This is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee of the Seattle City Council.
Today is Friday, August 19, 2022, and the time is 9.31 a.m.
I am the chair of the committee, Council Member Kshama Sawant.
Would the clerk, Ted Verdone, from my office please call the roll?
Council Member Sawant?
Present.
Council Member Morales?
Present.
Council Member Nelson?
Present.
Council Member Juarez?
Council Member Lewis.
Present.
For present.
Thank you, Ted, and thank you and welcome committee members.
And I also wanted to acknowledge we have Council Member Peterson, who is not a member of this committee, but who will be presenting a bill from his office.
Today, we have that one item on the agenda, which is that resolution sponsored by Council Member Peterson, and it is regarding the ending of the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in Seattle.
Before we begin that item, we have public comment.
Sorry, how many speakers do we have, Ted?
There are four in chambers and three remote, so seven total.
OK, so we have seven community members to give public comment.
Speakers will have two minutes each.
Sorry, Ted, you should read out the names from chambers first.
And then we will call on the community members who are signed up remotely.
And go ahead, Ted.
So in chambers, we have Marguerite Rashard, followed by Carolyn Malone, followed by Peggy Prince, followed by Kathleen Baker.
Yes, my name is Marguerite Rashard.
Sorry, one moment.
I'm just getting it queued up and ready.
Okay, go for it.
Yes, my name is Marguerite Richard and.
I'm here again today.
I don't have anything to say about the leaf blowers.
I see Brenner's rights, and I feel that my rights are continuously being violated up under the law as far as paying my rent.
It's almost like nowadays you're paying your rent to be avataged and killed in your unit.
And I don't appreciate that, okay?
And I'm speaking out about it.
that enough people that's regulating time down here should know about the situation and should have moved in on the situation by now.
So I see we have to treat these situations like what happened with Trump.
And, you know, I would feel sorry for anybody that would have to be locked up in prison or jail.
I don't think that anybody would like that type of situation, especially what the federal law says about dealing with the handicapped and the disabled.
If you injure them, you can have 10 years, and if they die from the injuries, you can get life in prison.
I read it for myself.
That's federal, federal law.
And so I feel like there should be a mandate already set in a system already set up not only for homeless mess, okay?
Because when people go out there, they're cleaning up mess.
I'm not talking about people individually, because God loves everybody, but I'm talking about the stuff that's going on.
People are out in the streets oftentimes because they lived up under slumlords for so long, they didn't have nowhere else to go but the streets.
And so we have to have somebody to change the system that it works for everybody, not just telling them people that they can go into a hotel and live.
Karen Malone followed by Peggy Prince followed by Kathleen Baker.
I'm gonna stand over here.
I can speak loudly enough.
Can you hear me?
I'm Carolyn Malone.
I live at 910 Marion Street.
I'm a pretty confident speaker, so my voice shouldn't be quavering as if somebody has a machine on me.
So I'm here today again about my renter's right I'm under siege, surveillance, and Nicole Mills, the property manager, operates in secrecy.
She keeps escalating my rental payments, yet telling me a balance due of $1,630 is a credit.
Well, it should say credit.
Balance due on statements means you owe that amount.
And when I inquire of the managers, I'm simply told it's a glitch in the system and they are correcting it.
It shouldn't have reached me if it's a glitch in the system.
This has been going on for two months.
And because I protest against Seattle police who are allowed to frequent and live on the premises, I am operated against, I am Things happen to me, my voice, I shouldn't lose my train of thought.
Weird things in my apartment happen.
I'm locked out of my apartment.
Often each day it flashes red.
I smell pepper spray in my apartment and I'm threatened with eviction constantly, implied eviction.
For example, if you don't complete a work order correctly, you'll be given a 10 day notice.
eviction, vacate the premises.
This should not be happening.
And no one who calls me a liar, I say, let's go public and talk about it.
Stop acting against me in privacy and against my rent.
And I will continue to come here and speak out against the crimes committed at Chancery.
Yeah, Peggy Prince, followed by Kathleen Baker, and then another person signed up, Jake Milan.
Hello, I'm Peggy Prince.
As a co-founder of Quiet Clean Seattle, I'm delighted to support Resolution 32064, phasing out gas-powered leaf blowers.
Hundreds of our members and thousands of our followers on social media share my enthusiasm.
I am well aware of the risks of acute and chronic conditions that blowers cause for the workers who use them.
And this, as well as noise, should be at the top of the list of harms as we consider this resolution.
Then add the many environmental issues that these machines present.
Using two-stroke engines makes them serious sources of air pollution.
Running one backpack blower for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as driving from here to L.A., according to the California Air Resources Board.
Furthermore, their greenhouse gas emissions, while comparatively minor, are measurable.
Another California study shows a typical gas blower emitting 150 metric tons of CO2 a year.
My main grievance is their threat to wildlife.
Blowers frighten birds and beneficial insects and disrupt or destroy their habitat.
Leave the leaves has become a watchword for sustainable landscaping.
Don't worry, yard workers will still have plenty to do, pruning, weeding, trimming, sweeping, and raking.
They will be safer and healthier, and they will save money not filling their gas tanks.
Your wise and timely resolution encourages the city to eventually evaluate phasing out both kinds of leaf blowers, gas and electric.
All blowers are power hungry at a time when we must make greater efforts to conserve energy.
A transition to electric equipment will not solve all of these problems, but this resolution is an essential first step in our quest for a quiet and clean Seattle.
Thank you.
Kathleen Baker followed by Jake Milan.
Hi, I'm Kathleen Baker.
I hate leaf blowers.
I hate the noise throughout the day.
I hate the damage to the environment and I'm concerned about the health of the landscape workers that use them.
Seattle is behind.
Cities in Colorado, California, Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont have banned or limited their use.
Jay Inslee banned their use at the Capitol in 2014, saying they're too loud and not green enough.
Reuben Carlisle, before he left office, proposed a cash for lawn clunkers bill, which would provide $200 to purchase cleaner machines.
I just don't see the downside.
Landscapers will still have jobs, healthier ones.
And I have a feeling Oprah's yard in Santa Barbara where they're banned.
is still lovely.
Thank you.
Jake Milan is our last in chamber speaker and then we'll move to the remote speakers.
Hi, my name is Jake Milan.
Gas blowers ruin communities.
And this is in support of resolution 32064. Whether you are young, old, poor, or rich, if there's a gas blower nearby, you are negatively impacted by the noise, dust, and fossil fuel emissions.
The emissions are especially bad because most gas blowers are two-stroke engines, meaning they burn a mixture of motor oil and gasoline, all with zero emission controls like your car.
Ultrafine particulate matter emitted from fossil fuel combustion causes numerous health issues, and a recent study found this pollution is responsible for more than 300,000 deaths a year in the U.S.
That's more than COVID in each of the last three years.
And most are from marginalized communities.
Landscapers inhale these pollutants more than anyone else.
No one has ever uttered the words, bring that gas blower over towards me.
It's always the opposite.
I hope they go the other way or stop soon, but through double pane windows on the other side of our home, I can hear the wailing away, chasing errant leaves off the grass.
This is because the sound characteristics of gas blowers have a far greater low frequency sound and transmit over longer distances compared to electric blowers.
On average, a gas blower can be heard by the nearest 90 homes, nine zero, and that's even more with multi-unit dwellings.
But won't landscapers lose jobs?
Absolutely not.
In fact, it will be the opposite.
They will save money.
Anyone who claims electrics aren't powerful enough must not be aware the fastest production car in the world at 0 to 60 miles per hour in 2.2 seconds is 100% battery powered.
A recent June 2020, 2022 study showed only a 10 month payback for an extremely powerful electric blower versus comparable gas blowers.
I think we can also agree most landscapers could cut back on the blowing.
Do we really need to blow empty parking lots?
California Air Resources Board has already banned all gas blowers in the entire state and other off-road emissions because they emit more pollution than the 16 million cars.
Please support Councilman Peterson's resolution 32064. Thank you.
Our speakers signed up online are Michael Ruby, followed by Woody Wheeler, followed by Nicole Grant, followed by Sheila Bishop, who is not present.
So Michael Ruby.
Good morning.
I am Mike Ruby from Wallingford.
Today, I'm addressing the proposed resolution on the phased out of gasoline powered leaf blowers.
I'm speaking from the position of being the original author of Seattle's noise control ordinance.
Back in the early 1970s, we spent more than a year of Seattle process working on this problem.
One of our outreach efforts was a request through neighborhood newspapers for folks to submit a coupon with their noise annoyances.
Remember, in the early 1970s, nearly every neighborhood in Seattle had a local newspaper.
I remember one of the most frequent comments was the noise from leaf blowers, especially early on a weekend morning.
That has not changed.
All these years later, two cycle leaf blowers are still one of our most annoying noise sources in the city.
I suspect all of you have had the four cycles of an internal combustion engine described to you.
The last cycle is the exhaust of the combustion gases.
But the two-cycle engine skips some of the steps in order to create a much cheaper-to-build engine.
As a result, the exhaust contains far more unburned hydrocarbons.
The exhaust is just downright dangerous.
Today, we are also worried about the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing these heat waves we are enjoying this summer.
Emission inventory studies have found that these small engines are actually a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
in large part because of their two cycle design.
The proposed resolution you have before you this morning is a timid Seattle process step forward along this road.
The dates for achieving change are far in the future but at least it does ask the executive to respond this year with a program for achieving the phase out.
I urge you to move this timid but important step forward today by voting this resolution out of committee this morning.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Woody Wheeler, followed by Nicole Grant, followed by Sheila Bishop, who is still not present.
Woody, you're showing up as still muted.
Hit star six to unmute yourself.
Hello.
Good.
You're ready.
Thank you, council members.
My name is Woody Wheeler.
I support enthusiastically resolution 3206. Consider this, hydrocarbon emissions from just a half hour of yard work with a two stroke gas powered leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900 mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a 6,200 pound Ford F-150 SVT Raptor pickup truck.
This shocking analysis came from Jason Cavanaugh, engineering editor at Edmunds Car Company.
Margaret Renkel, op-ed writer for the New York Times, wrote that, quote, the gasoline-powered leaf blower exists in a category of environmental hell all its own, spewing along with deafening noise and clouds of dust, other pollutants, carbon monoxide, smog-forming nitrous oxides, carcinogenic hydrocarbons, end of quote.
Gas powered leaf blowers invade my neighborhood weekly filling the air with noise and air pollution for two hours at a time.
My wife and I work from the home but cannot make calls or participate in Zoom meetings while they roar just outside our windows.
We often leave home to get away from them.
Finally we are on the verge of banning this extremely inappropriate technology in Seattle.
Fortunately alternatives exist to gas powered leaf blowers specifically electronic leaf blowers but also old-fashioned rakes and brooms, which I still use in our yard.
80% of those surveyed in Council Member Peterson's district agree that we should ban gas-powered leaf blowers.
More than 100 other cities have already done so.
At a time when climate change is happening here and now, Seattle should ban them too.
Vote yes on Resolution 3206. Thank you.
Our last speaker who is present is Nicole Grant.
Good morning, council members.
Hello, everybody.
This is Nicole Grant.
I'm the executive director of 350 Seattle, a climate activist organization.
And we're about a lot of things.
We're about supporting social housing.
We're about no Amazon warehouse on Rainier Avenue.
We're about a park levy that builds climate resilience hubs in our parks.
for climate emergencies like heat waves and wildfire smoke.
And we have a lot of admiration for the activists that were arrested in Senator Patty Murray's office last night, standing up against the oil pipeline.
We're about a lot of things.
And we're also about number 32064 and doing something about leaf blowers.
If somebody kicked one off in or near council chambers right now, it would be so upsetting.
They are excruciatingly loud.
They put out an exhaust that is toxic.
And when there are electric alternatives, 350 Seattle demands them.
I was a worker at King County Parks previously in my career.
And that's the reason that I personally, in my heart, don't like leaf blowers.
It's the gas on your hands when you're fueling and refueling, you know, seeping into your skin, the weight on your back, the noise in your ears, and the exhaust in your lungs.
And we're over that technology.
We don't need it anymore.
And that's why we support this effort.
Thanks.
Our final speaker, Sheila Bishop is not present.
So Sheila, if you're listening, you can email all council members by emailing council at seattle.gov.
There are no more present speakers signed up for public comment.
Okay, thank you, Ted, and thank you to all the community members who spoke in public comment.
We will now begin the discussion of the gas-powered leaf blower resolution.
I will read the resolution into the record now.
Resolution 32064, a resolution declaring the city council's intent to phase out gas-powered leaf blowers, establishing goals and identifying actions to meet these goals.
Council Member Peterson, as sponsor of this legislation, would you like to say a few words to begin this discussion and then introduce the presenters?
Thank you, Chair Sawant.
I really want to thank you for enabling us to discuss and hopefully vote today on this resolution to phase out gasoline-powered leaf blowers.
Thank you for having me as a guest at your committee as well.
While increasing community safety and reducing homelessness will continue as priority issues in Seattle, I'm confident City Hall has the bandwidth to address this public health and environmental issue too.
The science is clear.
These fossil fuel machines with their toxic fumes and dirty debris harm the workers who operate them and the communities that endure them.
We have an extensive list of information sources attached to today's agenda, and I want to thank the University of Washington Evans School graduate students for enthusiastically and skillfully supplementing our research.
The public opinion is clear.
In just the past 48 hours, over 100 residents took time from their busy days to send emails and make public comment in favor of this resolution.
An informal survey of my constituents last month showed that 82% of those who responded want to outright ban gas-powered leaf blowers.
And local environmental justice organizations support our resolution.
The trend across the nation is clear.
Over 100 jurisdictions have banned or phasing out gas-powered leaf blowers.
While Seattle prides itself on being a leader on many issues, we are behind on addressing the harms of leaf blowers.
Burlington, Vermont, Washington DC, Portland, Oregon, and all of California have left us in the dust.
And we'll be hearing from one of those jurisdictions today on how they got it done.
I'm confident that our Seattle government departments that care about reducing pollution that care about protecting workers and have the power to stop using gas power leaf blowers will be inspired to act expeditiously on this joint resolution or on this resolution to make real progress on this environmental and public health concern.
And as we make the city government lead by example, there will be plenty of time for the private market to follow, whether that's switching to electric and battery powered leaf blowers, or just using a rake.
To be clear, the resolution calls for ending the use of gas powered leaf blowers in city government by January 2025, and ending the use of gas powered leaf blowers elsewhere in our city by January 2027. The resolution is consistent with past policy statements from the city council, but a resolution amplifies them, hopefully louder than the noise of leak blowers, and the resolution also updates and expands this effort to finally spur action.
Fall is coming.
The season of falling leaves is coming, and with it, the harmful sound, the toxic fumes, and the filthy debris of these terrible machines.
Colleagues, this issue was delayed for far too long by the pandemic.
Our resolution is consistent with past policy statements, and it's needed to make progress to work out the details to finally rid our city of these deafening and dirty fossil fuel machines.
Please vote today and vote yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Peterson for that description.
Yolanda?
Oh, thank you, Chair.
And I'm happy to introduce those who are here at the committee as well, if you'd like.
Please do.
Well, first, of course, we'll have Yolanda Ho from City Council Central staff who will be here.
We also have an official from Washington, D.C.
that has successfully banned leaf blowers already.
And I think that's who we have today because I know it's important for council members to hear what other cities have done sometimes.
So we'll have the person from D.C.
who knows the most.
But we can start with central staff and her presentation, if that makes sense.
All right, thank you so much, Yolanda Ho, Council Central staff.
Let me get my presentation on the screen.
Does everyone see that okay?
Good.
All right, so we are here today to talk about Resolution 32064. And just to give you an overview of what I will be going through this will largely be following the content that was in the memo I provided yesterday to the committee, we are going to talk about the environmental health impacts many of which you've already heard through public comments.
um, talk about some of the city's efforts related to, um, gas-powered leaf blowers and current regulations and just kind of generally how many are owned by the city and briefly touch on other jurisdictions, including just a quick overview of DC's, uh, efforts and then provide an overview of the resolution and some considerations about implementation of the work requested.
So for decades, gas-powered leaf blowers have been considered a source of nuisance noise pretty much ever since they were invented, I think, in the 70s.
So it has resulted in restrictions on their use in many, many municipalities.
More recently, research has revealed that prolonged exposure to the noise and emissions produced by this equipment can have adverse impacts, particularly on landscape workers who operate them.
And just for reference, nationally, landscape workers are disproportionately identified as Latino or Hispanic, 46% in the landscaping services versus 18% in the total workforce.
As noted by one of the commenters, gas-powered leaf blowers, particularly the most common the two stroke engine produces a low frequency sound that electrically floored do not create that can travel.
through building walls and is perceived by the human ear as particularly disruptive and can be quite distracting in kind of trying to do your day-to-day work if there is a leaf blower operating nearby.
They're also just kind of louder than electric leaf blowers.
So someone who is regularly operating the equipment without proper hearing protection could end up with permanent hearing damage.
In regard to the emissions of gas-powered leaf blowers, they do contribute greenhouse gas emissions, but compared to buildings and transportation, it is pretty negligible as compared to those.
But again, using less gas will ergo fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
They do, but more kind of, impactful on people's health is that they do emit emissions that from the burnt and unburnt gas, which can produce ozone and release toxins like carbon monoxide, benzene, and formaldehyde that can cause cancer and respiratory problems.
Additionally, all leaf blowers, whether gas or electric, lift particulate matter into the air and exposure to fine particulate matter, also known as PM 2.5, has been shown to cause negative cardiovascular and respiratory health effects that can lead to premature death and has also been linked to adverse birth outcomes and cancer.
So on to some previous policy efforts by the city.
Council interest in furthering restriction of the use of gas leaf blowers was initiated in 2014 with a statement of legislative intent that requested that Then the Department of Planning and Development, which is now the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, proposed recommendations for reducing emissions and noise from gas-powered leaf blowers.
The department's, we call it the Statements of Legislative Intent, SLIs, so the SLI response provided an evaluation of the potential pros and cons of restricting use of gas-powered leaf blowers and ultimately recommended against regulatory changes because electric leaf blowers at the time were not effective for commercial use.
Initially, they noted that prohibiting the use of gas-powered leaf blowers would create potential enforcement and racial equity issues.
Instead, they suggested that the city modifies procurement practices and improve communication between departments and with the general public about best practices for leaf blowers.
So following up on the slide, about four years later, the council added funding for a position in SDCI to support various projects, including a recommended action from the 2014 slide response related to communicating these best practices to the general public and those in the landscaping industry, which resulted in the creation of a best practices guide to encourage more responsible, courteous leaf blower use.
More recently, as part of the 2022 adopted budget, the council included a slide sponsored by Council Member Peterson requesting that the Office of Sustainability and Environment and Seattle Parks and Recreation develop a plan to phase out the use of all gas-powered leaf blowers in Seattle within two years.
And that slide response is due late next month.
So currently the city regulates leaf blower use through its noise code, which is administered by SDCI.
The use of leaf blowers and other lawn maintenance equipment is limited to certain hours that vary by zoning category.
Most restrictive is within the residential zonings.
And normal operation of gas powered leaf blower during the allowed hours is generally in compliance.
It's just kind of, as a right.
Only someone operating a leaf blower outside of these hours is likely to be in violation.
SDCI will only investigate complaints against landscaping companies but will not respond to complaints between neighbors.
The 2014 slide response, they noted that the city received few leaf blower complaints over the years and SDCI currently no longer tracks leaf blower complaints, but has noted a general increase in noise complaints over the past couple years as people have been at home more due to the pandemic.
This table shows the city's current inventory of gas and electric leaf blowers as compared to what was included in the 2014 slide response.
You will note that we have generally increased our number of And to have more electric leaf blowers as compared to 2014, but also more gas-powered leaf blowers.
The largest inventory and increase is seen in Seattle Parks and Rec.
It is used by staff to maintain our various parks and lands that Parks maintains and departments continue to rely on gas leaf blowers because they are more efficient and convenient to use than electric versions, which continue to have limited battery life.
In 2019, Parks conducted a pilot program to test battery powered electric leaf blowers and found that the technology has improved.
such that they work well in dry conditions on hard surfaces.
Or the heavy wet leaf litter in the fall continue to be slightly beyond the capabilities of this equipment.
So thus staff are continuing to use the gas versions.
But Parks has also committed to transitioning to more electric leaf blowers with a goal of reaching 50% electrification by 2026. So let's see.
As I mentioned before, gas-powered leaf blowers became popular in the 1970s, and then not long after, restrictions followed.
Many jurisdictions and dozens of states have taken action to regulate leaf blower noise.
Most of them limit the hours or seasons in which leaf blowers may be used.
A smaller number have banned the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, and a handful have banned leaf blower use entirely.
A few recent examples are in Washington, D.C., the Council of the District of Columbia passed a bill in 2018 to ban the sale and use of gas-powered leaf blowers beginning in January of this year.
The effective date delay was to allow residents and businesses to transition to electric leaf blowers in advance of the law going into effect.
Violators are subject to a fine of up to $500 per recurrence.
Closer to Seattle, Multnomah County, which includes the city of Portland, adopted a resolution late last year committing to transitioning county-owned leaf blowers to electric by December 2024, and convening a work group in partnership with Portland to develop an equitable strategy that will result in a countywide phase of all gas leaf blowers.
Council Member Morales.
Sorry to interrupt your flow, Yolanda.
Do you have any sense of the timeframe that these jurisdictions gave to their own city departments to phase out?
So for Multnomah County, so they have until December 2024. So they actually had a goal of 2025. So they are accelerating by a year, their transition.
So they're giving their departments a couple of years at this point.
But for others, I am not sure, but I think somewhere around the two or three year mark seems to be the standard.
Okay, thank you.
And in terms of the strategy that will result in a county-wide phase out of gas leaf blowers, there is no timeline for that at this point for Multnomah County, just because that process is underway.
And last year, the state of California, they passed a bill to ban the sale of new gas-powered leaf and garden, lawn and garden maintenance equipment beginning in 2024. Note that this does not prohibit the use of existing gas-powered equipment, but is intended to eventually lead to the full electrification of this type of equipment.
The state also allocated $30 million to provide financial incentives to support the transition to electric alternatives for landscaping businesses.
and on to the resolution.
So this resolution 32064 is intended to elevate and reinforce the work requested by the related slides sponsored by Council Member Peterson in this year's adopted budget, and would establish two goals, that the city and its contractors phase out the use of gas-powered leaf blowers by January 2025, or later if necessary, and that institutions in Seattle, businesses operating in Seattle, and Seattle residents will phase out the use of gas-powered leaf blowers by January 2027 or later, if necessary.
To achieve these goals, the resolution requests that departments that use gas-powered leaf blowers evaluate their current practices regarding the use of leaf blowers and explore options to reduce reliance on the equipment.
This could be accomplished by allowing leaves to remain in place rather than clearing them or using non-motorized means of removal, such as rakes.
and also that these departments develop and implement plans to ensure that city facilities employees are adequately equipped to use electric leaf blowers.
This would entail ensuring that employees can easily charge batteries for electric leaf blowers and are trained to use the equipment.
And other requested actions are for the departments listed on the slide here to develop and implement a culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach and education strategy to communicate the negative impacts of gas powered leaf blower use and encourage residents to use less polluting and quieter alternatives.
and for the Department of Finance and Administrative Services and SDCI to develop a proposal to phase out and eventually ban the use of all gas leaf blowers in Seattle.
And that executive is requested to provide a proposed work program timeline and budget to the council by December 2nd of this year.
And finally, we have some considerations about the requested work.
I would just note that department staff have indicated that they do not have sufficient resources to conduct the requested actions and that adoption of this resolution could result in departments either shifting staff away from work on other city priorities to concentrate on this proposal or potentially foregoing work on the gas leaf blower phase out effort.
to encourage departments to prioritize this work, that council may want to consider adding resources for this effort in the forthcoming budget deliberations.
And with that, I am...
Any questions?
Dr. Peterson, go ahead.
Thank you, Yolanda.
Yes, thank you, Chair Sawant.
Thank you, Yolanda.
And Chair Sawant, I don't know if this would be a good time to, I mean, if Yolanda is gonna be here the whole time, I believe in case we have questions, but we do have the senior policy analyst from Washington, D.C.
who can tell us how they got it done there.
Michael Porcello is here with us as well as a panelist, if the chair would be okay hearing from him.
Yes, definitely, please go ahead.
Hi, everyone.
As the council member just said, my name is Michael Porcello.
I serve as committee director for the Committee on Transportation and the Environment with the Council of the District of Columbia, which is the legislature for the city of Washington, D.C. The committee has jurisdiction over the district's public work agencies, including our Department of Energy and Environment, which, as its name suggests, administers the district's climate, sustainability, and environmental health programs and services.
Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak today on this important resolution.
As has been noted, in 2018, the district passed a piece of legislation called the Leaf Blower Regulation Amendment Act.
That bill actually was introduced by the member I work directly for, Mary Che.
As enacted, it prohibited the sale or use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers, effective January 1st, 2022, so just about eight months ago.
It also established a $500 fine for violations and set up a small enforcement team in our local regulatory agency that we call DCRA.
A bit of background on how the legislation came to be.
Although the district's noise ordinance already sets a noise level threshold that applies to products like leaf blowers, our office and others at the District of Columbia Council still frequently heard from residents about the nuisance caused by gas powered leaf blowers.
As you can imagine, the current noise ordinance was not often successful in addressing violations stemming from these devices due to difficulty of enforcement.
I can't speak to how enforcement works in Seattle, but in D.C., specific noise level limits are notoriously difficult to enforce because they have to be measured by a district official at the time that they occur using a decibel meter.
If you're talking about a house party that's lasting for hours, that's not that difficult, but it's nearly impossible for leaf blowers given landscaping work takes often less than an hour and enforcement officers just couldn't get to the site on time.
And there we're talking about our Metropolitan Police Department.
So rather than rely solely on complaint-based enforcement, the legislature in D.C.
explored whether outright prohibiting the sale and use of these leaf blowers could be a more effective approach.
It had several benefits.
First, banning the sale helped because it simply reduced access to the products.
Anyone seeking to replace or purchase a new leaf blower as of January now has one option, electric.
Of course, that has limitations in the district, as we're sandwiched between Virginia and Maryland, and residents can go out of state to purchase a device that's not legally sold in the district.
I'm guessing that Seattle faces similar issues with jurisdictions nearby but outside the city limits.
For the district, this is an issue we face whenever we regulate products in a more restrictive manner than our neighboring states.
Which is often and there's no easy answer to that.
That said, we found that someone has to be pretty intent on getting a band products to travel outside the district to purchase it.
They're more likely to just pick up what's available at the 1st store.
They go to, or the 2nd.
I also noticed this is picking up steam if folks have talked about in a number of Maryland counties, at least are also considering gas powered leaf bands.
Gas powered leaf blower bans, meaning it will be harder for residents to purchase a device outside of the city.
And, of course, the law also bans their use, even where legally purchased elsewhere.
Second, as was touched on, I think, earlier, our law also extended to public actors, meaning district agencies and their contractors.
So by January of this year, all of our agencies fully shifted to electric leaf blowers.
This was pretty significant as we own and maintain a significant amount of green space.
This cost about $55,000 for the district to accomplish.
I'll note that's not just for the leaf blowers.
This also includes IT upgrades for our 311 system, vehicle costs for enforcement staff and some other what we call non-personal, so non-salary related costs.
So it would be significantly less than that and not a lot in general.
And third, we also retained the ability of residents to report noise violations and strengthened our response by creating a dedicated enforcement team within our regulatory agency with just two new staff.
It's obviously still difficult to catch violators in the act, but this new staff really helped.
You may ask why the district framed this legislation around a noise disturbance issue rather than about emissions.
Certainly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a critical goal of the district.
We just codified emissions phase-out deadlines, including carbon neutrality by 2045, and the district's government by 2040. We've established a green bank, building energy performance standards, and we've acquired new buildings to be net zero starting in 2026. And as you all know, the use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers has a meaningful effect on the climate.
Two-stroke gas-powered leaf blowers emit 23 the amount of carbon monoxide and nearly 300 times the amount of non-methane hydrocarbons as a pickup truck.
And they pollute the air.
You know, air quality is a big issue for the district, where one in six residents suffer from asthma.
It's about 50% higher than the national average.
These are disparities that are pronounced in areas of the district, home to persons of color.
So the environmental health benefits were also key.
That said, we framed our bill around reducing noise disturbances because it's our understanding, and it's helpful being in the district, close to all the federal agencies to sort of get feedback on this.
It's our understanding that the federal EPA has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of product emissions and that banning these devices based on their emissions would put our law and likely any other jurisdictions at risk of legal challenge and being overturned.
I'm flagging this just because we would strongly recommend Seattle to consider that fact when framing this resolution.
One final critical piece of the legislation adopted in the district was timing of implementation.
As was noted earlier, the law was passed in 2018, but didn't go into effect until January 2022. I want to note, while that sounds like four years, it actually was two, because For nuances and how the district budgets law isn't effective until it's funded and the law didn't actually go into effect until October 2019. so it was a little over 2 years and that delay provided us with several benefits.
It gave us a good amount of time to message to the public about the new law.
Our environmental and consumer affairs agencies launched a thorough public education campaign, presenting at dozens of community meetings.
They provided guidance on their websites to residents, and we even offered up yard signs for free to residents.
They read, gas is out, electric is in, and had a link to the websites for residents to learn more about the prohibition.
And of course, the delay provided a chance for landscapers and other businesses, residents, with time to transition to the electric devices.
I would say, though, even at the time of passage, and especially now, the cost to purchase electric leaf blowers has fallen significantly while battery technology has improved, and they're pretty much on par cost-wise with gas-powered leaf blowers.
And of course, electric power is typically cheaper than gas.
That depends on where you are and how expensive your electric is.
So, you know, our approach was that the change really shouldn't price anyone out of a leaf blower.
And that's, I think, 1 of the public witnesses noted.
Rakes are always available and certainly are a much cheaper option than either.
Still, we wanted to give residents ample time to transition.
I'd also note that.
the district through what's called our sustainable energy utility offered a $50 rebate during that period for residents to purchase an electric leaf blower to help with the transition.
Since it's been just about eight months since our law officially went into effect, I don't have a lot of hard data on compliance to date or, you know, great data on the number of noise complaints that we received.
But anecdotally, in talking to agencies, I can say the transition seems to be going well, both in terms of businesses no longer offering the products and compliance that we do hear now and then if folks see a landscaper using the devices.
As has been noted, Seattle is one of several jurisdictions considering laws like this, and I think we're going to see even more in the coming years.
I thank you again for inviting me to speak.
I'm happy to also talk to sort of how we got the bill over the finish line and answer any questions.
Thank you very much.
Governor Peterson, were you about to say something?
No, well, yeah, just, I didn't know if you wanted to open it up for questions for Mr. Porcello or Yolanda at this point.
I'll just.
Yeah, I was going to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Porcello.
And Council Member Nelson, did I see your Zoom hand up a second ago?
I'll hold my, yeah, thank you.
I'll hold my questions for a second.
Go ahead.
Okay, I don't see, Council Member Morales, go ahead.
You're on mute, Councilor Morales.
Sorry, everyone.
This is probably a question for Yolanda, and I'm not sure you know the answer to this, but I wonder if Parks has contemplated mulching wet leaves, at least the ones that are on the grass.
rather than trying to blow or rake them.
One of the commenters mentioned alternatives to getting rid of the leaves at all.
I don't, I don't know if that has been contemplated.
I mean, the resolution does request that parts, uh, and other departments, um, consider other strategies.
So that certainly would be another strategy of kind of allowing the leaves to be able to more quickly decompose in place.
So, um, yeah.
Okay.
Um, uh, you know, I just want to say, first of all, thank you.
Council member Peterson.
Um, You know, I think, and Yolanda, I appreciate the kind of summary of past actions, right?
We, as a council, have been trying to do this for seven or eight years now, move in this direction.
And I can also appreciate that the technology maybe wasn't there in the past, but it seems like it is now.
And so I do think that it's important that we support this transition.
Even if the sort of greenhouse gas impact isn't as large as transportation or buildings, there is still the health disparity to consider, especially because whether we're talking about small businesses or even our own city parks department employees, it is predominantly black and brown people using this equipment.
And we know that there are health implications of using these.
these tools.
So I do think it's important that we keep pushing and try to resolve this as quickly as possible.
And I will say I'm also a little bit concerned about the work that we'll be adding to SDCI without providing additional resources.
So I think it's important that we understand as council what the impacts of our decisions will be on the city workers' ability to implement.
That said, I think it's wise for us to move this direction and to just have the conversation in the budget process about what we might need to do to provide at least a little bit of support to SDCI to get this done.
So I'm supportive of the resolution, even understanding that there are some concerns about it, but I think we should move forward and keep the ball rolling so that we can get this done sooner.
Thank you, Council Member Rose.
Council Member Nelson?
Thank you very much.
So questions and comments.
Basically, I have to say that this sounds fairly non-controversial, and I haven't gotten any emails from anybody saying, no, we have to keep the gas powered leaf blowers.
So thank you for bringing this forward.
I will support this resolution.
First, I have sort of picking up on what Council Member Morales says about mulching.
I do have to note that if I were to go out on a limb, you know, leaving leaves on the ground could be an option.
I know that's pretty radical, but according to UW professor of geomorphology, David Montgomery and Anne Baclay leaving leaves on the ground not only contributes to soil health, the microbes that digest and further break down the matter, redistribute nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium around the soil and also to the plant roots, making our trees more healthy.
But anyway, my question when I first heard of this was about how this will impact not just Aye.
the workers on city property but also in the private sector.
So I did reach out to Marcos Juanles, who is president of the Seattle Metro Latino Chamber of Commerce, to ask for his thoughts.
And I know that Council Member Peterson also did as well.
And basically, Mr. Juanles is generally okay with this legislation.
However, does believe, like I do, that we have to think about unintended consequences and mitigating impacts in so this question has to do with private property but also city costs.
When we switch over from gas powered to electric power leaf blowers.
One of my questions is, do we know what that cost differential is?
Because, and then I know that this is for a next phase of legislation, but has that work already been done?
Because Parks has already sort of thought about phasing out by 50% by 2026, so they must have some costs.
I do not have that information readily available, but I have been making inquiry so yes, I agree, we, we all we will have that information ready in time for the budget deliberations, this year at least so we'll have that for reference, in terms of what that cost is and I think kind of understanding maybe kind of a larger picture versus just the unit costs, right?
There may be other costs, just as my colleague from DC had mentioned, that may be required for implementation, but I think getting a sense of what that all will entail will be helpful.
Yeah, I think another cost could be labor because the memo says that electric leaf blowers aren't strong enough yet to pick up wet, damp leaves like big leaf maple.
leaves that cover the drain.
So, you know, that will probably require human force to get those up and out of our right of way.
So that's one thing to consider.
But yeah, still a good idea.
And then for Mr. Porcello, sorry if I mispronounced that.
One of the things that I was wondering is were, did any of the stores that sell gas-powered leaf blowers within DC, did they, what kind of, was there a big, was there opposition that people would be going right outside city limits to purchase these things?
And was that one of the unintended consequences that came to fruition?
Sure.
The only concern that we really heard from businesses was giving them enough time to get existing stock off the shelves in the sense that if they were selling leaf blowers, they had gas-powered leaf blowers to sell.
For example, if the prohibition was immediate, they weren't going to have a way to get rid of that stock.
That was part of the reason for the delay.
Otherwise, the understanding from them was somebody's coming in to buy a leaf blower.
If it's electric or not, they're probably going to purchase it on site.
I'll also be frank, as I touched on, we are often more restrictive in terms of whether it's efficiency standards for products or things like that than our neighboring jurisdictions.
So businesses are used to I don't think this is frequent, but you know, the random customer who might be looking for, you know, a very inefficient, for example, a water heater, because it's cheaper, and knowing that those folks will probably travel outside of the city.
So we didn't get a lot of negative feedback from them, just that ask for delay.
Thank you.
That's all the questions I have, thanks.
Thank you, Governor Nelson.
Any other comments from council members?
I support the resolution, and I agree we should move it forward.
Since I don't see any other questions, and since Council Member Peterson, who is the sponsor of this resolution, is not a member of this committee, as chair of the committee, I'll make the motions on his behalf, but Council Member Peterson, did you want to say any closing remarks before I do that?
I just want to thank you again chair for making time today to hear this resolution and to to provide ample time so we could hear from a jurisdiction that is that's ahead of us on this, but has practical advice on how it can be done.
Just like 100 other jurisdictions across the nation have done this already.
So, look forward to working with the Harold administration to get this done, because we, we know it's possible others have done it.
So, and we are.
You know, we pride ourselves on being ahead on environmental and public health and worker protection issues.
So I think this is in alignment with that and should be done expeditiously.
So following this resolution, if it passes out of committee and goes to full council and passes there, I just will look forward to working with the city departments to get it done because they have the power to do it.
It's just going to take the will to do it.
And I think we can get it done.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Peterson.
So with those words, I move Resolution 32064 forward.
Second.
Thank you.
So as committee members know, there's a technical amendment, Amendment 1. So I will go ahead and move Amendment 1.
Second.
Thank you.
Yolanda, are you going to start?
I will speak to Amendment 1. Amendment 1 would correct a couple of errors in the recitals and remove a recital that would be made redundant as a result, specifically that landscape professionals are disproportionately Latinx or Hispanic, and that the U.S.
Department of Labor's Occupation Health and Safety Administration is responsible for promulgating rules related to acceptable sound thresholds, not the EPA as currently drafted.
Thank you, Yolanda.
I don't imagine there are any questions or comments on that.
So Ted, as clerk of the committee, can you call the roll on the amendment?
For amendment one.
Amendment one, sorry.
Council Member Salant.
Yes.
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council Member Nelson.
Aye.
Council Member Lewis.
Yes.
Four in favor.
Thank you.
So the amendment one passes.
We're now ready to vote on the passage of the resolution 32064 as amended.
Since we had space for comments earlier and Council Member Peterson has given us closing remarks, I will go ahead and ask that to call the roll on resolution 32064, please.
Council Member Sawant.
Yes.
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Council Member Nelson.
Aye.
Council Member Lewis.
Yes.
Four in favor.
Thank you again.
Finally, because the next two weeks are the city council's recess, the clerks recommend we suspend the rules to make clear that the resolution will appear on the September 6th city council agenda.
If there is no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow this resolution to appear on the September 6th city council agenda.
Seeing no objection, this resolution will be up for a final vote on the city council on September 6th.
Any further comments, council members?
Seeing none, thank you all.
And the meeting is adjourned.
Take care, bye-bye.