From: Dave Clark
To: Andrea Chow; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission Subject: Re (2) Wed 9/3 Leaf Blower Ordinance backgrounder / research Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 10:42:50 AM
Attachments: 25 09sep cosm leaf blower sic.pdf
25 01jan leaf blowers.pdf
Andrea:
I talked again with our landscaper and they pointed out that of the 50 customers only 8 are in the city of san mateo.
So my cost breakdown doesn't work unless all cities had similar ordinances.
From: Dave Clark < >
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 at 9:25 AM
To:
Andrea Chow <[email protected]>, Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Wed 9/3 Leaf Blower Ordinance backgrounder / research I encourage the sustainability commission to pass a leaf blower ban. 25 01jan leaf blowers.pdf
I attach my notes sent in January 2025 showing cities that have taken action :
https://pirg.org/texas/edfund/articles/cities-and-states-with-restrictions-on-gas-powered- lawn-equipment/
and which lists the negative consequences gas powered leaf blowers. It's doable, it is the right thing to do, and it is affordable (below).
25 09sep cosm leaf blower sic.pdf
I attach my research completed this week which show the conversations with several landscapers. I encourage the commission to include a small group of landscapers in this discussion and not issue top-down edicts. I can help find those small business owners if you want to set up a zoom call. My guess is that we have several hundred landscapers (how many are licensed) that work about fifty houses (in many different cities) each month. I've lumped SFH and MFH together. The cost per resident would be about $25/year over four years.
Perhaps early adopters can get a break on their business license and or rebates. I've talked with several landscape designers, each with about forty years experience. 15 minutes training (en espanol) on leaf blower / rake use could make a big difference. Top-down edicts from cities create negativity and some cities have not owned up to their promises.
Re: leaf blower ordinance in san mateo January 2025 While Leaf Blowers are secondary in priority to matters like housing, they should be addressed in some way and follow the trend set by CARB ban on SORE. I can’t imagine anyone lamenting the reduction of leaf blowers in the city. For most residents it is a matter of noise. The other eKects of LB are harder to discern. There are studies showing the eKects of noise and increased stress levels. European cities have a war on excessive noise with some putting sensors around the city to find and eliminate the sources. • Noise (and secondary psychological eKects)
• Turbidity (the stirring up of PM 2.5 particles which can lodge in the lungs, dust)§ • Worker Health (fumes from gas equipment, noise, repetitive stress injuries, noise) • Soil Erosion and compaction (blowing soil away)§
• Air Pollution from ICE (1 hour of operation emits C02 on par with a long car drive) § true of electric powered leaf blowers as well.
We’ve come to accept this machinery as necessary but prior to 1990 leaf blowers were not used. So we know that rakes and brooms will work – but sometimes will take additional job time. Let’s also recognize that people who pay landscapers are not in low-income bracket – this law would not negatively aKect low-income residents. Most of the cities with bans are aKluent. Perhaps a solution lies in moderation, but a simpler solution (total ban) is easier to explain. Violations seem to be the diKicult part. Burlingame (population 30,000) does it with the code compliance oKice.
Cost
I have not seen a comprehensive cost analysis but gas leaf blowers for commercial use cost about $600 plus fuel and maintenance while an electric setup will run about $2K with four batteries. So it’s really that $1200 diKerence.
Number of landscapers
San mateo has about 40,000 homes. How many gardeners work here? I used an estimate of 10,000 homes which would be on the high side. If a crew of two can handle 50 customers a month (visting every other week) we have about 200 landscapers working in the city. Rough guess.
Commercial
I’ve been talking with landscapers and others about this for the past decade or so and have come to believe that for large concrete surfaces as found in commercial, leaf blowers can be an appropriate tool.
Comparative Assessment
Andrea did a good analysis of the status of leaf blowers in other peninsula cities. I would suggest that updating that would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that engaging with those cities to learn about the problems faced and what the perceived value of the ban was after the ban was invoked. When cities work together on issues better solutions come about. Those cities appear to be Burlingame, Hillsborough, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Los Altos
This article mentions Quiet Clean DC as a gold standard. https://reasonstobecheerful.world/make-america-rake-again-leaf-blower-bans/ https://www.quietcleandc.com/
cities that have taken action
(https://pirg.org/texas/edfund/articles/cities-and-states-with-restrictions-on-gas-powered- lawn-equipment/)
Map of cities in the US (from pirg.org)
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=32.69691581385617%2C- 112.95336895&z=4&mid=1WlGTHOfzAcXHpxLZpEK43pfzSStxg90
9/2/25 1
Tuesday Sept 2nd, 2025
Dave Clark
San Mateo
City of San Mateo Sustainability Commission
Re: Leaf blower operating costs to gardening firms
Much has been written about the successful of LB (leaf blower) ordinances in local cities.
A significant encumbrance has been enforcement – but those details are working themselves out. I am resending my memo of January 2025 which references the PIRG study showing a map of local cities.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=32.6969158138562%2C- 112.95336895&z=4&mid=1WlGTHOfzAcXHpxLZpEK43pfzSStxg90
The primary drivers for LB for SORE landscaping equipment ordinances are noise reduction (to the worker and the community); Decreasing turbidity (which creates a semi-permanent dust cloud in neighborhoods) Reduction in Soil Erosion and dry earth compaction; and air pollution from high-speed ICE (internal combustion engines).
Gardening has become hyper mechanized. With some training we can reduce turbidity and soil compaction through the increase in use of hand tools such as rakes. The matter of worker health should be given significant weight (fumes, fires, repetitive stress injuries, noise).
My suggestion last go around with SIC was to begin a conversation with our residential gardening workforce by oiering them rakes in exchange for completing a short online class on how to use a leaf blower. Perhaps couple this with a reduced fee / amnesty for business licenses. I recall that SIC decided to oier $500 to residents who purchased leaf blowers. It would be worth reviewing the results of that program. I think that it opened the door on the conversation but didn’t sway many landscapers to convert. I learned that Palo Alto and Los Gatos have not paid them for ELB equipment despite filling out all the forms. There is a lack of trust.
9/2/25 2
We need to hear from the business managers of these small businesses. I encourage the city to create a working group with a half dozen representatives. I took it upon myself to talk with several landscapers about the new Stihl models. It takes a little more time on each job. The main complaint is weight. The battery life is borderline acceptable because they don’t need to run at full capacity and can rake more. For the worksheet I assumed two battery packs and two chargers. The electric equipment from a few years ago has had mechanical issues.
The lack of fumes and lower noise / vibration makes the job less stressful. We would have to consult with a landscaper and a Stihl dealer to get real-world numbers. I have assumed mow and blow (high volume quick service). “Artisanal” gardeners are not time driven and tend to make better use of rakes. MFH is diierent from SFH because of the large concrete spaces and consistent landscaping. There is an argument that raking takes longer than blowing – but blowing with electric should require the same amount of time as SORE.
I spoke with our landscaper. $4500-$5000 per truck is about right. Each truck has a two or three person crew (almost exclusively male). Compare this to a new gas powered (around $750), and realize their perspective on costs. If there were no increased costs ELB would be a no brainer. In Palo Alto, they raised their annual rate, but only about 20% of the houses are in areas with LB bans.
Below find a structure for determining equipment costs, number of contractor crews for the city of San Mateo. They service about 50 houses a month per truck. This leads to the conclusion that cost is shouldn’t be a significant impact. $25 / year per customer for four years. Business licenses run between $1000 and $3000 per city. Perhaps the city can reduce the business license fees to oiset new requirements for equipment. 9/2/25 3
9/2/25 4
Stihl gear found in the wild – San Mateo
From: Rick
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Subject: leaf blower ordinance
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 6:37:36 PM
S and I Commission,
Regarding the proposed leaf blower ordinance:
1. I would like a city-wide ban on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, following the example of other cities in San Mateo County – with NO exemptions. Zoning is complex, ineffective, and not equitable.
2. Because the good health of the workers and our residents must be the highest priority, I would like the ordinance to become effective on January 1, 2026. I would like courtesy notices to be sent out immediately to property owners and businesses when violations are reported via citizen affidavits.
3. I would like the Code Enforcement department to have the discretion to levy fines against the responsible party. The property owner would be the primary responsible party. An employee who operates this equipment at the direction of business management would not be considered to be responsible.
