POLICY REPORT ENVIRONMENT Date: June 15, 2001 Author/Local:D.Losito/714-5677 RTS No. 1095 CC File No.

3755 CS&B: July 12, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Standing Committee of Council on City Services and Budgets Director of Environmental Health in Consultation with the General Managers of Community Services and Parks and Recreation Noise By-law Amendments - Leaf blowers

RECOMMENDATION A. THAT the Noise By-law be amended to incorporate a maximum allowable noise level for gas-powered leaf blowers, used within 50 metres of residential premises, at 65 decibels when measured at the greater distance of 15 metres or at a point of reception, effective the end of 2002, and to immediately restrict gas-powered leaf blower use, within 50 metres of residential premises, to weekdays between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and no leaf blower use on Sundays or statutory holidays. B. THAT the effectiveness of the new regulations be monitored, with a report back to Council by mid-2003 on the implementation of the new requirements, with possible further options if required. C. THAT the Director of Legal Services bring forward the necessary by-law wording to implement Council's decision, including any requisite changes to the definition of power equipment in the Noise By-law. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS The City Manager RECOMMENDS approval of Recommendations A-C. COUNCIL POLICY Council endorsed recommendations of the Urban Noise Task Force, including the following leaf blower noise provisions: 40.1 The City should, based on technological advances within the industry, require that all leaf blowers maintain a maximum decibel level of 70 at 50 feet until January 1998, when 65 decibels will be the maximum allowable, that they be run at the lowest effective throttle setting and that between October 1 and April 30 of each year the City establish hours of use as follows: Monday to Friday - 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturday - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Sundays & holidays - not permitted. 40.2 The Director of Environmental Health should work with the Nursery Trades Association, Japanese Gardeners Association and others to develop a plan to monitor the situation with a view to minimizing the usage of leaf blowers. 40.3 The city should require community gardening services to prominently display their current business licenses or readily-visible validation decals and ensure that vehicle signage prominently and legibly

identifies the name and address of the operator. 40.4 The Director of Environmental Health should continue to work with the industry to achieve further reductions in overall noise levels and tonal characteristics; to attempt to refine schedules of usage to match seasonal requirements; and to strive for a more appropriate match of equipment to task. Further, that the Director of Environmental Health should be directed to carry out regular enforcement and to report back regularly on the need for additional regulatory measures. SUMMARY This report seeks to address an increasing level of complaints about the intrusion of leaf blower noise into the community. Background is provided on the history and nature of leaf blower use and resultant noise impacts. A number of options for controlling leaf blower noise are discussed, resulting in one option, preferred by staff, being forwarded to Council for their consideration. The recommended approach would see the noise level limits for gas-powered leaf blowers (used within 50 metres of residential premises) reduced to 65 decibels by the end of 2002 and the use of gas-powered leaf blowers within 50 metres of residential premises restricted as to time of use. A report back before mid-2003 will address the need for any further regulatory controls, including the potential need for a licensing program incorporating mandatory training and certification. PURPOSE This report seeks to address some persistent noise issues related to the use of leaf blowers, and to a lesser extent, other gasoline powered garden maintenance equipment. BACKGROUND Leaf blowers are perhaps one of the most readily identifiable sources of annoyance, not only in Vancouver, but, as the internet reveals, in North America. Appendix A indicates that power equipment noise complaints rank third in frequency, after construction noise and music, with the majority of power equipment noise complaints being about leaf blowers. Although many complaints come from the West End and the west side of town (Shaughnessy, Kerrisdale), leaf blower noise is an issue across the City. Part of the reason behind leaf blowers being "acoustic public enemy number one", is the combination of their "whiny" tonal noise characteristics and the perception that they aren't very useful tools and could readily be replaced by rakes and brooms. The following history of the leaf blower has been adapted from the February 2000 California Air Resources Board report (the "CARB report"). "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 in the U.S., and the tool had become a ubiquitous gardening implement. 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. 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 (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." Leaf blower users in Vancouver can be categorised into 3 user groups- homeowners, landscape contractors and public works crews. Homeowners generally restrict leaf blower use to collecting leaves and grass clippings, generally use the handheld or "push" models and are more likely to utilize electric powered blowers than are the professional landscapers. Landscape contractors and public work crews such as the

