Agenda — Menlo Park City Council, June 13, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

2023-24 AWARD AUTHORITY AND BID REQUIREMENTS
City Council Policy No. CC-21-024
Adopted December 14, 2021
Resolution No. 6695
Purpose
Pursuant to City Council adopted policy CC-21-024, this memo establishes the award authority and bid requirements for the 2023-24 fiscal year.

Award Authority and Bid Requirements
Category Amount Approving authority Bid requirement
Goods, general services,
and professional
services
Less than $46,500 City Manager Designee Written quotations $46,501 to $93,000/year
(up to 3 years) City Manager Informal bid
$93,001 to $200,000
City Council
Informal bid
Greater than $200,000 Formal bid
Public projects
Less than $60,000 City Manager Designee
Informal bid/force account
$60,001 to $93,000 City Manager
$93,001 to $200,000
City Council
Informal bid
Greater than $200,000 Formal bid
Claims settlement
Up to $93,000 City Manager
N/A
$93,001 or greater City Council
ATTACHMENT L Page H-1.38
Police
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/13/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-135-CC
Regular Business: Adopt a resolution renewing Chapter 2.70 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code entitled military
equipment use ordinance, Menlo Park Military
Equipment Use Policy, and finding that the 2022
Menlo Park Police Department annual military
equipment report complies with the standards of
approval set forth in Menlo Park Police Department
policy 708.7 and Government Code §7071(d)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution renewing Chapter 2.70 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code entitled military equipment use ordinance (Attachment A), Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Policy (Attachment B), and finding that the 2022 Menlo Park Police Department annual military equipment report (Attachment D) complies with the standards of approval set forth in Menlo Park Police Department policy 708.7 and Government Code §7071(d).

The Menlo Park Police Department had no incidents during the reporting period where any equipment listed under the Military Equipment Use Policy was used in the field. There is no request to acquire additional equipment, other than the potential need to replenish inventory levels of any consumables (munitions) should they be used in a future incident.

Policy Issues
California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481 – Codified in Government Code §§7070, et seq.), Menlo Park Municipal Code 2.70, and Menlo Park Police Department Policy 708.7 require the City Council to conduct an annual review of the military equipment use ordinance, Military Equipment Use Policy and annual report and vote on whether to renew the ordinance.

Background
On Sept. 30, 2021, California AB 481 was signed into law. Subsequently, California Government Code §§7070, 7071, and 7072 were adopted to codify the requirements set forth in AB 481 (Attachment C).

AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency to obtain the approval of its governing body, through the adoption of a Military Equipment Use Policy, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, before taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill allows the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards.

Pursuant to AB 481, May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1089, adding Chapter 2.70 to AGENDA ITEM I-1 Page I-1.1
Staff Report #: 23-135-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Menlo Park Municipal Code, which approved a military equipment use policy for police services, and included an inventory of the City’s military equipment. AB 481 requires the governing body to annually review the ordinance for consideration to be renewed. If City Council determines, based on an Annual Military Equipment Report prepared by the law enforcement agency that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for approval, it may either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy. The Menlo Park Police Department 2022 annual military equipment report is attached for review (Attachment D).

California Government Code §7070 provides a list of types of equipment that are to be considered “Military Equipment” for purposes of compliance with AB 481 and the Government Code. It is important to note that the Menlo Park Police Department does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, nor does it possess any equipment that was designed uniquely for military use. However, Menlo Park Police Department, like many police agencies nationwide, does possess some types of equipment that are listed in §7070. Additionally, the Menlo Park Police Department participates in a regional Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, which possesses and utilizes additional types of equipment that qualify as “Military Equipment” according to the Government Code.

It is also important to note that while the equipment listed in Attachments B and D meets the definitions of “Military Equipment” in alignment with this law, this equipment remains the same equipment that has been available to handle high-risk situations that occasionally arise in this jurisdiction up to this point in time, as part of the regular public safety business of this agency. Further, every law enforcement jurisdiction in the state of California is bringing similar lists before their local governing bodies to comply with this law. There is nothing unique in Menlo Park Police Department’s compliance effort that is significantly different from any of our partnering police agencies statewide.

Analysis
Discussion of proposed Military Equipment Use Policy
California Government Code §7070(d) defines a Military Equipment Use Policy as:
“Military equipment use policy’ means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:

1. A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought its capabilities, expected life span, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.

2. The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.

3. The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.

4. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use.

5. The training, including any course required by the commission on peace officer standards and training that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.

6. The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.

7. For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the Page I-1.2
Staff Report #: 23-135-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.

California Government Code §7071(b) requires that the police department post to its website (Attachment E) the Military Equipment Use Policy that it plans to propose to the City Council at least 30 days before any public hearing concerning the policy. The police department complied with this requirement by posting the policy being proposed tonight (Attachment B), to its public website May 12.

California Government Code §7071(d) stipulates that the City Council shall only approve the Military Equipment Use Policy if it determines all of the following:

1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties.

3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

California Government Code §7070(e) establishes that the police department is responsible for delivering to the City Council an annual military equipment report, which the City Council can utilize to confirm compliance with the Military Equipment Use Policy and the accompanying military equipment use ordinance (Chapter 2.70.050.) This requirement is also reflected in Menlo Park Police Department Policy 708.7.

The Menlo Park Police Department has not obtained any equipment from military surplus programs, known as 1033 Programs, it does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, and it does not possess any equipment that was designed for military use.

That said, California Government Code §7070 provides a list of 16 types of equipment that are to be considered “Military Equipment” for the purpose of compliance with AB 481 and the associated California Government Codes, and the police department does possess and use some of these listed types of equipment. Of the 16 types of equipment specified, the police department possesses only two (2) types – four (4) items total, along with associated munitions. The list of the 16 types of Military Equipment per California Government Code §7070 and the items possessed by the Menlo Park Police Department is included as Attachment D.

In addition to equipment possessed solely by Menlo Park Police Department, the department participates in a regional SWAT team in collaboration with the police departments of Redwood City and Atherton. The regional SWAT Team jointly possesses and utilizes additional types of equipment that qualify as “Military Equipment” according to California Government Code §7070. To be clear, the equipment possessed by SWAT is not purchased, owned, or maintained by the Menlo Park Police Department, but such equipment could be used within the City of Menlo Park if SWAT is deployed, and such equipment is utilized for an appropriate incident. Therefore, in a manner consistent with other municipalities in San Mateo County, the Menlo Park Police Department for the sake of transparency is disclosing in the Menlo Park Police Department Military Use Policy the equipment available to the regional SWAT team in the extraordinarily rare instance of a SWAT operation in this city. It is important to note that SWAT is generally only deployed in extreme circumstances such as active shooter incidents, hostage situations and the execution of high-risk search and arrest warrants. While the equipment SWAT possesses is rarely deployed, it could prove essential to emergency operations when needed.

Page I-1.3
Staff Report #: 23-135-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Items possessed by the regional SWAT Team (members include Menlo Park Police Department along with police departments from Redwood City and Atherton) are included with this report as Attachment F. • Equipment types that the SWAT Team possesses are noted in bold type. • Equipment listed by legislation but not in possession of SWAT has been stricken through.

While nearly all possible rare circumstances requiring an elevated tactical response might be handled using the equipment listed in Attachments B and D detailing the department and SWAT Team’s equipment, we must acknowledge that an extraordinary and exigent circumstance could unpredictably arise that might require additional equipment not listed. Should this department encounter a circumstance that requires the exigent acquisition, borrowing, and/or use of equipment not listed, this department will:

1. Provide written notice of that acquisition or use to the City Council within 30 days following the commencement of such exigent circumstance, unless such information is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law.

2. If it is anticipated that the use will continue beyond the exigent circumstance, submit a proposed amended Military Equipment Use Policy to the City Council within 90 days following the borrowing, acquisition and/or use, and receive approval, as applicable, from the City Council.

3. Include the military equipment in the police department’s next annual military equipment report.

The City’s Military Equipment Use Policy includes detailed information for each type of Military Equipment listed, as required by California Government Code §7070. This information includes the equipment’s capabilities, its purpose/authorized uses, the legal/procedural rules governing its use, and the training required of staff before its use.

Pursuant to California Government Code §7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of Military Equipment in this policy by any of the following means:

1. Via email to: [email protected]

2. Via phone call to: 650-330-6300

3. Via mail sent to: Menlo Park Police Department
Attn: Military Equipment Use Coordinator
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025

4. Via online form at: Attachment G
Staff has drafted the attached Military Equipment Use Policy, as required by law, for City Council to consider renewing by resolution (Attachment A).

Impact on City Resources
There is no impact on City resources.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it proposes an organizational structure change that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Page I-1.4
Staff Report #: 23-135-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Public Notice
California Government Code §7071(b) requires that the police department post to its website the Military Equipment Use Policy that it plans to propose to the City Council at least 30 days before any public hearing concerning the policy. The police department posted the policy being proposed tonight (included as Attachment B), as well as the annual report (included as Attachment D) to its public website May 12.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Menlo Park Police Department Lexipol Policy 708 – Military Equipment Use C. Text of AB 481
D. Menlo Park Police Department annual military equipment report E. Hyperlink – Military Equipment Use Policy website:
menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Police/Transparency/Department-policies/Assembly-Bill-481- military-equipment-policy
F. Regional SWAT equipment list
G. Hyperlink – Complaint form: menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Police/Compliments-andcomplaints Report prepared by:

T.J. Moffett, Police Commander
Page I-1.5
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7071 RENEWING CHAPTER

2.70 OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED MILITARY

EQUIPMENT USE ORDINANCE, MENLO PARK MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY 707 AND FINDING THAT THE ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT

REPORT COMPLIES WITH THE STANDARDS OF APPROVAL SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7071(d)
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 7071 et. seq. codifies Assembly Bill 481 (effective January 1, 2022) and requires legislative bodies to adopt ordinances approving military equipment use policies before law enforcement agencies can continue to engage in activities related to the use of military equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Menlo Park Police Department has “military equipment” in its inventory and engages in critical public safety activities in coordination with other jurisdictions on police related matters, including safeguarding the public’s welfare and safety, working on regional task forces, conducting training exercises, providing mutual aid and responding to emergencies; and WHEREAS, in exigent circumstances, there is sometimes the need to deploy military equipment from or lend military equipment to other local jurisdictions to promote the safety and security of community members; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park adopted Ordinance No. 1089, adding Chapter 2.70 to the Menlo Park Municipal Code, which approved Military Equipment Use Policy 708 for police services, and included an inventory (report) of the City’s military equipment; and
WHEREAS, Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Policy 708 sets forth a military equipment use policy that is consistent with the Police Department’s current practices, complies with all the requirements of the Government Code and the Menlo Park Municipal Code, will continue to ensure ongoing regulation and compliance with the law going forward and will continue to provide a means of community engagement and transparency regarding use of military equipment by the Department; and
WHEREAS, the Government Code and the Menlo Park Municipal Code require the City Council to conduct an annual review of the Military Equipment Use Ordinance and Policy and vote on whether to the renew the Ordinance and Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted its annual review of the Military Equipment Use Ordinance contained in Chapter 2.70 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as well as its annual review of Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Policy 708; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also conducted its annual review of the military equipment report prepared and submitted pursuant to Section 7072 of the Government Code and has considered the requirements contained in Section 7071(d) of the Government Code; WHEREAS, public notice has been provided in accordance with applicable law; and ATTACHMENT A Page I-1.6
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and desires to renew Chapter 2.70 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code and the Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Policy 708; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to find that the annual military equipment report complies with the standards of approval set forth in subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 7071 because of the following:

1. Authorizing the use of military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. The acquisition and use of this equipment is part of the Menlo Park Police Department’s overall approach to Critical Incident Management, Use of Force, De-Escalation and public safety. The equipment will enable department members to properly respond to both planned and unplanned events efficiently and effectively.

2. The Military Equipment Use Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties by ensuring required reporting, the opportunity for community engagement and feedback, and transparency and oversight regarding the acquisition and use of specified military equipment in the City of Menlo Park.

3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time of the use.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. All of the statements and facts set forth above in the recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter and, together with the staff report, other written reports, public testimony and other information contained in the record, are an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the actions taken in this ordinance.

Section 2. The City Council finds that Chapter 2.70 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code and Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Policy 708 are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and are not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. The City Council has reviewed Chapter 2.70 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code and hereby renews that Chapter without change.

Section 4. The City Council has reviewed Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Policy 708 and hereby renews the Policy without change.

Section 5. The City Council has reviewed the 2022 annual military equipment report and finds that it complies with the standards of approval set forth in subdivision (d) of Government Code section 7071.

Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, Page I-1.7
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 3 of 3 ends

clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the thirteenth day of June, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of __, 2023.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page I-1.8
Policy
708
Menlo Park Police Department
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department Military Equipment - 1
Military Equipment
708.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).

The Menlo Park Police Department ("MPPD") does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, nor does it possess any equipment that was designed for military use.

MPPD also does not possess any equipment through military surplus programs such as the 1033 Program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, California Government Code § 7071(b) requires that law enforcement agencies submit a proposed Military Equipment Use Policy to their governing board for approval.

California Government Code § 7070 provides a list of equipment types that are considered to be "military equipment" for purposes of this policy requirement, and this Military Equipment Use Policy includes information for any such equipment types that are possessed by the MPPD, or reasonably likely to be deployed in Menlo Park by other law enforcement partners. 708.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
"Department" means the City of Menlo Park Police Department. "Governing body" means the elected or appointed body that oversees the Department. "Military equipment" includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.

ATTACHMENT B Page I-1.9
Menlo Park Police Department
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department Military Equipment - 2
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
708.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Menlo Park Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 708.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Menlo Park Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.

Page I-1.10
Menlo Park Police Department
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department Military Equipment - 3
708.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
• Attachment 1: qualifying equipment that is owned and/or utilized by the Menlo Park Police Department. See attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - MPPD Military Equipment Use Policy - Equipment of MPPD.pdf
• Attachment 2: qualifying equipment that is not owned or regularly utilized by the MPPD, but which is known to be owned and/or utilized by law enforcement agencies which the MPPD collaborates and/ or participates for law enforcement purposes. See attachment: ATTACHMENT 2 - MPPD Military Equipment Use Policy - Applicable to Regional SWAT.pdf
708.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 708.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy.

Page I-1.11
Menlo Park Police Department
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department Military Equipment - 4
708.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 708.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

Page I-1.12
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department Attachments - 5
Attachments
Page I-1.13
Attachment
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department ATTACHMENT 1 - MPPD Military Equipment
Use Policy - Equipment of MPPD.pdf - 6
ATTACHMENT 1 - MPPD Military Equipment
Use Policy - Equipment of MPPD.pdf
ATTACHMENT 1 - MPPD Military Equipment Use Policy - Equipment of MPPD.pdf Page I-1.14
ATTACHMENT 1

MENLO PARK MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
EQUIPMENT OF MENLO PARK PD APPLICABLE TO GOV CODE 7070* The Menlo Park Police Department has not obtained any equipment from military surplus programs, known as 1033 Programs, it does not possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, and it does not possess any equipment that was designed for military use.

That said, California Government Code Section 7070 provides a list of sixteen (16) types of equipment that are to be considered “Military Equipment” for the purpose of compliance with AB 481 and the associated California Government Codes, and the Police Department does possess and use some of these listed types of equipment. Of the sixteen (16) types of equipment specified, the Police Department possesses only two (2) types – four (4) items total.

The list of the sixteen (16) types of Military Equipment per California Government Code Section 7070 and the items possessed by the Menlo Park Police Department is included as follows:
• Equipment types that the Police Department possesses are noted in bold type. • Equipment listed by legislation but not in possession of this department has been stricken through.

1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.

2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.

However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

3. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.

5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.

6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

8. Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

9. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.

Page I-1.15
a) * While the following equipment is exempt from this reporting process per California Government Code Section 7070(c)(10), we have included it in the interests of transparency. Every Menlo Park Patrol Officer is issued .223 caliber, Colt AR-15/ M4 Carbine rifles. The Patrol Rifles have been standard deployed equipment for our Patrol Personnel since about 2005. They may be deployed in special circumstances, such as when the subject is known to possess or is suspected of possessing a deadly weapon or firearm; the subject is beyond the effective range of issued handguns; the subject is known to wear, or is suspected of wearing, body armor; the subject is barricaded, and perimeter officers are at moderate to long distances from the target; the subject is barricaded behind cover that issued handgun ammunition may not effectively penetrate; a field supervisor or watch commander orders the rifle to be deployed; any other situation in which, based on his/her experience and training, the officer deems the deployment of the Patrol Rifle as necessary. Additionally, the Menlo Park Police Department possesses three .308 caliber semi Semi-Automatic rifles. These rifles are in the inventory for use by our SWAT snipers. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

11. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.

12. "Flashbang" grenades and explosive breaching tools, "tear gas," and "pepper balls," excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray. a) The Police Department possesses two (2) pepper ball launchers. The pepper ball launchers are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).

14. The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
a) The Police Department possesses two (2) 40mm less lethal projectile launchers. The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

16. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), "Military Equipment" does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.

Page I-1.16
Attachment
Menlo Park PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/05/12, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Menlo Park Police Department ATTACHMENT 2 - MPPD Military Equipment
Use Policy - Applicable to Regional SWAT.pdf
- 7
ATTACHMENT 2 - MPPD Military Equipment
Use Policy - Applicable to Regional SWAT.pdf
ATTACHMENT 2 - MPPD Military Equipment Use Policy - Applicable to Regional SWAT.pdf Page I-1.17
ATTACHMENT 2

MENLO PARK MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
EQUIPMENT OF REGIONAL SWAT APPLICABLE TO GOV CODE 7070
In addition to Department-specific operations, the Menlo Park Police Department participates in a regional Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, which possesses and utilizes additional types of equipment that qualify as “Military Equipment” according to California Government Code Section 7070. While the equipment possessed by SWAT is not purchased, owned, or maintained by the Police Department, it could be used in the City of Menlo Park if SWAT is deployed, and is therefore included in the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy. It is important to note that SWAT is generally only deployed in extreme circumstances such as active shooter incidents, hostage situations, and the execution of high-risk search and arrest warrants. The equipment SWAT possesses is rarely deployed but could prove essential to emergency operations when needed.

The list of the sixteen (16) types of Military Equipment per California Government Code Section 7070 is included below.
• Equipment types that the SWAT Team possesses are noted in bold type. • Equipment listed by legislation but not in possession of SWAT has been stricken through.

1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. a. The SWAT Team has access to four (4) Robotex Avatar ground robots. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.

However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.

5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. a. The SWAT Team has access to two (2) command and control vehicles. One is a 2015 Chevy Tahoe and the other is a 2002 Workhorse P42 (Mattman custom built SWAT vehicle). This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature.

However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
a. The SWAT Team has access to one (1) Remington 870 12 gauge breaching shotgun. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

Page I-1.18

8. Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

9. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.

10. Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.
a. The SWAT Team has access to fifteen (15) Colt M4 fully automatic rifles and twenty-three (23) Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

11. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.

12. "Flashbang" grenades and explosive breaching tools, "tear gas," and "pepper balls," excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray. a. The SWAT Team has access to sixty-one (91) Defense Technology Flashbangs. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
b. The SWAT Team has access to the following chemical agents. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

Item Quantity Expiration
• Riot Control CS Grenade 10 2026
• Triple Chaser CS Grenade 5 2026
• Spede Heat CS Grenade 4 2026
• Tri Chamber CS Flameless Grenade 10 2026
• 40mm Skat Shell CS 10 2026
• 40mm Muzzle Blast 10 2026
• 40mm Ferret CS Liquid 10 2026

13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).

14. The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
a. The SWAT team has access to thirty-eight (38) Defense Technology 40mm launchers and two (2) Defense Technology 37mm launchers. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

16. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), "Military Equipment" does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.

Page I-1.19
Assembly Bill No. 481
CHAPTER 406
An act to add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 30, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 481, Chiu. Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment:
funding, acquisition, and use.

Existing law designates the Department of General Services as the agency for the State of California responsible for distribution of federal surplus personal property, excepting food commodities, and requires the department to, among other things, do all things necessary to the execution of its powers and duties as the state agency for the distribution of federal personal surplus property, excepting food commodities, in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, authorizes a local agency, as defined, to acquire surplus federal property without regard to any law which requires posting of notices or advertising for bids, inviting or receiving bids, or delivery of purchases before payment, or which prevents the local agency from bidding on federal surplus property.

Existing federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer surplus personal property, including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agencies for use in law enforcement activities, subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency, defined to include specified entities, to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by adoption of a military equipment use policy, as specified, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill would also require similar approval for the continued use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022. The bill would allow the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. The bill would require the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an annual military equipment report prepared by the law enforcement agency, as provided, that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for approval. The bill would specify these provisions do not preclude a county or local municipality from implementing 92 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
ATTACHMENT C Page I-1.20
additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

This bill would also require a state agency, as defined, to create a military equipment use policy before engaging in certain activities, publish the policy on the agency’s internet website, and provide a copy of the policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee, as specified. The bill would also require a state agency that seeks to continue use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to create a military equipment use policy.

This bill would also include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities.
(b) The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.
(c) Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.
92 Ch. 406 — 2 —
Page I-1.21
(d) Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
(e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service.

SEC. 2. Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:

Chapter 12.8. Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment
7070. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency. In the case of a law enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county.
(b) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1) A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges. (2) A sheriff’s department.
(3) A district attorney’s office.
(4) A county probation department.
(c) “Military equipment” means the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion. (5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, 92 — 3 — Ch. 406
Page I-1.22
or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision. (10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. (11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
(12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
(15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
(d) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment. (3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight 92 Ch. 406 — 4 —
Page I-1.23
authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.
(7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
(e) “State agency” means the law enforcement division of every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution. (f) “Type” means each item that shares the same manufacturer model number.
7071. (a) (1) A law enforcement agency shall obtain approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable, prior to engaging in any of the following:
(A) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(B) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (C) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(D) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(E) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(F) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (G) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this paragraph.
(2) No later than May 1, 2022, a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall commence a governing body approval process in accordance with this section. If the governing body does not approve the continuing use of military equipment, including by adoption pursuant to this subdivision of a military equipment use policy submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), within 180 days of submission of the proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall cease its use of 92 — 5 — Ch. 406
Page I-1.24
the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section.
(b) In seeking the approval of the governing body pursuant to subdivision (a), a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and make those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c) The governing body shall consider a proposed military equipment use policy as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting and provide for public comment in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(d) (1) The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. (C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance. (2) In order to facilitate public participation, any proposed or final military equipment use policy shall be made publicly available on the internet website of the relevant law enforcement agency for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(e) (1) The governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted pursuant to this section approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and, subject to paragraph (2), vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d). If the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d), the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications 92 Ch. 406 — 6 —
Page I-1.25
to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, if a city contracts with another entity for law enforcement services, the city shall have the authority to adopt a military equipment use policy based on local community needs.
7072. (a) A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by this section publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
(2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
(3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
(b) Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. 7073. (a) A state agency shall create a military equipment use policy prior to engaging in any of the following:
(1) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(2) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (3) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
92 — 7 — Ch. 406
Page I-1.26
(4) Collaborating with a law enforcement agency or another state agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(5) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(6) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, or to apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (7) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this subdivision.
(b) No later than May 1, 2022, a state agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall create a military equipment use policy.
(c) A state agency that is required to create a military equipment use policy pursuant to this section shall do both of the following within 180 days of completing the policy:
(1) Publish the military equipment use policy on the agency’s internet website.
(2) Provide a copy of the military equipment use policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee.
7074. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities and shall supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city and county. 7075. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Requiring local agencies to hold public meetings prior to the acquisition of military equipment further exposes that activity to public scrutiny and enhances public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would 92 Ch. 406 — 8 —
Page I-1.27
result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

O
92 — 9 — Ch. 406
Page I-1.28
Equipment Category - Listed categories as defined by California Government Code §7070 and MPMC 2.70.020 Description Summary of how equipment was used and purpose of use Summary of
Complaints
Received
Result of any internal audits
or violations of military
equipment use policy Acquisition Costs Annual Costs
Funding source for following calendar
year
Quantity
Possessed
Intended additions in the next
year
1 Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 2 Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subsection. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 3 High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half (2 1/2) ton trucks, five (5) ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 4 Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 5 Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 6 Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 7 Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one (1) person, are specifically excluded from this subsection. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 8 Firearms of 0.50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subsection. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 9 Ammunition of 0.50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subsection. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 10 Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than 0.50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than 0.50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None 11 Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A None None
Tippman Pepperball Launcher None $1,200 Operating Budget 2Live-X Pepperball None $1,550 Operating Budget 250 13 Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the long range acoustic device (LRAD). N/A N/A None N/A N/A None PENN Arms PLG65 40mm Launcher None $2,000 Operating Budget 2 Defense Technology 40mm Exact Impact Sponge Round None $1,600 Operating Budget 50 15 Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight. N/A N/A None N/A N/A None None 1214
Each use of the listed items is
assessed and monitored for
adherence to policy and
training. No violations were
identified during the review
period.
2022 Menlo Park Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report - Equipment Owned by the Menlo Park Police Department The purpose of this equipment is to provide a less lethal option for law enforcement use where the employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable, and the use of chemical agents provides a safer alternative to gaining compliance where allowed by policy and law.The purpose of this equipment is to provide a less lethal option for law enforcement use where the employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable, and the use of impact munitionss provides a safer alternative to gaining compliance where allowed by policy and law.

Potential for need for replacement parts due to routine maintenace or wear estimated to be less than $1,000Potential for need for replacement parts due to routine maintenace or wear estimated to be less than $1,000 Potential to acquire additional rounds to replace any use of existing inventory to maintain a repository of 50 roundsPotential to acquire additional rounds to replace any use of existing inventory to maintain a repository of up to approx. 500 rounds The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: forty (40) millimeter projectile launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons."Flashbang" grenades and explosive breaching tools, "tear gas," and "pepper balls," excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.

ATTACHMENT D
Page I-1.29

2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.

However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.

6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature.

ATTACHMENT F Page I-1.30

8. Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.

9. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.

11. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.

13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).

14. The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
a. The SWAT team has access to thirty-eight (38) Defense Technology 40mm launchers and two (2) Defense Technology 37mm launchers. This equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

16. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), "Military Equipment" does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.

Page I-1.31
ASSEMBLY BILL 481 COMPLIANCE
T.J. Moffett, Commander, Menlo Park Police Department
I1-PRESENTATION
AB481: Review and Renew
• On September 30, 2021, California AB 481 was signed into law • Pursuant to AB481, on May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1089, adding Chapter 2.70 to Menlo Park Municipal Code, which approved a military equipment use policy for police services, and included an inventory of the City’s military equipment • AB 481 requires the governing body to annually review the ordinance for consideration to be renewed
• Requires the completion of an annual “Military Equipment Report” 2 AB481: Review and Renew
• California Government Code Section 7070 provides a list of types of equipment that are to be considered “Military Equipment” for purposes of compliance with AB 481 and the Government Code • MPPD does NOT possess any tactical equipment that it has obtained from the military, nor does it possess any equipment that was designed uniquely for military use • MPPD does have some types of equipment listed in Section 7070 (Staff Report ‐ Attachment “D”)
• Additionally, MPPD participates in a regional Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, which possesses and utilizes additional types of equipment that qualify as “Military Equipment” according to the Government Code (Staff Report – Attachment “E”) 3 AB481: Review and Renew
• MPPD had no reportable deployments/uses of the equipment listed in Government Code 7070 in 2022

RECOMMENDATION
• MPPD requests that City Council adopt a resolution to approve the annual MPPD Military Equipment Report and renew City of Menlo Park Military Equipment Use Ordinance and Policy (Staff Report ‐ Attachment “A”)
4 Police
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/13/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-136-CC
Regular Business: Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 1.15 “Administrative Citations” and
amending Chapter 8.04 “Nuisances” to add
additional “Enumerated” nuisances to subsection

8.04.010
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 1.15 “Administrative Citations.”
Policy Issues
Unabated Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) violations are a drain on personnel and resources and requires resources over and above the level of enforcement services usually provided and constitute a public nuisance. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for an administrative process to aid in enforcing compliance with the applicable laws.

Local law enforcement may generally issue criminal misdemeanor citations for violations of these state or county orders. However, additional enforcement options are currently limited in the city due to the lack of express authority to issue fines by civil administrative citations. These types of citations must be authorized by way of local ordinances, as allowed through state law.

Background
The MPMC is at times violated. These violations may occur for a variety of reasons. When the City becomes aware of violations, and priorities dictate, City staff work to address the violations of laws and standards contained in the MPMC. In many cases simply contacting a responsible party can lead to voluntary compliance and the violation is abated in a reasonably timely manner. However, in other instances, the violations may remain unabated. An administrative citation ordinance will provide additional tools for city enforcement staff to gain compliance for violations. Administrative citations enable the city to impose fines and penalties on persons responsible for those violations. The proposed administrative citation process, and resulting fines, are likely to incentivize greater compliance in a more efficient fashion for all involved. Administrative citations would most typically be utilized to gain compliance for property-related violations, noise ordinance violations, and other code enforcement and nuisance abatement concerns, or force compliance with administrative orders.

Staff fully intends to continue to follow the principle of seeking voluntary compliance with the MPMC and regulations. The accompanying proposed administrative citation ordinance includes a process that is geared to gain voluntary compliance, and where necessary, impose fines and penalties. As part of putting an administrative citation procedure in place, it will also be necessary to adopt a resolution to provide for the fines and penalties.

AGENDA ITEM I-2 Page I-2.1
Staff Report #: 23-136-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Analysis
Government Code § 53069.4(a)(1) authorizes cities to levy administrative fines for violations of their municipal code, and provides as follows:

The legislative body of a local agency...may by ordinance make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the local agency subject to an administrative fine or penalty. The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of those administrative fines or penalties.

Where the violation would otherwise be an infraction, the administrative fine or penalty shall not exceed the maximum fine or penalty amounts for infractions set forth in §25132 and subdivision (b) of §36900.

The process for the issuance of administrative citations requires that upon a Code Enforcement Officer discovering a violation they must fist issue a notice of violation on the responsible person. The notice of violation is required to describe the violation and how to correct it, and provides the responsible person a reasonable amount of time to comply. That notice is to be delivered to the responsible person in a manner that is reasonably calculated to ensure it is delivered to the responsible person. If the person fails to timely respond and correct the violation, then the Code Enforcement Officer may issue an administrative citation.

When issuing the administrative citation, the responsible person is given a date for compliance, when a second citation may then be issued. In order to further compel compliance, each day a violation exists beyond any noticed date of compliance amounts to a separate violation. As such, the amount of the citation can escalate if a responsible person fails to address the violation.

The amounts of fines for violations imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be established by a City Council resolution, including escalating fine amounts for repeat violations within a 12-month period. Government Code §36900(b) provides that, aside from building and safety code violations, the violator may be fined up to $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense within the same year, and $500 for each additional offense in the same year. In 2018 the state Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 2598, which increases the fines for violations of building and safety codes in Government Code § 25132 and 36900 to $130 for the first violation, $700 for the second violation within a year, and $1,300 for the third violation in a year. In addition, the new law authorizes a fine of $2,500 for additional violations within two years if the property is commercial property, contains a building, and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or to prohibit unauthorized use of the property. The statutes also require a hardship waiver process for repeat violators who have made a bona fide effort to comply with the first violation and for whom the payment of the additional fines would create an undue financial hardship.

A process for administrative review of the citations must be established by ordinance, and is subject to basic due process requirements. Typically, after receiving an administrative citation, local ordinances provide that the violator has the right to appeal to a hearing officer by filing an appeal within an enumerated number of days. The proposed ordinance suggests any responsible party may request an administrative citation hearing by submitting a completed request for hearing form to the city clerk’s office along with the entire amount of the fine (or request for a hardship waiver) within 15 calendar days from the effective date of the citation. If the city clerk’s office does not receive the request with the total fine amount or a request for a hardship waiver within the required period, the responsible person shall waive the right to a hearing and the citation shall be deemed final. If the request for a hearing is timely made, after conducting the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing either upholding, reducing, conditionally reducing or canceling the fines stated in the citation or any administrative charges imposed. That decision may be reviewed as allowed by state law.