4. I would like the city to adopt the draft ordinance language submitted by Quiet Clean San Mateo.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cPTFiLp8c6yFbYQLazPhuMysTvvvTuCy_v051izv9To/edit? usp=sharing
5. I do NOT support using City funds for a rebate program to buy electric blowers. The impending ordinance has been discussed for many years and the City has a deficit.
Rick Sakuda
San Mateo, CA
From: Dustin Chase
To: Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
Cc:
Subject: Agenda Item 4 - Gas Leaf Blower Prohibition Feedback Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 9:22:06 AM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission
September 10, 2025
7:00 PM
Public Comment
Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission Members,
Thank you for reviewing this critical public health and sustainability issue. Quiet Clean San Mateo would like to offer our support on the important questions the City Council has raised.
The primary driver for this change is public health. Countless people are suffering from gas-leaf blowers harms every day, especially the workers who use them. We need change urgently, without unnecessary delay.
The City Council has asked the Sustainability & Infrastructure Commission the following questions.
1. Does the Commission recommend applying leaf blower hours of operation to residential zoned and adjacent to residential zoned areas or expanding the leaf blower hours of operation to apply citywide?
2. Does the Commission recommend beginning enforcement of the ordinance 9 months, 12 months, or later after ordinance adoption?
3. Does the Commission recommend that the ordinance include the option to enforce penalties against the property owners and/or any other responsible party who uses gas leaf blower or have hired, employed, or engaged the services of a person or business utilizing gas powered leaf blowers?
We will offer recommendations for each.
We support extending existing hours of operation to the entire city.
The revised ordinance language would be “No person shall use or operate a leaf blower before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, nor prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays,” with prohibition on Sundays and holidays. This keeps the rules simpler and easier for businesses to follow. It plans for the future needs of the city and respects people already living in denser areas, such as
downtown, who especially need quiet early in the morning. We understand there will be some challenges with new operating hours, but we would ask contractors to adapt to the community’s needs, not the other way around.
We support beginning enforcement in no more than 9 months. This is an urgent public health matter, so we disagree with the 9 month delay. However, we understand it. We recommend that, in the meantime, staff accepts complaints and sends courtesy notices. That
will afford plenty of advance notice and opportunities for targeted feedback.
In staff’s 2023 outreach on the issue, landscaping businesses identified battery life and equipment performance as the leading barriers to using electric equipment. In other words, landscapers need to break the old, bad habits they developed while using gas-powered leaf blowers. With gas, you could get away with revving the engine as you walked around the property, using full power at all times, even if that made a bigger mess than you started with, and using the blower everywhere, even if there was virtually no debris to remove.
With electric leaf blowers, you must use only the power you need, and use the blower only when it helps you. That will save battery life, reduce the number of batteries you need to buy, and make the transition much easier.
Our recommendation is the city’s outreach program emphasizes this practical advice. We also recommend explaining why the city has made this change. This is not something the community is doing to landscapers, but for them. They want to go home at the end of their workday not smelling so much like exhaust and with their ears buzzing, and the community is supporting that.
We support the option to cite the property owner. The owner
ordered the service and is responsible for what happens on their property. They have leverage to change their service requirements, reducing burden on the community and/or city staff. Holding the property owner responsible makes sense. We do not support citing the person holding the tool, unless they are the landscaping business owner.
Property owners can be shown why this change benefits them - surely they don’t want clouds of toxic fumes around their homes - and landscapers can be given the practical guidance noted earlier.
Regarding enforcement challenges, violations can be reported by San Mateo residents on the existing website
(https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/FormCenter/Reporting-a-Problem- 15/Report-a-Code-Violation-139). There is no need for code enforcement to witness gas leaf blower violations, and the citation process can be automated.
In our conversations with California cities, we found some places making enforcement very hard on themselves. The code enforcement officer was sometimes left with too many judgment calls to make, and they hesitated to be the “bad guy.” While understandable, that makes things harder on everyone. Once some party has been given a warning, and some feedback on what to do differently, it is fair to move on to a fine.
In summary, we support simple rules and procedures. The grace period before the ordinance takes effect is a wonderful opportunity to explain why we have made this change, and give anyone who is struggling a boost. When the community works together, we all win.
Quiet Clean San Mateo