Denied: Planning Commission Rejects Citizen Appeal of Elbasan Acres

Tonight’s hearing outcome: Planning Commissioners voted 5 to 2 to deny the appeal of the Borough land management proposal called Elbasan Acres.

What does this mean?

The Planning Commission tonight affirmed the Jan 30, 2013 decision of the Platting Board to approve Elbasan Acres in North Pole.

What is Elbasan Acres?

The Borough proposal to develop Borough land included a school site for an elementary school and possibly a second school on Borough land near the intersection of Repp and Hollowell Roads. In addition, it includes at least 115 home sites, perhaps up to 200 home sites, in a new subdivision near Brock and Repp Roads.

What’s the harm of Elbasan Acres?

The school and major subdivision would be located just outside the PM 2.5 nonattainment area, outside any protections or controls eventually applied inside the nonattainment area. Residents in the area and the students and staff at the new school would be at increased risk of premature death from lung or heart problems associated with highly polluted air.

In addition, putting these house lots on the market will further saturate an already struggling housing market, driving down private property values and harming the interests of current private property owners in the area.

Isn’t there a requirement to “protect and improve” health, safety, and welfare?

In the past, yes, when the landowner was a private property owner. But when the applicant is the Borough itself, apparently not. The code requirement applies to all property owners without exception. The Planning Commission decision tonight authorizes the Borough to ignore this provision of code for this particular subdivision and school.

Can the decision be appealed?

Yes, to state superior court.

If Jeanne Olson, the appellant, decides to appeal, your donation will be essential. If you’d like to pledge your support now, please send a message of your interest to cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com. Jeanne has already made significant commitments of time, energy, and expenses to bring the appeal to the Planning Commission.

Are other approvals needed for Elbasan Acres?

The Assembly will need to approve funding to construct the roads, survey the lots, and build the school. The Assembly has full authority to deny funds for these expenses and stop Elbasan Acres.

Read Full Post »

News-Miner Article on Elbasan Acres Appeal Inaccurate, Incomplete

Don’t rely on the front page article on the Elbasan Acres appeal of a major borough subdivision and school site. The Elbasan Acres appeal will be decided by the Planning Commission tonight. The “news” article largely derives from an article published over two months ago when the appeal was first filed: Appeal filed against North Pole development proposal 2/8/2013 FDNM.

Is Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reporting frozen in time as though the April 16 appeal hearing never occurred?

This morning, Clean Air Fairbanks sent the reporter, Matt Buxton, these concerns:

To: Matt Buxton – FDNM <mbuxton@newsminer.com>
CC: Mary Beth Smetzer, FDNM <msmetzer@newsminer.com>,  Sam Bishop, FDNM <sbishop@newsminer.com>,  Dermot Cole, FDNM <cole@newsminer.com>
Date:  Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Subject: Elbasan Acres FDNM article

Fairbanks borough commission to decide Elbasan Acres tonight 4/30/2013 FDNM

Today’s front page article doesn’t do justice to the testimony or appeal points submitted to the Planning Commission.

This article is incorrect. The platting decision approves all 5 phases and a site for an elementary school that may also be used for another school, not “about 20 lots” and a site for a school. It appears you may have only heard Land Management’s side and not spoken to Jeannie, Wes Madden, or Gene DuVal.

The article is also incomplete:

• No mention that it adds further injury to private property values and owners in North Pole’s real estate market that is in a nose-dive. Wes Madden and Gene DuVal supported the appeal as witnesses.
• No mention of requirement in Borough Code of Ordinance that platting decisions must “protect and improve” health, safety, and welfare.
• No mention that the Planning Commission used this same Borough Code of Ordinance requirement in the past to block a development on private property proposed by a private property owner but now, with the Borough as both property owner and applicant, the Borough is pursuing its self-interest but ignoring the “protect and improve” health, safety, and welfare requirement in code.
• No mention that air pollution levels near this site have been recorded as the highest concentrations in the nation, worse than Woodriver and Watershed, worse than nearly every monitored city in the world.
• No mention that it is unsafe to locate a school or a hundreds of new families in such pollution and endangers lives.
• No mention that the Borough risks its own assets for harm it causes to both property values and health.
• No mention that all public testimony to the Platting Board raised health, safety, and welfare concerns and was ignored. No changes were made to Borough Land Management’s proposed conditions or finding of fact.
• No mention that during the Planning Commission appeal hearing all testimony, excepting that from Borough Land Management, raised these health, safety, and welfare concerns and supported the appeal.
• No mention that Dr Jim Conner submitted: “This development is very close to an already polluted area and will likely contribute to more wood/coal smoke in the borough non-attainment area.”
• No mention that Borough maps provided with the appeal, and in the public record, show this area has unhealthy air pollution when other areas of the nonattainment area are less polluted. The air pollution is not the same across the borough; this area is worse.
• No mention that the site is OUTSIDE the PM 2.5 nonattainment area, and the state has no plan to control pollution sources across the boundary line in the SIP which, as you know, is overdue by 137 days.
• No mention that the school superintendent supports the site for one or two schools.
• No mention that Dr Peter Marshall was a witness in favor of the appeal.
• No mention that a number of residents were prevented from testifying during the hearing under new interpretations of existing code. Residents who use the land currently, could have children at the school, could be assigned to teach at the school, and whose property values will decline, were blocked from testifying by the Planning Commission chair.