Page I-2.2
Staff Report #: 23-136-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City staff believe the proposed ordinance is drafted in a manner that is fair to all and will provide the City tools many other jurisdictions rely on in compelling compliance with laws.

Additions to enumerated nuisances
As part of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code proposed, staff recommends the City Council consider adopting additional conditions amounting to public nuisances enumerated in MPMC 8.04.010. City staff could then more easily attempt to address such conditions through the administrative citation process, The conditions recommended to be added to the code here are related to maintenance of properties and providing stronger authority for enforcing compliance with the municipal code. The following conditions are recommended to be added to the end of MPMC 8.04.010, As such, as detailed in that section, “Each and every one of the following conditions, things, matters and acts is deemed a menace to the public health, safety and welfare and is declared to be a public nuisance and shall be abated as such.” Those conditions are summarized as follows:
• Accumulation of vegetation and similar matter visible from streets. • Accumulation of junk, trash or debris.
• Dilapidated and failing fences.
• Any condition which is declared to be a public nuisance by the municipal code. • Any violation of the zoning ordinance.

Including these as enumerated nuisances would assist the city in its ability to address typical maintenance issues and other violations of the city’s municipal code.

Impact on City Resources
While it is expected that once fully implemented the availability of administrative citations will enhance the city’s code enforcement efforts and ultimately reduce costs, initially there will be a need to develop appropriate forms and procedures, which will impact staff. In addition, staff will need to be trained in conducting inspections and issuing the required notices. There will be costs related to mailing of required notices outlined in the ordinance. Those costs are expected to be relatively minor.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Ordinance
Page I-2.3
Staff Report #: 23-136-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Report prepared by:

Dave Norris, Police Chief
Report reviewed by:

City Attorney, Nira F. Doherty
Page I-2.4
4885-8555-8120 v1
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK ADDING CHAPTER 1.15 (ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE,

REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF VIOLATIONS BY ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS, AND AMENDING SECTION 8.04.010 TO ADD ADDITIONAL ENUMERATED NUISANCE CONDITIONS TO TITLE 8 (PEACE, SAFETY AND

MORALS)
WHEREAS, Section VII of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and,
WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 38771 and 38772, respectively, provide that legislative bodies of cities may declare what constitutes a nuisance and provide for the abatement of any nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that nuisance conditions are offensive and/or annoying to the senses, detrimental to property values and community appearance, an obstruction or interference with the comfortable enjoyment of adjacent properties or premises (both public and private), and/or are hazardous or injurious to the health, safety, and/or welfare of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, it is the City Council’s desire to promote and sustain a high quality of life within the City and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents, business community, and guests by developing and utilizing regulations that promote the sound maintenance of property and that enhance the appearance, habitability, occupancy, use, and safety of all structures and premises in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to strengthen the City’s ability to compel compliance with the City’s municipal code through issuance of administrative citations; and, NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Menlo Park does Ordain as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are adopted and incorporated herein.

Section 2. Chapter 1.15 (Administrative Citations) is added to Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 3. Chapter 8.04 (Nuisances) is amended to add the following subsections to subsection

8.04.010 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4: Environmental Review.

This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT A Page I-2.5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 13 ends

Section 5: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and adoption.

Section 6: Severability.

The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases.

Section 6: Certification.

The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be posted and/or published in the manner required by law.

INTRODUCED on the thirteenth day of June 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Menlo Park at a regular meeting of said City Council on the __ day of __ 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Jen Wolosin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page I-2.6
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 3 of 13 ends

Chapter 1.15 – Administrative Citations

1.15.010 Title and purpose.

The City Council finds that there is a need for an alternative method of enforcement for violations of the Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) and other city standards, regulations and policies to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds and declares that an appropriate method of enforcement for these violations and to encourage compliance is an administrative citation program. The City Council further finds that continued violations are a drain on personnel and resources, require resources over and above the level of enforcement services usually provided, and constitute a public nuisance. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for an administrative process to aid in enforcing compliance with the applicable laws.

1.15.020 Applicability.

A. This chapter provides for administrative citations which are in addition to all other legal remedies, including criminal, civil or other legally established procedures, which may be pursued to address violations identified in this chapter.

B. This chapter applies to the following acts or omissions:

1. All violations of the MPMC;

2. All violations of city standards, regulations and policies;

3. All violations of the uniform, technical or other codes or ordinances adopted or incorporated by reference by the city;

4. All other state laws applicable to and enforced by the City of Menlo Park;

5. Failing to comply with any order or condition issued by a commission, board, hearing officer or city staff authorized to issue orders and conditions, including but not limited to the city’s building official, code enforcement official, public works director, planning commission or City Council; and

6. Failing to comply with any condition imposed by any entitlement, permit, contract or environmental document issued or approved by the city.

C. This chapter establishes the administrative procedures for the imposition, enforcement, collection and administrative review of fines and penalties imposed pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.4.

D. Use of this chapter shall be at the sole discretion of the city.

1.15.030 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
“Civil fine” is the monetary sanction established by resolution by the City Council that is imposed by the issuance of a citation.

EXHIBIT A Page I-2.7
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 4 of 13 ends

“Days” shall mean calendar days. In the event a specified time period ends on a weekend or city holiday, then the time period shall end on the next business day. “Director” shall mean any department head in the city, including the following: city manager, assistant city manager, police chief, community development director, public works director, administrative services director, library and community services director, and any of their designated agents or representatives.
“Enforcement officer” shall mean any city employee or agent of the city with the authority to enforce any provision of this chapter.
“Hearing officer” shall mean any person appointed by the city manager to preside over the hearings described in this chapter. The hearing officer can have no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the hearing, or interest in or bias regarding the case. If the appointee is a city employee, the appointee cannot work in the department that is administering the citation, nor can any decision of the hearing officer be made subject to the employee’s performance evaluation in their regular job.
“Responsible person” shall mean the person or persons whom the director or designee determines is responsible for causing or maintaining any violation of this code or other provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to a property owner, tenant, person with legal interest in real property, or person in possession of real property and their employees and agents to whom a citation has been issued. The term “person” means any natural person, firm, association, business, trust, organization, corporation, partnership, company or any other legal entity.

1.15.35 Authority to issue administrative citation.

A. Authority to Issue Citation. Whenever an enforcement officer charged with the enforcement of this code has determined that a code violation has occurred, the enforcement officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation, on a form approved by the city manager, to any responsible person, imposing civil fines for the violations.

1.15.040 Notice of violation; prior written warning
A. Notice of violation; prior written warning requirement. Prior to the issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to this chapter, the responsible person must first be personally served or sent via first class mail a written Notice of Violation, providing a prior written warning notice, and such Notice of Violation shall include the following information:

1. Date and approximate time the violation was observed;

2. Name and address of the responsible person and address or definite description of the location where the violation occurred;

3. Section or sections of the municipal code violated and a short description of the facts that create the violation;

4. Action required to correct the violation and a reasonable period by which such action must be completed to prevent the imposition of an administrative citation.

Page I-2.8
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 5 of 13 ends

5. The consequences of failing to correct the violation, including the amount of fines that can be imposed for each violation; that each day a violation exists can be considered a separate violation; and that unpaid fines are subject to administrative late fees and interest charges.

B. Service of notice of violation. Service of the notice of violation will be deemed complete if personally served on the responsible party or mailed to the responsible person’s address shown on the last San Mateo County equalized property tax assessment rolls or to any other address known for the responsible person. The notice shall become effective on the date of personal service or the date of first class mailing. The failure of a responsible person to receive the notice shall not invalidate any proceeding taken pursuant to this chapter if service was given in the manner set forth in this section.

C. Citations for acts committed outside of an enforcement officer’s presence. An officer may issue a citation for a violation not committed in the officer’s presence if the officer has determined through investigation that the responsible person did commit or is otherwise responsible for the violation.

D. Continuing nature of violations. Each municipal code section violated is a separate offense with an independent fine. Each day a prohibited condition, use or activity under the code exists which is a violation is a separate and distinct offense. A single citation may charge multiple violations covered by this chapter.

1.15.050 Timing of issuance of citation; contents of citation.

A. Once the period for compliance in the Notice of Violation has passed and the enforcement officer determined that there continues to be a violation, the enforcement officer may issue an administrative citation.

B. Each citation shall include all of the following information:

1. Date and, if applicable, approximate time the violation was observed;

2. Name and address of the responsible person in violation and address or definite description of the location where the violation occurred;

3. Section or sections of the municipal code violated and a short description of the facts that create the violation;

4. Action required to correct the violation and the date by which such action must be completed to prevent the imposition of the next administrative fine;

5. Amount of the fine for each violation and procedure to pay the fine;

6. Consequences of failing to correct the violation, including any late fees and interest charges that will accrue if not timely paid, and which shall constitute a civil debt;

7. A description of the administrative citation appeal process and the manner by which a hearing on a citation may be obtained (including the form to be used, where it may be procured from, and the period in which a request must be made in order to be timely); Page I-2.9
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 6 of 13 ends

8. Description of the procedure, including the time within which to make a request for a hardship waiver of the advance fine deposit when requesting an appeal hearing; and

9. The name and signature of the officer, and the signature of the responsible person, if they are physically present and will sign the citation at the time of its issuance. The refusal of a responsible person to sign a citation shall not affect its validity or any related subsequent proceeding, nor shall signing a citation constitute an admission that a person has committed a violation of the code.

1.15.060 Service of citation.

An administrative citation shall be served in one of the following methods:

A. An enforcement officer may personally serve the citation on the responsible person. The citation shall become effective on the date of personal service.

B. An enforcement officer may mail the citation by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the responsible person. The citation shall be mailed to the responsible person’s address shown on the last San Mateo County equalized property tax assessment rolls or to any other address known for the responsible person. The citation shall become effective on the date of the first class mailing. The failure to serve any responsible person shall not invalidate any proceeding taken pursuant to this chapter.

C. An enforcement officer shall post the citation on the property where the violation occurs in a conspicuous place when the responsible person resides at an unknown address. A copy of the citation shall also be mailed by first class mail to the responsible person at the property where the violation occurs. The citation shall become effective on the date of the first class mailing.

D. Failure of a responsible person to receive a citation or notice shall not invalidate any fine, late charge, action or proceeding that is imposed or brought pursuant to this chapter, if service was given in a manner stated in this section.

1.15.070 Failure to comply with final order to correct violation.

Failure of a responsible person to comply with a corrective action stated in any uncontested citation, or with regard to a correction order in any hearing officer decision that is deemed confirmed and not appealed to the superior court, shall constitute a new and separate violation and/or misdemeanor offense for each day that the violation continues and/or exists.

1.15.080 Amount of fines.

A. The amounts of fines for violations imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be established by resolution by the City Council, including escalating fine amounts for repeat violations within a 12-month period. The director of the department issuing the citation shall have the discretion to reduce the total fine amounts when there are multiple violations, keeping in mind the ultimate goal is abatement of the violations. In no case can the fines for each violation exceed the amounts established by City Council resolution, which shall be in conformance with state law.

Page I-2.10
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 7 of 13 ends

B. An administrative late fee charge established by City Council resolution shall be owed for fines not paid within 30 days of their due date.

C. The City Council may, by resolution, also establish and impose a daily interest charge on fines that are not fully paid to the city within 45 calendar days of their issuance when they are not contested, or within 45 calendar days of their nonpayment following the decision of a hearing officer or judicial officer to uphold or confirm the fine. Interest shall not be imposed on a late charge and shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by law. The rate of interest and the commencement of its accrual may be modified by resolution of the City Council.

1.15.090 Payment of fines.

A. The fine shall be paid to the city administrative services department within 15 calendar days from the effective date of the citation.

B. Any administrative citation and/or administrative charge paid shall be refunded if it is determined after a hearing that the person issued the administrative citation was not the responsible person or that there was no violation as identified in the administrative citation.

C. Payment of a fine shall not excuse the responsible person from correcting the violation. The issuance of a citation and/or payment of a fine does not bar the city from taking any other enforcement action regarding a violation that is not corrected, including issuing additional administrative citations, taking city abatement action, and/or filing civil and/or criminal complaints.

1.15.100 Administrative citation hearing request.

A. Any responsible person receiving an administrative citation may contest that there was a violation pursuant to this chapter or that they are the responsible person and may request an appeal hearing as follows:

1. A request for hearing form shall be obtained from the city clerk, and shall be completed and returned to the city clerk’s office along with the entire amount of the fine (or request for a hardship waiver pursuant to 1.15.100) within 15 calendar days from the effective date of the citation. If the office of the city clerk does not receive the request with the total fine amount or a request for a hardship waiver within the required period, the responsible person shall have waived the right to a hearing and the citation shall be deemed final.

2. A request for hearing shall require that the person contesting the citation provide a brief statement outlining the responsible person’s basis for contesting the citation and an address at which notice of any additional proceeding, correspondence or the decision of the hearing officer may be received.

3. Only after a completed request for hearing form has been filed with the city clerk, and the responsible person has submitted the advance fine deposit or the city has granted a hardship waiver, whichever occurs first, shall the city set the date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be set for a date not less than 15 days nor more than 60 days after the city clerk received the request and either the person contesting the citations has submitted the advance fine deposit or the city has granted a hardship waiver. The Page I-2.11
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 8 of 13 ends

person contesting the citation and the city may mutually agree in writing to hold the hearing at a later date.

4. The responsible person requesting the hearing shall be notified by first class mail of the time and place set for the hearing at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall be sent to the address provided on the request for hearing form filed by the responsible person. Service shall become effective on the date of first class mailing.

Failure of the responsible person requesting the hearing to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any proceedings taken.

5. The responsible person or the city may request one continuance, but in no event may the hearing be continued more than 30 days after the date of the originally scheduled hearing unless the hearing officer finds circumstances warrant a longer continuance not to exceed 90 days after the date of the originally scheduled hearing. However, the person contesting the citation and the city may mutually agree in writing to hold the hearing at a later date.

B. A timely request for a hearing shall not excuse a responsible person from the duty to immediately abate a violation of the code, nor from any other responsibility or legal consequences for a continuation or repeated occurrence(s) of a violation of the code.

C. The failure of any responsible person to file a request for hearing in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be a waiver of their right to an administrative hearing and the citation will be deemed final.

1.15.110 Advance fine deposit hardship waiver.

Any responsible person who requests a hearing to contest an administrative citation and is financially unable to deposit the fine as required in MPMC 1.15.090 may file a request for hardship waiver as follows:

A. The request for waiver shall be made on a form obtained from the city clerk and shall be submitted to the city clerk along with all supporting documentation within 15 days of the effective date of the citation.

B. The requirement of depositing the full amount of the fine as required by MPMC 1.15.090 shall be stayed unless or until the city makes a determination not to issue the hardship waiver.

C. To be considered for a hardship waiver, the application must be complete and signed and must be accompanied by documents that enable the city manager or designee to reasonably determine the responsible person’s financial inability to pay the full amount of the fines in advance of the hearing. The owner may be granted a reasonable extension to supply supporting documentation by the city manager or designee. Documents suitable for consideration may include, without limitation, accurate, complete and legible copies of state and federal income tax returns, and all schedules for the preceding tax year, financial statements, loan applications, bank account records, income and expense records for the 12 months preceding submittal of the waiver form, as well as other documentation demonstrating the responsible person’s financial hardship. The city may, at a time chosen in its sole discretion and after a citation is final or confirmed, destroy or discard the documents submitted for a hardship waiver without prior notice to the responsible person.

Page I-2.12
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 9 of 13 ends

D. The city manager or designee shall issue a written decision specifying the reasons for granting or denying the hardship waiver. The written determination of the city manager or designee shall be final and shall be served by first class mail upon the responsible person who applied for the hardship waiver. The decision regarding the request for a hardship waiver shall become effective on the date of the mailing.

E. Approval of the hardship waiver will result in the city setting a hearing pursuant to this chapter.

F. If the city manager or designee denies the request for a hardship waiver, the responsible person shall remit the advance fine deposit within 10 days of the decision to deny the hardship waiver. If the advance fine deposit is not received by the city clerk by this date, the request for hearing shall not be accepted and the responsible person shall be deemed to have waived their right to an administrative hearing and the citation shall be deemed final.

1.15.120 Administrative hearing procedures.

A. No hearing to contest an administrative citation before a hearing officer shall be held unless the fine has been deposited in advance in accordance with MPMC 1.15.090 or an advance fine deposit hardship waiver has been issued in accordance with MPMC 1.15.100.

B. At least 10 days prior to the Administrative Hearing, the City shall serve evidence supporting the issuance of the Administrative Citation intended to be presented at the hearing on the responsible person at the address provided on the request for hearing form. Such information may include information to establish the notice of violation provided and that the violation existed as described in the citation.

C. At least five days prior to the Administrative Hearing, the responsible person shall provide supporting documentation intended to be presented at the hearing to the city clerk. Such supporting documentation may include evidence showing that the person is not the responsible person or that the violations did not exist as of the date of the issuance of the administrative citation.

D. Administrative hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply.

E. Burden of proof. The city bears the burden of proof to establish a violation and who is responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. A validly issued administrative citation with supporting evidence showing that the violation existed as described in the citation shall constitute prima facie evidence of the existence of the violation.

F. The city and the responsible person contesting the administrative citation shall be given the opportunity to testify and present evidence concerning the administrative citation. The responsible person may represent themselves or be represented by any person of their choice. Either party may bring witnesses who may provide testimony, based on their personal knowledge, in regards to matters related to the existence of a violation. The hearing officer may limit such testimony, in their sole discretion, as they deem appropriate.

G. The hearing officer may continue the hearing and request additional information from the enforcement officer and/or the responsible person or to conduct an inspection of the building Page I-2.13
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 10 of 13 ends

and/or property involved in the hearing prior to concluding the hearing and issuing a written decision.

H. If desired, an inspection of the building and/or property by the hearing officer during the hearing may occur if the responsible person consents to the inspection, is given notice of the date and time of the inspection, and both parties are permitted to be present during the inspection. If the building, structure and/or property can be inspected from areas in which the general public has access, or with permission of other persons authorized to provide access to the building and/or property, then notice to and consent of the responsible person are not required. The hearing officer shall state for the record during the hearing the material facts observed and conclusions drawn from the inspection and the responsible person and enforcement officer shall be afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain the matters so stated by the hearing officer.

I. The failure of the responsible person to appear at the administrative citation hearing shall constitute a forfeiture of the fine and shall be deemed a waiver of their right to an administrative hearing.

1.15.130 Decision of the hearing officer.

A. The hearing officer shall issue a written decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing either upholding, reducing, conditionally reducing or canceling the fines stated in the citation or any administrative charges imposed. The decision shall state the reasons for that decision pursuant to MPMC 1.15.130. Pursuant to Government Code 53069.4(b), each decision shall contain a statement advising the responsible person of the right to judicial review of the decision and the court filing fee as set forth in Government Code Section 70615. The hearing officer’s decision is final.

B. If the hearing officer determines that the administrative citation should be upheld, then the advance fine deposit shall be retained by the city. If a hardship waiver was issued, the written decision shall require the fine to be paid within 30 days of the date of service of the decision. If the fine is not paid within the time specified, the fine shall be subject to the imposition of an administrative late fee charge and interest as set forth in MPMC 1.15.070.

C. If the hearing officer determines the administrative citation should be canceled and the advance fine was deposited with the city, then the city shall refund the amount of the deposited fine. If the fine is reduced by the hearing officer, the city shall make a partial refund of the advance fine deposit. The city shall issue any refund required within 30 days.

D. The decision should indicate that the hearing officer’s decision is the final decision for the city and that the responsible party has 20 days from the effective date of the decision to file a petition for judicial appeal as set forth in MPMC 1.15.130.

E. The responsible person shall be served with a copy of the hearing officer’s written decision by first class and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address provided on the request for hearing form by the responsible person requesting the hearing. The date the decision is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service shall constitute the date of its service. The failure of a responsible person to receive a properly addressed decision shall not invalidate any hearing, city action or proceeding conducted pursuant to this chapter.

Page I-2.14
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 11 of 13 ends

1.15.140 Recovery of fines and administrative charges.

Any unpaid civil fines, administrative charges and accrued interest shall constitute a civil debt owing to the city jointly and severally by the owner and/or responsible parties. At its discretion, the city may pursue any and all legal and equitable remedies for the recovery of all fines, administrative charges and interest owed to the city. Any property owner or responsible party who fails to pay the fines, administrative charges, or interest owed to the city may be liable in any action brought by the city for costs incurred in securing payment of the delinquent amounts to the extent allowed by law. Pursuit of one remedy does not preclude the pursuit of any other remedies until the total of all fines, administrative charges and interest has been recovered.

1.15.150 Allocation of recovered fines and administrative charges.

Fines and administrative charges collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the city’s general fund to offset city enforcement costs.

Page I-2.15
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 12 of 13 ends

To be added to the end of 8.04.010 Enumerated:
(23) The exterior accumulation of vegetation, weeds, dirt, litter, rubbish or debris on the property which is visible from a public street, sidewalk, alleyway, right-of-way or neighboring property.

This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Neglected or improperly maintained landscaping, dead, debris-laden, weed-infested or overgrown vegetation, such as trees, shrubs, hedges, grass and ground covers, or vegetation dying as a result of physical damage, disease, insect infestation or lack of water or any other vegetation;

2. Vegetation likely to harbor rats, vermin and other nuisances or causing detriment to neighboring properties, or out of conformity with neighboring community standards to such an extent as to result in appreciable diminution of property values;

3. Vegetation growing on the roof or compromising the integrity of any structure, except for rooftop gardens designed and constructed to withstand structural load;

4. The removal or failure to maintain in good condition any landscaping required as a condition of any permit or development approval or included in the project plans or application without city approval. “Good condition” means that plant material is alive, irrigated, and otherwise cared for to ensure survival.

The provision as to dead or dying vegetation due to lack of water shall not be enforced during a drought year, as determined by the city. For purposes of this subsection, a lawn area shall be deemed overgrown if 50% or more of its area exceeds 4 inches in height (not including decorative grasses).
(24) The accumulation or storage of junk, trash or debris, including but not limited to tires, broken, abandoned or discarded furniture, sinks, toilets, cabinets or other household fixtures, equipment or parts thereof, rubbish, garbage, goods and furnishings, shopping carts, packing boxes, lumber, salvage materials or other materials, accumulations of grease, oil or petroleumbased products of any kind, animal feces, or other debris and litter, which constitutes a fire hazard or safety hazard and/or is stored or accumulated in such a manner as to constitute visual blight which is visible from the public street, sidewalk or right-of-way, alley or adjoining property. This includes the dumping, spillage or storage of solids or liquids which may negatively impact the visual or olfactory nature of the area. (25) Any fence which is in a condition of dilapidation or disrepair, including, but not limited to, fences with broken slats and sharp edges, or which severely lean or list more than 15 degrees from perpendicular or are in danger of collapse due to the elements, pest infestation, dry rot or other damage.
(26) The existence of any property condition which is unlawful or declared to be a public nuisance pursuant to any other provision in this code. This subsection shall be construed to place an affirmative duty on property owners and occupants to maintain their property in conformity with all applicable codes. The city shall have the power to require property owners and occupants to bring their property into compliance with applicable codes, regardless of whether the building is occupied.

EXHIBIT B Page I-2.16
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 13 of 13 ends

(27) Any violation of the Menlo Park zoning ordinance or any state or county law violation enforced by the city.

Page I-2.17

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION:– Waive first reading and introduce Ordinance • Adds Chapter 1.15 Administrative Citations• Amends Chapter 8.04 “Nuisances” – 8.04.010 Additional “Enumerated Nuisances”:
• Accumulation of vegetation and similar matter visible from streets.• Accumulation of junk, trash or debris.• Dilapidated and failing fences.• Any condition which is declared to be a public nuisance by themunicipal code.• Any violation of the zoning ordinance. 1 *IMPORTANT*Nothing changes ourpriority of a communitypolicing approach and working towardsvoluntary compliance in
every case.

I2-PRESENTATION
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/13/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-134-CC
Regular Business: Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 to
require the use of zero emission landscaping
equipment (ZELE)
Recommendation

1. Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance adding Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 (gasoline powered landscape equipment) to require use of zero emission landscaping equipment (ZELE) by a certain date and repeal Chapter 8.07 (leaf blowers) and subsection (C) of §8.06.040 exceptions for gas powered leaf blowers (Attachment A).

2. Staff also seeks direction on the development of an electric landscaping equipment rebate program.

Policy Issues
Menlo Park currently regulates gas-powered gardening equipment through the City’s noise ordinance (Chapter 8.06) and a leaf blower ordinance (Chapter 8.07.) Beginning Jan. 1, 2024, gas powered gardening equipment will no longer be sold in California. Menlo Park also has a 2030 Climate Action Plan with a goal to be carbon neutral by 2030. Gas-powered landscaping equipment uses fossil fuels that contribute to climate change and negatively impacts air quality endangering the health of the community and its workers.

Background
For many years community members have been expressing concerns about the negative noise, health and air quality impacts from gas powered leaf blowers. In September 2021, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) advised the City Council to prohibit the use of gas powered leaf blowers, and as a result the City Council directed staff to develop a policy.

A proposed policy was presented at a City Council study session Oct. 18, 2022 with recommended rules to prohibit the use of five types of gas powered gardening equipment (leaf blowers, string trimmers, lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chain saws) due to their negative impacts on the environment and human health by a certain date. City Council directed staff to continue outreach and education with gardeners and landscapers about the proposed rules, and prepare a draft ordinance for final adoption by the City Council in 2023.

The EQC discussed the final proposed rules at their April 2023 meeting. The EQC advises the City Council to adopt the proposed rules and consider a local incentive program to purchase electric landscaping equipment provided that implementation of the rules and incentive program does not limit the City’s ability to make progress on the Climate Action Plan particularly for existing building electrification requirements.

Current rules regarding gardening equipment
Menlo Park currently regulates gardening equipment through its noise ordinance (Chapter 8.06) by limiting AGENDA ITEM I-3 Page I-3.1
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov its use to specific hours of the day, and limits generating noise above 85 decibels. Gas-powered leaf blowers have further restrictions detailed in Chapter 8.07 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code. Gas-powered leaf blowers also only operate during specific hours, but unlike other landscaping equipment, cannot exceed 65 decibels, and must be certified per American National Standards Institute.

Enforcing these rules have proven challenging as it is difficult to respond to nonemergency complaints in a timely manner. Often staff arrive when the equipment is no longer in use. In addition, accurately measuring or verifying the decibels is problematic.

Analysis
If adopted by the City Council, the proposed rules would apply to all properties within the City of Menlo Park’s jurisdiction:

1. Starting July 1, 2024, gas powered leaf blowers and string trimmers (commonly referred to as weed whackers) would be prohibited. Gardeners, residents and businesses could use electric, battery, or manually operated equipment.

This timeline allows the community and commercial gardeners to transition with adequate notice. It also aligns with neighboring communities like the Town of Atherton that approved in March to prohibit gas powered leaf blowers starting on July 1, 2024. The City of Palo Alto has prohibited gas powered leaf blowers since 2000. Twelve gardeners responded to the City’s most recent online survey, and the majority indicated that they supported starting enforcement July 2024. Community members that responded to the survey also agreed with July 2024 with a majority wanting enforcement to begin much sooner.

2. Starting Jan. 1, 2029, gas powered lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws would be prohibited.

At the October 2022 study session, the City Council requested staff review moving up the enforcement date for this equipment. Gardener results from the online survey were mixed on moving up the enforcement date. However, the community generally supported moving up the date. If the date were to move up, a few of the community respondents indicated that July 2025 would be the most ideal.

3. Hours of allowable operation would remain the same for electric powered equipment: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Monday through Friday. Residents can use electric equipment on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

4. Violations would be tied to the property owner and not the gardening business.

In the transition period leading up to the July 1, 2024 enforcement date, staff will study and consider enforcement options. Staff will continue to conduct outreach and education to support commercial gardeners and community members prior to the start of enforcement to achieve higher compliance rates.

California law and incentives
Starting Jan. 1, 2024, gas powered gardening equipment (as well as other small off road engine equipment) would be prohibited at the point of sale1. This law does not regulate existing equipment or use. In November 2022, the state began an electric gardening equipment discount program for commercial gardeners and landscapers. The program budget started at $24 million and is targeted mainly for small businesses. Funds continue to be expended at a rapid rate. To date, $10 million is left. The program is enabling commercial

1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-approves-updated-regulations-requiring-most-new-small-road-engines-be-zeroemission-2024 Page I-3.2
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov gardeners to purchase electric or battery operated equipment at a 70% discount off the retail price. The incentive is not available for residents or non-gardening businesses.

Other communities with gas powered gardening equipment rules Many local governments in the Bay Area have already prohibited the use of gas powered gardening equipment, mainly leaf blowers. Those researched for the purposes of developing a policy include:
• Town of Atherton recently adopted a leaf blower ban that will start July 2024 • Palo Alto banned gas powered leaf blowers in residential neighborhoods in 2000 • Los Altos banned gas powered leaf blowers in 1991
• Los Gatos banned gas powered leaf blowers in 2014
• Portola Valley banned gas powered leaf blowers in 2019, and offered a time limited trade-in gas powered for electric leaf blower incentive program
• Berkeley banned gas powered leaf blowers in 1990
• Oakland banned gas powered leaf blowers and gas powered string trimmers in 2021. • Eight cities in Marin County have also adopted gas powered leaf blower bans Health and air quality affects from landscaping equipment Research into the environmental harm caused by gas powered landscaping equipment, particularly leaf blowers, is extensive. According to the California Air Resources Board, operating a gas powered commercial backpack leaf blower for just one hour emits smog-forming pollution comparable to driving a new light-duty passenger car about 1,100 miles — approximately the distance from Los Angeles to Denver (over 15 hours of driving).

Gas powered landscaping equipment emit high concentrations of nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and particulate matter (PM), creating health risks for operators and the public. This is especially concerning since workers who perform this work are historically from disadvantage communities.

The California Air Resources Board estimates that smog produced from small off road engines (SORE) in the state will exceed the smog produced by all cars in California in the next few years, contributing to poor air quality in the state. About 70% of SOREs is gardening equipment. Attachment B and Attachment C provide an in depth analysis on the impacts of gas gardening equipment. 2030 Climate Action Plan goals
While gas powered leaf blowers alone make up a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, requiring all landscaping equipment to be zero emissions would yield greater reductions. It is equally important to recognize that some emissions sources like landscaping equipment are difficult to measure and are not captured in local greenhouse gas inventories but remain an important aspect to meet climate action goals. Gas powered landscaping equipment uses gasoline.

Burning/using one gallon of gasoline emits around 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas that contributes to human caused climate change). Prohibiting the use of gas powered landscaping equipment within Menlo Park City limits would immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions from this source and improve overall air quality as a result.

Gas and electric gardening equipment performance and considerations Some gas powered gardening equipment remain more powerful than their electric versions particularly for leaf blowers. However, if used efficiently, electric gardening equipment could be comparable as noted in the case study below. For individual or private use, consumers report that electric gardening equipment generally performs adequately and meets their expectations.

Page I-3.3
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov For a commercial gardener, additional infrastructure may be needed, such as an electric panel upgrade ($3,500) and installing dedicated 20 amp circuits ($400 – $800). Smart chargers can be used to help reduce electrical load, and cost $650 or $200 using the limited time state discount program. Each smart charger can charge up to four batteries; more smart chargers can be added to each other if more than four batteries need to be charged. Feedback from gardener outreach indicated that batteries tend to require replacement within one to two years, which can be a significant ongoing investment that adds to customer costs. See Attachment D for additional information on differences in performance, cost, and convenience for gas and electric leaf blowers.

