Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2001 BAKERSFIELD David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John .W. Stinson 'URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, December 3, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Ha11,1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 5, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding ordinance requiring establishment of maintenance districts for landscaping and public parks - Rojas/Shaw B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding leaf blowers - Stinson C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding landscape ordinance enforcement- Hardisty D. Review and Committee recommendation regarding 2002 Urban Development Committee meeting schedule 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT C:\ud01dec03agen.wpd DRAFT BAKERSFIELD D vid Couch, Ch ir Alan T~ndy, City M~n~ger Sue Benh~m St~ff: dohn W. $finson Mike M~gg~rd AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, November 5, 2001, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch,'Chair; Sue Benham; and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 1, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding City/County drilling requirements Development Services Director Jack Hardisty provided an update. The referral to evaluate the differences between City and County ordinances was to the Planning. Commission as well as the Urban Development Committee. A sub-committee of the Planning Commission has been working on this for several months to evaluate and consolidate the ordinances and comprehensive regulations. This included drilling islands and drilling zones and reconciling the differences. The sub-committee has one more meeting at the end of November and then will be sending a draft to the Planning Commission in December to have their work endorsed. The Planning Commission will return the draft regulations to the City Council for referral back to the Urban Development Committee. If there are any changes, it can then be return to the Planning Commission~ for hearings on any ordinance changes. Staff will invite CELSOC members and the BIA to the next Planning Commission sub- committee meeting. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE D AFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 5, 2001 Page -2- The Committee ~requested the draft regulations be provided to Councilmembers as soon as available. Due to the timing of meetings in December, it will most likely come back to the Urban Development Committee after the first of the year. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding commercial and industrial development regulations The .Committee deferred this item. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding development of new dairies Jack Hardisty explained the County has recently adopted an ordinance regarding "by right" dairies. In principle, the environmental work still needs to be completed. During the County's proceedings, the County indicated the City would potentially have the ability to permit a dairy within the City limits or within the 2010 General Plan area, because a conditional use permit could be applied for to put anything, anywhere. However, staff felt the Resolution adopted by the City Council regarding dairies would not allow it. Staff is recommending taking steps to eliminate the reference to "concentrated, keeping of animals" (hog lots, turkey farms, feed lots and dairy operations) by precluding them from the City's ordinance and adopting a General Plan policy which would also preclude their placement within the General Plan area. Since conditional use permits are required to be consistent with the General Plan, if the General Plan precludes dairies, then it would be difficult to have a finding allowing a dairy within the 2010 General Plan area. This would cover an area of about five or six miles outside the planned urban area. Existing permitted dairies would become nonconforming .uses and continue to operate. As the City Council.had already adopted a resolution against allowing dairies close to the City, the Committee approved staff's preparing a General Plan policy-for the amendment cycle beginning in February 2002 to bring forward to the City Council for adoption. As part of the General-Plan referral process, the County will be informed of the .proposed action. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding lot sizes Committee Chair David Couch stated he referred this to the Committee to have dialog and input from developers and City staff regarding R-1 zoning, which allows 6,000 square foot lots to be developed next to existing Estate developments, which have 10,000 square foot lot minimums. He hears from people living in Estate zoned areas, whenever a developer comes in to develop property with R-1 zoning next to Estate zoning, as they do not want 6,000 foot square lots next to their estate-sized homes. He felt there should be some type of buffer to separate R-1 with 6,000 square foot lot minimums and Estate u..^. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 5, 2001 Page -3- zoning. He would like input from the development community on the possibility of creating zoning for lot sizes between R-1 and .Estate zoning. Another issue he would like to explore is R-1 zoning with 6,000 square foot lot minimums when a developer wants to build on smaller lots. Mr. Fred Porter spoke about creating another zoning for set lot sizes between R-1 and Estate zoning not allowing a developer flexibility. If a tier for lot sizes is added, a developer may have to apply for additional zoning to increase lot sizes. The current R-1 zoning allows increasing lot sizes from the 6,000 square foot minimum up to the next level, Estate zoning withlO,O00 square foot lots. Jack Hardisty and staff will meet with interested parties/developers for input and create a discussion paper on lot sizes to facilitate the Committee's discussion. Committee Chair Couch will attend the meeting