a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 1, 2019 to discuss a petition to amend the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.16 entitled “Noise Control” by deleting sections 8.16.081-8.16.087 to prohibit the use of leaf blowers

Attachment 1 3.4.a L Citizen Petition The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge respectfully request the City Council to amend Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances by deleting Section 16.081 through 16.081.7 thereof, entitled "Leaf Blowers" and substituting the following therefor: "16.081. Statement of Purpose. The City Council hereby finds that 1) Cambridge is committed to minimizing its greenhouse gas emissions, improving quality of life, maximizing sustainability practices and improving air quality; 2) Leaf blowers are harmful to the health of those who operate them and of those who are exposed to them due to excessive noise levels, emission of toxic, carcinogenic exhaust and ozone-forming compounds, and stirring up of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), allergens, lead and other contaminants present in soil and dirt; 3) Gas-powered leaf blowers release much higher levels of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than do automobiles and thus contribute disproportionately to ongoing climate change which threatens the future of all life on earth; 4) Leaf blowers are harmful to the environment through the stripping of topsoil, thereby exacerbating drought conditions, and removal of leaf cover required by pollinators to overwinter; 5) Continued use of leaf blowers is inconsistent with the sustainability goals of the City of Cambridge and of the Cambridge Compact for a Sustainable Future; 6) Leaf blowers are unnecessary to the optimal maintenance of property in the City, but the City will require a period of time to phase out the use of leaf blowers on certain city owned facilities. 16.081.1 Definitions. CAMBRID m 1) A leaf blower is defined as a portable, handheld, backpack style or vehicle 2019 FEB 21 mounted power equipment that is powered by gasoline, other fuel, or electricity and used in any landscape maintenance, construction, property repair, or property maintenance (including without limitation sidewalks, parking lots, driveways and roofs) for the purpose of blowing, vacuuming, AMII: 32 (r: moving, removing, dispersing, or redistributing leaves, dust, dirt, grass clippings, cuttings and trimmings from trees and shrubs or any other type of litter or debris, not including lawn mowers. 2) Non-City property means any property not owned by the City of Cambridge, including without limitation property owned by a federal, state or other local governmental entity. 16.081.2. Ban on use. Except as otherwise provided in this Leaf Blower Ordinance, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code of Ordinances, the use of leaf blowers is hereby prohibited at any time within the City of Cambridge. Packet Pg. 157

3.4.a 16.081.3. Special interim rules for certain City properties. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance, until 2 years after date of enactment (the "Interim Period"), municipal operators and municipal contractors may use leaf blowers for the maintenance of city-owned parks, golf course greens and playing fields as and to the extent that the City reasonably determines such use necessary for safety reasons or for adequate maintenance and further determines that alternative means such as brooms and rakes are not feasible; provided that such use shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any privately owned property or of any municipal property described in the following sentence. Leaf blowers may not in any event be used on City-owned playgrounds, schools or hospitals, nursing homes or similar facilities. The Department of Public Works shall report annually to the City Council during the Interim Period as to progress being made to eliminate the use of leaf blowers on all city owned property. During the Interim Period, municipal operators and contractors using leaf blowers as permitted by this section shall be subject to the limitations provided in Section 16.081.2 of the Leaf Blower Ordinance prior to its amendment by this Ordinance. Employees or non-employee workers of Municipal operators or contractors using leaf blowers under this section or under section 16.081.4 below must utilize appropriate personal protection equipment to include hearing protection, masks and eye protection. 16.081.4. Special emergency rules. This Ordinance does not apply to municipal operators and municipal contractors using leaf blowers for emergency operations and clean-up associated with storms, hurricanes and the like as and to the extent that the City reasonably determines that such use is necessary for safety reasons and that alternative measures are not feasible. 16.081.5. The Chairperson of the License Commission or his or her designee (the Enforcing Person) shall use best efforts to publicize the requirements of this ordinance, including without limitation giving notice thereof at least one month before its effective date to those commercial leaf blower operators with an approved operation plan for the 2019 season under Section 16.081.2.c. prior to its amendment by this Ordinance. The Enforcing Person shall use best efforts to identify commercial landscapers and arborists which do not use leaf blowers in their business and shall make those names publicly available. 16.081.6. Violations. Companies whose employees or non-employee workers use Attachment: Noise Control Zoning APP (8703 : Amend Chapter 8.16 Noise Control) leaf blowers in violation of this Ordinance, any individuals other than employees or non-employee workers described above using leaf blowers in violation of this Ordinance, and owners of non-City property on which such use has occurred in violation of this Ordinance shall be subject to the following: 1) Upon the first violation a notice and warning that additional violations will be subject to a fine. 2) Upon any subsequent violation a fine of $300 (or, if greater, the maximum penalty allowed under Mass. G.L. c. 40, sec. 21 (or any successor statute)). Packet Pg. 158

3.4.a The use of a leaf blower in violation of this Ordinance by multiple employees or non- employee workers of a single Company shall be treated as a separate violation for each such individual so using. Similarly, the use of a leaf blower in violation of this Ordinance by employees or non-employee workers of a single Company on multiple properties or multiple occasions shall be treated as a separate violation for each such property or occasion on which such use occurs. The use of a leaf blower by an employee or non-employee worker of a municipal operator or contractor, otherwise permissible under sections 16.081.4 or 16.081.5, shall be treated as a violation of this ordinance if such employee or worker lacks personal protection equipment. Furthermore, such use by multiple employees or non-employee workers of a municipal operator or contractor shall be treated as a separate violation for each such individual lacking such equipment. 16.081.7. Enforcement. The authorized enforcement personnel charged with the enforcement of this Ordinance shall be the Police Commissioner and the Chairperson of the License Commission, which shall have authority to promulgate regulations to implement this Ordinance and to establish a procedure for the disposition of complaints of violations. 16.081.8. Effective date. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Leaf Blower Ordinance shall take effect on June 30, 2019. " (8703 : Amend Chapter 8.16 Noise Control) Respectfully submitted, Name Street Address 2 Berkele P2. 02138 Jenniter Hall 51 Sherman St 02140 17 Banks St 02138 E JACIESON HALL 51 Sherman St 02140 Hal Attachment: Noise Control Zoning APP 40 apploden St 62138 Varbare D, Baker i2 Saville Street, Cambride, M Jane Barnstein, 0213€ 371 Harvard St. 1-B, FEMiLE NORRIS Packet Pg. 159

3.4.a Name Street Address 'Hin Laud Joel Altsteir CN3 15t Hercart St 6.813} - face quester Attachment: Noise Control Zoning APP (8703 : Amend Chapter 8.16 Noise Control) Packet Pg. 160

3.4.a - Street Address and signatore ne Marte Solet V Joanne 15 Berteley St. 1s Berkely It RICHARD SCHLOARTZ, MD 30 Helside Ave Rican Selvo Jacquele Oldr 30 Hillsice Ave. / Olde no Mezan Brage WHATe C BARROW 103 FWmA S7. 02131 Meal om Deborah E. Masterson 53 Foster 1h 02138 Hacks ca (8703 : Amend Chapter 8.16 Noise Control) 140 Foster St 02138 Reze Mahar Meth DILLENSEGER Marie-Vicua W 140 Foste St 02138 Mark Robert Nilsen 1619 Massachusetts Ave #36 Set do te hen Lapoint 1619 Massachusetts Ave, #34 1 CRAIGLE ST. #41 02138 MILAN VIT De. Af Attachment: Noise Control Zoning APP Packet Pg. 161

Attachment 2 Good evening. My name is Virginia Coleman; I have lived at 2 Berkeley Place in Cambridge for upwards of 25 years, and I'm here to talk to you this evening about leaf blowers: specifically about the citizens petition to ban blowers in the City of Cambridge which is before you. The petition is very simple. It would ban all leaf blowers, electric as well as gas-powered, throughout the City. The City would be allowed a two year transition period with respect to City-owned parks, golf-course greens and playing fields; provided that during this period a blower could not be used within 200 feet of privately owned property or of playgrounds, schools, hospitals, nursing homes or similar facilities. During the transition period, the limitations on use provided in the current ordinance would continue to apply to municipal operators and contractors. As now written for all others the ban would be effective as of June 30. Bear in mind that the proposed ordinance was drafted in early February, when June 30 was a lot farther away than it is now. We recognize that the effective date would no doubt need to be extended. That's basically it. The reasons for banning this equipment are crucial and we need to keep them in the forefront of our minds when weighing them against the reasons not to, which I'm sure will also be voiced this evening. So that's where I want to begin. Lets start with: ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS of blowers. Noise. The uniquely loud, mind-numbing noise of a leaf blower has been colorfully described by those more articulate than I; perhaps my favorite is "death metal sur l'herbe" (Friend article). But noise at this level is not a mere annoyance. The CDC has stated what I think we all feel intuitively: prolonged exposure causes hearing loss. The landscape crews who habitually use blowers are perhaps 1-2 feet away from the source of noise; they are subjected to noise far in excess of the manufacturer's dB rating, which is based on a distance of 50 feet. Many do not wear ear protection. Deafness is in their future. 1

And the rest of us, though not suffering such prolonged exposure, cannot avoid the noise - from blowers on the sidewalk to blowers on a neighbor's property, which are so loud they can effectively paralyze us in our own homes. Remember, most lots in Cambridge are small. Beyond hearing loss, noise in urban areas is increasingly being recognized as leading to a myriad of other adverse health consequences. Per the World Health Organization these include heightened blood pressure, increased levels of stress hormones, problems concentrating, exhaustion and anger. Blowers are only one of many loud noise generators in our City, but this one, unlike so many others (say, garbage trucks and construction noise), we can readily do something about. Noxious emissions. The engines powering gas-powered blowers, unlike car engines, are unregulated, primitive and dirty. Edmunds.com, an on-line resource for automotive information (with, I might add, no ax to grind for or against leaf blowers), performed a test comparing emissions from a 2-stroke and 4-stroke leaf blower going at full blast with a Ford Raptor pick-up truck - a 400 horsepower, heavy-duty muscle vehicle -- likewise at full blast. Across the board the Raptor out-performed (i.e. was cleaner than) the leaf blowers. One result: "To equal the hydrocarbon emissions of about ½ hour of yard work with this two-stroke leaf blower, you'd have to drive a Raptor for 3,887 miles, or the distance from Northern Texas to Anchorage, Alaska." And the overall conclusion by Edmunds? "So if you want to go green, ditch the yard equipment and blow leaves using a Raptor." But wait there's more. There's also Particulate matter pollution. I'm not a scientist and this is a highly technical subject, but let me just say in (very) layman's terms that what we're 2

talking about are very small (PM10) and very very small (PM2.5) particles that share three properties: 1) they stay in the air for hours or days, 2) they travel great distances from the source, and 3) they burrow deep into the lungs, just how deep depending on just how small they are. The EPA, the California Air Resources Board and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection have concluded that PM2.5 particles "can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis or other lung disease, and reduce ability to fight infections." There are many sources of these particles, but blowers is one. All three of the foregoing governmental agencies charged with environmental protection have advised simply: "Avoid using leaf blowers." We also need to consider what in particular is in these particles, if they are churned up by the wind coming out of the blower end of the blower, as opposed to the emissions coming out the back end. Especially in an urban setting such as Cambridge, these are likely to be composed of substances which range from the unhealthy to the toxic: fungus, molds, pollens, lead, allergens, pet feces and rat feces. None of us should be breathing this stuff, and our children especially shouldn't be breathing it. DAMAGE TO THE NATURAL WORLD Although less obvious, blowers, both electric and gas-powered, cause damage to the natural world. The intense winds generated by blowers strip the top soil, which on the one hand makes the ground more vulnerable to dehydration and drought in periods without rain and on the other makes the ground more vulnerable to flooding when the rain does come. The leaf litter which is systematically removed by blowers protects plant roots and is decomposed into nutrients that feed the plants. Leaf litter also provides a habitat for overwintering for bee and other pollinators which are crucial to a healthy ecosystem. 3

Finally, the most subtle but profoundly pernicious consequence of the veritable take-over of the lawn care industry by blowers is that they have created a misguided and harmful paradigm as to what is "proper" management of lawns, gardens, and open spaces generally. We have become seduced culturally to the notion that the outside must be pristine. Our parks are just that, parks, not Versailles. If there are leaves along the side of the walkways, what difference does it make? We speak of "grooming" playing fields as if they were center court at Wimbledon. They're not. But once this new norm is created and entrenched in people's minds and expectations, blowers become a necessity, because without them we cannot create the manicured effect that we have come to feel we must have. Let us remember that blowers first came into use in this country in the 1970's. Those of us of a certain age remember playing golf, tennis, and other outside sports without leaf blowers; walking through parks and visiting cemeteries without leaf blowers; maintaining our yards, driveways and patios without leaf blowers. There was nothing deficient about that status quo. Blowers were a solution in search of a problem; their rampant commercial success has solved nothing while putting human health at risk and contributing to environmental degradation. We have been down this road before. In 2008 an effort to ban blowers resulted in the enactment of an ordinance restricting their use which is currently in place. In the interest of time I won't go into the particulars or the many reasons why the ordinance has been ineffective, poorly enforced, and largely unenforceable (though I would be glad to go into detail if asked). Suffice it to say that even if the ordinance were scrupulously observed and enforced, the fact is that we would still be subjected to blowers for 6 ½ months of every twelve, including both spring and fall. 4

A ban will rid our city once and for all of this scourge and is easily enforced. In taking this step we would set an important precedent among East Coast municipalities - I have heard from residents in nearby cities and towns who have expressed the hope that Cambridge acts so that they in turn can point to Cambridge to urge similar action where they live. But we will be following an increasing trend nationally, with at least 29 municipalities and counting enacting bans, the majority covering gas powered blowers only. Most significantly I would say, just this past year D.C. enacted a ban on gas powered blowers to take effect in 2022. It D.C., with a population of over 700,000 and an area (excluding federal land) of 43.05 square miles, can pull this off, surely Cambridge, with a population of 115,000 and an area of 6.43 square miles, can as well. Having said this, we recognize that implementing a ban will require adjustments on a number of levels, and some exceptions may be necessary; certainly the bans currently in place are not all identical. We urge you, however, to think outside the blower. For example, in 2015, a graduate student at Harvard, appalled by the use of blowers in Harvard Yard, organized a "Rake-in" there. He invited students to come out on a November afternoon and rake leaves in the Yard: a way to get exercise and help the planet too. Students came out en masse; the event was a big success. Why couldn't such an event happen regularly, on a systematic not one-shot, student-organized basis, and not just at Harvard but at our other educational institutions? Why shouldn't it? Isn't this a win-win? Haven't our institutions embraced sustainability as a significant value to be pursued? And with the increasing environmental sensibility of our students, perhaps they would

prefer to rake leaves, an activity which is good exercise and also just plain fun, to being subjected to the wail of leaf blowers. And it the idea were to work on our campuses, why couldn't it be tried in our parks? Many families live in apartments and might welcome the opportunity to come out with their children for an activity that would leave them feeling better about themselves and their world. Perhaps supply hot cider and doughnuts. I don't know if any such effort would be successful, but if we don't try we'll never know. Let us not be deluded into accepting the proposition that only luddites use rakes and brooms. In addition, we need to recognize that much of what is done need not be done, and, given the health and environmental costs associated with blowers, should not be done at all if the only feasible way to do the work is with a blower. This observation is particularly germane for the City-owned properties on which we have been advised that gas-powered blowers are now used. Playgrounds are a particularly ill-chosen location to start up a blower because children are especially vulnerable to the noxious substances in the dirt that they churn up. I frequent the Kemp playground on the Common with my 2 year old grandson. It is basically a sandpit, and the children love it. It is not immaculate. Why should it be? Our playing fields are located in the wide open, not in forests. Is it crucial to remove every acorn, leaf and twig? Well, it may be said, people expect that. To the extent that is true we need to, and I submit we can, change expectations. A notice was sent around to all residents after the tree ordinance was passed. Similarly, if a blower ban is enacted a notice of the ban and its particulars should be sent out to alert residents to what will be different and why: not to punish anyone but to enhance the quality of life of all of us. 6

If exceptions must be made, we urge that they be only for electric blowers, under such circumstances as you may think warrant it, bearing in mind that electric blowers are not by any stretch harmless. Still and all, there are uses for electric blowers which are relatively benign, meaning not for an extended period and not at high power. For instance, we have been advised that only electric blowers are used on the Fresh Pond golf course, and only as needed to remove debris on highly maintained turf areas, which I assume are the greens. We have also been advised that there are residents who, due to age or infirmity, cannot use manual tools and must rely on a blower to clean their properties. A light, relatively low power electric blower is suitable for this kind of need; gas powered blowers, which are heavy and messy, are not. What of the commercial landscapers doing business in our city - for some, whose crews are sometimes called "blow and go," any shift from their current practice is going to attract opposition. They have a good business model and it works for them. The more far-sighted and I would suggest more responsible ones, however, are increasingly recognizing the environmental and health costs of gas powered blowers and are switching to electric, to be used only selectively, or, at the client's request, not using blowers at all. Case in point - Talbots Creative Gardening, which I happen to use, does not use leaf blowers on my property and has long had a practice of using them elsewhere only sparingly. This Spring they sent out an email to all their clients informing them that they were switching to all electric blowers, to reduce their carbon emissions and gas and 2 cycle oil consumption. The email went on to say: "Several of our clients ask us not to use leaf blowers at all, and we have found that 7

it has a relatively minor impact on cost. If this interests you please let us know; we want to be leaders in our industry... This is the kind of behavior we should be encouraging, not catering to those who predict dire consequences if Cambridge dares enact a ban. Elon Musk announced just this past week that "Tesla is going to develop a quiet electric leaf blower." He also said it would "recharge quickly and have a long lasting battery." Perhaps within a few years we will be looking at a whole new set of possibilities. The City has enacted bans before when it concluded it was the right thing to do, knowing that change would be required and there would be resistance among some. The ban on smoking in restaurants, and then in workplaces, because it was hazardous to the health of those exposed to ambient smoke. The ban on single use Styrofoam food containers, because they are bad for the environment. The ban on the sale of dogs, cats and other smaller animals in retail stores, because the animals were likely to have been subject to abuse. In each of these cases, the necessary adjustments were made, the catastrophes predicted by those who resisted did not occur, and the benefits sought in enacting the ban were realized. Perhaps the closest analogy to what we are proposing is the ban on plastic bags, enacted because they increase waste at a time that we are trying to reduce it. Since the ban, stray plastic bags, carried by the wind into the streets, the parks and playgrounds and trees, have declined drastically, and the City has 8

formally supported extending such a ban state wide. And the residents of Cambridge have learned to live without. We did that! We can do this too. Cambridge can do this.

V. Caleman THE CASE FOR BANNING LEAF BLOWERS Presentation by Virginia Coleman May 1, 2019 Ordinance Committee Hearing I. Basics of the proposed ban • Applies to all leaf blowers. • Effective date: June 30, but effectively September 15 given current ordinance. • 2-year transition period for certain city-owned properties. II. Why a ban: What's the problem with blowers? • Adverse health effects: (1) Noise: "death metal sur l'herbe" Hearing loss (Center for Disease Control). Heightened blood pressure, stress, problems concentrating, exhaustion, anger (World Health Organization). (2) Noxious hydrocarbon emissions (gas powered blowers). "If you want to go green, ditch the yard equipment and blow leaves using a Raptor truck." (Edmunds.com) (3) Fine particulate matter emissions. EPA, Nev. EPA, CA Air Resources Board: "Avoid using leaf blowers." (4) Churning of unhealthy matter in dirt and dust. Fungus, molds, pollens, lead, allergens, rat feces. • Damage to the natural world. • Creation of a damaging norm/ expectation. III. Current leaf blower ordinance. •Ineffective, unenforced and unenforceable. • By its terms, allows blowers 6½ months out of every 12. IV. Implementing a ban: practical issues. • Think outside the blower. Voluntary raking by our college students: Harvard's "rake-in." Less is best, on e.g. playgrounds, playing fields, parks. Changing expectations. (over)

• Exceptions: Limit to electric blower usage in relatively benign circumstances: golf-course maintenance, homeowners who cannot use manual tools. • Commercial landscapers. Predictable resistance by some. Others are already taking steps to minimize blower usage. Which group do we want to encourage? V. Precedents in Cambridge for doing the right thing despite opposition. Ban on smoking in restaurants and workplaces. Ban on Styrofoam take-out food containers. Ban on sale of dogs, cats and smaller animals in retail stores. Ban on single-use plastic bags. CAMBRIDGE CAN DO THIS!

Cambridge Leaf Blowers in 8.16.081 - Leaf Blowers operations of such facilities. and emissions of particulate matter Attachment 3 clippings, cuttings and trimmings from public purpose that protects the public hereby finds that the reduction of noise facilities without relaxing restrictions on resulting from the use of leaf blowers is a and large recreational facilities and other Council recognizes that a total ban on the crees, shrubs and other types of litter and debris from streets, sidewalks, cemeteries errectively remove leaves, dust, dirt, grass adverse impact on the ability of the City to use of such equipment would have a severe the use of such equipment for maintenance hely of Catfare ge and tis citen o The City open spaces and to clean and maintain such

December 31 st than 65 decibels • Provide Personal Protective equipment Ordinance Summary • Train all operators on Cambridge regulations Ground, and during emergency operations • Commercial operators must be permitted and: • Defined as portable, handheld, or backpack style equipment • Number of blowers are limited by the size of the parcels they are working on > Restricted use protects public health, welfare, and the environment • Only allowed between March 15th and June 15th and September 15th and Reservation, Municipal Golf Course, Cambridge Cemetery, the Old Burial • Must meet current EPA emissions standards and cannot emit noise greater • Provisions do not apply to the following City parcels: Danehy Park, Freshpond Ordinance

away. and Rules. • What is controlled by Ordinance: Blower Regulations, and best practices. On-going Education exceptions for municipal contractors). Season Restrictions - Spring & Autumn. provided by the employer free of charge. Prohibited to blow towards open windows or doors. Time Restrictions - Time of Day, Sundays and Holidays. Only one leaf blower can be used in each 10,000 sf area Cannot be used for construction dust, plaster dust or dry garden topsoil. • What is controlled by the Rules (offered in English, Spanish and Portuguese): Noise Restrictions - types of blowers and when multiple ones can be used. Cannot blow debris into basins, adjacent property, street, vehicles, etc. (some Commercial leaf blower operators must train their employees on the Ordinance On a operate lear Comes are a to on operators munitio contractor and start Employees must wear ear protection when operating and that protection is to be Leaf blowers cannot be pointed at animals or persons and operator must be 50ft.

