Fire Mitigation brush clearing

Here's the latest news about the brush clearing that's going on around Lake Natoma.

I got the following clarification from Jim Michaels. He is working with Matthew See (Federal Bureau of Reclamation and Capt. Greg Landin (Sac Metro Fire District) to coordinate the effort.

"There is both State land and federal land within Folsom Lake SRA (which includes the lands around Lake Natoma). Also there are areas of undeveloped land adjacent to Folsom Lake SRA that are either owned by the County, local park and recreation districts or homeowners associations.

The red line is that state park boundary. Within the boundary the areas with green cross hatch are state owed land. The area within the boundary with no cross hatch are federal property. As you can see from the aerial photo there are a number of areas outside our boundary that are undeveloped or open space lands. The current vegetation work is all occurring on either state land or federal land within the park unit boundary. Both Matt and Denali (State Park Environmental Scientist) are working with the same Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps (SRCC) crews to get the work done. This same crew has been working with the County in the lower American Parkway doing similar work for the past several months. The SRCC received a grant to fund this work in both the Lower American River Parkway and along Lake Natoma. Matt is providing oversight on the federal property and Denali is providing oversight on the State lands. In the past, the State might have taken responsibility for the project on both the State and federal lands within the park boundary. However, due to the State budget situation our District has not been able to fill a second vacant natural resource staff position, so Matt stepped up to take the lead on federal property. The crews will be working on both State and federal land over the next month.

Because we do not have unlimited crew time, the vegetation modification/fuel reduction is not occurring along the entire boundary. We worked with the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District to prioritize areas where the work will occur.

State Parks elected to notify property owners adjacent to the State lands where the work will occur with a letter. We sent out about 100 letters. Reclamation elected to issue a press release as a means of notifying the public."

Here is the map, along with a Google map of the same area.

Public Information Request results

I just received the following letter from the Metro Fire District regarding my Public Information Request dated July 14, 2009 (similar to a Federal FOIA request) regarding the following:

Implementation Measures:

C. Develop a system of fire hazard mitigation based on the probability of occurrence and the number of people at risk. Acceptable mitigation shall include, but not be limited to, a staffed and equipped fire station. (MSA - PLANNING, Fire Districts) Request of current information related to C.

1. Please provide a copy of the updated system of fire hazard mitigation based on the probability of occurrence and the number of people at risk that encompasses the geographic area of Orangevale and Fair Oaks as related to the closure of Station # 33.


2. Specifically, what is the plan to remove the tall grass in contact with lower tree branches, dead trees and combustibles adjacent to the roadway as you approach the intersections of Sunset and Main Avenues, Winding Oak and Main Avenue, and the bluffs overlooking Lake Natoma?


3. When did the removal of combustibles start or will start?


4. When is the removal of combustibles expected to be finished?


5. Then, within a three (3) mile radius of the location of fire station # 33, and in particular within the area identified in #2, please provide copies of fire risk inspections, warning notices, citations for violations issued by Mike Stewart, Fire Marshall or any other SMFD personnel responsible for such inspections for the time period of June 1, 2008 to June 1 2009.

I received the following response:

Here's what I received from Jane Schultz, the neighborhood watch coordinator for homes on Dredger.

Community Meeting Notes:

DREDGER WAY, ORANGEVALE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH ... report on meeting that occurred at Round Table Pizza restaurant on Monday, August 3, 6 PM. Many of us were unable to attend so I asked "Neighbor Vic" to please write up a quick synopsis of the meeting. Thank you for your efforts Vic!

This is a synopsis of the meeting that began at 6 PM on Monday, August 3rd at Round Table Pizza in one of the meeting rooms. A large crowd pretty much filled the room and listened to representatives from the Rollingwood Homeowners Association and several officials – Fire Chief Don Mette and Deputy Chief Geoff Miller of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District; president and Fire District 7 Director of Metro Fire, Tom Lawson; Rodney Melton, County of Sacramento, Municipal Services Agency Department of Regional Parks; Jim Michaels of State Parks. All told us, almost verbatim, that there wasn’t the funding, there weren’t the personnel and that we should not expect very much in the way of service or services from them or their of their agencies.

Listening to what Tom Lawson, Metro Fire Board president and District Number 7 representative, and what other officials had to tell us, was that our Firehouse Station 33 was closed, that the closure was based on “data” that had been arduously analyzed regarding the number of times various fire stations had responded to calls for aide. The ‘less than before’ number of fire stations to remain open was said to be based on the scrutiny afforded the “data” perused. This “data” was not provided to those of us attending to peruse but only referred to as the source used in the decision making regarding which fire stations will remain in operation and those chosen to be taken out of service.

At one point, verbalized by most of the officials, it was suggested that homeowners and coalitions of homeowners could mitigate weed abatement themselves and that before they could do so they must first obtain a “Right of Entry Permit” from the Bureau of Reclamation and or the County and adhere to guidelines which must be followed. The agencies stated they did not want to be burdened by having to issue permits individually to homeowners in a piece meal fashion but would be willing to deal with a lesser number of requests that would be required of them by issuing permits to groups of homeowners or Neighborhood Watch groups who had or were banded together to take on the task of mitigating weed abatement. A suggestion was that a home owner or homeowners or groups of homeowners could hire contractors to cut down weeds. Director Lawson offered to come out to Neighborhood Watch groups and inform and instruct them on what will be required to mobilize to take on this task.

And then, clearly, what I was led to believe over the years has been that homeowners relied on having these kinds of services performed for them and that payment was made each year through the taxes assessed the homeowner. When this recollection was voiced at the meeting it was shrugged off as not going to happen now because of the cut backs in funding and personnel the various agencies are now being compelled to operate without.

The collective mind set of the various agencies, now, seems to be that a homeowner or homeowners-collectively should not ask (or expect) what tax money can provide but what can be done instead by them to relieve designated agencies of the province of responding to requests, instead, by first obtaining a permit or permits; then to perform the task individually or by groups or to actually contract it out to be done.

To a degree it would appear to be a calling back to usage or a harkening back to the concept of the volunteer fire department - a somewhat confusing, convoluted conundrum that involves already assessed and paid tax-money. The agencies appear to be attempting to keep themselves alive at the expense of performing the services they were created to provide.

My synopsis ... "Ask NOT what your county can do for you 'cause you'll just be spitt'n in the wind!"

Notice of local meeting

Here's the flyer from the latest Metro Fire District meeting held at a local restaurant on Monday, August 3, 2009 at 6pm.

We heard from Chief Mette of the Metro Fire District, along with Jim Micheaels, Staff Park and Recreation Specialist, Gold Fields District of the Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California.

Fire Station #33 meeting notice

This notice was sent by Roberta MacGlashen's office:

Vangie Schoening
Office of Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan
District Four, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
(916) 874-5491

Metro Fire District meeting results

The Metro Fire District Board of Directors meeting took place at 6pm on June 11th. I and a couple of other people from our community attended. We were fortunate to have coverage by FOX40, and a segment aired on the 10pm new that evening. (I will post a link to the segment in the next few days.)

Public comment at board meetings is allowed in three-minute intervals. Following my comment, several board members responded to our concerns, including Fire Chief Mette. All were gracious, concerned, and seemed willing to listen, but a couple of the items elicited no response.

This is what I said. Please note the bold sections, which highlight important points.

Board of Directors. I’m here to respond to your intention to close Fire Station #33. We’ve collected hundreds of signatures in opposition to this decision, and I informally represent the vast majority of the community bordering Main, Madison, and the Lake Natoma State Park area.

Our community has the following concerns.

1. We are surrounded on three sides by wildlands. In many ways, this area is similar to the Oakland Hills prior to the 1991 fire. The station closure would double or triple the response time to an area designated by your own CityGate report to be a “High Hazard Severity Zone” with little or know overlapping coverage. While you state that you’ll open Station #33 during “red flag” days, you seem unaware of the microclimate that exists in the area, creating several months of canyon wind from multiple directions, high temperatures, and low-humidity, not to mention recent arson and continuing careless behavior.

Of course, EMT response times would also be adversely affected by the station closure.

2. Regarding the extreme fire danger, there is no mitigation plan for the wildlands that surround our community, land that is in jeopardy of having a devastating wildfire. This land is a precious jewel of Sacramento County, land used by 1000s every year, and there is no inter-agency coordination or communication that we are aware of between the State, Sacramento County Metro Fire, other local officials, and the community.

3. There is no public outreach by the Metro board. While you may have followed the letter of the law with respect to public notices, you’ve not made any effort to involve the very constituents who elected you. Your website is hard to navigate and incomplete.

4. The 2009 final budget has many inconsistencies and lacks important detail. For example, you claim that the primary reason for the station closure is a budget deficit, yet the budget calls for additional land and facilities for additional millions of dollars.

We respectfully request that you revisit this important decision, immediately develop a mitigation plan, and make a concerted effort to keep the community involved and informed.

Thank you!

I tried to keep things brief and to the point. Their response follows. I’ve condensed this into a couple of paragraphs, but their responses were longer and in more detail. Also, following the general meeting, I spoke directly with Fire Chief Mette and Assistant Chief van Brunt. Both were cordial, concerned, and willing to help clarify the situation and make a greater effort to talk to the community.