as his schedule allows. D, Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding freeway phasing Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle gave a brief overview of the information presented at the Council workshop on October 24, 2001, regarding the status of funding and phasing issues for the freeway system. The phase being-planned to start first is the westside parkway corridor between Stockdale Highway at Heath Road to Mohawk Street or Mohawk to Rosedale and then Mohawk to St. Rt. 99 so continuous construction can be seen. The Mohawk to Rosedale segment would open up a section that could be used as it will connect to existing major roadways. The segment that would really make things work will be Mohawk to Highway 99, but funding is $40 million short and is planned to be funded out of the next funding cycle. The bridges are very costly and the City's Corporation Yard needs to be relocated. The City and County control timing and phasing on the westside parkway and Hageman flyover, but Caltrans has a policy that they will be the one overseeing and approving the environmental program and since this segment of the system will be using federal .funding, they are also the entity that works with the federal government on funding. It wasdiscussed that other sections of the freeway system may be a better starting point, but the westside parkway has been in the works for over 11 years and the preliminary environmental work, specific plan line and funding make it possible to start-this project in about two years. Everyone seemed to agree that it would be ideal to start at Highway178 in the east and work west, but none of the preliminary work, including environmental documents, has been done, so it would be more than 10 years before any actual construction could begin. It was noted that although plans are to start on the westside parkway, preliminary environment work could be done simultaneously on other segments of the freeway system. For instance,- a portion of the Hageman Flyover is in the Traffic Fee Program, so some of the preliminary work could be done using funds from the Fee Program. u..^. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 5, 200'1 P~ge -4- The 24th Street segment was discussed. A strategy needs to be developed and a decision made on the exact plan for this segment. An environmental document will need to be done and from that develop a specific plan line. The Committee agreed that the Urban DeveloPment Committee should further discuss meeting with legislators for help to facilitate the .process to get the freeway system built. Congressman Thomas has shown interest in helping with a special project, like the 24th Street segment of the system. It was noted, that as soon as the design for the westside parkway is completed by URS Greiner that the exact location of the 'property needed for relocating the-recharge ponds needs to be communicated to the owner/developer of the property. The agreement for relocation of the ponds 'includes the Water District, Kern COG and .the City, with the City purchasing the relocation, property. Committee Chair .Couch spoke about air quality issues, the Valley being able to reach attainment by 2003,and implicationsthatcould have on Federal freeway funding. There will be a meeting of the Air Pollution Control Board in May 2002. 6. COMMI'I'FEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Principal Planner Jim Eggert, Planning; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; and Public Works Traffic Engineer Steve Walker. Others: Fred Porter, CELSOC; Carl Moreland, CELSOC; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Tammy Brown, KUZZ/KERN Radio News; and Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Urban Dev2001~ud01nov05sum rna~j.wpd URBAN DEVELOPI~ENT COMI~TTEE PROPOSED 2002 I~EETING SCHEDULE 1:00 Budget Hearing or Department Presentations at City Council Meeting JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F Si 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 6 7 10 11 12 3 5~ 7 89 3~ 5~ 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 10 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 221 23t 24 25 26 17 18 19~ 21 22 23 17 18 191 20j 21 22 23i 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F $ S M T W TH F S 2 3 4 5 6 I 2 3 4 1 9~ 11 12 13 5~ 7~ 9 10 11 2~ 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 11 13 14 15 21 22 231 241 25 26 27 19 21112211 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 26 28~29 30 31 23 24 25 27 28 29 3O JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 12 56 12 3 3141 567 9 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 11~ 13~14 15 16 17 15 16 171 18j 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 201211 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30l~1 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1~ 3 4 5 12 1234567 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5161 7 8 9 8 9 10/ ..~11t 12 13 14 13 14 15~~ 17 18 19 10 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 21 22 23 22 23 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 30 29 30 December 3, 2001 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM November 26, 2001 TO: JOHN W. STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LEAF BLOWERS - HISTORY AND INFORMATION The issue of leaf blowers has been reviewed by Council committees in the past. This memorandum is intended to provide a synopsis of previous concerns and actions which occurred as well as to provide new information that is available. For several months in 1994-95, the issue of leaf blowers was discussed by the Legislative and Litigation Committee. Committee members gathered information from state agencies, other cities, numerous residents who were both supportive and against a leaf-blower ban, and City staff. A committee report in September 1995, which was approved by Council, supported a Parks Division educational program for licensed gardeners and affected businesses to assist in eliminating