Park Board tend to utilize backpack blowers for a large part of their work. The Park Board also utilizes truck-mounted vacuum collection trucks which, for the purpose of this report, are not considered as leaf blowers. As discussed in the CARB report, the use of leaf blowers has expanded beyond their name, to include the moving of debris, refuse, grit and sand, as well as grass clippings. The Park Board indicates that leaf blowers are necessary throughout the year, with uses changing through the year. For example, they are used for debris cleanup several times a week in areas such as mini-parks in the West End and Discovery Skytrain station; they are used regularly for clearing sand and grit off tennis courts; they are used for refuse cleanup after special events such as the annual Fireworks show; and finally they are used (about 60% of total use) for leaf cleanup starting in August and running through February. Leaf blowers are generally either gasoline-powered or electric powered. The gasoline-powered units are almost exclusively two-stroke engines and are predominantly used by professional landscapers and park staff. Electric leaf blowers make up about 60% of sales in California, with the vast majority of the electric units being used by homeowners. It appears that zero-emission (battery-powered) portable leaf blowers are either unavailable or are not felt to be powerful or reliable enough for use by the landscape industry. DISCUSSION The Urban Noise Task Force (the "UNTF") spent considerable time deliberating on the subject of what to do about leaf blower noise. The ultimate recommendations took into consideration the current state of the technology, the availability of, and trade-offs associated with, less noisy alternatives (electric, humanpowered), the concerns of the landscape industry and their willingness to address the public expectations as an industry. The Noise By-law has not been amended to reduce noise levels to 65 decibels, since, until recently, this did not appear to be a broadly achievable target, nor does it appear to address the annoying tonal characteristics of leaf blower noise. Sound level readings were taken in 1997 of a variety of leaf blowers utilized by the Park Board. The two main categories used by the Park Board are the Push Blowers (Giant Vac) and the Backpack Blowers (Echo). The results for the push blowers ranged from a high of 82 decibels to a low of 74.5 decibels (for the newest piece of equipment). Clearly the push blowers would be unable to meet the 65 decibel standard proposed by the UNTF. The results for the backpack blowers were lower with a high of 75 decibels and a low of 69 decibels (for a mini unit). Despite claims made by suppliers to the UNTF and Council that new equipment could meet the 65 decibel level, in practice this has not been verifiable. To confirm whether this level can be reached, V/RHB staff recently tested noise levels from a variety of Park Board backpack leaf blowers, utilizing American standards for noise testing of leaf blowers (ANSI B175.2-2000) with the following results: Leaf blower Unit Solo 470 -01 Maruyama BL4500SP Echo BP-46LN (Low Noise) Stihl BR320L Stihl BR400 Sound level - dB(A) 66 69.5 66.6 69.7 74.4

The ANSI standard defines Low Noise (LN) blowers as those rated as Category 1 leaf blowers with a certification level of < 65 dBA at 15 metres, under test conditions. The Echo and Solo units are regarded as Category 1 units (meeting the 65 decibel at 15 metres under test conditions) and should result in a sound level of less than 55 decibels for someone hearing the noise at 50 metres from where the unit is being used. When a Low Noise leaf blower is used within 50 metres of a residential premises, the maximum exposure would be 65 decibels and would likely be between 55 and 65 depending on the relative location of the leaf blower. The B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association (successor to the BC Nursery Trades Association) did take steps to better educate their members and the public on proper etiquette around leaf blower use. These efforts included a poster on leaf blower etiquette, discussion of leaf blower use in Gardening magazines, and displays at trade shows. They also made attempts to work with the FCM to engage local governments in a

