Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM042171BUTTE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT INFORMATIONAL HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND ZONE FOR LIMITED BURNING CHICO URBAN AREA Wednesday, April 21, 1871 The Board of Supervisors met at 7:30 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Room at Chico Junior High School, Chico, California. Present: Supervisors Gilman, Madigan, Maxon, and Chairman Reynolds; Daniel Blackstock, County Counsel; Eric Bathen and Harry McGowan, Chico City Council members; former Chico Mayor Gordon Cassamajor; Fred Davis, City Manager; John Dougherty, Deputy City Manager; and Clay Castleberry, Director of Public Works. Absent: Supervisor McKillop and Don Black, Air Pollution Control Officer. INTRODUCTION Copies of Chico City Council's proposed ordinance for limited burning and copies of a map delineating boundaries for the proposed urban zone were handed out to those in attendance at the hearing. Supervisor Reynolds called the meeting to order and introduced the city and county officials present. Daniel Blackstock explained that this is an informational meeting called to explore the people's feelings regarding the proposed city ordinance for limited burning. The two main factors that are under consideration are: 1) The boundaries for the pro- posed limited-burning zone; and 2) Whether these requirements should apply solely to the Chico area, or whether they should apply to the entire County. Eric Bathen explained the city ordinance, stating that it is not a no-burning ordinance, but a limited-burning ordinance. He explained that the reason for the proposed urban zone around the city is to eliminate the confusing city-limit boundaries for enforcement of this ordinance and to make the ordinance effective over one con- tiguous area. APPEARANCES 1. Mr. Bob Heimann {opposed to the proposed ordinance), Route 2, Box 366, Chico, pointed out that a great portion of the western part of the proposed zone is composed of almond orchards. This area is thus largely agricultural and the ordinance is, therefore, discriminatory. 2. Mr. Don Roberts (opposed), 999 Azalea, Chico, asked about the pick up of trash. 3. Mr. Charles Watkins (opposed) asked for a definition of agri- cultural burning. Daniel Blackstock quoted Section 39295.6 of the Health and Safety Code which defines agricultural burning. 4. Mr. Ken Bensel (in favor of the proposed ordinance; opposed to the boundaries), Skyway Avenue, Chico, asked what damage wood 3'~'. Page 2 smoke causes other than visibility impairment. Supervisor Gilman said that there is practically no other damage. Mr. Bensel stated that he would like to see this ordinance County wide based on a meteorological cycle. 5. Mr. Herb Arens (opposed), 400 W. Sixth Avenue, Chico, expressed concern about having to haul away his prunings instead of being able to burn it. 6. Mr. Boyd Stoma les, Dayton Road, Chico, asked if the County had made. a std on the costs of hauling away trash for the people. Supervisor Reynolds said that this has not yet been done, but that this area will be covered before the County calls a public hearing. 7. Mr. Paul Henry (opposed), 1604 Meadow Road, Chico, felt that the boundaries should be County wide with as few regulations as possible in the ordinance. 8. Mrs. Leonard Brown (in favor ), 1609 Citrus Avenue,.Chi:eoy approved of the ordinance from a health point of view. 9. Mr. Walter Riley (in favor), 314 W. Fourteenth Street, Chico, representing FREE (Forces to Restore Earth's Environment), spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. 10. Mr. Stevens (opposed} spoke about burning almond brush, stating t~ia h~e~opposed the boundaries and controlled burning, 11. Mr. Larry Armstron~z (in favor}, T10 Parkwood Drive, Chico, stated that we must expect more and mots regulations as our population increases: • Daniel Blackstock reminded the audience that this meeting concerns non-agricultural burning only, not agricultural burning. He quoted Section 39296.0 of the Health and Safety Code. 12. Mr. Gene Keyawa (opposed}, Chico, spoke of various diseases w iii cki a fact trees in this area, stating that the only method of eliminating these diseases is burning the affected trees. 13. Mr. Larry Rinehart., Durham, asked how the City planned to enforce this proposed ordinance. 14. Mr. Ray Nystrom, Chico, questioned the meaning of "meteorologically favorable conditions." He also proposed a method of measuring smoke emissions. 15. Mr. Dave Maydole, Paradise, stated that prohibition of burning in Los Angeles has not eliminated air pollution in that area. 16. Mr. Ron Faulkner (in favor), 1438 Chestnut Street, Chico, Chair- man of the itizens fox Clean Air Committee, spoke in favor of the ordinance and cited industrial pollution as being mainly responsible for air pollution. Daniel Blackstock elaborated on the burning requirements for lumber and lumber by=products. Using the Ringelmann chart, he pointed out to the audience the degree of air contamination which is considered to be illegal. ~n,,r Page 3 17. Mr. Adams. (opposed), W. Eleventh Avenue, Chico, stated that most air pollution comes from automobiles, not burning. 18. Mr. Stone, W. Fourth Avenue, Chico, asked about fireplace burning. 19. Mr. Jim Villiers: (in favor), Chico, reiterated to the audience a is caring is not concerned with agricultural burning. 24. Mr: Lance Hauer.,{in favor); 16 Montclair Drive, Chico, stated a is or znance should include the entire County; it is dis- criminatory in the way it is proposed at the present time. 21. Mrs. Cecilia Chidez, Chico, expressed concern that agricultural urn ng mig a prohibited in the future if we take steps such as this for non-agricultural burning. 22. Mr. E. V. Johnson (in favor), 1920 Oak Way, Chico, stated that the agricultural community must realize that more and more controls have to be placed upon them. 23. Mr. Earl La Baw (opposed}, Henshaw Avenue, Chico, spoke of com- mercial almond hulling. 24. Mrs. Hannah Stone (opposed}, Chico, spoke against the proposed ordinance. 25. Mr. Jack Chambers, Entler Avenue, Chico, asked about a no-burning limit only within the City limits. 2b. Mr. Rob Park (in favor), 810 Alan Lane, Chico, asked about paper recycling. 27. Mrs. Aian Wilhelm (in favor) 1166 Hillview Way, Chico, repre- sen ing a eague of Women ~Toters, read a statement urging adoption. 28. Mr. Paul Woodward, 922 Karen Drive, Chico, asked if a planning commission was going to be discussed as was stated in the Chico Enterprise-Record. 29. Mr. John Stutz;(in favor) Moorhead Avenue, Chioo, reminded the agriculturalists that this ordinance would not affect them in any- way. 30. Mr. Orrin B. Stratton (opposed), 1220 Glen Haven Drive, Chico, feels that this should be County wide. He is not in favor of taxing people outside this limited area for something which does not directly affect them. 31. Mr. Tonv Nevis (opposed), Lone Pine Avenue, Chico, asked why the County should get involved in this City problem. 32. Mrs. Walcie Uecker, 407. W. Twelfth Avenue, Chico, made a few genera statements about pollution. 33. Mr. Thomas Joaquin (opposed), 866 Vallombrosa Avenue, Chico, stated that this is a City problem; the County should not get involved. 34. Mr. Floyd Carpenter (opposed), Oak Way, Chico, asked who would be responsible for enforcement of this proposed ordinance. Daniel Blackstock stated that the Fire Chief, Elmer Brouillard, is the person responsible for enforcement. .~t~ Page 4 35. Mrs. Pitten~r,{opposed}, Chico, stated that automobiles are causing most of the air pollution. 3b. Mr. Bill Tompkins, Chico, asked what size of an area constitutes an agricultural area. Daniel Blackstock stated that such specific definitions have not yet been ~`ormulated. RECESS: 9:25 p.m. RECONVENE: 9:35 p.m. 37. Mr. Charles Hav, 1626 Mangrove Avenue, Chico, expressed concern regarding the city pickup services. He is in sympathy with the agriculturalists. At this time Chairman Reynolds asked for a hand-count of those in favor and those opposed to the proposed ordinance. (Record to show that a substantial number of. people left during the recess). Those in favor--8. The majority of those people remaining showed opposition either to the boundaries of the proposed zone or to the limited burning set out in the ordinance or to both the boundaries and the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK De uty C1 r hai n of the B rd ~~