noise and dust problems associated with the blowers, including that business licensees be notified and that educational information be made available to local gardening businesses for distribution to their leaf-blower customers. The proposed educational program included recommending hours of operation between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, using a common sense approach when discharging the nozzle around people and private property, and using blowers at the lowest throttle levels whenever possible. Although City Parks staff were not felt by residents to be part of the problem with leaf blowers, staff members were educated on common sense usage to help with the leaf blower situation and had begun a mulching program as well. The Committee also felt citizens should be asked to be responsible consumers as well as responsible business people. Those who use gas-powered leaf blowers, either through gardening services or for their own use, were encouraged to be considerate of others nearby who might be affected by the noise and dust. Discussions in 1995 considered the issue of enfomement of any ordinance due to legal enforceability and the practical aspects of timely officer responses to a lower level priority calls (such as noise from leaf blowers). Other discussions included time restrictions on leaf blowers, whether the City's ordinance applied to leaf blower noise, and the need to educate gardeners on concerns raised about leaf blower usage, the need to find a common sense approach to solve the issues, whether the City had control over State.regulations (Air Pollution Control Board), and the economic impact on the over 400 licensed gardeners (and residential owners of leaf blowers) within the City as well as City equipment retailers. Suggestions from various John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager November 26, 2001 Subject: Leaf Blowers - History and Information Page 2 participants included a ban on leaf blowers in residential areas, restrictions on the times of operation, voluntary vs. mandated change, alternative forms of equipment (vacuums vs. blowers), and the use of incentives rather than force. In 1994 the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District had indicated that it and the Air Resources Board were addressing the issue of gas-powered lef-blower pollutants/noise from the manufacturing level. They were m. ost concerned with eliminating harmful discharges and noise emitted caused by the engines rather than adding constraints on the user's end. In 1999, the City once again addressed the issue of leaf blowers at the request of residents in the Council's Urban Development Committee. The issue had received the attention of the State Legislature, and state bills had been proposed. The issue heated up and the Legislature directed the California Air Resources Board to prepare a report on the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers. Legislative action stopped awaiting the outcome of the report from CARB. In May 2000, the more than 60-page report was presented to the Legislature. In Resolution 00- 5, (::;ARB indicates there is insufficient information on the potential for resuspension of particulate matter by leaf blowers and insufficient information on the exposure of leaf blower operators or the public to the identified hazards; thus, the health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers on operators or the public could not be conclusively determined. It found that recommendations to the Legislature for alternatives to leaf blowers were premature given the lack of data. It recommended further research on health impacts and cost effectiveness of reducing exhaust emissions, particulate matter and noise. It also found that quieter leaf blowers would reduce the risk of hearing loss by leaf blower operators and annoyance and stress to the public. Appendix H of the report indicated ARB staff found a fundamental lack of information on the nature and quantity of fugitive dust blown, or resuspended, by leaf blowers. Any study on the issue would need to consider a large number of variables, including humidity, seasonality, and types of materials being moved by the leaf blower. Further, the investigation and reduction of noise emissions is not part of the CARB's authority or mission; generally, noise control and abatement had been a local function. According to Jackie Lourenco, Manager, Off Road Control Section, California Air Resources Board (CARB), there has been no further state action related to leaf blowers since the May 2000 report. She noted engine leaf blower emissions were tightened in 1995 and again in 2000. The Valley does not currently meet health-based standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for ozone and particulate matter. These health standards have been established to protect public health, as both smog and particulate matter can cause or aggravate respiratory and cardiac conditions. Research indicates that long-term exposure to either pollutant can contribute to the premature death of people and animals. Particulate also obscure visibility and hamper the natural beauty of the area. Local air pollution control districts, such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, develop plans and implement control measures in their areas. These controls primarily affect John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager November 26, 2001 Subject: Leaf Blowers - History and Information Page 3 stationary sources such as factories and plants. Local air districts also conduct public education and outreach efforts such as Spare the Air Day programs. Attached is a copy of Legislative and Litigation Committee Report No. 1-95, a copy of a 1995 Parks Division memo and flyer on gas powered leaf blowers, and a 1995 City Attorney memo relating to the enforcement of the nuisance ordinance relating to leaf blowers. (P:\M0111261-LeafBIowers) Attachments CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-95 SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS For several months, the Legislative and Litigation Committee has been gathering information from other cities, residents, and staff on the effects of gas-powered leaf blowers. Committee members have discussed the issue with those who support a ban as well as those who support continued leaf-blower use. The Committee feels there are legitimate concerns regarding the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, some of which are noise and irritants in the immediate areas where they are being used. Opponents of the leaf blowers have not cited City Parks staff as negligent. Gas-powered leaf blowers are used by most of the City's more than 400 licensed gardeners. Parks staff have suggested use of an educational program for licensed gardeners and affected businesses to assist in eliminating noise and dust problems associated with the blowers. The Committee supports the use of the educational format as proposed by Parks staff which includes that business licensees LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-95 September 13, 1995 PAGE -2- be notified and that educational information be made available to local gardening businesses for distribution to their leaf- blower customers. The Committee also feels that citizens should be asked to be responsible consumers as well as responsible business people. Those who use gas-powered leaf blowers, either through gardening services or for their own use, are encouraged to be considerate of others nearby who may be affected by the noise and dust. 'Therefore, the Legislative' and Litigation Committee recommends the City Council accept this report and take action as deemed appropriate. Respectfully submitted, C~~hair ember Irma Carson (s :~ hare c~t~'udy~leg &lit~&.LO 1-95.ri;X) TO: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST~ . FROM: FRANK FABBRI, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS (BROCHURE-FLYERS) DATE: JULY 3, 1995 At the last Legislative and'Litigation Committee meeting, on May 11, 1995, the leaf blower issue was addressed. Discussion centered around restricting their use to a total ban. The Committee felt enforcement would be difficult and an education process would be more practical. They requested input on a procedure to educate the gardeners and public. Staff is recommending the following: Develop an informational brochure outlining the ways to minimize complaints from the use of blowers. These brochures could be made available to commercial gardeners, landscape contractors, homeowners and others involved in landscape maintenance through one or more of the following channels: * Issuance or renewal of business licenses * Local Gardeners Association * Local members of the California Landscape Contractors Association * Retail suppliers of blowers * Media * Other Public Agencies involved in landscape maintenance Information contained in the brochure would include the following: ** Power blowers are useful, versatile, and time saving machines - but improperly used, they can also cause noise and mess that annoy your customers, their neighbors and the public. Below are recommended rules that point out "smart" ways to use power blowers in an effort to keep your customers and community supportive of blowers. 1. Operate blowers only at reasonable hours - not early in the morning or late at night when people might be disturbed. Recommended hours of operation would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2. Be aware of the surroundings. Use common sense when directing the discharge nozzle towards people and private property. GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS--JUNE 29, 1995 2. Operate power blowers at the lowest possible throttle speed to do the job. Full throttle is not always necessary. Try running it at half or three-quarter throttle. 3. Watch out for pedestrians, children, pets, open windows or freshly washed cars; blow debris safely away. 4. Use the blower nozzle extension so the air stream can work close to the ground, minimizing complaints. 5. Do not blow debris into the street or onto property of others. 6. Be polite and promptly clean up debris. Attached is the above information on the Park Division's letterhead. Other alternatives would be to place the information on the Mayor's or the Community Services Department's letterhead. Parks staff has held meetings with the Park Maintainers to make them aware of the Citizens concerns and to also instructed them on the recommended usage for power blowers. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager Judy Skousen, City Attorney · Allen Abe, Assistant Parks Superintendent July 1995 DON'T LOSE YOUR PRIVILEGE Power blowers are useful, versatile, and time saving machines - but improperly used they can also cause noise and dust that annoy your customers, their neighbors and the general public. Some cities in California and other cities throughout the country have placed bans or restrictions on the use of power blowers. Below are recommended rules that point out "smart' ways to use power blowers in an effort to keep your customers and community supportive of blowers. 1. Operate blowers only at reasonable hours - not early in the morning or late at night when people might be disturbed. Recommended hours of operation would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00,p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2. Be aware of the surroundings. Use common sense when .directing the discharge nozzle towards people and private property. 3. Operate power blowers at the lowest possible throttle speed to do the job. Full throttle is not always necessary. Try running it at half or three-quarter throttle. 4. Watch out for pedestrians, children, pets, open windows or freshly washed cars; blow debris safely away. 5. Use the blower nozzle extension so the air stream can work close to the ground minimizing complaints. 6. Do not blow debris into the street or onto property of others. 