|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council has endorsed the first reading of a proposed ordinance that would prohibit gasoline-powered leaf blowers from being used in the city effective June 1.
Brought forward for environmental reasons, the ordinance received initial support in a 4-1 vote by the council on Dec. 5 and will return at an upcoming meeting for a second reading and final adoption.
“I know all of us have gotten a lot of public input over the past few years on this subject,” Councilmember Valerie Arkin said during the meeting. “I remember I did bring it up to put on our work plan in 2021 soon after I was elected to the council. So it’s taken a little while to get to this point, but I’m glad we did.”
Vice Mayor Jack Balch cast the lone dissenting vote, saying he supported the environmental benefits of the ordinance but balked at the financial ramifications for the city and its residents.
According to staff’s presentation, the ban was a priority action item included in the city’s 2021-23 work plan. The city will have to spend about $180,000 in order to transition its own fleet of 35 gas-powered leaf blowers to all-electric models. That money would go toward purchasing new equipment and other components such as battery packs and charging equipment.
“The leaf blower restrictions that are being proposed this evening have been a longstanding City Council work plan item,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin said. “They carried themselves into our Climate Action Plan and then ultimately into our Strategic Plan, which involves implementing the Climate Action Plan.”
Diego Mora, assistant planner for the city, went over some of the key reasons for the ban, including a prevalent one being that under Assembly Bill 1346, which the state adopted in 2021, gas-powered leaf blowers can no longer be sold in California beginning Jan. 1.
“This Assembly Bill was passed as a strategy to carry through with the state’s objective to achieve 100% zero emissions from off-road equipment in California by 2035,” Mora said. One thing to note is that while the state law will not prohibit the use of existing gas-powered leaf blowers, city staff said that the complete ban of these blowers in Pleasanton will better align with the city’s overall reduced emissions goals.
Mora also explained that after several community outreach efforts and meetings, some of the key points that the public made in support of the ban were that it would address the odor and noise made by the instruments and improve the overall air quality.
“The proposed ordinance would assist in mitigating the negative impacts on health and the environment by reducing the amounts of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, fine particulate matter and the exposure of harmful noise levels,” he said.
There were some concerns in the community, Mora said, regarding the performance of electric-powered blowers, the impact the ban would have on landscaping businesses and comparative statistics of gas and electric leaf blowers.
However, one of the more pertinent questions that came up during the meeting was how the city would enforce the ban. Councilmember Julie Testa first brought up the issue when she mentioned that she had heard about landscapers putting a gas-powered generator to recharge their electric leaf blowers.
Community development director Ellen Clark, however, said the ban will inherently be a difficult thing to enforce.
“People come and go, yard work begins and ends and our single code enforcement officer cannot be everywhere observing violations in action,” Clark said.
Pleasanton’s senior code enforcement officer, Mark Dennis, further explained how enforcement action for the ban would be similar to a noise complaint and that, as Beaudin put it, the “cavalry is not coming for a leaf blower.”
“Typical enforcement is voluntary compliance,” Dennis said. “We don’t typically cite somebody right away for violations. We would reach out to either the property owner or the landscape company, if we have that information, to let them know they’re in violation or it was reported to us that they were in violation and hope that they would come into compliance.”
He said that if it continues to be a problem, then they would ramp up enforcement in the form of a notice to abate and, possibly, an administrative citation, which starts at $100 and by the fourth citation could go up to as much as $750.
The other main topic that came up during the discussion was whether the city could obtain any state grants that would help with the transitioning costs or with any buybacks or rebates for residents who already own gas-powered leaf blowers.
Mora said that most of the grants that would have been available for the public before have unfortunately run out.
“Status as to whether those funds will be renewed is not known at this time,” he said. “We encourage the public to continue to check those sources along with possible rebate programs from local big-box stores as well.”
That lack of economic help for residents to transition was one of the reasons Balch opposed the ordinance. He said that while he agreed with the rest of the council’s comments on how great the ban would be for the environment, he just wished the community would have had more help with the transition to electric-powered leaf blowers through rebates and buybacks.
“Global planet, we’ve got to clean it up … but the ‘how’ matters when individuals’ lives are dealing with these problems, who may not have the resources to transition as quickly as we would like them to,” Balch said.
“Frankly, the city received its rebate, the city received its $9,000, but our residents are not receiving a rebate. That’s an unfunded mandate to me,” Balch added. “If we’re going to produce an unfunded mandate at the local level, I want us to be very frank about it. We talk about grants or buybacks; we’re not allocating dollars in this motion to do that.”
The money Balch was referring to was about $9,500 that Mayor Karla Brown said the Tri-Valley Air Quality Climate Alliance — an organization that informs and engages with communities about local air quality problems and their health impacts — offered to everyone, including small businesses.
And while Brown agreed with Balch’s idea to revisit the idea of seeing how much money it would be to offer some type of program to help with the transition during the next budget update, Arkin — who also agreed with the idea of finding ways to help the community with the transition — said that it was crucial to pass the ban ordinance for the sake of the public’s health and the well-being of the community.
Beaudin added on by saying that while it is under the council’s purview to use general fund money to subsidize such a program and that he understands the desire to want to help with the transition, the fact is the state will not be selling these tools in a month and residents are going to have to adjust one way or another.
“It’s going to sound cold, but I’m going to say it … brooms and rakes still exist,” Beaudin said. “So for folks who are having a hard time imagining life without their gas-powered leaf blower, there is an alternative to buying even a new, more expensive tool.”
“I’m not suggesting that is what everyone needs to do,” he added. “But certainly, there are other ways to do the work that folks are doing with these tools currently.”
“”It’s going to sound cold, but I’m going to say it … brooms and rakes still exist,” Beaudin said. “So for folks who are having a hard time imagining life without their gas-powered leaf blower, there is an alternative to buying even a new, more expensive tool.””
It’s going to sound cold, but I’m going to say it. There is something seriously wrong with the people running (ruining) the city if banning gasoline powered leaf blowers (and telling residents they can no longer use the ones they have and still work) is a “priority action item”. Too bad settling the contract issue with the police department didn’t receive the same consideration.
“It’s going to sound cold, but I’m going to say it … brooms and rakes still exist,” Beaudin said. “So for folks who are having a hard time imagining life without their gas-powered leaf blower, there is an alternative to buying even a new, more expensive tool.”
I’m actually in favor of banning these gas-powered leaf blowers. They are horribly fuel inefficient, and better options exist. However, I am also in favor of assisting people who need help purchasing the more fuel efficient, but expensive tools — especially since most users of these gas-powered leaf blowers are working-class individuals and/or local small businesses lacking the means for significant, unexpected one-time expenditures this policy would require.
Additionally, as Ms. Ellen Clark noted, enforcement will be challenging. Without incentives to facilitate this change, people will likely continue using gas-powered leaf blowers until they get caught/fined.
But putting the policy debate aside, Mr. Beaudin’s suggestion that people can just use brooms and rakes instead is as absurd as Former President Donald Trump’s proposal to increase forest raking in order to fight wildfires. This simplistic and asinine statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of the City’s policy decision here. Contractors who are hired to take care of large commercial, residential, or public properties are the people who are predominantly using gas-powered leaf blowers. They are the biggest users of gas-powered leaf blowers. In such situations, raking or brooming is neither feasible nor practical.
Mr. Beaudin’s statement further exposes his detachment from reality and ignorance of the financial impacts of the City’s decisions on those most affected. Frankly, the level of ignorance in his statement is astounding. It clearly shows that he’s someone who has absolutely no qualms about spending other people’s money.
Misplaced priorities, to be sure.
A looming state deficit, PUSD considering a parcel tax, City Council considering a sales tax increment, Pleasanton water rates increasing by double digits …. and we focus on gas leaf blowers as a “priority action item.”
“Mr. Beaudin’s statement further exposes his detachment from reality and ignorance of the financial impacts of the City’s decisions on those most affected.”
This is just the beginning. Expect more of this condescending, out of touch, and micromanaging behavior as part of the feel good/pie in the sky “Climate Action Plan”. Lecturing/dictating to people what they can eat, drive, how they heat their homes, etc. (and what they must immediately stop using/dispose of) will all eventually become “priority action items”. Never mind how much it will cost, how disruptive it will be, or that the state already struggles with providing enough energy.
If you can’t prosecute criminals for theft, good luck with this out of touch un-enforceable mandate.
Gerry Beaudin’s negative comments were not needed or advisable. This is the City Manager that terminated a City employee who has a legal case to take action against the City for wrongful termination.
I purchased an electric leaf blower from Sears 20 years ago for $100. I am still using it. I have a hundred-foot cord, it reaches my entire 10K sq. ft. lot. Lowes has battery packs and electric blowers starting under $100 and up.
From my cold dead hands…
Gas leaf blowers are a noisy, polluting nuisance blowing pollen and dirt up into the air. Worse yet they are often blowing someones mess out into the street onto passing cars where the mess gets spread all over again.
– Restore peace in civility in our neighborhoods via electric blowers or the good ole rake and broom. Clean it up, don’t shove onto someone else.
The City Manager appears to be an advocate of ripping off the bandage when there is already a state mandate disallowing the purchase of gas-powered leaf blowers. It is punitive (where have I used that word before? Oh, yeah, those double-digit water rate increases!) to force Pleasantonians to make the transition immediately. These measures are taking the pleasant right out of Pleasanton, and if allowed to continue will make the construction of new residential buildings a moot point.
Of course, we need to transition away from gas-powered gardening equipment. I have a small electric blower and encourage my gardener to use it instead of his more powerful, loud, and stinky one. He respects that. And he will replace his gas-powered one because he has to. The state has addressed the climate issues and used some common sense in allowing time to transition and not forcing people to give up their fully functional equipment until they are ready to replace it. That’s fair, Mr. Beaudin. Your heavy-handedness is far from fair, unenforceable, and punitive, and won’t achieve the results CAP2.0 spells out one iota quicker than mandates already in place, both statewide and federally.
Approving a $180,000 immediate expenditure to replace ALL the city equipment NOW instead of as equipment becomes no longer useful is just mind-boggling, given what we’re told is the disastrous state of the city budget. We may learn the truth of that on Dec. 19, but for now, how about the city apply brooms and rakes and replace equipment piecemeal? That would be far more fiscally responsible and acceptable to the citizens. We’re not clever enough to maneuver the kind of sweet deal that gets us 3 lucrative raises in a year, forces the city to defend us and themselves in an expensive wrongful termination lawsuit, and assaults the citizens’ pocketbooks to near breaking point in only a year and a half into the job. Thanks a bunch.
Yes, it is true regarding very large Hydrocarbon, NOx, and CO emissions. Because of the hype comparing a leaf blower to the miles a car today travels to have an equivalent emission of these components, it is overlooked that studies also reveal that cars produce nearly 100 times the total CO2 (carbon dioxide) each year than the 11,000,000 leaf blowers in the U. S. do. CO2 is the MAJOR contributor to global warming. So, to say “use a rake instead” is equivalent to telling people to “use your feet and walk” instead of driving to the store. The reasons each is used is similar. Time and effort.
My humble request to city council, Please don’t approve this ban. Battery technology is not there yet to replace in all applications. When blowers are available commercially, with similar power, go and approve the ban on the usage of gas blowers. Until then please refrain. Undue burden on the lower income people by elites. This non sense has to stop. It is similar to banning gas cars. Gas cars are still 50% cheaper than Tesla car. We need persons like Vivek Ramaswamy to lead with common sense, not elites to make rules for all of us…Happy new year and happy holidays
Talking about pollution, its completely absurd. See 680 and 580 crawling day in and out, vehicles burning tons of gallons every day. Entire bay area is screwed with lack of housing. I heard Mountain house is going to add another 2000 SFR’s, Tracy+Lathrop+Manteca expansions, OMG, all that traffic is about to come/explode to 680+580. If the city wants to help reduce pollution genuinely, make zoning laws liberal and pass four plex rule (like Portland) by right, or encourage SB9 legislation with incentives/liberalize, that will have much effect (at-least 10x) on reducing pollution.
Isn’t open retail theft at Safeway a higher priority?
How about replanting the 8-10 trees that have been removed / fallen down along Main Street?