• Best Practices Avoid large dust plumes Use rakes when possible. On-going Education Wet dusty areas prior to use when possible. requests, employer must provide free of charge). Stop using leaf blowers while playgrounds are in use. Use longest nozzle and orient nozzle to reduce noise. Operator should use respiratory and eye protection (if employee

1. 3. employees. COMMONWEALTH CONNECT: explained to the resident. ENFORCEMENT improper use of a leaf blower is enforced. LICENSE COMMISSION'S GENERAL PROACTIVE APPROACH: This category continues to be an important tool in monitoring and enforcing compliance. "warning" cease and desist letters with a link to the application and copy of the In 2016 The City established a Leaf Blower complaint category within Commonwealth Connect Non-permitted commercial leaf blowers which are operating in Cambridge are sent Ordinance. This has been very effective in educating companies and getting them permitted. the commercial operator, if any. When necessary residents are brought in for a meeting with the Chief Licensing Investigator and the Chair for the License Commission. The Ordinance and its limitations are the Board of License Commissioners and fines of $300.00 per violation have been issued. This has been Any violation at a property where there is no information as to who is performing the work, a "warning" effective in having the companies take accountability for their employees and spend time educating their Permitted and non-permitted commercial leaf blowers who violate the Ordinance have been brought before cease and desist letter is sent. The letter includes the Ordinance and information for the resident to provide Investigators patrol the City for improper use of leaf blowers. Any information received from a CAD as to the

BY THE LICENSE FURTHER COMMISSION STEPS TAKEN: 5. Ordinance. which is sent to all residents. re-publish the Rules and Regulations. information is available on the License Commission's website. Send renewal applications to previously permitted companies. With renewals, Hired a full-time Investigator who patrols the City to ensure compliance with the Portuguese to all permitted companies. They are also available on the License Commission's than the Ordinance. These Rules and Regulations have been published in English, Spanish and Publish the advisory on the limitations of the Ordinance on City Manager's newsletter Created and published Rules and Regulations which include limitations more stringent Periodically publish in the Cambridge Chronicle an advisory with information as to the the Rules and Regulations. Send emails to all companies when there is a "trend" of violations. Send reminders to all permitted companies as to time, day and season restrictions, and Ordinance and the commercial leaf blowers currently permitted in the City of Cambridge. This

recovery action. Administrative own a leaf blower for personal use. the City, a total ban would be a drain on resources. Challenges to a full Ban licenses and permits issued by the Board of License Commissioners (the "Board"). permitted will be entitled to a refund of the permit obtained impacting the budget. violation, the Investigator cannot issue a ticket. Theretore, upon observing or receiving notice of a the-spot tickets is that past complaints or those not observed by the officer cannot be issued a ticket. to be reviewed by all members of the Board; the decision would have to be approved by the board at a the process would be: a notice or a nearing detore the board would nave to be dratted and sent to the If the City Council bans the use of leaf blowers prior to December 31, the companies that have become natters related to the other portions of the Noise Control Ordinance and the other 19 ditterent types of Regardless of whether the Investigator observes the more appropriately placed on a different entity, like the Police Department or Traffic Department which The Leaf Blower Ordinance applies to all persons who use a leaf blower in Cambridge. This means that a not pay, the matter would have to be referred to the City Solicitor's Office for the filing of an affirmative have employees that patrol the streets and are able to issue on-the-spot tickets. Consideration as to on- complaint, the Investigator would have to file a complaint (if observed) or investigate (if reported). Then " City for the improper use of leaf blowers, the unit is only comprised of 2 people esto are also inpatigating total ban will not only impact municipal and commercial leaf blower operations but also homeowners that In the event of a total ban, there would have to be consideration as to whether the enforcement would be alleged violator; a public hearing would have to occur; a written decision drafted; the decision would need separate public hearing; and then the decision would be sent. If the person to whom the fine is issued does • Even if the License Commission's Investigative Unit were to increase in numbers to allow for more patrols of

TO CITY OPERATIONS. MODIFICATIONS equipment operated portable blowers equipment at other parks citywide Will expand once the Rogers street Park Spring and Fall. March 15th to May 31st and The Department will restrict the use of leaf • All City operations have switched to battery restrict Public Works crews to December 1st) and recharging facility underneath the mound) ember lot to Dec s1st. It possible we will construction is completed and includes a storage of soil and reduce dust volumes from these areas Established 2 green zones in the city, and utilized • Procured additional battery operated landscaping blowers on lower beas and ground cover areas to che extent possible in an ettort to reduce the loss • Times of operation have been adjusted during both

Pros: light dry debris No fuel to carry Eliminate emissions Good for working with Noise level is slightly less levels at or below 65 decibels. debris Cons: operated leaf blowers Power is limited Battery disposal for the operator Less comtortable Effectiveness of the battery Battery life is limited Not effective with heavy BLAST! dBa greenworks pr BGA 100 STIHL

60 dBa reenworles pro per ANSI 8 175.2 Quiet Operation at only 60 dB(a) as measured Pros: Cons: Green Zone Pilot used all day on a full charge. BATTERY OPERATED EQUIPMENT and Bergin Park in North Cambridge the keeping up with their gas counterparts. started using battery operated equipment this equipment has a run time of only 20-40 Lawn mowers have done an exceptional job leaf blower, and a hand held string trimmer. Backpack and handheld equipment were less minutes with a recharge time of 4hrs or more 20" and 33" walk behind mowers, a backpack impressive. Weight, comfort of operation, run Beginning in the Summer of 2017 Public Works time, and overall quality was lacking. Most of equipment utilized were: a 60" ride-on mower, Employees found them comfortable and easy to exclusively in both Green/ Rose Park in the Port use and batteries life allows the equipment to be

HOURS BY SPORT CITY WIDE TOTALS 2018 Operational Youth Sonools ACUT Field by Field Permitted Usage Data Adult Youth Schools Hours By Age Group raking. playability. effectively. manpower avallable. Additional Challenges to a full ban leaf cleanup and insufficient seasonal lines, affecting drainage and ultimately amount of play time and quality of play. beds, walking paths, sidewalks, plazas and Significant increase in cost associated with waters leads to higher phosphorus loading. Aesthetic qualities of parks, fields, planting » A complete leaf blower ban could effect the businesses throughout the city will decrease. • Increase in leaf "debris" draining to receiving in planted areas due to increased use of harsh • Increased probability or root and stem damage • Ingenie matter on rise are boss and fence

ban Specific adds to challenge. Impact on Golf Course bunkers, and greens. • Greens need leaf blowers. 1) shorter playing times Impossible to maintain tee boxes, Impacts of outright Impossible to hand rake 35 acre course. • Like playing fields - issues with dead turf. or 2) maintaining while playing. (unsafe). • Longer time frame to clear course meaning Labor market shortage for seasonal workers

ban basins. Specific Alewife/Mystic. surfaces. Impact on stormwater to reduce algae blooms. • Phosphorus TMDL on Charles River. Impacts of outright • Leaf "debris" in separated drainage • Phosphorus - Pollutant of Concern on systems increases phosphorus loading. Excessive leaves lead to blocked catch Note: Primary concern is impervious • Important that leaf "debris" is managed

to challenge. Specific Impact on Parks and Cemetery. community standards with rakes. Poorly raked/blown grass leads to poor grass. 66 acre Cemetery and 55 acre Danehy park to Labor market shortage for seasonal workers adds Impacts of outright ban Impossible to maintain 130 parks and Open spaces Signiticant increase in staff/contractors required.

Attachment 4 CAMBRIDGE LICENSE COMMISSION 831 Massachusetts Avenue, First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139 RESPONSE TO COUNCIL ORDER TO: Louis Depasquale, City Manager Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager CC: Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner, Department of Public Works Dr. Branville G. Bard, Jr., Police Commissioner FROM: Nicole Murati Ferrer, Esq., Chair of License Commission K. Andrea Boyer, Chief Licensing Investigator Tyler Bubenik, Assistant Licensing Investigator DATE: April 30, 2019 RE: Supplemental Response to City Council Order O-2 dated June 25, 2018 - Leaf Blower Update On July 16, 2018, we submitted a written response to City Council Order 0-2 dated June 25, 2018, requesting an overview of leaf blower enforcement and registration data for 2017 and 2018. Considering the Ordinance Committee Meeting of May 1, 2019, to discuss a petition to ban the use of leaf blowers, we provide this as a supplemental response. Renewals for commercial leaf blower operators for the 2019 season are ongoing. Currently, we have 66 permitted commercial leaf blower operators. Some are renewals from last year, others are new companies which have been found to operate in Cambridge and have since become permitted. Anytime a new company gets permitted, we provide the leaf blower ordinance and Rules and Regulations. This year whether it is a new company or a renewal, the permittee receives a personalized email, marked "high importance" with a read receipt required, with attachments of the Leaf Blower Rules and Regulations in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The 2019 permits conspicuously state the seasons leaf blowers can be used, the hours and exceptions. They also state that employees must wear ear protection, that the sound of a leaf blower cannot emit more than 65 dB(A), and that violations are subject to $300 fines. Following are some up-to-date leaf-blower related statistics. The statistics show that violations are occurring, but it is not due to a lack of education or enforcement. In 2016, the License Commission revamped the way the Leaf Blower portion of the Noise Ordinance and complaints were addressed. The License Commission's proactive and aggressive enforcement of the Ordinance and the continuous education it provides, has benefited residents. There is now more awareness of the Ordinance and it has been made clear that violators will be held accountable. Facsimile [phone removed] • TTY/TTD [phone removed] Telephone [phone removed] license@cambridgema.gov | www.cambridgema.gov/license

Updated Response to City Council Order 0-2 (June 25, 2018) April 30, 2019 Page 2 of 6 The statistics also establish the benefit of allowing the License Commission to transition its part- time Investigator to full-time. This provided the License Commission additional resources to more proactively patrol the City and reduce the need for it to rely only on resident-generated complaints. Although we continue to receive and rely on resident-generated complaints, the License Investigators' patrols are very effective in educating persons or companies that are unaware of the Ordinance and the permitting process. They are also effective in ensuring we are holding all accountable. 2018 Part Time vs. Full Time Patrol Results 34 32 35 30 30 23 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cease and Desist Hearings Fines Issued Violations Letters Sent • PART TIME (53 COMPLAINTS) • FULL TIME (71 COMPLAINTS) Figure 1: Comparison of enforcement before and after the transition of a part time investigator to full time. The blue bar represents resultant enforcement stats for the part-time investigator over 53 total complaints. The orange bar represents resultant enforcement stats for the full-time investigator over 71 total complaints. Increased detection led to a higher number of disciplinary actions.

Updated Response to City Council Order O-2 (June 25, 2018) April 30, 2019 Page 3 of 6 The implementation of cease and desist letters has led to the highest number of registered landscaping companies. From 2016 to the present, over 85 cease and desist letters have been sent. This has led to an increase in registered commercial leaf blower operators who are better educated on operational rules and regulations, resulting in fewer violations of the Ordinance. Those sent to individuals, non-commercial leaf blower operators and residents, have served to educate these as to all applicable provisions of the Ordinance. Figure 2 illustrates how the increased implementation of cease and desist letters since 2016 has led to growth in the number of registered companies over time. Authorized landscaping companies are also required to provide information that makes them easily identifiable and accountable for their operations. Investigators now have more information with which to deduce guilty parties. Landscape Companies Permitted Over Time In Relation to Delivery of Cease and Desist Letters 72 80 65 70 60 48 50 34 40 30 30 17 14 20 7 10 0 2017 2018 YTD 2019 2016 • Cease and Desist Letters Sent • Landscape Companies Permitted Figure 2: Trends in the number of landscaping companies permitted year-to-year as it relates to instances of cease and desist letters. Increases in warning letters has led to an increase in registration.

Updated Response to City Council Order O-2 (June 25, 2018) April 30, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Streamlining databases has also led to more efficient enforcement. Information saved in the Cloud is utilized to query records on associated properties, contact information, disciplinary history, and includes analytics and pending disciplinary action. It also allows for forecasting, as maps generated show the areas with the highest instances of resident-reported violations. From January 1, 2018 to present, data shows that leaf blower complaints originate in West Cambridge in significantly greater numbers, as can be seen in Figure 3. This dictates how patrols are implemented and has led to increased detection of violations. ARLINGTON MEDFORD EVERETT SOMERVILL C arden st Dist organ Aye mpton-st 1% Harvarst, YATERIONE Banks st - WindsorS: Bishop-Allen Dr Frankin si 14 ? BROUKLINE Figure 3: Location of all leaf blower complaints from January 1, 2018 to present date. Blue dots represent complaints that have been filed with the License Commission in 2018, while the red dots denote leaf blower complaints filed so far in 2019. A significantly higher concentration of complaints can be seen in West Cambridge.

Updated Response to City Council Order O-2 (June 25, 2018) April 30, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Most leaf blower violations are investigated by complaints made through email, with routine patrols close behind. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of reporting methods utilized to report violations to the License Commission in 2018. Two-thirds of the reports that come in are found to be actionable. 2018 Leaf Blower Complaint Methods 28% 26% 17% 16% 33% • Email• CAD• See-Click-Fix • Patrol • Call-in Figure 4: Reporting methods utilized to report leaf blower violations by percentage. Email is the most common method of reporting, constituting one third of all reporting. Routine patrols account for the next most common way that violations are investigated.

Updated Response to City Council Order O-2 (June 25, 2018) April 30, 2019 Page 6 of 6 In terms of the possibility of a complete ban of the use of leaf blowers in the City of Cambridge, we would like to raise the following as matters which need to be considered. (1) The Noise Ordinance is complaint driven. Although the License Commission's Investigative Unit patrols the City for the improper use of leaf blowers, the unit is only comprised of 2 people who are also investigating matters related to the other portions of the Noise Control Ordinance and the other 19 different types of licenses and permits issued by the Board of License Commissioners (the "Board"). (2) Even if the License Commission's Investigative Unit were to increase in numbers to allow for more patrols of the City, a total ban would be a drain on resources. Regardless of whether the Investigator observes the violation, the Investigator cannot issue a ticket. Therefore, upon observing or receiving notice of a complaint, the Investigator would have to file a complaint (if observed) or investigate (if reported). Then the process would be: a notice for a hearing before the Board would have drafted and sent to the alleged violator, a public hearing would have to occur, a written decision drafted, reviewed by all members of the Board, the decision would have to be approved by the Board at a separate public hearing, and then the decision would be sent. If the person to whom the fine is issued does not pay, the matter would have to be referred to the City Solicitor's Office for the filing of an affirmative recovery action. (3) In the event of a total ban, there would have to be consideration as to whether the enforcement would be more appropriately placed on a different entity, like the Police Department or Traffic Department which have employees that patrol the streets and are able to issue on-the-spot tickets. (4) If the City Council bans the use of leaf blowers prior to December 31, the companies that have become permitted will be entitled to a refund of the permit obtained and there would be an impact to the License Commission budget. (5) The Leaf Blower Ordinance applies to all persons who use a leaf blower in Cambridge. This means that a total ban will not only impact municipal and commercial leaf blower operations but also homeowners that own a leaf blower for personal use. We will continue to work in tandem with all other City Departments to monitor the usage of leaf blowers and do our best to bring all into compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Thank you.

Attachment 5 Good evening members of the council. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Kevin Braga and I am the Director of Operations for the Cambridge Housing Authority. CHA opposes this proposed amendment to the municipal code. The Housing Authority manages and maintains over 3,000 apartments in Cambridge that are spread out over 75 acres of land. Leaf blowers are a necessary and vital component to the proper upkeep of our properties. Our grounds require constant tending, especially in the early spring and fall during leaf removal season. Timely removal of fallen leaves is a safety priority, especially at our elderly and disabled sites. The added labor cost of not using leaf blowers is well-documented. The Department of Public Services of the City of Coronado, California conducted a test comparing the use of leaf blowers to handheld removal methods and they reported their results in a published report to the Coronado City Council. To clean the perimeter of a downtown park with rakes and brooms, it took 80 minutes, where it only took 6 minutes to clean it with a blower. In addition, to clean the grounds of the City police department, it took 120 minutes using hand tools, and 8 minutes with a blower. Similar experiments have been conducted in other parts of the country with similar results. In summary, it conservatively takes over 10 times longer to remove leaves with rakes and brooms than it takes with leaf blowers. This would be a direct increase in our labor costs. The Housing Authority estimates that we spend $125,000 per year in labor costs alone for the removal of leaves while using leaf blowers. To multiply this by 10 would cost the CHA over one million dollars annually. Needless to say, these funds could be better spent on other initiatives for our resident population. We are in agreement with the proponents of the ban in that the current ordinance in the City has been ineffective in addressing resident's sound related noise issues. Contrary to the ordinance's intention as it stands, it actually exacerbates the issue by prolonging the exposure time to the noise generated by leaf blowers. Although, allowing blowers of a higher dB(A) would create more immediate noise, the length of the exposure would be minimized. For example, we feel it would be a better outcome for all involved if we used a 100 dB(A) leaf blower for 6 minutes as opposed to a 60 dB(A) leaf blower for 12 minutes. We respectfully request that the Council reject this measure. Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Attachment 6 Lopez, Donna From: Nan Laird < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 7:09 AM To: Lopez, Donna; City Council May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers Subject: This is a copy of my remarks presented in the meeting last night: Good Evening, 1 am Nan Laird. I live at 156 Hancock Street in Cambridge and have been a resident of mid-Cambridge for 50 years. I am here tonight as a Cambridge resident to urge you to strengthen the ban on Leaf blowers. Leaf blowers, especially gas blowers are unnecessary, they are hazardous to the environment and to the health of the operators and disrupt the peace and tranquility of our residential neighborhoods. For 50 years I have never used anything but a broom or a rake to and it has never been a burden, nor do I know any Cambridge resident who owns a blower. Blowers are used almost exclusively by landscapers, not homeowners. Banning blowers throughout the year in our residential neighborhoods will be a big gain for Cambridge residents in terms of quality of life and health. I also speak as a health professional. I have also worked at the Harvard School of Public Health as a Professor of Biostatistics for over 40 years. I have studied human health and air pollution, radon and side stream cigarette smoke. You have heard from Virginia Coleman that there is plenty of good evidence about the adverse health effects of exposures to a variety of air pollutants and to excessively loud noises. There is plenty of room for argument about the specific and direct health effects in individuals. You have already received letter from an individual in the Industry who claims that "There is no supporting documentation for the claim that leaf blowers are harmful to your health, rather it is opinion and derogatory innuendo! This is nonsense, but I am sure you will hear many similar comments, especially from those who feel they have a financial interest at stake. In 1984 I was on a committee appointed by Congress to study the health hazards of smoking in airplanes. We spent well over a year studying the evidence on the health risks of side stream tobacco smoke, and there were some relevant studies suggesting modest effects, but there was also plenty of disagreement among the experts. Even in the absence conclusive, well-grounded scientific data providing medical evidenceconcerning the health effects of side stream smoke, our committee recommended a ban of smoking on airlines, and Congress enacted this ban on flights of 2 hours or less, mainly because they were afraid of the airline and passenger reaction to a ban. To everyone's surprise, the ban was very popular among passengers and the airlines. It was soon expanded all flights in the continental US and then overseas, largely on the initiative of the airlines.

The airline study happened because flight attendants were educated and articulate and formed a strong union. In our setting, those most affected by the ban will the operators of the gas blowers. The operators are often do not even speak English and are not represented by a union who might protect their health. There is very little chance in the near future that there will be well designed occupational health studies of operators of leaf blowers which provide scientific evidence beyond doubt that using leaf blowers is a health hazard. But you do not need that, you have plenty of good evidence to act on now. Just vote your conscience and rely on the testimony of your residents. Thank you

Attachment 7 TESTIMONY TO THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE REGARDING BANNING LEAF BLOWERS May 1, 2019 Elizabeth Van Ranst, 120 Foster Street Years ago I was here testifying against pollution from secondhand smoke. Now I am here testifying against noise pollution. We must do something about this health hazard as well. I am definitely in favor of reducing noise be it machinery or even music (which is no longer at background levels) in stores and restaurants. But today I Will focus on my experience with leat blowers. These machines cause air pollution by blowing dirt, fertilizer, allergens, and animal waste into the air, and also hydrocarbons if they are gas powered. And they and leaf vacuums cause noise pollution. I am retired so am usually at home during the day. Frequently the noise from leaf blowers has made it impossible for me to work in my own yard or even inside the house with the windows closed. On a couple of occasions, 3-4 leaf blowers were operating simultaneously on two or three adjacent properties. What about my right to quiet enjoyment of my home? Instead, I feel extreme discomfort in my ears. My stress level and probably my blood pressure skyrocket, and tightness seizes my entire being. I am trapped. I am unable to do any serious work, comfortably carry on a conversation, or sometimes even think. I am in a total state of anger. I have been forced from my home on a figurative level. Indeed, I have also been forced to vacate it. I do feel for some neighbors with large properties to maintain, but I have had it with hearing their noise. It used to go on like clockwork every Friday throughout the summer when dirt would be blown around, even onto my car. The seasonal restrictions have helped. I would like to suggest allowing lowing just one or two weeks in the tall tor blowing WEAVES, but tha ould be a nightmare for me. So I conclude that a bah realis the way to go Whatever you do, please ban gas Mo wen at least and further? Elon Musk is apparently determined to invent a quiet leaf blower. That would solve the noise problem at least, but not the air pollution one. The sound of raking is soothing. I am hoping we will hear much more of that. #restict the hours deckon ones Thank you. can te used. P.S. dalso have a neighbor who regularly tows lust, etc. Of his several Cars.

92 TOTAL Attachment80 Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Name & Signature Pum Matz 22 EsseX Cambrize Paul 27 Jess frany Tess SeEN 20 Menten St MAders8 SARUDEL@GHAIL. COU Ruthan Rudel Ta 209 gate comt Adele Pressman 58 Highland st. 02138 ROy RUS. 40 Cottage st 02139 Ruy Russell Bime Sue Reinert Sue Reint 303 Peer/St. 02139 103 Auburn St. 02139 Mina Reddy Mina Rely, 27-29 HUTChinson St 02138 MARiE BROWN NeuTom ELLEN STUTMAN Ellen Stufmem 41l Fraislin 02139 45 Cottage St. 02134 Tick BarryRBee 229 Harvard St 4le 02139 Mariculelyos ma Vega

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Name & Signature 02139 85 Pleasautst. Camb Judy Mortuer Cambride Matthew Lau 175 Hancock St. #41402139 CAMBICINGE 102 MAGAZINE ST. 02139 AVYSSA ZAPEY JOSE RiVERA CAMBRIDGE MELISSA 02139 143 PLEASANT. I 20 • MENSSA SMITH Fleutrou 99 Harmond St. Camd 02138 Fran Keutmann Fkeatmann 93 Mammond St. Cams. 02138 Debooch Galef InSaly FRANCO SACCHi FALL i 100 AUbUth It. Cambriele NIA SemBROWICH Mita Sembrowich 209 Puram Ave Contra Kathy Watkin [email removed] 40 Froett st, #51 02138 Migann German A4 Channing Cede 02138 Catherne Angatty Our 6s Howard st 02139

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Printed Name & Signature Rosalind •Neill 411) waklis it 107 Ali Sarge Ali Savage 321 Harvarst 41 ESSex st Swee Kee LATA RAMANATHAN Lete amenether MA 0214/ Dianne Rice 460 Putnamdive Carnh 02139 1008 lass Are. Canbredge 02/35 02139 Roberta Dinsmore/Reheuta be in io Moveuce, Cambridge SUSAN TURNER/ZUMN TuNa 182 Magagise 51. 172 Treca hear Helen Snively telen Suvely I Fagette tack RUTHBAUMAN Ruth Bauman 106 Inmanst Valerie Warrior 2 Nichols Mr. valene wanion Jutta Bennett 19A Cottage st Ints Bene t

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Name & Signature Je Dora Reach scie 27 Myrtle Are

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Zip Signature/ & Printed Name 02139 02138 23 Elmer St Ales Minal Fre 02/41 67 Plymouth Sl. 112 A Gasm Joe Bastoni ADRIANO SCREAM efe. 18 Fagel15, 02139 Le Farri Lee FARRIs 269 Norfolkst. 02139 heifloor MeredituBlodget 100 Auburnst, 02139 15 ERIEST HONE 68 Howard St 02139 tintor Kathleen Smith 42 Kinneird 58 48 02139 Twily Achi An hise 129 FRANKLIN 02139 4 a Veoniu Da

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Zip Signature & Printed Name 57 Puthan Are #l 02/39 Killer that Kelleen Mark 57 Putnan Are # l 02139 Olivia Butuasti 02472 101 Franklin, st. WateRTOWN Amy Bel 19% TREmoNT st ALEX LOUD CAROLYNSHIPLEY 15 Laurel St. 02139 Carly pitely, Anna bucha Amina Derbal 17 Flagq St. 0438 16 Brena Vista 1h 02146 A Petricia Poth Barter th Barbers Hume 33 Essex St. 02139 Ria Ora 285 Harvad Street #303 02139 Ria Ora Kevin Chen 284 Harvard St. #62 02134 Milla 02/38 mera Sa Mergu Gold 61 Dans St., Aptl voron dorst Norman 02140 157 Raymond st