Case study: EnviroViews
Staff interviewed EnviroViews that was able to transition 80% of their gardening equipment from gas to electric (hedge trimmers, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, string trimmers, etc.). EnvrioViews is a second generation Latino family owned business in the Bay Area with about 30 employees. They provide gardening services for large residential complexes.

EnviroViews began their transition in 2020, piloting electric equipment with one crew, and expanding to all six crews in two years. The transition required a panel upgrade ($3,500) and purchasing smart chargers. If equipment was used efficiently, one battery for each piece of equipment could last all day. Employees needed to be retrained on how and when to use leaf blowers. Their customer rates did increase by 10% to continue to invest in training, equipment and batteries. They did not need to hire additional labor to complete jobs. They also indicated that they were able to save significantly on fuel costs.

Before the transition, they spent $1,600 per month per crew to fuel gardening equipment with gas, and now spend about $275 per month in electricity for all crews. The return on their investment was two years. The recording of the interview is in English and Spanish on the city’s webpage (Attachment G).

Menlo Park commercial gardener outreach and results
In October 2022, the City Council directed staff to engage one-on-one with gardeners on the proposed rules. From November 2022 to February 2023, staff canvased the city to talk one-on-one with gardeners and landscapers about the proposed rules and the electric gardening equipment discount program. Flyers were developed in English and Spanish providing local information on where and how to obtain equipment (Attachment E). Volunteers in the community also assisted with distributing this information.

Other outreach included:
• Two weekend events at Soleska Market in Belle Haven with Spanish speaking public works staff • Two webinars that included the interview with EnviroViews and a panel of local gardening equipment dealers that provide discounted electric equipment.
• Staff reached out to 300 Menlo Park gardeners with a letter, email, and text messages that included information about the proposed rules, online survey, webinar and the electric equipment discount flyer (Attachment E).
• Attendance at the live webinars was low. Recording links were sent to gardeners via email and text, and received greater views/participation.
• Promoting an event in April with the American Green Zone Alliance that showcased electric gardening equipment in Atherton.
• An online survey to receive feedback from gardeners. Twelve gardeners responded, and results are in Attachment F.

Some important insights gained from the one-on-one outreach include:
• Commercial gardeners in the City tend to be very small family run businesses (less than five employees).

Page I-3.4
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov • Concerns identified were:
• Customers not willing to support the added cost it would take for them to transition • Language barriers in communicating new costs
• Additional time and cost to charge and replace batteries • High cost to purchase the equipment
• Added time to complete tasks due to lower performing/less powerful electric equipment • Enforcement needs to be consistent in order to maintain competitive pricing • Wanted to know if the City was using electric equipment for its gardening and landscaping activities. • Their family members expressed concerns about the health impacts of using gas powered gardening equipment.

If the City Council adopts a rule, staff could help provide resources to both customers and gardeners on how to support each other through the transition or how to reduce the need for powered equipment, such as using the equipment more efficiently, letting leaves lay during the fall, and reducing lawn area. However, it is still anticipated that customer cost will increase given other considerations described in this report that need to be undertaken to transition.

Community outreach and results
The following tools were used to engage with residents and non-commercial gardening businesses:
• Webpage for commercial gardeners and the community (Attachment G) • An online survey. Results are summarized in Attachment F. • Two articles were published in the city’s digest newsletter (October 2022 and February 2023) • Two articles were published in the waste bill newsletter (January and April 2023) • 5,013 were electronic bills and 3,818 were paper bills • 19,797 postcards were mailed to residential and business addresses in English and Spanish • Two webinars were held specifically for the public (March 2023) • Attendance was low during the live webinars, but recording received greater views/participation. • Two weekend outreach events occurred at Soleska Market in Belle Haven (March and April 2023) • One Farmer’s Market outreach event (April 2023)
248 homeowners and 63 renters responded to the survey. About 70% are supportive of enforcing rules for leaf blowers and string trimmers starting July 2024. About half supported regulating other gas powered gardening equipment (lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, and chainsaws). About 70% said they are willing to pay for increased gardening service costs to help gardeners transition.

Feedback also included a request for an electric gardening equipment incentive/rebate program for residents and non-gardening businesses because the rules would create a financial hardship. Many also advocated to provide a Menlo Park incentive/rebate for gardeners along with the state equipment discount program.

Concerns about how to dispose of gas equipment before the end of its life and whether the batteries are able to be recycled were raised during outreach. Currently, there is a limited market for recycling batteries, the lithium ion battery recycling market is growing and regulations are increasing to encourage a circular economy to make batteries that can be easily recycled at the end of its life. Batteries cannot be placed in the regular waste stream and must be treated as hazardous material. The Shoreway Public Recycling Center in San Carlos accepts batteries. For disposing gas equipment, staff will explore options and a possible take-back program.

Page I-3.5
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Potential rebate program for consideration
The City Council may wish to consider offering rebates to offset the cost of transitioning to zero emission landscape equipment. Since community survey results indicated that an estimated 67% of homeowners use gardening services, gardeners completing the transition will be critical to achieving the community’s desired goal for air quality, noise, and worker health. The state discount program funds are expected to be depleted in the next few months. Community members are also concerned with the high cost to transition. The following rebate program is recommended to support the community and its gardeners to comply with the July 2024 enforcement date.

Table 1: Potential rebates
Category Amount Start date
Commercial
gardeners working in
Menlo park
Up to $1,000 for new purchase of covered electric
gardening equipment, extra batteries, or power
management system; rebate can cover up to 100% of
the purchase price of equipment, but would not
exceed $1,000 per business/gardener.

Begins after the state
discounted electric gardening
equipment funds have been
expended for commercial
gardeners.

Menlo Park residents
and non-gardening
businesses
Up to $250 for newly purchased electric gardening
equipment that includes: leaf blower, hedge trimmer,
string trimmer, chainsaw, or lawnmower. Rebate can
cover up to 100% of the purchase price of equipment,
but would not exceed $250 in total per address per
year.

Begins first quarter of 2024 - six
months before start of
enforcement
The City Council could consider extending the rebate program for up to three years. A first year rebate program total of $35,000 is included in the proposed fiscal year 2023-24 budget for consideration as a service level enhancement. Note: In the long run, equipment costs are expected to decrease due to economies of a scale as a result of the state’s requirement for manufactures to make and sell only electric gardening equipment in California.

Redwood City and the City of San Mateo offer rebates to gardeners and community members, but do not have rules for using gas powered gardening equipment. The Town of Atherton will be offering a local rebate program for electric leaf blowers as part of the recent rule they adopted. The potential Menlo Park rebate aligns with other cities’ rebate amounts for residents. However, it is higher for commercial gardeners due to additional cost considerations to transition, such as panel upgrades, dedicated circuits, smart chargers, and additional batteries.

For commercial gardeners, the proposed rebate could cover 20% to 60% of the costs to transition to electric leaf blowers and string trimmers that would be required by July 2024. Cost coverage depends on other additional items that may be needed to transition (e.g. extra batteries, dedicated circuits, power management system, etc.) It is important to note that many commercial gardeners already have electric leaf blowers due to requirements in other communities. The rebate could motivate gardeners to transition other equipment sooner.

For residents and non-gardening businesses, the rebate would cover 80% to 100% of the cost for electric leaf blowers and string trimmers.

After ordinance adoption outreach, support, and proposed incentive program administration Ongoing outreach, education, incentive administration, and transition support will be needed for commercial gardeners and community members leading up to enforcement starting July 2024.

Page I-3.6
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov City operations transition timeline
The City Council and members of the public requested that the city take a leadership position on this issue by transitioning to electric gardening equipment ahead of the July 2024 and January 2029 enforcement dates. In addition, the City Council directed staff in April 2021 to focus on expanding a pilot program to transition landscaping and gardening equipment to electric in 2021-22. It was also noted in the outreach that gardeners were curious and observing whether the city was transitioning to electric gardening equipment.

The proposed fiscal year 2023-24 budget includes transitioning to electric leaf blowers and string trimmers in the upcoming fiscal year, pending City Council approval of the budget. Remaining equipment (pushbehind lawnmowers and hedge trimmers) are anticipated to be transitioned by fall 2025; chainsaws also will be transitioned on this timeline so long as equipment that can be used to sustain City operations through intense and frequent winter storms, as experienced in the 2022-23 rainy season, is available on this timeline.

The City also employs contractors to perform landscaping/gardening activities. City staff have been working collaboratively with these contractors to encourage their early adoption of ZELE equipment and to make them aware of the available incentive programs to reduce costs and impacts, and many City contractors have made significant strides towards transitioning equipment. The City cannot require or impose additional requirements on these contracts until new proposals or bids are solicited when the agreements expire.

However, the City has also been incorporating a requirement to use electric equipment in new agreements and construction bids since early 2023. These new requirements may result in increases in pricing during the transition phase.

Impact on City Resources
Additional budget and resources may be needed for rebate program and enforcement activities, and would be included in upcoming budget preparations over the next few years. A potential electric gardening equipment rebate program total of $35,000 would be needed in fiscal year 2023-24 if approved by the City Council. The public works department also uses gardening equipment to maintain parks and public spaces.

The estimated cost to transition from gas to electric gardening equipment is $189,600. Currently, no incentives are available from the air district or other agencies for the City to transition. It is important to note that gas powered gardening equipment will not be available for sale starting Jan. 1, 2024 and related costs to transition will start to be incurred soon as a result by the City, its contractors, and private gardeners.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § § 15378 and 15061(b) (3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Information about this agenda item and meeting date also included:
• Updated project webpage with information about the meeting on June 6 that notified those subscribing to updates about this topic.
• A letter was sent to commercial gardeners in Menlo Park on June 2, and email and text message with meeting information was sent to gardeners on June 6.

Page I-3.7
Staff Report #: 23-134-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov • Information was also published in the City’s weekly newsletter on June 5.

Attachments
A. Ordinance to add Chapter 8.05 “Gasoline Powered Landscape Equipment” to the Menlo Park Municipal Code
B. California Air Resources Board fact sheet on small off road engines (SOREs) C. California Air Resources Board report to the California Legislature on the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers
D. Differences in performance, cost, and convenience for gas and electric leaf blowers E. Letter to gardeners with Menlo Park electric gardening equipment discount flyer F. Summary of survey results
G. Hyperlink – ZELE webpage: menlopark.gov/zele
Report prepared by:

Rebecca Lucky, Sustainability Manager
Page I-3.8
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK ADDING CHAPTER 8.05 TO THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO

PROHIBIT THE USE OF GASOLINE POWERED LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT, REPLEALING CHAPTER 8.07 AND REPEALING SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION 8.06.040
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park, as well as the State of California, have been moving forward in reducing our carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City Council declared a climate emergency (Resolution No. 6535) and adopted the 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) with the goal of making Menlo Park carbon neutral by 2030; and
WHEREAS, gas-powered landscape equipment emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons that are harmful to human health; and
WHEREAS research by the California Air Resources Board has identified the use of gaspowered small off-road engines, including leaf blowers, as detrimental to the environment as they emit high levels of air pollutants like oxides of nitrogen and other reactive organic gases; and
WHEREAS, many gas-powered landscape equipment produce noise exceeding Menlo Park’s noise ordinance levels with the average 2-stroke backpack leaf blower’s ability to emit upwards of 90 decibels that can lead to hearing loss; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the City Council, in response to community concerns about gas powered leaf blower's negative effects on noise, health and air quality, directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance regulating five types of gas-powered gardening equipment (leaf blowers, string trimmers, lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws) for final adoption by the City Council in 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City currently regulates gas powered equipment through its noise ordinance and a leaf blower ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, modern, readily available electric-powered landscape equipment is quiet and zeroemission and can cost less to purchase and operate with efficient use of the equipment and use of available incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions and air pollution by regulating the use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment; and WHEREAS, in 2021, the State of California passed AB 1346 outlawing the sale of new gaspowered leaf blowers, string trimmers, hedge trimmers, lawnmowers and chainsaws by January 1, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park does hereby ordain as follows::

Section 1. Adding Chapter 8.05 “Gasoline Powered Landscape Equipment” to the MPMC Page I-3.9 ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 4 ends

A new chapter 8.05 entitled “Gasoline Powered Landscape Equipment” is hereby added to the Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) to read in its entirety as follows:

8.05.010 Definitions
A. The following words and phrases shall, whenever used in this Chapter, be construed as set forth in this section:
"Electrically powered landscape equipment" means any mechanical landscape equipment utilized for maintaining landscaping that is powered by electric means, including but not limited to battery powered equipment and cordless rechargeable equipment "Gasoline-powered landscape equipment" means any mechanical equipment utilized for maintaining landscaping that is powered by an internal combustion engine using gasoline, alcohol or other liquid or gaseous fluid, including but not limited to leaf blowers, string trimmers, lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws
"Landscape equipment" means leaf blower, string trimmer, lawnmower, hedge trimmer and chainsaw
"Leaf blower" means a machine used to blow, displace, or vacuum leaves, dirt and/or debris "String trimmer" means a machine used to cut grass, small weeds and groundcover "Lawnmower" means a machine utilizing one or more revolving blades to cut a grass surface to an even height
"Hedge trimmer" means a machine used for trimming hedges and/or any boundary made by shrubs
"Chainsaw" means a machine with a set of teeth attached to a rotating chain driven along a guide bar that is used to fell, limb, buck, or prune trees and other vegetation "Small off-road engines" means any device that utilizes gas-powered, spark ignition engine rated at or below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) including but not limited to a leaf blower.

Engines in this category are used in lawn and garden equipment as well as other outdoor power equipment and specialty vehicles.

8.05.020 Prohibition of gasoline-powered landscape equipment A. Effective July 1, 2024, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of, permit, or direct another who engages in the operation of any gasolinepowered leaf blower and string trimmer within the city limits.

B. Effective January 1, 2029, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of, permit, or direct another who engages in the operation of any gasolinepowered lawnmower, hedge trimmer and chainsaws.

8.05.030 Electrically powered landscape equipment - permitted days and times for operation
Page I-3.10
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 3 of 4 ends

A. Effective July 1, 2024, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of, permit, or direct another who engages in the operation of any electrically powered landscape equipment within city limits except during the following hours:

Monday to Friday: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Weekends and Holidays: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

8.05.040 Noise limits applicable
Nothing herein shall supersede, alter or in any way affect the City regulations and laws regarding noise limits, including but not limited to those set forth in MPMC Chapter 8.06.

8.05.050 Violations
Violations of this Chapter shall be enforced against the owner of the property who used gas powered landscape equipment or has hired, employed or engaged the services of a person or business utilizing gas powered landscape equipment.

Violations of this Chapter shall be considered a nuisance per se and subject to administrative citations pursuant to MPMC Chapter 1.15, and any other available remedies at law or in equity including but not limited to actions or proceedings to abate violations of this Chapter. Such remedies shall be in addition to any other judicial and administrative penalties and remedies available to the city under chapters 1.14 and 1.12 of this code.

Section 2. Section 8.06.020 of the MPMC is amended to amend the definition of “powered equipment” as set forth below (additions in underline, deletions in strikethrough):
"Powered equipment" means a motorized device powered by electricity or fuel used for construction, demolition and property or landscape maintenance or repairs. Powered equipment includes but is not limited to: electrically powered landscape equipment, lawn mowers, hedgers, parking lot sweepers, saws, sanders, motors, pumps, generators, blowers, wood chippers, vacuums, drills and nail guns (but specifically excluding internal fuel combustion engine leaf blowers).

Section 3. MPMC Chapter 8.07 Leaf Blowers is hereby repealed in its entirety.

Section 4. Subsection (C) of Section 8.06.040 exceptions of the MPMC is hereby repealed.

Section 5. CEQA exemption.

The City Council finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15308, that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that it is an action taken for the protection of the environment.

Section 6. Severability.

Page I-3.11
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 4 of 4 ends

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.

Section 7. Publication and posting.

In accordance with Government Code Section 33963 the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption along with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for and against the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Menlo Park.

INTRODUCED on the thirteenth day of June, 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Menlo Park at a regular meeting of said City Council on the __ day of __, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Jen Wolosin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk

Page I-3.12
Small off-road engines in California
Small off-road engines (SORE) are spark-ignition engines rated at or below 19 kilowatts. Engines in this category are primarily used for lawn, garden, and other small off-road equipment. The population of SORE in California (15.4 million) is similar to that of light-duty passenger cars (14.0 million). As of 2021, 61% of California SORE are used in residential lawn and garden equipment, 8% in commercial lawn and garden equipment, 11% in federally regulated construction and farming equipment, and 20% in other equipment types (e.g., generators, pressure washers). While commercial lawn and garden equipment are only 8% of the SORE population, they account for 20% of smog-forming emissions from SORE during the summer.

Emissions are significant
Today, operating a commercial lawn mower for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as driving a new light-duty passenger car about 300 miles – about the distance from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, more than 4 hours of drive time. For a commercial leaf blower, one hour of operation emits smogforming pollution comparable to driving a new light-duty passenger car about 1100 miles – about the distance from Los Angeles to Denver, over 15 hours of driving.

The need for additional controls
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted
emissions standards for SORE in 1990 and was the first
agency in the world to control emissions from these
engines. Due to the regulations put in place by CARB,
SORE are 40-80% cleaner today than they were before
the program began. However, total smog-forming
emissions from SORE already exceed emissions from
light-duty passenger cars in California. SORE emissions are projected to increase as the population grows,
while emissions from passenger cars decrease. By 2031,
SORE emissions are projected to be nearly twice those
from passenger cars.

CARB actions to reduce emissions
Additional emission reductions are needed from SORE to reduce the disproportionate pollution burden on disadvantaged communities. To that end, California Executive Order N-79-20 sets a goal to transition off-road vehicles and equipment operations to 100 percent zero-emission by 2035 where feasible. Emission reductions are also needed to achieve attainment of ambient air quality standards. In 2021, CARB will consider new emission standards for SORE and expanded incentive programs to help California achieve these goals.

1.6M
SORE Emissions by Type
(Summer)
Smog-Forming Emissions
(tons per day, summer)
ATTACHMENT B Page I-3.13
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
ATTACHMENT C Page I-3.14

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ON

THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS
Public Hearing: January 27, 2000
Date of Revision: February 29, 2000
This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Page I-3.15
i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report on potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers was developed by the following Air Resources Board staff:

Mobile Sources Control Division:

Nancy L.C. Steele, D.Env. (Lead)
Scott Rowland
Michael Carter (Branch Chief)
Research Division:

Hector Maldonado
Cindy Stover
And with the assistance of additional staff: Cresencia Gapas-Jackson, Leslie Krinsk, Jeff Long, Keith Macias, Angela Ortega, Muriel Strand, John Swanton, Maggie Wilkinson, and Walter Wong.

The many other individuals who provided information and assistance for this report are listed in Appendix B.

Page I-3.16
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 7 A. Background ............................................................................................. 7 B History of the Leaf Blower and Local Ordinances..................................... 7 C. Environmental Concerns .......................................................................... 8 D. Health and Environmental Impacts........................................................... 9

1. Life-cycle Impact Assessment.............................................................. 9

2. Risk Assessment................................................................................ 10 E Public Involvement................................................................................. 10 F. Overview of This Report........................................................................ 11 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE HAZARDS ............................................................... 12 A. Exhaust Emissions.................................................................................. 12

1. Characterization of Technology......................................................... 12

2. Exhaust Emissions............................................................................. 13 a. Leaf Blower Population ......................................................... 13 b. Emission Inventory ................................................................ 14

3. Regulating Exhaust Emissions........................................................... 14 a. State Regulations................................................................... 14 b. Federal Regulations ............................................................... 15 c. South Coast AQMD Emissions Credit Program ..................... 16

4. Summary........................................................................................... 16 B. Fugitive Dust Emissions......................................................................... 16

1. Definition of Fugitive Dust Emissions................................................ 17

2. Calculating Leaf Blower Emissions.................................................... 18 a. Generation of Fugitive Dust by Leaf Blowers......................... 18 b. Size Segregation of Particulate Matter................................... 19 c. Calculation Assumptions and Limitations............................... 19 d. Calculation Methodology....................................................... 20

3. Characterization of Fugitive Dust Emissions...................................... 21 a. Emission Factors - This Study................................................ 21 b. Statewide Emissions Inventory - This Study .......................... 22 c. Previous Emissions Estimates: ARB, 1991............................. 23 d. Previous Emissions Estimates: SMAQMD............................. 23 e. Previous Emissions Estimates: AeroVironment ...................... 23

4. Particulate Composition .................................................................... 24

5. Regulating Fugitive Dust Emissions................................................... 24 a. State and Federal PM10 and PM2.5 Standards....................... 25 b. Local District Regulations...................................................... 25

6. Summary........................................................................................... 25 Page I-3.17
iii
C. Noise Emissions..................................................................................... 26

1. Defining Noise .................................................................................. 26

2. Measuring the Loudness of Sound..................................................... 27 a. Loudness Description............................................................. 27 b. Sound Level Measurement..................................................... 29

3. Noise in California............................................................................. 30 a. Noise Sources........................................................................ 30 b. Numbers of People Potentially Exposed: the Public................ 30 c. Numbers of People Potentially Exposed: the Operator ........... 31

4. Regulating Noise............................................................................... 31 a. Federal Law........................................................................... 31 b. State Law .............................................................................. 31 c. Local Ordinances................................................................... 32

5. Noise From Leaf Blowers.................................................................. 33 a. Bystander Noise Exposure ..................................................... 33 b. Operator Noise Exposure....................................................... 34

6. Use of Hearing Protectors and Other Personal Protection Gear ......... 37 a. Zero Air Pollution Study (1999)............................................. 38 b. Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento Study (1999b)................... 38 c. Survey99 Report (Wolfberg 1999)......................................... 38

7. Sound Quality ................................................................................... 39

8. Summary........................................................................................... 41 III. REVIEW OF HEALTH EFFECTS.................................................................... 42 A. Particulate Matter .................................................................................. 42 B. Carbon Monoxide .................................................................................. 43 C. Unburned Fuel ....................................................................................... 43 D. Ozone .................................................................................................... 44 E. Noise ..................................................................................................... 44

1. Hearing and the Ear........................................................................... 45

2. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss ............................................................. 45

3. Non-Auditory Physiological Response............................................... 46

4. Interference with Communication...................................................... 47

5. Interference with Sleep...................................................................... 47

6. Effects on Performance and Behavior................................................ 47

7. Annoyance and Community Response ............................................... 48

8. Effects of Noise on Animals.............................................................. 49 IV. POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS ..... 50 A. The Leaf Blower Operator ..................................................................... 50

1. Exhaust Emissions............................................................................. 51

2. Fugitive Dust Emissions.................................................................... 52

3. Noise ................................................................................................ 53 B. The Public-at-Large ............................................................................... 53 Page I-3.18
iv

1. Exhaust Emissions............................................................................. 54

2. Fugitive Dust Emissions.................................................................... 55

3. Noise ................................................................................................ 55 C. Summary of Potential Health Impacts..................................................... 56 V. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 58 VI. REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................... 59

APPENDICES
Appendix A SCR 19
Appendix B Contact List
Appendix C Ambient Air Quality Standards
Appendix D Chemical Speciation Profile for Paved Road Dust Appendix E Physical Properties of Sound and Loudness Measures Appendix F American National Standard For Power Tools - Hand-held and Backpack, Gasoline-Engine-Powered Blowers B175.2-1996
Appendix G Manufacturer-reported Noise Levels from Leaf Blowers Appendix H Research Needs
Appendix I Future Technology and Alternatives
Appendix J Exposure Scenarios for Leaf Blower Emissions and Usage Appendix K Bibliography
List of Tables
Table 1. Major findings of the Orange County Grand Jury and City of Palo Alto.............. 8 Table 2. Statewide inventory of leaf blower exhaust emissions....................................... 14 Table 3. Exhaust emissions, per engine, for leaf blowers................................................ 15 Table 4. Silt loading values, Riverside County ............................................................... 21 Table 5. Leaf blower estimated emission factors, this study............................................ 22 Table 6. Leaf blower emissions, possible statewide inventory values, this study.............. 22 Table 7. Leaf blower operator noise exposures and duration of use................................ 36 Table 8. Sound levels of some leaf blowers.................................................................... 37 Table 9. Commercial leaf blower emissions compared to light duty vehicle emissions..... 51 Table 10.Homeowner leaf blower emissions compared to light duty vehicle emissions... 54 List of Figures
Figure 1. Comparison of sound levels in the environment ...................................... 28 Figure 2. Loudness levels of leaf blowers (50 ft).................................................... 34 Figure 3. Sound quality spectrum of a representative leaf blower........................... 40 Figure 4. Sound quality spectrum of a representative neighborhood....................... 40 Page I-3.19
1 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 reports 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.

Page I-3.20
2 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.

Page I-3.21
3 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-road mobile sources on a per engine basis, are a small part 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 PM10 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 part 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
Page I-3.22
4 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 shortness 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 hearing 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 Page I-3.23
5 operators is warranted 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 owneroperators 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 alternatives in the report, if ARB determines alternatives are necessary. This report makes no recommendations for alternatives. 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 healthbased 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 alternative cleaning equipment is suggested to guide decisionmaking. 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).

Page I-3.24
6 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.

Page I-3.25
7 I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
California Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 19 (SCR 19) was introduced by Senator John Burton February 23, 1999, and chaptered May 21, 1999 (Appendix A). The resolution 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 state board determines that alternatives are necessary.” The Legislature, via SCR 19, raises questions and concerns about potential health and environmental impacts from leaf blowers, and requests that ARB write the report to help to answer these questions and clarify the debate. The goal of this report, then, 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.

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.

B. History of the Leaf Blower and Local Ordinances
The leaf blower was invented by Japanese engineers 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 (CQS 1999a). In 1998, industry shipments of gasoline-powered handheld and backpack leaf blowers increased 30% over 1997 shipments, to 1,868,160 units nationwide (PPEMA 1999).

Soon after the leaf blower was introduced into the U.S., its use was banned in two California cities, Carmel-by-the-Sea in 1975 and Beverly Hills in 1978, as a noise nuisance (CQS 1999a, Allen 1999b). 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, Page I-3.26
8 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 (IME 1999).

Many owners of professional landscaping companies and professional gardeners believe that the leaf blower is an essential, time- and water-saving tool that has enabled them to offer services at a much lower cost than if they had to use rakes, brooms, and water to clean up the landscape (CLCA 1999). A professional landscaper argues that the customer demands a certain level of garden clean-up, regardless of the tool used (Nakamura 1999). The issues continue to be debated in various public forums, with each side making claims for the efficiency or esthetics of leaf blower use versus rakes and brooms. Leaf blower sales continue to be strong, however, despite the increase in usage restrictions by cities.

C. Environmental Concerns
The issues usually mentioned by those who object to leaf blowers are health impacts from noise, air pollution, and dust (Orange County Grand Jury 1999). The Los Angeles Times Garden Editor, Robert Smaus (1997), argues against using a leaf blower to remove dead plant material, asserting that it should be left in place to contribute to soil health through decomposition.

Municipalities regulate leaf blowers most often as public nuisances in response to citizen complaints (for example, City of Los Angeles 1999). Two reports were located that address environmental concerns: an Orange County Grand Jury report (1999), and a series of reports written by the City Manager of Palo Alto (1999a, 1998a, 1998b). The purpose of the City of Palo Alto reports is to develop recommendations to the City Council on amending its existing ordinance. The Orange County Grand Jury took action to make recommendations that would Aimprove 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 (Table 1).

Table 1. Major Findings of the Orange County Grand Jury and City of Palo Alto Orange County Grand Jury Report (1999) City of Palo Alto City Manager=s Report (1999a) (1) Toxic exhaust fumes and emissions are
created by gas-powered leaf blowers.
(1) Gasoline-powered leaf blowers produce fuel
emissions that add to air pollution.
(2) 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.
(2) Leaf blowers (gasoline and electric) blow
pollutants including dust, animal droppings, and
pesticides into the air adding to pollutant
problems.

Page I-3.27
9 (3) 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 nonconsenting citizens in the area of usage. (3) Leaf blowers (gasoline and electric) do
produce noise levels that are offensive and
bothersome to some individuals.

As will be discussed in more detail later in this report, the findings in these two reports about exhaust emissions and noise are substantiated in the scientific literature. The report=s findings regarding dust emissions, however, were not documented or based on scientific analysis of actual emissions, but were based on common sense knowledge. The City of Palo Alto continued to examine the issue, at the behest of council members, and reported revised recommendations for the use of leaf blowers in Palo Alto in September (City of Palo Alto 1999b) and January 2000 (City of Palo Alto 2000). The City of Palo Alto subsequently voted to ban the use of fuel-powered leaf blowers throughout the city as of July 1, 2001 (Zinko 2000).

D. Health and Environmental Impacts
SCR 19 asks ARB to summarize potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers, and thus our first task is to determine what information and analysis would comprise a summary of health and environmental impacts. The methodology followed for this report is dependent both on the objectives of SCR 19 and on the available data. As staff discovered, in some areas, such as exhaust emissions, we know much; 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 and we do not know how many people are affected by those emissions. Therefore, staff determined to provide the Legislature with a report that has elements of both impact and risk assessments, each of which is described below.

1. Life-cycle Impact Assessment
Life-cycle impact assessment is the examination of potential and actual environmental and human health effects related to the use of resources and environmental releases (Fava et al. 1993).

A product=s life-cycle is divided into the stages of raw materials acquisition, manufacturing, distribution/transportation, use/maintenance, recycling, and waste management (Fava et al. 1991).

In this case, the relevant stage of the life-cycle is use/maintenance. Life-cycle impact assessment tends to focus on relative emission loadings and resources use and does not directly or quantitatively measure or predict potential effects or identify a causal association with any effect.

Identification of the significance and uncertainty of data and analyses are important (Barnthouse 1997).

2. Risk Assessment
Page I-3.28
10 A traditional risk assessment, on the other hand, seeks to directly and quantitatively measure or predict causal effects. A risk assessment evaluates the toxic properties of a chemical or other hazard, and the conditions of human exposure, in order to characterize the nature of effects and determine the likelihood of adverse impacts (NRC 1983). The four components of a risk assessment are:

Hazard identification: Determine the identities and quantities of chemicals present, the types of hazards they may produce, and the conditions under which exposure occurs.

Dose-response assessment: Describe the quantitative relationship between the amount of exposure to a substance (dose) and the incidence of adverse effects (response).

Exposure assessment: Identify the nature and size of the population exposed to the substance and the magnitude and duration of their exposure.

Risk characterization: Integrate the data and analyses of the first three components to determine the likelihood that humans (or other species) will experience any of the various adverse effects associated with the substance.

The goal of risk assessment is the quantitative characterization of the risk, i.e., the likelihood that a certain number of individuals will die or experience another adverse endpoint, such as injury or disease. A risk assessment is ideally followed up by risk management, which is the process of identifying, evaluating, selecting, and implementing actions to reduce risk to human health and ecosystems (Omenn et al. 1997). While a risk assessment appears to be preferable because it allows us to assign an absolute value to the adverse impacts, a quantitative assessment is difficult, if not impossible, to perform when data are limited.

E. Public Involvement
To facilitate public involvement in the process of preparing the leaf blower report, staff mailed notices using existing mailing lists for small off-road engines and other interested parties, posted a leaf blower report website, met with interested parties, and held two public workshops, in June and September, 1999. In addition to face-to-face meetings and workshops, staff contacted interested parties through numerous telephone calls and e-mails. A list of persons contacted for this report is found in Appendix B. Letters and documents submitted to the Air Resources Board as of December 15, 1999, are listed in Appendix K. The vast majority of those contacted were very helpful, opening their files and spending time answering questions. ARB staff were provided with manufacturer brochures; unpublished data; old, hard-to-find reports and letters; and given briefings and demonstrations. Many reports have been posted on the Internet, for downloading at no cost, which considerably simplified the task of tracking down significant works and greatly reduced the cost of obtaining the reports.

