The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17 - Orange County Grand Jury ReportCity Council Agenda • Item No. 17 April 26, 1999 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: Orange County Grand Jury Report Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter response to the Orange County Grand Jury report. Background The subject report, "Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County", was forwarded to the City in mid - February for a formal response to each of the Grand Jury's findings and to one of the four Grand Jury recommendations by May 16, 1999 (Attachment A). • The report defines the "pollution hazards" created by leaf blowers as: toxic engine exhaust fumes, air pollution from mobilizing particulate matter (PM), amount of PM injected into the ambient air, and leaf blower noise levels. Only one of the four recommendations made by the Grand Jury applies to the City, a ban on the use of all gas - powered blowers in the City. The objection to the use of leaf blowers dates back several years in Newport Beach. When the issue was last addressed in 1995, it was primarily oriented toward the noise pollution aspect of blowers as a result of citizens' complaints. At that time, City staff studied the problem and during Council study sessions heard testimony on the pros and cons of leaf blower use. A landscape maintenance association stressed the necessity for gas - powered leaf blowers, but readily agreed to establishing an acceptable noise level. Industry officials noted the probability of the development of improved designs of leaf blowers to decrease the adverse effects. Subsequently, the City adopted an ordinance in 1996 regulating mechanical blowers (Ordinance 10.28.045 Sections C, D, & E, Attachment B). The noise level for the use of blowers was specifically set at not greater than 70 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet after January 1, 1996. The level was automatically lowered on January 1, 1999 to a 65 dBA level, also measured at a distance of 50 feet. This latter action was to coincide with newer technology in the construction of leaf blowers. City work crews or contractors working for the City are exempted from the provisions of the ordinance under special conditions (see attached Ordinance Sections E: 1, 2 (a, b, & c), & 3). It should be noted that the ordinance also curtails the use of any "tool, equipment, or machine" as related to noise levels and the time of operation. Discussion Mechanical blowers are used in almost all landscaping operations by private contractors, City contractors, school district contractors, and City Parks and Beach Maintenance crews. The estimated additional direct costs to the City if mechanical blowers were banned would be $400k annually ($50k for direct City use, and $350k for our parks and roadway landscape contractor). The additional costs would be related to the extra labor needed to use non- mechanical devices or water applications to clean extensive public areas. The estimated cost to private businesses and residents in the City, should mechanical blowers be eliminated, could be in the millions of dollars. The enforcement of the banning of gas - powered blowers would be even more overwhelming as over 300 landscape contractors have City business licenses and operate extensively throughout the City. A Police Department spokesman indicated that complaints about the operations of leaf blowers are not a significant problem in the City. There have been in the past, some complaints in the Big Canyon area when golf course maintenance personnel commenced early operations, but that problem has been resolved. The Orange County City Manager's Association has forwarded a sample response to the Grand Jury by the City of Fullerton (Attachment C), which also includes some technical data and related comments. Staff has prepared the attached City response to the Grand Jury for Council review and approval. There is sufficient time available to revise this proposed response by the May 16, 1999 Grand Jury deadline. Very respectfully, David E. Niederhaus DEN /mhl Attachments: (A) Orange County Grand Jury letter and report dated February 8, 1999 (B) City Ordinance 10.28.045 (C) Orange County City Manager's Association letter dated March 17, 1999 (D) Proposed City response to Orange County Grand Jury 0 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST -SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701.714/834 -3320 February 8, 1999 Dennis D. O'Neil, Mayor Kevin Murphy, City Manager Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 Dear Mayor and City Manager: Attached is a copy of the 1998 -99 Orange County Grand Jury report entitled "Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County." Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f), a copy of the report is being provided to you two working days prior to its public release. Please note that "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." Emphasis added. (Public release date — February 16, 1999) It is requested that you provide a response to each of the findings and recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b), copy attached. For each Grand Jury recommendation, be sure to describe the implementation status, as well as provide a schedule for future implementation. It is requested the response to the recommendations be mailed to Kathleen E. O'Leary, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date (February 16, 1999) in compliance with Penal Code 933, copy attached. The due date then is May 16, 1999. Date a Copies Sent To: Mayor nm ❑ Council Member _ ^+ Manager = `` Attorney ❑ Y m ❑ ^ r' o ❑ r' z x� %0 0 0 0 Mayor /City Manager Page 2 February 8, 1999 Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury (address above). SSS:cd Attachments Grand Jury Report Penal Code 933, 933.05 • Very truly yours, 1998 -99 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Sheldon S. Singer, Foreman PENAL CODE SECTION 933 AND SECTION 933.0$ § 933. Findings and recommendations; comment of govern. ing bodies. elective officers, or agency heads '(a_Fsch grand jury ' ' ' shall submit to the presid- ing judge of the superior wort a final report of its findings and recom ncndatiom that pertain to wunry govcromcnt 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 tlic 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. One copy of each report found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the Munry ecrk. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her dmie nces shall, upon reasonable notioc, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report (bb 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.thc 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 forwhich the grand jury has responsibil- ity pursuant to Section 914.1 shall eo®ent-within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior wort, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and frecom ncndations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agenda whit that officer or agency head supervises or controls. to any city and county. the mayor shall also'commcat on the findings and recommcndatiomt All' ' ' of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior wort who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the dcrk of the public agency and the office of the county deck, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices One copy shall be placed on me 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. (c) As used in this section `agency" includes a department. (Added fn. Sratc1961. e. 1284. p. 3054. 