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Zip Address Signature & Printed Name 02139 262 HAMPSHIRE ST Oh all Eatin Baker 02/40 30 Churchill An Edude Sman # 62} 173 Hancch St 269 Harvard St. #39 02134 She Kater sen Kaster 19 Lancaster St. Cambridge MA 0214 Wenken Ling. 20 Ware St #21 Cambridge a2138 on Nicole Sardan 315 Harvad st, 49 WALKat Walter Waster 265 Harvard St. #11Z CAMBoris 4 King Place Cambridge 02139 02/38 Samuel De Ment 1916 Cambridge St, # 34 02/39 48 Fayette St. Kis Kellerberg Mai u 02\38 36 Ash st Judith Dotz

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Signature & Printed Name Zip 11-12 Centre Sist Cabada 02139 Enger Olofa Fraya Olatson 02139 L5O ERIE STREET JOAN O'HAREGIOHI 10 2 1Sf Fred ewett 127 Appleran st 84 Hampshire St #13 02139 Duit Daniel Wany JimBrown jobrow3 @guelon 32 Avon Hill St 02140 han Elizabeth Heller 19 Garden S4Art5, 02138 Quinto Zardonver 235 Crudinal Medtinor 0214) Ginthia tibhard 23 Ellsworth Are, #2 02130 I Wendell St. #l Cambridege 02138 Sonya Suter Adalicia Roth 2 warwick Park Cans 02140 Estelle Disch Etell Disch 528 tranklin 8t, Camb 02139 Susar Redlich 19 Sacramento St 02138 Cecilia Bennell 03139 19 Chalk St

Leaf Blower Ban To the Cambridge City Council: The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge, MA support an amendment of Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City. Address Zip Signature & Printed Name icambricise N lane Beck Brickwalk 2 HancockPark 02139 conservancy, one 189 Hamilton St 02139 CeLk Gabriel Cra 127 Magazine St. 0279 Saty Setterly,

Attachment 9 Lopez, Donna From: Laura McMurry < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:36 AM To: Lopez, Donna Statement for Leaf Blower hearing today May 1, 2019 Subject: McMurry Leaf Blowers May 1, 2019.doc Attachments: Dear Ms Lopez, Attached is my statement for the Ordinance Committee hearing today May 1, 2019 on Leaf Blowers. Please present it to the Committee today. Thank you, Laura McMurry

My name is Laura McMurry and I live at 334 Harvard Street in Cambridge. Most people don't like unnecessary noise. That is why every city and state has laws restricting it. However, we obviously allow noise if there is a real public benefit involved, such as the snow blower cleaning sidewalks, snowplow cleaning streets, garbage truck early in the morning, and so on. Where I have to object, though, is something like a leaf blower, especially on a residential property -- very noisy, yet the person who benefits is the property owner or manager. That person may not even be around to hear the noise if the work is done by a contractor, who also of course is the only other beneficiary. Meanwhile, the rest of us have the cost (noise, smell, jangled nerves, can't concentrate or relax, or hear a conversation or a bird singing) -- but where is our benefit? ' Plus, a lot of what is done with the blower isn't even necessary. On private property, yard work can and should be done with hand equipment. For those unable to do that, I think a low powered, hand-held electric blower would be OK, since they are quieter than the gas blowers and have no uncontrolled emissions. As for those who choose to hire a gardener or landscaping company, they can pay for the same time as now but say, "do what you can using rakes and brooms in that time; here are my priorities." Or they could pay more for more hours. We could expect to see companies or individuals specializing in manual landscaping come into the Cambridge market. As for maintaining grounds owned by the City of Cambridge, I would say that is a public benefit, so electric leaf blowers (which are quieter) should be permitted there during the dates (in spring and fall) and times of day that are now allowed. This will affect both our Department of Public Works and its contractors; the latter presently do 70% of the work. The electric blowers are not yet as powerful as the gas blowers and are more costly, so we the Public must reduce our expectations for upkeep of the parks. .: :

Attachment 10 Determination Particulate Emission Rates from Leaf Blowers Dennis Fitz, David Pankratz, Sally Pederson, and James Bristow College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 [email removed] Gary Arcemont San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 1990 Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726 [email removed] ABSTRACT Leaf blowers are an obvious source of particulate matter (PM) emissions. The emission rates, however, have never been quantitatively measured and there is no default emission factor in AP-42 for this source. A system was designed and evaluated for determining emissions from leaf blowing/vacuuming, raking and sweeping activities. The system consisted of a large portable enclosure to trap PM emissions during these activities and used real-time PM analyzers to measure PM concentrations. Measurements were made for PM2.5, PMio and total suspended particulate matter (TSP). In this enclosure the leaf blower could be used in a normal manner while allowing the PM emissions to be confined for quantification. The horizontal and vertical distribution of the PM cloud was characterized as a function of time after the blowing operation ceased in order to optimize sampling locations and times. The concentration of a hydrocarbon tracer gas released during the blower operation was measured with a photoionization detector to determine the exchange rate. Experiments were conducted during calm wind periods to minimize the exchange rate. Emission rates were calculated from measured concentrations, enclosure dimensions, and area over which the activities were performed. To directly compare the PM emission characteristics of tools, clean pavement was spiked with surrogate debris. To derive the composition of this surrogate, samples were collected from areas on campus where leaf blowing was about to be conducted to determine the mass of soil and vegetative matter present where these cleaning activities are conducted. The test system was then used to measure emissions from leaf blowing over both surfaces where leaf blowing is typically conducted and over surfaces where a surrogate mixture of dirt and soil was deposited using the data obtained from the sample collection work. Emission tests were also performed using the natural/indigenous material. Emission factors were characterized by soil type, cleaning tool (leaf blower, leaf vacuum, rake and broom), and surface (asphalt, concrete, grass and packed soil). INTRODUCTION Particulate matter (PM) has been implicated as being responsible for a wide variety of adverse health effects that have been shown in epidemiological studies to contribute to premature deaths (Pope et al. 1995). To formulate effective mitigation approaches, the sources of the PM must be accurately known. Receptor modeling has shown that Mio of geologic origin is often a significant contributor to the concentrations in areas that are in non-attainment (Chow et al., 1992). Leaf blowers are an obvious source of particulate emissions. The emission rates,

however, have never been quantitatively measured and there is no default emission factor in AP-42 for this source. Botsford et al. (1996) estimated an emission rate for leaf blowers by making assumptions and applying engineering principles. These emission rate estimations have never been validated with actual measurements. Staff at the California Air Resources Board (California Air Resources Board, 2000) estimated leaf blower emission factors using the Botsford approach and the silt loadings determined by Venkatram and Fitz (1998). These silt loadings, however, were measured in gutters of paved roads, which is not a typical substrate that leaf blowers are used to clean. The objective of this study was to develop a method to measure PM emission rates from leaf blowers and alternative cleaning methods and to characterize the rates on a variety of surfaces on which they are commonly used. APPROACH AND METHOD VALIDATION The overall approach to measuring the PM emissions from leaf blowers involved operating the devices in an enclosed space to confine the emissions while measuring the PM concentrations in real-time with an optical scattering sensor. The device would be operated over the test area and the PM concentrations would be measured until they stabilized, indicating that the aerosol inside the chamber was well mixed. In order to determine potential differences between various leaf removal practices on different surfaces, it was necessary to develop a surrogate mixture of soil and vegetative debris that would be representative of that found in actual practice. Test Equipment Test Chambers The development of suitable test chambers was a key component since no similar type of testing has been reported in the literature. The chambers needed to be large enough to operate the leaf blower for a representative amount of time and yet of manageable size and weight to easily move to various locations. Chambers were constructed that were 2m wide, 2m high and either 10 or 20m long. The frames of the chambers were constructed of 1-inch PVC pipe with aluminum modular pipe and rail fittings. The chambers were covered with polyethylene tarps that were held to the ground with sand bags. Real-Time PM Measurement Real-time total suspended particulate matter (TSP), PMio and PM2.s measurements were performed using Thermo Systems Inc. Model 8520 DustTrak Aerosol Monitors. These instruments use impactors to perform the size cuts and the PM concentrations are then determined by measuring the intensity of the 90° scattering of light from a laser diode. The instruments are calibrated at the factory with Arizona road dust (NIST SRM 8632). On a daily basis the PM measurements during test runs were compared with the mass determinations from the filter collections to check their calibration factors for the specific aerosol present on this project. The instruments' time constant was set at two seconds, the fastest available rate. The instruments' zero responses were checked on a daily basis by placing a filter in line with their inlets and noting the responses. Filter Samplers Pilter samples were collected were collected on 47 mm Gelman Teflo filters with a 2.0 um pore size. For the PMio size-cuts Graseby-Andersen model 246B inlets were used, but modified such that a single filter could be directly attached to the inlet. These filter samplers operated at 16.7 L/min. For PM2s, size-cut Sensidyne model 240 cyclones sampling at

approximately 110 L/min were used to provide the cut-point. All filters were equilibrated at 23 C and 40% relative humidity for at least 24 hours prior to weighing. A Cahn Model 34 microbalance was used to determine the weight of the filters to within 1 ug before and after sampling. Tracer Gas and Measurement Tracer gas was introduced into the chamber prior to each test run to assess the exchange amount. Approximately 3 liters of pure propene was placed in a bag and released over the length of the chamber prior to each test run. Measurements for this tracer gas were performed using a RAE Systems ppbRAE hydrocarbon analyzer. The instrument determines the concentration of hydrocarbons using a 10.3 electron volt photoionization detector (PID). The instrument internally records the concentration and time data with a five-second resolution. The instrument has a lower detection limit for propene (C3H6) of approximately 50 ppb. The three liters of propene introduced in the chamber created a concentration of about 37.5 ppm (37,500 ppb) for the 20m long chamber and 75 ppm for the 10 m long chamber, which was readily detectable by the PID. The instrument was placed at a height of 2m. It was placed at a distance of 6m in for the 20m chamber and 2m in for the 10m chamber. Data Collection and Validation Data from the eight DustTraks were collected using a PC with LabVIEW software and appropriate RS-232 multiplexers. The logging and averaging periods for each channel was set to one second. Data from the RAE Systems pbRAE propene analyzer were internally logged. At the conclusion of each set of tests, all data were transferred to a networked PC for storage and backup. Cleaning Instruments The three basic types of leaf blowers are hand-held gasoline-powered, hand-held electric- powered, and backpack-carried gasoline-powered. The leaf blowers selected for each category were identified as the most popular from a major supply store (Home Depot, 2005): • Black & Decker Model BV 4000 Hand Held Electric Blower/Vacuum • Echo Model PB 261L Gas Backpack Blower • Homelite Model 30 cc Vac Attack II Gas Hand Held Blower A rake and push broom were procured for examining alternate methods to leaf blowers for this study. These were purchased from a major home supply store. Sieve Shaker A model Rx-29 Ro-tar sieve shaker was used to characterize samples collected of debris to be cleared by leaf blowers by University of California, Riverside (UCR) grounds maintenance staff. Five sieves were used to separate the samples into six fractions for weighing. The sieves were No. 3/8 (.375 inch, 9500 um), No. 4 (4750 um), No 18 (1000 um), No. 40 (425 um) and No. 200 (75 um). Sieving the soil for preparation for use in surrogate soil material was done by manually shaking the sieves. The finest sieve for this task was the No. 40, 425 um. Soil passing through this sieve was then weighed and used for the surrogate soil. Method Validation Selection of a surrogate debris To characterize the debris composition, one-meter square areas at locations where leaf blowers were being used were vacuumed just prior to routine leaf blowing activities. The

vacuumed material was separated via sieves into six size ranges. Twenty-three samples were collected from areas that were about to be leaf blown or swept. Fourteen of these were from areas around UCR that were being cleaned by the campus gardening. The remaining nine were from areas around CE-CERT (three samples) and the UC Kearney Agricultural Center in Parlier, CA (six samples) that were immediately adjacent to locations where the test chamber was setup to blow, rake or sweep indigenous debris. Table 1 presents the total mass and mass for each of the six size fractions. As can be seen in the table, the total mass ranged over two orders of magnitude, from 2 to 377 grams. The soil/vegetative distinction was not as clear between the sieve fractions as anticipated; there was a fair amount of vegetative matter in the finer sieve fractions and some soil material appeared in the larger sieve fractions. However, the sieving did provide sufficient data to determine the mass of soil material and its size (i.e. diameter based on sieving) as well as the mass of vegetative matter to use for creating surrogate samples. Based on the this work we prepared surrogate samples that consisted of 120 grams of soil (mass after passing through a No. 40 (425 um) sieve), 60 grams of leaves and 60 grams of grass clippings. These were spread out in a 10 m' area in the 20m long chamber and half that amount to be spread in a 5m? area in the 10m long chamber. Using the soil/vegetative ratio determined above, surrogate soils were prepared using the soils from three UC agricultural experimental facilities (Kearney, Five Points, and Shafter) and that supplied by the District from the Fresno and Madera areas. Separate samples with grass and leaf material were made for each of the soil samples. Figure 1 shows where aliquots of the test material were distributed inside the chamber. DustTrak Normalization It was first necessary to determine instrument-to-instrument variability and to obtain correction factors to normalize the responses of the DustTraks to a single reference instrument. To do this the DustTraks were collocated in the test chamber. These tests included placing surrogate soil material in the chamber, blowing the material to the end of the chamber and observing the instrument responses. The collocated tests were performed for TSP, Mio and PM2.5 operation. Figure 2 presents a time series for the eight DustTraks collocated at a height of 2m and in a distance of 6m in the 10m long chamber for three separate test runs. The DustTraks all had their inlets removed for TSP sampling for this collocated test. As shown in the figure, the test ran up to twenty minutes after the end of the leaf blowing. The first five minutes after the end of leaf blowing were excluded from the analysis to allow, time for mixing and a homogeneous ambient PM plume to be present around the collocated samplers. The average concentrations for the eight samplers between minute five and ten, ten and fifteen and fifteen and twenty were determined. One DustTrak was selected to be the reference DustTrak. The ratio of the reference DustTrak averages to the averages for the other seven were determined. This approach was performed for multiple runs with DustTraks set for TSP, Mio and PM2s monitoring. Table 2 presents the calibration factors obtained from these data for the three particle cut-points. Homogeneity Verification To determine the total amount of PM generated, we needed to characterize the vertical and horizontal homogeneity of the PM concentrations in the chamber as a function of time to determine when the PM was adequately mixed, but before significant settling occurred. This was accomplished by separate tests in which the PM monitors were either placed along the horizontal or vertical extents of the test chamber. The findings from these tests were also used

to determine the minimum number and placement of PM samplers in order to perform subsequent tests. These tests also provided data as to the amount of time required following the leaf blowing for equilibrium to be obtained. To determine the horizontal concentration gradients of PM, the DustTraks were placed at a height of 2m at the following distances in: 2m, 6m, 10m, 16m, 18m, and 20m. Dust Traks were collocated at 10m and 16m. A leaf blower was used to blow the material to the end of the chamber. This test was repeated with all three DustTrak cut-points. Figure 3 shows the time series of TSP for horizontal concentration homogeneity for a leaf blower test run. The DustTraks show some initially high concentrations (greater than 25 mg/m') during the leaf blowing operation. The high concentrations observed during the leaf blowing are the spikes caused as the leaf blowing kicks up short-lived plumes of dust around each DustTrak. The PM concentrations in the chamber during this period are neither uniform, nor in equilibrium. The TSP concentrations at all distances (the measured locations within the chamber) rapidly drop to a more common value at the end of the leaf blowing operation. The rapid drop off to similar values indicates the suspended mass within the chamber is mixing and becoming more uniform. The concentrations become fairly uniform at about three to six minutes after the end of the leaf blowing. The concentration continues to drop off at a near constant rate over the next twenty minutes to about half of their values at three minutes after the end of leaf blowing. The tracer gas concentrations, not shown here, consistently dropped off at a rate of about one percent per minute, indicating that very little of the ambient mass was lost due to leaks in the chamber. As can be seen in the figure, although the eight Dust Traks do track each other, there are some differences in the concentrations observed along the length. Table 3 shows horizontal concentration profiles averaged between 6 and 6.5 minutes after the end of leaf blowing) for additional runs with the eight DustTraks equipped with TSP, PMio and PMzs inlets and located at the six horizontal locations shown. As can be seen in this table, there is some run-to-run variability. We performed calculations to determine the error in the data if we placed DustTraks only at 10m and 16m and used the average of readings between those two locations to be equivalent to the average concentration along the horizontal length of the chamber. These calculations showed the error to be 12% or less for the nine test runs. We felt that these errors were within the uncertainties of our measurements; indicating that placing the DustTraks at 10m and 16m and using the average concentrations for each of the three size cuts as the average concentration along the length of the chamber would provide accurate results. To determine the vertical concentration gradients of the PM, three DustTraks were placed in the chamber at a distance of 10m at heights of 0.5m, 1.0m and 2m and three DustTraks were placed in at 16m at the same three heights. Two additional DustTraks were collocated at a height of 2m at the 10m distances in. This test was repeated with all three DustTrak cut-points. Figure 4 shows the time series of TSP for vertical concentration homogeneity for a leaf blower test run. The responses are similar to the horizontal profiles. Very high concentrations (greater than 25 mg/m3, up to a peak of just over 75 mg/m3 in this example) are present during the leaf blowing, as short-lived plumes pass over the DustTraks. The concentrations drop off rapidly and the concentrations at the three heights and two horizontal locations approach each other at the end of the blowing, indicating that the airborne particulate matter are mixing and becoming uniform along both the horizontal and vertical axes.

The vertical profile tests were performed several times in the 20m chamber with the DustTraks equipped with TSP, Mio and PM2.5 inlets. The results for those tests are shown in Table 4. As can be seen in the table, there is some variations in the concentrations with height and distance in. Because of logistic concerns regarding placing the DustTraks at heights other than 2m and because the differences in concentration along the vertical were similar to the measurement uncertainty, the DustTraks were placed at a height of 2m for subsequent tests with the 20m long chamber MEASUREMENT TESTS PERFORMED AND RESULTS Our test chambers were used for eighty-five tests using surrogate material and thirty- two tests over natural/indigenous material surfaces. Three different leaf blowers were used, one leaf blower was configured for vacuuming for several tests as well as for blowing mode, a push broom was used for several runs and raking was also performed for several runs. The bulk of the testing was conducted in Riverside, CA at the UCR CE-CERT facility using the surrogate debris mixtures consisting of vegetative matter and soil from the San Joaquin Valley. A limited number of tests were performed for indigenous sites located in both Riverside and the San Joaquin Valley California at the University of California Kearney Agricultural Research Station located in Parlier, CA. The emission factors are calculated using the following equation: EF = [((C10 ave, =6 + C16 ave,t=6)/2) x Vchamber] / Adebris (1) Where EF (mass/unit area) is the emission factor, C10 and C16 are the concentrațions (mass per volume) determined at those respective distances, V is the volume of the chamber and A is the area that the surrogate debris was spread over. Soil and Surface Type Comparisons Table 5 shows the average emission factors for test runs conducted to look at the differences between soil types used in the surrogate matrix. There was no significant difference between the PM1o and TSP emission factors, most likely because the larger particles had settled out while the dust in the test chamber was mixing. The PM2.s emission factors, however, were five times smaller. There were no significant differences between the soils tested. The emission factor data obtained for testing using surrogate soil (from Kearney, CA) on an asphalt surface are presented in Table 6. There were no significant differences between the types of blowers used and the emissions tended to be highér when vacuuming instead of blowing. Emissions from brooming were about half that of blowing and vacuuming, while rake emissions were insignificant. The emission factor data obtained for testing using surrogate soil (from Kearney, CA) on a concrete surface are presented in Table 7. These emissions tended to be somewhat higher than the asphalt surface, most likely because the surface was smoother and fine debris was less likely to be trapped by the extensive crevasses of the asphalt. With the smooth surface of the concrete the PM emissions from broom sweeping were equivalent to the blowing and vacuuming. Tests at Indigenous Locations Twenty-three test runs over natural/indigenous surfaces. Nine of these runs were performed at the UCR CE-CERT facility and twenty-three were performed at the UC Kearney

facility. Table 8 lists these thirty-two test runs, the surface type of surface cleaned, the cleaning tool and the area cleaned. As expected, the widely varying surfaces produced a broad range of emission factors. Power blowing of gutters would likely be the most comparable to power blowing of the surrogate soil on concrete and the emission rates were similar, although the factors from testing the indigenous surfaces were somewhat lower. Precision and Accuracy The precision of the PM measurements was determined by comparing results from collocated DustTrak analyzers. Based on over 80 pair data points the precision for the PM2.5 measurement was 19% and that for PM1o was 27%. These values are similar to the variability between test runs. Accuracy was estimated by comparing the DustTrak measurements with those of the filter samplers. This was not a direct comparison; since it was necessary to start the filter sampling at the time blowing was initiated. Since the chamber was not well mixed for several minutes, there was considerably scatting when comparing filter-based PM data with that of the DustTraks. The two data sets generally agreed to within 50%, which is near the variability of the test runs. CONCLUSIONS PM emission rates have been reported for the first time for using leaf blowing equipment and alternative devices (vacuums, rakes, and brooms). The approach used to measure emissions from leaf blowers and alternative devices (vacuums, rakes, and brooms) was to operate the devices over a measured area in a tent-like enclosure. In this enclosure the leaf blower (or other device) could be used in a normal manner while allowing the PM emissions to be confined for quantification. PM concentrations were measured with real-time sensors. The amount of PM produced per unit area could be calculated by multiplying the concentration once it stabilized (when it became uniformly mixed) by the volume of the enclosure and dividing by the area treated. The emission rates measured were found to be reproducible to within approximately 50%. Surrogate debris was developed to directly compare the PM emission characteristics of blowing, vacuuming, raking, and sweeping on different surfaces. These emissions were found to be comparable with similar conditions on indigenous surfaces. Table 9 summarizes the results in general categories that would be useful for inventory development. Some of the conclusions drawn were that: • There was little difference between blowing and vacuuming with the model that was tested. • Sweeping with a broom on concrete created significant PM emissions whereas sweeping asphalt did not. • Raking leaves did not generate significant amounts of PM. This general approach would be useful in determining PM emission rates for most types of devices that disturb soil and produce PM emissions. REFERENCES

Botsford, C.W., Lisoski, D., Blackman, W., Kam, W. "Fugitive Dust Study - Characterization of Uninventoried Sources", Final report AV-94-06-214A Aero Vironment Inc. Monrovia, CA. March 1996. California Air Resources Board "A Report to the California Legislature on the Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers" February 2000. Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Lowenthal, D.H.; Solomon, P.A.; Magliano, K.; Ziman, S.; and Richards, L. W. "PMio Source Apportionment in California's San Joaquin Valley", Atmos. Environ., 1992, 26A, 3335-3354. Pope, C.A., Thun, M.J. Namboodiri, M.M., Dockery, D. W., Evans, J.S., Speizer, F.E., and Heath, C. W. "Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults", Am J. Respir. Crit. Care Med, 1995, 151, 669-674. Venkatram, A. and Fitz, D.R "Modeling of PMio and PM2s Emissions from Paved Roads in California. Final report prepared for the California Air Resources Board contract 94-336. March 1998. KEY WORDS Leaf Blower Sweeping Fugitive Dust Fugitive PM Area Sources ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is gratefully appreciated. We wish to thank the following organizations and individuals for their time and resources in contributing to the success of the measurement program: • The UC Kearney Research and Extension Center for allowing the use of their site in the San Joaquin Valley. • Bob Giese and the staff of the UCR Physical Plant Building Services and Grounds Maintenance for coordinating with us for the collection of samples from areas about to be leaf blown. • Joe Patricko, Paul Giering and Russell Vernon with the UCR Environmental Health and Safety Department for reviewing our planned activities, identifying and supplying the appropriate personal protective gear. • Professors Mark Matsumoto and Marko Princevac at UCR and professor Arthur Winer at UCLA for supplying measurement equipment DISCLAIMER The statement and conclusions in the Report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.

Table 1. Fractionation of debris collected immediately before actual leaf blowing/operations <#40, > #200 <#200 <3/8, > #4 <#4, > #18 > 3/8 <#18,› Total Mass fraction #40 fraction fraction fraction fraction fraction (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams) Sample Location Sample Description (grams) (grams) 104.8 377.3 24.8 2.8 74.2 136.5 34.3 UCR Asphalt Driveway - General deaning 49.5 32.3 4.8 UCR 8.3 0.9 0.5 2.7 Concrete Walkway - Lawn trimmings 3 10.4 0.4 0.2 UCR 5.0 2.5 1.1 Textured Concrete Walkway - Lawn trimmings 1.1 4 Concrete Walkway - General deaning 0.8 14.6 UCR 0.1 1.9 9.9 8.8 36.1 5 5.4 1.5 55.2 19.6 12.3 4.9 11.5 UCR Brinks - General ceaning 11 0.8 UCR 24.2 11.9 1.1 1.7 7.3 1.5 Concrete Walkway - General ceaning 10.5 2.5 1.4 1.3 0.5 UCR 12 4.4 0.5 Concrete Walkway - General deaning 13 16.2 0.2 1.2 UCR 6.9 1.5 29 3.6 Concrete Steps- General deaning UCR 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 4.6 14 Concrete Walkway - General deaning 1.0 0.7 15 14.6 3.2 1.1 0.0 1.2 UCR 2.8 6.4 Concrete Walkway - Lawn trimmings 4.0 12.1 0.1 16 UCR 13.0 36.6 1.5 5.9 Concrete Walkway - Lawn trimmings 0.0 21 0.2 Asphalt Parking Lot - Lawn trimmings 3.1 26.2 UCR 3.6 1.9 17.3 0.3 UCR 22 2.3 0.1 Concrete Walkway - Lawn trimmings 0.8 0.0 0.2 09 0.2 22.6 0.7 23 4.3 UCR 23 8.8 Concrete Walkway - General deanins 75.2 8.2 20.8 9.4 13.5 12.1 Asphalt Parking Lot - General cleanin 24 CE-CERT 11.2 0.0 7.2 34.9 26.1 4.3 37.1 109.7 Lawn - Leaves and debris 25 CE-CERT 30.9 2.1 3.5 9.6 7.5 7.9 0.3 Gutter - Debris CE-CERT 26 2.8 1.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 Concrete Walkway - Lawn trimmings 27 Keamey 2.0 42.1 29.6 96.8 0.1 3.2 19.8 28 Gutter - Debris Keamey 2.3 5.0 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.1 0.0 Lawn - Leaves and debris 29 Keamey 4.3 2.7 3.4 12.2 0.7 1.1 0.0 30 Asphalt Driveway - General deaning Keamey 50.0 21.6 8.0 2.3 5.4 6.3 6.5 Keamey 31 Packed Dirt and Gravel Parking - General deaning 35.0 0.8 4.1 9.1 9.1 7.7 4.2 32 Laun - Leaves and debris Keamey 14 48 10 Average 2 Minimum 377 136 22 Maximum 26 Median v ą • o N . =. Lã 0 77 Standard Deviation Table 2. Collocated DustTrak mean response ratios. 21569 21668 Serial Number 21976 85200677 21975 21955 21667 85200674 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.01 0.84 PM-2.5 1.00 0.71 0.62 0.96 0.83 0.75 0.81 0.68 PM-10 0.85 0.71 1.03 1.14 TSP 0.76 0.87 Table 3. Concentration data (mg/m') from tests to determine horizontal gradient in 20m chamber. 21667 [85200674| 21975 2156985200677 [phone removed] 21976 2 Meters | 6 Meters | 10 Meters 10 Meters 16 Meters 16 Meters| 18 Meters| 20 Meters Run Size 3.7 2.4 2.8 2.2 3.4 1.9 PM2.5 2.6 0819_1 1.7 2.3 5.2 5.1 3.0 PM2.5 2.5 4.1 0819_2 1.7 2.6 3.6 1.6 1.5 2.0 2.6 PM2.5 1.7 1.3 1.7 0819 3 2.8 3.7 3.7 1.6 2.4 TSP 2.5 2.9 1.9 3.6 4.5 TSP 5.3 3.6 4.4 3.9 4.1 2.6 4.4 TSP 817- 5.6 4.2 6.8 4.3 4.8 818- 8.9 9.4 5.6 PM10 7.1 9.9 6.9 6.5 6.1 6.1 4.9 8.0 PM10 5.2 5.1 7.5 0818_2 6.3 5.0 4.7 7.4 6.4 5.9 5.7 PM10 5.7 0818_3

Table 4. Concentration data (mg/m') from tests to determine vertical gradient in 20m chamber. Distance 16 Distance 6 Height Size Run 0.5M 0.5M Height 1M Height 2Ml Height 1M| Height 2M Height 2M| Height 2M) PM10 6.9 0902_1 4.1 4.7 0902_2 PM10 9.5 903 11.1 902 2.3 3.4 PM20 PM2.5 0.9 1.6 0902_5 1.9 2.0 PM2.5 1.8 1.9 2.3 0902_6 1.9 2.2 2.5 7.9 11.7 13.3 902_ 9.6 9.1 11.8 TSP 7.5 8.1 11.5 11.3 9.8 11.6 TSP 7.8 8.6 9.3 0902_8 9.6 7.7 9.5 13.5 TSP 8.9 9.0 8.1 0902_9 Table 5. Leaf blowing emission factors for various soils tested. TSP PM10 PM 2.5 Surface Cleaned | (mg/m^2) (mg/m^2) (mg/m^2) Soil Source 10 50 40 Shafter Asphalt Five Points 10 40 40 Asphalt Five Points 60 50 Concrete 20 10 40 30 Concrete Shafter 50 20 Concrete 60 Kearney Asphalt 40 10 Fresno 40 Asphalt 70 10 60 Madera 50 50 Average Basis: 10m12 cleaned in an 80m^3 chamber All emissions are from cleaning with an electric leaf blower Table 6. Emission factors for blowing, vacuuming, raking and sweeping on asphalt surfaces TSP PM10 PM 2.5 Number off Tests Surface Cleaned 12) (mg/m^2) Blower Type 4 Asphalt/CECERT Elec.Blower 3 50 Asphalt/CECERT Gas Hand Held 10 40 20 60 4 80 Gas Backpack Asphalt/CECERT 3 Push Broom 30 20 Asphalt/CECERT 1 Asphalt/CECERT Rake 00 3 150 120 40 sphalt/CECER Elec. Blower-Vac Mode Asphalt/CECER 20 70 3 90 Elec. Blower-Vac Mode - bag full 4 30 20 Elec.Blower Asphalt/Kearney 10 50 70 Average (all) 20 60 80 Average (power blowers/vacuums only) Basis: 10m^2 cleaned in an 80m^3 chamber, except for last four which were 5m^2

Table 7. Emission factors for blowing, vacuuming, raking and sweeping on concrete surfaces. PM10 TSP Number off PM 2.5 Tests Blower Type 3 (mg/m 2) (ma/in 2) (mgm2) Elec. Blower 3 50 40 10 Gas Hand Held 30 70 70 Gas Backpack 110 80 20 Push Broom 3 10 3 Rake 3 30 90 Elec. Blower-Vac Mode 80 80 20 70 30 100 180 Average (power blowers/vacuums only) All cleaning was performed on concrete surfaces at CE-CERT with surrogate soil Table 8. Emission factors for leaf blowing natural/indigenous surfaces. PM 2.5 PM10 TSP Area Cleaned Cleaning Time (mg/m^2) (mg/m^2) Surface Cleaned (m^2) (sec/m^2) Cleaning Tool (mg/m^2) Elec. Leaf Blower 0.5 0.2 0.5 18 Elec. Leaf Blower =0 Elec. Leaf Blower Asphalt Driveway - CE-CERT - control 10 10 Elec. Leaf Blower 4 Elec. Leaf Blower Asphalt Driveway - CE-CERT - control Elec. Leaf Blower 0.2 0.3 0.5 18 18 0.2 0.5 0.6 Elec. Leaf Blower 11 5.4 Elec. Leaf Blower 12 12 Elec. Leaf Blower 5.4 16 Elec. Leaf Blower Grass on Concrete Walkway - Kearney Elec. Leaf Blower Grass on Concrete Walkway - Kearney - control Elec. Leaf Blower Grass on Concrete Walkway - Kearney 2 ON T Elec. Leaf Blower Grass on Concrete Walkway - Kearney - control Elec. Leaf Blower 18 50 106 23 49 Elec. Leaf Blower 7 Elec. Leaf Blower 21 25 2 6 Elec. Leaf Blower Gutter - Kearney - Control 0.1 0.2 0.3 18 Elec. Leaf Blower 0.3 0.2 18 0.1 Elec. Leaf Blower 11 20 18 Elec. Leaf Blower 5 18 Elec. Leaf Blower Asphalt Driveway - Kearney - control 18 93 Elec. Leaf Blower 39 Asphalt Driveway - Kearney 18 Elec. Leaf Blower Lawn - Kearney 76 18 118 162 Elec. Leaf Blower Packed Dirt Parking Lot - Kearney 92 141 220 Elec. Leaf Blower 18 Packed Dirt Parking Lot - Kearney - control 2.2 3.2 Rake 0.4 Gutter - Kearney Gutter - Kearney Rake Lawn - Kearney Rake Grass on Concrete Sidewalk - Kearney Push Broom Grass on Concrete Sidewalk - Kearney - control Push Broom Asphalt Driveway - Kearney Push Broom Push Broom Asphalt Driveway - Kearney - control Average (all, except controls) Average (power blowers only, not including controls) Average of power blowing lawns Average of power blowing gutters Average of power blowing cut grass on walkway

Table 9. Summary of PM emission factors. Emission Factors Number of Tests TSP PM2.5 PM10 Type of Emission Factor Obtained from Tests Performed (mg/m 2) (mg/m 2) (mg/m 2) Cleaning Action and Surface Cleaned 80 30 100 ower Blowing or Vacuuming over concrete surface Average emissions from leaf blowing 80 20 60 over Blowing or Vacuuming over asphalt surface Average emissions from leaf blowing 30 20 Push Broom on Asphalt Surface Average emissions from sweeping co co 80 20 110 Push Broom on Concrete Surface Average emissions from sweeping 1 Average emissions from raking 3 Average emissions from raking - O Average emissions from raking 2 Average emissions from leaf blowing co co 30 Average emissions from leaf blowing 120 160 Average emissions from leaf blowing 2 6 9 Average emissions from leaf blowing Breakdown of Emissions by Power Blower Type on Asphalt and Concrete Surfaces 4 80 20 60 Elec. Blower Asphat/CECERT 10 40 Sas Hand Hek 50 Asphat/CECERT Asphal/CECERT Gas Backpack Asphal/CECERT Elec. Blower-Vac Mode Asphalt/CECERT Elec. Blower-Vac Mode - bag full Elec.Blower Elec. Blower Concrete/CECERT Gas Hand Held Concrete/CECERT Gas Backpack 88808888 888888 Concrete/CECERT Elec. Blower-Vac Mode

Figure 1. Top view of test chamber showing test material distribution. • Leaf blowing performed from 5m to 20m along chamber 1 7 5"6 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Surrogate material for testing placed between 5 and 15 m and 1 m wide Figure 2. TSP correlation (all three tests) and time-series plots for eight DustTraks collocated in 10m chamber. Collocated DustTraks - TSP Collocated TSP y = 1.4824x - 0.0274 • SN955 • SN674 = SN955 4 y = 1.1088x - 0.0062 SN976 SN976 x SN569 SN569 y = 1.2358x + 0.0187 3 * SN677 • SN667- 1 = 113400.04423001 + SN668 - SN975 2 y = 0.6161x + 0.0712 × SN667 TSP (mg/m^3) ly = 1.1231x - 0.0553 • SN668 DustTrack Responses (mg/m^3) 1 y = 1.2167x +0.1317 + SN975 0 11:55 13:21 13:50 12:23 12:52 5 Time (Hr:Min) Reference DustTrack (mg/m *3) Figure 3. Time series of DustTrak TSP responses for horizontal distribution characterization. 25 • 2M 20 End Leaf • 6M Blowing 10M 15 × 10M-Coll 3 min after * 16M end blowing • 16M-Coll 6 min after end + 18M of leaf blowing - 20M TSP Concentration (mg/m^3) 0 12.10 13:55 14:02 13:41 14:09 Begin Leaf Time (Hr:Mn) Blowing

Figure 4. Time series of DustTrak TSP responses for vertical distribution characterization. 90 14:05 - Begin leaf - D16colH2| blowing surrogate material. - D16H2 80 14:06 - End leaf D10H0.5 blowing. - D16H0.5 — D10H1 70 14:09 - Three - D10colH2 minutes after end leaf - D16H1 blowing. — D10H2 60 14:12 - Six minutes D = Horizontal distance ir after end leaf H = Vertical distance up blowing. - coll = Collocated sampler 40 TSP (mg/m^3) 30 14:52 - Forty-six minutes after end leaf blowing. 20 10 14:45 14:38 14:16 14:02 14:24 14:31 14:52 14:09 Time (Hr:Mn)

Attachment 11 Lopez, Donna From: Mark Nilsen < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 8:27 PM To: Lopez, Donna Comments for leaf blower hearing. Subject: Attachments: Leaf Blower Paper.pdf Dear Cambridge City Council Members, I testified this evening at the hearing for the proposed leaf blower ban and I wanted to follow up by sending a copy of the research that was done in California showing that leaf blowers, both electric and gas powered, generate a cloud of PM2.5 that is 1000x the level that the World Health Organization deems hazardous. That data is summarized in tables 6 and 7 towards the end of the document. Also in the tables please note raking leaves created 0 PM2.5. As I also said, I hope you will choose to ban leaf blowers. I understand that a ban may make more work regarding enforcement and that landscaping companies will have to adjust as well. But as adults that extra work is part of life. Not banning leaf blowers will continue to expose my child and others to harmful pollutants that have been clearly shown to cause respiratory distress. Thank you for letting me be involved in this process. Mark Nilsen 1619 Massachusetts Ave. #36 Cambridge 02138 [phone removed] [email removed] PS. I have attached a copy of the research I used in my testimony. I have read it fully and have been in contact with the authors. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call or email me.

OPPOSE Attachment 12511/2019 30 peli - Boyrs Iledi lau - My name is leo, Meccan Bis,uere smull husu ladsaget guu manta 30 yeas Keep p empatil eppse to d ban. - Past proclies, best equip, doit like Ten, hut need hem Nay couts aue eldas, nut aste to do - macha not able do pur fur incredied tinie involved. - 4-5 tme longen. - means hivi, mare people na sassal level - whch in alrase ditticult fu üstar Douse-Electric leaf blones of murial couplete bill help stut bällery life dot have access to chars ports henith - stios level -/ariscaper, alrenoy his in high saase, phisaly demads. I oppose this ban. Tey tichdan O elechrc leny bow TOURLONDSPRINNA LCARE → ponn i 2072- [email removed]

ban on leaf blowers 4/30/2019 From: steingood <[email removed]> To: diopez <[email removed]> Subject: ban on leaf blowers Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2019 11:32 am Dear Donna Lopez and members of the City Council, I am writing to you regarding the possible ban on all leaf blowers in Cambridge, I have had a landscaper for several years at my home in Cambridge. 1 am fortunate to have a big yard and side grassy areas. The actual "blowing" takes very little time. The cutting takes longer. (please don't think about banning lawn mowers too). I am home when Tom Willard and his team arrive and leave. They NEVER arrive early and the whole process disturbs NO ONE. I know of three others that enjoy services of Tom's Landscaping. I do not want to see "hand raking" take the place of blowers. It will increase the time needed for all services. I urge you to please reconsider and leave the current situation as it is. Respectfully Diane Goodwin 224 Lakeview Ave Cambridge, MA 02138 [email removed] retired city of Cambridge employee 2019 APR 30 PM 2:12 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 1/1 https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintVessage

Attachment 13 Lopez, Donna [email removed] From: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:30 PM To: Lopez, Donna; City Council; O'Riordan, Owen Cc: [email removed] Re: Hearing on Leaf Blower Ban this Wednesday May 1 Subject: To the Honorable, The Cambridge City Council, I hope to attend the hearing about leaf blowers tomorrow evening. But, in case I cannot be there, I write this to remind you of what some of you have heard from some of us before. The evidence against leaf blower use is overwhelming. Gas powered versions release considerable noxious exhaust gases, and make an ominous low sound. Electric powered versions emit a piercing scream in higher registers. Both raise excessive clouds of dust, far more than other means of cleaning up. (This dust, which carries on the air to enter neighboring dwellings, can be laden with lead, feces, pollen, and other substances which people would like to keep at a minimum in their homes.) Either leaf blower type encourages wasteful inefficiencies on the part of operators, who would not spend as long to rake up a small pile of leaves as they will if they are not making any effort. Both types are often used for tasks for which they were not intended, just because they are handy. They all harm living things in the topsoil (native bees!) and the leaves and bark of plants. Either kind, but especially gas powered blowers, are favored by the kind of bully whose idea of power is to make life unpleasant for peaceful people. And, in a crowded urban landscape, they encourage workers to move debris and trash from the clients' property to the neighbors'. This voter may disagree with some other advocates of restrictions, in that I oppose requiring contractors and City crews to switch to electric, if we can reach a ban or near-ban on all leaf blowers. It would be unfair to expect people in business to spend large sums on new equipment which will cause most of the same problems for residents of Cambridge. I oppose the lesser-of-evils concept of electric leaf blowers for commercial landscapers, even though they are cleaner in emissions, because they still raise dust, and they are still very loud. I prefer banning commercial use on private property, residential and commercial, of all leaf blowers, and compromising with DPW and the School Department to allow the highly restricted use of DPW leaf blowers of the least harmful model they can find, to be used only on special athletic surfaces such as running tracks and tennis courts, at restricted hours, and only as warranted by the condition of the surface and on a best-practices, shortest-time-possible basis It is possible there would have to be some once-a-year permission under strict conditions to allow clean-up of larger parks and cemeteries. This voter would support a compromise of this nature to reach a total ban on private property including corporate property. But I would hope it could be avoided. The objective needs to change from spotless perfection at all times to a more understanding accommodation with natural cycles. An educated public will understand I realize not everyone in the no-leaf-blower camp would agree with this compromise. But I think it would be asking DPW to go as far as it can go and much farther than it has already gone. It would be a huge step forward regarding private contractors and home users. DPW argues that special surfaces would be damaged by raking etc. and that those surfaces must be safe for high- school track events and other occasions. The suggestion that the athletes themselves should clean the track or court themselves seems well-intentioned but completely unrealistic to this voter. A few pieces of blown trash, yes. The whole surface to be cleared of leaves after a storm, no. Whether the environmental cost of maintaining these surfaces is worth having track and tennis is another question for another day.... Right now we have them and we have liabilities. Thank you so much for your attention to my ideas. Megan Brook In a message dated 4/29/2019 9:37:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email removed] writes: This is a reminder that the hearing on the proposed leaf blowers ban will be this coming Wednesday May 1, 2019 at 5:30pm, City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Av. Oral testimony is limited to about 3 minutes. 1

Attachment 14 5/1/19 Good evening members of the Ordinance Committee. My name is Norman Magnuson and I'm Manager of Grounds Services at MIT. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you on the proposed ban on leafblowers. I, and others at MIT, participated in the discussion thirteen years ago in 2006 about restricting the use of leafblowers in Cambridge. I served as a member of the Leafblower Task Force and was able to provide input from the perspective of a campus grounds operation. Ultimately, we felt that the final 2008 ordinance language addressing emission standards, decibel levels, buffer zones, training, maintenance, and seasons and hours of operation, was fair and sound. We were grateful to have been included in those deliberations. Since 2008, MIT has submitted the required operations plan to the City annually, and has provided ongoing education and training for all leafblower operators. This includes mandatory attendance at a class entitled "The Safe and Courteous Use of Leaf Blowers." Over the past 11 years, we have received one complaint regarding our leafblower use. It was a legitimate complaint, caused by operator error, and we appeared before the Cambridge License Commission to accept responsibility for the mistake and to demonstrate how we would prevent it from happening again. On the MIT campus, we have approximately ten acres of land that require leaf blower services. This includes lawn, shrubs, flower beds, and mixed hardscape. We have an efficient system in place with trained operators who work within the ordinance's stipulations. I would like to share with you that a total ban on leafblower use would significantly disrupt MIT's grounds operations. I respectfully urge the Council to consider alternative approaches in order to meet its goals. Thank you.

Attachment 15 Lopez, Donna From: Jo Solet < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:37 PM Lopez, Donna To: Kelley, Craig Cc: Leaf Blowers Subject: Donna, I am coming tonight but thought it would be helpful for you to have my testimony electronically as well. Jo M. Solet, PhD Ordinance Committee Leaf-Blower Testimony May 1 2019 The question here, my friends, is not whether leaf blowers produce noise and air pollution, whether they disturb humans and wildlife, whether they risk the health and well-being of workers and those unwillingly exposed..all that is uncontestable. The question is why, in an asylum city, aiming for net zero, planning miles of bicycle lanes, an arsenal of these machines are deployed at all? The question is why leaf blower use should be privileged over any and all other activities..... playing catch with your child, undertaking a conference call, reading a book on your own porch. ...people should be able to use blowers The arguments we have heard include "freedom" if they want to.....and "economic impact". Blasting nature is cheaper than using hand- tools and tarps. We faced these arguments "freedom" and "economic impact" before...Many of you will remember the debate over smoking in restaurants. Does the right to breathe clean air over-ride the right to smoke whenever and wherever you feel like it? Will restaurants go out of business because smoking patrons won't come anymore? It is hard to imagine this now...from our current perspective on second hand smoke...on health, safety and quality of life, on worker rights. The leaf-blower arguments touch the same territory: Shouldn't folks have the right to blow their own property? And what about the City?...just too bad if the exposure impacts others. It will cost more to use rakes and brooms...so what if we degrade the environment....we don't pay for that. And we don't pay for healthcare benefits for the workers either.... Restaurants in Cambridge are doing just fine....without cigarettes. In fact lots of non- smokers who stayed away are now eating out. I am one of them! 1

Yards and public spaces and the well-being of those who use them, can only be enhanced by sustainable practices. Think clothes on the line, windows open, babies in strollers, pedestrians having conversations, hearing birds, seeing butterflies...right here in our fair city! I look forward to the day...please make it soon.. when we look back with amazement that blowers were ever permitted at all.... just as we look back today over smoking in restaurants.

Tibbetts Landscaping, Inc. 5 Breed Ave. Attachment 16 Woburn, MA 0180[phone removed] or Fax: [phone removed] www.TibbettsLandscapinginc.com Established 1979 Fully Insured Installation Maintenance Landscape Design Retaining Walls Fertilization Programs Snow Plowing April 12, 2019 Dear Cambridge Customers: I want to make you aware of a city council meeting taking place at 5:30 p.m. on May 1, 2019 at the Sullivan Chamber at the Cambridge City Hall at 795 Mass Ave in Cambridge. At this meeting the council is slated to discuss and vote on a year round ban on the use of leaf blowers in the city. I don't know how you feel about leaf blowers, but I want you to know they are a labor saving tool we use in our work and by saving labor it saves you money. As you probably know, several years ago the city banned the use of blowers for several months of year but allowed their use for the spring and fall for cleanups. I saw an increase in labor time on our jobs during the banned months and this has been passed on to you in the form of higher monthly bills during the affected months. This new ban would stop their use during the biggest visits of the year - the spring and fall cleanups. To see how this would affect things, we have tried doing the same yard by hand with rakes and brooms and the same yard the next service time using blowers. We found the job that took 3 men 2 hours with blowers for a bill out of 6 hours at a cost of $65.00 an hour total cost $390.00. The same yard using rakes and brooms took the same crew 3.5 hours per man for a total of 10.50 hours and a cost of $682.50 which is a substantial increase. We also found that the rakes did damage to ground cover, lower branches of dense evergreens, as well as knocking over landscape lighting. When the first restriction came out several companies stopped servicing Cambridge accounts. I know this for certain because people called us looking for a new landscape company to service them. We took on a few but could not handle all the calls we got. Please remember all contractors working in the city have to be licensed by the city and prove their employees have been trained to use the machines properly. I know some would say how did you deal with things before? Having been around longer than most I can say we did however 40 years ago laborers where easier to find and much cheaper to employ. Also, there were not all the requirements for health insurance, paid time off, and other benefits we have today which increases our cost and thus your bills. The other thing is back then people did not have the fancy ground cover beds and the underground drip irrigation, and low voltage lighting which will get damaged by rakes.

My last thought is, as many of you know, most companies that do landscaping in the spring, summer and fall do snow removal in the winter with these same crews. If these companies stop working in Cambridge and move elsewhere they will not be around to do the snow work and since there is already a serious shortage of snow removal people in the city, this will just compound the problem. If you see what I am talking about and this makes sense, I ask you to return the attached petition to me with your signature, address and date. If you have any Cambridge neighbors that feel this way, please feel free to have them sign as well so I can deliver them to the council the day of the hearing so your feelings can be heard Thank you, Gary F. Tibbetts, President Tibbetts Landscaping, Inc. 5 Breed Ave. Woburn, MA 01801

Attachment 17 James Kelley Cambridge Landscape Co. 100 Smith Place. Cambridge Landscape Co. has been serving clients in Cambridge for forty years, and employs over one hundred people. I am here this evening to oppose the total leaf blower ban proposal and to present you with over three hundred letters, emails and signatures against the ban. I served on the committee in 2008 that researched and developed the leaf blower ordinance. Much has changed since that time. Due to EPA regulation, gas-powered leaf blowers now emit 80 percent less pollutants than they did in 2008. Manufacturers have changed engine and fan design to reduce noise and pitch and emissions that gas blowers produce. The 65 dB blowers in use today in Cambridge by those complying with the ordinance are much quieter and less offensive than those in use before 2008. They are only slightly louder than normal conversation at 60 decibels. Multiple blowers being used in violation of the ordinance is the real issue. The ban proposal requires that all cleanup work be done using hand tools. Studies such as one conducted at the University of California in 2006 have observed that blowers, vacuums and brooms raise similar amounts of fugitive dust, which resettle in six minutes or less; and that blowers raise particulate matter at levels below EPA safety thresholds for workers. Given this information, a total ban on leaf blowers would not significantly reduce noise, emissions, or amounts of fugitive dust. A total ban would place an economic burden on homeowners, the elderly, the disabled, institutions, large property owners, and the City. There are estimates that it could take up to ten times longer to perform clean-up work by hand increasing cost the to consumers. This would necessitate more and larger crews to perform this work. More and larger crews means more trucks coming into a city which is already among the most congested in the country, adding to pollution, creating the exact opposite of the effect that proponents of the ban intend. The total ban would also have a human toll, increasing worker injuries, such as back strain, muscle pulls and repetitive motion injuries. It will also expose workers to hazards such as ticks living in leaf litter and improperly discarded needles, which is an ever-increasing problem. Performing landscape maintenance work by hand commercially is not a "Norman Rockwel" type moment as I have heard some people imply. Residents generally clean one property. Each spring and fall, landscapers move from property to property, clearing acres of debris five to six days per week for many weeks. It is very physically demanding work. Furthermore, we are beyond full employment in this state and workers are in short supply. Every grounds maintenance organization I know is short on workers.

Cambridge is better than this total leaf blower ban proposal. The current leaf blower ordinance is sufficient. Residents who take issue with leaf blowers should start by coordinating with their neighbors to reach an accommodation. It's well documented that bans are hard to enforce and don't work. We should keep working to enforce the current ordinance.

Gmail - Leaf blower 5/1/2019 Atlachment if Mark Saidnawey <[email removed]> 1 Gmail Leaf blower Mark - Pemberton Garden Services <[email removed]> Wea, May 1, 2019 at 1:55 PM (Draft My name is Mark Saidnawey 1 am a third generation owner of Pemberton Farms located on mass Avenue in Cambridge. My family has owned and operated Pemberton since 1930 and the sole owner of Pemberton Garden Services inc. Also located in Cambridge. I formed that company just 6 years ago after constant requests at our garden center to come out to Cambridge residents home and assist with thier gardening rolant and yard needs. Now, 6 years later we have, over 25 tull time gardeners and serve 200+ homeowners in and around the city. For this local business to survive, we have to mel use leaf blowers. There are already stricrules around blowers in this city. We take thes College laws and rules from this city and state very seriously. Leaf blower rules and all OSHA rules and requirements. His A toch inouetrock. We get our permit from the city each year. We buy only noise reduction compliant machines (at twice the cost of regular blowers), and strickly follow the usage times and conditions. We have never been fined for illegal usage of these machines in the city. Something 1 am proud of. We train our staff on how to properly use them in acordance with the guildlines the city of Cambridge has outlined to inculde, when to use them, and where to use them. I wonder how many fines have gone out to homeowners in the city who use noncompliant blowers? Through my many years of working in Cambridge, I have watched and heard countless homeowners, small unmarked pop up landscaping trucks and even large firms from out of our area use very loud, non compliant blowers in this city. Each time I scratch my head and say, Where's the leaf blower enforcers? ." the problem is not These guys are ruining this for my company who follows the rules. the exisiting blowers lawf it is how to enforce it? Should these residents have to be the ones every time. I for one would not like to have to do that? Can you have someone drive around like a plumbing inspector and look for the tell tale signs of abuse? I am in support of keep the existing leaf blower rules the same as they are now. It allows us to clean up in the spring and clean up again in the fall. During the off usage months we use a broom. If you are to eliminate the use of blowers it will: REsidINts 1. Reduce the number of Cambridge clients we can service would shrink dramatically in both the spring and fall." The amount of time it would take, and the wear and tear on our staff would simply not allow us to work on as many properties as we do now.3 It means it would bring in more out of town landscapers and trucks. More noise, more pollution and likely more illegal usage of equipment. 1/2 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=e1f548e306&view=pt&search=drafts&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-8546374382466791357&dsqt=1&simpl=%23msg-a.../

5/1/2019 Gmail - Leaf blower Secondly, I believe it will pose serious safety issues when the leaves start falling in October. Sidewalks will be full of leaves not making sidewalk cracks visible and slippery for pedestrian when wet. When the heavy rains come in late October imagine how clogged the storm drains will be get clogged with leaves and debris? making both roads and sidewalks slippery. Not a good combination for cyclist riding to and from where they are going. Pelestrions and thir d, 4. It would force us to use other gas powered pieces of equipment to pick up leaves. Instead of raking we would use a lawn mower or vacuum machines. Both just as loud as Othss: blowers. If not worse, There are a lot of noises in the city. Working outside on Mass ave all these years • selling plants I have heard a lot. Emergency vehicles, large trucks, motorcycles, lawn mowers, chains saws, Jack hammers, construction equipment, etc.. Noise reduction is something that the city should consider as a whole. Not just one machine. I would be happy to volunteer my time as local business owner if you find forming a committe is the next steps. in closing. I ask that you consider leaving the existing blower laws as is. .. • 212 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=e1f548e306&view=pt&search=drafts&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-8546374382466791357&dsqt=1&simpl=%23msg-a...

Allachment 19 Sue Butler, RN, MSN, PhD 14 Clinton Street Cambridge, MA 02139 1 May 2019 Ordinance Committee City Council City Hall Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ordinance Committee; I write to express my deep concern about the ongoing use of leaf blowers in the city. Although minimal regulations for their use have been adopted, the regulations are inconsistently enforced. Leaf blowers present many dangers to our health, happiness, safety and cleanliness. Leaf blowers cause harmful noise, stress and concomitant serious health effects. The noise in itself is a stressor known to cause high blood pressure, heart attacks, cancer, gastrointestinal disturbances, sleep problems, psychological problems, depression and social discord. They also cause deafness. The petro-chemical emissions from leaf blowers are a scrious hazard. The Almanac, Menlo Park, 31 August 2015, says a two-stroke blower generates 23 times the carbon monoxide and nearly 300 times the non-methane hydrocarbons of a truck. The Atlantic, "Get Off my Lawn," April 2019 says leaf blowers generate 124 times the emissions of a truck or a car. Leaf blowers are the worst of all the petro-chemical polluters. Finally, my greatest concern is the particulates leaf blowers move into the air. The air speeds of the air exiting a leaf blower are between 140 to 270 miles per hour, higher than a category 5 hurricane. The Almanac states, the airborne particles can circulate far and wide, many hundreds of miles, remaining airborne for days or weeks. Imagine many different gardeners using leaf blowers and creating overlapping ranges of long-term, widely-distributed airborne particulates. This epidemiological disaster is a grave concern. Particles (PM 2.5 and PM10) are absorbed through our lungs, into our blood. From our circulation, they cross the blood brain barrier. These particles are known to cause asthma, congestive obstructive pulmonary disorder, and Alzheimer's. Harvard School of Public Health studies the epidemiological distributions of disease and airborne particulates. They find a co-occurrence of particulates and these diseases, that are adequate evidence for legal and legislative proceedings. Finally, I am particularly concerned about the materials that make up the airborne particulates. I serve on the Massachusetts Nurses' Association Congress for Health and Safety, where we have worked for years with faculty at UMass Lowell on the damage caused by particulates. Those particulates contain many toxic, hazardous materials. The Almanac writes, "Epidemiological studies have long recognized the harm these particles — including

hydrocarbons from gasoline, animal droppings, spores, fungi, pollens, pesticides and herbicides, fertilizers, brake-lining dust and tire residue and heavy metals — cause to people's respiratory systems." Regarding local particulate toxins, I have had my garden tested for lead, and find the levels vary between 200 and 2000ppm, very unsate levels. My own lead level is near the allowable maximum. I certainly do not use a leaf blower. We do not want those particles circulating in the air or atmosphere. Nor do we want glyphosate compounds like Round Up and Agent Orange airborne in particulate forms. Nor fungi. The other serious concern cited in that quotation is fungi. Fungi come in many forms, some beneficial, but recently there has been press about hospital acquired fungal infections that have been untreatable. Patients with such infections have had poor responses to treatment. Hospital administrators have found it to be very difficult to adequately clean hospital rooms of such fungal contamination, once the rooms were vacated. We certainly do not want those particles airborne over hundreds of miles for days or weeks. We haven't even begun to talk about the problem of wind erosion and soil degradation from leaf blowers. The complexity of damage from leaf blowers is so diverse and so serious that nobody should ever be using them. ной Han a beatlers Sue taller

Attachment 20 Lopez, Donna From: Alisa L < [email removed]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:17 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Proposed leaf blower ban To the Cambridge City Council Members: I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed ban on leaf blowers. While I understand that leaf blowers can be a nuisance, the city of Cambridge already has several regulations in place to limit any discomfort caused to residents by restricting the times of year, days of the week, and times of day when leaf blowers may be used. If I understand correctly, the existing ordinance also further restricts the sound emitted by leaf blowers to no greater than 65db (8.16.081.2 item e). More importantly, however, is that the council itself recognized the need for leaf blower technology in creating the existing leaf blower ordinance, stating: "The City Council recognizes that a total ban on the use of such equipment would have a severe adverse impact on the ability of the City to effectively remove leaves, dust, dirt, grass clippings, cuttings and trimmings from trees, shrubs and other types of litter and debris from streets, sidewalks, cemeteries and large recreational facilities and other open spaces and to clean and maintain such facilities without relaxing restrictions on the use of such equipment for maintenance operations of such facilities." I assure you, that "severe adverse impact" is true not only for the city, but also for individual residents who find the intensely physical labor of yard cleanup too painful or uncomfortable to manage otherwise. That adverse impact can be expected, also, to extend to landscaping workers, who rely on leaf blowers as an essential tool to allow them to be efficient and thorough in completing this physically demanding job. A total ban on leaf blowers lacks consideration for advances in this technology, such as more environmentally friendly electric powered blowers, and puts an undue burden on Cambridge residents. Sincerely, Alisa Lemberg 25 Loomis St. Cambridge, MA

Allachment 21 Lopez, Donna From: Milan Vit < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 8:36 PM To: Lopez, Donna Solet, Jo Marie Cc: Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers Dear City of Cambridge Council member, Please consider my comments in case I'm unable to attend the May 1st hearing: Leafblower noise is a serious problem in my neighborhood, and I would like to see the blowers banned. First of all, the noise from leafblowers is very loud, as the landscaping crews often use older and unmuffled gas engine blowers. The electric blowers, in my opinion, are not that much better because of their unpleasant high-pitch sound. Second, the crews often use more than one blower simultaneously! This noise usually lasts for hours as one crew would finish working on one property, but 10 minutes later the same or different crew starts working on another property! To finish it off, of course, the crews will be back the next day to start the madness all over again. I live in the apartment building on the corner of Craigie and Concord, facing many of the neighboring backyards. It is quite possible the noise is being echoed and amplified by another tall building across the street, but the noise can be so loud that often in the past I was simply unable to work from home, unable to participate in conference calls because I would have to mute my phone. Talking to my neighbors, some of whom are post-grad students, also often studying or working at home, I know they had similar issues. With the help of City Council ordinances, we have tried to set the rules and limit the use of noisy blowers, but we all know how difficult and time-consuming, and in the end, frustrating and ineffective it is pleading with the landscaping crews, trying to tell them to stop the noise or pointing out when they were in violation of the rules. It's time to take the next step. I'm in support of the total ban on leaf blowers, or, for that matter, any other noisy equipment that degrades the quality of life. Thank you, Milan Vit 1 Craigie Street #41 Cambridge

Atachment229 PETITION To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Signature Address Name 2 Blanchaul Be Cambrdo Ooh bekd Tahn West Daniel et ¿ Gevurd Cial 81 Orchoulst Bein Netien 84 Park 74 CHILTUN ST PAULMATERHZZ0 5 El'swerth PK Stephen Kostel 3 Stre, St Phip 3.1e4 / BlanchardRe, Card 47 colidge LIN 107 Tant 158 mansios Strad Michael Claris 12 37 Bristist Grise Critics Silvia Cogriori Transfat 1> is Dianna Permuter 59Granellust Lianne Luke A/pen Julie Silbermin 47 creighton ST. Xa310 AL3 38 30 301380 197 Signatures

2) To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Signature Address Name 633 11BRINGE ST TrE KICKER 18 K Neal 113 Haworry 19 blancher. I KN tolworthy It no folwort Aler Martin MALA 145 Pleasant ST Amit Das 73 8 Dong/ost J' David Keenar RZCARORDANE 25 MATT COOLED It whity Are En Sertok Lem masola agent marte Витими 29 Jody barr Kitap fines 30 it Bricssanst Unite 31 Gary Bechtold 53 Dama St Nathan Pollin 32 96 Richdale Ave. 33 Kevin Prody 70o Huron Ar. 31 700 More Ave. Isak Grant 31 DAVID COCHARA 36 93 Hampshire 7 s11 Chartes 8t. Dan 194t 3) SAnt Keplin 34 Higland Ave 38 39 Tongude 157 614 Street 40 Veral d91 HAS AVE BRODIE tal thes 509 Fraklin So Anders Hieber

PETITION To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Address Name Pains Signature 43 Gae St., Cambridge Dagles Papre 16 Mexchanko 4Y RUBSON GOOGINS 45 30 trash Pond Phany (De 1/2W5 RA / RARIL 46 126 lANCi RO 400 47 400 Lim 41 coolise hu Sihak Sihak Lee 45 41 cool ge hill 17 WEST ST CAMB 44 JON CARLISLE John Daniels 17 Miyuand Pl. 51 269P Walden st Bill Preytis 226 Banks st 52 Matt 600ls'y 53 Philip Green 54 'N.D. MaLAUReN 6 CANAL PARK TAFT MURRAY 55 56 Chita Fereese 13 Bellis Circle 57 Tommako Nakayama 240 LaTera 5% CYNAE PuRus 59 1275 GROVE CAME

To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Name Address Signature Sungso CHUE Cambribge 61 squid Alread Cambrity Cabrids 2 lapore Tracke Taste allie 63 AMBRINE, J2138 DULG my gallery Josh kiseinc Contraye I benkar tasme cambidye Sall Mason 67 WillIAn MANGore I may st 68 MARY ANNe MANGONe Mate to 69 KAMRAN NAMSS, Telebr 19- Hushell st "Alan PetersoN 71 Jon Macomber 25 Buckinghan sT 931 Massachuseres Ave Hungin Cheng 73 10 DANA ST F3U8 VALEN ROSS (locust st 75 128 Reed St. For R. Curr EVERCARR 76 142 Reynand St Michel Olfarell 325 Wudsa st Can budge 78° Make 24 Beech St. Cau budge 3 JAYSI ten. Tree Carli 28 Dana St. hot way Stanley A 1 asg 165 CAMERAUPA DR NEEN ED PAPACODA BRIAN REYNOLDS Brie a Tuquet 33 LEE ST. 83 Carrkrage Emanha, Is 84 Vau Luros 350 ThirdSt, Unit 1217 Centr

PETITION To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Signature Address Name 85 Devil Pergen 61 Reseruzir st LoWed King 172 PLEASANT ST CONORE CHASE PAUL ZUBRINSKI SCRAwind si, 46 100 Fosest Ed Serug 90 LOBIN GUSTAFSON 4HAVONST, CAMBRIDGE MA 9 95 117424 MARCus Shenain 92 ERNIE PARK 40 uinich James Johnston 94 239 Charles It # Wayne Austin 511 Franklin'st James KIM 160 Cambridgelak Dr. I HANCOCK PK PETRO COtANM Joh glarks Jalag osko 16 Griswola St 14 LocustSt 86 Fooler St. athesineC.tampaeli # Emmons P

To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Name Address Signature 102 le Nuts 25 Newell St Paula Carten 10] I Livermone at terre PAT Servin. 104 Suser forlon susantaflene / Wright St los 126 AUBURN 10% 931 MASS AVE EKIN SHUBA 107 561 HURON AVE RUSSEl HIGLEY 108 uncertigle Sit lunoN Aut JoDY HIGLEY 109 VAN HOd ANDI 120 FOR HiLL ST. 992 MemonelDr "'OTim S Sandler Cossuell te ''Sank teme Lefs "an. Jane 3/6HURON AVe. ORIANE LOWNeS 113 43 CUSHING ST. JIVAN PETER 114 397½ COLUMBIAST Nick Meyer DAvIo Denvelt l/6 2 Union TerRace Stutt 46 Reservair St. tube Daniel Klubock 117 lee 375 Huran bre. 118 Weil Sam 290 Westen Are th Sapled l11 Rade Ciet 1008 Mass Ave t1302 120 Jar Willians We Dedley st 121 Daniel Kohanna 165 Cambirdgepark Or."234 122 91 Sherman st. #6 Tom Harrison 123 38may st 121 93 Belmut St Alla Indee 125 2 Soldiers Field Lee Fisher 126 JORDAN JOHNSON 1008 massachwatts Arr

PETITION To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Name Address 127 J. MeNamara 25 Hoovered Way 124 12T 15 TREWBRIDGE ST Andrew Laanpacher 129 345 Franklin Street 130 gick Hawkins 29 Gure, st fath 20 Clux St Henry toibe 132 Mic all Morrison 133 Hanbetn Lang 134 Comor Noda 163 Allston St. 135 135 HOlLOThY Rinh Reardon 136 JIN REARDON 1311 WillTucker 1l Peabody Terr 02138 29 Garden St Sente 135 Forkin Kennedy 137 193 Cambridge St John Mallancy 140 144 Peal St#s Panelatistas 141 Samuel Field 21 Line St 255 GRavo Si 1437 80 FAWKETT BRAD THER

To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Address Name Signature 144 80 Favlett St Try Bot Peté Bryant 14$ Elzabeth Homes 80 furett 51 14L 14) IncOmmolle 14 titatinen 149 Kenneth Lim 285 Third sleet 15U Rete Kics 80 Faulett BIll'TRAiNDR 153 Ten Mahon 64 Sandish St Ro child St Machag Fi 156

PETITION To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Name Address Signature 43 RH NURSE 42 GRAZIER PO CAMB PiLE 44 Inger Nurse 92 Grozier Ral Lambadas 45 Nanch Clun 5 Sparks sE 46 02/38 BOBERT S. HURLBUTTe SSPARKS ST, CAMBRIDGE 474 Horon Ave #2 47 Kevin. Mbanza RosE Liu 353 HuRoN Are 49 353 Manentine Bevenly /hitchinsoN. 93 CROZIOR RO 50 DAVID VICHERY Fumes Cami re 51 160 Cambidgeled Dr4245 52

To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Name Address Signature 28 Hutchengen 55: 02148 MIEHACK E. BAOWN Late A GRAINCER 32 Horchinson 57 hairsen Zolutchinson St. Bral touteda Hans saman 424 Walter Jon Haunger Jum Gracie 414 Walden St Karen Sheh Kansduh

PETITION To the City of Cambridge, Office of the City Clerk, The City Council and The Mayor's Office The undersigned petitioners ask the City to exclude the Fresh Pond Golf Course from the Citizens Petition 16.081.2, banning the use of Leaf Blowers. Name Address Signature Robert Goodwin 14 Locust, Sti It Got Bonal focaum 14 kaust Bonse am Allan Gehunt Kahe Gately tenant Camb ourse edi 82 Cushing St Lem Whit 71 Cushing St George Ji White 15 St Sauveup Ct Ken De Vecchio 15 St Salveur ct. JARIS CAVOIE Man thul 3,(0U751 May thet i Ve DuMe 12 Locust 8t APRiL Diamond 34 CHao St. Eugene Goodu gene scrod 194 Amy GooDwin 32 LAwnst

April 18 Low Gross / Low Disten Fettled The understored residents af the Cig of Cantelge nependily ragues the Digy Council to arsend Chapter 116. "Noise Cootrol of the Cambridge Manlopal Coda el Ondnances by dalese Section 14081 at 16.0013 eval moded "Leaf Blowers and substiting che followin *36.001. Surement of Purpose The Chly Council Barty Bods that 1) Candiridge le conusined to esteimialog its greenbosse gas anussions ingewine quality of life mastmising sustatubety practices and Ingrowing air quality. 21 Lost biowers are harshl to the hesith of these who operate them and of those who are exposed to them doe to excessive noise levels elton of tunic cardiopen exhavitand one forming compounds, and airtue up of hiat and dirt particulate matter (P% 2.51, allergens, lead and otber contaminants present in soll 1) Oss-powered leaf Blowers release much bigher laves of hydnscarbons into the atmosphere than do automoles and thus contebate diproportionary to ongoing nate chane whleh threatens the future of all life co earth: 4) Lauriowers are harmful to the ematronment through the stripping of topsolt thereby exacerbating trought condisions, and remoral of kal cover anguined by pollinators to overwinter: 5) Continued use of leaf blowers is inconsident with the sunainability pouts of the Op of Cambrider and oftle Cimbride Compact for a Sontainable Funine 4) Leaf blowers are unnecessary to the optinal malatenanoe of propeny la the 0g: but the Cite wil require a period of time to phase out the use of louf blowers on pertain cir owned faciles. 16.081.1 Definitions 1) A lear blower is defined an a portable, handheld, backpack style or vehicis mounted power equipelest that is powered by gasoline, other fuel, or electriony and wind in any landscape maintenance, construction, property repuir, or priperty maintenance findloding without limitation sidevratics, panting lots, driveways and roofs) for the purpose of blowing vacuuming AM 11: 32 moving removing dispersing or redistributing leaves, dost dirt, prais dippings colling and trimmings from trees and shrabs or any other type of ther or debris not including lown mowers. 2) Non-Cry property means any property not owed by the City of Cambridge indluding without limitation property owned by a federal, state or other local government entity 16.081.2 Ban on use. Exceptas otherwise provided in this Lear Blower Ondinance and notwithstanding any other provalons of this Code of Ondlean oes, the use of linal Hovers is hereby prohibited at any time within the City of Cambridge.

Attachment 23-2 Lopez, Donna From: [email removed] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:57 PM Lopez, Donna To: Subject: Leaf blower petition submission To whom it concerns, I am writing this email as a submission regarding the Citizen's Petition Banning Leaf Blowers due for discussion at the 1 May meeting. We have lived in Cambridge for over 80 years and enjoy the relatively quiet nature of the city, and hope that it will remain a peaceful city to live in. With that I mind, we would like to state our opinions: - we support the ban of GAS blowers, - we support the use of alternative, quieter electric blowers - we support a reduced number of months for using the electric mowers (only a total of 3 months per year) - we support a reduced number of hours per day 10am - 2pm, Monday - Fri, no Sat or Sunday. Thank you for your consideration Dr & Mrs Lloyd M. Aiello 2 - 1/2 Berkeley Street Cambridge, MA 02138

23-3 Attachment Lopez, Donna From: Baker, Barbara S <[email removed] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:36 PM To: Lopez, Donna Cc: Virginia Coleman leaf blowers Subject: Are such an unnecessary pollution, both noise and dust. I am all for banning them. I agree we have to take steps to help us get back a little to peaceful neighborhoods. I in fact think also that noise lawnmowers should go too. Thanks for your work and attention to finding some resolution to this problem. Best, 7 Linnaean St. Barbara Baker Barbara S. Baker Coldwell Banker Huron Ave. [email removed] www.bbakerhomes.com (check out local Recent Sales) [phone removed] A Foundation of Trust and Success *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

Attachment 23-4 Lopez, Donna From: Susan Cooke <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 5:10 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: "May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers." Hi Donna, I can't come and speak at the ordinance hearing on leaf blowers but can you please print my comments below for those attending the meeting to see? Thanks so very much. Susan Cooke I hope you will find the shoit comments below to be useful information and added fuel for the crucial battle citizens and government are waging against the health-and-happiness-destroying effects of largely unnecessary noise. Please feel free to forward them or reference them where needed. As many of you know I live in Watertown but used to live in Cambridge and have tried for a long time to help encourage both cities to pay much more attention to leaf-blowers and all loud noise. Below is what I recently told the noise committee in Watertown, but I also wrote it for Cambridge. Yesterday for the first time this year, one of the horrible (and regular here in Watertown) landscape teams--many from Belmont--came to one of the 3-4 houses they work on all spring though fall just on our corner. I believe the landlords hiring them live elsewhere. The grass all around our block is so short it's barely there. They got their two huge leaf-blowers out and I watched them blow 4 leaves and some dust around part of the house's side yard for quite some time. The blowers were shaking our walls for some 20 minutes solid. Total noise was around a half hour, but later in the season, as one house after another is serviced, it's pretty much all day. It had been so lovely outside that I'd opened the door to our porch, and I and our 2 cats were enjoying it. I was inspired to start to plan what to plant in our garden (it's on the town's Life-friendly garden tour), and enjoying hearing the many beautiful birds that come to our garden. When the blowers began we had to rush back inside off the porch and close the door, but could still hear the astonishingly-loud noise and feel the vibrations. I've been struggling especially hard with a stubborn depression that got pretty bad in the last 2 months, and being in our garden or at least having doors and windows open to it helps me more than anything. I was just beginning to sense a glimmer of hope in the darkness I'd been fighting, when the team showed up and the noise assault began. I quickly tumbled down, landing deep in that dark canyon again. It's hard to get well when the thing hurting you can't be stopped and you have no control at all. You just have to sit there and take it, or leave and go somewhere else (where there are probably more leaf blowers, or if you go to a coffee shop, music so loud you feel under attack.) This as you might surmise is one reason depression is on the increase (I research this a lot). The sad thing is they'll soon be back for the other houses too, and regularly, so that there are few days when the monstrous noises aren't here and few times I can even be out there planting as I love to do. (I can also see our two cats become noticeably uncomfortable when the noise comes.) Then there will be even more visits from Belmont and other landscapers at the other end of our street, and a third set of onslaughts from the street just behind us, at "Coolidge Estates" where it's kept anally clean at all times and even bigger blowers are used, often 3 or 4 at a time.. So, when you add that to the allowing of construction equipment such as sanders and saws, especially the large amounts of it used outside by private residents on the prettiest days with clearly not a thought paid to who might be suffering from the noise, it's pretty much all noise all the time. (Many of them have basements where they could do the noisiest work with doors to the outside closed, without torturing others. ) We're hoping to save enough money to move somewhere else or maybe have a tiny place somewhere where there aren't leat- blowers and constant construction at all hours nearby, but where oh where would that be... Susan Cooke

Susan Cooke Blog: The Serene City, www.theserenecity.com Researcher/writer on public health and well-being Author of the forthcoming Stress in the American City 2

Lopez, Donna From: Susan Cooke < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 7:45 AM To: Virginia Coleman; City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: GREAT article on banning leaf-blowers! (and also Newton's ban) One of the growing group of people (very recently) in Watertown where we're about to make a new ordinance, sent out this article yesterday from the Dr. Weil site, which says so much so clearly! Have you seen it yet? Here it is (I couldn't link directly so had to cut and paste): https://www.drweil.com/health-wellness/balanced-living/gardening/ban-leafblowers/ Also we just learned about Newton's ban which I think is really good except that the hours allowed are WAY TOO many even for electric blowers. Here's that link, but I want to add this note: I was told awhile back that Newton had a ban and had to cancel it, so I don't know if this is a new ban for certain, but the people who sent it seemed to think it's in practice now so I guess it must be. I'm a little confused since it's dated 2017--maybe that was their second attempt and it stuck-t hope! http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/8878 Susan Cooke Susan Cooke Blog: The Serene City, www.theserenecity.com Researcher/writer on public health and well-being Author of the forthcoming Stress in the American City Artistic director, singer, & researcher/writer for Arte Lyrica Founder of Sonia Music-Classical & Jazz Music Lists for work, relaxation, or both

From: Susan Cooke <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 8:15:48 AM To: City Council Subject: Helpful Information on leaf-blower proposal (I hope) Dear Cambridge City Council, I've attended some of your meetings as a very interested ex-Cambridge resident now living in Watertown, and I spoke at one of the meetings on leaf-blowers (2-3 years ago?) I'm trying hard to convince Watertown to even approach the kinds of changes you've discussed, although it's really slow-going here. I did however make a short speech a couple of weeks ago about effects of noise on health, at a joint Council committee meeting to consider what I would call very slightly improving Watertown's noise laws. All they were considering was some tiny change in times of use allowed, so tiny I doubt it will do much good. But I wanted to try to inspire them to do more, hopefully in the near future. (I had to leave early but I think nothing's been decided yet anyway, and they were saying they might need one more meeting.) I was thrilled to see that you're considering a ban on this equipment, and hope to further inspire you to pass it. So in that spirit I hope you'll have a look at some information I'm sending you here, both for you and for residents, that might be helpful, including a blog post I worked on for a long time on that helps guide people in buying quieter, non-gas-powered equipment. So what I'm sending is the speech (it wasn't long) and the hand-out sheet with links to that blog post and other helpful links including to a stunning article on noise and health in The Guardian Online. These items focus not just on leaf-blowers but on all noise disturbance, but they certainly make a good case for limiting noise as much as possible in cities to protect mental and physical health, along with the environment. I hope you'll consider handing out copies of the two things for residents and other officials at the meeting--it only takes up two pieces of paper--one is the speech--front and back of one page, and one is the added info-page--also front and back of one page. I'm sorry I cannot attend the meeting. In the added-info sheet I mention a woman in tears because she (and her husband) could not find any quiet half-hour in which to bury her beloved cat who had died. That woman spoke at the meeting I spoke at in Cambridge, and her story so moved me that I wanted to use her as an example, along with an air force pilot friend of ours (two missions in Afghanistan) who also suffered terribly from yard equipment noise. (I didn't use names and I only met the woman very briefly and she probably doesn't even remember me--but her story was and remains powerful. If you think it will bother her please remove it, but since she said it publicly I can tell she must very much want the ban herself and would be okay with it.) So here is the speech, followed by the info-page, and I hope they're at least somewhat useful.- Susan Cooke in Watertown Blog--The Serene City www.TheSereneCity.com Speech to Watertown Noise Meeting, Feb. 2019:

Researcher on Stress in Cities & Blogger for TheSereneCity.com Susan Cooke Health Effects of Loud Noise, the Need for Stricter Laws, & Other Possible Solutions It's impossible to cover in a couple of minutes the astounding amount of illness loud noise is causing or is associated with, much but not all of it from sheer stress, the basis for so much mental and physical illness. I've left some sheets I hope you'll take with you that list more information, a link to a stunning article at TheGuardian.com, and to my blog where there are recent posts on noise including one to guide those shopping for quieter, cleaner landscape equipment. What I want to get across now is while the small steps many cities take are better than nothing, they don't begin to stop the damage to health. Many cities hesitate in part due to angry landscape company owners. They should check out the company in Concord whose owner saved money from the start when he began his successful business, called EcoQuietLawncare. It shows how possible such helpful changes can be, and of course they| also slow pollution of our air, soil, and water. Many of us stay home days, both working and unemployed people. If we work nights or are ill we sleep at home during the day. If you go to an office you may forget how noisy home can be all day. If 8 or ten houses on one block regularly hire landscape teams, or privately use that equipment, that usage will all occur at different times, so the noise never stops all day. Many homes house at least two families. Add traffic, jets, and construction, and a lot of people are going to be highly stressed for hours, lose sleep, and rarely go outside for a walk or even a break on the porch. So it's rare that city-dweller are not bombarded by loud noise, and let's not forget the super-loud cars, loud radios used outside or with open windows, super-loud music now in many stores and restaurants, and people shouting rather than talking on phones everywhere, from the neighbor shouting on his porch while you try to relax in your garden, to the guy next to you on a park bench where you'd hoped for a few quiet minutes with some trees and sky. It's as if we've forgotten the air is shared space, not one person's private place to make unlimited noise. On many days people feel almost imprisoned at home because they can't even open their windows. They can't enjoy a whiff of the nature they crave and that researchers say we need if we're to thrive, and are unlikely to even take a walk around the block that would help them experience more nature and to meet more neighbors, giving them a chance to build a sense of community, the lack of which researchers also say makes people feel isolated, lonely, and depressed, and is a serious health problem in American cities. You can see why the World Health Organization considers noise disturbance a global health emergency. They say that in western European countries, environmental noise alone often causes at least 1 million healthy life years to be lost every year. And of course the fumes often accompanying noise from, say leaf-blowers or diesel trucks, adds to our toxic load that now contributes to cancer, asthma, and other lung diseases.

As loud noise wakes our fight-or-flight response, stress hormones course through us, causing alarm, raised blood pressure, and if chronic enough, hearing loss, heart disease, diabetes, learning difficulties in children, anxiety, and depression. Recent research reveals that enough exposure to loud traffic noise actually changes our blood biochemistry. Finally noise is causing increasing rage-ridden disputes, and one murder has been reported-- further proof of the unhealthy stress noise causes. I hope I've gotten across that this is an emergency, and I've left some stories about noise's devastating emotional effects, and suggestions of things we can do in addition to stricter limits, including a PR campaign that might help. Finally please come to my flower-stuffed garden on the town's Life-Friendly Garden Tour, and I'll show you easy ways to enjoy lots of flowers and no grass, and how you'll never need a leaf-blower, lawn-mower, or weed-wacker ever again. You'll love your yard and so will everyone else. Thanks. Sheet with more info including articles and links: Feb. 13, 2019 Researcher on Stress in Cities Susan Cooke More Information on Noise and Health, & link to Guide to Buying Quiet Yard Tools Article that Gives great Overview of Noise Effects on Health: Sonic Doom: How Noise Pollution Kills Thousands Each Yearhttps://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/03/sonic-doom- noise-pollution-kills-heart-disease-diabetes Susan's Blog: The Serene City www.theserenecity.com Latest noise-related posts are near top, and include useful links to reference sites, and my guide to buying quieter non-polluting lawn care equipment, at the link below: http://www.theserenecity.com/2019/02/06/a-guide-to-mostly-non-gas- powered-lawn-care-equipment-the-best-first-step-toward-a-quieter-greener- less-polluted-city/ (Be sure not to leave out the "the" in the-SereneCity, or you'll end up on a real estate site in India.)

SUMMARY OF SOME HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE: Heart disease, asthma and other lung diseases, diabetes, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, Slower learning in children, changes in blood chemistry, and any other illness that causes or is exacerbated by chronic stress (too many to mention here). MORE STRESS-INDUCED UNHEALTHY CHANGES Added stress caused by nature deprivation and by isolation and lack of community, both caused by people staying inside, keeping windows shut, not trying to be near nature any longer, not attempting to plant or work in a garden, losing fitness due to lack of exercise and fresh air Successful quiet clean landscape company in Concord: EcoQuietLawncare Loud Music in Stores and Restaurants This is happening here and in Great Britain too. Many Brits are desolate as they stop going to favorite pubs that are now painfully loud, losing the sense of community pubs have always provided (as coffee shops often do here). They report isolation and depression, and now have an epidemic of loneliness, and even an official Minister of Loneliness. Clearly we need to limit these noise levels to avoid further increases in stress, isolation, depression, and the suicides depression can lead to. (Links on this issue you might want to look at: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17168504/restaurants-noise-levels-loud- decibels and also https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17168504/restaurants-noise-levels-loud- decibels (says loneliness is worse for health than smoking 15 cigarettes per day) Two Examples of Stress and Depression due to Noise First, there's the woman I heard tell her town council in tears how she could not find one quiet half-hour in an entire weekend to bury her 15-year-old cat who had died.

Second is my neighbor the fighter pilot, who flew two missions in Afghanistan yet became depressed at home because he could never experience the one de- stressor he craved deeply: dinner outside with his young family on their tiny balcony at 5 o'clock. Every time they tried there was a different yard clean-up team sounding like World War Ill, or a neighbor on his own balcony shouting on his phone. (FYI shouting activates our stress response because our brains tend to interpret it as danger.) My friend gave up hope of this ever changing, and that hopelessness left him even more depressed. I've heard many such stories, but you should also know that such hopelessness makes many people give up, and they stop asking--but still suffer. My experience I've felt the same despair and hopelessness often. Also, my husband was attacked in a noise dispute. Noise keeps me out of my own beloved garden now. I don't work in an office but am more isolated than I used to be, as one of those who must avoid most stores and restaurants now due to loud sound. PR Campaign Along with stricter laws we might try a PR campaign to urge all individuals and businesses to limit all loud noise they make, so everyone gets more downtime from stress. We might use the words "kindness" and/or "empathy" in this effort. Sometimes I think people and businesses aren't aware of how much suffering they cause. Take the loud noise levels in stores and restaurants. It can be rather cruel, stressing many people (including returned vets and others with PTSD) through isolation, and putting them at risk for loneliness and depression. Requests that volume be lowered are often met with fierce hostility, when instead owners could simply turn it down and greatly help create more health in their communities. We might also try a program many cities now use that helps us exchange gas- powered tools for quieter cleaner ones. Such groups as Quiet Communitiesmay be able to help us with this. We might encourage planting less grass and more plants, so leaves gather unnoticed at the base of the plants, serving as mulch over the winter, and less blowing and mowing is needed. We also remind people to reconsider using rakes and brooms.

Note: some electric yard equipment is also noisy, and even when decibels are lower, some sounds are still extremely stressful such as the shrill sound of string trimmers. Susan Cooke Blog: The Serene City, www.theserenecity.com Researcher/writer on public health and well-being Author of the forthcoming Stress in the American City Artistic director, singer, & researcher/writer fot Arte Lyrica Founder of Sonia Music-Classical & Jazz Music Lists for work, relaxation, ot both

Lopez, Donna From: Susan Cooke <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 7:45 AM To: Virginia Coleman; City Council; Lopez, Donna Subject: GREAT article on banning leaf-blowers! (and also Newton's ban) One of the growing group of people (very recently) in Watertown where we're about to make a new ordinance, sent out this article yesterday from the Dr. Weil site, which says so much so clearly! Have you seen it yet? Here it is (I couldn't link directly so had to cut and paste): https://www.drweil.com/health-wellness/balanced-living/gardening/ban-leafblowers/ Also we just learned about Newton's ban which I think is really good except that the hours allowed are WAY TOO many even for electric blowers. Here's that link, but I want to add this note: I was told awhile back that Newton had a ban and had to cancel it, so I don't know if this is a new ban for certain, but the people who sent it seemed to think it's in practice now so I guess it must be. I'm a little confused since it's dated 2017--maybe that was their second attempt and it stuck--I hope! http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/8878 Susan Cooke Susan Cooke Blog: The Serene City, www.theserenecity.com Researcher/ writer on public health and well-being Author of the forthcoming Stress in the American City Artistic director, singer, & researcher/writer for Arte Lyrica Founder of Sonia Music--Classical & Jazz Music Lists for work, relaxation, or both

Ban Leafblowers!

Attachment 23-5 Lopez, Donna From: Constance Devanthery-Lewis < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:33 PM To: Lopez, Donna Leaf-blowers Subject: Hello, I heard about the current discussion from Craig Kelley. We live on Dudley St. In summer we are often disturbed by neighbors using leaf-blowers, which are so loud we can't sit outside. We are opposed to leaf blowers because they create air pollution and noise pollution. If people have a disability and cannot rake, they should be able to obtain a special permit from the city to use a leaf-blower. Thank you for your consideration, Constance Devanthery-Lewis Jean Devanthery Sent from my iPhone :

Atlachment 23-6 Lopez, Donna From: Nancie Dangel < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:53 PM To: Lopez, Donna May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers. Subject: Ban them. Nancie Dangel 4-B Sargent Street Cambridge, MA 02140 mobile [phone removed] email [email removed]

Atachment 23-7 Lopez, Donna From: Victor Cromie < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lopez, Donna Leaf Blowers Subject: Dear Sir, I am categorically opposed to the proposed ordnance as written. Some limitations on the hours of use of gaso; ine driven blowers would be acceptable, a blanket ban would not. Electric blowers should be totally unrestricted. Sincerely Victor Cromie

Attachment 23-8 Lopez, Donna From: Paul E Fallon < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 11:00 AM To: Lopez, Donna May I Hearing Banning Leaf Blowers Subject: Greetings - I am a resident and home owner in Cambridge. 618 Huron Ave. I am in favor of banning leaf blowers in Cambridge. They are noisy, polluting and unhealthy. Banning leaf blowers will enhance the quality of life in Cambridge fo all of us. Thank you for considering this ban; I hope that the City passes it. Paul E. Fallon 618 Huron Ave Cambridge, MA 02138 Paul E. Fallon 618 Huron Ave Cambridge, MA 02138-453[phone removed] www.paulefallon.com • www.howwillwelivetomorrow.com www.theawkwardpose.com

Allachinent 23-9 Lopez, Donna From: RICHARD GONCI <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:06 PM To: City Council; Kelley, Craig; Lopez, Donna Leaf blowers... Subject: Now, I don't love leaf blower noise... but, I live right next to the basketball and tennis courts on Montague Street. The leaf blowers employed to clear these recreational venues are operated by city employees! As long as leaf blowers are not deployed before 8am, I can live with the noise. But, the real problem is the use of gas-powered blowers whose 2-stroke engines also pollute ferociously while making most of the noise. There is a new generation of cordless electric blowers which are much quieter. Don't have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater here." Mandate the use of electric blowers in lieu of the gas models. Here's a link to some of them: https://www.google.com/search?q=besttelectric+leaf+blower&oq=besttelectric+leaf&aqs=chrome.O. 0j69i57j0l4.10046j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Respectfully, Richard Gonci 6 Ballord Place Cambridge, MA 02139 [phone removed]

Attachment 23-10 Lopez, Donna From: Lawrence Hartmann < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:20 AM To: Lopez, Donna Leafblower Ban Subject: Dear Cambridge City Council : PLEASE BAN LEAFBLOWERS NOW. The citizens' petition to do that, which is apparently due for discussion this evening, seems to me sensible and overdue. Please approve it. ---Lawrence Hartmann, M.D., 147 Brattle St., Cambridge, Ma. 02138

Atachment 23-11 Lopez, Donna Sarah James <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:49 AM To: Lopez, Donna Leaf blower ordinance Subject: I hope the Council will vote to prohibit leaf blowers with the exception of the Fresh Pond Golf Course. Sarah James No. Cambridge Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Attachment 23-18 Lopez, Donna Henrietta Kernan <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 8:59 AM Lopez, Donna To: leaf blower ban Subject: Hello, I am writing in strong support of the leaf blower ban in Cambridge. I am unable to attend the meeting tonight at City Hall but wanted to be sure voice my support for the ban given the significant adverse environmental and health impacts of the blowers. Not only is the continued use of leaf blowers at odds with the city's long term sustainability goals, but the noise and exhaust from the blowers has an immediate negative impact on day to day life in the neighborhoods in which the blowers are used. Thank you, Henrietta Kernan 25 Chilton Street #3 Cambridge, MA 02138 cell: [phone removed] This e-mail may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you suspect that you were not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

Attachment 23-13 Lopez, Donna From: Sara Levine <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 12:00 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: Leaf Blowers Dear Ms Lopez, I'm in favor of a ban on lead blowers in Cambridge. I have asthma, and it is triggered whenever I walk past one which makes it difficult to be outside in the city in the fall. I'm a bit of the sensitive canary, but they are not healthy for anyone's lungs. Or the environment. Raked work fine. Best, Sara Levine 203 Appleton Street .: Sent from my iPhone

Attachmant 23-14 Lopez, Donna From: emmy norris < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:26 AM To: Lopez, Donna May 1 Ordinance Committee: leaf blowers Subject: Dear Ms. Lopez, I respectfully request that the Ordinance Committee accept the proposal to ban leaf blowers. These machines certainly add to the pollution and noise levels of an already congested city. Especially the gas blowers are stinky and the noise very bothersome, for both those who run the machines and others in the vicinity. The world existed just fine for millennia without these machines; and I am sure there are plenty of kids and adults who would welcome the hourly work of raking. The machines are just one more step to the degradation of quality of life in the city. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, Emilie Norris 371 Harvard Street Cambridge resident for most of the last 50 years

Attachment 23-15 Lopez, Donna Olds, Jacqueline ‹ [email removed]> From: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:00 PM Sent: Lopez, Donna To: Leaf blowers Subject: Dear Clerk Lopez, I am so sorry that I cannot attend this evening's meeting. But I find the leaf blower noises that plague our neighborhood (Avon Hill), to be quite terrible. I am a psychiatrist with a home office, and occasionally l am unable to hear what my patient is even saying because we have a chorus of leaf blowers on the street. Often the truck of gardeners will come with three or four leaf blowers making it impossible to think, let alone work. Please take my (and my husband's vote) vote as very much for the prohibition on leaf blowers for Cambridge. Thanks for your attention. Jacqueline Olds MD

Allachment 23-16 Lopez, Donna From: Onyx Garden < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:14 AM To: Lopez, Donna Leaf Blowers Subject: Hello there, We will not be able to attend today's Leaf Blowers hearing, but I cannot stress enough how damaging for the human's health, plant's health, the climate, and Cambridge the leaf blowers are. I am not going into details because these are known facts. Both of us wholeheartedly support the total ban. Kind regards, Pjer & Bojana Being There With Nature

Atlachment 23-17 Lopez, Donna From: Charles Paxson <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 11:36 AM To: Lopez, Donna Ban Leaf Blowers Subject: Dear Ralph, Thank you for supporting legislation to ban leaf blowers in Cambridge. They are a noise nuisance. I've had my daughter awakened on the weekend in deference to the blaring of a leaf blower over the years. The city bustles enough. It is reassuring to hear the fire engines, the trucks that clean, the sweepers and the voices, but the leaf blowers are dispiriting in some way. We can no longer enjoy some outside time and exercise quietly raking the leaves. Must we announce to the entire neighborhood at any hour that we are cleaning? Do we really need to adopt every gadget that is made available to us? Thank you for answering in the negative to these questions. Charles Paxson 21 Inman St, Cambridge, MA 02139

Atachment 23-18 Lopez, Donna Carol Lee Rawn < [email removed]> From: Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 2:39 PM Lopez, Donna To: Cc: Tim Mackey Subject: Support for leaf blower ban Hi - I would like to register my strong support for the proposed leaf blower ban. Leaf blowers have significantly negative health, air quality and noise impacts in my neighborhood and throughout Cambridge. Thank you! Best, Carol Lee Rawn 59 Larchwood Dr. Cambridge MA 02138

23-19 Attachment When it comes to really bad ideas, the leafblower ranks right up there with adding lead to gasoline and using CFCs in aerosols. Leafblowers are diabolical machines. Even if the claims their promoters make for them were true, the damage leafblowers do outweighs such meager benefits by many, many orders of magnitude. Thanks to decades of relentless lobbying by their manufacturers, the two-cylinder engines that drive leafblowers have never been regulated by any Federal or State agency. The engines, as a result, are crude, cheap, and inefficient, as well as harmful to the environment and everything living in it. Because they are designed to be air-cooled, the engines release 100% of their tailgate emissions directly into the environment, and since they also burn fuel very inefficiently, a leafblower running for one hour emits as many hydrocarbons and other pollutants into the atmosphere as a car driven at 55 mph for 110 miles. The noise leafblowers make is hideous. Although they operate on only two cylinders, these machines run at at speeds roughly three times faster than a car's. In the process lots of energy is released in the form of high frequency sound waves with decibel levels that far exceed acceptable limits. The incessant, high-pitched whine of a single leafblower in the distance is enough to set peoples' teeth on edge; a couple of blowers going nearby can push almost anyone to the brink of homicide. The idea that leafblowers save time - which is the one and only argument for using them - is outrageous, since it implies that the time stolen from the rest of us is worthless. Using these hideously noisy, highly polluting machines on sidewalks and driveways is bad enough. Turning them on lawns and gardens, beneath shrubs, between hedges, and around the trunks of trees - as everyone is obviously doing these days - is irrational. Unless, that is, the people who are doing it are landscape professionals, in which case it is negligent, almost to the point of criminal. If that seems extreme, consider that wind blows from the nozzles of these machines at speeds in the range of 180 mph. Winds of that force do not occur naturally on Earth, except inside hurricanes and tornadoes. Worse, still, because the wind is carrying away large quantities of heat from the hyperactive engine, it is also very hot and exceedingly dry. Subjecting everything at ground level to blasts of hot, dry, hurricane-force winds would be ill-advised at any time, since it cannot fail to injure plants and open pathways for pests and disease, while at the same time aiding and abetting the pathogens by distributing them over the widest possible area. In the summer, though, when the air is hot and the ground is dry and the plants are dehydrated and badly stressed to begin with, subjecting them to tornadic blasts of hot, dry air is, nonsensical, to put it kindly. Leafblowers literally scour the earth: stripping off topsoil, desiccating roots, and killing vital soil-dwelling organisms, while, at the same time, propelling into the air clouds of dirt, dust and dangerous contaminants: volatile compounds, mold and fungal spores, weed seeds,

insect eggs, pollen, molecules of the myriads of toxic chemicals people spray and sprinkle on their gardens, trees, and lawns, not to mention bird and rodent feces, and more. It goes without saying (but must be said anyway), that leafblowers pose the greatest threat to the health and hearing of the untold numbers of landscape workers who use them on a daily basis, in most cases without adequate protective equipment, for intervals that far exceed OSHA guidelines. Unfortunately, the workers themselves tend to exaggerate the benefits and deny the risks of blowing leaves with machines, which they strongly favor over rakes, for reasons that probably have more to do with symbolism than practicality. Ironically, leafblowers were not invented to blow leaves; they were originally designed as crop dusters. In other words, they didn't come about in response to a genuine need for a mechanized solution to the leaf-removal problem. Because there wasn't any problem. Now we do have a problem, but it isn't leaves, it's these infernal machines. Gasoline-driven leafblowers have been banned in scores of California counties, including Los Angeles and hundreds of municipalitiesacross the U.S. and Canada, and none of the horrors that were predicted by landscapers - untidy lawns, escalating costs, declining property values - has ever come to pass. The phenomenal proliferation of leafblowers has far more to do with marketing than efficiency; indeed, when all the real costs are factored in their alleged benefits don't even begin to justify their penalties and risks. Cheap to produce, priced to sell, and aggressively marketed, the real function of leafblowers is to rake in money for the huge corporations that manufacture them. By Winifred Rosen, Guest Commentator DrWeil.com News

Ordenanza sobre sopladores de hojas CITY OF NEWTON CONTACT US Ordenanza No. A-100 For more information about leaf blower use ¿Por qué el cambio? NEW LEAF BLOWER in Newton, visit newtonma.gov/leafblower en el 201/, el consejo de la Cuidad de Newton paso La Ordenanza de Sopladores de Hojas, para regular el uso y controlar el ruido asociado con estas máquinas. Importancia de la regia ORDINANCE El uso de todos los sopladores de hojas marcados a más de 65 decibeles están prohibidos en la cuidad de Newton. No hay excepciones. Las fechas y las horas del uso de los sopladores bajo el requisito estan estrictamente reguladas. Aquellos que violen la ley serán multados. Prohibición temporal para todos los sopladores de gas Fechas prohibidas: Los meses de verano. De Memorial Day hasta Labor Day. Fechas Permitidas: Los sopladores de hojas de gasolina, eléctricos y de bateria que están marcado a 65 decibeles o menos están permitidos 9 meses del año, esto es después de Labor Day hasta el dia antes de Memorial Day. Solo un soplador de electricidad o de batería es permitido por terreno de tierra entre Memorial Day y Labor Day. Los sopladores de gas están prohibidos en el verano. LEAF BLOWER Please read carefully to find out how Horas de uso permitidas the new regulations affect you and De Lunes a Viernes: de 7:00 a.m. a 5:00 p.m. BEST PRACTICES Sábados: de 8:00 a.m. a 5:00 p.m. how violations will be handled. Domingos y Dias Feriados: Prohibidos excepto a los residentes • Don't point a blower towards people, NEWTON dueños de su propiedad de 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Dueños de 30 o más AND hectáreas pueden usar el soplador de 9:30 a.m.- 12:00 p.m. property, or pets. LIBERTX * 1813 Penalidades • Ira ofensa: advertencia • Make sure bystanders are at least • 4ta ofensa: $300.00 escrita 50 feet away. • Cada ofensa subsecuente: 630 $300.00 • 2da ofensa: $100.00 • Work carefully. Be safe, courteous, • 3ra ofensa: $200.00 TUM Las violaciones pueden ser reportadas a Servicios de Inspección al (617) and responsible. 796-1063 o al departamento de Policia de Newton al [phone removed].

ENFORCEMENT SEASONAL BAN FOR ALL WHY THE CHANGE? GAS-POWERED LEAF BLOWERS Leaf blower violations should be reported to In 2017, the Newton City Council Inspectional Services at [phone removed] Dates Prohibited: The Summer Months passed a Leaf Blower Ordinance and/or Memorial Day through Labor Day. (law) to regulate the use and to control the noise associated with To the Newton Police Department at (617) Only one electric or battery-powered leaf 796-2100. Wait for the prompt for dispatch. these machines. blower per lot is allowed to be used between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Gas-powered KEY PROVISIONS OF THE LAW leat blowers, regardless of decibel levels, are prohibited during the summer. The use of all leaf blowers above 65 decibels is prohibited in the City of DATES OF ALLOWED USE Newton. There are no exceptions. Gas, electric or battery-powered leaf blowers labeled at or below 65 65% Category Measured at 50f (15m) per ANSI B175.2 decibels are allowed for nine months PENALTIES a year from the day after Labor Day Dates and hours of permitted use of leaf to the day before Memorial Day. blowers meeting the noise requirement 1ST VIOLATION: Written warning will be given to the person or company using are strictly regulated HOURS OF ALLOWED USE the leaf blower. Violators will be fined. 2ND VIOLATION: $100 fine Mon - Fri: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3RD VIOLATION: $200 fine Saturdays: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 4TH VIOLATION: $300 fine Sundays and Legal Holidays: Prohibited EACH SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION: $300 fine except by residents on their own property Property owners will be notified of the between 9:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and by penalties. owners of 30 or more contiguous acres of property between 9:30 a.m. and noon.

City of Newton's Noise Ordinance is found at Section 20-13 of the City Ordinances: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/45829. The re- strictions of use of leafblowers is contained in Section 20-13 (h). Restrictions on use of leaf blowers. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 20-13 (f) and (g), on or after January 1, 2017 no person, including any City employee or contractor, shall use or operate a leaf blower within the City of Newton from Memorial Day through Labor Day in each year, except that one 65 dB(A) electric or battery powered leaf blower per lot may be used during this period. At all other times leaf blowers may be operated subject to the following provisions: (1) Permitted hours of use. Leaf blowers may be operated only during the following times: Monday - Friday: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., except that the City of Newton, through its Parks and Recreation Department, shall be allowed to use leaf blowers prior to 7:00 a.m. for the sole purpose of maintaining city village centers. Saturday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Sundays and legal holidays: prohibited except for operation by a resident of the property on which the leaf blower is operated between 9:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; and except for operation of leaf blowers on contiguous lots under single ownership that total a minimum of thirty acres used for institutional or recreational purposes between 9:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. (2) Only leaf blowers meeting the following criteria are permitted for use: A. Leaf blowers must be manufactured after January 1, 2005 for EPA Class 4 engines and after January 1, 2008 for EPA Class 5 engines; B. Leaf blowers must bear an affixed manufacturer's label indicating the model number of the leaf blower; C. Leaf blowers must bear an affixed manufacturer's label documenting a noise rating of 65 dB(A) or less; and D. Leaf blowers may only be used with any muffler, full extension tube and sound attenuating devices supplied by the manufacturer of the leaf blower. Non-factory modifi- cations are not permitted. (3) During times of emergency caused by a storm or other special circumstance, the Mayor or his designee may temporarily suspend application of all or a portion of this section for purposes of cleaning up from such storm or other special circumstance. (4) The provisions of section 20-13 (i) shall not apply to leaf blower operation.

Lopez, Donna Katherine Stahl <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 7:00 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: I support the leaf blower ban I could not make the hearing, but / want to raise my voice against the noise and polluting fumes generated by leaf blowers. Citizens around the country are standing up with facts and concern for our environment that leaf blowers present. Time to embrace the new normal— we are going to fry and flood if we don't cut back emissions. Please ban Thank you, Katherine A Stahl 48 Sparks Street Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] (c) Sent from my iPhone ::

Atlachment 23-30 Lopez, Donna From: Maxwell Solet < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:40 PM To: Lopez, Donna; City Council Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on Leaf Blowers Members of the City Council: I am Maxwell Solet of 15 Berkeley Street in Cambridge. I regret that I have a prior commitment today and therefore am unable to attend the hearing of the Ordinance Committee with respect to the citizen petition as to leaf blowers. Therefore, 1 am submitting this statement and ask that it be included in the record There are many good reasons to oppose use of leaf blowers, including damage to health and plant life, as well as noise issues affecting quality of life in the city. There are hardly any reasons to support their use. I am sure you will receive persuasive testimony to that effect. I would like to focus here only on the question of enforcement. Cambridge deserves credit for having been an early national leader by adopting the current leaf blower ordinance in 2007. I Would note that it is a flawed attempt. For example, the decibel limitations, providing for measurement at 50 feet and for use of an averaging through the audible range, do not adequately address the real disruption to those nearby. What I want to emphasize here is that experience over the intervening twelve years has demonstrated that the enforcement mechanism is so fatally flawed as to make even this inadequate ordinance ineffectual. The License Commission, which has direct jurisdiction over the current leaf blower ordinance, does not have ready access to vehicles nor to sufficient measuring equipment. It may even be closed for business when violations occur, for example evenings, weekends, and holidays. Further, it has multiple areas of important responsibility which preclude it from staffing leaf blower enforcement adequately. The situation for the Police Department is perhaps worse. While the police do have readily available vehicles, police officers are not trained and equipped to measure noise violations. Further, they quite properly feel that their principal duty is to deal with real crime." None of us can argue with that assertion. In effect, the current ordinance relies on citizen complaints to drive enforcement by identifying violations. However, many, if not most, Cambridge residents do not even know there are leaf blower limitations. If they know, they do not know what those limitations are and when they are being violated, and, if they know that, they still do not know who to call. Perhaps more important, a complaint driven process requires citizens to actively oppose and confront their neighbors or their neighbors' contractors. Many citizens are reluctant to do so because of their interest in maintaining good relations. Finally, even if a citizen does file a complaint, the result is a hearing scheduled

weeks later, requiring the citizen to attend in order for there to be any likelihood that a violation will be determined to have occurred. The current system allows users of leaf blowers to claim lack of knowledge of the details. It encourages them to use blowers in reliance on an expectation that lax enforcement will allow such use to go unpunished in most instances, treating the occasional reported violation and the resulting fine as a mere cost of doing business. An absolute ban would be easy to describe, easy to publicize, and substantially easier to enforce. I urge you to approve the citizen petition.

Atlachment 23-21 Lopez, Donna From: Elizabeth Seelman < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 11:43 AM To: Lopez, Donna Leafblowers Subject: Just read about the hearing - the actual legislation is not terrible, but | do sympathize with those completely opposed to them. It is hard to enforce the hours if you are a neighbor awakened at 8 on a Saturday when they are supposed to wait til 9. Also, the dust and general air quality of the city is so bad from construction etc at this point that the debris blowing through the air must contain a large quantity of allergens - mold, dust, animal feces, etc. which just adds to health problems. Not to mention that awful noise. Rakes work!!! Liz Seelman 25 Richard Ave Cambridge 02140 h [phone removed] w [phone removed]

Attachment 23-25 Lopez, Donna From: John Tyson <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 5:30 PM To: Lopez, Donna Co: City Council Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee hearing on leaf blowers. I am sorry that | just found out that I cannot attend the meeting tonight. I would like to submit this comment: As a Cambridge resident of 40 years and homeowner 1 wholeheartedly support a complete banning of leaf blowers! They are a completely unnecessary source of noise and air pollution. Thank you very much for your kind consideration. Yours sincerely, John Tyson 310 1/2 Pearl Street Cambridge 02139 [phone removed] The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. ~ Gandhi :

Attachment 23-23 Lopez, Donna From: John Vyhnanek < [email removed]> Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:07 PM To: Lopez, Donna Leaf Blowers Subject: Hello, I understand the issue but I feel that home owners, who use electric ones on their property, should be given a break and especially seniors who rely on tools like this. Gardeners spend a lot of money on plants of all kinds and by using a blower, they avoid the damage rakes can cause, they too should be allowed to use them. For me, both a senior and gardner, I don't need the added expense of hiring someone to rake leaves any tidy my small yard. Please echo my concern if I can't attend the meeting. Yes, the commercial monsters should be banned and landscapers need to go back to basics. John Vyhnanek :. 600 Green St.

Alachment 23-24 Lopez, Donna From: Jai Wilson <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 4:02 PM To: Lopez, Donna Ban leaf blowers Subject: I would like to support the idea of banning mechanical leaf blowers in Cambridge, to be discussed this Wednesday by the City Council. The current ordinance simply doesn't work. Several residents on my street hire yard work companies and, without exception, they all use leaf blowers all year long, creating both awful noise, clouds of dust, and, very often, leaves, weeds and grass clippings blown into the street. Manual raking and sweeping is a much healthier option, all around. Thank you, Judith Wilson 36 Jay Street Sent from my iPad ...

Atachment 23-25 Lopez, Donna From: Wescoat <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 7:18 AM To: City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna Subject: Letter for Ordinance Committee Meeting on May 1 -- Leaf Blower Ban Attachments: _Leaf Blower Citizen Petition & Signatures 2019 -6129.pdf Dear Ordinance Committee Members, We are writing to express our concern about fossil fuel powered leaf blowers. We agree with all six of the points in the petition's statement of purpose: many leaf blowers, especially gasoline powered, are inefficient, and they omit high levels of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals; they are harmful to the health of users and everyone nearby; they disturb and kill pollinators and blow topsoil away; they do not support the City's goal of sustainability; and they do not necessarily provide optimal landscape maintenance, all the while being extremely noisy even within the City's decibel limits. Many of the leaf blower regulations of 2016 are impossible to enforce given the large number of the machines being used in Cambridge. Moreover, leaf blowers are often used in a way that exacerbates the situation by blowing dirt and debris into the air and street rather than removing it. In general, fallen leaves are beneficial to plants by nourishing the soil, holding, cooling, and retaining moisture in topsoil, and providing habitat for pollinators, and other insects that birds need for food. They serve the same purpose as mulch, and stay in place once they are wet. While we understand that excessive amounts of leaves must be managed in the fall, and that large properties can pose challenges, we urge the City to use leaf blowers only in exceptional situations, and use only the most efficient electric models. Small and medium sized properties would be better served with brooms and rakes, and the landscape workers and everyone else would benefit. Cambridge Mothers Out Front urges the City to greatly strengthen leaf blower regulations, and ban the majority of them on small and medium sized properties, as a component of a quiet, livable, sustainable future. Sincerely yours, Sharon DeVos, Kristine Jelstrup, Hannah Mahoney, Mina Reddy, Ginger Ryan, Florrie Wescoat 1

Cambridge Mothers Out Front Community Organizing Team On Sunday, April 28, 2019, 2:41:07 PM EDT, Mina Reddy <[email removed]> wrote: Thanks, Florrie. No, I don't think it has been circulated. Perhaps you could send it out now so people can think about it before the meeting. I'll add it to the agenda. Mina On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 2:15 PM Wescoat <[email removed]> wrote: Hi Mina, Yes, I can report on the webinar. One more item for the agenda is the draft letter for the May 1 hearing on banning leaf blowers. I sent it to you and Ginger, but don't know if it's been circulated to all COT members? Florrie On Sunday, April 28, 2019, 2:00:38 PM EDT, Mina Reddy <[email removed]> wrote: Hello COT. It's such a busy time! We are meeting tomorrow at my house, 103 Auburn Street, from 6-8 pm. We will focus mainly on the ongoing and upcoming activities. Here is a draft agenda: 1. May 6th event 2. Postcards--Florrie, were you on the statewide call? Can you report? 3. Canvassing 4. Tabling 5. Coordinator transition 6. Leadership Academy Anything else? Congratulations to Kristine on an excellent speech at the Harvard Divestment rally. Mina 2

Attachment 23-26 Lopez, Donna From: Andrea Williams < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:48 PM To: Lopez, Donna; City Council Subject: May 1 Ordinance Comm. Hearing on Leaf Blowers Dear Councillors and Ms. Lopez, I am unable to attend today's hearing so am submitting my comments in lieu of speaking. Please enter them in the I strongly support a ban on leaf blowers. Rather than reiterate the environmental and health problems that I'm sure others will cite, I'll address, briefly, livability in an increasingly dense city. There is so much noise pollution that we cannot avoid - road reconstruction comes to mind after 4+ years of that in my neighborhood - that it has become more important than ever to control noise that isn't inevitable. Not only for those of us who work, or just need to be able to think, at home or in other not-soundproof buildings, but for everyone who walks or bikes through the city, sits in a park or backyard or front porch. Leaf blower noise, with varying pitch and intensity and volume, is peculiarly intrusive and unignorable, (earplugs don't help) and completely unnecessary. Being 63, I remember the Pre Leafblower Age, when raking and sweeping sufficiently handled our leaf litter.. It's time to return to that. Sincerely, Andrea Williams 176 Appleton St.

Attachment 23-27 Lopez, Donna From: Christopher Young <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:39 PM To: Lopez, Donna Leaf blowers should be banned Subject: They make around 90 dB of deafening noise. The industry got the EPA to have a misleading measurement standard: It gets a stamp of approval if it's under 65 dB as measured from 50 feet away in an open field. That ignores the fact that walls and buildings are going to channel the 90 dB noise emitted at the nozzle for hundreds of feet. The noise is louder than a chainsaw and they're used for hours and throttled up and down. This directly causes severe stress, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular deterioration. Millions of people are now protected by bans on leaf blowers, including all of Los Angeles and the nation of Israel. Cambridge, as an extremely densely populated area, can't afford the health assault of these things any longer. The two-stroke engines release 30% of their fuel-oil mixture practically unburned. This includes benzene and other dangerous carcinogens. 1 leafblower operating for an hour is worse than a pickup truck traveling across the country in terms of pollution. As a commenter on NextDoor for West Cambridge pits it, it's the height of inconsideration to put saving a few bucks off your landscaping bill ahead of your neighbors peace, we'll-being, and health: «Nothing wrong with a leaf blower, if you have ear plugs and don't five a damn about your neighbors. My suggestion is to buy a rake, enjoy the work and don't be stupid! This argument has been going on for years and the landscaping companies always get their way. The croup de grace is that the police and the licensing department refuse to enforce the existing ordinances. Enforcement is non existent . Ten bucks goes to the first person who gets the licensing department to actually answer the phone. Money talks and you will continue to look out your window at 8 in the morning to see some kid blow dirt around. Again, buy a rake.>> Sent from my iPhone 1

Attachment 24-1 Lopez, Donna From: Catherine Alexandrov < [email removed]> Monday, April 8, 2019 12:44 PM Sent: Lopez, Donna To: Leaf Blower Subject: Hi there, I just heard about the [RIDICULOUS] petition to ban leaf blowers in Cambridge. I [and my husband] own four properties in Cambridge. The one I use the leaf blower the most on is my own driveway, where my kids play. Thanks to a wind-tunnel on Franklin Street, all sorts of debris blow into the driveway all spring-summer long [less so in winter]. All this debris includes gross cigarette butts, trash, etc -not just leaves as the flyer indicates. Unless the city plans to send employees to my driveway and patio to hand sweep the trash EVERY WEEK from May thru the end of September, I am vehemently opposed to this petition. As an active walker and biker throughout the city of Cambridge, I would certainly say that leaf blowing is NOT a major noise problem! And I'm not just referring to my personal neighborhood. I really can't even believe this has come up as an issue. We should be grateful our residents are interested in taking care of their properties! And furthermore, given the climate we live in, the leaf-blowing only really occurs for a fraction of the year. I would say the only reasonable restriction on using a leaf blower the same noise restrictions we have for other things [like music or construction] not too early [ie, maybe not before 8am] and not too late, say not after 9pm. Thank you, and please consider these to by my "written remarks" to be used for the committee report submission. Sincerely, Catherine Alexandrov 406 Franklin Street, 158 Western Avenue, 215 Western Avenue, 28 Howard Street Catherine E. Alexandrov, COO Big Skinny Corporation 215 Western Avenue | Cambridge MA 02139 World's Thinnest Wallets, Solving the Top 5 Wallet Problems BigSkinny.com [phone removed] 1

Attachment 24-2 Lopez, Donna From: Ellen Baker < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 7:49 AM To: Lopez, Donna Fwd: Leaf Blowers Subject: Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ellen Baker <[email removed]> Date: April 4, 2019 at 7:47:31 AM EDT To: Council@cambridgema.gov Subject: Leaf Blowers Dear Council Members, I am opposed to the banning of leaf blowers. As a 77 year old retiree, periodically, I need help with the garden. The helpers usually use leaf blowers. In addition, I have an electric blower, which I can use when necessary. Please do not ban leaf blowers. Ellen Baker 18 Saville Street Sent from my iPad

Attochment 24-3 Lopez, Donna From: Ecoquiet lawn care < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 8:53 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: eric eat blowes vs gs leaf blowers. Hello, I have been using electric leaf blowers for 4 years professionally at Ecoquiet Lawn Care LLC. I think that implementing a way to support businesses change to use electric leaf blowers more is a better option compared to this law. Although I think this law has come about due to frustration of lack of adoption from the DPW and other businesses. This year electric leaf blowers are making a big step up in choice and power. I suggest giving time before making further changes to an already difficult change. If you want advice on which electric leaf blowers to use please let me know. George P Carrette [email removed] (978)201-0061 1

Attochment 24-4 Lopez, Donna From: [email removed] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:09 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: Hearing May 1 Dear Ms. Lopez, I would like my comments to be part of the hearing on Leaf Blowers, May 1, 2019. As a resident home owner and senior citizen who takes pride in keeping up the yard and sidewalks, 1 am against a blanket ban on leaf blowers in the city for residential use. I have a small, quiet electric leaf blower which I use in between landscaping clean-ups in the late summer, heading towards fall. A blanket ban prohibiting the use of ALL leaf blowers is not reasonable and totally disregards those with property to maintain, particularly the senior resident homeowners of Cambridge. The Huron Area still has many very old maple trees which yield dozens of bags in one's back yard and on the City sidewalks. Cambridge has also planted fairly new trees which drop leaves and blossoms now as they mature. More leaves/more work! Please consider the Seniors who need the use of small electric gardening tools such as the leaf blower. Also, retirees living on a pension will not be able to afford the hike in landscaping fees once this ban is implemented. Thank you, Corinne Davis 35 Saville St Camb, MA 02138

Attachment 24-5 One Kendall Square, Building 600 Suile 6-105. Cambridge MA 02139 CAMBRIDGE [phone removed] | cambridgechamber.org CHAMBER 0/ COMMERCE [email removed] President and CEO May 1, 2019 David P. Maher Board Chair Jay Kely The Honorable Dennis Carlone, Chair Brookfield Properties The Honorable Craig Kelley, Chair Secretary Members of the Ordinance Committee Robyn Culbertson Office for Tourism Cambridge City Hall Treasurer Cambridge MA, 02139 Stephen Meunier Sanoft Genzyme Board Members Dear Chairmen and Committee Members: Alex Attia The Churles Hotel The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce would like to go on record opposing the petition Richard Sullivan Santander Bank before you that would ban the use of leaf blowers in the City of Cambridge. rian Burk Microsol As you are aware, the City already has thoughtfully vetted regulations for the use of leaf Kelly Flynn Takeda blowers. Currently, the use of leaf blowers is banned for several months of the year but allowed during specific times for spring and fall clean-ups. The existing ordinance sets operational Sarah Gallop MIT requirements for equipment, contractors, and large property owners. Prior to the adoption of Holly Heslop this leaf blower ordinance, several Chamber members participated on a task force that Cambridge Eats & Beats researched the use of leaf blowers. At that time, low decibel blowers were discussed, and the Sean Hope consensus of the working group was that a single 65db leaf blower was quiet and unoffending. Hope Legal Services Paul Lee Hong Kong Restaurunt Since the adoption of Cambridge's current leaf blower ordinance, manufacturers have Jeffrey Lockwood developed quieter engines and fans changing the pitch of the sound leaf blowers emit. Also, EPA Novartis regulations has resulted in the manufacture of leaf blowers that emits 80% less harmful Thomas Luccy Harvard University greenhouse gases than their older counterparts. Joseph Maguire Alexandria Real Estate A permanent ban on all leaf blowers, affects residents, commercial land owners and Jim MeSweeney institutions. Today, the cost to employ green industry labor is very high. The increased cost of CIP Group time spent performing work by hand will be passed on to Cambridge residents. Additionally, Michael Medeiros Royal Sonesta Hote companies will not be able to continue to service the Cambridge community, because of the Gikla Nogueira increase in economic and human cost necessary to do business in the City. East Cambridge Savings Bank The Chamber believes this permanent ban of leaf blowers is an exceedingly onerous Yayne Patenaud Cambridge Savings Ban requirement. Thus, we ask that the proposed petition not move forward and keep the current therine Raffer leaf blower ordinance intact. ount Auburn Hospi Sincerely, Deborah Sune * Cobeth Sebal Nana ENorotue Bill Zamparelli Nancy E. Donohue Eversource Director of Government and Community Relations meritus Membe Barrel James Hawkins Norman Mclver

Attachment 24-6 Lopez, Donna From: Cecily Epstein < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:43 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers." Hello, Please do not pass the proposed leaf blower ban. This would create an unnecessary burden on residents to clean up leaves manually. We are more likely to have clogged street drains and I fear it may motivate some to reduce tree canopy in an effort to limit leaf debris that will need to be raked manually. Best, Cecily Epstein 58 Lakeview Ave. Sent from my iPhone

Attachmet 24-7 Lopez, Donna Meade <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:06 PM Lopez, Donna To: Subject: Leaf blowing I cannot make the meeting tonight regarding leaf blowing in the town of Cambridge but I would like to voice my opinion as far as large areas go. Golf courses especially should be able to use the leaf blowers as well as parks and graveyards and other large areas. Perhaps there should be a time element to this but I think it Will be difficult for these parcels of land if they cannot use a leaf blower. Meade Fasciano 86 Foster St. Sent from my iPhone :

ban on leaf blowers 4/30/2019 Attachment From: steingood <[email removed]> 24.8 To: dlopez <[email removed]> Subject: ban on leaf blowers Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2019 11:32 am Dear Donna Lopez and members of the City Council, I am writing to you regarding the possible ban on all leaf blowers in Cambridge, I have had a landscaper for several years at my home in Cambridge. I am fortunate to have a big yard and side grassy areas. The actual "blowing" takes very little time. The cutting takes longer. (please don't think about banning lawn mowers too). I am home when Tom Willard and his team arrive and leave. They NEVER arrive early and the whole process disturbs NO ONE. I know of three others that enjoy services of Tom's Landscaping. I do not want to see "hand raking" take the place of blowers. It will increase the time needed for all services. I urge you to please reconsider and leave the current situation as it is. Respectfully Diane Goodwin 224 Lakeview Ave Cambridge, MA 02138 [email removed] retired city of Cambridge employee 2019 APR 30 PM 2:12 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 1/1 https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage

Attachment 24-9 Lopez, Donna From: Patricia Lorsch <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 11:08 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowing As a long-time Cambridge resident who has gone from being a young woman who could, indeed, not only buy a rake but spend hours on my knees planting the garden myself to an older woman who can no longer do all those physically demanding things, I can't support a total ban on leaf blowers. I could certainly support some instituting of hours during which leaf blowers not be used -- early in the morning, for example and late afternoon and into the dinner hours, but a complete ban would be a hardship on many people. As the owner of a large property which was purchased back when the real estate market was in a slump and we could afford the big house and grounds for our young family of five children the fact that real estate prices have soared doesn't mean that we're dot-com millionaires! And I'm sure there are many others in our position. Maintaining a neat and attractive property is costly as it is and if we had to pay for raking time of our 3/4 of an acre that would substantially increase that cost. I am sure some sort of compromise can be reached. When my neighbors or their gardening helpers turn on the leaf blowers, if I'm bothered I can close my windows, turn on some music or otherwise find some way to do something more useful than cursing the noise. Some give and take on both sides strikes me as not only possible but desirable. Sincerely, Patricia Lorsch, 108 Washington Avenue, Cambridge, 02140

Attachment 24-10 Lopez, Donna Kin Lo < [email removed]> From: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:28 PN Lopez, Donna To: Subject: Opposition to proposed changes to Leaf Blower Ordinance I understand and respect the arguments on both sides of the issue, but believe reasonable exceptions need to be made for city parks & rec properties and others who maintain large commercial spaces. I'm willing to do my part as a resident whether 1 personally agree or not on many things, but this ordinance would compromise the ability to adequately care for the highly-valued parks and common spaces in our city. Kin Lo 571 Franklin Street Cambridge MA 02139 [phone removed])

Attachment 24-11 Lopez, Donna From: George Mabry < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:57 AM To: Lopez, Donna Kelley, Craig; City Council Cc: Subject: Comments on Citizen's Petition to change the Noise Ordinance Hello, I cannot make the meeting tonight, but wanted to voice my opposition to the Citizen's Petition that will impose a ban on the use of leaf blowers. The current Leaf Blower Ordinance strikes the correct balance between the need to maintain property in a cost effective way and the inevitable sound from leaf blowers. Living in a city involves many experiences that might be considered undesirable: police and fire sirens; trash and recycling pickups; general traffic noise; barking from dogs (and gobbles from turkeys!); even general pedestrian conversations and noise from school children playing. That is part of city life, and the bargain we pay for the convenience and benefits of living in an urban environment. Raking is an inefficient and expensive method to remove leaves from lawns, and not an option to remove leaves and debris from areas like shrubbery and ground cover. A ban will impose a burden on those who own properties, as well as on those who rent, where that additional cost will inevitably be passed along in their monthly rent. Keeping the current regulations that restrict the hours, days, and times of year that leaf blowers can operate is a reasonable accomodation to those particularly sensitive the sound. The proposed ban will make it impossible to maintain the places we live to the level homeowners-and probably the petitioners-want, and is an unreasonable burden on those of us who diligently work to keep properties looking good. Thank you, George Mabry 77 Sparks St. Cambridge 1

Attachment 24-13 Lopez, Donna From: Joanne McLernon <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:51 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers. I am a homeowner in Cambridge (24A Clifton Street), and I am against the leaf-blower ban. Not everyone has the physical mobility and strength to use a rake. Common sense should prevail here... instead of an outright ban, restrict usage to daylight hours, Monday through Friday. I mean, if you're going to ban leaf blowers, you should be consistent and ban lawnmowers and snowblowers. And there's no way a lot of people can manage without those tools. Sincerely, Joanne McLernon 24A Clifton Street, Cambridge ... i.

Attachment 24-13 Lopez, Donna From: Stephen Michaels < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:25 AM To: McGovern, Marc; Toomey, Tim; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Zondervan, Quinton; Mallon, Alanna; Simmons, Denise; Carlone, Dennis; Devereux, Jan Cc: City Clerk Subject: Amendment to Noise Ordinance banning leaf blowers Dear City Council Members: I am a 20-year Cambridge resident living at 82 Tremont Street, Apt. 2. Through the landscaping company that our condominium association employs to maintain our lawn and gardens, Kosko Landscaping, I have become aware that, on May 1, the City Council will be considering the adoption of an amendment to the City's Noise Ordinance that will ban all use of leaf blowers in the city. I am concerned that the passage of this amendment will significantly increase the amount of labor and time required to maintain even small yards such as our condo association's, thereby increasing the costs our small (4 unit) association pays each year to keep our lawn and garden neat and attractive. I would like to note that our lot is one of only three properties on our block of Tremont Street (between Cambridge and Hampshire Streets) with lawn and garden planted with flowers and flowering shrubs visible from the street, and thus contributes to the attractiveness and value of our neighborhood when it is well-maintained. I have reviewed the current Noise Ordinance sections pertaining to leaf blowers, which are already extremely restrictive as to hours of operation, noise levels, permitting, and where and how blowers may be used. While I understand the concerns about noise and dust, I firmly believe the current restrictions are adequately balanced between the needs and rights of homeowners whose properties require maintenance using leaf blowers and the concerns of abutters. The current Ordinance even notes the City's own need to use leaf blowers in its parks and other public spaces. Thus I am opposed to this complete ban on leaf blowers and urge you to retain the current ordinance as is, and please vote against adopting this ban. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephen L. Michaels Stephen L. Michaels 82 Tremont St., Apt. 2 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA [email removed]

Attachmett 24-14 Lopez, Donna From: Pattie Maes <[email removed]> Sent: To: Subiect: While I agree that the noise that leaf blowers make is annoying, I strongly disagree with the proposal on a complete ban,. as they are necessary. Instead I would recommend that the city restricts their use to weekdays from 9-5pm, or something similar. Pattie Maes Cambridge resident

Attachment 24.15 Lopez, Donna Lauree Mansour < [email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:15 AM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers We are AGAINST the proposal to ban leaf blowers. Thank you, Lauree Mansour

Attachment 2416 Richard H. Nurse 92 Grozier Road Cambridge, MA 02138 April 27, 2019 City of Cambridge Ordinance Meeting May 1, 2019 Dear Clerk, Dear Council, Leaf BlowerOrdinance discussion I request that the Council make an intelligent exception to the proposed ban of the use of leaf blowers for City parks and specifically the Fresh Pond Golf Course on Huron Avenue. The efficient operation of a golf course needs active leaf removal over a large area. Manual raking would only be possible by employing a small army of workers. This is impractical and would be excessively expensive. Fresh Pond Golf Course is a very treasured asset in Cambridge, which provides enjoyment and exercise to many residents. It is a positive income stream for the City as well. The option to limit the use of leaf blowers to 200ft from the property line also is not practical. The Council may wish to take note of the experience of both Arlington and Lexington that enacted rules to prohibit the domestic/private garden use of leaf blowers. After a period the ordinance was repealed in both cases apparently because of the dramatic cost increase of landscaping services as manual labor costs escalated. I am not able to attend due work commitments out of state, hence this written opinion. I remain respectfully, Richard H Nurse

Altachment 24-17 Lopez, Donna From: Ron Peeples < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:36 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: Opposition to Proposed Cambridge Leaf Blower Ban Dear Members of the Cambridge Ordinance Committee and City Council: I am writing with regard to the proposal to ban the use of leaf blowers within the city of Cambridge. My wife and I are owners in a small condominium complex in East Cambridge. We are blessed with a courtyard that contains 10 thirty foot River Birches and the same number of 22 year old Wisteria vines. Their only downside is that they produce a tremendous amount of leaves, seed pods and other biomass that I am tasked with cleaning up and removing Over the periods allowed in the current leaf blower ordinance, I typically remove over 60 bags of yard waste. This waste, if not collected, would end up in the streets and sewers and provide shelter for the rats and other vermin that we constantly fight to eradicate. Additionally, our courtyard collects a tremendous amount of plastic and paper garbage that blows down Fifth Street. I have found that using a leaf blower is the most efficient and effective way to maintain our courtyard. Raking our cement block and asphalt courtyard or letting the leaves decompose in place is not a viable option. I am careful to meet the requirements of the current leaf blower ordinance and minimize any noise and disturbance to our neighbors. To date, I have not received one complaint. I understand the reason for the current ordinance and am comfortable operating within its conditions. I believe, however, that an outright ban is both unreasonable and unnecessary. Living in a mixed commercial and residential area, we deal with noise constantly during the day. Whether it is from construction, large air handling units, large trucks, emergency vehicles, and so on, we do our best to understand that some level of noise is a part of our environment and accommodate it. Please do not selectively remove this tool from our arsenal to effectively maintain a clean and sanitary environment. Sincerely, Ronald E. Peeples 243 Bent Street Cambridge, MA 02141

Attachmet 24-18 Lopez, Donna From: Mary Shillue-Goldberg < [email removed]> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:01 AM To: City Council; Lopez, Donna No ban on leaf blowers Subject: Dear Councillors: I strongly oppose a ban on leaf blowers. There are already restrictions in place. I cannot attend the city council meeting on April 4th as I will be attending a fundraiser for CitySprouts, but otherwise I would have liked to voice my opinion. I agree with a poster on NextDoor, who called this proposed ban a "classist, ableist, ageist, privileged idea." This thread was in response to a post from Councillor Kelley. The City has a responsibility to think of it's elderly and disabled residents, and those unable to afford landscaping services. I would also like to point out that a commenter on NextDoor falsely stated that Brookline has a (complete) ban. From a local article: " In Brookline, leaf blowers are banned between May 16 and Sept. 30, and between Jan. 1 and March 14. During any of the permitted days, leaf blowers are allowed, as long as they comply with noise level restrictions, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and holidays" I would like my comments to be part of the record for the April 4th and/or 1 May Ordinance Committee meeting. Kind regards, Mary Shillue-Goldberg 8 Clifton Street Cambridge, MA 02140

Atlachment 24-19 Lopez, Donna From: DePasquale, Louie Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 3:25 PM To: Lopez, Donna Fwd: Leaf Blower Ordinance Concern Subject: Sent from Outlook Mobile From: Steve Watson <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:57:19 PM To: DePasquale, Louie Cc: Dorothy Hanna Subject: Leaf Blower Ordinance Concern I can't make today's 5:30 p.m. hearing to discuss a petition to amend the Municipal Code in Chapter 8. 16 entitled "Noise Control" by deleting sections 16.081 through 16.081.7 to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City of Cambridge. But I did want to send a short statement on behalf of our church. When we bought this property, it was far less well maintained than it is now. Over the past fourteen years, we've worked hard to ensure that we provide a beautiful and well-maintained physical home for Reservoir Church and for the Benjamin Banneker Public Charter School as well. Additionally, we've spent great energy and funds to make sure that our community and our physical property are a beautiful asset to the city at large and our neighborhood of North Cambridge in particular, including maintaining a clean and beautiful and safe property. Given the size of our property, our landscaping company depends on the modest use of leaf blowers - used within current city limits - to keep the property clean, attractive, and rodent-free, particularly in the fall. Should leaf blowers be prohibited entirely, we would be unable to do so. We don't have the option to divert sufficient money or volunteer resources to raking a fairly large property each fall. Additionally, for the city and for universities to be exempt from a new ban (as we understand they may be) but not to have provision for other larger property owners, particularly community-centered, community-serving non-profits, seems to be untair, unreasonable, and not in the city's best interests. Should the ban advance, please include provision for the seasonal use of leaf blowing for churches or other larger-property, community organizations, in the same manner as you would provide exception for universities and city schools and parks. We look forward to hearing back on this. Thanks so much, Steve Watson Steve Watson Senior Pastor Reservoir Church http://www.reservoirchurch.org/ @reservoirpastor

Attachmett 24-20 Lopez, Donna From: Carolyn <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 1:48 PM To: City Council Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Cc: Proposed Ban on Leaf Blowers Subject: Greetings! My husband and I are traveling and we did not hear about the proposed leaf blower ban until this morning. We wanted to tell you that we feel very strongly that this is two steps too far and we would like this email to be part of the record. This is the City of Cambridge, not a suburb. I love peace and quiet, but a city is not the place to expect that. If it's not a leaf blower, it's a jackhammer (sewer separation project, anyone?), or a car alarm, or trucks backing up, or a very loud car radio at a stop light. Also, there is a significant economic impact. The costs for professional landscaping companies will increase dramatically, which will be passed on and will directly impact homeowners. We were unhappy enough when usage was restricted, but have tried to live with it with limited success. We have a lot of trees proportionate to our small lot and have long gone above and beyond to support the tree canopy. And we now need City approval to remove them if it becomes too much. My husband clears our yard and he often struggles with the current leaf blower restrictions. They seem reasonable on their face, but if you are fully scheduled during the week and then the weather doesn't cooperate and the only day you have to do leaves is Sunday ... you get the idea. And never after 5 pm? What about the homeowner who works and does his/her own yard work to save money? Only on Saturdays? Not realistic. These restrictions were written with very prosperous homeowners in mind who can absorb those costs, not working class people who have lived in Cambridge for generations, (my grandfather, who built our house, was a Cambridge Firefighter), or retirees living primarily on savings, which we are. The Sunday prohibition arguably has religious overtones which may not be politically correct or even legal. Something to think about. I also noticed that the larger City properties are exempt from the restrictions. We love that Cambridge is ahead of the curve on many issues. This is one where we feel we as a city have misstepped. We strongly oppose the ban on leaf blowers. We also support rolling back the restrictions to allow leaf blowing until at least 7 or 8 pm Monday through Saturday and on Sundays, even if it is only half a day. Also, what about one day a week when you can use leaf blowers from June 15 - September 15? It would be interesting to try it for a year and see how much use is made of it, or how many people object. Thank you for your time and consideration. Carolyn Young Frank Yulling Cambridge, MA

Attachment 24-21 Lopez, Donna From: Andrew Yak <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 20199:00 AM To: Lopez, Donna; Kelley, Craig; City Council Subject: Re: petition to amend the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.16 entitled "Noise Control" by deleting sections 16.081 through 16.081.7 to prohibit the use of leaf blowers Greetings, I just wanted to follow up on my comments from February (below) regarding the proposed leaf blower ban for tonight's meeting. Furthermore, in terms of noise, pollution, and frequency of use, there is a huge difference between an industrial gas powered leaf blower and a rechargeable battery operated leaf blower for residential use. They should not be lumped together in one ordinance The two-stroke engines used in most gas powered leaf blowers emit a great deal of toxic substances from their exhaust. Banning these gas powered ones may be an idea to consider, but the proposed (and current) ordinance is far too restrictive as it prohibits private residents from using non-gas powered leaf blowers on their own property. Ban the gas powered ones and industry will be motivated to develop quieter, less pollutive/more energy efficient models. (as seen here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/04/24/electric-leaf-blowers-exist-but-tesla-wants-make-better- one/[phone removed]/) Ban all leaf blowers and the "law" will be broken or businesses will just find a way to circumvent the ban with some other kind of machine. Many thanks, Andrew Yakoobian 238 Putnam Ave. Cambridge On Monday, February 25, 2019, 3:17:03 PM EST, Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> wrote: February 25, 2019 Dear Mr. Yak: Please be advised that your communication was received after the Thursday at 3 PM deadline and will be placed on the March 4, 2019 agenda unless to attend the City Council meeting tonight and submit your communication during public comment. Very truly yours, Donna P. Lopez

City Clerk From: Andrew Yak <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 2:45 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: re: tonight's City Council meeting - Noise Control APP 2019 #11 - petition to amend Chapter 8.16 Dear City Council, I write regarding the petition to amend Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code re: "Leaf Blowers." I am not in favor of such a restriction if it is to prohibit private residents from using non-gas powered leaf blowers on their own property. The language is unclear on whether this applies to private residents and their property. If it is applied to the average citizen with minimal outside space, it is an intrusion on the rights of individuals to maintain and use their space as they see fit. Furthermore, non-gas powered leaf blowers are quieter and have little environmental impact. I do not see the logic of prohibiting leaf blowers specifically, while not prohibiting other noise producing machinery such as cars, radios, chainsaws, power saws, nail guns, etc. Restrictions regarding noise control should be based on decibel levels rather than the machine itself. Why would I be prohibited from using a leaf blower for a few minutes, while the construction company a few houses down is hindering traffic, spreading construction dust and dirt around the neighborhood and making noise all day long? Electric and battery-operated leaf blowers are an effective and safe way to remove debris from gutters, squirrel droppings, tree dust and leaves from porches. Moreover, they are also a quick and effective way to remove water, dust and leaves, from city basketball courts to prevent slipping and possible injuries. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Yakoobian 238 Putnam 2

Attachmert 24-27 Lopez, Donna From: Munirih Yeshwant < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:20 PM To: Lopez, Donna Subject: May 1 Ordinance Committee Hearing on leaf blowers Hello, We live at 10 Garden Terrace in Cambridge. I do not support the leaf blower ban - yards in Cambridge are quite small, and even though l am otten home during the day, don't notice signiticant noise pollution. I do not think this is enoug of a significant issue to justify a city-wide ban. Our landscapers do use leaf blowers, but they only come once every fev weeks for about 30 minutes at a time. It seems overblown (haha) to create a city-wide law. - Munirih Yeshwant :

Attachmust 24-23 Lopez, Donna From: Kate <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 12:52 PM To: Lopez, Donna; City Council Subject: Please don't ban leaf blowers from large open areas Please don't ban leaf blowers from operating in large open recreational areas. The Department of Recreation needs to be commended for providing us with beautifully maintained baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. Fresh Pond Golf Course never looked so good - banning leaf blowers would basically shut it down. Kudos to Bob Carey, Director of Golf, and to all the responsible and dedicated employees of the City of Cambridge who painstakingly maintain our open spaces.. A large number of grateful recipients are dependent upon caretakers who work so hard - - and can't maintain the landscape without leafblowers. Thanks, Kate Zamparelli 7 Emmons Place Sent from Mail for Windows 10