discussion about alternatives to regulations, but met with silence. They concluded that Federation of Canadian Municipalities ("FCM") and municipal governments did not view this issue as a priority. Notwithstanding these attempts, the fact remains that Council and the Environmental Health Division are under mounting pressure to address the leaf blower issue once and for all. Staff has identified six possible options to address the leaf blower noise issue. The pros and cons of each option are provided for Council's consideration. OPTIONS: 1. The status quo. Currently the Noise By-law has not been amended to reduce the sound levels from leaf blowers to 65. In fact it still sits at 77 decibels pending a report back to Council on the success of the voluntary industry program. Therefore, the status quo does not address any of the concerns raised by the public, nor does it adhere to the recommendations of the UNTF. In addition, the inherent drawback of reliance on noise levels, as discussed in Option 2, adds complexity to enforcement. Even the industry stakeholders readily admit that the status quo is not a solution. 2. Continue to reduce the allowable noise levels in the Noise By-law to 65 and below.It is becoming apparent that sections of the Noise By-law that require sound level readings, where the noise source is transitory and relatively short-lived, such as with lawn and yard maintenance, are difficult to respond to in an appropriate response time. In addition, reliance on the decibel level alone does not address the annoyance factor related to the tonal characteristics of leaf blower noise. The industry stakeholders still seem to support this option as a viable solution, given the improvements in technology since the UNTF report. However, the real gains thus far seem to be minimal (marginally achieving 65 decibels in field conditions) and appear to be reaching the lower limits achievable through technology. The nature of the small two-stroke internal combustion engine would appear to make further reductions (e.g. below 60 decibels) a technological challenge. 3. Adopt a 65 decibel limit for gas-powered leaf blowers used within 50 metres of residential premises, effective by the end of 2002, coupled with time restrictions and a potential future licensing scheme. This approach would combine a reduction to 65 decibels in the Noise By-law for leaf-blowers used within 50 metres of a residential premises, by the end of 2002 (effectively restricting use to Low Noise leaf blowers, meeting Category 1 ANSI standards) and day-of-week and time restrictions effective immediately. The noise level and time restrictions would apply equally to commercial and homeowner use of gas-powered leaf blowers. Effectiveness of the Noise By-law amendments will be monitored through to the middle of 2003. Should further restrictions be required, staff will report back on options such as licensing regulations which could include requirements for a certification course covering good neighbour practices and the proper "etiquette" of using power gardening equipment; exclusive use of Category 1 (Low Noise) leaf blowers; and mandatory vehicle signage including the name and phone number of the landscape maintenance company. Staff note that a power equipment etiquette course is already being offered by the Landscape Association to its members. Amendments to the Noise By-law would prohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers within 50 metres of residential premises (irrespective of noise levels) on Sundays or statutory holidays, before 9 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on Saturdays or before 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on weekdays. The effective date for the noise level amendment (end of 2002) was chosen to provide time for the industry and Park Board to retool to the quieter equipment. This approach appears to have broader support from the organized landscape industry and Park Board, although some concerns still persist about the impact of these provisions on the industry and clients. 4. Prohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers throughout the City of Vancouver at all times. An outright prohibition of gas-powered leaf blowers is obviously the clearest-cut and least confusing regulatory approach. However, it does ignore the reality that there may be some genuine uses for this equipment and there may be ways for the industry to further mitigate the community impacts of the noise. From an enforcement perspective, any use of a gas-powered leaf blower would be deemed an offence and could be readily enforced by Environmental Health staff or other law enforcement officials. An outright prohibition would have significant cost and operational implications to the landscape industry and to the Park Board. The industry and Park Board have raised a number of concerns about an overall or even limited prohibition. These concerns include increased safety and slipping hazards, a less clean city, increased costs passed on to the public (30% increases and higher), increased Park maintenance budgets and an increase in the "black market" for landscaping services.

5. Prohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in the geographically specific area of the West End of Vancouver, including any Park space within the West End or within 50 metres of residential buildings in the West End.This option would likely address the most severely impacted area of the City, but would not provide any relief for other areas where multiple leaf blowers are used in a neighbourhood at the same time. Adoption would likely elicit complaints of inequitable treatment (although the Charter does provide for different treatment in different geographic areas of the City). Adoption of this approach on a trial or pilot basis could assist in quantifying the benefits and costs of a broader prohibition. 6. Prohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers city-wide, within 50 metres of any residential premises, except for the appropriate use during October through January, when the vast majority of leaves are in need of collecting.This option provides some compromise while still addressing the most obvious and annoying exposures, especially during the summer when windows are open and people are enjoying the outdoors. Tying the prohibition to proximity to residential uses/buildings would address the annoyance/disturbance factor, while still allowing the use of leaf blowers in commercial/industrial areas and in large parks and golf courses, except for portions where the park abuts a residential use. Some stakeholders have argued that there should be some restrictions in commercial/office areas to minimize disturbance of building occupants during the workday. The Board of Parks and Recreation estimates that the added costs to their maintenance budget associated with adoption of Option 6 would be in the order of $200,000 - $250,000 per year, based on a 3:1 replacement ratio. The Landscape industry estimates that adoption of Option 6 would increase their costs, which are passed on to their customers, by 30% per contract. Staff have reviewed these options and considered input from industry and community stakeholders as well as Park Board staff. Initially, the Director of Environmental Health was leaning toward Option 6 as the preferable route, based on ease of administration and enforcement. However, the industry and Park Board made compelling arguments for a "non-ban" approach, building on the industry's voluntary educational approaches to date. Therefore, Option 3 is presented for Council's consideration. Staff recommends that the time and day restrictions on gas-powered leaf blower use within 50 metres of residential premises be implemented as soon as possible, with the 65 decibel sound level limit effective at the end of 2002. Monitoring after implementation of both Noise By-law amendments will result in a report back to Council in mid-2003 on effectiveness of the amendments, and any additional regulatory provisions, including a possible licensing scheme. The implications of adopting Option 3 go beyond the commercial landscaper, in that the noise level limits and the time/day of week limitations on use would apply equally to homeowner use of the equipment. Although staff does not have specific Vancouver data, it is assumed that approximately 50% of household leaf blowers in use are electric-powered and not impacted by the proposed amendment. Finally, the approach presented in Option 3 would mean that leaf blowers used beyond 50 metres of any residential use (e.g. most parts of a golf course, internal parts of major parks, exclusively industrial/commercial areas) would be unregulated as to both noise level and time/day restrictions on use. This is seen as supportable, since no residents are being exposed on an on-going basis to long episodes of leaf blower noise. However, there is a possibility that commercial tenants and visitors to our parks may still raise complaints and objections. COMMENTS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION The General Manager of Parks and Recreation notes that this report raises the issues of noise, budget and quality of maintenance. The Park Board has 72 backpack blowers and 12 push blowers in its inventory. This equipment was introduced as a labour saving device and is used extensively throughout the year. Leaf removal represents 60% of their year-round use. In addition to leaf removal, leaf blowers are used for removing debris from paths, tennis courts, sports courts and plazas, and the collection of grass clippings in parks and golf courses. A further use involves debris and garbage removal after special events. The period October through January represents about 50% of their use, and coincides with that time of year when people tend to spend more time indoors. Restricting the use of leaf blowers will result in either reduction in the standard of maintenance and/or higher operating costs associated with having to work manually. Lowering the standard of maintenance will affect the usability and public safety in parks. Leaves on grass areas for prolonged periods of time can smother it,