4 1. Ante nded by Staa1963. c. 674. p. 1678. § 1: Srarr.1974, c. 393. p. 977. 4 6: 5raa1974. c. 1396. p. 3054. 13." Suut1977. c 107, p. 539, § 6: Stam1977. c. 187, p. 709. § 1: Sran.1980. c 543. p. 1499. § 1: Stao.1981. c. 203. p. 1126.4 1: Srao.198Z c 140,% p. 5365. 4 5: Stoo.1985, e. 221. 4 1. urgency, eJf. lily 1Z 1985: Stars 1987. c 690. 4 1: Srao.1988. c. 1297. § 5: Stats1997, c. 443 fA.B.829). § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (bk) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (I) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which ase the response shall specity the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (bb 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 implcmcated in the futwe, with a timcframc for implementation. (3) The recommcndatioe requires hurbcr analysis, with an explanation and "thc scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timcframc for the matter to be prepared for disevsion by the officer or head of the agency or department being iwcstigated or reviewed, inevdmg the governing body of the public agcocy when appliablc This timcframc shall not uceed she months from the date of publiation.of the grand jury report. (4)- The reoommemdation will not be ®pL- merited because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However. if a finding or recaunmcadatiom of.thc grand jury addresses budgetary or pers6briet4nicca of a -Munry agency or department herded by as deced 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 shad address only those budgetary or personnel matters over whirl it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the cloct cd agency or department head sball address all ¢specs of the fmdmg or recommcnda- tions afiectimg his or her agency or department (d) A grand jury may tcqoen a subject person or cntiry to wine before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the finding of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the finding prior to their release (c) During an imesti¢ation, the grand fury shall meet with the Subject of that investigation reardmit the imvesaigation. unless the Must, citber M its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand fu+Y determine that such a meeting would be denimcntal M A grand jury shall provide to the affected agcocy a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two worting days prior to is public release and after the approval of the presiding judge No officer. agency. department, or governing body of a public agency shall discos any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. fAdded by Sma.1994 a 1170 fS.B.1457). 11. Amended by Smcz.1997, c 443 fA.B.829). 1 5.) • Ci LEAF BLOWER POLLUTION HAZARDS IN ORANGE COUNTY SUMMARY The widespread daily usage of two -cycle gasoline engine leaf blowers in the cities and unincorporated areas presents a health hazard to all citizens of Orange County. The hazards are four -fold: • Toxic exhaust fumes and emissions are created by gas - powered leaf blowers. Exhaust pollution per leaf blower per hour is the equivalent of the amount of smog from 17 cars driven one hour and is localized in the area of blower usage. • The high - velocity air jets used in blowing leaves whip up dust and pollutants. • The particulate matter (PM) swept into the air by blowing leaves is composed of dust, fecal matter, pesticides, fungi, chemicals, fertilizers, spores, and street dirt which consists of lead and organic and elemental carbon. About five pounds of PM per leaf blower per hour are swept into the air and take hours to settle. • • The quantity of pollution products that are injected into county air. The total amount of pollutants injected into the environment by blower usage in the county is significant. The AR.B calculates that leaf blowers inject 2.11 tons of combustion pollutants per day into Orange County air. Leaf blowers in the County sweep twenty tons per day of small size particulate matter into the air. Blower engines generate high noise levels. Gasoline - powered leaf blower noise is a danger to the health of the blower operator and an annoyance to the non - consenting citizens in the area of usage. In light of the evidence, the Grand Jury determined the health hazards citizens are exposed to by the use of leaf blowers outweigh the questionable economic benefit blowers may bring to the cities and the County. The Grand Jury recommends that the cities, school districts, community college districts, and the County cease using gas powered blowers in their maintenance and cleanup operations. Page I of INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE • The focus of this study was to describe and assess the health hazards caused by gasoline- powered leaf blowers used in Orange County. The Grand Jury assessed the air and noise pollution introduced into the county by gasoline- powered leaf blowers (hereinafter - called leaf blowers). The purpose of this report is to recommend that cities take actions to reduce health hazards presented by leaf blowers. School districts and community college districts should do likewise since children are most vulnerable to the pollution and noise caused by leaf blowers. The Board of Supervisors should take similar action in the unincorporated areas. Additionally, such actions would improve the quality of life in Orange County. METHOD OF STUDY The Grand Jury gathered information and data from a variety of sources including: • Leaf blower manufacturers • • California Air Resources Board (ARB) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • American Lung Association • Consumer Reports magazine • Various newspaper and magazine articles • Personal activities and observations Quantitative assessments were made of the nature and scope of leaf blower pollution to the Orange County environment. The contribution of an individual leaf blower was easy to determine. The Grand Jury utilized data obtained from the Air Resources Board, the EPA and the Air Quality Management District to establish the total pollution contributed by leaf blowers to the county environment. • Page 2 of 9 • 0 E BACKGROUND AND HISTORY wo -cycle gasoline- powered leaf blowers were introduced into the United States in the 1970s. By 1985, 75,000 blowers were sold and by 1989, 464, 000 were sold. California leads the nation in the number of leaf blowers used, estimated to be in the millions, and sales are growing at 6 to 8 percent a year. The city of Laguna Beach bans the use of leaf blowers, and over a dozen other California cities have done likewise. Health and quality of life concerns related to leaf blower use became an issue in California cities prior to 1975. LEAF BLONVER OUTPUT Leaf blowers are usually powered by a 2 -cycle gasoline engine that provides the motive power for a high velocity stream of air guided by a tubular duct toward the leaves or debris to be swept or blown. The blower unit is either