7. Be polite and promperly clean up debris. THANK YOU, FRANK FABBRI Parks Superintendent :101 TRUXTUNAVENUE 3AKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93309 (805) 326-3117 MEMORANDUM May 31, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, City Attorney '~ SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT OF THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE RELATING TO LEAF BLOWERS i was aske~ to clarify what is enforceable under the existing nuisance ordinance for the Legislative and Litigation Committee. This request is made in relation to the question of addressing residents' complaints regarding leaf blowers. Section 9.22.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code states as follows: 9.22.010 Noise generally. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or allow to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary noise which disturbs %he peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfor~ or annoyance to persons residing within one thousand fee% of %he noise source. B. The standards which may be considered in determining whesher a violation of ~he provisions of ~his section exists may include, but are no5 limited %o, the following: i. The level of the noise; 2. The level and intensity of any background noise; 3. The proximisy of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; 4. The nature and zoning of ~he area within which %he noise occurs; 5. The density of habitation of the area within which the noise occurs; 6. The time of 5he day or night the noise occurs; 7. The dura%ion of the noise; 8. Whether %he noise is recurrent, in%ermit5en% or constant. THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE Memo to Mayor and CouncilmemDers Re: Enforcement of Nuisance Ordinance -Leaf Blowers May 31, 1995 Page 2 It may be argued that leaf-blowing does not fall within the definition of "unnecessary" noise. Such an argument might be that leaf blowing, similar to lawn mowing, is loud, but a necessary part of suburban life. Additionally, enforcement of this ordinance requires an officer of the enforcing agency to be able to personally hear and evaluate the level, extent, duration, character, etc. of the noise. The police department is the enforcing agency for this ordinance. The problem with enforcement against operators of leaf blowers is similar to that of enforcing the ordinance prohibiting barking dogs. Complaints must first be called in to the police department which, appropriately, does not consider such complaints a high priority. Response to such a call would typically be hours after the cai! was made, when the noise presumably would no longer be a problem. At that point, the officer has no means of determining the extent of ~he proDiem, or whether '~'he noise fits the description set forth in the ordinance. Enforcement of the existing ordinance, therefore, is not an efficient means of addressing a noise proslem related to leaf blowers. JKS/meg J KS,'COR R~95-1 ;1.1L~ FNOIS MEM cc: Alan TanGy, City ~{anager Trudy Slater, Adminis%ranive Analyst Laura C. Harino, Assisnann City Attorney THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE B A K E R S F I E'L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM December 3, 2001 TO: JOHN W. STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST III ~.~ ~F-'/-'"""~*~'~ FROM: TRUDY SUBJ£CT: GAS POW;R£D LF:AF BLOWERS The cities of Stockton, Sacramento, Fresno, and Modesto, generally considered to be "comparable" to Bakersfield, were contacted regarding whether they had leaf blower bans. Of these cities, none has a gas powered leaf blower ban. Sacramento has restrictions on the times gas powered leaf blowers are allowed in residential areas. The large city of Los Angeles has a gasoline-powered leaf blower ban within 500 feet of a residence; the use of electric and battery powered leaf blowers adjacent to residences is permitted. The large city of San Diego, under its leaf-blower ordinance, restricts the use of engine- powered leaf blowers to specified times and requires functional mufflers. (P:\JS~I0112031 RULE 4102 NUISANCE (Adopted May 21, 1992, Amended December 17, 1992) 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public. 2.0 Applicability This rule shall apply to any source operation which emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. 3.0 Exemption 3.! The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations in the growing of crops or raising of fowl or animals as defined in Rule 4103 (Open Burning). 4.0 Requirements 4.1 A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or propert~ sJvu,~a, cr) 4102 - 1 n/17/92 California Environmental Protection Agency AIR RESOURCES BOARD A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ON THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS Mobile Source Control Division February 2000 State of California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Overview California Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 19 (SCR 19) requests the Air Resources Board (ARB) to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2000, summarizing the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers and including recommendations for alternatives to the use of leaf blowers and alternative leaf blower technology, if the ARB determines that alternatives are necessary. The goal of this report is to summarize for the California Legislature existing data on health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers, to identify relevant questions not answered in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. The leaf blower was invented in the early 1970s and introduced to the United States as a lawn and garden maintenance tool. Drought conditions in California facilitated acceptance of the leaf blower as the use of water for many garden clean-up tasks was prohibited. By 1990, annual sales were over 800,000 nationwide, and the tool'had become a ubiquitous gardening implement. In 1998, industry shipments of gasoline-powered handheld and backpack leaf blowers increased 30% over 1997 shipments, to 1,868,160 units nationwide. Soon after the leaf blower was introduced into the U.S., its use was banned as a noise nuisance in two California cities, Carmel-by-the-Sea in 1975 and Beverly Hills in 1978. By 1990, the number of California cities that had banned the use of leaf blowers was up to five. There are currently twenty California cities that have banned leaf blowers, sometimes only within residential neighborhoods and usually targeting gasoline-powered equipment. Another 80 cities have ordinances on the books restricting either usage or noise level or both. Other cities have considered and rejected leaf blower bans. Nationwide, two states, Arizona and New Jersey, have considered laws at the state level, and five other states have at least one city with a leaf blower ordinance. The issues usually mentioned by those who object to leaf blowers are health impacts from noise, air pollution, and dust. Municipalities regulate leaf blowers most often as public nuisances in response to citizen complaints. Two repons were located that address environmental concerns: the Orange County Grand Jury Report, and a series of reports from the City of Palo Alto City Manager's office. The City of Palo Alto reports were produced in order to make recommendations to the City Council on amending their existing ordinance. The Orange County Grand Jury took action to make recommendations to improve the quality of life in Orange County, and recommended that cities, school districts, community, college districts, and the County stop using gasoline-powered leaf blowers in their maintenance and clean-up operations. The major findings of each are similar: leaf blowers produce exhaust emissions, resuspend dust, and generate high noise levels. As per SCR 19, this report includes a comprehensive review of existing studies of the impacts of leaf blowers on leaf blower operators and on the public at large, and of the availability and actual use of protective equipment for leaf blowers. The receptors identified by the resolution are humans and the environment; sources of impacts are exhaust, noise, and dust. Because the Legislature specified that ARB use existing information, staff conducted no new studies. In order to locate existing data, staff searched the published literature, contacted potential resources and experts, and requested data from the public via mail and through a web page devoted to the leaf blower report. Two public workshops were held in El Monte, California, to facilitate further discussions with interested parties. The methodology followed for this report.depends on both the objectives of SCR 19 and available data. As staff-discovered, in some areas, such as exhaust emissions, much is known; in other areas, such as fugitive dust emissions, we know very little. For both fugitive dust and noise, there are few or no data specifically on leaf blower impacts. For all hazards, there have been no dose-response studies related to emissions from leaf blowers, we do not know how many people are affected by those emissions, and no studies were located that address potential health impacts from leaf blowers. Therefore, staff determined to provide the Legislature with a report that has elements of both impact and risk assessments. The body of the report comprises three components, following the introduction: hazard identification, review of health effects, and a characterization of the potential impacts of leaf blowers on operators and bystanders. In Section II, the emissions are quantified as to specific hazardous constituents, the number of people potentially exposed to emissions is discussed, and laws that seek to control emissions are summarized. Section III reviews health effects, identifying the range of potential negative health outcomes of exposure to the identified hazards. Section IV is a synthesis of hazard identification and health effects, characterizing potential health impacts that may be experienced by those exposed to the exhaust emissions, fugitive dust, and noise from leaf blowers in both occupational and non-occupational setting. Section V discusses recommendations. Additional information, including a discussion of research needs to make progress toward answering some of the questions raised by this report, a description of engine technologies that could reduce exhaust emissions and alternatives to leaf blowers, and a complete bibliography of materials received and consulted but not cited in the report, is found in the appendices. Description of the Hazards Hazard identification is the first step in an impact or risk assessment. Each of the three identified hazards are examined in turn, exhaust emissions, dust emissions, and noise. For each, the hazard is described and quantified, to the extent possible, and the number of people potentially exposed to the hazard is discussed. For exhaust emissions, the number of people potentially impacted is as high as the population of the state, differing within air basins. Fugitive dust emissions impact a varying number of people, depending on one's proximity to the source, the size of the particles, and the amount of time since the source resuspended the particles. Finally, we also discuss laws that control the particular hazard. 