�
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 laws 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 ormore 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 (GARB) 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
5- 1 Z
city of San lues OBISpo MEETING DATE:
rqQ J NCIL AGENDA_ REPORT NUMBER:
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
5-. 13
city 0f San Luis OBISPO MEETING DATE:
I� rC;QMNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
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 Ban 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
s- 14-
111111111121111! city of San tuts OBISPO
MMMMW
r(;QJrJNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 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 power 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.
_ I
IQIQJI.W§� city of San lues OBISpo
�� NCIL AGENDA_ REPORT
Page 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.
5- l �
Power blower educational program
* Video: California Landscape Contractors' Association will be
receiving a copy of a video on the proper use of small power
equipment, including leafblowers. The association will donate
the video to the City-County Library. Written educational
materials will include references to this video, which may be
borrowed at no cost. (Responsibility: CLCA)
* Leaflet: Echo, in cooperation with CLCA, has produced a
leaflet about blowers, written in six languages. The leaflet
contains several "rules" for operating this type machinery,
including cleaning up afterwards and keeping the noise down.
The City will assist the landscape contractors' association in
developing a mailing list and sending out copies of this
leaflet to every contractor and property manager on the list,
along with a cover letter explaining the wisdom of following
the advice. (Responsibility: City and CLCA)
* Seminars. The landscape association holds seminars twice a
year. A segment of a seminar could be devoted to blowers, or
at the least, leaflets should be available there.
(Responsibility: CLCA)
* Advertising. The CLCA and City will be contacting local
papers to find out about public service opportunities.
Educational information about blower use will be distributed
to these papers, perhaps as a news release. (Responsibility:
City and CLCA)
COUNCIL ADD D!R
CAO D FIN DIR PAEE, . .,; AGENDA 7
�ALAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF DATE, 3.9 ITEM #
ATTORNEY �f4Y DIR rMay 2 , 1994 LERX.Oma ❑ POLICE CHF "-
;4(f TEAK ❑ REC DIR D r' lF7 i
❑ C READ FILE O UTIL DIR
F/C>= ❑ PERS DIR MAY - 3 194
MEMOS N'DL7M
.J i
TO: City Council PL'?lIC
�
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Off icer'
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Leaf Blowers
At the last City Council meeting, the Council took action to create
an ordinance change to the hours of operation for leaf blowers .
The change in hours impacts. the City's ability to maintain its
parking lots and parks. Our current contract for services of
parking lot clean up allows the contractor the choice of hours of
operations of 'pc;aer leaf blower equipment starting at 7 : 00 a .m. As
a result of the proposed change in ordinance, we will be in
violation of our own contract for services.
Due to the new change, and due to the proposed change in the
ordinance, we will enter into negotiations with the contractor.
Depending upon those negotiations, we will either be forced to
accept a change in the level of service (i. e. less cleaning) of
City facilities or an increase in City expenditures to allow
additional personnel to perform cleaning services in the remaining
hours available within the contract.
Per the minutes of tiie April i9, 159; neeting the City Council also
directed staff to bring back, at the first meeting in September, a
proposal to limit gas powered blowers and the potential for a phase
sunset of power blowers all together. The proposed regulations to
eliminate power blowers will have a substantial impact on staff' s
ability to clean City parks. Part of our ability to perform more
work with less manpower, is our ability to use modern technology,
i. e. power blowers. If the Council's concern with power blowers is
noise7 pollution, power blowers are currently available that the
City could purchase with substantially reduced levels of noise,
i. e. below 70 dba. if the Council's concern is particulate matter
given off by powered gas blowers, staff can switch to electric
powered blowers in most areas. As cleaning parks with water
powered equipment is prohibited, the only option remaining after
elimination of power blowers would be hand sweeping. With existing
staffing levels, we would be unable to hand sweep the existing
parks to achieve the same level of service of cleanliness.
M3Y ; 1994 5/(y
7-1'CLEPK
Leaf Blowers
Page Two --
Therefore, I would urge the Council to consider making the
following changes: '
1) Reinstitute the time for commercial leaf blowing
operations to' 7 : 00 a.m. This would allow existing contractors
to service the downtown parking lots in the manner they are
currently doing, with no impact to fiscal or manpower
considerations.
2) Articulate to the Community Development Department staff
your desires for either reduction in noise pollution or
particulate pollution, and allow staff the flexibility to
address your concern while having access to the modern
technologies which allow us to maintain our levels of service.
Ite'blow/mm2
S-19
SEP-16-94 13 :40 FROM: IME - ID: 81[fR03 AGEND/'1AGE 2
TE -ZD'��ITEM # S
�II�EC�f/D
ECHOINCORPORATUO
600 OAKWOOD COAD
rAKQ ZURICK IL
ZIP 00047-1584
E7083 540-8400
(7081 640-0413 FAX
via Facsimile
IV UNCIL CDD DIR
13 RN DIR
550'AO
September 16, 1994 ❑ FIRECKEF
Mayor Peg Pinard IORNEY ❑ rDIR
City Council Members CLERKORIG POLICE CHF
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
990 Palm Street ❑ -aRE'ADDFILE - ❑ UTILDIR
Post Office Box 8100 ❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mayor Pinard And City Council Members:
We understand that there is a city council agenda item scheduled
for Tuesday evening September 20th relative to leaf blowers/power
blowers. Due to a schedule conflict we cannot be in attendance
but want to participate if we can.