carried by hand or back - mounted on the operator depending on the size of the engine and the power desired. Generic output characteristics (averaged over several manufacturers) include: LEAF BLONN'ER NOISE OIiTPtiT TABLE 1 Noise level at blower >95 dBA' >90 dBA Noise level @ 50 feet >65 dBA >75dBA Airjet velocity at nozzle —I80 miles per hour up to 250 miles per hour 'dBA = acoustic decibels, frequency - weighted measures of audible noise volume or power used in noise HAZARDS FROM BLO\VER OPERATIONS There are four major health hazards from the use of leaf blowers. They are • exhaust pollution • particulate pollution • quantity of pollutants • noise EXHAUST POLLUTION One gasoline- powered leaf blower generates as much exhaust pollution in one hour as would 17 cars traveling slowly. Cars disperse their pollutants over long stretches of road, while a blower concentrates its pollutants in one neighborhood. Two- stroke engine fuel is a gas -oil mixture that is especially toxic compared to automobile emissions. Page 3 of 9 Exhaust pollution from two -cycle engines is a large contributor of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NO.), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter (PM). The particulate matter from combustion is small in size (2.5 or microns or less) .2 Combustion exhaust particulate matter remains suspended in the air for hours — sometimes days —and is easily assimilated in the lungs. The EPA and ARB state that such PM can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, bronchitis and other lung diseases and reduce ability to fight infections. Those particularly effected are children and the elderly. 2 PM2.5 microns refers to particulate matter size diameter in millionths of a meter or microns. Ph12.5 particles are 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller. PM10 particles are 10 microns in diameter or smaller and include PM2.5 particles. A PM 10 particle is about 1/176 the diameter of a human hair. PARTICULATE POLLUTION The airjet generated by blowers with velocities of 185 miles per hour or more spreads dust, dirt, pollens, animal droppings, herbicides and pesticides into the air. The effect lasts for hours on particulate matter that is 10 microns in diameter or smaller. The ARB has estimated that each leaf blower entrains (puts into the atmosphere) 5 pounds of particulate matter per hour about half of which is 10 microns or smaller. The EPA and ARB state that such particulate matter can create the same health risks as does the exhaust pollution. QUANTITY OF POLLUTANTS The ARB calculates that leaf blowers inject some 2.11 tons of combustion pollutants per day into Orange County air. These pollutants contain organic gases, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and exhaust -size particulate matter (PM2.5) as described previously. Additionally, twenty tons per day of small size particulate matter (PM10) are swept into the air by blower airflow. NOISE Noise interferes with communications, sleep, and work. The EPA claims noise degrades quality of life by impairing social interaction. It also reduces work accuracy and creates stressful levels of frustration and aggravation. The average blower generates noise that measures 65 to 75 dBA or more at 50 feet, and even louder at close range. Leaf blowers are often used fewer than 50 feet from non - consenting people. Neighboring homes may be occupied by home workers, retirees, day sleepers, children and the ill or disabled. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends general outdoor noise levels of 55 dBA or less, and 45 dBA or less for sleeping. Thus, a 65- decibel leaf blower would be 100 times too loud for healthful sleep. Blower noise can, and probably does, impair the user's hearing. A blower generates upward of 95 decibels of noise at the operator's ear (see Table 1 above). Office of Safety and Health Administration requires hearing protection for noise over 85 dBA. Hearing protectors as wom in the field provide only a fraction of the attenuation needed for hearing protection. There is an increased risk of hearing damage, and deafness from repeated exposure to noise above 75 dBA. Deafness caused by noise is irreversible. 3 A decibel change from 45 to 65 dBA, is a 100 -fold change in volume Page 4 of 9 ALTERNATE EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES • Rakes, brooms and electric blowers are alternate equipment that can perform leaf cleanup tasks. The first two have been in use since antiquity and have been proven performers since that time. Rakes and brooms are quiet and consume no resources. They produce minimal dust and little debris into the atmosphere and no pollutants from the power source. Electric blowers are a recent technical innovation that minimize engine pollution, lessen noise, but leave intact the hazards associated with aidet entrained particulate matter. 0 ECONOMICS It has been argued by leaf blower operators that the use of rakes and brooms would cause cleanup jobs to take up to twice as long to complete. This allegation is not supported by facts. For example, the city of Claremont decided not to use leaf blowers (1990) in the maintenance of city property. They quantified the increase in workload using rakes and brooms as 1/16 over using blowers, an increase of about 6 %. Other jurisdictions banning leaf blowers have experienced no increase in cleanup -job hours. COMPLIAINCE IN CITIES BANWING LEAF BLOWERS The Grand Jury surveyed four cities that banned or partially banned leaf blowers in or near Orange County. I. Los Angeles (population —3.6 million) banned gasoline powered leaf blowers on July 1, 1993. The city reported that compliance is good despite the fact that the police enforce violations as an infraction, which puts them as a low priority. Alternatively, the Public Works Department uses street enforcement inspectors as citing officials. Citizen participation provides license plate numbers and times of violations for subsequent violation citations. 2. Santa Barbara banned gasoline leaf blowers and regulated other types of blowers since 1997. The city Parks Department incurred a one -time cost of $90,000 out of a budget of $4 million (2.25 %) to replace equipment and has seen little or no additional impact on city cleanup. 3. Laguna Beach has banned all types of blowers since 1993 and enjoys 95% compliance. The city uses brooms and rakes to maintain city parks with no impact on costs or cleanliness. 4. Claremont banned gas - powered blowers in 1991, but allows electric blowers. Positive citizen involvement is high. Page 5 of 9 FINDINGS • Under California Penal Code § 933 and §933.05, responses are required to all findings. Based on documented evidence, it is the finding of the Grand Jury that leaf blower operations represent health hazards to the citizens of Orange County. The hazards include pollution from engine exhaust and the pollution caused by entrained particulate matter being discharged from the blowers. The quantity of pollution injected into the air represents health dangers to all citizens of the county. Additionally, operators risk suffering permanent hearing loss from the high noise levels in close proximity to the blowers. Non - consenting citizens are subject to loss of quality of life from the noise forced upon them by blower operation in their area. Exhaust pollution from two -cycle engines is a large contributor of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NO.), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter (PM). Exhaust pollution per leaf blower per hour is the equivalent to the amount of smog from 17 cars driven one hour. Leaf blower exhaust pollution remains localized in the neighborhood in which it is generated. Combustion exhaust PM remains suspended in the air for hours and is easily assimilated in the lungs. Leaf blowers contribute to total Orange County pollution. A response is required to Finding 1 from Board of Supervisors and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, Lake Forest, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda, and School Districts of Anaheim City, Anaheim Union High, Brea- Oliuda Unified, Buena Park, Capistrano Unified School District, Centralia, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton Joint Union High, Fullerton, Garden Grove Unified, Huntington Beach City, Huntington Beach Union High, Irvine Unified, La Habra City, Laguna Beach Unified, Los Alamitos Unified, Lowell Joint, Magnolia, Newport - Mesa Unified, Ocean View, Orange Unified, Placentia - Yorba Linda Unified, Saddleback Valley Unified, Santa Ana Unified, Savanna, Tustin Unified, Westminster, and Community College Districts Coastline Community, North Orange County, Santiago, and South Orange County. 2. The particulate matter swept into the air by the high velocity air jet used in sweeping or blowing leaves is composed of dust, fecal matter, pesticides, fungi, chemicals, fertilizers, and street dirt consisting of lead and organic and elemental carbon. These PM constituents are documented health hazards. A response is required to Finding 2 from Board of Supervisors and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Bills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, Lake Forest, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Page 6 of 9 Beach, Orange, Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda, and School Districts of Anaheim City, Anaheim Union High, Brea - Olinda Unified, Buena Park, Capistrano Unified School District, Centralia, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton Joint Union High, Fullerton, Garden Grove Unified, Huntington Beach City, Huntington Beach Union High, Irvine Unified, La Habra City, Laguna Beach Unified, Los Alamitos Unified, Lowell Joint, Magnolia, Newport - Mesa Unified, Ocean View, Orange Unified, Placentia -Yorba Linda Unified, Saddleback Valley Unified, Santa Ana Unified, Savanna, Tustin Unified, Westminster, and Community College Districts Coastline Community, North Orange County, Santiago, and South Orange County. 3. Noise from gasoline - powered leaf blowers is a significant danger to the health of the blower operator and a severe annoyance to the non - consenting citizens nearby. A response is required to Finding 3 from Board of Supervisors and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, Lake Forest, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda, and School Districts of Anaheim City, Anaheim Union High, Brea - Olinda Unified, Buena Park, Capistrano Unified School District, Centralia, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton Joint Union High, Fullerton, Garden Grove Unified, Huntington Beach City, Huntington Beach Union High, Irvine Unified, La Habra City, Laguna Beach Unified, Los Alamitos Unified, Lowell Joint, Magnolia, Newport -Mesa Unified, Ocean View, Orange Unified, Placentia -Yorba Linda Unified, Saddleback Valley Unified, Santa Ana Unified, Savanna, Tustin Unified, Westminster, and Community College Districts of Coastline Community, North Orange County, Santiago, and South Orange County. RECOMMENDATIONS Under California Penal Code § 933 and §933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses from the appropriate agencies and officials to each of the following recommendations. Based on the findings, the Grand Jury recommends that: The Orange County Board of Supervisors ceases the County use of gasoline - powered leaf blowers in maintenance and cleanup operations in the unincorporated areas of the County. (Findings I through 3) (A response to Recommendation I is required from Orange County Board of Supervisors.) Page 7 of 9 The 30 county cities, except Laguna Beach, which already does so, cease the use of gasoline- powered leaf blowers in their city maintenance and cleanup operations. (Findings 1 through 3) (A response to Recommendation 2 is required from Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, Lake Forest, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda.) 3 The 28 School Districts cease the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers in their school maintenance and cleaning operations (Findings 1 through 3.) A response to Recommendation 3 is required from 28 School Districts of Anaheim City, Anaheim Union High, Brea - Olinda Unified, Buena Park, Capistrano Unified School District, Centralia, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton Joint Union High, Fullerton, Garden Grove Unified, Huntington Beach City, Huntington Beach Union High, In•ine Unified, La Habra City, Laguna Beach Unified, Los Alamitos Unified, Lowell Joint, Magnolia, Newport -Mesa Unified, Ocean View, Orange Unified, Placentia - Yorba Linda Unified, Saddleback Valley Unified, Santa .Ana Unified, Savanna, Tustin Unified, Westminster. 4. The four Community College Districts cease the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers in their school maintenance and cleaning operations (Findings 1 through 3.) (A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the four Community College Districts of Coastline Community, North Orange County, Santiago, and South Orange County.) 1] Page 8 of 9 . BIBLIOGRAPHY Facsimile Transmission from Air Resources Board to the Grand Jury, Leaf Blowers- 1997 Orange County, Dec 10, 1998. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Base and Future Year Emission Inventories Report, Appendix III, November 1996. Internet Posting, SCAQMD AQMD Funds Development of Zero- Emission Mower, Leaf Blower Website. Pamphlet, Best Available Control Method (BALM) Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Threat to Our Health Working Group (Membership includes ARB, SCAQMD, EPA), January 1997. California Air Resources Board Public Information Office, Facts About Air Pollution and Health Pamphlet, 1991. American Lung Association of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, Fact Sheet — Leaf Blower Air Pollution Impacts Study Results, undated. Letter, from Technical Support Division, ARB, to Air Quality Management Division, Air Pollution from Leaf Blowers, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; July 9, 1991. • U.S. Em ironmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public health and Rlelfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 550(9- 74- 004,March 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTID 300.7, NTIS Document No. PB- 206723 Effects of Noise on People, December 1971. Consumer Reports, Power Blowers, September 1995, p. 586 -9. Consumer Reports, The world's quietest power blower? April 1997, p. 8. Briggs and Stratton Corporation, Emissions, Internet Posting website (w%vw brieg5andstratton com /emissions), December 1, 1998. Tanaka Power Equipment Catalog, Blowers, Internet website: (www tan ak al2owerequipm ent com), 1998, p. 8. RedMax Catalog -Part Number A01098, Pro Power Blowers Komatsu Zenoah America, Inc., Norcross, Georgia. C, J Echo Master Products Catalog, Part No. 999222 - 02916, Power Blowers, Echo Incorporated, Lake Zurich, IL, 1998, P. 16 -21. Husgvama Forest and Garden, Charlotte NC, Blowers, Husqvama Catalog #531 03 05 -50, 1998, page 22. Page 9 of 9 City of Newport Beach Ordinance 10.28.045 b. The maintenance. repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours; c. The City Council has approved project speci- fications. contract provisions. or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section. E. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. (Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part). 1995) 1028.045 Real Property Maintenance— Noise Regulations. A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in maintenance of real property. operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs. or could disturb. a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., Monday through Friday, nor on any Saturday. except between the hours of eight a.trL and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in maintenance of real property, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs. or could disturb. a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. on any Sunday or any federal holi- day. C. No landowner. gardener. property mainte- nance service. contractor. subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool. equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. D. After January 1. 1996. mechanical blowers, as defined in Section 6.04.055. shall not be operated at a noise level that exceeds an A- weighted sound pressure level of seventy (70) dBA. as measured at a distance of fifty (50) feet. After January 1. 1999. such equipment shall not be operated at a noise level that exceeds an A- weighted sound pressure 316 level of sixty-five (65) dBA. as measured from a distance of fifty (50) feet. E. Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following: 1. Emergency property maintenance authorized by the Building Director. 2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons per- forming such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of. any public agency: provided, how- ever. this exception shall not apply to the City of Newport Beach. or its employees. contractors or agents. unless: a. The City Manager or department director determines that the maintenance. repair or improve- ment is immediately necessary to maintain public service, b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours. c. The City Council has approved project speci- fications. contract provisions. or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section: 3. Greens maintenance on golf courses conduct- ed between the hours of six am. and eight pm and all other types of golf course maintenance between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m., provided no maintenance activity commences before six a.m. F. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.0 10 of this Code. (Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part). 1995) 10.28.050 Exceptions. The provisions of Sections 10.28.040 and 10.28.045 shall not be construed to prohibit such work at different hours by or under the direction of any other public agency in cases of necessity or emergency. (Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part). 1995) Attachment 13 0 • • MAR -17 -99 06:10 FROM.C1"iY OF FULLER " iON /ADMIN. 1D :7147366756 PAGE 1/8 ORANGE COUNTY CITY MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION T0: ORANGE COUNTY CITY MANAGERS FROM: JIM ARMSTRONG, PRESIDENT, OCCMA ANET HUSTON, EXEC. DIR., O.C. DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CITIES DATE: MARCH 17, 1999 SUBJECT: GRAND JURY REPORT CONCERNING LEAF BLOWERS At the March 3 City Managers' Association meeting, the subject of the Grand Jury requirement that cities provide a detailed response to the Jury's findings on gas - powered leaf blowers was discussed. It was then proposed that a sample response be developed for use by all cities. In keeping with that proposal, enclosed is a copy of the City of Fullerton's letter to the Grand Jury regarding the City's findings and recommendations on gas - powered leaf blowers. We are also enclosing responses developed by Rick Bishop of the Orange County Division, League of Cities. We hope these samples will be of assistance to your agency when preparing your response. Please feel free to call Janet or myself, should you have any questions. JLA:jh:ec Attachments copy: Jan Mittermeier, CEO County of Orange c/o Fullerton City Manager's Office, 714/738 -6310 MAR -17 -1999 99:49 P.01 MAR -17 -55 06:11 FROM :CITY OF FULLERTUN /AOM1N. 1D:7147366758 March 17, 1999 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton. CA 92832 -1775 Website: Honorable Kathleen E. O'Leary Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 PAGE 2/8 Telephone • (714) 738 -6311 Facsimile • (714) 738 -6758 Subject: Response to Finding 1 though 3-- Orange County Grand Jury report— "Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County' Dear Judge O'Leary: The City of Fullerton agrees with Findings 1 through 3 of the Grand Jury's report. The City of Fullerton recognizes the environmental and social hazards associated with the use of gas - powered leaf blowers. 2. The City of Fullerton does not support Recommendation 2 to cease the use of gasoline- . powered leaf blowers in the City's maintenance and cleanup operations. The City does not support the recommendation for the following reasons: 1) Cost: Gas - powered leaf blowers are used by the Maintenance Services Department's Landscape Division to dear debris from sidewalks and other hardscape areas in and around the City's parks and other public places. The Street Division uses blowers to clear sidewalks in the central business district. These tasks would need to be performed manually if gas blowers were eliminated. Although the Grand Jury offers electric leaf blowers this option is not practical for the City of Fullerton where electrical outlets are not available. as an alternative to manual raking and sweeping. because leaf blowers are used primarily in areas Given the limited staff in the Landscape Division, any additional time spent doing clean -up would of necessity have to be taken from other groundskeeping activities. Increased maintenance of parks and public grounds has been made a priority item for the upcoming budget cycles; manual clean -up would detract from higher overall maintenance levels. 2) Limited Environmental Benefit: The Grand Jury's recommendations address only gas - powered blowers owned by the county, cities, school districts and community colleges. Fullerton owns about a dozen blowers which are not used continuously throughout the day. The vast majority of blowers are owned by the private sector, either by landscape maintenance companies or private citizens. The Grand Jury's report does not address these blowers. Therefore. any benefit derived from banning public - sector blowers would have very little positive impact on the environment. F. RICHARD JONES, M.D. MAYOR PRO TEM MAR -17 -1999 RA:dQ CHRIS NORDY JAN FLORY MAYOR r� JULIE SA COUNCUAEMBER o M� MAR -17 -99 08 =11 FROM =C72Y DF FULLER 'iDN /AOMI N. I0=71473(36756 PAGE 31B Grand Jury Report -. Gas - Powered Leaf Blowers March 17, 1999 Page 2 • 3) Study Methodology: Although the pollutant discharge of gas - powered blowers is well - documented, the Grand Jury's report does not provide basic data on the method it used to arrive at its recommendations. The report (on page 5 of 9) does say the Grand Jury surveyed four cities that already ban the use of gas blowers, but there is no indication it conducted a general survey to identify any cities or agencies that may have considered, but rejected, a ban, or the reasons any may have opposed a ban outright. 4) New Technology. Fullerton's Landscape Division has been in contact with the manufacturers supplying gas - powered blowers to Fullerton (some of which are mentioned in the Grand Jury's report's bibliography). The manufacturers indicated they will be marketing new blowers that meet AQMD emissions restrictions. Therefore, the City could comply with emission reductions by purchasing compliant blowers. Finally, legislation is pending, SCR 19 (Burton), which would request that the Califomia Air Resources Board (ARB), on or before January 1, 2000, prepare and submit to the Legislature a report summarizing the potential health and environmental impacts of gasoline powered leaf blowers, including recommendations for alternatives to the use of leaf blowers if the ARB determines that altematives are necessary. The League of California Cities supports this legislation as there is currently no comprehensive study of the information known about the health and environmental impacts of gasoline powered leaf blowers. SCR 19 would result in an objective report that compiles the known information about the noise, health and environmental impacts of gasoline powered leaf blowers. •The City is committed to providing the best possible quality of life to its residents. While decreasing pollution is an important element in maintaining the quality of life. the ability of the City to properly maintain its facilities is equally as important. At this time, gas - powered blowers are a valuable tool that allow our employees to clean large areas quickly with the least cost. There must be demonstrable and quantifiable benefits to our residents for the City to consider eliminating gas - powered blowers from its work force. 0 Ve my yours, Flory M or cc: City Council James L. Armstrong, City Manager Sheldon S. Singer, Foreman Orange County Grand Jury MAR -17 -1999 PR: sn P SIR 19MM -1,== aoa:tt rxUm :UIIY Ui 1•ULLIXI UN /AUM1N. 10:71473667S9 PACE 4/8 Date: February 23, 1999 To: Janet Huston • From: Rick Bishop Subj: Grand Jury Report re: Leaf Blowers You asked if I could prepare a draft response to findings made in the Grand Jury's report as they pertain to gasoline leaf blowers. Attached is a draft response for your review. I am not certain what is meant by the requirement to provide a "detailed" response; let me lmow if additional information is desired 0 MAR -17 -1999 08:50 0 ow n,aK -li -moo vlo+ll �mum;U1iY Ur rULLhXWN /ADMIN. ID =7 1 4 7366 756 PACE 5./E Responses to Grand Jury Findings re: Gasoline Leaf Blowers ,F� nd�n Q 1: A response is required to Finding 1 that exhaust pollution from two-cycle engines is a large contributor of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and particulate matter (PM). Exhaust pollution per leaf blower per hour is the equivalent to the amount of smog from 17 cars driven in one hour. Leaf blower exhaust pollution remains localized in the neighborhood in which it is generated. Combustion exhaust PM remains suspended in the air for hours and is easily assimilated in the lunge. Leaf blowers contribute to total Orange County pollution. Response to Finding 1 There is little doubt that pollution caused from small, off -road handheld engines (mainly lawn and garden equipment), as well as other two-stroke engines contributes to total Orange County pollution. Whether the exhaust pollution from leaf blowers occurs at the levels indicated by the Grand jury report (one hour operation is equivalent to the amount of smog from 17 cars driven in one hour) is largely dependent on the method of calculation and types and ages of leaf blower equipment and automobiles used in testing, but the Grand jury's statement is not debated. Leaf blower exhaust pollution does sometimes remain localized in the neighborhood in which it is generated; its rate of dispersal and dilution in the atmosphere depends on localized meteorological conditions (i.e., speed and direction of wind). To address exhaust emissions from gasoline- powered leaf blowers and similar equipment, the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB) has set regulations regarding the small, off -road engine (SORE) category, which consists of all off -road engines below 25 horsepower, including mowers and weed trimmers. Generally, the ARB's approach is a • graduated one aimed at incrementally reducing the amount of emissions produced from this type of equipment. The ARB approved the SORE regulations in 1990, with first -tier standards taking effect in 1995, requiring manufacturers to produce clean engine versions of their handheld and non - handheld equipment. Handheld equipment engine standards (which includes leaf blowers) are less stringent than non - handheld standards to maintain the use of small engine technology where possible. More advanced standards for 2000 encourage advanced engine designs and emission reductions to be developed and implemented. The ARB estimates that implementation of the 2000 standards would reduce statewide hydrocarbon emissions in by 60 tons per day. Existing and proposed ARB exhaust emission standards (in grams per kilowatt -hour) for blower type engines are listed below: Calendar Year En vine Class ... HC + NOx CO NOx. PM 1995 111 N/A 600 4.0 N/A 1V N/A 600 4.0 N/A V N/A 300 4.0 NIA 1996-1999 111 N/A 600 4.0 N/A IV N/A 600 4.0 N/A V N/A 300 4.0 N/A 2000-2001 Spark engine 54 400 N/A 1.5 0.65cc, 72 536 N/A 2.0 . inclusive M P -17 -t QQQ PQ:49 0 ac MNR- IY -.JJ W6,12 FROM:cIIY OF FULLERION /ADMIN. ID:7147386758 Finding 2: A response is required to Pinding 2 that the particulate matter swept into the air by the velocity air jet used in sweeping or blowing leaves is composed of dust, fecal matter, pesticides, fun; , chemicals, fertilizers and street din consisting o lead and organic and elemental carbon. These PM constituents are documented health hazards. Response to Finding 2: Particulate matter airborne from leaf blowers often comprises the elements (or more or fewer) listed in the Grand Jury report. These materials. which are often larger -sized and heavier than other airborne particulates (such as certain ash, sea salts, pollens. and other particulate matter and by products from the burning of fossil fuels, etc.), usually do not maintain suspended in the atmosphere; for long periods of time. Leaf blowers can disrupt surfaces which harbor these elements, but these disruptions are temporary in nature given that the reason these elements are on the ground is that they are often too heavy to remain suspended in the atmosphere for a long time. The disruptions caused by leaf blowers also occur on a microscale level compared with the more synoptic or macroscale effect that wind has on these same elements and other dust found on surfaces. The ARB's focus in regulating pollution is on respirable elements, i.e., those particles that can not be easily filtered out by the human system. Many of the elements listed in this finding, because of their larger size, can often be filtered by the human system. However. regulations in the South Coast Air Basin developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District do address "fugitive dust." One example is Rule 1186. which requires manufacturers of street sweepers to develop equipment which improves upon previous particulate collection standards. The use of this new equipment may help lessen the amount of dust temporarily swept into the air by leaf blowers. Finding_ 3: A response is required to Finding 3 that noise from gasoline- powered leaf blowers is a significant danger to the health of the blower operator and a severe annoyance to the non - consenting citizens nearby. Response to Finding 3: It is likely that the long -term. unchecked exposure to noise generated from leaf blowers on equipment operators could have a detrimental impact on heating. This issue is easily addressed through the wearing of protective equipment over the ears that serves to muffle the noise generated from this equipment; most manufacturers and retailers of leaf blower equipment encourage the use of protective gear when operating such equipment. A more complex solution would be to effect changes in the amount of noise allowed on leaf blower equipment. We are not aware of any such regulations placed on equipment manufacturers. PAGE 6/8 Noise from leaf blowers is often a chief complaint of non - consenting citizens proximate to where such equipment is used. Concerns about noise pollution, and not pollution from engine exhausts. seems to be the primary reason that local jurisdictions enact ordinances to ban or restrict the use of gas - powered leaf blowers. When enacted, such measures usually limit hour of operation and/or the distance equipment can be operated from residential Ind uses. When examining the feasibility of placing restrictions on leaf blowers, jurisdictions must consider the potential tradeoffs. in this case the temporary noise and airborne particulates and the emissions generated by this equipment vs. the benefits that leaf blowers provide in the form of increased efficiencies for landscape maintenance workers and reduced costs to their clients. In Orange County. _ of the County's 32 jurisdictions have laws in effect that restrict the use of leaf blowers. MAR -17- 1999 06 :51 ° = • 0 0 MAR -17-99 06:13 FROM:CITV OF FULLERTON /ADMIN. ID:7197366756 PAGE 7/8 Draft Response Options to Grand Jury recommendation that "The 30 county cities, except Laguna Beach, which already does so, cease the use otgavoline- powered leaf blowers in their city maintenance and cleanup operatiozW1 The City of . will initiate a cost benefit analysis to determine the feasibility of implementing the Grand Jury recommendation. It is anticipated the analysis will be completed within approximately 6 months, at which time the results and recommendations will be presented to the City Council for action. It is also anticipated that the analysis will cost the City of approximately $ of taxpayer funds to perform (if appropriate also add — The City of currently restricts the operation of gasoline- powered lea to the hours of am. to p.m) Qption2 The City of currently restricts the operation of gasoline- powered leaf blowers to the hours of a.m. to p.m The City of in 19 conducted an analysis of the costs and benefits of further restrictions on city - operated and privately- operated blowers (a copy of the report and the Council Minute Order is atached). This analysis cost the City of $ of taxpayer funds to perform. Based on the Endings of the analysis, which included consideration of environmental and economic factors and community input, the City Council decided against additional restrictions on the operation of gasoline - powered leaf blowers. Additionally, as noted in your report, several regional, state and federal agencies have responsibility for monitoring and regulating au quality. The responses to the Findings derail the regulations which currently exist and with which cities comply. As such time as those responsible agencies amend the regulations. the City of will be required to initiate a review of current Council policy. Finally. although the Report indicates seemingly minimal economic impacts to jurisdictions (e.g.: 6% increase in workload, $90,000 expenditure for capital equipment) each jurisdiction is unique and will experience unique impacts. Municipals budgets, already strained from property tax shifts and struggling to recover fromthe recession, cannot accommodate additional demands without further serious impacts to local services. The (Sty has determined that the factors which led to our previous conclusions have not changed in a manner which warrants a change in Council policy at this time. The (Sty of does not restrict the operation of gasoline - powered leaf blowers. The City of in 19_ conducted an analysis of the costs and benefits of further restrictions on city- operated and privately- operated blowers (a copy of the report and the Council Minute Order is attached). This analysis cost the City of $ of taxpayer funds to perform Based on the findings of the analysis, which included consideration of environmental and economic factors and community input, the City Council decided against additional restrictions on the operation of gasolitw powered leaf blowers. MAR -17 -1999 08:51 P. P17 2 February 25, 1999 0 Additionally, as noted in your report, several regional, sate and federal agencies have responsibility for monitoring and regulating air quality. The responses to the Findings detail the regulations which eurrendy exist and with which eities comply. As sueh time as those responsible agencies amend the regulations, the City of will be required to initiate a review of eurrent Council policy. Finally, although the Report indicates seemingly minimal economie impacts to jurisdictions (e.g.: 6% increase in workload, $90,000 expenditure for capital equipment) each jurisdiction is unique and will experience unique impacts. Munieipals budgets, already strained from property tax shifts and struggling to recover from the recession, cannot accommodate additional demands without further serious impacts to localservices. The City has determined that the faetors whieh led to our previous conclusions have not ehanged in a manner whieh warrants a ehange in Council policy at this time. Weekly Update - 2 - February 25, 1999 MPR -17 -1999 0851 P.08 r � LJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Sheldon S. Singer, Foreman Orange County Grand Jury 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Singer, April 27, 1999 The City received your report entitled "Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County" that was forwarded for our review and comment. The Grand Jury report contained three findings for which we have provided the following comments: Findine 1 (Exhaust Pollution of Leaf Blowers) While there is no question that small 2 -cycle leaf blower motors produce some air pollution, we do not necessarily agree with the findings of the report that leaf . blowers are `large contributors" of toxic fumes. In a community with a prevailing off shore breeze, any accumulation from the exhausts of small engines is inconsequential when compared with the exhaust of thousands of vehicles and the associated tire particulates that contaminate the air. It is our understanding that AQMD is considering regulatory actions related to all small gas - powered units, not just leaf blowers. Finding 2 (Content of Particulate Matter) The City maintains the highest level of street sweeping of any city in the County with frequencies varying from once a week to 6 days a week of scheduled street sweeping. Street sweepers use water to dampen any debris that is disturbed to decrease air pollution during sweeping operations. Particulate matter (PM) is kept to a minimum by extensive street sweeping operations, not only to reduce the air pollution that occurs with the excessive use of mechanical blowers, but to insure a minimum amount of dust and debris enter the waters of Newport Bay and Harbor. The amount of PM entering the air is directly related to the use and application of blowers. The City initiated remediation to this problem in 1995 which culminated with an ordinance that restricted the use of mechanical blowers to a 70 dBA noise level after January 1, 1996 with an automatic reduction to 65 dBA 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Attachment D on January 1, 1999. This action was taken after considerable study of the problem, public comments, and with discussions with lawn maintenance • contractor associations. The lowering of dBA levels was delayed to allow improved technology in the construction of mechanical blowers. Further technological advances are expected. By operating the mechanical blowers at lower engine revolutions per minute, overall pollution is significantly decreased. We find this an acceptable manner to address PM content in ambient air. A copy of our City ordinance governing the use of gas - powered blowers is attached. Finding 3 (Noise Pollution of Leaf Blowers) As noted above, the regulation of the operating levels of the mechanical blowers is the key to not only excessive air pollution, but to a reduction in the noise levels. Leaf blowers represent only a small amount of the everyday noise emanating from a variety of sources including all gas- powered devices such as lawnmowers, chain saws, grass trimmers, etc. The attached City ordinance also addresses noise produced by not just mechanical blowers, but all "tools, equipment, or machines ". Recommendation 2 (Cease Use of Leaf Blowers in Newport Beach) • Only one of the four recommendations pertains to the City, the cessation of use of leaf blowers within City boundaries. Such an outright ban of the use of leaf blowers would be costly to not only City operations, but to businesses and residents as well. City staff estimate a direct cost of over $400k in additional maintenance costs for labor alone if mechanical blowers were prohibited in all City operations. We believe rather in the judicious, regulated use of blowers to reduce noise and air pollution while removing the majority of debris with regular mechanized sweeping of public and private areas. In summary, the City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the leaf blower issue, but cannot endorse a strict prohibition of use without more substantial evidence of the actual harm. Sincerely, Dennis O'Neil, Mayor Attachment: City Ordinance 10.28.045 (Noise regulations) Attachment D City of Newport Beach Ordinance 10.28.045 b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted • during normal business hours: c. The City Council has approved project speci- fications. contract - provisions. or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section. E. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. (Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part). 1995) 1018.045 Real Property Maintenance — Noise Regulations. A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall. while engaged in maintenance of real property. operate any tool. equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb. a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. except between the hours of seven a.m. and six-thirty p.m.. Monday through Friday. nor on any Saturday, except between the ours of eight a.rrL and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall. while engaged in maintenance of real property. operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs. or could disturb. a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holi- day. C. No landowner, gardener, property mainte- nance service. contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool. equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. D. After January 1. 1996, mechanical blowers, as defined in Section 6.04.055, shall not be operated at a noise level that exceeds an A- weighted sound pressure level of seventy (70) dBA, as measured at a distance of fifty (50) feet. After January 1, 1999, such equipment shall not be operated at a noise level that exceeds an A- weighted sound pressure 316 level of sixty-five (65) dBA. as measured from a distance of fifty (50} feet. E. Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following: 1. Emergency property maintenance authorized by the Building Director. 2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees. by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons per- forming such work or pursuant to the direction of. or on behalf of. any public agency: provided. how- ever. this exception shall not apply to the City of Newport Beach. or its employees. contractors or agents, unless: a. The City Manager or department director determines that the maintenanm repair or improve- ment is immediately necessary to maintain public service. b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours. c. The City Council has approved project speci- fications, contract provisions. or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day which would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section: 3. Greens maintenance on golf courses conduct- ed between the hours of six am. and eight p.m and all other types of golf course maintenance between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m.. provided no maintenance activity commences before six a.m. F. Penalties. Any person who violates any provi- sion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor un- less the violation is deemed an infraction pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of this Code. (Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part). 1995) 10.28.050 Exceptions. The provisions of Sections 10.28.040 and 10.28.045 shall not be construed to prohibit such work at different hours by or under the direction of any other public agency in cases of necessity or emergency. (Ord. 95 -38 § 3 (part). 1995)