HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/1997, 3 - POWER BLOWERS council "73:
j acEnda uEpout „�N•
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Power blowers
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Affirm previous Council position on power blowers: retain hourly limits and continue with
educational program.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 20, 1993, the City Council responded to complaints by a citizen about problems
associated with leafblowers. The Council directed staff to research the issue and return with
information on these machines.
On January 25, 1994, the Council reviewed a report on these machines, which recommended an
educational program and operational restrictions to address issues. On April 19, 1994, 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 an educational program.
In October 1994, the Council changed the regulations to allow blowers to be operated outside
residential areas from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., rather than from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and asked that staff
return with a report addressing decibel limits for blowers, including a certification program to
assure enforcement of the noise limits. The idea and a draft ordinance was presented to the
Council on March 19, 1996 and was rejected by the Council because it was seen to involve too
much paperwork for a relatively small problem.
After receiving complaints from several citizens in November 1996, the Council asked staff to
place power blowers on the agenda once again.
EVALUATION
1. The issue has been discussed several times. Most of the members of the present
Council have discussed power blowers on more than one occasion. Previous reports
discuss what blowers are, what good they do, what the effects of a ban would be, what
improvements are being made by the industry, how power blowers are misused. These
reports are available in the Council reading file. This report summarizes some of the high
points of previous reports and provides updated information.
3-/
Council report: Power blowers
Page 2
2. Los Angeles recently outlawed gas-powered blowers. All of the letters on leafblowing
recently received by the Council have mentioned the action by the Los Angeles City
Council in early November. At that meeting, the L.A. Council voted 10 - 3 to ban gas-
powered blowers, and to impose fines on gardeners and on their clients when this law is
broken. The law goes into effect this March.
The law makes use of a "noise abatement team" within the Police Department, which is
able to impose the fines. Reports of that city's action predict that enforcing this law will be
a low priority for L.A. police, however. A copy of the Los Angeles Tunes article is
attached to this report. Representatives of our police department have previously stated
that blower complaints, regardless of which law is passed, will be given lower priority
status than more serious calls.
3. If gas-powered blowers are banned,
Pollution from these machines will decrease. Electric blowers do not directly pollute the
air. Both types create temporary particulate pollution.
Noise from blowers will, on average, be lower. Electric blowers tend to be quieter than
gas-powered, although newer gas-powered blowers are as quiet as electric.
It is likely that fewer citizens will be annoyed by the these aspects of these machines.
Even if gas-powered blowers are banned, some aspects of power blowers would remain.
Thoughtless users of electric blowers would continue to blow debris onto passersby.
Gusts from the blowers would continue to create little storms of debris, often irritating
allergy-sufferers. If gardeners are forced to eliminate their gas-powered blowers, they may
pass on the cost of electric replacements (or use of brooms and water) to their customers.
To hold costs down, customers may choose to have less work done and landscaping may
not be cleaned up as thoroughly.
4. The blower industry is addressing the noise and pollution concerns. Staff continues
to believe that the benefits of allowing gas-powered blowers in the city outweigh the
disadvantages, because these blowers are more powerful, mobile, and versatile and thus
the preferred choice of most gardeners, and the drawbacks of their use are being
addressed through design. Newer models are much quieter (70 dB and less) than many in
use today, and are more efficient, thereby producing less air pollution. Staff believes that
over time these aspects of blower use will become less of a concern.
5. A ban would not address the primary concerns. A ban on gas-powered blowers would
eliminate two concerns: pollution and noise. Other gas-powered garden equipment
produces greater pollution and more noise. There are other reasons blowers get singled
out for special attention, and a ban on gas-powered blowers will not address these
reasons.
3-2
Council report: Power blowers
Page 3
There is a perception by many that blowers do nothing except blow debris from one
property to another, or to the street, or onto innocent passersby. It is irresponsible use that
gives blowers a bad name. Responsible users, like the City's crews, clean up debris after
blowing and discontinue use when other persons are nearby. These users point out that
blowers do a good job of cleaning, save time, and replace water, brooms, and other
implements. The perception that blowers don't do anything is persistent, however, and
causes citizens to object to the noise and air pollution from blowers when they do not
object to the same from other gas-powered equipment.
6. Alternatives. The Council may wish to consider the following alternatives:
Ban all blowers. If enforced effectively, a total ban would eliminate all blower concerns.