We recommend contacting Wes Madden, Gene DuVal, Dr Jim Conner, Dr Peter Marshall, and Superintendent Pete Lewis, in addition to Jeanne Olson, if you have not already done so. Tonight’s decision is vastly more significant than 20 house lots and a site for a school.

As of this posting, Mr Buxton has not replied or updated the article online.

Read Full Post »

Planning Commission to Decide North Pole School in Smoke Tomorrow

The Planning Commission will vote to decide the Elbasan Acres appeal tomorrow evening at 7 pm, see Agenda.

Elbasan Acres is a Borough proposal to build a major subdivision and elementary school in an area with one of the highest concentrations of fine particulate pollution in the nation. This North Pole neighborhood near Repp, Brock and Hollowell Roads also has a struggling housing market at great risk of being driven lower by this proposal. The subdivision and school are proposed just outside the PM 2.5 nonattainment area, unacceptably risking needs of public health and attainment. The appeal seeks to overturn Platting Board approval of Elbasan Acres.

This is your last chance to support Jeanne Olson’s appeal to the Planning Commission. Include your mailing address and phone number so they won’t discount your input.

Three Sentences for Safety and Property Values:

I support only a safe location for a new North Pole elementary school if it is indeed needed. I also support protecting private property owners and their home values. Please do everything you can to support the appeal of Elbasan Acres.

To:
Mayor Luke Hopkins <mayor@fnsb.us>,
Jim Conner – FNSB Air Quality Specialist <jconner@fnsb.us>,
Joy Shockley Huntington – Chair <joy.shockley@tananachiefs.org>,
David C Lanning <lanningak@acsalaska.net>,
B Kevin McCarthy <kevin@northpolegallery.com>,
Thomas E. Marsh <temarsh@jantz.net>,
Marna Sanford <marna_k@hotmail.com>,
David Pruhs <dpruhs@gci.net>,
Tim Sovde <so_v_de@hotmail.com>,
Gregory D. Bringhurst <gregbringhurst@gmail.com>,
Sara Mason <sara.mason@alaska.gov>,
Jerry McBeath <gamcbeath@alaska.edu>,
Superintendent Pete Lewis <superintendent@k12northstar.org>,
Kristina Brophy – President <kristina.brophy@k12northstar.org>,
Heidi Haas – Vice President <heidi.haas@k12northstar.org>,
John Thies – Treasurer <john.thies@k12northstar.org>,
Sean Rice – Clerk <sean.rice@k12northstar.org>,
Lisa Hall <lisa.hall@k12northstar.org>,
Sue Hull <hull@gci.net>,
Charlie Leonelli <charlie.leonelli@k12northstar.org>,
Colonel Thomas Daack – Base Rep <thomas.daack@us.af.mil>,
Colonel Ron Johnson – Post Rep <ronald.johnson@us.army.mil>,
Hanna Brewer – Student Rep <hanna_brewer@hotmail.com>

Please CC:
Clean Air Fairbanks <cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com>

The following Community Perspective by appellant Jeanne Olson, DVM, was published today.

Community Perspective: Borough’s plan comes up again on Tuesday night 4/29/2013 FDNM

The issue of air quality and unsafe levels of PM2.5 is a familiar topic. Folks who still doubt the presence, distribution, source and the unhealthy effects of our local bad air must surely be charter members of the Flat Earth Society — that is another matter. The air we breathe is still our most important and current subject.