Previously we have met and talked with Judy Lautner and Larry
Tolson regarding this issue. First of all, I would like to
applaud Judy Lautner for an excellent council agenda report based
on information that has been obtained through us and other
sources that she has worked with.
We know that the recommendations that have been made within this
council agenda report are not only practical but will work. we
also know that more than 220 communities that we have worked with
throughout the United States have restrictive legislation,
specifically ordinances that ban any lawn and garden equipment
and that these ordinances are impractical, essentially
unenforceable and potentially a legislative nightmare.
Our objective, however, is to offer our support in the process of
providing a realistic and productive approach to the utilization
of all lawn and garden equipment. . .not just power blowers. While
the practical implications, the efficacy of the technology and
the educational programs that have been structured are well
defined in the agenda report, we want to make absolutely sure
that the council understands that the program and structure is in
place to accommodate many of the specific needs and problems that
have surfaced in San Luis Obispo.
There is obviously an economic impact that effects landscapers,
dealers, distributors, manufacturers and even consumers
(homeowners) but from our perspective the specific concerns
raised by constituents such as the recent letter in the San Luis
Obispo newspaper from Mr. Friedman warrant a response based on
facts. RECEIVED
SER 1 6 1914
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
SEP-16-94 13 :41 FROM: IME ID: 815363OS33 PAGE 3
September 15, 1994
Page Two
We strongly feel that the structure is in place to dramatically
diminish the alleged complaints, but at the same time providing a
practical overview of this most important and versatile product.
As I mentioned to Judy, we are available as a resource at any
time to implement whatever programs are necessary to provide
support to eliminating the problem including the power blower
educational program. Tim Peterson from Noble Saw has become a
very important component in this process and is committed and
dedicated to accommodate the request of the city of San Luis
Obispo council .
I will follow up with Judy and Larry.
Cordially,
Robin F. Pendergrast
cc: Judy Lautner
Larry Tolson
011ie Peacock
Steve Clark
Tim Peterson
MEETING AGENDA
VCALIFORNIA 2._._�1TEM
LANDscAPE
CONmcroRs
,-AssoamoN RECEIVED
" SEP. 2 0 1994
O CITY COUNCIL p
Se tember 20, 1994
SAN LUIS OBISPO... A
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
In May 1994, the city council passed an ordinance limiting hours of
use for power blowers in the City of San Luis Obispo. The San Luis
Obispo chapter of the California Landscape Contractors Association
supported the ordinance and was helpful in offering assistance. We
have since worked with city staff in an effort to implement the
measures of the ordinance.
It is our belief that the most rational solution to the problem has
been identified, ie. a process of education to inform users of
appropriate and courteous use of the machines and by limiting their
President hours of operation. We also encourage and promote the following:
BRUCE COURTIER
Day Star Enterprises
(805)237-1420 It is the responsibility and duty of the San Luis Obispo CLCA
members to educate and train employees on the proper use of
Vice President-Membership leaf b 1 owe rs.
JOHN RUGGIERO The leaf blower was developed to respond to previous drought
Progressive Gardens conditions and is still important in the conservation of
(805)237-0672 water.
president-Programs The CLCA encourages manufacturers to research and produce new
ROBERTMORA products, additional equipment, and educational materials to
Mora Landscaping protect the consumer.
(805)461-4889 Any regulations pertaining to leaf blowers should apply to all
Treasurer of the following: private (homeowner/user), business
DUANE MORRIS (contractors, gardiners) , industrial (manufacturers,
San Luis Gardens janitorial) , and government (public agencies) .
(805)541-1775 The SLO chapter of the CLCA favors continued research to
Secretary protect consumers and industry employees.
SCOTT CHRISTIAN The SLO chapter of the CLCA do not favor any out right ban on
Central Coast Xeriscapes the b 1 ower.
(805)466-6708
Your local chapter of the CLCA has had many of its members
JAKE
BDirectors instrumental in helping the City of San Luis ObispoJAKE in its efforts
STEVE ANGLEY to make the city a better place. We 'have been active participants
DANTE D'ALFONSO in the Drought Tolerant Demonstration Garden, the city's drought
DICK GILBERT information fairs and the landscaping of the homeless shelter. We
LLOYD GRACEY would ask for the city's help in a practical and fair solution to
TOM SMITH this situation.
AMO Representative
GLORIA STOLTZ Sincerely,
Hunter Industries
(805)528-7577 —/CO(1NCIL DD DIR
QA6 ❑ RN DIR
Duane Morris R'" O ❑ 5K-CHIEF
C la Landscape Chapter President
cc
Q'P%"R
Co,._.-ctors Association,Inc. CLCA CLERK/ORIG LICE CHF
P.O.Box 3978 ❑ MGMTTEAM O REC DIR
Paso Robles,CA 93447-3978 ❑ C READ LE ❑ UTIL DIR
(805)237-1420 are_ ❑
PERS DIR