Experience in other communities indicates that enforcement calls would initially increase
but after a year or so decrease to previous levels (as users learn that blowers are not
allowed). A ban would force blower users to find other means to clear driveways, walks,
grass, and other areas. Costs to gardener clients may increase or some work may not be
done. Costs of maintaining City parks and other property would increase.
Ban gas powered blowers. Noise and pollution concerns would be addressed. User
behavior concerns would not. Costs to gardeners and their clients would likely increase to
cover the cost of using new or alternative equipment. Electric blowers cannot be used in
all instances that gas-powered blowers are now used, because 1) these blowers are not as
powerful, 2) electric outlets are not always immediately available, and 3) battery-powered
blowers only last about 20 minutes on a four-hour charge.
Pass a law addressing inappropriate use of blowers. Staff presented such a law at a
previous hearing, as part of the package that would limit decibel levels. Elements of such a
law may include 1) a requirement that deposits of debris be cleaned up and not be placed
on other property or the street (by any means, including brooms), 2) a prohibition of
blowing within ten feet of open doors or windows, 3) a requirement that blowers be
directed away from passersby. Enforcement of such a law may be difficult, but voluntary
compliance may result in less need of such enforcement.
Further restrict time limits. Currently, blowers may be used any time between the hours of
8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in residential areas. A blower may be used for any length of time during
that period. The Council may want to impose limits on how long a blower may be used
continuously. Enforcement would be difficult but may be effective in cases where abuse of
the law is frequent.
Limit decibel levels. Staff previously developed an ordinance restricting decibel levels of
blowers to 70 dB maximum at a distance 50' from the blower, which included a testing
and certification procedure. This proposal can be returned to the Council.
.3 3
Council report: Power blowers
Page a
Step up the educational program. Community Development and Parks staff are
responsible for the City's educational program. Currently, staff is developing a leaflet
explaining the City's time restrictions and emphasizing proper use of equipment. This
leaflet will be distributed to equipment supply stores and will be given to all gardeners
applying for business tax certificates. If directed, staff can develop programs that are more
visible. However, such programs would require a greater amount of staff time.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department, Parks Division is opposed to a ban of blowers, either gas-powered
or total. Currently, about 15 hours of staff time are spent each week using blowers in public areas.
This time would be expected to increase to about 75 hours if brooms and other means are
required instead. A change to electric-powered blowers would still involve the use of other
equipment where the limitations of electric-powered blowers make their use inappropriate.
Police personnel have previously stated that if a ban is imposed, the effect on the department
would be minimal. The ban would be one more law to enforce, and enforcement would depend on
time available. Other departments do not use blowers and therefore have no position on them.
FISCAL IMPACT
If gas-powered blowers are banned, the City would need to replace its blowers with electric
blowers. The City has approximately 15 blowers.at present. If all blowers are banned, the City
would need to increase manpower time to allow for sweeping or use of other equipment.
Enforcement calls to the Police Department will increase.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may direct staff to return with ordinances to ban gas-powered blowers, to ban all
blowers, to limit decibel levels, to restrict continuous blower time, or to encode operator behavior
restrictions, or direct staff to place greater emphasis on the educational program. Anticipated
results of these actions is discussed above.
Attachments
L.A. Times article on blower ban
Letters from citizens
3�
/ U
i
Council OKs.Ban, Fines ` `
BLOWERS 4L7,
on Gas Leaf Blowers Continued from B1 M 5 ', '°&ofi
mean they will charge higher rates to use brooms and
water hoses instead of powerful blowers to clear away.:
® Environment: Law 2110WS penalty Of Up leaves and grass clippings.
"If blowers are banned,it's going to make our work
to$1,000 for gardeners,employers. Kn
that much more difficult," said Roy Imazu, a San
By HUGO MARTIN Fernando Valley gardener and a member of -the .
By H srn)F ART(RITER Southern California Gardeners Assn.
The vote was a victory for Councilman Marvin
Gardeners and their employers will soon be fined up to Braude, a retiring 31-year City Hall veteran who has
$1,000 each for operating gasoline-powered leaf blowers in backed such a ban for several years. He has argued .
residential areas, the Los Angeles City Council decided that gardeners have the option of using electric
Tuesday. blowers, which do not
To the cheers of dozens of homeowners—including :generate the exhaust or.
television actresses Meredith Baxter and Julie Newmar— noise of gasoline-powered
the council voted 10 to 3 to ban leaf blowers within 500 feetdevices. The city is not., .
of residences starting in March. The city is not immune Immune to the
The action brought the city in line with more than 40 to the ban. The city's De- ban, The city's
other California municipalities that have restricted blowers partment of Recreation
due to concerns about noise and the health hazards of dust and Parks owns 150 Baso- department of.
and exhaust. line-powered leaf blowers Recreation and .
The vote formally ratifies a measure that the council. for gardening. The de
endorsed in May.But the council also added a provision to partment is requesting Parks owns 150
the new law that penalizes homeowners and others for funding next year from gasoline-powered
hiring gardeners who illegally use the blowers. the council to replace most leaf blowers for
The ban came despite the appeals of about 60 gardeners of them because they are
who attended the meeting.They warned that the ban will more than 2 years old. gardening.
Please see BLOWERS,B6 Dick Ginevan, a parks
manager for the depart-
ment, said city workers
routinely use blowers to clear off leaves and grass
;clippings around city parks and libraries.
But he said that over the past few years—as the
blower ban has made its way through the city's
i legislative process—park workers have turned to
EC E IV ED
using brooms, rakes and water hoses in residential
•areas.
NOV 1 51996 It does cause additional costs for us to use different
(means to clear away leaves and other debris,"Ginevan
.ITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOsaid.
••.M Imrry nc�ml recur•" An earlier version of the ban imposed fines only on
the gardeners,but,at the request of Councilman Mike
Hernandez, the council voted to also fine those who
hire the gardeners, saying they should be held
responsible as well.
Under the amendment,an existing"noise abatement
team" within the Police Department will have the
option of imposing a fine on either the gardeners or the
homeowners or both,said Keith Pritzker,an assistant
city attorney who helped write the ban.
Despite strong emotions on both sides of the issue,
he predicted that the ordinance will not be a high '
priority with police.
Councilwoman Rita Walters, who joined Council-
men Joel Wachs and Richard Alatorre in opposing the.
ban, was cheered by gardeners when she called the
'ban an elitist measure 'that would benefit, rich
homeowners at the expense of low-income gardeners.
The South.Coast Air Quality Management District
also joined the fray Tuesday by issuing a report that
blamed leaf blowers for spewing 5.6 tons of hydrocar-.
bon emissions per day into the region.
But the AQMD report said leaf blowers don't ..:
generate as many hydrocarbon emissions as lawn
mowers, which emit 7.4 tons per day, or edge !3�,
trimmers;which spew 7.6 tons. 5'
l�-13 l�
RECEIVED
1
NOV_i 44. 19"
clnr couNcu:
NCIL r4
1
Council OKs Ban, Fines
on Gas Leaf Blowers W P-
■ Environment: Law allows penalty of u
to$1,000 for gardeners,employers.By r /
HUGo MARTIN L � Q`` 'e,
t!S p
TIMES STAFF WRITER � L _ n
Gardeners and their employers will soon be fined up to / are S �-�✓
$1,000 each for operating gasoline-powered leaf blowers in
residential areas, the Los Angeles City Council decided S
!/
Tuesday.
To the cheers of dozens of homeowners-including
television actresses Meredith Baxter and Julie Newmar—. cS A"�
the council voted 10 to 3 to ban leaf blowers within 500 feet
Of residences starting in March. U �S
The action brought the city in line with more than 90 '1L."v,Y cal• Com(
other California municipalities that have restricted blowers �—
due to concerns about noise and the health hazards of dust
and exhaust.
The vote formally ratifies a measure that the council
endorsed in May.But the council also added a Provision to
the new law that penalizes homeowners and others for
hiring gardeners who illegally use the blowers.
The ban came despite the appeals of about 60'gardeners
who attended the meeting.They warned that the ban will
Please see BLOWERS,B8 (rT
�✓ r-S
de US U J% be
`k � ` p �,�,;, e � �
IrS- Lr7 , d v
TED RuETER
Mayor Allen Settle4 �v"
�.t&V/1_4 (� November 18, 1996
(•�
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle,
I am writing to encourage the SLO City Council to ban leaf
blowers!
I can't believe that an intelligent, progressive community
like San Luis Obispo allows these loathsome generators of noise
pollution! They are the dumbest invention of all time! What do
they do? Do they collect leafs? No--they just spread them
around. And if they're so great, how come every person who uses
them wears ear protectors? These things are ridiculous and
annoying, and they should be banned.
Berkeley has banned leaf blowers. Beverly Hills has banned
them. And now Los Angeles is banning them.
San Luis Obispo should ban them.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Siou�rs,7 �
Ted Rueter
RECEIVED
NOV � ii IM
CITY COUNCIL
CAN. I I've no1SM.I`.4
1241 Johnson Avenue, Suite 119 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Phone (805) 544-7144
email: tedrueter@aol.com • http://www.tedrueter.com S-7
--- -- n �arroli 1601
MEETING AGENDA
DATE .&-97 ITEM #
MAiNO CARROLL & GALLAGHER
Post Office Box 1025 (805) 541-0178
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93406 Fax (805) 541-0178
Mayor Allen Settle and Council Members February 18, 1997
RE: City Council Agenda Item
Gas BIower
As an owner of commercial property in the Downtown area it is essential
to keep the sidewalks and parking lots free of leaves and debris inorder to
present our improvements to both tenants and clients in the best possible
manner.
We have a parking lot for 55 automobiles, sidewalk on four sides of the
building and extensive landscaping. The ability to use a gas blower is time
effective, efficient and causes the least disruption for my tenants. If we
are unable to use a blower my alternatives are to wash down (waste of
resource, increased liability, increased time/disruption, increased cost),
hand broom (increased time & cost to point of impractical) or leave the
parking lot and sidewalk full of debris (unacceptable maintenance and
appearance to public and tenants).
Let's keep the blowers in the Downtown.
Thank you for your consideration. ® coUNCIL CDD DIR
B�;(AO O FIN DIR
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
�TrORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERWORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMrTEAM O REC DIR
Howard Carro 1 C3 C READ FILE O UTIL DIR
Merrill Lynch Building I ❑ PERS DIR
Ll
RECEw It®
PCD
CITY COUNCIL
nn �n
Retain this document for
fut Ire Council meeting
Dear Mr. .Roleman, 2_3_97
Re: Blowers. Date, if agendized
State Air Quality Standards shifted the focus away from
petrochemichals last, year in order to study particulates (dust).
Blowers are some of the worst offenders because they stir up the, dust.
As a .dust sensitive person I must wear a mask for irotection. I iNish
everyone.who was sensitive could carry a -mask. If you watch a Jerson's
reaction.to a blower you'll unmask an. anger that is yet inarticulzite.
The truth•is that.the dust stirred up is rich in deadly bacteria The
truth is' that the population needs protection.
h suggest funding the development of a quiet; electro-magnetic
vac-blower that actually collects the dust. It would take less than a
year .to.design and test. With the wealth of engineers at the local
institution the City would end up with a quality, .workable,. econom �. CDD DIR
design that would give the gardeners a nice new piece of equipme O FIN DIR
.buy and show off. -O:ne that would demonstrate that the City is D FIRE CHIEF
supportive of gardeners and the public. 13 PW DIM
®�O O POLICE CHF
To simply say,"No." to blowers is not the sollution. O MGW Tom+ ❑ REC DIR
D C ❑ UTIL DIR
A Gardener; _ �• D PERS DIR
REL+EI 'R/'G®-
M chael,Manion FEB
.542-9294
CITY COUNCIL
My thoughts. . . .'tETING .AGENDA
For our consideration E. al-/Y-
97 ITEM #;
y . .
From: Jerry Dagna (toos/o@msn.com)
1845 Vicente Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Home: 805-544-6557 Fax: 54'-0193
To: Mayor Allan Settle
Fax +1 (805) 781-7109
The issue:
LEAF BLOWERS '
My thoughts••
Thank you for time..
My wife and I have lived in San Luis for 14 years..We have five wonderful
sons.
All 4 voting members of my hosehold strongly urge you to to vote "NO" on
the issue of banning leaf blowers. We already have a city law concerning
blowers, and we don't need another law that cuts into our personal rights.
Our city has so many more important issues that desperatley need your time
and your guidance of our valuable city staff.
I urge a 5-0 vote on this issue! There is so much unity and healing in 5-0
votes. Lets do that wherever we can. This would be a perfect issue for a
unanimous council vote. I am always available to further discuss this issue
with you. Thank you for all the time you committ to our city.
Sincerely:
Frankie & Jerry Dagna, Justin Dagna@Cal Poly, Adam Dagna@Cuesta
F
CDD DIR❑ FlN DIR❑ FIRE CHIEF O PW DIR >G ❑ POLICE CHFM O RECDIR tE ❑ U11L DIR
O PERS D]
CITU COUNCIL rn