Note that prior to the meeting, I submitted a Public Records Request (Govt. Code Section 6250 et seq.) for additional information (please refer to the “The closing of Fire Station #33” section on this blog for more information). I receive an acknowledgement by their general counsel, Joe Chavez, in the mail today. The records will be available on or about June 15th.

Item #1: Fire hazard.

I’ve received conflicting definitions of “red flag” days. Prior to the meeting in a telephone discussion with Tom Lawson (President of the Board), he told me that red flag days were when the temperature exceeded 100 degrees, plus low humidity and high winds. After the board meeting, I was told by Assistant Chief van Brunt, that they are very much aware of the microclimate that exists and that red flag days were when the temperature exceeded 80 degrees, plus low humidity and wind at or over 15 mph. The latter seems more in line with the microclimate that exists in our area. I pointed out to them that the reason I used the words “you seem unaware” was because of lack of communication between the Metro Fire District and the public.

Item #2: Lack of mitigation.

No one specifically addressed this issue, which I find disturbing. The only comment seemed to be that there was little they could do, since the wildlands are controlled by the State Park Service. When I pointed out the difficulties of following two sets of guidelines, do nothing in the adjacent wildlands (State Park regulations) and create a defensible space (Metro Fire District recommendations), no one had anything of substance to say. I urged them to make an effort to speak with the State Park officials, but it wasn’t clear whether or not they plan to do this. If nothing else happens, it seems to me this is the most important thing that should be undertaken – open a dialog with other agencies. It seems to me that the Metro Fire District has a greater likelihood of getting a response from the State Parks than individual citizens.

Item #3: Lack of public outreach.

Mr. Lawson, following my talk, said he would make an effort to involve the public. He was a bit vague about when it would take place, but he did say that he would have a “community meeting.” He also cited budget issues that “prevent” the board from having a public outreach program. I have trouble believing this, since things like e-mail distribution and community volunteers would cost little or nothing. They have an Information Officer, Capt. Pebbles, and it seems to me that must be a few creative, low-cost ways to communicate with the constituents.

The cost of reaching out to the public would almost certainly have benefits to the Metro Fire District, as well as to the public. Suggestions on such things as low-impact fire danger mitigation, e-mail distribution of important information, and volunteer action would more than make up for the minor costs involved.

Item #4: Budget concerns.

Everyone who addressed this issue, including Chief Mette and Director Granados, said that my interpretation of the budget was wrong. I certainly accept this as possible and even likely. However, this is in my opinion a symptom of lack of transparency. The published 2009 Final Budget is clearly missing important detail, which means anyone examining could easily come to erroneous conclusions. The website is hard to navigate and is incomplete, and it seems to me that the cost of keeping it and the budget up-to-date would prevent future misunderstandings.

The closing of Fire Station #33

Contact Jonathan Ganz (jganz@sailnow.com) for more information.

Thank you for your help gathering petition signatures! If you have additional signatures, I need them by noon on Thursday prior to the Metro Fire Station board meeting (details below). The more the better! I have over 350 names, which is outstanding, given we've only had a few days to gather them!

I created a California Public Record Information request and sent it to the Metro Fire District headquarters. It contains a request for items such as the following (budget and minutes) items, most of which are missing, incomplete, hard to find, or lacking detail or justification on their website. Thank you Hal Hillmann for bringing Cal. Statutes 6250 through 6276.48 to my attention.

Items requested:

• Breakdown of Board member salaries
• Minutes showing discussion and decision to close Station #33, including arguments for and against (2008, 2009)
• Minutes showing discussion and decision to leave or remove helicopter service (justification and breakdown for 2009 budget item if removing ($120K), e.g., #205110, #220500)
• Land Acquisitions (approx. $8M)
• Building Acquisitions (approx. $6M)
• Structures and Improvements
• Construction of Fire Stations (#20.069), e.g., Property Acquisition for Station 61, Station 29 justification

Thursday, June 11th - 2101 Hurley Way in Sacramento at 6pm

Your presence at the meeting will help convince the board to revisit their decision to close the station!

Directions:

1. Head southwest on US-50 W toward Exit 18About 11 mins 11.5 mi
2. Take the Howe Ave exit toward Power Inn Rdgo 0.3 mi
3. Turn right at Howe Ave (signs for Howe Ave)About 4 mins go 2.2 mi
4. Continue straight to stay on Howe Avego 0.3 mi
5. Turn left at Hurley WayAbout 1 min go 0.1 mi

Building is on the left side of the street, with parting in the back.

This is an update to the previous communication to the community list regarding the closure of Metro Fire Station #33, something already "decided" by the Metro Fire District Board. Many of you have signed a petition that states,

"As a resident of the Arden Bluffs neighborhood in Orangevale, CA, I am against the closure of the fire department on Main St. and the shutdown of the fire helicopter. Due to its proximity to the state park, this area is highly susceptible to fire, and it has a history of arson. It is unacceptable to remove this dedicated fire unit!"