2 Exhaust emissions from leaf blowers consist of the following specific pollutants of concern: hydrocarbons from both burned and unburned fuel, and which combine with other gases in the atmosphere to form ozone; carbon monoxide; fine particulate matter; and other toxic air contaminants in the unburned fuel, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. Exhaust emissions from these engines, while high compared to on-mad mobile sources on a per engine basis, are a small pan of the overall emission inventory. Emissions have only been controlled since 1995, with more stringent standards taking effect in 2000. The exhaust emissions from leaf blowers are consistent with the exhaust emissions of other, similar off-road equipment powered by small, two-stroke engines, such as string trimmers. Manufacturers have developed several different methods to comply with the standards and have done an acceptable job certifying and producing engines that are below the regulated limits. Electric-powered models that are exhaust-free are also available. Data on fugitive dust indicate that the PM10 emissions impacts from dust suspended by leaf blowers are small, but probably significant. Previous emission estimates range from less than 1% to 5% of the statewide PM10 inventory. The ARB previously estimated statewide fugitive dust emissions to be about 5 percent of the total, the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD estimated leaf blower fugitive dust emissions to be about 2 percent of the Sacramento county PMt 0 air burden, and AeroVironment estimated dust attributable to leaf blowers in the South Coast Air Basin to be less than 1% of all fugitive dust sources. Dust emissions attributable to leaf blowers are not pan of the inventory of fugitive dust sources. ARB, therefore, does not have official data on the quantity of fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blowers. A more definitive estimate of leaf blower fugitive dust emissions will require verification of appropriate calculation parameters and representative silt loadings, measurement-of actual fugitive dust emissions through source testing, and identification of the composition of leaf blower-generated fugitive dust. Noise is the general term for any loud, unmusical, disagreeable, or unwanted sound, which has the potential of causing hearing loss and other adverse health impacts. While millions of Californians are likely exposed to noise from leaf blowers as bystanders, given the ubiquity of their use and the increasing density of California cities and towns, there is presently no way of knowing for certain how many are actually exposed, because of the lack of studies. In contrast, it is likely that at least 60,000 lawn and garden workers are daily exposed to the noise from leaf blowers. Many gardeners and landscapers in southern California are aware that noise is an issue and apparently would prefer quieter leaf blowers. Purchases of quieter leaf blowers, based on manufacturer data, are increasing. While little data exist on the noise dose received on an 8-hr time-weighted-average by operators of leaf blowers, data indicate that some operators may be exposed above the OSHA permissible eXposure limit. It is unlikely that more than 10% of leaf blower operators and members of the gardening crew, and probably a much lower percentage, regularly wear hearing protection, thus exposing them to an increased risk of hearing loss. The sound quality of gasoline-powered leaf blowers may account for the high level of annoyance reported by bystanders. Review of Health Effects 3 Potential health effects from exhaust emissions, fugitive dust, and noise range from mild to serious. Fugitive dust is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many subclasses of pollutants, each containing many different chemical species. Many epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant associations of ambient particulate matter levels with a variety of negative health endpoints, including mortality, hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms and' illness, and changes in lung function. Carbon monoxide is a component of exhaust emissions which causes health effects ranging from subtle changes to death. At low exposures, CO causes headaches, dizziness, weakness, and nausea. Children and people with heart disease are particularly at risk from CO exposure. Some toxic compounds in gasoline exhaust, in particular benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde, are carcinogens. Ozone, formed in the presence of sunlight from chemical reactions of exhaust emissions, primarily hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, is a strong irritant and exposures can cause airway constriction, coughing, sore throat, and shormess of breath. Finally, noise exposures can damage hearing, and .cause other adverse health impacts, including interference with communication, rest and sleep disturbance, changes in performance and behavior, annoyance, and other psychological and physiological changes that may lead to poor health. Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers Health effects from hazards identified as being generated by leaf blowers range from mild to serious, but the appearance of those effects depends on exposures: the dose, or how much of the hazard is received by a person, and the exposure time. Without reasonable estimates of exposures, ARB cannot conclusively determine the health impacts from leaf blowers; the discussion herein clearly is about potential health impacts. The goal is to direct the discussion and raise questions about the nature of potential health impacts for those exposed to the exhaust emissions, fugitive dust, and noise from leaf blowers in both occupational and non-occupational settings. For the worker, the analysis suggests concern. Bearing in mind that the worker population is most likely young and healthy, and that these workers may not work in this business for all of their working lives, we nonetheless are cautioned by our research. Leaf blower operators may be exposed to potentially hazardous concentrations of CO and PM intermittently throughout their work day, and noise exposures may be high enough that operators are at increased risk of developing heating loss. While exposures to CO, PM, and noise may not have immediate, acute effects, the potential health impacts are greater for long term exposures leading to chronic effects. In addition, evidence of significantly elevated concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene in the breathing zone of operators leads to concern about exposures to these toxic air contaminants. Potential noise and PM health impacts should be reduced by the use of appropriate