Page I-3.29
11 F. Overview of this Report
The main body of this report comprises four additional sections, followed by the references cited and appendices. Section II describes the hazards, as identified in SCR 19, from leaf blowers. Hazardous components of exhaust emissions, fugitive dust emissions, and noise are covered in turn, along with who is exposed to each hazard and how society has sought to control exposure to those hazards through laws. Section III reviews health effects of each of the hazards, with exhaust emissions subdivided into particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, and toxic constituents of burned and unburned fuel. Health effects from fugitive dust are covered in the subsection on particulate matter. Section IV discusses the potential health and environmental impacts of leaf blowers, synthesizing the information presented in Sections II and III. 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 gasoline-powered leaf blowers, and a complete bibliography of materials received and consulted but not cited in the report, is found in the appendix.

Page I-3.30
12 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE HAZARDS
This section of the report describes the three potential hazards identified by SCR 19 as resulting from leaf blowers. This report examines the three hazards that have been of most concern of the public and the Legislature. Hazard identification is the first step in an impact or risk assessment. In this section, then, each of the three identified hazards are examined in turn, exhaust emissions, dust emissions, and noise. For each, the hazard is described and quantified, 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, in this section we also discuss laws that control the particular hazard.

A. Exhaust Emissions
Exhaust emissions are those emissions generated from the incomplete combustion of fuel in an engine. The engines that power leaf blower equipment are predominantly two-stroke, less than 25 horsepower (hp) engines. This section describes the two-stroke engine technology prevalent in leaf blower equipment and associated emissions, reviews the leaf blower population and emission inventory data approved by the Board in 1998, and describes federal, state, and local controls on small off-road engines.

1. Characterization of Technology
Small, two-stroke gasoline engines have traditionally powered leaf blowers, and most still are today.1 The two-stroke engine has several attributes that are advantageous for applications such as leaf blowers. Two-stroke engines are lightweight in comparison to the power they generate, and operate in any position, allowing for great flexibility in equipment applications.

Multi-positional operation is made possible by mixing the lubricating oil with the fuel; the engine is, thus, properly lubricated when operated at a steep angle or even upside down.

A major disadvantage of two-stroke engines is high exhaust emissions. Typical two-stroke designs feed more of the fuel/oil mixture than is necessary into the combustion chamber. Through a process known as scavenging, the incoming fuel enters the combustion chamber as the exhaust is leaving. This timing overlap of intake and exhaust port opening can result in as much as 30% of the fuel/oil mixture being exhausted unburned. Thus, exhaust emissions consist of both unburned fuel and products of incomplete combustion. The major pollutants from a two-stroke engine are, therefore, oil-based particulates, a mixture of hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. A two-stroke engine forms relatively little oxides of nitrogen emissions, because the extra fuel absorbs the heat and keeps peak combustion temperatures low.

1Unless otherwise referenced, this section makes use of material in the ARB’s Small Off Road Engine staff report and attachments, identified as MSC 98-02; 1998a.

Page I-3.31
13 Hydrocarbon emissions, in general, combine with nitrogen oxide emissions from other combustion sources to produce ozone in the atmosphere. Thus ozone, although not directly emitted, is an additional hazard from leaf blower exhaust. In addition, some of the hydrocarbons in fuel and combustion by-products are themselves toxic air contaminants, such as benzene, 1,3- butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde (ARB 1997). The major sources of benzene emissions are gasoline fugitive emissions and motor vehicle exhaust; about 25% of benzene emissions are attributed to off-road mobile sources. Most 1,3-butadiene emissions are from incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels from mobile sources (about 96%). Sources of acetaldehyde include emissions from combustion processes and photochemical oxidation. The ARB has estimated that acetaldehyde emissions from off-road motor vehicles comprise about 27% of the total emissions. Finally, formaldehyde is a product of incomplete combustion and is also formed by photochemical oxidation; mobile sources appear to contribute a relatively small percentage of the total direct emissions of formaldehyde. Data do not exist to allow reliable estimation of toxic air contaminant emissions from small, two-stroke engine exhaust.

A small percentage of blowers utilize four-stroke engines. These blowers are typically "walk-behind" models, used to clean large parking lots and industrial facilities, rather than lawns and driveways. Overall, the engines used in these blowers emit significantly lower emissions than their two-stroke counterparts, with significantly lower levels of hydrocarbons and particulate matter. These four-stroke blower engines have a significantly lower population than the traditional two-stroke blowers and only peripherally fit the definition or commonly-accepted meaning of the term "leaf blower." They are mentioned here only for completeness, but are not otherwise separately addressed in this report.

2. Exhaust Emissions
a. Leaf Blower Population
The best estimates available indicate that there are approximately 410,000 gasolinepowered blowers in use in the state today. Less than 5,000 of those use four-stroke engines; the remainder (99%) utilize two-stroke engines. These data have been developed from information gathered through the development and implementation of ARB's small off-road engine regulation.

Since the small off-road engine regulation does not apply to blowers powered by electric motors, data regarding the number of electric blowers are not as extensive. However, information shared by the handheld power equipment industry indicates that approximately 60 percent of blowers sold are electric. This would indicate that there are approximately 600,000 electric blowers in California. It must be stressed that the majority of the blower population being electric does not imply that the majority of usage accrues to electric blowers. In fact, electric blowers are more likely to be used by homeowners for occasional use, whereas virtually all professional gardeners use engine-powered blowers.
b. Emission Inventory
Page I-3.32
14 California=s emission inventory is an estimate of the amount and types of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors emitted by all sources of air pollution. The emission inventory method and inputs for small off-road engines, with power ratings of less than 25 hp, were approved by the Board in 1998 (ARB 1998b) (Table 2). Exhaust emissions from leaf blowers contribute from one to nine percent of the small-off road emissions, depending on the type of pollutant, based on the 2000 emissions data. Exhaust emission standards for small off-road engines, which will be implemented beginning in 2000, will result in lower emissions in the future. By 2010, for example, hydrocarbon emissions are expected to shrink by 40% statewide, while CO declines by 35% and PM10 drops 90%. The reductions reflect the replacement of today's blowers with cleaner blowers meeting the 2000 standards.

Table 2. Statewide Inventory of Leaf Blower Exhaust Emissions (tons per day) Leaf blowers
2000
Leaf blowers
2010
All Lawn &
Garden, 2000
All Small OffRoad, 2000
Hydrocarbons,
reactive

7.1 4.2 50.24 80.07
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)

16.6 9.8 434.99 1046.19
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM10)

0.2 0.02 1.05 3.17

3. Regulating Exhaust Emissions
a. State Regulations
The California Clean Air Act, codified in the Health and Safety Code Sections 43013 and 43018, was passed in 1988 and grants the ARB authority to regulate off-road mobile source categories, including leaf blowers. The federal Clean Air Act requires states to meet national ambient air quality standards (Appendix C) under a schedule established in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Because many air basins in California do not meet some of these standards, the State regularly prepares and submits to the U.S. EPA a plan that specifies measures it will adopt into law to meet the national standards. Other feasible measures not specified in the state implementation plan may also be adopted as needed.

In December 1990, the Board approved emission control regulations for new small off-road engines used in leaf blowers and other applications. The regulations took effect in 1995, and include exhaust emission standards, emissions test procedures, and provisions for warranty and production compliance programs. In March of 1998, the ARB amended the standards to be implemented with the 2000 model year (ARB 1998a). Table 3 illustrates how the standards compare with uncontrolled engines for leaf blower engines. Note that there was no particulate Page I-3.33
15 matter standard for 1995-1999 model year leaf blowers, but that a standard will be imposed beginning with the 2000 model year.

Among other features of the small off-road engine regulations is a requirement that production engines be tested to ensure compliance. Examination of the certification data confirms that manufacturers have been complying with the emissions regulations; in fact, engines that have been identified as being used in blowers tend to emit hydrocarbons at levels that are 10 to 40 percent below the existing limits. This performance is consistent with engines used in string trimmers, edgers, and other handheld-type equipment, which are, in many cases, the same engine models used in leaf blowers.

Table 3
Exhaust Emissions Per Engine for Leaf Blowers
(grams per brake-horsepower-hour, g/bhp-hr)
Uncontrolled
Emissions
1995-1999
Standards2
2000 and later
Standards
HC+NOx 283 + 1.0 180 + 4.0 543
CO 908 600 400
PM 3.6 ---
4 1.5
b. Federal Regulations
Although the federal regulations for mobile sources have traditionally followed the ARB's efforts, the U.S. EPA has taken advantage of some recent developments in two-stroke engine technology. Specifically, compression wave technology has been applied to two-stroke engines, making possible much lower engine emissions. Bolstered by this information, the U.S. EPA (1999a) has proposed standards for blowers and other similar equipment that would be more stringent than the ARB standards. ARB plans a general review of off-road engine technology by 2001, and will consider the implications of this new technology in more detail then. A short description is included in Appendix I.
c. South Coast AQMD Emissions Credit Program

2Applicable to engines of 20-50 cc displacement, used by the vast majority of leaf blowers. 3 For yr 2000, the HC + NOx standards have been combined. 4 There was no particulate standard for this time period.

Page I-3.34
16 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), an extreme non-attainment area for ozone, has promulgated Rule 1623 - Credits for Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment. Rule 1623 provides mobile source emission reduction credits for those who voluntarily replace old high-polluting lawn and garden equipment with new low- or zero-emission equipment or who sell new low- or zero-emission equipment without replacement. The intent of the rule is to accelerate the retirement of old high-polluting equipment and increase the use of new low- or zero-emission equipment. In 1990, volatile organic carbon emissions from lawn and garden equipment in the South Coast Air Basin were 22 tons per day (SCAQMD 1996). To date, no entity has applied for or received credits under Rule 1623 (V. Yardemian, pers. com.)

4. Summary
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, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. Exhaust emissions from these engines, while high compared to on-road mobile sources on a per engine basis, are a small part 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 exhaustfree are also available.

B. Fugitive Dust Emissions
ABlown dust@ is the second of the hazards from leaf blowers specified in SCR 19. For the purposes of this report, we will use the term Afugitive dust,@ which is consistent with the terminology used by the ARB. This section, in addition to defining fugitive dust emissions, characterizes fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blowers by comparing previous estimates of emission factors (amount emitted per hour per leaf blower) and emissions inventory (amount resuspended per day by all leaf blowers statewide) to a current estimate, developed for this report.

In addition, the potential composition of leaf blower dust and fugitive dust controls at the state and local levels are described.

Page I-3.35
17 1. Definition of Fugitive Dust Emissions
From the Glossary of Air Pollution Terms, available on the ARB=s website,5 the following definitions are useful:

Fugitive Dust: Dust particles that are introduced into the air through certain activities such as soil cultivation, or vehicles operating on open fields or dirt roadways; a subset of fugitive emissions.

Fugitive Emissions: Emissions not caught by a capture system (often due to equipment leaks, evaporative processes, and windblown disturbances).

Particulate Matter (PM): Any material, except uncombined water, that exists in the solid or liquid state in the atmosphere. The size of particulate matter can vary from coarse, wind-blown dust particles to fine particle combustion products.

Fugitive dust is a subset of particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of large to small particles that are directly emitted or formed in the air. Current control efforts focus on PM small enough to be inhaled, generally those particles smaller than 10 micrometers (Fm). So-called coarse particles are those larger than 2.5 Fm in diameter, and are directly emitted from activities that disturb the soil, including construction, mining, agriculture, travel on roads, and landfill operations, plus windblown dust, pollen, spores, sea salts, and rubber from brake and tire wear.

Those with diameters smaller than 2.5 Fm are called fine particles. Fine particles remain suspended in the air for long periods and can travel great distances. They are formed mostly from combustion sources, such as vehicles, boilers, furnaces, and fires, with a small dust component.

Fine particles can be directly emitted as soot or formed in the atmosphere as combustion products react with gases from other sources (Finlayson-Pitts & Pitts 1986).

Dust emissions from leaf blowers are not part of the inventory of fugitive dust sources.

ARB, therefore, does not have official data on the quantity of fugitive dust resuspended by leaf blowers. No data on the amount and size distributions of resuspended dust from leaf blower activities have been collected, although estimates have been made. ARB evaluated three previous estimates (McGuire 1991, Botsford et al. 1996, Covell 1998) and developed a proposed methodology for estimating fugitive dust emissions from leaf blowers. The estimate presented below begins with the assumptions and calculations contained in the study conducted for the SCAQMD by AeroVironment (Botsford et al. 1996). Additional methodologies and data have been reviewed and derived from the U.S. EPA document commonly termed AP-42, and reports by the Midwest Research Institute; University of California, Riverside; and the Desert Research Institute.

5 http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/html/gloss.htm
Page I-3.36
18 2. Calculating Leaf Blower Emissions
There are more than 400,000 gasoline-powered leaf blowers, plus approximately 600,000 electric leaf blowers, that are operated an estimated 114,000 hours per day in California. The fundamental premise in the calculations below is that leaf blowers are designed to move relatively large materials such as leaves and other debris, and hence can also be expected to entrain into the air much smaller particles, especially those below 30 Fm diameter, which are termed total suspended particulate (PMtsp). Subsets of PMtsp include PM10, particulates with diameters less than or equal to 10 Fm, and PM2.5, particulates with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 Fm.

Particles below 30 Fm are not visible to the naked eye. Note that PM10 includes PM2.5 particles, and PMtsp includes PM10 and PM2.5 particles.
a. Generation of Fugitive Dust by Leaf Blowers
The leaf blower moves debris such as leaves by pushing relatively large volumes of air, typically between 300-700 cubic feet per minute, at a high wind speed, typically 150 to 280 miles per hour (hurricane wind speed is >117 mph). A typical surface is covered with a layer of dust that is spread, probably non-uniformly, along the surface being cleaned. While the intent of a leaf blower operator may not be to move dust, the high wind speed and volume result in small particles being blown into the air. In order to calculate how much fugitive dust is generated by the action of a blower, we assume that this layer of dust can be represented by a single average number, the silt loading. This silt loading value, when combined with the amount of ground cleaned per unit time and the estimated PM weight fractions, produces estimates of fugitive dust emissions from leaf blowers.

Staff have located no fugitive dust measurement studies on leaf blowers, but have found previous calculations of fugitive dust estimates from leaf blowers. Based on a review of those estimates, staff applied the latest knowledge and research in related fields in order to derive a second-order approximation. This section presents the best estimates using existing data, while recognizing that estimates are only approximations. Variables that would affect fugitive dust emissions, and for which ARB has little or no empirical data, include, for example:
(1) the specific surface types on which leaf blowers are used; (2) the percentage of use on each specific surface type; (3) effects of moisture, humidity, and temperature;
(4) silt loading values for surfaces other than paved roadways, shoulders, curbs, and gutters and in different areas of the state; and
(5) measurements of the amount of surface cleaned per unit time by the average operator.

Other variables are not expected to greatly influence fugitive dust emissions; the hurricane-force winds generated by leaf blowers are expected to overcome such influences, for example, as the roughness of relatively flat surfaces and the effect of particle static charge.

Page I-3.37
19 b. Size Segregation of Particulate Matter
PM emissions can be subdivided into the following three categories, operator emissions, local emissions, and regional emissions. They are differentiated as follows:
1) Operator emissions. PMtsp emissions approximate emissions to which the operator is exposed. The larger of these particles, between approximately 10 and 30 Fm, have relatively short settling times, on the order of minutes to a couple of hours, maximum (Finlayson-Pitts & Pitts 1986, Gillies et al. 1996, Seinfeld & Pandis 1998). These would be emissions to which both the leaf blower operator and passersby would be exposed.
2) Local emissions. PM10 emissions will be used to estimate "local" PM emissions.

PM10, which includes particles at or below 10 Fm, may remain suspended for hours to days in the atmosphere (Finlayson-Pitts & Pitts 1986, Gillies et al. 1996, Seinfeld & Pandis 1998). These are emissions to which persons in the near-downwind-vicinity would be exposed, for example, residents whose lawns are being serviced and their neighbors, persons in commercial buildings whose landscapes are being maintained or serviced, and persons within a few blocks of the source.
3) Regional emissions. PM2.5 emissions may remain suspended for as long as a week or more (Finlayson-Pitts & Pitts 1986, Gillies, et al. 1996, Seinfeld & Pandis 1998). These particles are sized at or below 2.5 Fm, and hence can be considered as contributors to regional PM emissions over a county or air basin because of their long residence time. c. Calculation Assumptions and Limitations
The method presented uses the following assumptions.
1) Methods used for estimating wind blown dust for paved roads can be applied to estimating fugitive dust emissions from leaf blowers. That is, one can use an "AP-42" type (U.S.

EPA 1997) of approach that calculates dust emissions based on the silt loading of the surfaces in question.
2) The typical leaf blower generates sufficient wind speed to cause sidewalk/roadway dust, in particular, particles 30 µm or less in aerodynamic diameter, to become airborne. The AeroVironment study (Botsford et al. 1996) assumed that nozzle air velocities ranged from 120 to 180 mph, and calculated that wind speed at the ground would range from 24 mph to 90 mph, sufficient to raise dust and equivalent, at the middle to high end speeds, to gale-force winds. 3) Currently available paved road, roadside shoulder, and gutter silt loadings (Venkatram & Fitz 1998) can be used to calculate emissions from leaf blowers, as there are no data on silt loadings on other surfaces. Observations and communications with landscapers indicate that leaf blowers are most commonly used to clean hardscape surfaces, such as sidewalks, after lawns and Page I-3.38
20 flower beds have been trimmed and cuttings left on hardscapes. Debris is then frequently blown into the roadway before being collected for disposal.
4) The size fractions for particles for paved road dust can be used to calculate emissions from leaf blowers (G. Muleski, pers. comm.). The ratios of particle size multipliers, or Ak@ factors, are used to estimate the weight fraction of windblown dust for leaf blower usage. The Ak@ factor is a dimensionless value that represents the percentage of the total dust loading that is of a certain size fraction (MRI 1997).
5) Silt loading values and usage are assumed to be the same for residential and commercial leaf blower use. In an earlier draft, ARB staff had proposed different silt loading values for residential and commercial leaf blowers; comments were received that indicated that heavier-duty commercial leaf blowers were used in the same way in both residential and commercial settings. In addition, data on nozzle air speeds indicate that most electric leaf blowers, targeted at homeowners, have air speeds at or above 120 mph, the lowest air speed considered in the AeroVironment report (Botsford et al. 1996) as capable of raising dust. 6) The weight of total suspended particulates is equivalent to 100% of the silt loading, the weight fraction that comprises PM10 is 19% of the total, and the weight fraction comprising PM2.5 is 9% of the total (U.S. EPA 1997, MRI 1997, G. Muleski, pers. com). A recent study, however, found that 50-70% of the mass of PMtsp of paved road dust at three southern California locations is present in the PM10 fraction (Miguel et al. 1999), so more data would be helpful.

A final limitation is the recognition that emissions inventories are estimates of the unknown and unknowable actual emissions inventory. An earlier draft of this report was criticized as providing only estimates of emissions, and not actual emissions, when in fact all emissions inventories are based on models developed through scientific research on how the chemicals behave in the atmosphere, limited testing to determine emission factors, and industry-provided data on the population and usage of each particular source of air pollution. Each generation of emission inventories is an improvement over the one previous as assumptions are examined, tested, and modified. As discussed earlier, the estimate in this report builds on previous estimates. d. Calculation Methodology
The proposed emissions estimation methodology uses measured silt loadings (Venkatram & Fitz 1998) and size fraction multipliers for PM10 and PM2.5 (U.S. EPA 1997, MRI 1997, G.

Muleski, pers. com.).

EFsize = (sL) (Q) (fsize)
where:

EFsize = PM30, or PM10, or PM2.5 emission factors;
sL = silt loading fraction, from ARB (1998b);
Page I-3.39
21 Q = amount of ground cleaned per unit time, estimated to be 1,600 m2/hr, corresponding to a forward speed of 1 mph, with the operator sweeping the blower in a one meter arc;
fsize= fraction of PMtsp dust loading that comprises PM10 (0.19) or PM2.5 (0.09).

Silt loading values are the critical parameter in the calculation. ARB has chosen, for this emissions estimate, to use recent data from a study conducted for the ARB by a team at the University of California, Riverside (Venkatram & Fitz 1998) (Table 4). As data were collected only in Riverside County, it is not known how representative they are of other areas of the state or of substrates cleaned by leaf blowers. The data are, however, the most complete we have to date. Because the data are not normally distributed, the median and 95% percentile samples for silt loading are used to represent the data set in calculations.

Table 4
Silt Loading Values, Riverside County
(grams per square meter, g/m2)
Roadway Type Material Loading,
Median
Silt Loading,
Median (95%)
Range of Silt
Loading Values
Paved Road 108.44 0.16 (6.34) 0.003-107.596
Roadway Shoulders 481.08 3.33 (15.73) 0.107-23.804
Curbs and Gutters 144.92 3.39 (132.94) 0.97-556.65

3. Characterization of Fugitive Dust Emissions
This section includes results from this present analysis, as well as results from previous estimates prepared by the ARB and others for comparison. a. Emission Factors - This Study
Possible emission factors have been calculated for leaf blower use on paved roadways, roadway shoulders, and curbs and gutters (Table 5). Two emission factors are presented for each surface and particle size, based on the median and 95th percentile of the empirical silt loading data.

The resulting range for PM10 is from 48.6 to 1030.6 g/hr for PM10, for example, depending on the surface cleaned. Cleaning of curbs and gutters generates the highest emission factors, whereas paved roadways and shoulders are lower. As discussed before, staff have no data on which to base emission factors for sidewalks, driveways, lawns, or flower beds.

Page I-3.40
22 Table 5. Leaf Blower Estimated Emission Factors, This Study (grams per hour, g/hr)
Emission Factor Paved Roadway,
Median (95%)
Shoulders,
Median (95%)
Curbs/Gutters,
Median (95%)
Total Suspended
Particulate
256.0 (10,144.0) 5,328 (25,168) 5,424 (212,704)
PM10 48.6 (1,927.4) 1,012.3 (4,781.9) 1,030.6 (40,413.8) PM2.5 23.0 (913.0) 479.5 (2,265.0) 488.2 (19,143.4)
b. Statewide Emissions Inventory - This Study
Three potential statewide emissions inventory values (Table 6), in tons per day (tpd), have been calculated by multiplying the median emissions factors, shown above, by the hours of operation for each of three different substrates: paved roadways, paved shoulders, and paved curbs/gutters, based on the Riverside data. From the statewide emissions inventory, the total number of hours of operation in the year 2000 are estimated to be 113,740 hr/day, or 97,302 hr/day for gasoline-powered leaf blowers plus 16,438 hr/day for electric leaf blowers.6 Table 6. Leaf Blower Emissions,
Possible Statewide Values, This Study
(tons per day, tpd)
Emissions Inventory Paved Roadway,
Median
Shoulders,
Median
Curbs/Gutters,
Median
Total Suspended Particulates 32.1 667.4 679.4
PM10 6.1 126.8 129.1
PM2.5 2.9 60.1 61.2
The goal in developing an emissions inventory is to derive one statewide emissions inventory number for each category of particulate sizes, which can then be subdivided by air basin or air district. Ideally, ARB would have developed emissions factors for each surface cleaned by leaf blowers, and apportioned the emissions based on the percentage of hours spent cleaning each surface annually. Table 6, however, presents an array of values because staff have no data on the percentage of time spent cleaning various surfaces. For comparison, the 1996 statewide PM10

6On a per-unit basis, electric blowers are assumed to be used 10 hr/yr.

Page I-3.41
23 estimated emission inventory was 2,400 tpd; estimates for paved road dust, unpaved road dust, and fugitive windblown dust were 400, 610, and 310 tpd, respectively. Based on the estimates in Table 6, then, PM10 emissions impacts from leaf blower use could range from insignificant (0.25%) to significant (5.4%), on a statewide basis. Additional study is required to refine the analysis and develop a statewide emission inventory.
c. Previous Emissions Estimates: ARB, 1991
The ARB's Technical Support Division, in a July 9, 1991 response to a request from Richard G. Johnson, Chief of the Air Quality Management Division at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, prepared a leaf blower emissions estimate in grams per hour of dust (McGuire 1991). PM10 emissions were reported as being 1,180 g/hr, or

2.6 lb/hr, which is the same order of magnitude as the present study's calculated emission factors for roadway shoulders and curbs/gutters (Table 5). If this emission factor is combined with current statewide hours-of-operation data of 113,740 hr/day of leaf blower usage, this would produce an emission inventory of 147.8 tpd of PM10, similar to the present study's inventory for shoulders and curbs/gutters (Table 6).
d. Previous Emissions Estimates: SMAQMD
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Metropolitan District (SMAQMD) staff (Covell 1998) estimated that "Dust Emissions (leaf blowers only)" are 3.2 tpd in Sacramento County. The memo included commercial and residential leaf blower populations (1,750 commercial and 15,750 residential), and hours of use (275 hr/yr for commercial and 10 hr/yr for residential). Using these values one can calculate the assumed g/hr emission factor for particulate matter. The resulting emission factor is 1,680 g/hr, or 3.7 lb/hr. The resulting statewide emission inventory is 210.4 tpd, higher than this study’s estimates (Tables 5 & 6).
e. Previous Emissions Estimates: AeroVironment
The South Coast AQMD commissioned AeroVironment to determine emission factors and preliminary emission inventories for sources of fugitive dust previously uninventoried; leaf blowers were one of the categories examined (Botsford et al. 1996). The study focused on PM10, and did not include field measurements. The study assumed that each leaf blower was used, at most, one day per week to clean 92.9 m2 (1000 ft2) of ground. Silt loading was assumed to be

1.42 g/m2. Combining these two values yields an emission factor of 5.5 g/hr. With an estimated 60,000 leaf blowers in the South Coast Air Basin, AeroVironment calculated an emission inventory of 8.6 tpd, just for the South Coast AQMD, more than double the basin-wide inventory calculated for the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD (above). The obvious difference between this estimate and the others summarized herein is the assumption that each leaf blower is used for no more than one day per week and is used to clean an area equivalent to only one front yard (20 ft by 50 ft); as commercial gardeners could not make a living cleaning one front yard once per week, this figure is obviously much too low. It is, however, coincidentally similar to the present study=s estimate for paved roadways (Table 6).

Page I-3.42
24 4. Particulate Composition
Substances such as fecal material, fertilizers, fungal spores, pesticides, herbicides, pollen, and other biological substances have been alleged to make up the dust resuspended by leaf blower usage (Orange County Grand Jury 1999), and thus staff looked for data on the composition of particulate matter. Little information is available. Suspended paved road dust is a major contributor to airborne particulate matter in Los Angeles and other cities (Miguel et al. 1999).

Staff considered, therefore, size-segregated chemical speciation profiles for paved road dust to chemically characterize leaf blower PM emissions. The chemical speciation profiles for paved road dust show small percentages of the toxic metals arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury. In addition to soil particles, paved road dust emissions may contain contributions from tire and brake wear particles. Paved road dust chemical speciation, however, characterizes the dust by elemental composition, and was not useful in estimating health impacts for this assessment. ARB’s chemical speciation profile for paved road dust is presented in Appendix D for information.

Recently, however, researchers published a study on allergans in paved road dust and airborne particles (Miguel et al. 1999). The authors found that biologic materials from at least 20 different source materials known to be capable of causing or exacerbating allergenic disease in humans are found in paved road dust, including pollens and pollen fragments, animal dander, and molds. Allergen concentrations in the air are increased above the levels that would otherwise occur in the absence of suspension by passing traffic. The authors conclude that paved road dust is a ubiquitous mixed source of allergenic material, resuspended by passing traffic, and to which virtually the entire population is exposed. The applicability of this study to particulate matter resuspension by leaf blower usage is unknown, but it is likely that leaf blowers would be as effective at resuspending paved road dust as automobiles. Information on the characteristics of other sources of resuspended particulates, for example lawns and gardens, is unfortunately lacking.

5. Regulating Fugitive Dust Emissions
Fugitive dust emissions are generally regulated as a nuisance, although PM10 and PM2.5 are specifically addressed through the state planning process as criteria air pollutants. There are no explicit federal, state, or local regulations governing leaf blower fugitive dust emissions.

Page I-3.43
25 a. State and Federal PM10 and PM2.5 Standards
The California and Federal ambient air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5 are located in Appendix C. Any state that has air basins not in attainment with the standards must submit a plan to U.S. EPA on how they will achieve compliance. For California, most of the state violates the PM10 standard; attainment status has not yet been determined for the new PM2.5 standard (promulgated July 18, 1997 and under challenge in the courts). California, and its air districts, is therefore required to control sources of PM10, including fugitive dust. b. Local District Regulations
Many air districts have a fugitive dust control rule that prohibits activities that generate dust beyond the property line of an operation. For example, the SCAQMD Rule 403 states: AA person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or undisturbed surface area such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source.@ In addition, rules may place limits on the amount of PM10 that can be detected downwind of an operation that generates fugitive dust; for SCAQMD that limit is 50 Fg/m3 [SCAQMD Rule 403]. The Mojave AQMD limits PM emissions to 100 Fg/m3 [Mojave AQMD Rule 403]. Others, such as the San Joaquin Unified APCD, define and limit visible emissions (40% opacity) from activities that generate fugitive dust emissions [SJUAPCD Rule 8020]. Finally, another approach is to simply request individuals take reasonable precautions to prevent visible particulate matter emissions from moving beyond the property from which the emissions originate [Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 401].

6. Summary
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 PM10 air burden, and AeroVironment estimated dust attributed 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 part 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 research to verify appropriate calculation parameters, determine representative silt loadings, measure actual fugitive dust emissions through source testing, and identify the chemical composition of leaf blower-generated fugitive dust.

Page I-3.44
26 C. Noise Emissions
The third of the hazards from leaf blowers identified in SCR 19 is noise. This section defines noise, describes the physical properties of sound and how sound loudness is measured, discusses noise sources, the numbers of Californians potentially exposed to noise, and how noise is regulated at the federal, state, and local levels, and addresses specific sound loudness and quality from leaf blowers. In addition, the incidence of the use of hearing protection, and other personal protective equipment, by leaf blower operators is described.

1. Defining Noise
Noise is the general term for any loud, unmusical, disagreeable, or unwanted sound. In addition to damaging hearing, noise causes 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 (Berglund & Lindvall 1995). In this report, noise will be used to refer both to unwanted sounds and sounds that damage hearing. The two characteristics, although related, do not always occur together.

The effects of sound on the ear are determined by its quality, which consists of the duration, intensity, frequency, and overtone structure, and the psychoacoustic variables of pitch, loudness, and tone quality or timbre, of the sound. Long duration, high intensity sounds are the most damaging and usually perceived as the most annoying. High frequency sounds, up to the limit of hearing, tend to be more annoying and potentially more hazardous than low frequency sounds. Intermittent sounds appear to be less damaging than continuous noise because the ear appears to be able to recover, or heal, during intervening quiet periods. Random, intermittent sounds, however, may be more annoying, although not necessarily hazardous, because of their unpredictability (Suter 1991).

The context of the sound is also important. While certain sounds may be desirable to some people, for example, music at an outdoor party, others may consider them noise, for example, those trying to sleep. Even desirable sounds, such as loud music, may cause damage to hearing and would be considered noise in this context. Thus, not only do loudness, pitch, and impulsiveness of sound determine whether the sound is noise, but also the time of day, duration, control (or lack thereof), and even one=s personality determine whether sounds are unwanted or not.

The physical and psychoacoustic characteristics of sound, and thus noise, are described in more detail in Appendix E. The discussion is focused on information necessary for the reader to understand how sound is measured, and clarify measures of leaf blower sound. The interested reader is referred for more information to any physics or acoustic reference book, or the works referred to herein.

Page I-3.45
27 2. Measuring the Loudness of Sound
The weakest intensity of sound a health human ear can detect has an amplitude of 20 millionths of a Pascal7 (20 mPa). The loudest sound the human ear can tolerate, the threshold of pain, has an amplitude ten million times larger, or 200,000,000 mPa. The range of sound intensity between the faintest and the loudest audible sounds is so large that sound pressures are expressed using a logarithmically compressed scale, termed the decibel (dB) scale. The decibel is simply a unit of comparison between two sound pressures. In most cases, the reference sound pressure is the acoustical zero, or the lower limit of hearing. The decibel scale converts sound pressure levels (SPL) to a logarithmic scale, relative to 20 FPa (Figure 1).

SPL, dB = 10 log10 (P2/Po
2 )
Where P is the pressure fluctuation in Pascals,
Po is the reference pressure; usually 20 FPa.

Thus, from this relationship, each doubling of sound pressure levels results in an increase of 6 dB. From the relationship between sound intensity and distance (Appendix E), we find also that doubling the distance between the speaker (source) and listener (receiver), drops the level of the sound by approximately 6 dB. Sound pressure levels are not directly additive, however, but must first be expressed as mean square pressures before adding (Berglund & Lindvall 1995). The equation is as follows:

SPL = 10 log10 [10SPL
1 /10 + 10SPL
2 /10 + .... + 10SPL
x
/10]
For example, if two sound sources have SPLs of 80 dB and 90 dB, then the resulting sound pressure is 90.4 dB. Adding two sounds with the same SPL, for example 90 dB, increases the total SPL by 3 dB, to 93 dB.
a. Loudness Description
Sound pressure level, however, does not completely describe loudness, which is a subjective perception of sound intensity. Loudness increases with intensity, but is also dependent on frequency. Thus the human ear may not perceive a six dB increase as twice as loud. In general, people are more sensitive to sounds in the middle of the range of hearing, from around 200 Hz to 5000 Hz. Fletcher and Munson (1933) first established the 1000-Hz tone as the standard sound against which other tones would be judged for loudness. Later, Stevens (1955) proposed that the unit of loudness be termed the sone, and that one sone be ascribed to a 1000-Hz tone set at a SPL

7Other units used to represent an equivalent sound pressure include 0.0002 Fbar, 0.0002 dyne/cm2
, and 20 FN/m2.

Page I-3.46
28 of 40 dB under specified listening conditions. On the sone scale, a sound twice as loud as one sone would be two sones, four times as loud would be four sones, and so on.

Equal loudness contours, identified in units of phons, demonstrate how the SPL, in dB, of a tone must be varied to maintain the perception of constant loudness. Ideally, sound measurement meters would give a reading equal to loudness in phons, but because phons are based on human perception, and perception process will vary from individual to individual, this has not been practical until recently (Berglund & Lindvall 1995). Loudness is still measured in decibels, however, following past practices. Various filters have been devised to approximate the frequency characteristics of the human ear, by weighting sound pressure level measurements as a function of frequency. Several weighting systems have been developed, but the one in most common use is the A-weighted filter, with sound pressure levels commonly expressed as dBA.

Loudness levels range from about 20 dB (24-hr average) in very quiet rural areas, to between 50 and 70 dB during the daytime in cities. Additional examples of typical loudness measures are illustrated in Figure 1.

Page I-3.47
29 b. Sound Level Measurement
The ANSI B175 Accredited Standard Committee, a group that includes government officials, Underwriters Laboratories, leaf blower manufacturers, and trade associations, and which is accredited by the American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI), developed a method for measuring the sound levels from leaf blowers (Appendix F). The purpose of the standard method is to establish sound level labeling requirements for leaf blowers applicable to noise received by bystanders. The standard also includes requirements for safety precautions to be included in manuals for use by operators. The ANSI standard specifies a test area in a field in which natural ground cover does not exceed three inches in height and which is free of any large reflecting surfaces for a minimum of 100 ft from the blower. The sound level meter must be set for slow response and the A-weighting network. Once the blower is adjusted and running properly, the receiver (microphone) is set up 50 ft from the operator and 4 ft above ground. Sound level readings are taken in a circle every 45 degrees for a total of eight readings, as either the operator rotates or the microphone is moved. The eight readings are then averaged and reported to the nearest decibel.

In wide use, the method has been criticized as sometimes generating unreproducible results. Typical comments expressed in meetings with ARB staff were to the effect that the manufacturer-reported sound levels for leaf blowers can be significantly different than those obtained by some third party testers. The standard has been revised (Dunaway 1999) and approved February 11, 2000, which may address the issue of reproducibility. Other comments about the method criticize the fundamental requirements for testing in an open field, with no reflecting surface for 100 ft, and the receiver 50 ft away, as being unrealistic and unrepresentative of real-world use on residential properties (Allen 1999a). A standardized method, however, usually does not reflect real-world conditions, but rather is useful for comparing sound levels from different blowers tested under the same conditions. The complexity and precision required by the method does appear to render it unsuitable as a field enforcement standard (Zwerling 1999).

While the ANSI method yields sound level exposures for a bystander, the noise level exposure for the operator is measured using an audiodosimeter. For occupational exposures, a dosimeter can report the noise dose as a percentage relative to the permissible exposure level of 90 dBA (8 CCR General Industry Safety Orders, Article 105, Appendix A; 29 CFR 1910.25).

The eight-hour time-weighted-average sound level experienced by the worker is then calculated from the dose, using a formula specified in regulations. Additional details can be found in the OSHA and Cal/OSHA Technical Manuals.8

8OSHA=s Technical Manual is available on their website (www.osha.gov) and noise measurement is in Section III, Chapter 5. Cal/OSHA=s manual is available from Cal/OSHA.

Page I-3.48
30 3. Noise in California
a. Noise Sources
By all accounts, noise exposure is increasing both as the number of sources increases and as existing sources get noisier (Berglund & Lindvall 1995). We drive our cars more and take more airplane trips, increasing noise from what have been the two major sources of noise for at least the last two decades; sales of engine-powered lawn and garden equipment continue to increase; and movie theaters and video arcades use noise to increase excitement (Consumer Reports 1999, PPEMA 1999, U.S. EPA 1981). The major sources of noise are transportation, from road, air, and rail traffic, which impact the most people of all noise sources; industrial machinery and facilities; construction; building services and maintenance activities; domestic noise from one=s neighbors; and self-inflicted noise from leisure activities, which may quality as domestic noise to one=s neighbors (Berglund & Lindvall 1995).
b. Numbers of People Potentially Exposed: the Public
It is not possible to state with any certainty how many people in California are exposed to noise from leaf blowers. Indeed, the most recent nationwide estimate of the number of people exposed to noise from various sources dates from 1981. In that study, the U.S. EPA estimated that 730,000 people were exposed to noise from leaf blowers above the day-night average sound level of 45 dBA (U.S. EPA 1981). The use of leaf blowers has grown tremendously since 1980, however, and thus these numbers cannot be reliably scaled for an estimate of the number of Californians exposed to leaf blower noise today.

As California=s population has grown almost 41% since 1970 (CDF 1998, CDF 1999), population density, and thus noise exposure, has increased. California classifies counties as being metropolitan or non-metropolitan, based on the Bureau of the Census categorization of standard metropolitan statistical areas as containing or being close to a large city. As of January 1, 1999, the thirty-four metropolitan counties comprise 96.7% of California=s population, or about 32.67 million people. The population of Californians who live in non-metropolitan counties, while small at 3.3% of the total, or 1.11 million people, has increased faster than the population in metropolitan counties (47.1% increase versus 40.5% increase, 1970-1999) and thus even noise exposures in the lowest populated counties have likely increased over the past thirty years.

Unfortunately, without a comprehensive and current survey of noise exposures in California, it is not possible to determine, from available data, how many Californians are exposed to noise, and in particular exposed to noise from leaf blowers. The only conclusion is that the number of people affected by noise is likely increasing as population density increases even in non-metropolitan areas of the state. How many people are exposed to, and annoyed by, noise from leaf blowers is a question for future research.

Page I-3.49
31 c. Numbers of People Potentially Exposed: the Operator In southern California, about 80% of lawn and landscape contracting firms use leaf blowers (Anon 1999), thus one can assume that most gardeners are exposed to the noise from leaf blowers, either as an operator or from working in close proximity to the operator. From the California database of employees covered by unemployment insurance, in the fourth quarter of 1998 there were 59,489 workers reported by 6790 firms, in the SIC Code 0782, Lawn and Garden Services (M. Rippey, pers. com). This number is assumed to be the lower bound of those exposed, as there are an unknown number of self-employed gardeners, who may not report their earnings or be covered by unemployment insurance. Future research could test the hypothesis that all lawn and garden service workers are exposed, as operators or from working in close proximity, to the noise from leaf blowers.

4. Regulating Noise
a. Federal Law
The Noise Control Act of 1972 established a statutory mandated national policy Ato promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their public health and welfare.@ The Office of Noise Abatement and Control was established within the U.S. EPA to carry out the mandates of the Noise Control Act. The Office of Noise Abatement and Control published public health and welfare criteria; sponsored an international conference; examined dose-response relationships for noise and its effects; identified safe levels of noise; promulgated noise regulations; funded research; and assisted state and local offices of noise control; until funding for the office was removed in 1981-1982 (Suter 1991; Shapiro 1991). In its almost ten years of operation, U.S. EPA produced several documents that are still relevant and were consulted from this report.

The hearing of workers is protected by regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. As California employers fall under California=s equivalent program, hearing protection law will be covered below under state law. b. State Law
California enacted the Noise Control Act of 1973 to Aestablish a means for effective coordination of state activities in noise control and to take such action as will be necessary...@ [HSC 46000(g)]; the office was established within the California Department of Health Services.

One of the primary functions of the office was to provide assistance to local governmental entities that develop and implement noise abatement procedures, and several guidelines were written.

Funding for the office, however, ended beginning in the 1993-1994 fiscal year; no relevant reports or guidelines were located for this report.

California=s counterpart to OSHA, the Cal/OSHA, has a General Industry Safety Order [8 CCR Article 105 5095-5100] for the control of noise exposure that is very similar to the federal Page I-3.50
32 OSHA regulations. When sound level exposure exceeds 85 dBA for an 8-hour time-weighted average, employers are required to provide a hearing conservation program at no cost to employees. The hearing conservation program includes audiometric testing of hearing, provision of hearing protectors, training, and record keeping. Employers are required to provide employees with hearing protection when noise exposure exceeds 90 dBA in an eight-hour work day; as noise levels increase, the allowable exposure duration also decreases. The permitted duration for an employee exposed to 103 dBA, for example, is one hour and nineteen minutes in a work day [8 CCR 5096 (a)(b)]. Employers are allowed to use personal protective equipment to reduce sound level exposures if administrative or engineering controls are not feasible or fail to reduce sound levels within permissible levels.
c. Local Ordinances
In contrast to the low level of activity on noise control at the federal and state levels, local California cities and counties have been very active in regulating and enforcing noise standards.

About twenty cities have banned the use of gasoline-powered, or gasoline- and electric-powered leaf blowers, from use within their city limits (City of Palo Alto 1999a). Including the recent Los Angeles ban on use within 500 ft of residences, about 13% of Californians live in cities that ban the use of leaf blowers, and six of the ten largest California cities have ordinances that restrict or ban leaf blowers. All together, about one hundred California cities have ordinances that restrict either leaf blowers specifically or all gardening equipment generally, including the cities with bans on leaf blower use (IME 1999).

The restrictions on leaf blowers fall into four basic categories, with many cities employing a combination of approaches: time of day/day of week, noise levels, specific areas, and educational (City of Palo Alto 1999a). Time of day/day of week ordinances are the most common and are used to control when leaf blowers can be operated. Typically, hours of use are restricted to times between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and days of use are either Monday through Friday or Monday through Saturday, and sometimes including Sunday, with shorter hours on the weekend, based on the assumption that leaf blower noise is most offensive during the evening and night time hours, and on the weekend. There may be exceptions for homeowners doing their own yard work and for work in commercial areas. Time of day/day of week ordinances are relatively easy to enforce. A problem with these ordinances, however, is that they ignore the needs for quiet during the day of babies, young children, and their caretakers; day-sleepers; the ill; the retired; and a growing population of those who work in a home office.

Some cities regulate leaf blower use based on noise levels recorded at a specified distance from the operator. Palos Verdes Estates and Davis, for example, set the noise level at 70 dBA at 50 ft, and Newport Beach and San Diego have a 65 dBA at 50 ft restriction. Davis allows singlefamily homeowners to avoid the restriction if the leaf blower is operated for less than ten minutes.

Palos Verdes Estates requires blowers to be tested and certified by the city. Otherwise, a noise level restriction is very difficult to enforce as the enforcement officer must be trained in the use of sound level meters, carry the meter, and record the sound level before the operator turns off the Page I-3.51
33 leaf blower or moves on. These rules target the control of noise from blowers, and could protect those who are home during the day, if they could be effectively enforced.

Recognizing that leaf blowers are often perceived as most offensive when used in residential areas, many cities stipulate usage restrictions only in residential areas, or within a certain distance of residential areas. The residential use distance restrictions prohibiting the use of leaf blowers range from 100 ft, in Foster City, to 500 ft, in Los Angeles. This type of ordinance protects those who are at home and in need of quiet during the day, but does not address issues of those who work and recreate in commercial or other non-residential areas.

Cities sometimes couple area restrictions with user guidelines, such as prohibitions on blowing debris onto adjacent properties, and require operators be educated on the proper use of leaf blowers so as to minimize noise levels and environmental issues. These educational approaches are generally not oriented towards enforcement, but seek to change operator behavior. Educational approaches are often endorsed by landscapers and manufacturers, who believe that much of the discord over leaf blower usage originates with the few gardeners who use them incorrectly or inconsiderately. For example, an organization calling itself LINK, or Landscapers Involved With Neighborhoods and Kids, promotes educating operators to use their leaf blowers at half-throttle within 150 ft of homes (LINK 1999).

5. Noise From Leaf Blowers
In a survey of Southern Californian gardeners by a consumer products manufacturer (Anon 1999), the top two ranked attributes of a desirable leaf blower were, in order, Apowerful@ and Aquiet.@ Important features were identified as Abackpack mounted,@ Anoise below legal limits,@ and Avariable speed.@ When asked what they dislike about their leaf blowers, the most commonly cited problem was Anoise.@ Taken together, these answers suggest that loud noise from leaf blowers is not only an issue for the public, but is also a major issue of concern for the gardeners who use them, at least in Southern California. On the other hand, a major manufacturer has indicated that low noise does not even show up in their survey of desirable leaf blower features (Will 1999b), so perhaps low noise is only a concern of California gardeners. a. Bystander noise exposure
Manufacturer-reported noise levels from leaf blowers are summarized in Appendix G; all reported noise levels are assumed to represent bystander exposure, with the receiver 50 ft from the blower, unless otherwise noted. The reported levels are based on statements in promotional literature or personal communications with manufacturers; some manufacturers did not report the sound levels of most of their models in materials available to the ARB. For backpack and hand held blowers, sound levels range from 62 dBA to 75 dBA, with more than half registering between 69 and 70 dBA (Figure 2). Bearing in mind the logarithmic decibel scale, the difference in a leaf blower at 62 dBA and one at 75 dBA, a 13 dBA range, represents more than a quadrupling of the sound pressure level, and would be perceived by a listener as two to three Page I-3.52
34 times as loud. The rule of thumb is that when a sound level increases by ten dB, the subjective perception is that loudness has doubled (MPCA 1987).

Fig. 2. Loudness Levels of Leaf Blowers (50 ft)
0 5
10 15
20 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Loudness (dB)
Number of Models
There are presently two gasoline-powered backpack and three hand held electric leaf blowers that are reported by their manufacturers to be very quiet. Maruyama and Toro have the two quietest backpack blowers, and Poulan/Weedeater, Stihl, and Toro have produced the quietest hand held blowers. Echo, Inc., which sells slightly under one-third of the total number of backpack blowers, has a model rated at 65 dB, the PB-46LN. In 1996, the most popular Echo backpack leaf blower, based on sales, was the Echo PB-400E, which is also one of the noisiest at 74 dBA. By 1999, however, the quieter PB-46LN had surpassed the PB-400E in sales (Will, L., pers. com.).
b. Operator Noise Exposure
Data on noise levels at the leaf blower operator’s ear are limited. The League for the Hard of Hearing (1999) publishes a fact sheet in which the noise level of a leaf blower is listed as 110 dBA. Clark (1991) reported that one model by Weedeater emitted a maximum level of 110- 112 dBA and an equivalent A-weighted sound level (L eq) of 103.6 dBA. This leaf blower model, however, is no longer available and these data may not be comparable to today=s leaf blowers.

Other than Clark=s report, no other published report could be located, but unpublished data were found.

Schulze and Lucchesi (1997), in an unpublished conference presentation, reported the range and average sound pressure level from four leaf blowers. The four leaf blowers were Page I-3.53
35 unidentified models from Craftsman, Weedeater, and Shop Vac.9 The authors reported that 3 ft from the leaf blower the sound pressure levels ranged from 80 to 96 dBA, with an average value of 88 dBA, and concluded that leaf blower noise did not violate the OSHA permissible noise exposure limit. Sound pressure levels, however, were not measured at the operator=s ear, and thus usefulness of the data is limited. In addition, whether or not the OSHA noise exposure limits are violated depends on the amount of time the listener is exposed, as the action level is an eight-hour time-weighted average. At least one of the leaf blowers had an SPL above the Permissible Exposure Limit of 90; at 96 dBA, the operator would be restricted to a 3 hr, 29 minute daily exposure without hearing protection.

The Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association (Hall 1999) conveyed limited, blinded data to the ARB on operator exposures. With no information as to data collection methods (some pages were marked AISO 7182"), manufacturers, models, or maximum and minimum sound levels, these data are of limited quality. Reported operator sound levels, some of which were identified as Afull open throttle@ or Afull load,@ ranged from 91.5 dBA to 106 dBA.

A consultant with James, Anderson & Associates, Inc. (Hager 1999), provided ARB with data collected as a part of comprehensive noise exposure studies by the firm (Table 7). As with the PPEMA data, ARB was not given the make or models of leaf blowers tested. Sound levels were recorded in the hearing zone of groundskeepers while they were operating leaf blowers, along with the amount of time the groundskeeper operated the leaf blower in an 8-hr day. Sound levels were measured in dBA per federal OSHA requirements. As shown, duration of use ranged from 15 minutes to 7.6 hours (average 2.1 hr) during the day. Operator exposure ranged from

88.6 to 101.3 dBA. In this data set, only one of the six individuals monitored would have exceeded the protective levels, based on leaf blower use for 7.6 hrs.

9ARB was not able to obtain the specific models tested or actual SPLs for each model leaf blower.

Page I-3.54
36 Table 7. Leaf Blower Operator Noise Exposures and Duration of Use (Hagar 1999)
Average SPL, dBA Minimum SPL,
dBA
Maximum SPL,
dBA
Duration of Leaf
Blower use (hr)

99.5 96.4 101.3 0.75

92.0 N/R N/R 1.0
101.2 N/R 101.9 2.3
101.3 98.3 105.7 7.6

95.9 92.0 97.0 0.25

88.6 85.0 90.4 0.5
N/R = not reported
Eric Zwerling of the Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center, along with Les Blomberg, Executive Director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, recently conducted studies of operator exposure and the sound quality of leaf blowers (Zwerling 1999). While the data are still being analyzed, preliminary results were made available to the ARB. Three backpack and one handheld leaf blowers were tested using ANSI B175.2-1996 test method for the bystander exposure and using personal dosimetry for operator exposures (Table 8). All equipment used for tests was certified and calibrated. Zwerling and Blomberg used a 3 dB exchange rate for the operator dosimetry, as recommended by NIOSH, but noted that the data can be reasonably compared to data derived with the OSHA mandated 5 dB exchange rate because of the steady sound emissions of the leaf blowers. Because of this, the OSHA permissible exposure durations, which are based on the 5 dB exchange rate, are noted in Table 8. The difference is most important for the worker, who is allowed, for example, a 1 hr exposure (unprotected) at 105 dB by OSHA, but only 4 min, 43 sec exposure (unprotected) under the more conservative NIOSHrecommended 3 dB exchange rate.

Page I-3.55
37 Table 8. Sound Levels of Some Leaf Blowers,
E. Zwerling & L. Blomberg
Make/Model Type Condition
Bystander
Exposure,
dB
Operator
Exposure,*
Leq
OSHA
Permissible
Exposure
Duration
(approx)
Stihl BR 400 Backpack New 73.89 105.7, 105.8,
105.5
52 min
Stihl BR 400 Backpack Used 74.5, 74.63 103.3, 102.9 1 hr, 19 min Kioritz DM9 Backpack Used 76.0 102.0 1 hr, 31 min
Stihl BR 75 Handheld New 68.4 98.4, 97.9 2 hr, 38 min
*Samples ranged from 5-10 minutes; each reported value is a distinct sample. The microphone was attached to the cap above the operator=s ear.

Finally, the Echo Power Blower Operator=s Manual advises operators to wear hearing protection whenever the unit is used. The user is instructed that AOSHA requires the use of hearing protection if this unit is used 2 hours per day or more.@ This statement indicates that the operator may be exposed to an SPL of 100 dBA or more during use.

6. Use of Hearing Protectors and Other Personal Protection Gear When this study was initiated, there were no studies found that documented the incidence of personal protective equipment usage among operators of leaf blowers. Hearing protectors are widely available, and some manufacturers provide an inexpensive foam ear plug set with the purchase. More expensive custom molded ear plugs and ear muffs provide better protection than the moldable foam ear plugs, but again no data were available on usage. Two studies did examine the incidence of usage of hearing protection in other industries. In one study of 524 industrial workers, although 80.5% were provided with hearing protection devices, only 5.1% wore them regularly (Maisarah & Said 1993). In another study of metal assembly workers who worked in a plant where the average noise level was 89 dBA, only 39% of the men reported wearing hearing protection always or almost always (Talbott et al. 1990).

By the end of September 1999, however, three studies were delivered to the ARB that included information on the use of hearing protection by leaf blower operators. Two of the studies consisted of direct observations of operators; the third was a survey that asked people who hire gardeners to recall the use of personal protection gear by their gardeners. Following are summaries of each of the studies.

Page I-3.56
38 a. Zero Air Pollution Study (1999)
The goal of this study was to Aobserve 100 yard maintenance workers to determine the percentage of workers who followed the safety instruction while operating gas powered leaf blowers.@ Workers were observed from August to October, 1997 in the western portions of the City of Los Angeles, including the San Fernando Valley. Of 100 leaf blower operators observed, none wore hearing protection, one (1%) wore breathing protection (dust mask), and 22 (22%) wore eye protection of some kind. Of the workers observed, 27 (27%) were interviewed; seven of those claimed hearing impairment as a result of using leaf blowers and two claimed to have breathing problems which they attributed to using leaf blowers. Ten of those interviewed (37%) said they were aware of manufacturers= safety instruction but did not feel it was necessary to follow the instructions. The remaining 17 (63%) were unaware of manufacturers= safety instructions.
b. Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento Study (1999b)
The goal of this study, as for the Zero Air Pollution study, was to determine the percentage of leaf blower operators who wear personal protective equipment when using blowers.

A total of 64 observations were made during August and September 1999; 12 in Sacramento, 47 in the Los Angeles area, and 5 in other cities. Most (88%) of the observations were of blowers being used on residential properties. Of the 64 observations, there were four (6%) individuals observed wearing hearing protection, 41 (64%) were not wearing hearing protection, and in the remaining cases the observer could not tell whether or not hearing protection was used. Eye protection use was lower, only 3 (5%) operators were wearing glasses, but breathing protection incidence was higher, seven (11%) wore dusk masks. Observations were also made of the incidence of personal protection of other workers, when the crew was larger than one person. Of the 38 observations of other workers, two (5%) were using hearing protection, two (5%) were using eye protection, and two (5%) wore dusk masks.
c. Survey99 Report (Wolfberg 1999)
The third study provided to the ARB was authored by Mrs. Diane Wolfberg, Chair of the Zero Air Pollution Education Committee and Mr. George Wolfberg. Although the authors are members of Zero Air Pollution, the study was distinct from the 1997 study summarized above.

The goal of this study was to determine Aopinions and perceptions of California residents regarding the use of leaf blowers . . . for residential landscape maintenance.@ Mainly residents of Los Angeles were surveyed. Survey takers asked residents a variety of questions related to the use of leaf blowers on residential properties; in addition, respondents were asked about the incidence of personal protective equipment use by leaf blower operators. Because the data are based on recall rather than direct observations, their usefulness is limited. Data are summarized here, nevertheless, for completeness.

Of respondents who have had leaf blowers used on their properties in the previous 12 months, 53% reported that leaf blower operators never use a face mask, 62% never use eye Page I-3.57
39 protection, and 69% never wear hearing protection. On the positive side, however, respondents reported that 13% of operators always wear a face mask, 19% always wear eye protection, and 9% always wear hearing protection. These percentages are much higher than found in the two direct observation studies.

7. Sound Quality
As discussed earlier, the perceived loudness of noise is dependent on both sound pressure level and frequency, which is termed the sound quality. One study examined sound quality from leaf blowers (Zwerling 1999). While this study is unpublished and data are still being analyzed, the authors have made data and preliminary findings available to the ARB. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate sample sound spectra from a leaf blower and ambient sound, respectively. As shown in Figure 3, the sound spectrum of the gasoline-powered leaf blower contains a significant amount of high intensity and high frequency emissions. In a quiet residential neighborhood (Figure 4), there are few or no natural sources of sound at these high frequencies. Therefore, the sound emissions of gasoline-powered leaf blowers are not only more intense than the ambient sound levels, their spectra are noticeably different than the spectrum for ambient sounds. The high frequency emissions are, therefore, not masked by other sounds and are more noticeable, perhaps accounting for the high level of annoyance reported by bystanders. These data and their implications for annoyance should be confirmed by further study.

Fig. 3. Sound Quality Spectrum of a Representative Leaf Blower Stihl BR-400
1/3 Octave Spectrum

30.0 40.0

50.0 60.0

70.0 80.0
12 25 50 100 200 400 800 1k6 3k15 6k3 12k5
Hertz
dB
Page I-3.58
40 Fig. 4. Sound Quality Spectrum of a Representative Neighborhood 1/3 Octave Spectrum

30.0 40.0

50.0 60.0

70.0 80.0
12 25 50 100 200 400 800 1k6 3k15 6k3 12k5
Hertz
dB

8. Summary
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 probably a much lower percentage, regularly wear hearing protective gear, 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.

Page I-3.59
41 III. REVIEW OF HEALTH EFFECTS
Leaf blower noise, exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, as discussed in previous sections of this report, are health concerns. The goal of this section is to present information on health effects of identified hazards from leaf blowers; this section does not present exposure information or data tying identified hazards to specific health effects in leaf blower operators or bystanders.

The following discussion addresses the health effects of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, unburned fuel, and noise. Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and unburned fuel are components of exhaust emissions; particulate matter is also the major constituent of fugitive dust. Ozone is a pollutant that is formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions of hydrocarbons (unburned fuel) and nitrogen oxides in the presence of ultraviolet light. Although not directly emitted, ozone is a pollutant of concern because leaf blowers emit hydrocarbons, which react to form ozone. The health effects of nitrogen oxides are not discussed as these emissions from leaf blowers are relatively low, and any health effects would be negligible.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been set by the federal government to protect public health and welfare. In addition, California has State ambient air quality standards.

These standards include a margin of safety to protect the population from adverse effects of chronic pollutant exposure. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California standards are intended to protect certain sensitive and probable risk groups of the general population (Appendix C).

A. Particulate Matter
Fugitive dust is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many subclasses of pollutants, collectively termed particulate matter (PM), each containing many different chemical species (U.S. EPA 1996). Particles of 10 Fm and smaller are inhalable and able to deposit and remain on airway surfaces. The smaller particles (2.5 Fm or less) are able to penetrate deep into the lungs and move into intercellular spaces. The respirable particles owe their negative health impacts, in part, to their long residence time in the lung, which allows chemicals time to interact with body tissues. ARB staff could not locate data on the specific chemical and physical make-up of leaf blower dust, although some data are available on paved road dust, thus only generic effects from the respirable fraction (particles 10 Fm and smaller) are addressed.

Many epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant associations of ambient PM levels with a variety of negative human health endpoints, including mortality, hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms and illness measured in community surveys, and changes in pulmonary mechanical function. Associations of both short-term, usually days, and long-term, usually years, PM exposure with most of these endpoints have been consistently observed. Thus, the public health community has a great deal of confidence that PM is significantly associated with negative health outcomes, based on the findings of many studies.

Page I-3.60
42 There remains uncertainty, however, regarding the magnitude and variability of risk estimates for PM. Additional areas of uncertainty include the ability to attribute observed health effects to specific PM constituents, the time intervals over which PM health effects are manifested, the extent to which findings in one location can be generalized to other locations, and the nature and magnitude of the overall public health risk imposed by ambient PM exposure.

While the existing epidemiology data provide support for the associations mentioned above, understanding of underlying biologic mechanisms is incomplete (U.S. EPA 1996).

B. Carbon Monoxide
A component of exhaust, carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, tasteless, odorless, and nonirritating gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels. With exposure to CO, subtle health effects can begin to occur, and exposure to very high levels can result in death. The public health significance of CO in the air largely results from CO being absorbed readily from the lungs into the bloodstream, forming a slowly reversible complex with hemoglobin, known as carboxyhemoglobin. The presence of significant levels of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood reduces availability of oxygen to body tissues (U.S. EPA 1999b).

Symptoms of acute CO poisoning cover a wide range depending on severity of exposure, from headache, dizziness, weakness, and nausea, to vomiting, disorientation, confusion, collapse, coma, and at very high concentrations, death. At lower doses, central nervous system effects, such as decreases in hand-eye coordination and in attention or vigilance in healthy individuals, have been noted (Horvath et al. 1971, Fodor and Winneki 1972, Putz et al. 1976, 1979, as cited in U.S. EPA 1999b). These neurological effects can develop up to three weeks after exposure and can be especially serious in children.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been set to protect public health and welfare and are intended to protect certain sensitive and probable risk groups of the general population.

The sensitive and probable risk groups for CO include anemics, the elderly, pregnant women, fetuses, young infants, and those suffering from certain blood, cardiovascular, or respiratory diseases. People currently thought to be at greatest risk from exposure to ambient CO levels are those with ischemic heart disease who have stable exercise-induced angina pectoris (cardiac chest pain) (ARB 1992, U.S. EPA 1999b). In one study, high short-term exposures to CO were found in people operating small gas-powered garden equipment (ARB 1992).

C. Unburned Fuel
Some toxic compounds are present in gasoline and are emitted to the air when gasoline evaporates or passes through the engine as unburned fuel (ARB 1997). Benzene, for example, is a component of gasoline. Benzene is a human carcinogen and central nervous system depressant.

The major sources of benzene emissions in the atmosphere are from both unburned and burned gasoline. The amount of benzene in gasoline has been reduced in recent years through the Page I-3.61
43 mandated use of California Reformulated Gasoline (ARB undated fact sheet10). Other toxic compounds that are emitted from vehicle exhaust include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3- butadiene. Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen (Group B2) and acute exposures lead to eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. 1,3-Butadiene is classified as a probable human carcinogen, is mildly irritating to the eyes and mucous membranes, and can cause neurological effects at very high levels. Formaldehyde is highly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract and can induce or exacerbate asthma. It is classified as a probable human carcinogen (Group B1).

D. Ozone
Ozone is a colorless, odorless gas and is the chief component of urban smog. It is by far the state=s most persistent and widespread air quality problem. Ozone is formed from the chemical reactions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide in the presence of sunlight. Leaf blowers emit substantial quantities of hydrocarbons, primarily from unburned fuel, which can react to form ozone. Ozone is a strong irritant and short-term exposures over an hour or two can cause constriction of the airways, coughing, sore throat, and shortness of breath. Ozone exposure may aggravate or worsen existing respiratory diseases, such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma.