If you haven't yet signed the petition, please let me know by e-mail or by telephone, and I'll get a petition to you. I strongly encourage you to speak with your neighbors about this situation! Some residents don't have email or didn't share it on the petition.

So far, every home visited has signed the petition (over 200 so far), and every signature counts!

The update:

Yet another example of why Station #33 shouldn't close:

http://cbs13.com/local/orangevale.grass.fires.2.1022104.html

Here's a local map showing the station. As you can see, it's good coverage for the local communities. The next closest one is Greenback and Illinois, which is significantly further away.







Previously:

I spoke with Capt. Pebbles, the Information Officer for the Metro Fire District. He was helpful in that he explained the time/distance justification for closing Station 33, but in my opinion he wasn't as helpful when he tried to make the claim that Station 33 would be open for "red flag" days. I asked him for a clarification of these days, and he said, "high temperature (over 100), low-humidity, and high winds." It seems to me that this definition covers most of the summer days between June and September, not to mention the occasional lightning and thunder storms during other months.

Capt. Pebbles also seemed stumped by the basic question of why there was no notice or call for public comment from those affected by the closures prior to the decision. His statement that "it's published on the website" and "you can attend the meetings" is sort of a cop-out in my opinion. It seems to me that the Fire District needs to make an effort to get public comment, not just rely on people proactively investigating agencies who are elected by us, paid by us, and ultimately report to us.

A great suggestion he made was to mitigate the fire danger by creating a defensible space. However, for those on the bluffs, this conflicts with the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (which includes Lake Natoma) objection to any changes made by those of us who live on its borders. When I told him this, he had two comments. The first was "that's insane, have them call me if there's a problem." The second was to give me the number of Jim Michaels, the SRA district manager (916-988-0205). Michaels is the person responsible for community involvement in fire mitigation. I left a message, but I have yet to receive a return call.

I also called Thomas Lawson, who is the chairman of the board of directors for the Metro Fire District. He also represents Fair Oaks on the board, and he voted for the station closure. He can be reached at 916-366-4000 if you would like to voice your displeasure. Apparently, the only supervisor who voted against the closure was Ray Trujillo, who represents District 3 (Orangevale).

As many of you know, KCRA 3 in the person of Richard Sharp was kind enough to do a follow-up story about the situation. The link to the story, which includes a video that was aired on Channel 3 and 58 can also be found here: http://www.kcra.com/video/19629947/index.html. He said that he's interested in defensible space issue, and I will keep him in the loop, of course.

You can find quite a bit of information about the reasons for the closure on the Metro website, which gives the public limited contact information (a general purpose email address and telephone number, but no way to contact the board directly), but the website is difficult to navigate, with lots of missing pages. I spent a couple of hours going over the report. It's close to 100 pages, including site maps. I came across the following information, which is somewhat disturbing, since it seems to indicate that the board decision doesn't reflect some important information in the report. And, in some cases, the report seems to be lacking some important details.

Whether the decision does or doesn't take this information into account is almost beside the point, since the public was not given notice, and public comments are limited to three minutes (and not actionable) at the board meetings.

Here's part of what I found. (Citygate - http://www.citygateassociates.com/ - did the study for SMFD)

"... Citygate’s analysis of prior response statistics and use of geographic mapping tools reveals that the SMFD has a speed and weight of attack problem in some areas. Across the overall District, deployment is good and very close to meeting national best practice guidelines in the developed areas. Where deployment is not as strong, it is between some stations and on the outer edge areas where population and calls for service are fewer.

Population drives calls for service, and development density drives the level of District tax revenues. Taken together, these factors mean that deployment planning will focus resources where there are more calls for service and the economic revenue exists to support deployment at more than a rural level of deployment.

<> A building fire in an urban area exposes adjoining buildings immediately, creating the threat of a wide area conflagration; ...."

According to this, the only mention of a "wide area conflagration" is for a building fire in an urban area. What about the Oakland Hills scenario potential of the green belts?

"2.3.3 Wildland Fire Risk
The wildfire threat in SMFD is of concern in some areas as shown in Map Series #2. Some of the District’s edge neighborhoods, especially along natural open space river areas, are exposed to wildfire. Over the decades the District has, in fact, experienced serious wildfires within its borders. To combat this risk, the District works closely with its mutual aid partner fire departments while training and equipping its firefighters for wildland firefighting in SMFD County conditions."

This is the only mention I could find about wildland fire risk. This doesn't say much beyond that they "work with others." I found the following list, which indicates that "grass fires" are the number one fire-related incident after non-fire incidents. