by Adrienne Kandel –
by Adrienne Kandel – The Natural Resources Commission has heard from both types of residents and has proposed to City Council a compromise to preserve much of the pleasure of the former group and avoid much of the pain of the latter. (Click here to read the full proposal).
Many folks have installed EPA Phase II – certified fireplaces in the belief they’d spare the environment and their neighbors, but EPA standards are based on national averages, not on often-stagnant California air basins like our Sacramento Valley. When wind speed falls below 5 mph, these fireplaces give unacceptable smoke dosages to nearest neighbors [4].
Finally, some people have invested in high efficiency stoves that emit more than 3 times less particulate matter than EPA approval requires. After investing in efficient stoves and obtaining City permits for their installation, owners expect to be able to heat their homes with them, saving money if they have a cheap source of wood or pellets. In addition, some residents heat by wood hoping to avoid the carbon footprint of natural gas burning, although the carbon outcome is far from certain. [5]
The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has proposed the following compromise: divide wood burning into 3 categories: open hearth fireplaces which might emit on the order of 60 g/hour of PM2.5 (particulate matter at least 2.5 micrometers wide), EPA-approved fireplaces which can emit up to 7.5 g/hour of PM2.5, and high efficiency fireplaces which emit 2 g/hour.
As long as the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District has not forecast regionally bad air (PM 2.5 above 25 micrograms/m3, which occurs about 1 day in 20), high efficiency fireplaces may run.
Concentrations above 25 micrograms/m3 are recognized as harmful and occur when the air is stagnant and pollutants are building up in the air basin and we need to “spare the air.” If the PM2.5 standard is met and wind speeds are 5 mph or above, EPA-approved stoves may operate. At 10 mph, open hearth fireplaces get to join in.
In consideration of people planning events a day ahead, rules are based on wind speed forecasts rather than actual conditions. A website and phone line inform residents which groups will be able to burn each day. Wood burning would remain a heating option whenever power was out.
When NRC first presented a more strict version of this ordinance, the City Council decided to study emissions before taking action. The Yolo County Air Quality Management District and UCD professor Thomas Cahill each volunteered PM2.5 monitoring units as well as their time, with a 3rd unit already installed west of Highway 113.
These machines could check fairly well for regional air quality problems but only poorly for near neighbor impacts of wood burning as they had to be kept in secure locations such as the middle of Slide Hill Park, not as close to wood burners as a nearest neighbor would be.
Still, the East Davis Slide Hill Park monitor showed 19 days when federal PM2.5 standards were exceeded, compared to only 1 and 2 days on the other sites. These results support the hypothesis that wood smoke causes localized severe effects.
Because the problem is localized, NRC is proposing a localized solution. If people feel smoked out by an uncompromising neighbor, they can call the police as they would do for a noise ordinance.
If the police officers don’t have more urgent problems to deal with, they check which group has the right to burn that day and may visit the offender to give a warning or citation and have the fire extinguished.
The NRC has separately proposed requiring wood-burning permits which would give the City a quick list of which category each wood burner falls in, and more importantly give information to burners on woods and burning methods that minimize pollution.
I believe this compromise will be acceptable to most wood burners, as many came to NRC hearings saying they wanted to use their wood stoves or fireplaces but didn’t want to harm their neighbors.
They thought some regulation was okay but didn’t want open hearths banned or their all-day high efficiency wood heating turned on and off to limit neighbors’ exposure to 6 hours (our original proposal).
They had gas heating back-up systems they could use on spare the air days. People exposed to their neighbors’ wood smoke, meanwhile, should appreciate this ordinance as a great improvement over their current situation.