Chronic exposure to ozone can damage deep portions of the lung even after symptoms, such as coughing, disappear. Over time, permanent damage can occur in the lung, leading to reduced lung capacity.

E. Noise
The literature on health effects of noise is extensive. Exposure of adults to excessive noise results in noise-induced hearing loss that shows a dose-response relationship between its incidence, the intensity of exposure, and duration of exposure. Noise-induced stimulation of the autonomic nervous system reportedly results in high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease (AAP 1997). In addition there are psychological effects. The following subsections will first discuss noise-induced hearing loss and physiological stress-related effects. Adverse impacts on sleep and communication, effects of performance and behavior, annoyance, and effects on wildlife and farm animals are also described. These are not perfect divisions between discreet affects:
nighttime noises can cause sleep-deprivation, for example, which can lead to stress, elevated blood pressure, and behavioral changes, especially if the effect is repeated and uncontrollable. But first, before discussing effects, the reader should have an understanding of how the ear functions.

10http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/cbg/pub/cbgbkgr1.htm
Page I-3.62
44 1. Hearing and the Ear
A detailed discussion of the ear=s anatomy and the mechanism by which we hear is beyond the scope of this report, but a basic level of understanding is necessary so that later discussions of damage to hearing will be better understood. For further information, the reader is referred to any basic acoustics or biology text.

The ears are paired sensory organs that serve two functions, to detect sound and to maintain equilibrium; only sound detection will be addressed in this report. The ears are composed of the external ear, middle ear, and the inner ear. With the assistance of the external ear in collecting and focusing sound, vibrations are transmitted to the middle ear via the ear canal and the eardrum. The vibrations of the eardrum are transmitted by the bones of the middle ear to the fluid-filled sensory organ of the inner ear, the cochlea. As the fluid of the inner ear vibrates, the hair cells located in the cochlea bend, stimulating sensory receptors, and leading to nerve impulses being transmitted to the brain via the auditory nerve. The greater the hair cell displacement, the more sensory receptors and neurons are stimulated, resulting in the perception of an increase in sound intensity.

Hearing loss can result from damage or growths in any portion of the ear and the part of the brain that processes the nerve impulses. Damage to the outer and middle ear result in conductive hearing loss, in which case the vibrations can still be perceived and processed if they can be transmitted by another means to the inner ear. Damage to the inner ear and auditory nerve result in sensorineural hearing loss. Sensorineural hearing loss can be temporary, if the body=s mechanisms can repair the damage, but cumulative inner ear damage will result in permanent hearing loss. Aging, diseases, certain medications, and noise cause the majority of sensorineural hearing loss, which is not reversible by surgery or medication, and is only partially restored by hearing aids.

2. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
Roughly 25% of all Americans aged 65 and older suffer from hearing loss. Contrary to common belief, hearing loss is not part of the natural aging process, but is caused by preventable, noise-induced wear and tear on the auditory system (Clark & Bohne 1999). Noise-induced hearing loss develops gradually over years and results from damage to the inner ear. Sensory cells within the cochlea are killed by exposure to excessive noise. These cells do not regenerate but are replaced with scar tissue. After weeks to years of excessive noise, the damage progresses to the point where hearing loss occurs in the high-frequency range and is detectable audiometrically; speech comprehension is not usually affected and so at this level hearing loss is goes unnoticed by the individual. Eventually, with continued exposure, the hearing loss spreads to the lower pitches necessary to understand speech. At this point, the impairment has proceeded to the level of a handicap and is quite noticeable. The damage is not reversible and is only poorly compensated for by hearing aids.

Page I-3.63
45 There is considerable variability among individuals in susceptibility to hearing loss. Based on major field studies conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. EPA suggested that a 24-hour equivalent sound level of 70 dBA would protect 96% of the population, with a slight margin of safety, from a hearing loss of less than five dBA at 4000 Hz (U.S. EPA 1974). This 24- hour, year-round equivalent sound level is based on a forty-year work-place noise level exposure (250 working days per year) of 73 dBA for eight hours and 60 dBA for the remaining 16 hours.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reviewed the recommended occupational noise standard recently (NIOSH 1996) and reaffirmed its recommended exposure limit of 85 dBA for occupational noise exposure. The report concluded that the excess risk of developing occupational noise-induced hearing loss for a 40-hr lifetime exposure at 85 dBA is 8%. In comparison, the OSHA regulation [29 CFR 1910.95] allowing a 90 dBA permissible exposure limit results in a 25% excess risk of developing hearing loss. The OSHA regulation, however, has not been changed to reflect the recommendation of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

NIOSH also recommended changing the exchange rate, which is the increment of decibels that requires the halving or doubling of exposure time, from the OSHA mandated 5 dBA to 3 dBA. This would mean that if the worker was permitted to be exposed to 85 dBA unprotected for 8 hr, then a noise exposure level of 88 dBA would be limited to 4 hr per day. The 3-dBA exchange rate is supported by acoustics theory, and by national and international consensus.

OSHA, however, continues to mandate a 5 dBA exchange rate in its regulations. In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics (1997) has asked the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to conduct research on exposure of the fetus to noise during pregnancy and recommends that the OSHA consider effects on the fetus when setting occupational noise standards.

3. Non-Auditory Physiological Response
In addition to hearing loss, other physiologic and psychological responses resulting from noise have been noted and are termed non-auditory effects. Noise is assumed to act as a nonspecific biological stressor, eliciting a Afight or flight@ response that prepares the body for action (Suter 1991). Research has focused on effects of noise on blood pressure and changes in blood chemistry indicative of stress. Despite decades of research, however, the data on effects are inconclusive. While many studies have shown a positive correlation between hearing loss, as a surrogate for noise exposure, and high blood pressure, others have shown no correlation (Suter 1991; Kryter 1994). The National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (1996) has called for further research to define a dose-response relationship between noise and non-auditory effects, such as hypertension and psychological stress.

Page I-3.64
46 4. Interference with Communication
The inability to communicate can degrade the quality of living directly, by disturbing social and work-related activities, and indirectly, by causing annoyance and stress. The U.S. EPA (1974), in developing its environmental noise levels, determined that prolonged interference with speech was inconsistent with public health and welfare. Noise that interferes with speech can cause effects ranging from slight irritation to a serious safety hazard (Suter 1991), and has been shown to reduce academic performance in children in noisy schools, as reviewed by Kryter (1994). The U.S. EPA, therefore, developed recommended noise levels that are aimed at preventing interference with speech and reduced academic performance. An outdoor yearly average day-night sound level of 55 dBA permits adequate speech communication at about 9-10 ft, and also assures that outdoor noise levels will not cause indoor levels to exceed the recommended level of 45 dBA.

5. Interference with Sleep
It is common experience that sound rouses sleepers. Noise that occurs when one is trying to sleep not only results in repeated awakenings and an inadequate amount of sleep, but is also annoying and can increase stress. Noise that is below the level that awakens, however, also changes the sleep cycle, reduces the amount of “rapid eye movement” sleep, increases body movements, causes cardiovascular responses, and can cause mood changes and performance decreases the next day (Suter 1991). The U.S. EPA recommended an indoor average yearly daynight level of 45 dBA, which translates into a night time average sound level of 35 dBA, to protect most people from sleep disturbance.

An average sound level, however, does not adequately account for peak sound events that can awaken and disturb sleep. Continuous noise has a significantly smaller sleep disturbance effect than intermittent noise. Research has found that subjects in sleep laboratory experiments will gradually reduce the number of awakenings throughout the night in response to noise, but other physiological changes, including a momentary increase in heart rate, indicative of arousal do not change. The question is whether physiological arousal, short of awakening, has a negative health effect. While study results are inconclusive on this issue, it is clear that noise above a certain level, about 55 dBA Leq according to Kryter (1994), will awaken people, even after long periods of repeated exposures. Repeated awakenings reduce feelings of restedness and cause feelings of annoyance, leading to stress responses and associated health disorders.

6. Effects on Performance and Behavior
The working hypothesis in this area has been that noise can cause adverse effects on task performance and behavior at work, in both occupational and non-occupational settings. Results of studies, however, have not always been as predicted. Sometimes noise actually improves performance, and sometimes there are no measurable differences in performance between noisy and quiet conditions (Suter 1991). Kryter (1994) concluded that masking by noise of other Page I-3.65
47 auditory signals is the only inherent auditory variable responsible for observed effects of noise on mental and psychomotor tasks.

The effect of noise on “helping behavior” in the presence and absence of noise is more clear. Mathews and Canon (1975) tested the hypothesis that high noise levels may lead to inattention to the social cues that structure and guide interpersonal behavior. In a laboratory study in which subjects did not know they were being studied, they found that fewer persons were willing to help someone who had Aaccidentally@ dropped materials when background noise levels were 85 dB than when they were 65 dB or 48 dB. In a subsequent field study, similar results were demonstrated with background noise from a lawn mower. Initially, subjects were tested as to their willingness to help a man who had dropped books and papers while walking from his car to a house; in this test, helping behavior was low both in ambient (50 dB) and high (87 dB) noise conditions. When the test was repeated with a cast on the arm of the man who dropped the books, helping behavior was high under ambient noise (80%) and low under high noise (15%) conditions. These and other studies lead to the conclusion (Suter 1991) that even moderate noise levels can increase anxiety, decrease the incidence of helping behavior, and increase the likelihood of hostile behavior.

7. Annoyance and Community Response
Annoyance is a response to noise that has been extensively studied for years. Various U.S. government agencies began investigating the relationships between aircraft noise and its effect on people in the early 1950's. Annoyance is measured as an individual response to survey questions on various environmental factors, including as noise (Suter 1991). The consequences of noiseinduced annoyance are privately held dissatisfaction, publicly expressed complaints, and possibly adverse health effects. Fidell et al. (1991) reviewed and synthesized the relationship between transportation noise and the prevalence of annoyance in communities based on over 30 studies.

The relationship is an exponentially increasing function, with less than 10% of respondents reporting themselves to be highly annoyed at noises under an average day-night sound level of 56 dB. Fifty percent responded they were highly annoyed at sound levels approaching 79 dB, and nearly every person was highly annoyed at sound levels above 90 dB.

Suter (1991) concluded that throughout decades of study, community annoyance has been positively correlated with noise exposure level, and that although variables such as ambient noise level, time of day, time of year, location, and socioeconomic status are important, the most important variable is the attitude of the affected residents. Kryter (1994) further elaborates that interference by noise, and the associated annoyance, depends on the activity of an individual when the noise event occurs, and the intensity and duration of the noise. People have different beliefs about noise, which are also important. Those most annoyed share similar beliefs that the noise may be dangerous, is probably preventable, are aware that non-auditory effects are associated with the noise source, state they are sensitive to noise, and believe that the economic benefit represented by the source is not important for the community (Fields 1990).

8. Effects of Noise on Animals
Page I-3.66
48 Kryter (1994) reviewed studies on the effects of noise both on wildlife and farm animals.

None of these studies examine noise-induced hearing loss, but rather looked at effects of noise on litter size, prevalence of wildlife, and milk production. Most of the studies were conducted to examine the effects of airport noise, including noise from landings and takeoffs and sonic booms near commercial and military airports, and noise from construction activities during laying of pipelines across wilderness areas. Negative impacts on wildlife and farm animals, due to noise, were not supported by the studies. In the airport studies, the absence of human activities in the areas surrounding the high noise exposure zones appeared to be more important than noise, resulting in abundant wildlife. Farm animals exposed to frequent sonic booms showed little or no negative effects, again using such criteria as reproduction, milk production, and growth rate. No study, however, has examined the effects of leaf blower noise on animals.

Page I-3.67
49 IV. POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS
This section of the report synthesizes the information presented in the two previous sections, hazard identification and health effects, and characterizes the potential health impacts of leaf blowers on operators and bystanders. As discussed previously, there are no studies of the health impacts of leaf blowers, and essential information is missing that prevents ARB from preparing a quantitative risk characterization. There is, for example, no information on the quantitative relationship between exposure to hazards from leaf blowers and adverse effects. The size of the exposed population and the magnitude and duration of exposures are also unknown.

The goal of this section, then, is to point the discussion in directions dictated by the findings of the two previous sections, and to raise questions about the nature of 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 settings.

Leaf-blower operators and bystanders have two different types of exposures to exhaust and fugitive dust emissions: exposures that occur on a regional basis and exposures that occur when one is within a short distance of the leaf blower. Regional exposures are those exposures to air pollution that occur as a result of leaf blowers contributing to the basin-wide inventory of ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, and toxic air pollutants. While leaf blowers contribute a small percentage to the basin-wide air pollution, they are nonetheless a source of air pollution that can be, and is, controlled through exhaust emission standards.

The second type of exposure is of greater concern. Lawn and landscape contractors, homeowners using a leaf blower, and those in the immediate vicinity of a leaf blower during and shortly after operation, are exposed to potentially high exhaust, fugitive dust, and noise emissions from leaf blowers on a routine basis. While ARB staff have not located conclusive data on how often, how long, and at what concentrations exposures occur, the ARB off-road model assumes that each commercial leaf blower is used for 275 hr/yr, and each residential leaf blower is used for 10 hr/yr. These figures do not tell us, however, how long each leaf blower operator is exposed.

Because of the highly speculative nature of the data on operator and bystander exposure time, staff have been unable to develop estimates of the quantities of chemicals individuals could be exposed to per amount of time. Instead, impacts are presented somewhat qualitatively, with recommendations for appropriate personal protection or controls from hazards that staff have found to be significant.

A. The Leaf Blower Operator
In this section, data are presented that apply to the commercial leaf blower operator, a person who regularly uses the leaf blower in the course of a landscaping or gardening job. Staff assume that a commercial leaf blower operator will use equipment with a higher horsepower than a residential, or homeowner, operator.

Page I-3.68
50 1. Exhaust Emissions
The typical leaf blower owned and operated by commercial lawn and landscape contractors, with an average horsepower of three and a load factor of 50% based on the ARB offroad emissions model, produces the estimated average emissions for a one hour usage as shown in Table 9. Actual operator usage apparently ranges from 15 minutes to a full work day (Table 7).

To illustrate the magnitude of potential exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, staff have compared the estimated leaf blower emissions to the emissions from one hour of operation of two different types of light duty vehicles, one new and one old. A comparison of emissions from leaf blowers to vehicle engines is relevant to provide some sense of the relative quantities of pollutants.

Table 9. Commercial Leaf Blower Emissions Compared to Light Duty Vehicle Emissions 3 hp average, 50% load factor, 1999 emissions data
Exhaust Emissions,
g/hr
Exhaust Emissions,
new light duty
vehicle,* g/hr
Exhaust Emissions,
older light duty
vehicle,** g/hr
Hydrocarbons 199.26 0.39 201.9
Carbon Monoxide 423.53 15.97 1310
Particulate Matter 6.43 0.13 0.78
Fugitive Dust 48.6-1031 N/A N/A
*New light duty vehicle represents vehicles one year old, 1999 or 2000 model year, driven for one hour at 30 mph.
**Older light duty vehicle represents vehicles 1975 model year and older, pre-catalytic vehicle, driven for one hour at 30 mph.

For CO (Table 9), the estimated 423 g emitted by one hour of leaf blower use is approximately 26 times the amount emitted by a new vehicle, but approximately one-third of the CO emissions of an older vehicle. While not implying that the operator will inhale this amount of CO, these data do suggest concern about the relatively large amount of CO emitted directly into the air space surrounding the operator. For particulate matter exhaust emissions, the leaf blower emits eight to 49 times the particulates of a light duty vehicle, primarily because of the large amount of unburned fuel directly released by the two-stroke engine.

Another way to visualize the data is to compare emissions for a given amount of leaf blower operation to miles traveled by car. The Air Resources Board regularly publishes such emissions benchmarks. Thus, for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage Page I-3.69
51 (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed.

Exposure data are necessary to determine potential health impacts of the pollutants. Since few exposure data exist, staff have developed a model that estimates potential exposures based on 10 minutes of leaf blower operation and compares those emissions to the amount of still air in which emissions would need to be mixed to avoid a transitory, local exceedance of the ambient air quality standards, which are health-based standards. Details of the model and results are presented in Appendix J.

The exposure scenario suggests that 10 minutes of leaf blower usage could expose the operator to a significant, potentially harmful dose of CO, assuming a worst case exposure, in which there is no dispersion of pollutants out of the immediate area. In this case, the operator could be exposed to potentially harmful amounts of carbon monoxide. The best case would be that all emissions and fugitive dust from the leaf blower would be blown out of the immediate area, resulting in little or no exposure to the operator. Actual exposures would most likely be somewhere in between these two assumptions and would vary greatly with weather conditions, wind, use or nonuse of protective gear, walking speed of the operator, and type of machine used.

In addition, for carbon monoxide exposures, whether or not the operator has heart disease would be important in determining potential risk. Exposure studies would need to be conducted to obtain more reliable estimates of operator exposure, and staff recommend further research.

On December 27, 1999, ARB was mailed a redacted copy of a 1995 report on operator exposure levels for several chemicals that are present in handheld gasoline-powere equipment exhaust emissions. The report summarized breathing zone measurements during operation of chain saws, a string trimmer, and a leaf blower, but all data pertaining to equipment other than the leaf blower was blacked-out. The study and its limitations are discussed in some detail in Appendix H, but it is relevant to note here that ARB has received two measurements from one leaf blower of breathing zone concentrations of carbon monoxide, toluene, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. As reported in the study, concentrations of carbon monoxide, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene were high enough as to reinforce concern over operator exosures for the commercial leaf blower operator.

2. Fugitive Dust
Estimated fugitive dust emissions cannot be compared to light duty vehicle exhaust. The worst case exposure scenario, however, suggests that ten minutes of use of a commercial blower would exposure the operator to significant amounts of PM (Appendix J). While leaf blower operators would not be expected to spend significant amounts of time within such a particulate cloud, the day-in-day-out exposure to this much PM10 could result in serious, chronic health consequences in the long-term. Short-term exposures of one to two days to high levels of PM can lead to coughing and minor throat irritation. Long-term exposures have shown statistically significant associations of ambient PM levels with a variety of negative human health outcomes, as discussed previously. These data strongly suggest that professional leaf blowers operators, and Page I-3.70
52 those regularly working within the envelope described above, should wear a face mask effective at filtering PM from the air, and further research is warranted.

3. Noise
The potential health impacts of leaf blowers on workers from noise center on noiseinduced hearing loss. Two factors contribute to an increased risk of hearing loss in typical career gardeners: the high sound pressure levels emitted by leaf blowers at the level of the operator=s ear, and the infrequent use of hearing protection. While we cannot estimate the percentage of workers who will experience noise-induced hearing loss without additional data, these two factors are likely to be responsible for hearing loss in an unknown percentage of workers, although individuals may not notice any hearing loss until many years have passed. In order to reduce potential hearing loss, employers should ensure that employees use hearing protection. State and local health and enforcement agencies should promote hearing protection in campaigns targeted at professional landscapers and gardeners. Hearing loss is gradual, and may become obvious only years after the exposure has ceased.

B. The Public-at-Large
Those who are not working in landscaping and gardening fall into two categories:
homeowners doing their own gardening and bystanders. Homeowners who chose to use a leaf blower likely experience relatively low-level exposures which they control. Bystanders may experience low or high exposures, depending on the nature of the exposure. Bystanders, however, almost never have chosen to be exposed to the exhaust, dust, and noise emissions of the leaf blower. Thus their attitude toward the leaf blower is likely very negative and they may be highly annoyed by the exposure.

In addition, staff have received letters, and read testimonials on Internet web-sites, concerning acute symptoms, such as asthma and allergies, exhibited by sensitive individuals to relatively limited exposures. These symptoms have not been evaluated in this report as they are anecdotal and unable to be substantiated. The recent study by Miguel et al. (1999), however, lends support to those who claim that exposure to leaf blower-generated dust causes allergic and asthmatic symptoms. It is also important to acknowledge that some individuals may be very sensitive to the emissions from leaf blowers and unable to tolerate exposures that do not seem to bother other individuals.

In addition to homeowner-leaf blower operators and bystanders who are in the vicinity of leaf blower operation, everyone is exposed to a small degree to air pollution that results from exhaust and dust emissions from leaf blowers. This report does not quantify those exposures, but the ARB does regulate exhaust emissions from leaf blowers, as from most other sources of air pollution. All sources of air pollution need to be reduced in order that Californians can breathe clean air.

Page I-3.71
53 1. Exhaust Emissions
The typical leaf blower owned and operated by a homeowner for private residential use is assumed to have an average horsepower of 0.8 and a load factor of 50%, based on the ARB offroad emissions model. Emissions from one hour of operation are compared to exhaust emissions from two different age light duty vehicles (Table 10). There are few data available on the length of time a homeowner runs a leaf blower, but it is likely that the homeowner uses a leaf blower for less than one hour, which would reduce the potential exposures and impacts.

Table 10. Homeowner Leaf Blower Emissions Compared to Light Duty Vehicle Emissions

0.8 hp average, 50% load factor, 1999 emissions data
Exhaust Emissions,
g/hr
Exhaust Emissions,
new light duty
vehicle,* g/hr
Exhaust Emissions,
older light duty
vehicle,** g/hr
Hydrocarbons 56.73 0.39 201.9
Carbon Monoxide 119.2 15.97 1310
Particulate Matter 1.44 0.13 0.78
Fugitive Dust 48.6-1031 N/A N/A
*New light duty vehicle represents vehicles one year old, 1999 or 2000 model year, driven for one hour at 30 mph.
**Older light duty vehicle represents vehicles 1975 model year and older, pre-catalytic vehicle, driven for one hour at 30 mph.

As with the heavier-duty commercial leaf blower, CO and particulate matter emissions from the lighter-duty leaf blower are many times higher than emissions of the same pollutants from vehicles (Table 10). CO emissions from a leaf blower that might be used by a typical homeowner are significantly lower than those from a commercial leaf blower (Table 9) and it is likely that homeowners use leaf blowers for much less than one hour at a time. The exposure scenario for homeowner usage (Appendix J) estimates a correspondingly lower potential exposure. The homeowner is, therefore, less likely to be exposed to potentially harmful amounts of carbon monoxide, although sensitive individuals should be cautioned. For all exhaust emissions, exposures are considerably lower in a residential setting than in a commercial setting. In the best case, all emissions and fugitive dust from the leaf blower would be blown out of the operator=s immediate area, resulting in little or no exposure. Actual exposures would most likely be somewhere in between these two assumptions and would vary greatly with weather conditions, wind, use or nonuse of protective gear, walking speed of the operator, and type of machine used.

Exposure studies would need to be conducted to obtain more reliable estimates of operator exposure, and staff recommend further research.

Page I-3.72
54 As discussed in Section IV. A. 1., another way to visualize the data is to compare emissions for a given amount of leaf blower operation to miles traveled by car. The Air Resources Board regularly publishes such emissions benchmarks. Thus, for the average 1999 homeownertype leaf blower and car data presented in Table 10, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 2,200 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of a homeowner-type leaf blower useage (Table 10) would be equivalent to about 110 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed.

2. Fugitive Dust Emissions
For fugitive dust, because the homeowner is likely using leaf blowers for a very short time each week, the potential risk from exposure is much lower than for commercial gardeners. Still, based on estimates in the exposure scenario (Appendix J), staff recommends that even homeowners wear a dust filtering mask when using a leaf blower.

3. Noise
The homeowner who uses a leaf blower for a brief amount of time each week or two is unlikely to experience noise-induced hearing loss. The cumulative exposure to many recreational sources of noise, such as recreational power tool use, lawn care, shooting, boating, concert-going, and other activities that expose one to loud noises, however, is likely to be great enough to impact hearing (Clark 1991). Those who regularly use noisy power equipment should be in the habit of using hearing protection to reduce their overall exposure to potentially damaging noise.

The likelihood of a bystander exposed to leaf blower noise on an irregular basis experiencing hearing loss is low. The potential health impacts from leaf blowers on bystanders that are likely more important include interference with communication, sleep interruption, and annoyance. Each of these impacts may in turn lead to stress responses, although research has not conclusively tied chronic exposures with any particular adverse health outcome. Although interference with communication, sleep interruption, and annoyance may not seem to be serious impacts, they are important health and quality of life issues for many people. At least 100 municipalities in California have restricted or banned the use of leaf blowers within city limits in response to people who object to the loud noise of leaf blowers interrupting their lives.

Page I-3.73
55 C. Summary of Potential Health Impacts
Health effects from hazards identified as being generated by leaf blowers ranging 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 hearing loss. While exposures to CO, PM, and noise may not have immediate, acute effects, the potential health impacts are potentially greater for chronic effects. In addition, evidence of significantly elevated concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene in the breathing zone of workers leads to concern about exposures to these two toxic air contaminants.

Potential noise and PM effects 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 for these air pollutants. More study of CO and other air toxics exposures to leaf blower operators is warranted 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.

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 owneroperators are likely not concerned about the noise and dust, they are 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.

Page I-3.74
56 V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Legislature asked ARB to include recommendations for alternatives in the report, if ARB determines alternatives are necessary. This report makes no recommendations for alternatives. Based on the lack of available data, such conclusions are premature at this time.

Exhaust standards already in place have significantly reduced exhaust emissions from the engines used on leaf blowers, and manufacturers have 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 its January 27, 2000, public hearing, the Air Resources Board directed its 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 ARB or another state agency set healthbased standards for noise and control noise pollution.

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.

Page I-3.75
57 VI. REFERENCES CITED
Air Resources Board, Staff report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the public hearing to consider amendments to the 1999 small off-road engine regulations. Mailout MSC#98-02, January 1998a; [online at: http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/regact/sore/sore.htm].

Air Resource Board. Notice of public meeting to consider the approval of California=s 1990 small off-road engine emission inventory. Mailout MSC#98-04, March 1998b.

Air Resources Board. Compound summaries, Toxic Air Contaminant identification list.

Acetaldehyde, pp 1-5; Benzene, pp 91-96; 1,3-Butadiene, pp 141-145; Formaldehyde, pp 513-517. [Online at http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/toxicx/tac/toctbl.htm] September 1997.

Air Resources Board, Research Division. Cardiac response to carbon monoxide in the natural environment. Contract no. A3-138-33. 1992.

Allen, Jack; Legislative Liaison for Zero Air Pollution, letter to Nancy Steele, Air Resources Board, July 29, 1999a.

Allen, Jack; Coalition to Ban Leafblowers, letter to Dr. Nancy Steele, Air Resources Board, October 5, 1999b.

AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn (RE9728). Pediatrics, 100(4), 1997; [online at:
http://www.aap.org/policy/re9728.html, 07/08/99].

Anonymous (confidential), Research & Development Laboratory. Leafblower Usage Survey, Commercial Contractors/So. California, February 1999.

Barnthouse, L.; Fava, J.; Humphreys, K.; Hunt, R.; Laibson, L.; Noesen, S.; Norris, G.; Owens, J.; Todd, J.; Vigon, B.; Weitz, K.; & Young, J.; Life-cycle Impact Assessment: the Stateof-the-art, 2nd ed. Report of the SETAC Life-Cycle Assessment Impact Assessment Workgroup. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, 1997.

Berglund, B; Lindvall, T. Community Noise. Archives of the Center for Sensory Research, 2: 1- 195, 1995; [online: http://www.who.int/
environmental_information/Information_resources/community_noise.htm].

Botsford, CW; Lisoski, D; Blackman, W; Kam, W. Fugitive Dust Study - Characterization of Uninventoried Sources.Final report. AV-94-06-214A. AeroVironment, Monrovia, CA.

March, 1996.

Page I-3.76
58 CDF (California State Department of Finance). City/county population estimates, with annual percent change, January 1, 1998 and 1999. Sacramento, CA, May 1999; [online at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/e-1text.htm, 07-27-99].

CDF (California State Department of Finance). Historical county population estimates and components of changes, July 1, 1970-1990. Sacramento, CA, December, 1998; [online at:
http://www.dog.ca.gov/html/Demograp/E-6cover.htm, 8/2/1999].

City of Los Angeles. Letter received from Ronald F. Deaton, Office of the Legislative Analyst, to Robert H. Crosse [sic], with attachment, dated August 6, 1999.

City of Palo Alto. City Manager=s Report. Approval of ordinances amending Palo Alto municipal code chapter 9.10 modifying leaf blower regulations to include a ban of fuel-powered leaf blowers in residential areas, Chapter 9.10 related to public property noise limits and Chapter 9.48 prohibiting the blowering of debris onto adjadent properties. CMR:120:00, January 31, 2000.

City of Palo Alto. City Manager=s Report. Revised recommendations regarding the use of leaf blowers in Palo Alto. CMR:352:99, September 14, 1999b.

City of Palo Alto. City Manager=s Report. Recommendations regarding the regulations of the use of leaf blowers in Palo Alto. CMR:139:99, February 23, 1999a.

City of Palo Alto. City Manager=s Report; Leaf blower assignment - 2nd status report.

CMR:341:98, August 10, 1998b.

City of Palo Alto. City Manager=s Report; Leaf blower assignment status report. CMR:216:98, April 27, 1998a.

Clark, WW; Bohne, BA. Effects of noise on hearing. JAMA, 281: 1658-1659, 1999.

Clark, WW. Noise exposure from leisure activities: a review. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 90:175-181, 1991.

CLCA (California Landscape Contractors Association). CLCA positions on leaf blowers. March 1999.

Consumer Reports. Noise. Special report. September, pp 19-22, 1999.

Covell, N. Report back on the air quality impact of leaf blowers. Memo to the Board of Directors, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. For the agenda of:

March 5, 1998.

Page I-3.77
59 CQS. Leaf blower facts website, undated; [Online at: http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/ cqs/leafblow.htm, 8/16/1999a].

CQS. Leaf blower operator compliance with manufacturer=s safety instructions. Compiled by Julie Kelts, Sacramento, CA, August - September 1999b.

Dunaway, Mac S., Counsel for PPEMA (Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers= Association).

Transmittal of ANSI B175.2-1996 proposed revision in letter to Jackie Lourenco, Air Resources Board, June 15, 1999.

Fava, J; Consoli, R; Denison, R; Dickson, K; Mohin, T; Vigon, B. A Conceptual Framework for Life-cycle Impact Assessment. Proceedings of a workshop in Sandestin, FL, 1-7 Feb 1992.

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, 1993.

Fava, J; Denison, F; Jones, B; Curran, M; Vigon, B; Selke, S; Barnum, J. A Technical Framework for Life-cycle Assessment. Proceedings of a workshop in Smuggler’s Notch, VT, 18-23 Aug. 1990. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL, 1991.

Fidell, S; Barber, DS; Schultz, TJ. Updating a dosage-effect relationship for the prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89: 221-233, 1991.

Fields, JM. Policy-related goals for community response. In Noise as a Public Health Problem, Berglund, B; Lindvall, T, Eds.; Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Aug 21-25, 1998. Swedish Council for Building Research:

Stockholm, 1990; pp 115-134.

Finlayson-Pitts, B. and Pitts, JN. Atmospheric Chemistry: Fundamentals and Experimental Techniques. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1986.

Fletcher, H; Munson, AW. Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation. J Acoust. Soc.

Am., 5: 82-108, 1933.

Gillies, J, Chow, J, Nickling, WG. Resuspension of Particles by Wind - A Literature Review for San Joaquin Valley Regional Particulate Study. Technical Support Study No.5: Particle Resuspension; for the California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, January 29, 1996.

Hager, Lee; James, Anderson & Associates, Inc. Facsimile transmission to Nancy Steele, ARB, on October 8, 1999, 1 p.

Hall, MF. PPEMA comments on draft ARB leafblower report. Letter to Dr. Nancy Steele, ARB, October 8, 1999, 12 pp plus attachments.

IME (International Marketing Exchange, Inc.). City list of noise activity as of July 16, 1999.

Inventory of documents, July 1999.

Page I-3.78
60 Kryter, KD. The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise: Physiology, Psychology, and Public Health. Academic Press: San Diego, 1994.

League for the Hard of Hearing. Noise Levels in our Environment Fact Sheet, March 19, 1999; [online at: http://www.1hh.org/noise/decibel.htm, 06/15/99].

LINK (Landscapers Involved With Neighborhoods and Kids). Website, 1999; [online at:
www.concentric.net/ ~Wrigfam, 7/23/1999].

Maisarah, SZ; Said, H. The noise exposed factory workers: the prevalence of sensori-neural hearing loss and their use of personal hearing protection devices. Med. J. Malaysia, 48:
280-285, 1993.

Mathews, KE, Jr.; Canon, LK. Environmental noise level as a determinant of helping behavior. J. of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 571-577, 1975.

McGuire, T. Air Pollution from Leaf Blowers, letter to RG Johnson, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District. Air Resources Board, Technical Support Division; July 9, 1991.

Miguel, AG; Cass, GR; Glovsky, MM; Weiss, J. Allergens in paved road dust and airborne particles. Environ. Sci. & Technol., 33: 4159-4168, 1999.

MRI (Midwest Research Institute). Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions, Final Report for U.S EPA; MRI Project No. 4604-06. Kansas City, Missouri, April 15, 1997.

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). An Introduction to Sound Basics. St. Paul, MN, 1987; [online at: http://www.nonoise.org/ library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm, 07/08/99].

Muleski, Gregory E., Midwest Research Institute. Personal communication with Hector Maldonado, Air Resources Board, August 1999.

Nakamura, Douglas, Northwest Landscape Maintenance, in a letter to Dr. Nancy Steele, ARB, October 8, 1999, 2 pp.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Criteria for a recommended standard occupational noise exposure, revised criteria. Draft document; August 12, 1996; [online at: http://www.nonoise.org/library/niosh/criteria.htm, 8/12/99].

NRC (National Research Council). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1983.

Omenn, GS; Kessler, AC; Anderson, NT; Chiu, PY; Doull, J; Goldstein, B; Lederberg, J; McGuire, SM; Rall, D; Weldon, VV; Charnley, G. Risk Assessment and Risk Management Page I-3.79
61 in Regulatory Decision Making, Vol. 2. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Washington, D.C., 1997.

Orange County Grand Jury. Leaf Blower Pollution Hazards in Orange County. Orange County Council of Governments, February 17, 1999.

PPEMA (Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association). Hand held gasoline powered equipment 1998 U.S. shipments and 1999 outlook. Press release. March 8, 1999.

Rippey, Mary, Labor Market Information Division, California Employment Development Department. Personal communication with Nancy Steele, August 4, 1999.

SCAQMD.(South Coast Air Quality Management District). Final staff report, proposed rule 1623 - credits for clean lawn and garden equipment. Diamond Bar, CA, May 1996.

Schulze, LJH; Lucchesi, J. Sound pressure levels of common lawn equipment used in the industrial and non-industrial work environment. Presented at American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, Dallas, TX, 1997.

Seinfeld, JH, and Pandis, SN. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics - From Air Pollution to Climate Change. Wiley & Sons: New York, 1998.

Shapiro, SA. The Dormant Noise Control Act and Options to Abate Noise Pollution.

Administrative Conference of the United States, November 1991; [online at:
http://www.nonoise.org/library/shapiro/shapiro.htm, 06/15/99].

Smaus, R. Leaf blowers make for barren earth. Los Angeles Times, K10, K15., July 13, 1997.

Stevens, SS. The measurement of loudness. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 27: 815-829, 1955.

Suter, AH. Noise and its effects. Administrative Conference of the United States, November 1991; [online at: http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm, 06/15/99].

Talbott, EO; Rindlay, RC; Kuller, LH; Lenkner, LA; Matthews, KA; Day, RD; Ishii, EK. Noiseinduced hearing loss: a possible marker for high blood pressure in older noise-exposed populations. J. Occup. Med., 32: 690-697, 1990.

U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Phase 2 emission standard for new nonroad sparkignitiion handheld engines at or below 19 kilowatts; proposed rule. 64 Federal Register 40940-40972; July 28, 1999a.

U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Air quality criteria for carbon monoxide.

External review draft. EPA/600/P-99/001. Washington, D.C., 1999b.

Page I-3.80
62 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume II, Mobile Sources, Section II: Nonroad Mobile Sources; AP-42, 4th Edition, Washington, D.C., 1997.

U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Air quality criteria for particulate matter.

EPA/600/P-95/001aF. Washington, D.C., 1996.

U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise in America: the extent of the noise problem. EPA 550/9-81-101. Washington, D.C., September 1981.

U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information of levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.

EPA/ONAC 55019-74-004, Washington, DC, March 1974; [online at:
www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm, 7/15/1999].

Venkatram, A; Fitz, DR. Measurement and modeling of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from paved roads in California. Phase I Final Report, ARB#94-336. Prepared for the Air Resources Board. November 1998.

Will, Larry, Vice President, Engineering, Echo Incorporated. Personal communication with Nancy Steele, August 1999a.

Will, Larry, Vice President, Engineering, Echo Incorporated, in a letter to Dr. Nancy Steele, ARB, September 23, 1999b.

Wolfberg, D; Wolfberg, G. Survey 99 Report. ZAP Education Committee, Los Angeles, CA.

September 28, 1999.

Yardemiam, Vasken, Transportation Specialist, SCAQMD, Diamond Bar, CA. Personal communications with Nancy Steele, ARB, July 1999.

Zero Air Pollution. A study of operator observance of safety instructions for gas powered leaf blowers and of time of use of blowers. Prepared by Jack Allen, Chairman, Research Committee, Pacific Palisades, CA. August 30, 1999.

Zinko, C. Leaf-blower showdown on way in Palo Alto. San Francisco Chronicle, A22, February 2, 2000.

Zwerling, E. Electronic communications with Nancy Steele, October 1999, 8 pp.

Page I-3.81
Comparison between gas and electric leaf blowers
If electric leaf blowers are continuously used at the turbo setting (highest power), it can drain the battery quickly. Backpack batteries for leaf blowers typically last about two hours with handheld leaf blower batteries lasting less. For professional gardeners, it is likely they will need at least one additional backup battery. The table below provides a comparison of performance, cost, and other considerations between gas and electric leaf blowers.

Table 1: Comparison of Gas and Electric Leaf Blowers
Type of equipment Gas Electric/Battery
Backpack leaf blower Miles per hour (MPH): Up to
239
Airflow-cubic feet per minute
(CFM): up to 912
Cost range: $360-$650
Cost for fuel: See case study
Convenience: Does not
require charging and easy to
refuel
MPH: up to 192
Airflow CFM: up to 792
Cost range: $400-$700
Limited time discount cost:
$300
Cost for fuel: likely savings,
but may require purchasing
extra batteries $1,300 per
battery (limited time discount
price $450).

Convenience: requires
planning and efficient use of
equipment as it takes 4-5
hours to charge if fully
depleted. Battery lasts about
two hours.

Handheld leaf blower MPH: up to 190
CFM: up to 444
Cost range: $150-$250
Cost for fuel: See case study
Convenience: Does not
require charging and easy to
refuel
MPH: up to 188
CFM: up to 494
Cost Range: $280-$450
Limited time discount: $150
Cost for fuel: Likely savings,
but may require purchasing
extra batteries $50 per battery
(limited time discount $15)
Convenience: requires
planning and efficient use of
equipment as it takes 1 to 2
hours to charge if fully
depleted
ATTACHMENT D Page I-3.82
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Manager's Office
February 1, 2023
RE: Requesting feedback on proposed gas powered landscaping equipment requirements
Empty
Dear gardening professional,
Menlo Park residents want the City to address noise and air pollution caused by gas powered gardening equipment with proposed new rules for zero emission equipment.

The City Council will decide on new rules in April or May 2023. If approved:
 Use of gas-powered leaf blowers and string trimmers (weed whackers) will not be allowed starting July 2024.
 Use of other gas-powered gardening equipment such as chain saws, lawnmowers and hedge trimmers would not be allowed starting January 2029.  Property owners would be fined if the hired landscaping/gardening service uses gas powered equipment after the new rules take effect.
 You would receive no fines or penalties based on the proposed rules. But your customers may ask you to use electric equipment so they are not fined.

Take action

1. Tell us your thoughts at publicinput.com/zele. Let me know if you need a paper survey.

2. Discounts on electric equipment are available for a limited time. View attachment.

3. Go to a virtual meeting to learn about discounted equipment, tips on switching to electric, and to tell us your thoughts on the proposed rules. Register at menlopark.gov/zele
 Thursday, Feb. 16, 2023, from 7:30–8:30 p.m.
 Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023, from 12:15-1:15 p.m.
 Sunday, March 5, 2023, from 10:30-11:30 a.m.

Do you have questions or need help? Please email me, Rebecca Lucky, at [email protected] or call 650-330-6765. Subscribe to updates under Projects at menlopark.gov/subscribe.

Survey link
publicinput.com/zele
Website for info and
webinar registration
menlopark.gov/zele
Page I-3.83 ATTACHMENT E
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Oficina del Administrador de la Ciudad
1 de febrero de 2023
EmptyRE: Solicitando comentarios sobre los requisitos propuestos para los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gas
Empty
Estimado profesional de jardinería,
Los residentes de Menlo Park quieren que el Ayuntamiento aborde la contaminación acústica y atmosférica causada por los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gas con las nuevas normas propuestas para los equipos de emisiones cero.

El Ayuntamiento decidirá sobre las nuevas normas en abril o mayo de 2023. Si se aprueban:
 El uso de sopladores de hojas y recortadoras de hilo (desbrozadoras) que funcionen con gas no estará permitido a partir de julio de 2024.  El uso de otros equipos de jardinería que funcionen con gas, como motosierras, cortacéspedes y cortasetos, no estaría permitido a partir de enero de 2029.  Los propietarios serían multados si el servicio contratatdo de paisajismo/jardinería utiliza equipos que funcionan con gas después de la entrada en vigor de las nuevas normas.
 Usted no recibiría ninguna multa o sanción basada en las normas propuestas.

Pero es posible que sus clientes le pidan que utilice equipos eléctricos para no ser multados.

Tome medidas

1. Díganos lo que piensa en publicinput.com/zeles. Avíse si necesita una encuesta en papel.

2. Los descuentos en equipos eléctricos están disponibles por tiempo limitado. Ver archivo adjunto.

3. Asista a una reunión virtual para informarse sobre los descuentos en equipos, consejos para pasarse a la electricidad y para darnos su opinión sobre las normas propuestas. Inscríbase en menlopark.gov/zele
 Jueves, 16 de febrero de 2023, de 7:30 a 8:30 p.m.
 Martes, 28 de febrero de 2023, de 12:15 a 1:15 p.m.
 Domingo, 5 de marzo de 2023, de 10:30-11:30 a.m.
¿Tiene preguntas o necesita ayuda? Envíe un correo electrónico, a Rebecca Lucky, [email protected] o llame al 650-330-6765. Suscríbase a las actualizaciones en Proyectos en menlopark.gov/subscribe.

Encuesta
publicinput.com/zeles
Página web para
obtener información
e inscribirse en el
seminario web
menlopark.gov/zele
Page I-3.84
Electric Gardening/Landscaping Equipment Deal Going Fast! High Quality Electric Leaf Blowers, String Trimmers, Lawn Mowers, Hedge Trimmers, and Chainsaws Available Don’t miss out on improving your health, the environment, and a limited time deep discount on electric landscaping/gardening equipment. It is easy! Just show up at an approved store (see next page), order equipment, and receive discount! IMPORTANT: Bring a business card or other evidence that shows you primarily provide landscaping or gardening services. Spanish speaking representatives available.

Not all dealers and discounted equipment, such as string trimmers, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, and chainsaws are shown. A more comprehensive list can be found at https://californiacore.org/equipment-category/landscaping-gardening/.

If you need more assistance, please call or email Rebecca Lucky at 650-330-6765 or [email protected].
¡La oferta de equipos de jardinería eléctricos va rápido! Sopladores de hojas eléctricos de alta calidad, cortadoras de hilo, cortadoras de césped, cortadoras de setos y motosierras disponibles
No se pierda la mejora de su salud, el medio ambiente y un gran descuento por tiempo limitado en equipos de jardinería eléctricos. ¡Es fácil! ¡Simplemente preséntese en una tienda aprobada (vea la página siguiente), ordene el equipo y reciba un descuento! IMPORTANTE: Traiga una tarjeta de presentación u otra evidencia que demuestre que brinda principalmente servicios de jardinería. Representantes de habla hispana disponibles.

No se muestran todos los distribuidores y equipos con descuento, como cortadoras de hilo, cortadoras de césped, cortadoras de setos y motosierras. Puede encontrar una lista más completa en https://californiacore.org/equipment-category/landscaping-gardening/.

Si necesita más ayuda, llame o envíe Rebecca Lucky un correo electrónico al 650-330-6765 o [email protected] para encontrar un distribuidor cerca de usted. ¿Sabía que usar un soplador de hojas durante 1
hora es igual a respirar la misma contaminación del
aire durante un viaje de 15 horas (desde Los
Ángeles, California hasta Denver, Colorado)?
Los equipos de jardinería emiten más
contaminación del aire que todos los automóviles
en California y contribuyen al daño del corazón, los
pulmones y el sistema nervioso.

Did you know that using a leaf blower for 1 hour is
equal to breathing the same air pollution (smog)
from a 15-hour drive (from Los Angeles, California
to Denver, Colorado)!
Landscaping equipment emits more smog than all
the cars in California, and contributes to heart, lung
and nervous system damage.

California Air Resource Board
Page I-3.85
Leaf Blowers
Sopladores de hojas
Stores that offer discounts near Menlo Park
Tiendas que ofrecen descuentos cerca de Menlo
Park
Regular Price
Precio regular
$429.99
Discount Price
Precio
descontado
$129.99
Regular Price
Precio regular
$399.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$120.00
Ewing Hayward, Rudy Cornejo
30928 San Antonio Street- Hayward
510-441-9530
[email protected]
Ewing Dublin, Alex Gomez
6640 Sierra Ln- Dublin
925-828-5618
[email protected]
San Mateo Lawn Mower, Don Okano
760 So. Amphlett Blvd- San Mateo
650-348-0359
[email protected]
Gardenland Center
JP Silva
196 Curtner Ave- Campbell
408-377-4496
[email protected]
Regular Price
Precio regular
$699.99
Discounted
price
Precio
descontado
$299.99
Regular Price
Precio regular
$699.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$210.00
(cargadores)
Regular Price
Precio regular
$199.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$60.00
EGO Batteries (baterías)
Regular Price
Precio regular
$179.99-1,399.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$54.00-420.00
Page I-3.86
Leaf Blowers
Sopladores de hojas
Dealers that offer discounts near Menlo Park
Tiendas que ofrecen descuentos cerca de Menlo
Park
Regular Price
Precio regular
$449.99
Discounted
price
Precio
descontado
$149.99
Regular Price
Precio regular
$699.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$299.99
Ewing Irrigation (San Carlos), Craig Gruber
926 Bransten Rd-San Carlos
(650) 592-9530
[email protected]
Ewing (Hayward), Rudy Cornejo
30928 San Antonio Street- Hayward
510-441-9530
[email protected]
Ewing (Dublin), Alex Gomez
6640 Sierra Ln- Dublin
925-828-5618
[email protected]
Ewing (San Leandro), Joe Garcia
2462 Polvorosa Ave- San Leandro
(510) 357-9530
[email protected]
San Mateo Lawn Mower, Don Okano
760 So. Amphlett Blvd- San Mateo
650-348-0359
[email protected]
Gardenland Center, JP Silva
196 Curtner Ave- Campbell
408-377-4496
[email protected]
Regular Price
Precio regular
$49.99-299.99
Discounted price
Precio
descontado
$15.00-90.00
Stihl Chargers (cargadores)
Regular Price
Precio regular
$49.99-1,499.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$15.00-450.00
Stihl Batteries (baterías)
Page I-3.87
Leaf Blowers
Sopladores de hojas
Dealers that offer discounts near Menlo Park
Tiendas que ofrecen descuentos cerca de Menlo
Park
Regular Price
Precio regular
$799.99
Discounted
price
Precio
descontado
$399.99
Regular Price
Precio regular
$499.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$199.99
Horizon Distributors, Inc. (Menlo Park), Massoud Attai
4060 Campbell Ave- Menlo Park
650-323-5161
[email protected]
Horizon Distributors, Inc. (San Jose) Jacon Callanan
1990 Stone Ave- San Jose
408-287-7882
[email protected]
Horizon Distributors, Inc. (Dublin)
6700 Seirra Lane-Dublin
925-551-8383
[email protected]
San Mateo Lawn Mower, Don Okano
760 So. Amphlett Blvd- San Mateo
650-348-0359
[email protected]
Regular Price
Precio regular
$362.99
Discounted
price
Precio
descontado
$108.90
Regular Price
Precio regular
$1,999.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$600.00
Regular Price
Precio regular
$549.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$165.00
Charger (cargadores)
Regular Price
Precio regular
$39.99-142.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$12.00-42.90
Greenworks Chargers (cargadores)
Regular Price
Precio regular
$179.99-989.99
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$54.00-297.00
Greenworks Batteries (baterías)
Page I-3.88
Power Management Systems
Sistemas de administración de energía
Dealers that offer discounts near Menlo Park
Tiendas que ofrecen descuentos cerca de Menlo
Park
Regular Price
Precio regular
$6,000
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$1,800
Gardenland Center, JP Silva
196 Curtner Ave- Campbell
408-377-4496
[email protected]
Smart Chargers
Cargadores inteligentes
Dealers that offer discounts near Menlo Park
Tiendas que ofrecen descuentos cerca de Menlo
Park
Regular Price
Precio regular
$655
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$200
Regular Price
Precio regular
$650
Discounted price
Precio descontado
$195
Gardenland Center, JP Silva
196 Curtner Ave- Campbell
408-377-4496
[email protected]
SiteOne Landscape Supply (San Carlos), Dan Sams
815 American St- San Carlos
650-591-5163
[email protected]
Other brands of electric leaf blowers and gardening equipment. Otras marcas de sopladores de hojas eléctricos y equipos de jardinería.

Other Stores near Menlo Park
Otras tiendas cerca de Menlo Park
Makita, Milwaukee, Husqvarna Jackson's Hardware Inc.- Dan O'Gorman 62 Woodland Ave-San Rafael
415-454-3740
[email protected]
Makita, Milwaukee, TOWA, Husqvarna, Gravely SiteOne Landscape Supply (San Carlos)- Dan Sams 815 American St- San Carlos
650-591-5163
[email protected]
SiteOne Landscape Supply (San Jose)- Michael
Swenson
1145 North 13th St
408-295-3376
[email protected]
Page I-3.89

ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS FOR PROPOSED RULES FOR
GAS POWERED GARDENING EQUIPMENT FEBRUARY TO APRIL 2023

ATTACHMENT F
Page I-3.90

OUTLINE
 Participant Breakdown and Summary  Summary Professional Gardeners Responses Homeowners & Property Owners Responses Home Renters Responses Page I-3.91

PARTICIPANT BREAKDOWN
3 Type ParticipantsProfessional Gardeners 12Homeowners/Property Owners 248Home renters 63Total 323 Page I-3.92
 90% of respondents were homeowners and home renters. 70% of this group are in support of the gas powered gardening equipment ban and would be willing to pay more for gardening services.  3.5% (or 12) of respondents were commercial gardeners . 66% of this group agrees that 2024 is a reasonable date to begin enforcement for leaf blowers and string trimmers.  Although, the majority are in favor of most of the proposed rules, the following comments and concerns were frequent:
4 SURVEY SUMMARY
Commerical Gardeners Concerns Homeowners & Renters Concerns- Loss of productivity and heavy gear - High cost of equipment- Cost to transition is too high - Unreliable power grid- Equipment not as powerful - Concerns for disadvantaged gardeners unable to afford to make change
- High costs of replacement battery - Batteries also pollute - No place to recharge batteries - Need more education Page I-3.93

COMMERCIAL GARDENER

RESPONSES
Page I-3.94

GARDENER RESPONSES
6 Questions Yes No Other/City should not
regulate
Do you agree that July 1, 2024, is a reasonable date to begin enforcement? 42 0
Starting January 1, 2029 lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, and chainsaws would have to be electric…Do you agree 2029, is a reasonable date to begin enforcement? 12 1
Do you own or use electric or battery powered equipment for gardening tasks? 5 1 NA
Have you applied for electric gardening equipment incentives? 24 0
Will you be applying for any gardening equipment incentives? 31 2
Are you a gardening professional that would like to receive support in accessing discounted electric gardening equipment? 32 1
Page I-3.95

GARDENER & GARDENER RESPONSES
7 Comments Summary
How would an electric powered gardening equipment requirement affect you and/or your business? Majority responded
negatively
How would using electric gardening equipment affect customer cost? Majority responded
increased costs
Do you have ideas to share in considering the proposed zero emission equipment regulation…? Educate, better
technology
Page I-3.96
 2 of 6 respondents think it should be sooner
 2 of 6 respondents believe it should be later 1 of 6 respondents think July 2026 would be betterDO YOU AGREE THAT JULY 1, 2024, IS A REASONABLE DATE TO BEGIN ENFORCEMENT? 8 Page I-3.97
 2 of 4 respondents agreed it should be sooner
 1 of 4 respondents believe do not think the city should regulate this gardening equipment
 2 of 2 respondents think July 2025 would be better
STARTING JANUARY 1, 2029 LAWNMOWERS, HEDGE TRIMMERS, AND CHAINSAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE ELECTRIC (NON-GASPOWERED)…DO YOU AGREE THAT JANUARY 1, 2029, IS A REASONABLE DATE TO BEGIN ENFORCEMENT? 9 Page I-3.98
 5 of 6 respondents own battery powered gardening equipment  What equipment is electric?
– 4 of 4 use electric leaf blowers– 1 of 4 uses electric string trimmer– 1 of 4 uses electric lawn mower– 1 of 4 uses electric hedge trimmer  Why do you own electric equipment over gas equipment? – 3 of 5 responded that it is required in other communities– 2 of 5 responded it is cost effective– 2 of 5 responded for clean air– 2 of 5 responded it is better for me/employees– 2 of 5 responded less noise– 2 of 5 responded lower maintenance costs DO YOU OWN OR USE ELECTRIC OR BATTERY POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR GARDENING TASKS? 10 Page I-3.99
 Does the performance meet your expectations?
– 2 of 5 responded YES– 3 of 5 responded NO
 Does the equipment durability and lifespan meet your expectations? – 1 of 5 responded NOT SURE– 2 of 5 responded YES– 2 of 5 responded NO  Common comment themes:
– Batteries don't last– Battery blowers are very expensive– Blowers are heavy to carry and do not last– Gas blowers have longer life span.

DO YOU OWN OR USE ELECTRIC OR BATTERY POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR GARDENING TASKS? 11 Page I-3.100
 Does battery charge and more batteries meet your expectations during the work task?– 2 of 5 responded YES– 1 of responded NOT SURE– 1 of responded SOMEWHAT – 1 of 5 responded NO  Does battery replacement lifespan meet your expectations? – 1 of 5 responded NOT SURE– 2 of 5 responded YES– 2 of 5 responded NO DO YOU OWN OR USE ELECTRIC OR BATTERY POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR GARDENING TASKS? 12 Page I-3.101
13  Are you able to find electric gardening equipment easily? – 4 of 5 responded YES– 1 of 5 responded NO
 Does the cost of equipment meet your expectations?
– 2 of 5 responded YES– 3 of 5 responded NO
 Do you have challenges determining how to set up a charging system that allows efficient charging of multiple batteries?
– 2 of 5 responded YES– 1 of responded NOT SURE– 1 of responded SOMEWHAT – 1 of 5 responded NO DO YOU OWN OR USE ELECTRIC OR BATTERY POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR GARDENING TASKS? Page I-3.102
 Does the cost of setting up a charging system meet your expectations?– 2 of 5 responded YES– 2 of 5 responded NO– 1 of 5 responded NOT APPLICABLE  Do you have any other feedback to share about your experiences with electric gardening equipment?– Push mowers should be used for small properties– It’s impossible for the real workforce– Battery powered lawn mowers are not as durable as gas powered mowers– Time consuming– Batteries don't hold the charge for the larger lawns– Need better electric or battery equipment before it is forced on the gardeners DO YOU OWN OR USE ELECTRIC OR BATTERY POWERED EQUIPMENT FOR GARDENING TASKS? 14 Page I-3.103
 Common comment themes:
– Changing equipment will cost thousands of dollars– Gear needs to be better– Need to be able to charge at clients homes while on site– Longer work hours if equipment can’t keep up – Higher cost for customers HOW WOULD AN ELECTRIC POWERED GARDENING EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT AFFECT YOU AND/OR YOUR BUSINESS? 15 Page I-3.104
 Responses:
– 2 of 5 responded would not increase costs– 2 of 5 responded increase costs all year round– 1 of 5 responded increase costs during Fall/Winter when leaves are wet and heavier to move  Common comment themes:
– Increase cost– Technology needs to get better– Cost of new gear– Charging time at client homes HOW WOULD USING ELECTRIC GARDENING AND GARDENING EQUIPMENT AFFECT CUSTOMER COST? 16 Page I-3.105
 Comments:
– Offer Incentives to workers– Technology needs to improve– Effort to teach gardeners and homeowners not to blow soil/dust DO YOU HAVE IDEAS TO SHARE IN CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED ZERO EMISSION LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT REGULATION, SUCH AS HOW TO HELP PREPARE THE COMMUNITY, GARDENERS AND GARDENERS FOR THE TRANSITION OR CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS? 17 Page I-3.106

HOMEOWNERS AND

PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSES
Page I-3.107

HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
19 Questions(248 respondents for most questions)
Yes No No Rule No Opinion
Do you agree that July 1, 2024, is a reasonable date to begin enforcement? 69% 15% 15% 1%
Starting January 1, 2029 lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, and chainsaws would have to be electric…Do you agree 2029, is a reasonable date to begin enforcement? 49% 32% 17% 2%
Page I-3.108

HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
20 Questions Yes No No Rule No OpinionDo you employ or use the services of a gardener for a Menlo Park property? 67% 33% NA NA
Customer costs are likely to increase for gardening services. Does this information impact your support to require only electric gardening equipment? 13% 68% 14% 4%
Are you willing to talk to your gardener to understand customer cost impacts for this transition to electric equipment? 58% 8% 10% 24%
Will you help provide a handout to your gardener?
72% 28% NA NA
Page I-3.109
 57% want enforcement to begin sooner
 18% do not want the City to regulate gas gardening equipment 8% had no opinion  3% of respondents believe it should be later with January 2026 as most chosen date to begin enforcement
– 1 respondent agrees with January 2025 start date– 5 respondents agree with January 2026 start date– Reasons include:
• Many gardeners are disadvantaged and need time to transition • Should be end-of-life• Cost is too high• Need more time for technology to improve. Batteries do not last. • 70% “discount” is not enough DO YOU AGREE THAT JULY 1, 2024, IS A REASONABLE DATE TO BEGIN ENFORCEMENT? 21 Page I-3.110
 68% want enforcement sooner for other equipment
– Possibly July 2025 as a start date
STARTING JANUARY 1, 2029 LAWNMOWERS, HEDGE TRIMMERS, AND CHAINSAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE ELECTRIC (NON-GASPOWERED)…DO YOU AGREE THAT JANUARY 1, 2029, IS A REASONABLE DATE TO BEGIN ENFORCEMENT? 22 Page I-3.111
23 GARDENERS SHARED THAT THEY WANT TO USE ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, BUT IT CAN INCREASE CUSTOMER COSTS IN FAVOR (68%) NEUTRAL (17%) AGAINST (14%)Willing to pay more and absorb costs Rebates should be offered
Should not force electric, should be a choice
Can purchase and store equipment
Offer a buy back program
Batteries pollute as well
Need to “leave the leaves”
Start a batteryreplacement program
Power grid is not strong enough
Does this information impact your support to require only electric gardening equipment? Return to questions
LRL27LRL28TL10LRL33TL12
Page I-3.112
Slide 23
LRL27 Need to describe this survey question a bit more. I think it was related to what gardeners shared about having to increase costs to customers to transitionLucky, Rebecca L, 4/13/2023
LRL28 Font is too small, can it be increased
Lucky, Rebecca L, 4/13/2023
TL10 I think this table is a bit better :)
Tapia, Liz, 4/14/2023
LRL33 Yes! do can we get the percentage breakdown for this question? see the XX in the table Lucky, Rebecca L, 4/14/2023
TL12 done :)
Tapia, Liz, 4/14/2023
Page I-3.113
 Comments:
– Need to make electrical grid functional– Should have grants available for gardening companies– City should purchase equipment for homeowners– Need more time for technology to improve– The City should subsidize cost of extra manpower needed using electric – Allow gardening businesses to use trial equipment to help lower resistance DO YOU HAVE IDEAS TO SHARE IN CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED ZERO EMISSION LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT REGULATION, SUCH AS HOW TO HELP PREPARE THE COMMUNITY, GARDENERS AND GARDENERS FOR THE TRANSITION OR CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS? 24 Page I-3.114

HOME RENTER

RESPONSES
Page I-3.115

HOME RENTERS
26 Questions(55 respondents for most questions)
Yes No City should not regulate/Do not
want to pay
more
No
Opinion
Do you agree that July 1, 2024, is a reasonable date to begin enforcement? 72% 23% 5% 0
Starting January 1, 2029 lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, and chainsaws would have to be electric…Do you agree 2029, is a reasonable date to begin enforcement? 42% 52% 6% 0
Do you employ or use the services of a gardener or gardener for a Menlo Park property? 38% 62% NA NA
Customer costs for gardening services may increase, does this information impact your support to require only electric gardening equipment? 18% 71% 6% 5%
Are you willing to talk to your gardener or gardener to understand customer cost impacts for this transition to electric equipment? 41% 13% 5% 41%
Will you help provide a handout to your gardener? 50% 50% NA NA Page I-3.116
 80% agreed it should be sooner
 5% believe it should not be regulated 4% had no opinion 2% believe it should be later – 1 respondent agrees with a January 2025 start date– 1 respondent agrees with January 2026 start date DO YOU AGREE THAT JULY 1, 2024, IS A REASONABLE DATE TO BEGIN ENFORCEMENT? 27 Page I-3.117
 71% say that cost increases would not change their support for gas gardening equipment rules
 Common Comment themes:
• Need to put environment and health first• Cost of batteries and gas is comparable over time• Support if properly enforced and homeowners are fined rather than the gardeners
• Blower noise is annoying and polluting• Willing to pay more for all-electric DOES THIS INFORMATION IMPACT YOUR SUPPORT TO REQUIRE ONLY ELECTRIC GARDENING EQUIPMENT? 28 Page I-3.118
Oficina del Director Municipal
Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

INFORME DEL PERSONAL
Ayuntamiento
Fecha de la reunión: 6/13/2023
Número de informe del personal: 23-134-CC
Asuntos ordinarios: Renunciar a la primera lectura e introducir una ordenanza que añada el Capítulo 8.05 del Código
Municipal de Menlo Park para exigir el uso de
equipos de jardinería de cero emisiones (ZELE).

Recomendación

1. El personal recomienda que el Ayuntamiento renuncie a la primera lectura e introduzca una ordenanza que añada el Capítulo 8.05 del Código Municipal de Menlo Park (equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina) para exigir el uso de equipos de jardinería de cero emisiones (ZELE) en una fecha determinada y derogue el Capítulo 8.07 (sopladores de hojas) y la subsección (C) de la Sección 8.06.040 excepciones para sopladores de hojas que funcionan con gasolina (Anexo A).

2. El personal también solicita orientación sobre el desarrollo de un programa de descuentos para equipos eléctricos de jardinería.

Cuestiones Políticas
Menlo Park regula actualmente los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina a través de la ordenanza sobre ruido de la ciudad (Capítulo 8.06) y una ordenanza sobre sopladores de hojas (Capítulo

8.07.) A partir del 1 de enero de 2024, los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina dejarán de venderse en California. Menlo Park también tiene un Plan de Acción Climática 2030 con el objetivo de ser neutro en carbono para 2030. Los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina utilizan combustibles fósiles que contribuyen al cambio climático e impactan negativamente en la calidad del aire poniendo en peligro la salud de la comunidad y de sus trabajadores.

Antecedentes
Durante muchos años, los miembros de la comunidad han expresado su preocupación por el ruido negativo, la salud y los impactos en la calidad del aire de los sopladores de hojas a gas. En septiembre de 2021, la Comisión de Calidad Medioambiental (EQC) aconsejó al Ayuntamiento que prohibiera el uso de sopladores de hojas accionados por gasolina y, en consecuencia, el Ayuntamiento encargó al personal que elaborara una política al respecto.

En una sesión de estudio del Ayuntamiento celebrada el 18 de octubre de 2022 se presentó una propuesta de política con normas recomendadas para prohibir el uso de cinco tipos de equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina (sopladores de hojas, recortadoras de hilo, cortacéspedes, cortasetos y motosierras) debido a su impacto negativo sobre el medio ambiente y la salud humana en una fecha determinada. El Ayuntamiento encargó al personal que siguiera informando y educando a jardineros y paisajistas sobre las normas propuestas, y que preparara un proyecto de ordenanza para su adopción final AGENDA ITEM I-3 Page I-3.1
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC

Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org por el Ayuntamiento en 2023.

La Comisión de Calidad Medioambiental (EQC) debatió las normas finales propuestas en su reunión de abril de 2023. La EQC aconseja al Ayuntamiento que adopte las normas propuestas y considere un programa local de incentivos para la compra de equipos eléctricos de jardinería, siempre que la aplicación de las normas y el programa de incentivos no limiten la capacidad de la ciudad para avanzar en el Plan de Acción Climática, en particular para los requisitos de electrificación de los edificios existentes.

Normativa vigente sobre equipos de jardinería
Menlo Park regula actualmente los equipos de jardinería a través de su ordenanza sobre ruido (Capítulo

8.06) limitando su uso a determinadas horas del día, y limita la generación de ruido por encima de los 85 decibelios. Los sopladores de hojas a gasolina tienen restricciones adicionales detalladas en el Capítulo

8.07 del Código Municipal de Menlo Park. Los sopladores de hojas a gasolina también funcionan sólo durante horas específicas, pero a diferencia de otros equipos de jardinería, no pueden superar los 65 decibelios, y deben estar certificados por el Instituto Nacional Americano de Normalización.

Hacer cumplir estas normas ha resultado todo un reto, ya que es difícil responder a tiempo a las quejas que no son de emergencia. A menudo el personal llega cuando el equipo ya no está en uso. Además, medir o verificar con precisión los decibelios resulta problemático.

Análisis
De ser aprobadas por el Ayuntamiento, las normas propuestas se aplicarían a todas las propiedades dentro de la jurisdicción de la ciudad de Menlo Park:

1. A partir del 1 de julio de 2024, quedarán prohibidos los sopladores de hojas y las recortadoras de hilo con motor de gas. Los jardineros, residentes y empresas podrán utilizar equipos eléctricos, de batería o manuales.

Este calendario permite a la comunidad y los jardineros comerciales a la transición con la debida antelación. También se alinea con las comunidades vecinas como la ciudad de Atherton que aprobó en marzo de prohibir sopladores de hojas de gasolina a partir del 1 de julio de 2024. La ciudad de Palo Alto ha prohibido los sopladores de hojas a gasolina desde el año 2000. 12 jardineros respondieron a la encuesta en línea más reciente de la ciudad, y la mayoría indicaron que apoyaban el inicio de la aplicación en julio de 2024. Los miembros de la comunidad que respondieron a la encuesta también estuvieron de acuerdo con julio de 2024 con una mayoría que quiere la aplicación de comenzar mucho antes.

2. A partir del 1 de enero de 2029, quedarán prohibidos los cortacéspedes, cortasetos y motosierras de gas.

En la sesión de estudio de octubre de 2022, el Ayuntamiento solicitó al personal que estudiara la posibilidad de adelantar la fecha de aplicación de este equipamiento. Los resultados de la encuesta en línea a los jardineros fueron variados en cuanto al adelanto de la fecha de aplicación. Sin embargo, la comunidad en general apoyó el adelanto de la fecha. Si la fecha se adelantara, algunos de los encuestados de la comunidad indicaron que julio de 2025 sería lo más ideal.

3. Las horas de funcionamiento permitidas seguirán siendo las mismas para los equipos eléctricos: de 8 Page I-3.2
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC

Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org a.m. a 6 p.m. horas de lunes a viernes. Los residentes podrán utilizar equipos eléctricos los sábados, domingos y festivos en horario de 9 a.m. a 5 p.m.

4. Las infracciones estarían vinculadas al propietario y no a la empresa de jardinería.

En el período de transición hasta la fecha de aplicación del 1 de julio de 2024, el personal estudiará y considerará opciones de aplicación. El personal seguirá llevando a cabo actividades de divulgación y educación para apoyar a los jardineros comerciales y miembros de la comunidad antes del inicio de la aplicación para lograr mayores tasas de cumplimiento.

Legislación e incentivos de California
A partir del 1 de enero de 2024, los equipos de jardinería propulsados por gasolina (así como otros equipos pequeños con motor todoterreno) estarían prohibidos en el punto de venta1 . Esta ley no regula los equipos existentes ni su uso. En noviembre de 2022, el estado inició un programa de descuentos en equipos eléctricos de jardinería para jardineros y paisajistas comerciales. El presupuesto del programa comenzó con 24 millones de dólares y está dirigido principalmente a pequeñas empresas. Los fondos se siguen gastando a gran velocidad. Hasta la fecha quedan 10 millones de dólares. El programa permite a los jardineros comerciales adquirir equipos eléctricos o a baterías con un descuento del 70% sobre el precio de venta al público. El incentivo no está disponible para residentes o empresas que no se dediquen a la jardinería.

Otras comunidades con normas sobre equipos de jardinería a gasolina Muchos gobiernos locales del Área de la Bahía ya han prohibido el uso de equipos de jardinería que funcionen con gas, principalmente sopladores de hojas. Entre los que se han investigado a efectos de la elaboración de una política figuran:
• La ciudad de Atherton adoptó recientemente una prohibición de sopladores de hojas que comenzará en julio de 2024.
• Palo Alto prohibió los sopladores de hojas de gasolina en los barrios residenciales en 2000 • Los Altos prohibió los sopladores de hojas de gasolina en 1991 • Los Gatos prohibió los sopladores de hojas a gasolina en 2014 • Portola Valley prohibió los sopladores de hojas a gasolina en 2019 y ofreció un programa de incentivos por tiempo limitado de cambio de sopladores de hojas a gasolina por eléctricos • Berkeley prohibió los sopladores de hojas de gasolina en 1990 • Oakland prohibió los sopladores de hojas y las recortadoras de hilo de gasolina en 2021. • Ocho ciudades del condado de Marin también han prohibido el uso de sopladores de hojas de gasolina.

Efectos sobre la salud y la calidad del aire de los equipos de jardinería La investigación sobre los daños medioambientales causados por los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gas, especialmente los sopladores de hojas, es exhaustiva. Según la Junta de Recursos Atmosféricos de California (California Air Resources Board), el funcionamiento de un soplador de hojas comercial de mochila accionado por gasolina durante sólo una hora emite una contaminación causante de smog comparable a la de conducir un turismo ligero nuevo unos 1.100 kilómetros, aproximadamente la distancia de Los Ángeles a Denver (más de 15 horas de conducción).

1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-approves-updated-regulations-requiring-most-new-small-road-enginesbe-zero-emission-2024 Page I-3.3
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC

Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Los equipos de jardinería accionados por gasolina emiten altas concentraciones de óxidos de nitrógeno (NOx), gases orgánicos reactivos (ROG) y partículas (PM), lo que crea riesgos para la salud de los operarios y del público. Esto es especialmente preocupante porque los trabajadores que realizan este trabajo proceden históricamente de comunidades desfavorecidas. La Junta de Recursos Atmosféricos de California estima que el smog producido por los pequeños motores todoterreno (SORE) en el estado superará el smog producido por todos los coches de California en los próximos años, contribuyendo a la mala calidad del aire en el estado. Alrededor del 70% de los SORE son equipos de jardinería. Los Anexos B y C proporcionan un análisis en profundidad de los impactos de los equipos de jardinería de gas.

Objetivos del Plan de Acción Climática 2030
Aunque los sopladores de hojas a gasolina representan por sí solos un pequeño porcentaje de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero que contribuyen al cambio climático, exigir que todos los equipos de jardinería sean de cero emisiones produciría mayores reducciones. Es igualmente importante reconocer que algunas fuentes de emisiones como los equipos de jardinería son difíciles de medir y no se recogen en los inventarios locales de gases de efecto invernadero, pero siguen siendo un aspecto importante para alcanzar los objetivos de acción climática. Los equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gas utilizan gasolina.

La quema/uso de un galón de gasolina emite alrededor de 20 libras de dióxido de carbono (gas de efecto invernadero que contribuye al cambio climático causado por el hombre). Prohibir el uso de equipos de jardinería que funcionen con gasolina dentro de los límites de la ciudad de Menlo Park reduciría inmediatamente las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero procedentes de esta fuente y mejoraría en consecuencia la calidad general del aire.

Rendimiento y consideraciones de los equipos de jardinería eléctricos y de gas Algunos equipos de jardinería accionados por gasolina siguen siendo más potentes que sus versiones eléctricas, especialmente en el caso de los sopladores de hojas. Sin embargo, si se utilizan de forma eficiente, los equipos eléctricos de jardinería podrían ser comparables, como se señala en el estudio de caso que figura a continuación. Para uso individual o privado, los consumidores afirman que los equipos eléctricos de jardinería suelen funcionar adecuadamente y cumplir sus expectativas.

Para un jardinero comercial, puede ser necesaria una infraestructura adicional, como una actualización del cuadro eléctrico (3.500 dólares) y la instalación de circuitos dedicados de 20 amperios (entre 400 y 800 dólares). Los cargadores inteligentes pueden ayudar a reducir la carga eléctrica y cuestan 650 dólares o 200 dólares si se utiliza el programa de descuentos estatales por tiempo limitado. Cada cargador inteligente puede cargar hasta cuatro baterías; se pueden añadir más cargadores inteligentes si es necesario cargar más de cuatro baterías. Los comentarios de los jardineros indican que las baterías tienden a tener que sustituirse en uno o dos años, lo que puede suponer una inversión considerable que se suma a los costes del cliente. Consulte el Anexo D para obtener información adicional sobre las diferencias de rendimiento, coste y comodidad entre los sopladores de hojas eléctricos y de gas.

Estudio de caso: EnviroViews
El personal entrevistó a EnvrioViews, que consiguió que el 80% de su equipo de jardinería pasara de ser de gasolina a ser eléctrico (cortasetos, cortacéspedes, sopladores de hojas, recortadoras de hilo, etc.).

EnvrioViews es una empresa familiar latina de segunda generación en el Área de la Bahía con unos 30 Page I-3.4
Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC
empleados. Prestan servicios de jardinería a grandes complejos residenciales.

EnviroViews comenzó su transición en 2020, pilotando equipos eléctricos con una cuadrilla y ampliándolos a las seis cuadrillas en dos años. La transición requirió una actualización de los paneles (3.500 dólares) y la compra de cargadores inteligentes. Si los equipos se utilizaban de forma eficiente, una batería por cada equipo podía durar todo el día. Hubo que volver a formar a los empleados sobre cómo y cuándo utilizar los sopladores de hojas. Sus tarifas de cliente aumentaron un 10% para seguir invirtiendo en formación, equipos y baterías. No necesitaron contratar mano de obra adicional para completar los trabajos. También indicaron que pudieron ahorrar significativamente en costes de combustible.

Antes de la transición, gastaban 1.600 dólares al mes por cuadrilla en alimentar con gasolina los equipos de jardinería, y ahora gastan unos 275 dólares al mes en electricidad para todas las cuadrillas. El retorno de su inversión fue de dos años. La grabación de la entrevista está en inglés y español en la página web de la ciudad (Anexo G).

Alcance y resultados de los jardineros comerciales de Menlo Park En octubre de 2022, el Ayuntamiento ordenó al personal que hablara personalmente con los jardineros sobre las normas propuestas. De noviembre de 2022 a febrero de 2023, el personal recorrió la ciudad para hablar personalmente con jardineros y paisajistas sobre las normas propuestas y el programa de descuentos para equipos eléctricos de jardinería. Se elaboraron folletos en inglés y español con información local sobre dónde y cómo obtener equipos (Anexo E). Los voluntarios de la comunidad también ayudaron a distribuir esta información.

Otras actividades de divulgación fueron:
• Dos eventos de fin de semana en el mercado Soleska de Belle Haven con personal de Obras Públicas de habla hispana
• Dos seminarios web que incluyeron la entrevista con EnviroViews y un panel de distribuidores locales de equipos de jardinería que ofrecen equipos eléctricos con descuento. o El personal se puso en contacto con 300 jardineros de Menlo Park con una carta, un correo electrónico y mensajes de texto que incluían información sobre las normas propuestas, una encuesta en línea, un seminario web y el folleto de descuentos para equipos eléctricos (Anexo E).
o La asistencia a los seminarios web en directo fue escasa. Los enlaces a las grabaciones se enviaron a los jardineros por correo electrónico y SMS, y recibieron más visitas/participación. • Promoción de un acto en abril con la American Green Zone Alliance en el que se exhibieron equipos eléctricos de jardinería en Atherton.
• Una encuesta en línea para conocer la opinión de los jardineros. Respondieron 12 jardineros y los resultados figuran en el Anexo F.

Algunas de las conclusiones más importantes que se extraen de las reuniones individuales son las siguientes:
• Los jardineros comerciales de la ciudad suelen ser empresas familiares muy pequeñas (menos de cinco empleados).
• Las preocupaciones identificadas fueron:
o Los clientes no están dispuestos a soportar el coste añadido que les supondría la transición o Barreras lingüísticas en la comunicación de nuevos costes o Tiempo y costes adicionales para cargar y sustituir las baterías o Elevado coste de adquisición de los equipos
o Tiempo adicional para completar las tareas debido a equipos eléctricos de menor Page I-3.5
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC

Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org rendimiento/menos potentes.
o La aplicación debe ser coherente para mantener precios competitivos • Desear saber si la Ciudad utiliza equipos eléctricos para sus actividades de jardinería y paisajismo. • Sus familiares expresaron su preocupación por los efectos sobre la salud del uso de equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gas.

Si el Ayuntamiento adopta una norma, el personal podría ayudar a proporcionar recursos tanto a los clientes como a los jardineros sobre cómo apoyarse mutuamente durante la transición o cómo reducir la necesidad de equipos motorizados, como utilizar los equipos de forma más eficiente, dejar que las hojas caigan durante el otoño y reducir la superficie de césped. No obstante, se prevé que el coste para el cliente aumente debido a otras consideraciones descritas en este informe que deben tenerse en cuenta para llevar a cabo la transición.

Alcance comunitario y resultados
Se utilizaron las siguientes herramientas para interactuar con los residentes y las empresas de jardinería no comerciales:
• Página web para jardineros comerciales y la comunidad (menlopark.gov/zele) • Una encuesta en línea. Los resultados se resumen en el Anexo F. • Se publicaron dos artículos en el boletín informativo de la ciudad (octubre de 2022 y febrero de 2023). • Se publicaron dos artículos en el boletín de la factura de residuos (enero y abril de 2023) o 5.013 eran facturas electrónicas y 3.818 eran facturas en papel • Se enviaron 19.797 tarjetas postales en inglés y español a empresas y particulares. • Se celebraron dos seminarios web específicos para el público (marzo de 2023) o La asistencia fue baja durante los seminarios web en directo, pero la grabación recibió más visitas/participación.
• Se celebraron dos actos de divulgación de fin de semana en el mercado Soleska de Belle Haven (marzo y abril de 2023).
• Un acto de divulgación en el mercado agrícola (abril de 2023) 248 propietarios y 63 inquilinos respondieron a la encuesta. Alrededor del 70% apoya la aplicación de normas para sopladores de hojas y recortadoras de hilo a partir de julio de 2024. Aproximadamente la mitad apoya la regulación de otros equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina (cortacéspedes, cortasetos y motosierras). Alrededor del 70% afirma estar dispuesto a pagar un aumento de los costes de los servicios de jardinería para ayudar a los jardineros en la transición.

También se solicitó un programa de incentivos/reembolsos para equipos eléctricos de jardinería destinado a residentes y empresas que no se dediquen a la jardinería, ya que las normas crearían dificultades económicas. Muchos también abogaron por ofrecer un incentivo/reembolso de Menlo Park para jardineros junto con el programa estatal de descuento en equipos.

Durante la divulgación surgieron dudas sobre cómo deshacerse de los equipos de gasolina antes del final de su vida útil y sobre si las baterías pueden reciclarse. En la actualidad, existe un mercado limitado para el reciclaje de baterías, el mercado de reciclaje de baterías de iones de litio está creciendo y la normativa está aumentando para fomentar una economía circular que permita fabricar baterías que puedan reciclarse fácilmente al final de su vida útil. Las baterías no pueden depositarse en el flujo normal de residuos y deben tratarse como material peligroso. El Centro Público de Reciclaje Shoreway de San Carlos acepta baterías. Para deshacerse de los equipos de gas, el personal estudiará opciones y un posible programa de Page I-3.6
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC

Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org recogida.

Posible programa de descuentos
El Ayuntamiento podría considerar la posibilidad de ofrecer descuentos para compensar el coste de la transición a equipos de jardinería con cero emisiones. Dado que los resultados de la encuesta comunitaria indicaron que aproximadamente el 67% de los propietarios de viviendas utilizan servicios de jardinería, los jardineros que completen la transición serán fundamentales para alcanzar el objetivo deseado por la comunidad en cuanto a calidad del aire, ruido y salud de los trabajadores. Se espera que los fondos del programa estatal de descuentos se agoten en los próximos meses. Los miembros de la comunidad también están preocupados por el elevado coste de la transición. Se recomienda el siguiente programa de descuentos para ayudar a la comunidad y a sus jardineros a cumplir con la fecha de entrada en vigor de julio de 2024.

Categoría de
posible
descuento
Importe Fecha de Inicio
Jardineros
comerciales que
trabajan en
Menlo park
Hasta 1.000 dólares por la nueva compra de
equipos eléctricos de jardinería cubiertos,
baterías adicionales o un sistema de gestión de
la energía; el descuento puede cubrir hasta el
100% del precio de compra de los equipos, pero
no superaría los 1.000 dólares por
empresa/jardinero.

Comienza después de que se hayan
gastado los fondos estatales para equipos
eléctricos de jardinería con descuento
para jardineros comerciales.

Residentes de
Menlo Park y
empresas no
relacionadas con
la jardinería
Hasta 250 dólares para equipos eléctricos de
jardinería de nueva adquisición que incluyan:
soplador de hojas, cortasetos, recortadora de
hilo, motosierra o cortacésped. El reembolso
puede cubrir hasta el 100% del precio de compra
del equipo, pero no excederá de 250 dólares en
total por dirección y año.

Comienza el primer trimestre de 2024,
seis meses antes del inicio de la
aplicación.

El Ayuntamiento podría considerar ampliar el programa de descuento hasta tres años. En el presupuesto propuesto para el año fiscal 2023-24 se incluye un total de 35.000 dólares para el primer año del programa de descuento como mejora del nivel de servicio. Nota: A largo plazo, se espera que los costes de los equipos disminuyan debido a las economías de escala derivadas del requisito estatal de que los fabricantes fabriquen y vendan únicamente equipos eléctricos de jardinería en California.

Redwood City y la ciudad de San Mateo ofrecen descuentos a los jardineros y miembros de la comunidad, pero no tienen reglas para el uso de equipos de jardinería de gas. La ciudad de Atherton ofrecerá un programa de descuento local para sopladores de hojas eléctricos como parte de la reciente norma que han adoptado. El posible descuento de Menlo Park coincide con el de otras ciudades para los residentes. Sin embargo, es mayor para los jardineros comerciales debido a las consideraciones de costes adicionales para la transición, tales como actualizaciones de paneles, circuitos dedicados, cargadores inteligentes y baterías adicionales.

En el caso de los jardineros comerciales, el descuento propuesto podría cubrir entre el 20% y el 60% de los costes de transición a sopladores de hojas y recortadoras de hilo eléctricos que serían necesarios para julio de 2024. La cobertura de los costes depende de otros elementos adicionales que puedan ser necesarios para la transición (por ejemplo, baterías adicionales, circuitos dedicados, sistema de gestión de energía, Page I-3.7
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC

Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org etc.) Es importante señalar que muchos jardineros comerciales ya tienen sopladores de hojas eléctricos debido a los requisitos de otras comunidades. El descuento podría motivar a los jardineros a realizar antes la transición a otros equipos.

Para los residentes y las empresas que no se dediquen a la jardinería, el descuento cubriría entre el 80% y el 100% del coste de los sopladores eléctricos de hojas y las recortadoras de hilo.

Tras la adopción de la ordenanza, divulgación, apoyo y administración del programa de incentivos propuesto
Será necesaria una labor continua de divulgación, educación, administración de incentivos y apoyo a la transición para los jardineros comerciales y los miembros de la comunidad antes de la entrada en vigor a partir de julio de 2024.

Calendario de Transición de las Operaciones Municipales El Ayuntamiento y miembros del público solicitaron que la ciudad adoptara una posición de liderazgo en este asunto mediante la transición a equipos de jardinería eléctricos antes de las fechas de aplicación de julio de 2024 y enero de 2029. Además, el Ayuntamiento ordenó al personal en abril de 2021 que se centrara en ampliar un programa piloto para la transición de los equipos de jardinería y paisajismo a eléctricos en 2021-22. También se observó en la divulgación que los jardineros tenían curiosidad y observaban si la ciudad estaba realizando la transición a equipos de jardinería eléctricos.

El presupuesto propuesto para el año fiscal 2023-24 incluye la transición a sopladores de hojas eléctricos y recortadoras de hilo en el próximo año fiscal, pendiente de la aprobación del presupuesto por parte del Ayuntamiento. Se prevé que los equipos restantes (cortacéspedes de empuje y cortasetos) se sustituyan en otoño de 2025; las motosierras también se sustituirán en este plazo, siempre y cuando se disponga de equipos que puedan utilizarse para mantener las operaciones de la ciudad durante tormentas invernales intensas y frecuentes, como las que se produjeron en la temporada de lluvias de 2022-23.

La ciudad también emplea a contratistas para realizar actividades de jardinería y paisajismo. El personal municipal ha colaborado con estos contratistas para animarlos a adoptar cuanto antes los equipos ZELE y darles a conocer los programas de incentivos disponibles para reducir costes e impactos. La Ciudad no puede exigir o imponer requisitos adicionales en estos contratos hasta que se soliciten nuevas propuestas o licitaciones cuando expiren los acuerdos. Sin embargo, la Ciudad también ha estado incorporando el requisito de utilizar equipos eléctricos en los nuevos acuerdos y licitaciones de construcción desde principios de 2023. Estos nuevos requisitos pueden dar lugar a aumentos en los precios durante la fase de transición.

Impacto en los recursos de la ciudad
Es posible que se necesiten presupuesto y recursos adicionales para el programa de descuento y las actividades de aplicación, y se incluirían en los próximos preparativos presupuestarios de los próximos años. Se necesitaría un total de 35.000 dólares para el programa de descuento de equipos eléctricos de jardinería en el año fiscal 2023-24 si lo aprueba el Ayuntamiento. El Departamento de Obras Públicas también utiliza equipos de jardinería para el mantenimiento de parques y espacios públicos. El coste estimado de la transición de equipos de jardinería de gasolina a eléctricos es de 189.600 dólares. En la actualidad, el distrito de aire u otros organismos no ofrecen incentivos para que la ciudad realice la transición. Es importante señalar que los equipos de jardinería de gasolina no estarán disponibles para la venta a partir del 1 de enero de 2024 y los costes relacionados con la transición comenzarán a incurrirse Page I-3.8
Informe del personal nº: 23-134-CC
Ciudad de Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org pronto como resultado por la Ciudad, sus contratistas y jardineros privados.

Revisión medioambiental
Esta acción no es un proyecto en el sentido de la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA) Directrices § § 15378 y 15061 (b) (3), ya que no dará lugar a ningún cambio físico directo o indirecto en el medio ambiente.

Aviso público
La notificación pública se realizó mediante la publicación del orden del día, con los puntos del orden del día enumerados, al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión. También se incluyó información sobre este punto del orden del día y la fecha de la reunión:
• Actualización de la página web del proyecto con información sobre la reunión del 6 de junio en la que se notificó a quienes se suscribieron a las actualizaciones sobre este tema. • El 2 de junio se envió una carta a los jardineros comerciales de Menlo Park, y el 6 de junio se les envió un correo electrónico y un mensaje de texto con información sobre la reunión. • La información también se publicó en el boletín semanal de la ciudad el 5 de junio.

Archivos adjuntos
A. Ordenanza para añadir el Capítulo 8.05 "Equipos de Jardinería a Gasolina" al Código Municipal de Menlo Park.

B. Hoja informativa de la Junta de Recursos Atmosféricos de California sobre pequeños motores todoterreno (SORE)
C. Informe de la Junta de Recursos Atmosféricos de California a la Legislatura de California sobre los posibles efectos de los sopladores de hojas en la salud y el medio ambiente D. Diferencias de rendimiento, coste y comodidad entre los sopladores de hojas eléctricos y de gas E. Carta a los jardineros con el Folleto de Descuentos en Equipos Eléctricos de Jardinería de Menlo Park F. Resumen de los resultados de la encuesta
Informe elaborado por:

Rebecca Lucky, Directora de Sostenibilidad
Page I-3.9
G. Hyperlink – ZELE webpage: menlopark.gov/zele
4884-4649-6358 v4 1

CIUDAD DE MENLO PARK
ORDENANZA Nº _________
ORDENANZA DE LA CIUDAD DE MENLO PARK POR LA QUE SE AÑADE EL CAPÍTULO 8.05 AL CÓDIGO MUNICIPAL DE MENLO PARK PARA PROHIBIR EL USO DE EQUIPOS DE JARDINERÍA QUE FUNCIONEN CON GASOLINA, SE DEROGA EL CAPÍTULO 8.07 Y SE DEROGA LA SUBSECCIÓN (C) DE LA SECCIÓN 8.06.040
CONSIDERANDO que la ciudad de Menlo Park, así como el Estado de California, han avanzado en la reducción de nuestra huella de carbono; y CONSIDERANDO que, en 2019, el Ayuntamiento declaró una emergencia climática (Resolución n.º 6535) y adoptó el Plan de Acción Climática 2030 (PAC) con el objetivo de que Menlo Park sea neutro en carbono para 2030; y CONSIDERANDO que los equipos de jardinería a gasolina emiten gases de efecto invernadero y otros contaminantes, como monóxido de carbono, óxidos nitrosos e hidrocarburos, que son perjudiciales para la salud humana; y CONSIDERANDO que las investigaciones de la Junta de Recursos Atmosféricos de California han determinado que el uso de pequeños motores todoterreno de gasolina, incluidos los sopladores de hojas, es perjudicial para el medio ambiente, ya que emiten altos niveles de contaminantes atmosféricos como óxidos de nitrógeno y otros gases orgánicos reactivos; y CONSIDERANDO que muchos equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina producen ruidos que superan los niveles establecidos en la ordenanza sobre ruidos de Menlo Park, ya que un soplador de hojas de mochila de 2 tiempos puede emitir más de 90 decibelios, lo que puede provocar pérdida de audición; y CONSIDERANDO que, el 18 de octubre de 2022, el Ayuntamiento, en respuesta a las preocupaciones de la comunidad sobre los efectos negativos de los sopladores de hojas accionados por gasolina sobre el ruido, la salud y la calidad del aire, ordenó al personal que preparara un proyecto de ordenanza que regulara cinco tipos de equipos de jardinería accionados por gasolina (sopladores de hojas, cortadoras de hilo, cortacéspedes, cortasetos y motosierras) para su adopción final por el Ayuntamiento en 2023; y
CONSIDERANDO que, en la actualidad, la Ciudad regula los equipos accionados por gasolina a través de su ordenanza sobre ruido y una ordenanza sobre sopladores de hojas; y,
CONSIDERANDO que los modernos equipos de jardinería eléctricos son silenciosos y no producen emisiones, y que su adquisición y funcionamiento pueden resultar menos costosos si se hace un uso eficiente de los equipos y se aprovechan los incentivos disponibles; y
CONSIDERANDO que el Ayuntamiento pretende reducir las emisiones de efecto invernadero y la contaminación atmosférica regulando el uso de equipos de jardinería que funcionan con gasolina; y
ATTACHMENT A Page I-3.10
4884-4649-6358 v4 2
CONSIDERANDO que, en 2021, el Estado de California aprobó el AB 1346 que prohíbe la venta de nuevos sopladores de hojas, cortasetos, cortacéspedes y motosierras de gasolina para el 1 de enero de 2024;

AHORA, POR LO TANTO, EL AYUNTAMIENTO DE LA CIUDAD DE MENLO PARK POR LA PRESENTE ORDENA LO SIGUIENTE:

SECCIÓN 1.POR LA QUE SE AÑADE AL CÓDIGO MUNICIPAL EL
CAPÍTULO 8.05 "EQUIPOS DE JARDINERÍA A GASOLINA”
Un nuevo capítulo 8.05 titulado "Equipos de jardinería a gasolina" se añade al Código Municipal de Menlo Park (MPMC) para leer en su totalidad como sigue:

8.05.010 Definiciones
A. Las siguientes palabras y frases, siempre que se utilicen en este capítulo, se interpretarán como se establece en esta sección:
"Equipo de jardinería accionado eléctricamente": cualquier equipo mecánico de jardinería utilizado para el mantenimiento del paisaje que funcione por medios eléctricos, incluidos, entre otros, los equipos accionados por batería y los equipos inalámbricos recargables.
"Equipo de jardinería a gasolina": cualquier equipo mecánico utilizado para el mantenimiento del paisaje que funcione con un motor de combustión interna que utilice gasolina, alcohol u otro líquido o fluido gaseoso, incluidos, entre otros, sopladores de hojas, recortadora de hilo, cortacéspedes, cortasetos y motosierras.
"Equipo de jardinería": soplador de hojas, recortadora de hilo, cortacésped, cortasetos y motosierra.
"Soplador de hojas": máquina utilizada para soplar, desplazar o aspirar hojas, suciedad y/o residuos.
"Recortadora de hilo": máquina utilizada para cortar hierba, maleza pequeña y cubierta vegetal.
"Cortacésped": máquina que utiliza una o varias cuchillas giratorias para cortar una superficie de hierba a una altura uniforme.
"Cortasetos": máquina utilizada para recortar setos y/o cualquier límite formado por arbustos.
"Motosierra": máquina con un conjunto de dientes unidos a una cadena giratoria impulsada a lo largo de una barra guía que se utiliza para talar, desramar, desramar o podar árboles y otra vegetación.

Por "pequeños motores todoterreno" se entiende cualquier dispositivo que utilice un motor de encendido por chispa alimentado por gasolina con una potencia nominal igual o inferior a 19 kilovatios (25 caballos de potencia), incluidos, entre otros, los sopladores de hojas. Los motores de esta Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 5 ends

Menlo Park City CouncilJune 13, 2023

Menlo Park City Council
June 13, 2023