breathing and hearing protective equipment. Employers should be more vigilant in requiring and ensuring their employees wear breathing and hearing protection. Regulatory agencies should conduct educational and enforcement campaigns, in addition to exploring the extent of the use of protective gear. Exposures to CO and other air toxics are more problematic because there is no effective air filter. More study of CO and other air toxics exposures experienced by leaf blower operators is Wan-anted to determine whether the potential health effects discussed herein are actual effects or not. Describing the impacts on the public at large is more difficult than for workers because people's exposures and reactions to those exposures are much more variable. Bystanders are clearly annoyed and stressed by the noise and dust from leaf blowers. They can be interrupted, awakened, and may feel harassed, to the point of taking the time to contact public officials, complain, write letters and set up web sites, form associations, and .attend city council meetings. These are actions taken by highly annoyed individuals who believe their health is being negatively impacted. In addition, some sensitive individuals may experience extreme physical reactions, mostly respiratory symptoms, from exposure to the kicked up dust. On the other hand, others voluntarily purchase and use leaf blowers in their own homes, seemingly immune to the effects that cause other people such problems. While these owner- operators are likely not concerned about the noise and dust, they should still wear protective equipment, for example, eye protection, dust masks, and ear plugs, and their exposures to CO are a potential problem and warrant more study. Recommendations The Legislature asked ARB to include recommendations for altematives in the report, if ARB determines altematives are necessary. This report makes no recommendations for altematives. Based on the lack of available data, such conclusions are premature at this time. Exhaust standards already in place have reduced exhaust emissions from the engines used on leaf blowers, and manufacturers have significantly reduced CO emissions further than required by the standards. Ultra-low or zero exhaust emitting leaf blowers could further reduce public and worker exposures. At the January 27, 2000, public hearing, the Air Resources Board directed staff to explore the potential for technological advancement in .this area. For noise, the ARB has no Legislative mandate to control noise emissions, but the evidence seems clear that quieter leaf blowers would reduce worker exposures and protect hearing, and reduce negative impacts on bystanders. In connection with this report, the Air Resources Board received several letters urging that the ARB or another state agency set health- based standards for noise and control noise pollution. A more complete understanding of the noise and the amount and nature of dust resuspended by leaf blower use and altemative cleaning equipment is suggested to guide decision- making. Costs and benefits of cleaning methods have not been adequately quantified. Staff estimates that a study of fugitive dust generation and exposures to exhaust emissions and dust could-cost $1.1 million, require two additional staff, and take two to three years. Adding a study of noise exposures and a comparison of leaf blowers to other cleaning equipment could increase study costs to $1.5 million or more-(Appendix H). 5 Fugitive dust emissions are problematic. The leaf blower is designed to move relatively large materials, which requires enough force to also blow up dust particles. Banning or restricting the use of leaf blowers would reduce fugitive dust emissions, but there are no data on fugitive dust emissions from. alternatives, such as vacuums, brooms, and.rakes. In addition, without a more complete analysis of potential health impacts, costs and benefits of leaf blower use, and potential health impacts of alternatives, such a recommendation is not warranted. Some have suggested that part of the problem lies in how leaf blower operators use the tool, that leaf blower operators need to show more courtesy to passersby, shutting off the blower when people are walking by. Often, operators blow dust and debris into the streets, leaving the dust to be resuspended by passing vehicles. Interested stakeholders, including those opposed to leaf blower use, could join together to propose methods for leaf blower use that reduce noise and dust generation, and develop and promote codes of conduct by workers who operate leaf blowers. Those who use leaf blowers professionally would then need to be trained in methods of use that reduce pollution and potential health impacts both for .others and for themselves. .6 LANDSCAPE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS ° No immediate penalty, give notice and opportunity to correct within a specific period of time - eventually cite and fine (this is basically what the city follows and is the process used by a majority of cities) · Require city permit to prune and/or remove a tree that exceeds a certain size subject to approval of an arborist or urban forester - also license all tree trimmers · No opportunity to correct, give misdemeanor citation - can include fine, cost of replacement and staff administration cost examples: $2500/day (Bloomington, IN) $5000/day or per occurance/tree (Palo Alto, CA) $100/inch of trunk diameter (Lake Bluff, IL) ' $1000 and/or 6 mos jail (Cone Madera, CA) · Bond landscaping for several years (ie. 10-15 years) - bond forfeited if violation so that landscaping can be repaired/replaced · Temporary moratorium on any future development on the site including additions and tenant infills (18 mos being considered by Palo Alto, 2 years by Santa Rosa) · Double replanting requirement and associated administration fees (Ojai, CA) · Give citation authority to arborist, code personnel or other staff as necessary (Planning staffis being considered in Bloomington, IN)