[1] In addition to particulate matter fine enough to enter the lungs unfiltered, wood smoke contains carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde and dioxins. Wood smoke exposure can cause asthma attacks, decreases in lung function, bronchitis, increased susceptibility to pneumonia (4:1 increase for pre-schoolers in wood burning homes), interstitial lung disease, hypertension, hastened death given lung or heart disease, and probably cancer. Many of the pollutants are invisible and odorless, so lack of visible smoke is not proof of safety. (Source, Source)
[2] Houses near wood burners had indoor PM10 levels of 50 to 70% of the outdoor levels, despite closed windows and doors, according to University of Washington and EPA studies in Seattle and Boise. (Source, p. 19)
[3] Wind speeds of 12.5 mph with burning limited to 5 hours would keep neighbors’ PM2.5 exposure below the federal exposure limits according to runs of EPA’s Screen III model performed by Alan Pryor and reviewed by Professor Anthony Wexler, director of UCD’s Air Quality Research Center. Dr. Wexler warned outcomes will be worse for homes with more than one wood burning neighbor.
[4] Screen III runs again.
[5] Whether wood burning warms the globe less or more than gas combustion depends on how and how far the wood is transported, whether it burns so perfectly as to minimize methane formation, and what would happen to the wood and the land it grew on had its tree not become firewood.
Adrienne Kandel is a long-time Davis resident and member of the Natural Resources Commission. The views expressed here are those of herself and do not reflect the views of that Commission unless specifically indicated.
This sounds like a reasonable compromise but very difficult not only to enforce but to adjudicate. What if this goes to court? It would be a nightmare proving all this for what the courts would consider a misdemeanor nuisance suit, when they are backed up with more serious crimes.
Dr Wu: First, I don’t think this would be a misdemeanor, it would be a violation. In terms of clogging up the court, the court is backed up with a lot of minor drug crimes, not really more serious crimes. I guess I don’t think that’s a huge danger. The thing that has struck me about this debate from the start is that we’re not the only city that is having to deal with this issue, and yet both sides are kind of acting like this is a unique Davis issue. Seems to me, there has to be a reasonable resolution, this proposal seems like a good start. I do think ultimately we will have to go further, but at least we can bring the public along on this issue in the interim.
“the court is backed up with a lot of minor drug crimes”
my point precisely; I think we both agree these minor drug offenses are clogging up are judicial system
you also have to worry about a backlash against this law
My impression is that this law is strongly supported by a small minority in town and mocked by a much larger group, even though many realize this is indeed a health hazard.
“Because the problem is localized, NRC is proposing a localized solution. If people feel smoked out by an uncompromising neighbor, they can call the police as they would do for a noise ordinance.”
This is a reasonable method to address this “localized” problem. An initial police visit/warning followed up by actual testing and fine if the warning is ignored.
dmg: “Dr Wu: First, I don’t think this would be a misdemeanor, it would be a violation. In terms of clogging up the court, the court is backed up with a lot of minor drug crimes, not really more serious crimes”
You don’t want to clog up the court with people who use/deal drugs, but want to clog up the courts by criminalizing burning wood in their fireplace? LOL
“The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has proposed the following compromise: divide wood burning into 3 categories: open hearth fireplaces which might emit on the order of 60 g/hour of PM2.5 (particulate matter at least 2.5 micrometers wide), EPA-approved fireplaces which can emit up to 7.5 g/hour of PM2.5, and high efficiency fireplaces which emit 2 g/hour.”
So how are the police and courts going to enforce this?
[quote]You don’t want to clog up the court with people who use/deal drugs, but want to clog up the courts by criminalizing burning wood in their fireplace? LOL [/quote]
The more accurate statement of my position is that I do not foresee this clogging up the system.
To: ERM – Re: “So how are the police and courts going to enforce this?”
The easiest way for the police to enforce this ordinance without undue effort is to have information on the type of wood burning equipment in each home. This information would be obtained through the permit process proposed for the 2nd year. That way, when a complaint of smoke from a home comes in on any particular day it could be easily checked by the police to see what type of fireplace is permitted in the wood burning home. This permit requirement language was inserted into the draft ordinance specifically because it was claimed by some that enforecement by police would otherwise be too difficult. Others have complained, though, that the permit required for the 2nd year felt intrusive but we require permits for many different things in town (bicycles, cars parking on certain streets, dogs, etc.) so at least the process is not something with which residents would not be familiar.
[quote]Alan (or Adrienne) and/or David:
[s]Third[/s] Fourth request. Please respond.–
“All their letters of support are included in the Recommendation should you care to take the time to read it before taking such a strident attitude.”
I’d like to read your commission’s report, but am away for awhile. Isn’t it online somewhere? Does it include Dr. Cahill’s analysis and the city staff recommendations, or are those posted elsewhere? Please advise.[/quote]
JustSaying: it’s linked above but here it is: link ([url]http://peoplesvanguard.com/NRCWoodBurningOrdinanceRecommendation.pdf[/url])
still using fire places to heat homes? wow, what century is this? is this a third world country or america?
if you’re pro environment, you should get some solar panels, a windmill, and put the gas heat on just a little bit. there’s no reason for us to be burning fires in this day and age.
the air is absolutely awful in the winter..same as if you go to shasta.. people need to stop being so selfish and stop using wood burning fires..it’s just selfish and typical of the kind of hypocrisy we routinely come up against with the eco snobs. they are such hypocrits. claiming that they care about the environment but will refuse to invest a little money in green technologies.
what a bunch of fucking hypocrits
…
You don’t want to clog up the court with people who use/deal drugs, but want to clog up the courts by criminalizing burning wood in their fireplace? LOL
The more accurate statement of my position is that I do not foresee this clogging up the system. “
if there’s anything it’ll clog up, it’ll be our lungs and cardiovascular system, and perhaps a few wood burning residents’ brain cells.
look like it’s already happened
Thanks, David, I’m surprised given my slight agitation that I just skipped right over it. It doesn’t appear to include the city staff recommendations, and its only reference to Dr. Cahill’s work is support for the proposal. From your earlier reports, I got the impression that he and the city staff see things somewhat differently than the commission. It does have lots of interesting reading though. [quote]”…City Council again elected to not impose any mandatory restrictions on wood burning but instead passed a resolution supporting the existing Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District voluntary wood burning restrictions and supporting continued studies on neighborhood air quality and collecting citizen complaints….citizen complaints were collected and analyzed and the results discussed by the NRC (pertinent findings are presented below).”[/quote] The report says little, if anything directly, about the city’s collection of complaints since January’s resolution. How many were received?
Apparently not much is pertinent since the commission’s evaluation of citizen complaints appears limited to a few comments about Davis’ per capita complaint [u]rate[/u] being higher than Sacramento’s. I gather that these complaints were about a neighbor’s fireplace burning, not just general AQ complaints. Some specifics about the Davis complaints would be helpful to the council.
(Just found Dr. Cahill’s report here. [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/pdfs/Aerosol_monitoring_winter_2009.pdf[/url].) Does the the commission’s per capita analysis disguise, say, one person who makes 17 complaints, as noted by Dr. Cahill? Or identify any more than the small number (“perhaps a dozen”) of “problem neighbors” that he reported? Or change his findings that few of the complaints actually came on no-burn days? Knowing how many residences filed complaints during what period would be good for starters.
[quote]”Given this intent (to protect Davis citizens with respiratory impairments), (commission members) recommend that the threshold average daily forecasted PM2.5 concentration limit used by the YSAQMD to determine “Allowable Burn Days” in Davis be established at 25 ug/m3 instead of the current value of 35 ug/m3 used in their voluntary “Don’t Light Tonight” program.”[/quote] An admirable intent, indeed, but why more restrictive standards and strong enforcement?
I’m just wondering whether the voluntary approach has been given a fair try yet. Who follows up with the targets of the complains and in what way? Do we work with them directly, or just generalize the problem to the whole community?
What about a “Don’t Burn Tonight” program in Davis, one given more support to make it work? Education, tools (like cards to give offending neighbors), better publicity for “Don’t Burn Tonight” days (emails to notify fireplace owners who want to participate, etc.)? How much could we afford to carry out an effective voluntary program if we don’t spend money to support education and enforcement for a mandatory one? We haven’t done either so far.
Then, again, there’s the little issue of enforcement: [quote] “Effective November 1, 2010, wood-burning will only be allowed on “Allowable Burn Days”, only using seasoned wood with a moisture content less than 20% [but not 21%?] by weight or pellets or manufactured wood products specifically manufactured for use in wood burning or pellet stoves, and only if wood burning produces no visible wood smoke emissions beyond an initial 0.5 hour start-up period….Upon the third confirmed violation of this chapter within a twenty four-hour period of time beginning on the first notice of violation issued, the police department may take action as necessary to abate the wood-burning violation, including but not limited to [tasering? checking citizenship?] instructing the wood-burning appliance user to “extinguish the fire” or physically arresting the wood-burning appliance user.”[/quote] Are you sure we want this as a city ordinance solution to what still might be an over-blown civic problem?
It’s a bit difficult to get all excited about wood burning when I am still running the evaporative cooler to stay comfortable. But I am anxious for the council to come up with the rules for the game. That way I can be assured that my anticipated investment in a Phase 11 stove will not be wasted by the imposition of draconian measures making it illegal to heat with wood in Davis.
Compromise is always good. However, my experience with enforcement by the Davis Police Department of the noise ordinance has been that it is completely ineffectual. Has the NRC requested any input from the DPD who will be expected expected to enforce these complicated rules?
In California, each year , we see the newspaper article listing the 1500 new rules instituted statewide by our legislature. We are expected to know and obey them all, 1500 new ones and all the thousands of old ones. Is it any wonder we have so much mental illness in our culture? Now we are getting new rules to control our use of wood as heating fuel. The controls may be necessary here in California, where there are too many rats crammed in the maze. Perhaps it’s time to just give up and move to New Zealand where there is no need for such complications.
Burning my fireplace any day and at anytime !
In answer to questions and comments above:
1. I believe complaints to the City were recorded but not acted on because the City had no rule or authority on which to act.
2. The number of complaints in Sacramento vs. Davis did not drive the NRC’s recommendation, as we recognize there was no scientific survey. The complaints to the City and in person to our commission did show there were indeed people suffering from their neighbors’ smoke. These people deserve a localized solution. If as some argue the only sufferers are the dozen or two who’ve spoken up, then the ordinance will be rarely enforced as police will be rarely called. Remember, though, many folks don’t know there’s an avenue of complaint, or are reserved.
3. I wouldn’t mind changing the last sentence of the ordinance, listing more specifically what police can do, to address JustSaying’s concern it’s open to abuse. Feel free to propose wording.
4. The 20% moisture limit is the common definition of “seasoned wood,” “Firewood with a moisture content higher than twenty percent will burn, but it will be hard to light and keep burning and will make a lot of smoke. Plus much of its energy content will be wasted right up the chimney. … to get that dry it must be split and stacked in the open for at least a full summer.” (http://www.woodheat.org/firewood/firewood.htm)
5. The ordinance calls for a citation, not a criminal trial. The courts only get used if someone challenges their citation, or asks for a fine reduction on the basis of hardship.
6. Yes, City Staff opposes the ordinance. They supported the voluntary Don’t Light Tonight rule in effect this year; that’s based on regional air pollution rather than on whether it’s windy enough to protect near neighbors. I think many people who aren’t near neighbors don’t realize there’s a problem.
7. Enforcement: Person feels smoked in, can’t or won’t convince neighbor to stop, calls police, gives offending address. If police are free, they go to offending address unless they have it on record (from a permit) as allowed to burn under that day’s forecast atmospheric conditions. They knock on door, verify there’s a fire in violation, have it extinguished, give a warning or citation.
ak: “5. The ordinance calls for a citation, not a criminal trial. The courts only get used if someone challenges their citation, or asks for a fine reduction on the basis of hardship.”
So it very well can end up in court… Is this really a good use of our local law enforcement and state court resources?
Adrienne:
1. How much additional authority does someone from city staff, police, council or commission need to go talk with the “perhaps a dozen” about which we’ve received complaints? Why do we have to criminalize ignorance or bad manners before we even try to educate and convince the offending families?
2. Regardless of what’s driving this, the commission report notes that complaints to the city (and the regional AQ office?) were collected, analyzed and “presented below.” I could find no such presentation in the report. I’m not sure what you mean about “there was no scientific survey” when the report says you analyzed the complaint data. Granted “there were indeed people suffering from their neighbors’ smoke,” but enough to justify the ordinance you seek?
My questions, ones I think would be important to the staff and council: Does the the commission’s per capita analysis disguise, say, one person who makes 17 complaints, as noted by Dr. Cahill? Or identify any more than the small number (“perhaps a dozen”) of “problem neighbors” that he reported? Or change his findings that few of the complaints actually came on no-burn days? Knowing how many residences filed complaints during what period would be good for starters.
3,4,5. The language of the proposed ordinance reflects way to much regulation for a still-undefined Davis problem. It raises more questions than can be answered. Who will be testing the 20% maximum moisture level for compliance, and how can we get our firewood tested?
“Physically arresting” someone for failure to “extinguish the fire” surely could lead to a criminal trial (and/or a lawsuit by person arrested). And why should we require a court to get involved if “someone challenges their citation, or asks for a fine reduction on the basis of hardship”? We trust city staff to handle much more critical decisions.
6,7. City staff–and how about police?–are wise to resist this unwieldy and extreme approach. If regional air pollution standards are inadequate because Davis has unique wind conditions, how do we determine “whether it’s windy enough to protect near neighbors” in any given neighborhood? Will it matter if neighbors are protected by the current wind conditions if someone’s burning on a day that’s not an “allowable” day?
Will it matter if a complaint comes in on an allowable day? What will happen if the non-allowable day turns turns out to a great day for a fire? What happens if the un-busy officer finds himself knocks at the door of a drunken hoodlum who figures it’s his Constitutional right to burn in his own fireplace any day at any time and likes 2nd Amendment solutions!
Transgressors and near neighbors (as you suggest) don’t know how the system works now. How about serious efforts to educate re. voluntary compliance before pushing for this questionable ordinance and its police enforcement methods? All for a handful of offenders whose neighbors “can’t or won’t convince (their) neighbor to stop.”
Person whose username is JustSaying:
1. We disagree on whether smoking up your neighbors is bad manners or harming them. So far the City has passed no rule telling City staff to talk to smoke producers, as it’s passed no rule limiting smoke production. Do you propose assigning City staff to mediate disputes – about smoke, or everything? What’s the guideline if neighbors still disagree?
2. “Pertinent results are presented below” referred to the single sentence “Further the total number of complaints recorded by Davis residents was from 6 to 10 times greater per capita than those recorded in the Sacramento AQMD’s jurisdiction.” You’re right that’s not great analysis nor writing style. This point was minor and did not drive the recommendations. A “scientific survey” would assess the proportion of people affected using statistical sampling and well-designed non-leading questions. We have no budget for that but would happily accept students looking for research projects.
No-burn days can occur when there’s virtually no wind; the Cahill report evaluated regional air quality, not near neighbor impacts.
3,4,5. It’s common to forbid burning of many products including unseasoned wood. Yes it’s vague and will tend to be a guideline rather than testable – unless someone continuously smoked out by their neighbors’ obviously green wood lodges a complaint and the police or Staff follows through.
The “arrest” part is copied from the City’s noise ordinance but doesn’t have to be there. We made the rest more mild than the noise ordinance, which makes the 3rd infraction a misdemeanor potentially punishable by prison, puts fines at maximum state-allowable levels, and doesn’t give citation recipients the option to plead hardship and pay less.
6,7. Wind forecasts are imperfect but better than nothing. You’re right; wind varies by neighborhood but it’s correlated enough to make average wind forecasts useful. Alternatives are: (1) no wood burning, (2) no protection of near neighbors, (3) burdensome rules about installing and reading local wind measurement instruments. That said, one could add a line giving someone the right to burn when conditions were predicted stagnant but they can show it’s windy around their chimney, although some would argue it should be balanced by a line giving someone the right to tell their neighbor to stop burning when wind was predicted but didn’t appear.
Like the noise ordinance, the smoke ordinance can’t be responsible for drunken hoodlums attacking police in their line of duty.
If you accepted the evidence that smoke pollutes neighbors’ yards, infiltrates their homes, and is unhealthy, then you’d say a great day for a fire was a windy day.
The voluntary approach has not eliminated complaints nor made air at one of the near-residential monitoring stations healthy to breathe.
Person whose username is Adrienne Kandel:
Sorry, I didn’t intend to disagree with you about whether harming others is wrong, only about [u]why[/u] it’s happening (ignorance or lack of caring or?). I don’t think a legitimate complaint to the City in a voluntary no-burn program should result in absolutely no action, particularly if it involves a significant health issue.
Are you saying you or another commissioner is not allowed to visit people on the City’s complaint list to let them know about burning’s harmful effects? (I’d say it [u]is[/u] the job of the city’s paid employees to work with people whose neighbors have filed complaints–or it should be one of their responsibilities.)
Are you suggesting that there’s no process for notifying “violators” in the present program? That would be a sure way to make a program fail, especially a voluntary one. No, we don’t need to begin with mediator involvement, but it might be a good next step in dealing with recalcitrants. If there still are are significant numbers of neighbor disagreements after that kind of attempts, that would be the time to consider a mandatory program.
Why is it so difficult to give the council members (and rest of us) the analysis for which they obviously saw a need in their earlier deliberations? What numbers were used to develop the single “pertinent” result in the report–that Davisites complain at a rate “6 to 10 times greater” than our neighbor communities? I’ve listed the basic questions in earlier posts.
At this point, I think I’ll have conclude that the commission decided the number of complaints you analyzed is so small that it would be embarrassing to advance such a strict proposal with such a limited problem to solve. If no one gets to know even how many people might be affected, the council should again turn down the proposal, [u]really[/u] support a voluntary campaign and analyze the results.
I’d be more careful about using the noise ordinance as a guide–remember that only the frog tunnel produced more national embarrassment for us.
I appreciate your effort to help us understand the proposed ordinance, and agree that a windy day is the only day to light up a fireplace in Davis, assuming one insists on burning properly seasoned wood. Our own has stayed in its unused, pristine condition for two decades. But, I’d really would like to see a better case made before the city makes such an intrusion into our living rooms.
“If the police officers don’t have more urgent problems to deal with, they check which group has the right to burn that day and may visit the offender to give a warning or citation and have the fire extinguished.”
And How Adrienne Kandel, Do You Propose Davis Police Extinguish My Fire?
This is a very interesting assertion on how this individual thinks ordinances should be enforced. Wood burning in one’s home requires management by law enforcement.
If you think Davis Police are going to enter homes and order fires extinguished… it WILL require a search warrant signed by a Yolo county judge. I suppose Davis Police can knock, warn and stand on the side sidewalk for a reasonable amount of time watching the chimney with a flash light.
Now who is wasting resource and creating a public nuance? The wood burner or the hubris of unelected commission members?
Sounds Like an Efficient Ordinance, Does It Not?
I think this one needs to go before the voters for approval. Davis has had a long history of commissions that need their members seriously renewed.
A commissioner could go knock on someone’s door but I’m not going to volunteer my time to do that and I think everyone else on the Commission is plenty busy as well. Plus I don’t know if it’s anyone’s most important issue. We took it up because on 2 occasions a few years back City Council asked us to make regulations because they were getting complaints from people smoked in. Then we looked into the science and learned smoke was a pollutant putting asthmatics and others at risk. That’s why so many cities are starting to limit burning, especially in air basins.
I didn’t write the bit about the number of complaints compared to Sacramento. I considered it a minor issue, not the “pertinent point” nor the reason anyone supported the ordinance. These things got in by committee writing and now I’m guessing “pertinent point” refers to the later comparison of the East Davis monitor to other monitors.
There were 2 complaint analyses. Analysis 1: City Staff collected complaints and Dr. Cahill analyzed them; 26 complainers with 68 complaints. Dr. Cahill looked at whether complaint patterns suggested voluntary no burn days were working. Our premise was no burn days only address regional air quality and we’re discussing near neighbor effects, which even complete compliance with no-burn days wouldn’t solve. The Delta group (Cahill’s group) researcher presenting finding to NRC said yes when asked if near neighbor effects were a problem and were not addressed, as they couldn’t be addressed given requirements on placement of monitors. Analysis 2, source of the Sac/Davis comparison: Alan Pryor got complaint numbers from Davis and Sacramento and compared per capita rates, which he presented orally to the Commission in an uninteresting comparison I personally didn’t retain or care about. I believe he didn’t have number of complainers for Sac, which is why he compared number of complaints. He also presented results of legwork where he (or volunteers?) had walked various neighborhoods and asked about smoke, on different days, and found unlike Dr. Cahill many complainers on no-burn days. Sorry I didn’t retain that either, as my concern was near neighbors not regional air, but I recall he clearly distinguished numbers of complainers and complaints. More interestingly, he found the number of federal air quality violations at the East Davis monitor exceeded those in the worst Sacramento area’s monitor.
In addition, some people have complained to us during Commission meetings or in letters (a dozen?).
Complaint analysis is flawed because either you tell people you’ll be checking (flyers, or Alan’s door-to-door) and bias towards complaints, or don’t tell them there’s a venue and bias heavily against. I never think of complaining to the City when the neighbor’s barbeque ruin my spring evening air quality.
The reason for saying there’s a problem is NOT complaint analysis. It’s that a non-negligible number of near neighbors need protecting. It’s the health problem, the air quality variability supporting the modeling that shows a near neighbor effect, the high proportion of children who are already asthmatic (1 in 8? 1 in 5?), and the intransigence of some neighborhood polluters that some in-person complainers cited.
“Just Saying”, you should prepare a reasonable proposal with City Staff letting everyone know a complaint process exists, visiting addresses signaled by complainers, telling them health consequences, mediating if that doesn’t work, recording the result for future legislation if that doesn’t work. Submit it as an alternative. We wanted a permit process to pay for permit and small staff costs; I don’t know what you’d propose for funding the greater staff time required. Permit papers can advise when and what and how to burn.
“Problem Is”, the problem is many posters stay anonymous because occasional posters like you personally attack commenters. “This individual” did not write the extinguishing part which was copied from the noise ordinance and has already said if people fear abuse it doesn’t need to be there. The Commission will surely have renewal; you still have time to apply. If you volunteer your valuable time on a Commission you care about you can change from “Problem Is” to “A Solution Could Be.” If you’re unwilling to volunteer, don’t knock those who are willing.
[quote]”We wanted a permit process to pay for permit and small staff costs; I don’t know what you’d propose for funding the greater staff time required.”[/quote] If the Davis problem is the small one determined by Dr. Cahill and Dr Barnes in the 08-09 study (“perhaps a dozen credible” problems with “very few” of the complaints filed on no-burn days), I’d propose it can be handled by existing staff.
If the Davis problem is a bigger one (as determined by analysis of the still-secret 09-10 complaint data), I’d guess it still could be handled under the current budget.
If the Davis problem is as big as the commission feels it is, I’d agree that the permit process obviously would be necessary to generate cash for implementing your proposed ordinance: [quote]”The permit would indicate whether the wood burning appliance was EPA-certified, super-efficient, or uncertified, because these different appliance types are allowed to be used on different burn days….and at a recommended cost “not greater than $50 for any one wood-burning season which should be sufficient to administer the program….”)[/quote] Of course, we won’t know how big the problem [u]really is[/u] until after we have the fireplace permits on file at city hall and have a few year’s history of enforcement.
[quote]”…you should prepare a reasonable proposal with City Staff letting everyone know a complaint process exists, visiting addresses signaled by complainers, telling them health consequences, mediating if that doesn’t work, recording the result for future legislation if that doesn’t work.”[/quote] You’ve done a great job, Adrienne, encapsulating the voluntary concept I’ve only rambled about. I’d like the city to give it a try before we head down the path of de facto criminalization of wood-burning bad actors.