requiring turf replacement and increased maintenance. It can also stimulate a variety of diseases,particularly on golf greens and tees, making it necessary for the increased use of fungicides. Debris and leaves on tennis courts, paths, and plazas will create slipping hazards and public liability issues. The increased requirement for manual maintenance could increase the occurrence of injuries to staff, particularly in the area of repetitive strain injuries. Special event clean-up would be lengthier, with a real possibility that some areas of parks and beaches cannot be used by the public immediately following a special event. This has the potential to be a health and safety hazard to the public. Leaf blowers are a labour saving device, while substitution from mechanical to manual leaf collection (and related activities) varies with the task, time of year and other factors, it is estimated that, on average, it takes three times as long to carry out a task manually than it does with the aid of a leaf blower. The contemplated restrictions on the use of leaf blowers acknowledge that about two thirds of park land, including golf courses, is more than 50 metres from residences. The implications of Option 6 are that the Park Board can no longer use backpack blowers in those park areas within 50 metres of residences outside of the winter season. Examples would include the West End mini parks, Bayshore parks, numerous neighbourhood parks and the edges of larger parks. To maintain the same level of service, the Park Board budget would need to be increased in the order of $200,000 to $250,000 if Option 6 was being recommended. Recommendation A essentially eliminates the use of large push vac blowers near residences. By and large this equipment is used in the larger parks, and can be substituted with the low noise backpack blowers in most locations. The 65 decibel level for back pack blowers is anticipated to be achievable by the end of 2002, with the purchase of lowest noise (Category 1, ANSI) equipment as part of the regular equipment replacement program. Through training programs and guidelines, the Park Board will continue to develop practices that are more sensitive to the noise generated by this equipment in the vicinity of residences. The General Manager supports Recommendation A, which can be implemented without additional funding and without sacrificing service levels unless technological change does not achieve the 65 decibel level by the end of 2002. In that case, the Park Board may have to request some additional operating costs in the year 2003 to maintain maintenance standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS In addition to reducing noise levels within the community, restrictions or prohibitions on gasoline-powered leaf blowers would have the added benefit of improving air quality by reducing emissions from small 2-stroke engines used on most leaf blowers. The CARB 2000 report came to the following conclusions on emissions from leaf blowers: "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 significantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower usage (Table 9) would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed." (CARB 2000) To provide some balance to the analysis of environmental impacts/benefits, the U. S. industry has released comparative data on hydrocarbon (VOC) emissions indicating that it would take 21 years of operation of a piece of portable lawn and garden equipment to produce the same amount of VOC emissions as 1 year of operation of a passenger car. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are financial implications, both to the industry and to City operations associated with adoption of

these recommendations. For the industry, Option 3 would result in a one-time capital outlay for new equipment and slightly increased costs due to any voluntary certification courses and the by-law's time restrictions. IMPLEMENTATION & COMMUNICATION PLAN Enforcement will be primarily carried out by Environmental Health, especially if the approach adopted requires noise level readings. During 2002 environmental health staff will respond to leaf blower complaints on a high priority, quick response basis and will report back to Council on the effectiveness and related staffing implications of this levelof response. The Police could be requested to respond on weekends, as is the case with other Noise By-law infractions outside of normal working hours, especially if an option is adopted which includes a time restriction for Sunday/holidays or Saturday evenings. The Chief Constable has indicated that Police response to these types of noise complaints will not normally be assigned a high priority. Irrespective of which regulatory option is ultimately selected, Environmental Health staff will work closely with the industry associations and the Park Board to ensure a smooth implementation in a timely manner. Ongoing education of leaf blower operators and of the public is needed and should be pursued jointly with the industry associations. Landscape contractors will be advised of the new requirements through the Business License renewal process for 2002. CONCLUSION Public reaction to noise from leaf blowers extends beyond the normal reaction observed with other sources of noise. Staff has identified a choice of regulatory approaches, which should address the annoyance factor, while still providing some flexibility for the commercial users of the equipment. *****

APPENDIX A NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY - COPY AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Comments or questions? You can send us email.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver