Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08261986 - X.12 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 26, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Powers, Schroder ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Agriculture Burn Permits Supervisor Tom Torlakson transmitted to the Board the attached letter dated August 18, 1986 from Supervisor Tom W. Castles, San Joaquin County, Room 701 , Courthouse, 222 East Weber Avenue, Stockton 95202, relating to a proposed procedure for agriculture burn permits. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the Contra Costa County Fire Chiefs' Association and to Supervisor Sunne McPeak (as Board representative to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District) for review of the proposed procedure and the effects on Contra Costa County. cc: CCC Fire Chiefs' Assn Supervisor McPeak County Administrator hereby certify that Ehis is a true and correct copy o1 an action taken aru entered on fhe minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: /u.G-�rd�., oZ roy /9Is'� NHIL [AtM.-ELOR, Geri: of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By wte-.,.t_� , Deputy a�IN RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1986 ROOM 701,COURTHOUSE iTOM W. CASTLES 222 EAST WEBER AVENUE � •, :' STOCKTON.CALIFORNIA 05202 i REPRESENTING THE THIRD DISTRICT CAS/FO,R4k BOARD O F SUPERVISORS TELEPHONE:209/944-3113 LEISHA ROBERTSON LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT August 18 , 1986 Supervisor Thomas A. Torlakson Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Torlakson: It was a pleasure meeting you recently in Rio Vista at the DAPC meeting. As promised, I am forwarding information that was generated from the Ag Burning Committee which I formulated. On August 15, 1986, the Board of Supervisors adopted the recom- mendations of the Ag Burning Committee. As you can see from the attached material, the implementation of said recommendations will drastically revamp the process in San Joaquin County by which burning permits are issued. Currently there are 31 separate entities, mostly fire districts, that issue burn per- mits. This new program, which will become effective January 1, 1987, provides for the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District to issue all burn permits. I believe that centraliza- tion is a step in the right direction. After perusing the attached material, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call . I might add that even though the Ag Burning Task Force has finished its task, I will personally be monitoring the recommen- dations of that Committee. Very truly yours, TOM W. CASTLES Supervisor, Third District TWC;mb Encls. _ 4 1 The seven proposed recommendations which were submitted jointly by the Fire Chiefs and San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District are as follows: 1 . ALL BURN PERMITS IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE AIR- POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT EXCEPT THOSE AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY, CLEMENTS AND i THORNTON FIRE DISTRICTS. A. I am not in favor of incorporating exceptions for E specific fire districts such as Thornton and Clements. I feel that any policy should be as universal as possible; and I am not convinced that there is suffi- cient reason to make an exception to the regulation simply because those two fire districts rely upon the revenue derived from the issuance of burn permits. 2 . BURN PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED BY MAIL WHENEVER POSSIBLE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. i r' A. No problem. 3 . A MAXIMUM OF $10 ANNUAL APPLICATION FEE WILL BE CHARGED TO COVER THE PROCESSING COSTS . A. Mike Machado asked whether the ten dollars was to be charged per parcel of land, or to each farming entity. I was surprised when Lakhmir indicated .that it would be charged perap rcel . Mike would oppose this, and so would I . I feel that one permit should be issued to each farm entity; anything else would be excessive. Originally this fee was discussed to cover costs--not as a means of raising revenue. 4 . FARMERS SHALL CALL DIRECTLY TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT USING AN 800 NUMBER TO REPORT THE BURN. A. Lakhmir indicated that this would be expensive. However, I do not oppose it . B . Additionally, we will explore other possibilities to obtain the maximum cost-efficiency for the calling process . i I -2- 5 . CENTRAL DISPATCH WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REGARDING LARGE BURNS IN THE COUNTY BY 10 : 00 A.M. A. I recommended that this be modified to strike the word " large" because it is not defined. Also, it seems that if all burns were reported 'to the Central Dispatch, then the chance of pertinent burns being omitted would be i' minimized. Information on all burns would then be available via Central Dispatch to interested districts. It would also be easier administratively to forward all information to Central Dispatch rather than sort and forward certain "large" burn information. I 6 . AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT SHALL AMEND ITS REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FIRE DISTRICTS TO DECLARE NO BURN DAYS IN CASE THE WIND EXCEEDS 15 MILES PER HOUR. A. This would provide uniformity throughout the County. Although the Fire Districts can currently do this under existing regulations, this would provide a standardized rule. 7 . AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTS AND FIRE DISTRICTS SHALL COORDINATE THEIR ACTIVITIES TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BURNS IN DIFFERENT AREAS . A. I ' m not sure that this is not already covered in more specific regulations. While this is certainly an objective, I ' m not sure that it would be enforceable. i. Sort of vague. i AG BURNING COMMITTEE . MINUTES July 14 , 1986 Present were: Tom Castles-Supervisor , Lakhmir Grewall-Air Pollution Engineer , Dr. Jogi Khanna-Health District, Mike McGrew-Deputy County Counsel , Butch Stefani-Farmer , Erwin Eby- Agricultural Commissioner , Karen Gustafson-Air Pollution Control District , and Leisha Robertson-Legislative Assistant . The proposed recommendations of the Ag Burning Committee were discussed. It was decided that "seven days a week" would be added to No . 5 of the Proposed Recommendations to read: "5 . Central Dispatch will be notified by the Air Pollution Control District regarding all authorized burns in the County by 10 :00 a.m. , 7 days a week. " In response to a suggestion which originated at the recent Farm Bureau meeting , a seventh recommendation was added to the existing six proposed recommendations to read as follows : "7 . The Local Air Pollution Control District will endeavor to obtain pamphlets from the State of California to better instruct farmers on proper burn procedures . These pamphlets will be distributed by mail with the burn permits . " On motion of Butch Stefani , seconded by Mike McGrew, the Proposed Recommendations , as attached, were adopted by the Ag Burning Committee . Meeting was adjourned. AG BURNING COMMITTEE MINUTES June 16 , 1986 PRESENT WERE: Tom Castles-Supervisor; Butch Stefani-Farmer; Lakhmir Grewal-Air Pollution Engineer; Dr . Jogi Khanna-Health District; Bart Thiltgen-Office of the D.A . ; Steve Thienes-County Fire Warden; Dr . Pat Jones-UOP Chemistry Professor; Leisha Robertson-Legislative Assistant; George Frost-Stockton Record; Mike McGrew-Deputy County Counsel ; Rick Gilmore-Health District. The minutes of the meeting of February 26 , 1986 were discussed. The last paragraph of those minutes was clarified. Upon sub- mission of recommendations from the Ag Burning Committee to the Board of Supervisors , the Board will consider said recommen- dations . Implementation would occur after adoption of regula- tions by the Board of Supervisors . Copies of the Joint Recommendations of San Joaquin County Fire Chief 's Association and San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District were distributed. (An executed copy is attached) . 1 . ALL BURN PERMITS IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT EXCEPT THOSE AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND THORNTON FIRE DISTRICT. There was some concern expressed regarding California Division of Forestry property in the Tracy area , and it was explained that the language would provide for any CDF property--not just the Clements CDF area . As of the date of this meeting, Thornton had not made a final decision on relinquishing its authority to issue burn permits per Steve Thienes . 2 . BURN PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED BY MAIL WHENEVER POSSIBLE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS . 3 . A MAXIMUM OF $10. 00 ANNUAL APPLICATION FEE PER FARM ENTITY WILL BE CHARGED TO COVER THE PROCESSING COSTS. 4 . FARMERS SHALL CALL DIRECTLY TO THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT USING AN 800 NUMBER TO REPORT THE BURN. The question was raised as to whether this would occur seven days a week. Lakhmir Grewal indicated that it would; however , the weekend hours have not been set yet. 5 . CENTRAL DISPATCH WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REGARDING ALL AUTHORIZED BURNS IN THE COUNTY BY 10 : 00 A.M. -2- 6 . AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT SHALL AMEND ITS REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FIRE DISTRICTS TO DECLARE NO BURN DAYS IN CASE THE WIND EXCEEDS 15 MILES PER HOUR. This item was discussed in detail . Lakhmir Grewal pointed out that this would provide uniformity throughout the County; and would give the fire chiefs a set regulation to rely upon when declaring "No Burn" . - It was pointed out that a vast difference throughout the County exists and what would constitute "unsafe winds" in one area would not necessarily be unsafe in another area . It was noted that the Fire Chiefs currently have the power to declare conditions unsafe for burning; and therefore, no amendment would be necessary. It was suggested that the following verbage be considered by the Fire Chiefs ' Association , in lieu of the reference to 15 miles per hour . "AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT SHALL AMEND ITS REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FIRE DISTRICTS TO DECLARE NO BURN DAYS IN CASES WHERE WIND CONDITIONS JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY. " There was discussion regarding the coordination with Stanislaus and Merced Counties in the attempt to have everyday designated a "Burn Day" by the State. It was. reported that the possibility of this happening would not necessarily benefit the residents of San Joaquin County, and would likely result in more restrictive pro- cedures due to the southward flow of air . Therefore, there would be no positive effects of such a formation. Lakhmir felt that the chances of obtaining "Everyday a Burn Day" designation are not good unless we were to basinize. Lakhmir Grewal will con- tinue to explore the coordination aspect , if it would be advan- tageous to San Joaquin County. Lakhmir clarified the matter of acreage allotment. Currently, when a particular area is unprotected, then the Air Pollution Control District can allot acreage. Dr. Jones indicated that he feels the issue of impact on com- munity health has not been addressed by this committee--and he felt that the focus of the committee should be more toward the impact of smoke on residents . Tom Castles explained that the first step would be to organize the situation so that a comprehensive understanding could occur . He noted that the current process provides for 31 separate enti- ties to issue burn permits; and consequently, it was difficult for. any particular agency to enforce or monitor. He also noted that smoke tends to impact north Stockton from surrounding coun- ties , but in order to address that problem, he felt the need to get "our own house in order before going out of the house. " Implementation dates were discussed. January 1987 will be the target date to have the process in place . AG BURNING MINUTES February 26 , 1986 Present: Supervisor Tom W. Castles, San Joaquin County Leisha Robertson, Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Castles Supervisor Nick Blom, Stanislaus County Don Nottoli, Assistant to Sacramento Supervisor Toby Johnson Leland Brown, Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner Dr. Patrick Jones, U.O. P. Chemistry Professor Lawrence Stefani, San Joaquin County farmer Micky James, North Stockton resident Mike Machado, President, Farm Bureau Ellie Conway, Farm Bureau Dr. Jogi Khanna, SJC Local Health District Lee Hall , SJC Local Health District Lakhmir Grewal, SJC Air Pollution Engineer Mike McGrew, SJC Chief Deputy County Counsel Steve Thienes, SJC Fire Warden Erwin Eby, SJC Agricultural Commissioner Mona Bernstein, Ag Workers Health Centers Eileen Fleming, SJ News Service Wayne Morgan, Stanislaus Co. , Air Pollution Control Officer Bart Thiltgen, SJC District Attorney' s Office Chief Leonard Ortiz, Woodbridge Fire Protection District Rick Gilmore, SJC Local Health District Jack Momperler, SJC Local Health District Kathy Hedgecock, Stockton Record Diane Barth, Lodi News Sentinel George Frost, Stockton Record Supervisor Tom Castles introduced Dr. Khanna of the Local Health District, also the Air Pollution Control Officer, who explained the relationship between the Local Health District and the Air Pollution Control District and the Environmental Health Division. Lakhmir Grewal of the Air Pollution Control District spoke of the unsatisfactory rating by the State Air Resources Board and the possible consequences. Mr. Grewal added that he does riot agree with some of the recommendations. Steve Thienes reported on the meeting of the Fire Chiefs. There are currently 31 sites that issue burn permits. With the excep- tion of Thornton and Clements Fire Districts , the remaining have indicated they would be agreeable to relinquishing permit issuance authority currently delegated to the fire districts . It should be noted that although there are 20 fire districts, up to 31 sites have been issuing permits. Lakhmir Grewal said the new proposed process would involve issuing the farmer an annual burn permit. The initial issuance would involve utilizing the current information contained in -2- I existing burn permits, which is estimated to be sufficient in approximately 90% of the cases. These permits would be issued by mail . The remaining 10% applying for permits would be required -• to come into the Air Pollution Control Office and supply the necessary information. It was pointed out that after two years . of operation pursuant to this new process, the result could be approximately 98% of the applicants being able to have their permits issued by mail . The costs of processing burn permits would be funded by a permitting fee of not more than $10 per year, and it is estimated that after the first two years of operating this new process, the cost would decrease because the necessary information would be incorporated into the computer process, and therefore, the fee could possibly be decreased. It is possible that San Joaquin County could join with other southerly counties and request from the Air Resources Board a designation of "Burn Day" for everyday, keeping in mind that an allotment systems would be in effect whereby a certain number of acres were permitted to burn each day after permission was granted. Steve Thienes indicated that each fire chief statutorily has the power to declare a more restrictive "no burn day" or "restricted burn" day regardless of the declaration of a "burn day" by the applicable State of County agency. Mike Machado representing the Farm Bureau expressed concern that a fire chief could impose a "No Burn Day" on a permanent basis next to a residential area; and asked for clarification on the intent of the ag burn committee. He also added that he felt that he could support regulation of ag burning; but absolutely not prohibition of ag burning, and mentioned the Right to Farm legislation as being in conflict with any move to prohibit ag burning. Supervisor Castles answered that it has never been the intent of this committee to prohibit ag burning, but to attempt to regulate it to the mutual satisfaction of complaining parties and the farming community. Mike McGrew of the County Counsel ' s office indicated that environmental issues are to be regulated by local , state, or federal agencies. If one agency does not meet its respon- sibility, the next larger agency will get the responsibility. He also explained the relationship and unique status of our Local Health District with the Air Pollution Control District. Mr . McGrew indicated that the existing rules appear to be sufficient and valid. Bart Thiltgen, Law Clerk from the District Attorney' s office, stated that the D.A. ' s office is the last agency to step in to obtain enforcement. When a matter from the Health District is referred to the D.A. ' s office, one of three things usually hap- pens: criminal prosecution; Civil prosecution; or, resolution of -3- the problem. If the problem is from a residential violation, then it can be prosecuted only criminally. However, if it is a business, then civil prosecution is usually more beneficial because injunctive relief can be granted. Mr. Thiltgen indicated that the D.A. ' s office will attempt to prosecute when a matter cannot be resolved. He pointed out that under civil remedies, the penalty could be up to $2500 per violation per day for the first offense; however, that amount can be increased by $6000 if there is-an existing injunction in cases where a business is in violation. It was noted that an individual farmer whether a cor- poration or not, could be considered a business for this purpose. Mr. Machado added he had no quibble with stricter enforcement, but the need existed for a workable system with regards to ag burning and issuance of Permits. There is a need -to communicate to all segments the process; and that he would be opposed to action which could result in economic hardship for agriculture. Supervisor Castles highlighted the proposed process as: 1. Coordinate with Stanislaus and Merced Counties in the attempt to have everyday a designated burn day by the State. This would be similar to the Sacramento Valley area, where control is then placed at the local level . 2 . Burn permits would be issued by mail whenever possible on an annual basis by the Air Pollution Control District (with the exception of two fire districts. ) 3 . A call will be made before lighting the burn to a centralized agency; permission and allotment can be obtained at this time. 4 . A maximum of $10 application fee will be charged on an annual basis to cover the costs of staff and computer pro- cessing. 5 . The Sheriff ' s Department can be utilized as "eyes and ears" for the Air Pollution Control district. 6 . Modification of regulations would not allow a burn to be started before 10 : 00 a.m. or after 3 : 00 p.m. 7 . The Board of Supervisors have added staff ' in the District Attorney' s Office, Consumer Affairs Division, which are currently in place; and this could facilitate the necessary enforcement. There was discussion regarding the need for a future meeting of this committee. It was decided that after a period of approximately six months the committee would meet again to assess the progress made by the implementation of these new processes. M I N U T E S AG BURNING COMMITTEE MEETING November 21, 1985 Present: Tom W. Castles, Supervisor, District 3 ; Leisha Robertson, Legislative Asst. to Supervisor Castles Lakhmir Grewal, Air Pollution Engineer, S. J. Co. Dr. Jogi Khanna, S. J. Co. Local Health District Ellie Conway, Farm Bureau Lee Hall, S. J. Co. Local Health District Jack Momperler, Air Pollution Control District Rick Gilmore, Air Pollution Control District Steve Thienes, S. J. Co. Fire Warden Michael McGrew, Deputy County Counsel Erwin Eby, Agricultural Commissioner Leland Brown, Sacramento Co. Agricultural Commissioner Don W. Nottoli, Asst. to Sacramento Supervisor Toby Johnson Lawrence Stefani, S. J. County farmer Norm Covell , Sacramento Co. Air Pollution Control Dist. Patrick Jones, Chemistry Professor, U.O. P. Micky James, North Stockton resident Supervisor Tom W. Castles thanked the participants for attending. Introductions were made. Lakmir Grewal presented the historical background of ag burning in San Joaquin County. The problem is not new. Supervisor Jose Alva had formed a task force in 1981, which stemmed from the number of complaints the Board of Supervisors had been receiving concerning ag burning. After six hearings, final recommendations were presented to the Board of Supervisors. Administrative pro- cedures and stricter enforcement were identified as problem areas, and recommendations were adopted by Board Order. County rules are supplemental to state regulations. The State law was revised in the last five years to raise the civil penalty from $500 to $1000, which might indicate that counties were wanting a stronger enforcement means. State regulations allow counties to regulate but not control. The local Board of Supervisors have authority to regulate here locally through their local Air Pollution Control District. -2- Why is ag burning necessary? It was stated that burning -was the only economically feasible process that farmers could use. Current problems were discussed. The statistics for San Joaquin County indicate that the largest number of complaints on one par- ticular day were the result of burning in Contra Costa County. It was stated that when complaints are received, it does not necessarily indicate that a violation of law has occurred. It was also stated that it would be unrealistic to believe that even prohibiting any ag burning would curb 100% of the complaints, as even when there is no burning taking place, complaints are received. Mr. Machado of the Farm Bureau asked if anyone examined whether the complaints were of a nuisance nature such as dirty swimming pools, and cars, etc. , or if the smoke was an actual health hazard. Dr. Khanna replied that the calls she gets all indicate a health problem due to smoke. However, Lakhmir Grewal added that he does not forward the calls to Dr. Khanna that are complaining about the nuisance factor. Mr. Machado stated that there needs to be the understanding that a one-day delay to plant the crop during the spring could result in a 3-5 day delay in the fall for harvest. He states that the need to burn is not just economic, but that farmers work within a specific time frame. He also stated that an understanding of the farmer' s problems generally cooled off complaints, and that it would be beneficial for the citizens complaining to be able to hear the explanation as to why farmers burn. Mr. Stefani indicated that there currently is a lot of double cropping, and that sometimes farmers have to wait for a burn day. He thought the issue of ag burning had pretty much settled down after the Alva Committee made its recommendations. The problems were delineated as follows: 1 . Lack of coordination. We do get smoke out of the Bay Area, but the ARLB-2 people are reluctant to admit this. A letter was sent to them requesting them to join with San Joaquin County in designating Burn, No-Burn days. 2 . Manner in which .burn permits are issued. No centralization-- Currently the 31 existing fire districts within the county issue burn permits. Some districts charge permit fees, and others do not. Local Health officials are not aware of the particulars involved after the fire districts issue a burn permit. -3- The major problem area, the Delta, is an unprotected area where fire protection is concerned. The costs of processing burn permits is currently incurred by the fire districts issuing them. Mr. Thienes indicated that apparently a lot of fire districts have forgotten about the procedures set out in 1981 . Farmers would probably rather have the local fire districts issue and control the burn permits rather than the Health District beca cc of easier accessibility to the local fire districts. A question was posed by Micky James as to why farmers could not burn at night. It was indicated that this would actually make the problem worse because of the atmospheric conditions at night and that the air would still be filled with smoke. Three o' clock in the afternoon is the cut-off time for lighting a fire. Mr. Machado pointed out that the current burn permit has a restriction regarding excessive winds and expressed concern about what the real intent of the group was. The general consensus was that the current regulations were adequate, but the problem was one of enforcement. It was stated that the Farm Bureau would whole-heartedly support enforcement of the existing regulations. The officials present from Sacramento outlined the system that has worked for them. It was stated that they had tremendous problems due to ag burning, specifically rice stubble before instituting the current system. Sacramento County is the southerly portion of the Air Basin that goes north to Shasta County. The Air Basin actually gets an acreage allotment from the Air Resources Board for a particular day. The basin meteorology people then allocate the number to the various areas within the basin. The Ag Commissioner then gets an allocation for his .specific area and consults a "Ready to Burn" list of farmers. The farmers are placed on the list on a first come, first served basis, with no priorities given. Sacramento had about -five violations last year, and the nine-county basin area has received 31 complaints this year. The offenders have the opportunity to settle by paying a fine or attend an office conference. Most pay the fine. Each day is designated either a Burn, Restricted Burn, or No Burn day. 4- It was stated that the problem in San Joaquin County is a dif- ferent one from Sacramento in that the concentrated area of northwest Stockton is more specific than the regional problem experienced by Sacramento. Mr. Conway of the Farm Bureau stated that "Right to Farm" legislation was the key as he saw the situation. A clause whereby a realtor would be required to inform northwest Stockton residents of typical agricultural practices would alleviate the problem. Mr. Jones of U.O. P. expressed concern that the issue was one of health concerns of poor air quality in residential areas. Also the health care costs to the elderly and young should be considered. Mr. Jones also stated that doctors at the County Hospital had expressed concern to him of pesticide matter being carried into the residential areas by particulate matter from burning. It was stated that recent studies indicate that no pesticide residue is spread in this manner. Mr. Grewal suggested areas of solution: 1 . acreage allotment 2 . prosecuting violators Mr. Grewal relayed the message of Mr. Jerry DelAringa who was a member of the previous task force and declined to be a part of the new one as "not wanting to re-invent the wheel" . Supervisor Castles gave an Overview. He stated that the purpose of this committee was "not to re- invent the wheel" . It was to identify the areas of concern by calling together all the right people and then addressing the area of concern by "best using the wheel that we now have" . He further stated that it was never his intention to impose tighter regulations, and he certainly does not want to make it harder for the farmer to farm. There does appear to be a lack of coor- dination in this area, and he thinks that a more centralized pro- cedure for issuing burn permit would be beneficial. Also, stricter enforcement of the existing regulations seems necessary. The next meeting of the Ag Burning Committee will be held at 12 :00 noon on January 16th. Notices will be sent out.