The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/06/2010, B 2 - RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT - LEAF BLOWER HAZARDS councilZo °° j acEn& RepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT—LEAF BLOWER HAZARDS RECOMMENDATION 1. Direct the City Manager to respond to the Grand Jury on behalf of the City Council and implement the recommendations offered in the Grand Jury report, and 2. Direct staff to return to the Council within six months with further analysis of an ordinance calling for a gradual two year phase-out of all two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers within the City of San Luis Obispo. DISCUSSION Grand Jury Report and Findings On April 27, 2010, the City received a report from the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury (Attachment 1). The purpose of the report, entitled Leaf Blower Hazards in San Luis Obispo County, was to assess the health hazards caused by the use of leaf blowers within San Luis Obispo County. The assessment included issues such as: Exhaust Emissions from two-cycle engines contain major air pollutants including hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Fugitive Dust Emissions may contain pollen, animal fecal matter, herbicide and pesticide residues, fungi spores, tire rubber,heavy metals and organic carbon. Noise Emissions may be harmful to equipment users and bystanders due to the high intensity,high frequency noise emissions emitted from leaf blowers. The report included evaluation of air quality legislation and review of written materials from sources including the US Environmental Protection Agency, The California Air Resources Board, California Assembly Bill 32, Municipal codes within San Luis Obispo County and various other information including news sources. ria - 1 Response to Grand Jury Report on Leaf Blowers Panel The Jury found that all leaf blowers can cause preventable health hazards but identified two-cycle gasoline-powered models in particular as the most objectionable due to their higher noise levels and exhaust emissions. The Grand Jury recommended that each city in the county adopt ordinances requiring a gradual phase-out over two years of all two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations Required The San Luis Obispo City council is required to respond to the Grand Jury's recommendation by submitting a letter to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29, 2010 with a copy to the Grand Jury. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05 the Council must address several issues in the City's response: Relative to the Grand Jury Findings: 1. The City agrees with the findings. 2. The City disagrees wholly or partially with the findings, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Relative to the Grand Jury recommendations: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope of parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not feasible, with an explanation therefore. Considerations for the Response In considering how to respond to the Grand Jury, staff reviewed existing City policies and codes that address noise and air quality. Noise Element Policy 1.8.1B - Limit the operating times of noise-producing activities Program 1.17 — The City will pursue alternatives to the use of noisy equipment, such as leaf blowers, and will purchase equipment and vehicles only if they incorporate the best available noise reduction technology. Response-to Grandjury Report on Leaf Blowers Page 3 Conservation Open Space Element Policy 2.2.2 — Health Standards. Air quality should meet State and Federal standards, whichever are more protective for human health. Noise Ordinance In October, 1997, Council enacted Ordinance No. 1327 — Amendments to the Noise Regulations Limiting Decibel Levels of Power Blowers and Prohibiting the use of Gasoline Fueled Blowers on Sundays. At that time, Council considered a draft negative declaration of environmental impact that was prepared by staff. The report seems to focus primarily on the noise nuisances that occur as a result of the use of gas powered blowers and did not discuss the air quality aspects of the use of this type of equipment. Since that time there have been very few complaints regarding the use of leaf blowers as it relates to noise nuisances that are associated with the equipment. The Police Department has researched records for the past five years and indicates there have been a total of 35 complaints regarding leaf blowers or similar equipment noise. Many of those complaints were unfounded or were associated with the City's sweeper operations. The issue of leaf blower nuisances has been classified as minor in nature. Policy direction in the General Plan and associated ordinances recognize that noise and air quality issues are areas where the City should use best practices. In review of the Grand Jury report, staff concurs with most of the findings generated from the Grand Jury, but would like additional time to verify that a specific ban on two-cycle leaf blowers would be reasonably enforceable. Discussion in the Grand Jury appears to support and augment the City's General Plan policies and practices. City Operations The City currently uses two-cycle gas powered leaf blowers within the parks maintenance division. Their cleanup activities typically consume 10 % of staff's time to perform the clean-up activities. In certain locations, such as Sinsheimer Stadium and Mission Plaza, up to 20 % of staff time is devoted to clean-up activities, which include the use of leaf blowers. Based on the narrow window of opportunity to perform this site clean-up it would be impractical to use other methods as recommended in the Grand Jury report. The physical constraints of the stadium would make it impractical to perform the clean-up activities with a broom.and the limited time between programmed events at these facilities would not allow enough time for other clean-up methods. City staff has experimented with battery powered equipment in the past and determined that they were unsatisfactory in their performance. Furthermore, the idea of using cord attached electric leaf blowers to perform the clean-up activities would prove problematic due to the lack of electrical outlets available, the hazards related to dragging long power cords around and the lack of good ergonomic design could result in injury to workers with prolonged use. City staff adheres to best management practices related to the use of leaf blowers, which may result in fewer negative impacts than were identified in the Grand jury report. Other Agencies As part of the response to the Grand Jury report, staff researched examples of other jurisdictions. Of the twelve agencies surveyed, nine have prohibitions on the use of gas powered leaf blowers. The City of Piedmont allows for an exception for public agencies on publicly-owned or operated facilities. Most have included time restrictions for use of even the electric leaf blowers and some 46,;Z --3 Response to Grand Jury Report on Leaf Blowers Page 4 restrict use of blowers based on the proximity to residential zones within their community. The agencies that have prohibitions have strong outreach and education efforts to ensure that their regulations are understood by property owners and landscape maintenance services. The cities of Santa Barbara and Irvine both have programs that involve city certification of leaf blowers where all blowers must display a city sticker that demonstrates the blower meets standards for noise and air quality. The enforcement activities seem to be complaint driven and most are relying on the Administrative Citation process to deal with violations. Most of the communities surveyed did not comment on the effectiveness of their enforcement efforts, although the City of Santa Maria declared they are highly effective with their enforcement efforts due to public outreach and strict enforcement tactics. Recommended Response Staff recommends pursuing option#3 in the response choices and returning to the Council within six months with further analysis of an ordinance calling for a gradual two-year phase-out of all two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers. Issues to be further explored would include assignment of enforcement responsibilities; consistency with programs being developed as part of the draft Climate Action Plan; cost of outreach and enforcement; and prioritization within identified work programs. FISCAL IMPACTS The City's current regulations related to the use of leaf blowers provide restrictions on time of use. Although there are relatively few noise complaints regarding the use of leaf blowers, a prohibition of gas powered equipment may result in increased code enforcement efforts. The City should anticipate some fiscal impacts related to the public education and code enforcement of this prohibition. The Public Works Parks Maintenance Division uses gas powered leaf blowers, most of which are the two-cycle variety. The City would need to purchase several new four-cycle gas powered leaf blowers, however the fiscal impacts would be minimal. The City also contracts with private companies for maintenance of certain City facilities and the contracts do not currently specify type of equipment to be used. Based on our ability to administer contracts the fiscal impacts would be cost neutral. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Police Departments have reviewed and concur with this report. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may modify the attached response letter to the Grand Jury and presiding judge. /3c2 Response to Grand,Turn Report on Leaf Blowers Page 5 2. The Council may continue consideration of the item until July 20, 2010, if more information is needed. However, the response to the Grand Jury must be provided by July 29, 2010. ATTACHMENTS 1. Grand Jury Report—Leaf Blower Hazards 2. City Council response to the Grand Jury's report pAttachment 1 Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 April 27, 2010 Confidential Ken Hampian City Manager City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Dear Mr. Hampian: The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury has completed the attached report titled "Leaf Blower Hazards...." This copy of the report is being provided to you two days in advance of its public release, as required by California Penal Code §933.05 (f),which states: A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Please check the last page of text of the report for the timing of your response, if any, as required by the Penal Code. Sections 933 through 933.05 of the Penal Code are attached for your reference. Please keep in mind that this report must be kept confidential until its public release by the Grand Jury. Respectfully, 1 Steve Martinez,Forep�r n 2009/2010 Grand Jury Enclosures California Penal Code 933. (a)Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the ATTACHMENT 1 superior court a.final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. .A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments,including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. (c)No later'than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury .reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d)As used in this section "agency" includes a department. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity.shall indicate one of the following: (1)The respondent agrees with the finding. ga - � (2)The respondent disagree-.wholly or partially with the finding, ATTACHMENT I in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b)For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2)The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis,with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4)The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer,both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f)A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Attachment 1 LEAF BLOWER HAZARDS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SUMMARY The use of two-cycle gasoline engine leaf blowers in the cities and unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County presents a health hazard to all citizens. The hazards are four-fold: • All gasoline powered leaf blowers create emissions and toxic exhaust fumes. However, two-cycle leaf blowers pollute more and are the loudest. Exhaust pollution from a typical gas powered leaf blower over one hour is equal to one car driven 200 miles in a confined area. • The high-velocity air jets used in blowing leaves move more than just leaves. The particulate matter(PM) swept into the air includes many unwanted and toxic elements. Various pollutants include dust,pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers, fungi, street dirt and fecal matter. Approximately five pounds of PM per leaf blower per hour are blown into the air and can take hours or even days to settle. • Two-cycle leaf blowers generate unhealthy high noise levels. Two-cycle leaf blowers generate a decibel level that can cause permanent hearing loss to the operator and an annoyance to anyone nearby. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 1 T3d _� l ATTACHMENT 1' • Unaware citizens, including the most vulnerable in our county such as the young, homebound and seniors frequently must endure the localized air and noise pollution of two-cycle leaf blowers. Considering the evidence, the Grand Jury concluded the health hazards residents are exposed to from two-cycle leaf blowers outweigh the possible benefit they provide. The Grand Jury. recommends that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and all incorporated cities initiate a gradual phase-out of two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers for landscape and cleanup operations. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The purpose of this report was to assess the health hazards caused by leaf blowers within San Luis Obispo County. The Grand Jury assessed air and noise pollution caused by leaf blowers in public, commercial and residential uses. Three types of leaf blowers were reviewed: two cycle, four cycle and electric. This report will summarize the findings of this assessment, along with recommendations for actions to reduce health hazards presented by leaf blowers. If the recommendations are implemented, the quality of life for the citizens of San Luis Obispo County could improve without causing undue hardship. METHOD/PROCEDURE Interviews were conducted with staff of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building and its Code .Enforcement Division. The Grand Jury reviewed written materials from various sources, including: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • California Air Resources Board (CARB) • California State Assembly Bill.32: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 • Municipal codes within San Luis Obispo County 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 2 Ba 40 ATTACHMENT 1 • California Landscape Contractors Association • Consumer Reports Magazine and various other news sources • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association NARRATIVE Leaf blowers were introduced to the United States in the 1970s. Drought conditions in California precipitated acceptance of the blowers as a water saving clean-up option in lawn and garden maintenance. Soon after leaf blowers were introduced, complaints regarding noise and air pollution began, leading to restrictive ordinances or complete bans. There are three types of portable leaf blowers in common use:gas powered with either a two or four-cycle engine and electric powered. All have practical applications, as well as contributing to environmental hazards in varying degrees. Description of Hazards Exhaust Emissions: Exhaust emissions are those emissions generated from the incomplete combustion of fuel in an engine. Small, two-cycle gasoline engines have traditionally powered most leaf blowers. They are inexpensive, lightweight, operate in any position and generate a . relatively large amount of power. A major disadvantage, however, is the high exhaust emissions due to the required mixing of fuel and oil that are inefficiently burned in the combustion chamber leading to as much as 30% of the fuel/oil mixture being exhausted unburned. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a typical leaf blower generates as much emission in one hour as an automobile does while traveling over 200 miles, with the major difference being the leaf blower emits the pollution in a much smaller radius. The resulting major pollutants are oil- based particulates, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Some of the hydrocarbons in fuel and combustion by-products are toxic air contaminants, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde and fonnaldehyde. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 3 a / ATTACHMENT 1 Four-cycle leaf blowers emit significantly lower emissions than two-cycle leaf blowers, with lower levels of hydrocarbons-and.particulate matter. Electric blowers have the advantage of not requiring fuel or oil, thus, there are no exhaust emissions.. Fugitive Dust Emissions: Besides the intended purpose of moving leaves,grass and other garden debris, blowers cause sidewalk and roadway dust to become airborne(fugitive dust). Varying by make and model, leaf blowers move air at 150 to 280 miles per hour. As a comparison, a Category 5 hurricane is defined as wind.speed of 156+ miles per hour. Fugitive dust may contain pollen, animal fecal matter, herbicide and pesticide residues, fungi, spores and street dirt containing tire rubber,heavy metals and organic and elemental carbon. Especially harmful are the particulate matter(PM) in fugitive dust that are small enough.to be inhaled (defined as particles smaller than 10 micrometers). PM from fugitive dust cloud emissions can linger in the air from minutes to as long as a week, depending on PM size and local conditions. Noise Emissions: Noise is the general term.for sound that is perceived as disagreeable and unwanted. High intensity, high frequency sounds are the most damaging to the ear and usually identified as the most annoying. The noise emitted from leaf blowers contains a significant amount of high intensity and high frequency emissions. In a quiet neighborhood, there are no natural sources of sound at these same frequencies. Therefore, the sounds are not easily masked and are more noticeable, contributing to a high level of annoyance perceived by bystanders. Noise levels from leaf blowers are measured in decibels (dBA) and usually are manufacturer- reported levels that represent exposure of a bystander at 50 feet from the blower. Sound levels are estimated to range from 62 to 75 dBA. The difference in 62 versus 15 dBA is roughly 100 times the sound intensity and is perceived by a bystander as significantly louder. The dBA for the operator of a two-cycle blower is estimated to range from 87 to 101 dBA. Sounds louder than 80 dBA are considered potentially dangerous. Both the amount of noise and the length of time of exposure determine the amount of potential damage to hearing. Hair cells of the inner ear and the hearing nerves can be permanently damaged by an intense brief impulse, like an explosion, or by continuous or repeated exposure to noise. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 The regulation of leaf blowers in California cities and counties typically is based on noise emissions standards and falls into the categories of time of the day, days of the week and dBA limits.. Under current San Luis Obispo County code, noise from leaf blowers is not permitted to exceed 70 dBA between the hours of 7 a.m.'to 10 p.m., and 65 dBA between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The City of San Luis Obispo has more stringent restrictions including the ban of gasoline powered blowers anytime on Sundays, and limiting the use of any power blower on other days of the week to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in residential zones, and 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. in non-residential zones. An interview conducted with a San Luis Obispo County Code Enforcement official revealed that current noise ordinances are not practical to enforce, and in fact, are never enforced with regards to leaf blowers. For code enforcement to issue a violation of current noise codes, the officer would need to actually witness a violation and be able to verify a blower exceeded dBA limits. However, use of a specific type of blower that is banned would be clearly observable, and therefore, more easily enforceable. Health Effects Particulate Matter is inhalable and able to deposit on the lungs' airway surfaces. Smaller particles, 2.5 micrometers or less, are able to penetrate deep into lung tissue. Exposure to PM has been linked to higher hospital admissions and respiratory ailments. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon containing fuels. CO in the air can be absorbed from the lungs into the bloodstream, and in significant levels can reduce oxygen to body tissues. Risk groups for ambient CO include the elderly, pregnant women, infants, those with anemia, respiratory diseases and heart disease with exercise-induced angina. Benzene from burned and unburned fuel is a known carcinogen and depresses the central nervous system. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene also have been identified as probable carcinogens and acute exposure may lead to eye, skin and respiratory tract irritation. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 5 as-�� ATTACHMENT 9 Leaf blowers emit substantial hydrocarbons, primarily from unburned fuel, that can react with nitrogen dioxide to form ozone. Ozone is a known irritant, with exposures of as little as one hour causing constriction of airways, coughing, shortness of breath and worsening of respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma. Over time,permanent damage and decreased lung capacity from repeated exposure can occur. There is a direct relationship between repeated exposure to excessive noise and hearing loss. Noise induced stimulation of the autonomic nervous system has been linked to high blood pressure, headaches and cardiovascular disease. Noise acts as a biological stressor that can trigger a"fight or flight" response, causing stress and anxiety. Excessive noise also interferes with communication, disrupts sleep, impairs concentration and generally causes community annoyance. Alternatives Rakes and brooms are quiet alternatives to leaf blowers and consume no resources. They emit minimal dust and debris into the air and do not release pollutants from exhaust emissions. Rakes and brooms are efficient and almost as fast as power blowers. After banning the use of leaf blowers in 1990, the City of Claremont, California calculated that the increase in workload using rakes and brooms was only 6 percent more than with the use of blowers in the maintenance of city property. This calculation did not include the time for maintenance and fuel/oil mixing for the blowers. Other cities found similar results. In situations where a power blower is absolutely necessary, testing has shown that electric models, while generating less noise, have out-performed gasoline fueled competitors with comparable power. The quietest and least polluting type of leaf blower is electric and most owners and reviewers say an electric leaf blower will suit homeowners very well. Electric blowers are also easier to maintain. While exhaust emissions are eliminated, fugitive dust and PM pollution are still an issue. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 6 � /� � I ATTACHMENT 1 In cases where hand raking or an electric blower is not feasible, newer four-cycle gasoline fueled blowers are preferable due to their reduced exhaust emissions and noise. Experts recommend reserving use of gasoline-powered blowers to work areas farther than a 150-foot extension cord can reach, or where a power cord is not practical. Compliance in Cities Banning Leaf Blowers Over 300 cities nationwide have banned or restricted leaf blowers including more than 100 municipalities in California. Examples include: 1. The City of Santa Barbara banned all gasoline powered leaf blowers in 1997. Electric powered leaf blowers are allowed, but may not be used within 250 feet of a residential zone and must be certified to meet a dBA level of no more than 65. The parks department incurred a one-time cost of$90,000 (out of a budget of$4 million) to replace equipment and has seen no additional impact on city cleanup in regards to time or cost. 2. The City of Carmel banned leaf blowers in 1974, becoming the first city in the nation to impose leaf blower restrictions. 3. The City of Los Angeles (population 3.6 million) banned leaf blowers in 1998. Air Quality Legislation California State Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is a statewide effort enacted to reduce environmental emissions leading to greenhouse gases. AB32 requires the California Air Quality Board (CARB) to adopt regulations by 2011 that will achieve technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases. At a local level, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District(APCD) is the primary agency responsible for achieving the clean air standards established by the CARB. The APCD is actively developing a multi-pollutant clean air plan which is scheduled to be presented to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in December 2010. Currently, the APCD does not have jurisdiction over mobile consumer devices such as leaf blowers, but can make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and incorporated cities. Any change to leaf blower regulations within San Luis Obispo County would be the task of the County Board of Supervisors and city councils. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS It is the finding of the Grand Jury that leaf blowers can cause preventable health hazards to the citizens of San Luis Obispo County. 1. Gasoline-powered leaf blowers, particularly two-cycle models, create exhaust emissions containing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and other harmful particulate matter. The resulting pollution from one leaf blower operated for one hour is approximately equivalent to one car being driven 200 miles. 2. All leaf blowers create fugitive dust drifts containing harmful chemicals, fungi, fecal matter and harmful particulate matter that can linger in the air for hours. 3. Leaf blowers, two-cycle models being the loudest, generate high intensity and high frequency noise that can lead to operator hearing loss, as well as multiple harmful physiological and psychological responses to the operator or bystanders. Current county noise ordinances are limited to decibel level violations that are unenforceable in practice. A specific ban on two-cycle leaf blowers would be an effective and enforceable ordinance. 4. California Assembly Bill 32 of 2006 mandates reduction of harmful greenhouse emissions. San Luis Obispo County must adopt measures to meet emission reduction requirements. 5. It has been demonstrated manual rake or broom cleanup is nearly as time efficient and effective as leaf blowers, without causing harmful air or noise hazards. When a leaf blower is necessary, an electric model is the preferred option due to no exhaust emissions. Four-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers should be limited to areas of greater than 150 feet from an electric power source, or when a power source is not available. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 8 Pa-/b ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on these findings, the Grand Jury recommends that: 1. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors pass an ordinance calling for a gradual two year phase-out of all two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers within San Luis Obispo County. 2. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors adopt the same guidelines currently in effect within the City of San Luis Obispo for the restriction of days and hours of operation allowed for leaf blower use. 3. Each incorporated city within San Luis Obispo County adopt a parallel ordinance to ensure consistency throughout the county. REQUIRED RESPONSES The San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors is required to respond to Recommendations 1 and 2. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29, 2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Atascadero City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29,2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Arroyo Grande City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29, 2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Grover Beach City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response. shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29, 2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 9 ATTACHMENT 7 The.Morro Bay City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior court by July 29, 2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Paso Robles City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29,2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Pismo Beach City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29, 2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The San Luis Obispo City Council is required to respond to Recommendation 3. The response shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court by July 29, 2010. Please provide a copy of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The mailing addresses for delivery are: Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Charles S. Crandall Superior Court of California San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury 1050 Monterey Street P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 2009-2010 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 10 eg —�d ATTACHMENT 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. (February 2002). A report to the California Legislature on the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers. htti):Hwww.arb.ca. og v/msprog/mailouts/msc0005/msc0005.gdf 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. htti)://www.epa.Rov 3.. California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Fact Sheet—California Global Wanning Solutions Act of 2006 4. American Speech-Language-Heating Association. Noise and hearing loss.. htty://www.asha.orWpublic/hearing/disorders/noise.htm 5. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. (November 16, 2005). Options for addressing climate change in San Luis Obispo County. Interviews with staff and official web site information. http://www.slocleanair.org/indeL.�hn. 6. Consumer Reports Magazine. (September 2007). Power blower, more punch for plug- ins. 7. Consumer Search. (September 2009). Leaf blower: Full report. ht!p://www.consumersearch.com/leaf-blowers/review. 8. Orange County'Grand Jury. (1999). Leaf blower pollution hazards in Orange County. ht-tp://www.oc.randiury.org/vdfs/leafblow.Rdf 9. City of San Luis Obispo pamphlet. Using power blowers in San Luis Obispo:A short course in power blower laws and etiquette. 10. San Luis Obispo County.- General plan elements and ordinances. httR://www.slocounty.ca.gov/,site4.aspx 11. Hayes, Virginia. (October 23, 2008). Leaf blowers' legacy. Santa Barbara Independent. http://www.independent.co m/news/2008/oct/23/leaf-blowers-legacy 12. California Landscape Contractors Association. (March 1999). CLCA position on leaf blowers. http://www.cica.org/elca/about/leaf blowers.php 13. Zero Air Pollution web site. http://www.zapla-org 2009-201.0 San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Page 11 n I�M�II64iiV1L1' � �� Citi of , an tuts oBisr i -'= Building&Safety Division•919 Palm Street•San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218•(805)781-7180 July 7, 2010 Attachment 2 Honorable Judge Charles S. Crandall Superior Court of California 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Judge Crandall, On July 6, 2010, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the Grand Jury's report, titled Leaf Blower Hazards in San Luis Obispo County. Based on the report provided to the City Council by Community Development Department staff, the City Council concurs with most of the findings in the report and has requested that staff implement the Grand Jury recommendation by returning to the Council within the next six months to further explore adoption of an ordinance calling for a two year phase-out of all two-cycle gasoline powered leaf blowers. City staff has done preliminary research into other jurisdictions and hopes to learn from some of the best practices being employed by other agencies as well as ensuring that a proposed leaf blower ordinance is consistent with the Climate Action Plan program development efforts currently underway. We appreciate the findings made by the Grand Jury, particularly that the City of San Luis Obispo has municipal codes in place that restrict the days and hours of operation allowed for leaf blower use that are being recommended for adoption on a County-wide basis. If there are further questions or comments regarding the City's response to the report, please don't hesitate to contact Tim Girvin, at 781-7159. Respectfully submitted, Katie Lichtig, City Manager Cc: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Ba-ao P"mCEIVE® JUL 0 6 2010 �iuulllVlp��lluiull�111111SLO CITY CLERK � counc�l mEmonanbum DATE: July 6, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct SUBJECT: Noise Differences Between Two and Four Cycle Gas Powered Leaf Blowers Councilmember Ashbaugh requested that, if possible, staff provide a demonstration and comparison of two cycle and four cycle gas leaf blowers tonight for the Council's consideration of agenda item B 2. While it was not possible for staff to put the demonstration together, staff is able to provide information relevant to Councilmember Ashbaugh's request. The City provides a handout on the proper use of leaf blowers based on existing noise regulations regarding blowers and best practices. This handout is attached(see page 2). The City's noise regulations and the content of the handout apply equally to two and four cycle engines. Either the two or the four stroke engines can exceed or comply with the City's existing noise limits for leaf blowers. Thus prohibiting two cycle gas engines in the City does not eliminate the potentialfor four cycle engines to exceed the noise limits. It is the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment in accordance with best practices that will insure compliance with the noise standards. 1 a CaPy L�INa« COUNCIL p'CDD DIR RED FILE ereA0e4nAfte [ 'FIN DIR -=_ TToi MEETING AGENDAOR 40 `` '"°'��FIRE CHIEF ®A-�q I6 �a ITEM # a�, 0'C ERK/CRIQ �W DIR " '>r� -.tom ❑ EPT HEADS 2-POLICE CHF �1' EC D1F1 i _8U�� C'f UTIL DIR Z HR DIR i rint � L'i-fi1 M1�2 U in san Luis osispo 5 a shoat couizse in:powers Bloweit laws and etiquette. l+f ° the Y P_ u t e V Power blowers are allowed to be operated only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in residential zones and within 200' of a residential zone, or between 7 a.m.and 6 p.m. in any non-residential zone, and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.Sunday. Gas-powered blowers may not be used anytime on Sundays. Noise from blowers is not permitted to exceed 70 dBA at a distance of fifty feet from the blower. This level is equivalent to the noise generated by a clothes dryer. L i ccD CoN �yf cc O O O c a ^ m a O Co O V o cl �_ p Q � c� Q) Oa° o T 0 >, 4a a) O ' c co L C1J °. h0 m cca) N cn O a, U c O p a N p ® CoCl ca O >% C ;, ca 'i O ' a) Q y p L � a) ° ° cu ° t _ m 0 � 3 L a) m ca 'a ° ° ° 0 ° o a 3 �S E 8 Q°^II ca 0. no o �' C c_ °3 3 ° 0 a) ° m E c g o a ° °a } a o CL m 0 Q. C OL 3 n 0 ° ccaaoa �ia � t�'-° m ca o a) 3 0 3 0 o s o a c°n to cca ° o c m c p Q Sa) .4-- C a) -0 a) � 3 ° c�a a) s a) E � too � � 3 3 00 CL ° o c� _0 p p as (Da) 0 ° ° ® s ca a) to -0 .0 °, OM m � 0 cc uo c � m o 0 0 c a +J sv, C) Q' s N U m O ca `S I i the tone ARM If you see someone operatinga blower illegally(outside of the LAW of the hours when they are allowed), let him or her know. If you are°unable to speak to the blower operator directly, you can call the Police Department at 781-7317. It is not an emergency, but an officer will respond as soon as possible. Please remember that, as with other noise violations, a police officer cannot issue a citation if he or she does J not actually hear the blower personally. Do not be disappointed if a citation is not issued, however.The '°" "« officer will inform the suspected blower user of the law, rte,mBsamamgoeao. which should reduce.future violations. `Y,, "15� if you hdVe questions... `;� �, \ please write or call Lawrence Tolson, ' ' Parks Maintenance Supervisor, City of San Luis Obispo �i (805) 781-7220 J city of San Luis OBISPO 990 palm stizect San tuts oeispo; ca 93401 y ® 3 �.c 1 C a5 N CD o 7 N Lj � O g ns O W y a; m Y ao 3 `u m � Cl n- 3 ao .. L VJ y 3 E o = 'a m O ® 6 CU a N C � o m Eca 0 a) Ncu cc a7 S c c ® yam, _ ` � €n .E U) m � � c_E ca E m o 0, 0 c c c L 6 3 az L . o > .co v c ca wFE Cc 0 C- Co Q) - .0 > Ctc .m = a5 i 3 .'i'.y C c- CL o o. c n m a rz c o F o as c o C +. a� to c N a 3 �- m 3 c 3 cr ti ti O d R w C2 m axi - as N o m c �:-� o e`) aa — o ® tn c > O OL'Q) Oacn o to O a -- cc r mai