.
Feedback

Air Officials Warn--Don't Throw Another Log on That Fire

Wood-burning devices are prohibited today AND tomorrow as cold temps and clear skies have prompted air quality officials to declare the season's fifth "Spare the Air Alert". Unlike last year, violators will not be give a second chance to

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is issuing the season’s fifth Winter Spare the Air Alert for Thursday, January 17, which bans burning wood, manufactured fire logs or any other solid fuel, both indoors and outdoors for 24 hours. 

The alert has been called due to the ongoing high pressure system and cool temperatures that trap smoke pollution close to the ground. 

"Wood smoke is the other second hand smoke around our homes," said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Air District.

"It is important to reduce this smoke around our homes and neighborhoods when weather conditions trap smoke near the ground." 

It is illegal for Bay Area residents and businesses to use their fireplaces, woodstoves and inserts, pellet stoves, outdoor fire pits, or any other wood-burning devices during a Winter Spare the Air Alert.

Many residents had mixed responses to whether or not they would report their neighbors for burning wood on a Spare the Air day. 

Homes without permanently installed heating, where woodstoves or fireplaces are the only source of heat, are exempt. 

Starting this winter, first-time violators will be given the option to take a wood smoke awareness class, online or by mail, to learn about the hazards of wood smoke pollution in lieu of paying a penalty. Second violations will result in a $500 ticket and subsequent ticket amounts will be higher. The public must check before they burn during the Winter Spare the Air season, which runs from November 1 through February 28. The daily burn status can be found: 

  • On the Air District Web sites: www.baaqmd.gov or www.sparetheair.org
  • Via the toll-free hotline 1-877-4-NO-BURN (complaints can also be filed via the hotline)
  • By signing up for AirAlerts at www.sparetheair.org or phone alerts at 1-800-430-1515
  • Via the Spare the Air iPhone and Android Apps

 In the winter, wood smoke from the 1.4 million fireplaces and wood stoves in the Bay Area is the single largest source of air pollution, contributing about one-third of the harmful fine particulate pollution in the air. Exposure to wood smoke—like cigarette smoke—has been linked to serious respiratory illnesses and even increased risk of heart attacks. Breathing fine particles accounts for more than 90 percent of premature deaths related to air pollution. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (www.baaqmd.gov) is the regional agency responsible for protecting air quality in the nine-county Bay Area. 

Beatrice Karnes January 17, 2013 at 04:09 am
Thank you for the information. <Sigh> It used to be nice to do things just because they felt good without engaging the brain. Remember when we enjoyed life, rather than analyzed it?
Victor January 17, 2013 at 12:52 pm
This is just dumb! If I, or my own mother can't stay warm this winter then they can pay our heater bill from their own out of pocket exspense!
Janette January 17, 2013 at 10:04 pm
The "Air Officials" are lying through their teeth anyway. We met the clean air standards a couple of decades ago and the these insane agencies should be defunded and just go away. Keep your "warnings" to yourself CARB, this is still a free country and if we're cold we're going to build a fire and be comfortable. You, on the other hand, don't have the common sense to come in out of the rain or you wouldn't be "warning" people not to stay warm in the winter.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.