Last week, there were few empty seats at the Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Commission meeting. Dozens of citizens gathered to testify and listen to an appeal of a Platting Board decision approving a borough-owned, large subdivision in the North Pole area called Elbasan Acres.

The primary issue was unhealthy air quality and the potential creation of more than 200 homes to make it worse. The testimony, passionate and heart-wrenching at times, continued well past midnight.

The appellant’s case was based upon the “health, safety and welfare” phrase in borough code Title 17. The borough, as the owner, claimed that air quality is not a Title 17 issue, and should be addressed as part of a separate public process.

Moreover, the Platting Board claimed that the phrase in Title 17 which refers to “to protect and improve health, safety and general welfare of the people of the borough” is merely the purpose of Title 17, but not one of its requirements.

The Planning Commission members wisely decided to recess and resume discussion of this appeal at their next regular meeting, which is Tuesday.

The important question — “Does a new subdivision have to protect the ‘health, safety and welfare’ of the borough citizens?” — has already been upheld as a valid appeal basis and a requirement in Title 17 in a landmark appeal in 2002. In that case, a private developer wanted to create a large subdivision called Contentment Estates. It would have required numerous “non-traditional” septic systems because of the swampy and frozen land.

Then-Commissioner Luke Hopkins queried Rene Broker, the borough attorney, if the Platting Board was charged with “as we are protecting health and welfare.” Based upon her response, Mr. Hopkins said he felt the subdivision that was submitted to the Platting Board and acted on by them “has developed into a situation that we are not completely protecting the health and welfare of the Borough.” The appeal prevailed, 6-3.

The Elbasan Acres issue is also a health, safety and welfare concern, but with different characters. It is more than 600 acres of borough-owned land with plans to be developed with borough funds (including a school) and involves air quality rather than water quality. The air quality problem is a more immediate and more serious concern than wastewater was at Contentment Estates. And thus Elbasan Acres is even more deserving of rejection.

While you can haul drinking water and might be OK with using a honey bucket, we all share the same air.

Perhaps the majority of the Platting Board members have a fundamental misunderstanding of their purpose. While oversight of the technical details of land subdivision and the clarity of land boundaries through the platting process is a valid government function, there are other, and more important, governmental duties.

Subdivision platting law is based in public law rather than contract law. Although it affects real estate, its origins come from governmental law concepts premised on the right of the government to protect the health, safety and public welfare of the public. That is why the Platting Board and Planning Commission exist. Without a purpose, why bother to have a platting board or a planning commission?

Indeed, the fundamental purpose of our government, at all levels, is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. I think that is something that we all learned in high school civics class.

That is why we have police and fire protection, platting and replats, zoning and rezoning. It’s why we have state environmental monitoring of sulfolane in North Pole and why a state court ruled to stop the source of air pollution near Woodriver Elementary School.

We may disagree about several other questions raised at the appeal. Should government develop land in direct competition with private developers and real estate agents?

Should land be sold into private hands or retained for recreational purposes for all citizens? What part of government process should, in good faith, involve the citizens? But, what other more fundamental justification, for any branch and level of government, than to protect its citizens?

Many of those citizens will be watching and listening when the Planning Commission reconvenes Tuesday. May wisdom and integrity be included in their decision.

Jeanne Olson is a resident and veterinarian in the North Pole area. She is the appellant in this case before the Planning Commission and can be contacted at cafesocietyfordogs@gmail.com.

Read Full Post »

North Pole Resident Suggests Borough “Keep Looking” for Safer School Site

Letter to the Editor by Cheryl Beckley, North Pole, Subdivision issues 4/26/2013 FDNM

As I sat in on the borough Planning Commission’s meeting about the proposed residential neighborhood and elementary school in North Pole on Repp and Brock roads, I was left wondering. The school is desperately needed in North Pole, which we all agree on. But when pressed as to how to justify that particular location, seeing the air quality rivals that of Woodriver Elementary on its worst days, the commission backtracked and said, “Well, the school doesn’t have to go in there, we can wait on that.”

Then why is it OK to throw another 115 woodstoves over there? And 115 idling cars, at minimum?

If the site is a new school location — and I’ve seen the letters back and forth from the land management department to the school district to the platting board indicating its approval by all three — why then, when pressed about the health, safety and welfare of these kids and all of us neighbors, did the commission backtrack and say “Oh, we don’t need to put the school there.”?

Either this is for the school congestion solution or its bottom line is the borough making a profit off land sales regardless of the effect on the home sales market. Testimony from two independent realtors confirmed the North Pole market is behind by eight months. Who will buy these small, 1.2-acre parcels? They’ll just be destroying the forest over there at Brock and Repp (our only source of filtering this low-lying area’s air pollution) to have parcel after parcel sit empty and then still not build a school because the air quality in this particular location is horrendous. Or they’ll build these 115 homes and the school, and all of us will suffer the health issues.

We need a new school no doubt, but there is a huge amount of borough land on the Old Richardson Highway and Bradway that needs to be looked at, as it sits in a better type of geography for air flow. No, Brock is not the best place, health-wise, for the school. Let’s keep looking.

Read Full Post »

Attend Elbasan Acres Appeal Tuesday, April 16

Elbasan Acres Appeal Hearing by the FNSB Planning Commission
Tuesday, April 16 at 7:00 pm
Assembly Chambers, Borough Admin Center, 809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks
Contact:  Jeanne Olson, 1890 Hollowell Road, North Pole <corvi@mosquitonet.com> 488-8800 home

The public is invited to attend a quasi-judicial hearing by the Planning Commission of the Fairbanks North Star Borough on the citizen appeal of Elbasan Acres. The appeal was filed by Jeanne Olson, DVM, in objection to the Platting Board’s decision to approve a large subdivision with 115 lots and a new elementary school site near Brock, Repp, and Hollowell Roads in North Pole. The applicant is the Land Management Department of the Borough.

Members of the public may be allowed to testify for three minutes regarding the appeal if they meet an “interested persons” criteria administered by the Planning Commission Chair at the beginning of the hearing, see “interested persons” 17.80.030 D.

Members of the FNSB Planning Commission:

David C. Lanning <lanningak@acsalaska.net>
B. Kevin McCarthy <kevin@northpolegallery.com>
Thomas E. Marsh <temarsh@jantz.net>
Marna Sanford <marna_k@hotmail.com>
David Pruhs <dpruhs@gci.net>
Tim Sovde <so_v_de@hotmail.com>
Gregory D. Bringhurst <gregbringhurst@gmail.com>
Joy Shockley Huntington, Chair <joy.shockley@tananachiefs.org>
Sara Mason <sara.mason@alaska.gov>
Jerry McBeath <gamcbeath@alaska.edu>

Ms. Olson’s appeal presentation will include:

• A call to uphold the requirement in Title 17 to “Protect and improve the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the borough.”
• Evidence that this is one of the worst air polluted areas in the Borough and the nation. Children and staff deserve a new elementary school with healthy air.
• Evidence that creating this Borough subdivision will cause hardship to existing private property owners by flooding an already saturated and unstable real estate market. Elbasan Acres will only add to the inventory of unsold property, increasing the downward pressure on our home values.
• Evidence that the approved Master Plan developed by citizens with the Brock Road Working Group during meetings from 1998-2003 was ignored, and that staff did not attempt to notify these citizens of the new plan for the area.

These and other issues presented in the Notice of Appeal are available here.

In addition to attending the hearing, Ms. Olson encourages supporters to sign the online petition on Change.org. Now has 131 signatures!

>> Link to Planning Commission agenda for April 16 meeting and appeal hearing

Read Full Post »

Scorched Weekend: Woodriver Polluter Smokes it Up

Andrew and Gloria Straughn scorched through a recent weekend. The couple are named as defendants by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, plaintiff, in a civil case filed in Superior Court Jan 3, 2013. The couple have two outdoor wood boilers across the street from Woodriver Elementary that have generated smoke pollution since they were installed in 2008.

Hey, it’s the weekend. Why not fire both up?

So, yeah, their neighbors noticed. Who wouldn’t? DEC, that’s who.

5055 Palo Verde Ave, Fairbanks, Alaska

58 Trinidad Dr, Fairbanks, Alaska

5055 Palo Verde Ave, Fairbanks, Alaska

Pre-Trial Scheduling Conference: March 18, 2013

>> Link: CourtView – search for Case 4FA-13-01205CI, defendants – Andrew and Gloria Straughn

Read Full Post »

Sickened by Smoke, Report on the Harm and the Remedy

A new report on the harm to residents and the need for voter support of the Healthy Air Protection Act has been published by Clean Air Fairbanks

Link: Sickened by Smoke: the Harm of PM 2.5 Pollution and the Opportunity for Voters to Help July 2011. [1.3MB]

The report includes effects on health, summaries of public testimony from smoke victims,  measured concentrations from monitoring data including maps generated by the borough’s “sniffer” vehicle, winter source contributions, graphs of the growing number of public complaints, public records of life and safety impacts, agency enforcement to date, property rights vs the right not to be injured debate, economic impacts of continued nonattainment, and options including voter approval of the Healthy Air Protection Act.

The report is intended to inform voters in advance of the advance of the October 4, 2011 municipal election.

Visit Healthy Air Now for more on the ballot proposition and how to donate and volunteer.

Read Full Post »

Another House for Sale at Woodriver

Two homes across the street from Woodriver Elementary School in the University West neighborhood are now on the market.

5005 Palo Verde Ave, Fairbanks, Alaska

5005 Palo Verde Avenue newly listed by Pruhs Real Estate for $257,500

See: Google Map: 5005 Palo Verde Ave or Google Street View: 5005 Palo Verde Ave

 

 

  

 

 

5015 Palo Verde Ave, Fairbanks, Alaska

 5015 Palo Verde Avenue listed by Rich Harter, Century 21 Goldrush for $274,450

See: Google Map: 5015 Palo Verde Ave or Google Street View: 5015 Palo Verde Ave



Read Full Post »

West Virginia Country Roads Hear about Our Air Troubles

A FDNM article on the borough’s air pollution monitoring program was picked up by the AP news network and republished around the world. You can read it in the Charleston Daily Mail here: “Device measures air quality in Fairbanks hot spots” 12/27/2010.

Find the original article published by the FDNM here: “A little device is helping keep tabs on what you breathe in Fairbanks” 12/20/2010.

Word is getting out about our serious air pollution. People considering moving to Fairbanks need to know, especially if they have children. Families have moved out because of the air pollution. When we have the worst fine particle air pollution in the nation day after day word gets out.

Read Full Post »

51 Tips for Testifiers

Keep it to 3 minutes, use your own words, open and close with your conclusions and your thanks, tell them you have new information they need to consider. Then tell your story about how smoke is affecting your life and family. Following are 51 Tips for Testifiers. If you need more information on any of these ideas, search this site or contact cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com.

This is your opportunity to testify at the APCC hearing on Wed, Dec. 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM in the Borough Assembly Chambers. For the dirt on the proposed air quality code amendments introduced by Mayor Luke Hopkins, read about the newest draft AQ ordinance’s significant problems and our sectional analysis in a separate post. Also review: the Mayor’s proposed code amendments (proposed 12/9/2010) to the current Air Quality Ordinance 2010-28 (approved 6/10/2010).

Take your pick of 51 ideas from residents of Fairbanks and North Pole:

1.  The state study which found an association between increases in the 24-hour concentration of PM 2.5 and hospitalization rates published in this bulletin by the State of Alaska Epidemiology was published 8/30/2010 and thus not available for consideration when the original ordinance was approved in June 2010.

2. Did they notice that while Prop A applied to home heating, the Mayor’s draft drops air quality protections from all types of heating? Tell them about the smoke from the coal-burning industrial shop, apartment building, bar, or church that affects you. Even the strictest interpretation of Prop A doesn’t apply to smoke from those types of emitters.

3. What it is like for a parent on a late-night run to the hospital with a child who’s having trouble breathing?

4. Do they know how much installing a HEPA filter in your home costs?

5. How you love to exercise or take a walk outdoors but want to stay healthy, so what should you do?

6. How your head hurts, throat burns, eyes tear when particulate levels go up, and it’s even hard to think?

7. Do they know someone you love has diabetes, a heart condition, lung problems (such as bronchitis or asthma), is a child or an elder who is at increased risk even at MODERATE particulate concentrations?

8. That our Alaska Constitution 11.7 prohibits Prop A from taking vital protections away from our public health and safety?

9. So some were upset about a $30 fine for thick smoke, higher than 50% opacity? This is a tenth of the fine that was originally proposed for the ordinance. Rather than dropping the fine to zero, maybe they could just divide it by 10 again. No one would complain about a fine of $3, would they? Still too high? Divide it by 10 again. Now, who could possibly complain about a 30¢ fine? You could divide it by 10 forever and never get to zero, which is what’s in the draft ordinance. Is this about protecting the wallets of smoky wood and coal burners or is it about protecting public health and the economy of our community?

10. Have they considered that every other major community in Alaska regulates smoke opacity and has it under control but Fairbanks?

11. Dropping the 50% opacity rule and the prohibition against burning wet wood takes the “fair” out of “Fairbanks.” Shouldn’t it be “UNHEALTHY-banks, instead?

12. Do they know you routinely burn dry wood in hot fires to heat your home and don’t go over 50% opacity for 15 minutes of any one hour? Or even for one minute? Do they know how easy it is to burn cleaner than 50% opacity?

13. Have they considered that the 50% opacity safeguard is an essential end-of-the-pipe standard that focuses on the worst emitters that acutely degrade neighborhood air and dilute their smoke into ambient air we all breathe? We can’t begin to meet attainment without stopping the worst emitters. Does anyone really think effective pollution control can be entirely voluntary?

14. Do they know you’re having trouble selling your home because of smoke in your neighborhood?

15. Or about your trouble finding a new home that isn’t in a smoke zone?

16. Are you pregnant? Tell them you want your child to have the best opportunities in life and that prenatal exposure to air pollution is associated with lower IQ.

17. It is possible they aren’t aware that even the most technically advanced EPA-certified stoves and Phase II outdoor boilers generate excessive smoke when fed wet wood or aren’t maintained? Better make sure they know.

18. Do they know that you’re a teacher and can barely talk because of smoke?

19. Do they know you get shots of steroids every other week to help you breathe and that you believe smoke has done this to your body?

20. Do they know that as a borough employee, taxes from property owners here in the borough pay most of your medical expenses? Could they guess what rate of fine you think is sufficient for emitting smoke that has changed your life?

21. Have they considered the double standard? If DEC suspects a food processor may have a contaminated product, a recall of the product is ordered. With an oil spill, if the state isn’t satisfied with the rate of clean-up, the state takes over. In some cases of a known vicious dog, the Borough has ordered it euthanized. Yet with our air pollution, state or borough agencies may ask the polluter to stop, but if the smoky emitter continues, no followup is made. In our community, injurious air pollution has ZERO consequences. Should air pollution compliance be voluntary?

22. Would they like to come with you and see some of the wood and coal smoke sources you live with near where you live, work, children attend school?

23. Have they viewed the Borough’s draft map of PM 2.5 concentrations on Google maps? Have they zoomed in on neighborhoods or schools?

24. Do they realize teachers and other school employees have as signed contract with the Borough that promises them a safe workplace and yours isn’t?

25. Do they know that for your job you are required to stand outside for bus and playground duty even during thick smoke? While you’re standing there trying not to breathe, you hear the students coughing and complaining about the smoke irritating their eyes and lungs. You wish you could tell them it’s because the agencies are more concerned with the rights of polluters than with children’s right to breathe clean air. But you can’t tell them the truth.

26. Do they know what it like for you to work outside in town during the winter and have called in complaints to the borough but don’t see any improvement? You’re fortunate to have a job or are you?

27. Do they know how it feels to have been as “healthy as a horse” but now have asthma and have reason to think it is because of your exposure to smoke from a neighbor’s boiler.

28. Do they know your child was sent home from school because of smoke in the halls and classrooms, interfering with his/her opportunity to receive an education? They should know the number of times your child has been sent home due to smoke.

29. Could they have ever considered thoughts you’ve had? The thought passed through your mind, “Was my child smoking?” But this is your elementary school student, and so you were just as shocked to realize it is the smell of wood and coal smoke on the clothes, and you think about what is happening to the fabric of your child’s young lungs. Tell them; otherwise they’ll never know your thoughts.

30. Do they know your child was kept in from recess because of smoke on the playground, interfering with his/her physical and social development?

31. Do they think it is possible that smoke inside schools lowers children’s attendance rate and test performances? Do they think it is necessary to study this further or can they just agree with you that smoke doesn’t belong inside schools?

32. Do they know that school principals and nurses use 1-hour particulate levels to decide it is safe to send children out for recess or home from school but even the superintendent does not have access to 1-hr particulate readings? Or that recently updated district regulation 960.1 allows children to be sent out to recess at PM 2.5 concentrations of 176 micrograms/cubic meter?

33. How scared and angry you get when you wake up at night with your house full of smoke? The first time you thought the house was on fire and evacuated your kids, not knowing it was from a neighbor’s wood or coal boiler.

34. Have they seen thick smoke crossing onto their property, as you have onto yours? If they did, would they agree that we need to regulate the amount of excessive smoke coming out of chimneys? Since when is OK to take your health and property values without consequence?

35. Should they really delete section 8.21.020(C) on smoke crossing property lines? Do they know you want trespassing smoke should go back where it came from, not be allowed to harm your family.

36. Do they know you brought written testimony for better air quality regulations to a hearing in the spring but the open display of guns was too intimidating so you left without testifying? Infringing on your first amendment rights to free speech.

37. Have they read about other communities to progress prohibiting hydronic appliances, outdoor wood boilers because of the excessive smoke they can produce?

38. Do they know why you want no one to burn wood over 20% moisture content? Fresh Alaskan birch is over 80% water and you know someone who throws unsplit birch in their boiler making thick smoke that affects you.

39. Do they really think the Mayor’s draft ordinance which only keeps the change-out program and the borough prohibition against installation of non-certified appliances will be enough to bring us into attainment? If reducing particulate pollution is important, shouldn’t we have a fall-back plan? Is the Juneau-style burn ban our unspoken fall-back plan?

40. Do they realize we’re not asking the state, we’re here asking our borough to listen and respond to local needs for public health and safety and economic concerns? If the Borough isn’t standing up for us and protecting our air, then we have no choice but to get the state and federal government to take over. Do they know you want the Borough’s help to protect local interests from local air pollution?

41. Do they know the state can put local ordinance into state regulation and help us enforce our air quality protections? Then EPA will give us 100% credit in our implementation plan needed for to meet attainment and avoid economic sanctions. Do they know voluntary methods of air quality control give us only 6% credit with EPA?

42. Do they know that PM 2.5 levels have been climbing as action has been delayed? In 2007, PM 2.5 levels needed to be reduced by 10% to meet attainment; in 2008, a 15% reduction was needed; and in 2009, the improvement needed was 20%. Do they have a guess how much of an improvement we’ll need from 2010 levels to meet attainment? (We don’t know.) Who here benefits from doing nothing or too little?

43. Have they worked out the timeline? Attainment of PM 2.5 standards must be met by Dec. 2014. The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is must be submitted to EPA by Dec. 2012. To put the state regulations in place and finalize the SIP, the state says it will take a year. 2011 is the last year left to get our plan together, get it incorporated into state regulations, and get it started working to bring down our PM 2.5 numbers.

44. How many people know that EPA calculates attainment based on a three-year average? If serious efforts to meet attainment are put off until the year attainment is required and even if attainment is met that year, when the preceding two years are averaged in, we’ll fail to meet attainment.

45. How many people know about the sanctions that can be levied by EPA? If the state doesn’t submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) or it is considered unacceptable, then EPA redirects federal highway funds that would have come to the nonattainment area or if necessary to the entire state to cover the costs of EPA preparing a federal implementation plan. Plus 2 to 1 offsets are required on new or modified point source permits.

46. Do they realize that if we don’t stop the worst wood and coal smoke emitters, the state will have little choice but insist on a Juneau-style burn ban? If we stop the worst emitters now, maybe that will be enough to bring down PM 2.5 so the rest of us who burn clean, dry wood and don’t smoke out our neighborhood can continue to burn wood responsibly.

47. Do they know you’re aware our nonattainment status will count against us during the upcoming 2013 BRAC round and possibly cost us Eielson and all those jobs?

48. Do they know the downtown AQ monitor (675 7th Ave) can show readings of MODERATE or even GOOD when concentrations of smoke in your neighborhood are horrible?

49. Do they know how sweet and generous the hundreds of families who live in the Woodriver neighborhood are? Your children got bags and bags of candy from them at Halloween. These are nice families with a lovely neighborhood. No one deserves to endure the smoke they’ve been through, and yet, it has gone on for years now. A handful of emitters cannot be allowed to bring down an entire neighborhood.

50. Would they join you for dinner at your family’s home in North Pole’s “Rectangle of Death”? There’s a handful of emitters in this neighborhood near Dawson and Lineman, and they burn coal.

51. Do they know you represent the lung association, PTA, realtors, Fairbanks chamber, doctors association, group of scientists, environmental group, neighborhood alliance against smoke? Although you haven’t testified on this before, you decided now is the time to make your group’s interests heard and represented.

Read Full Post »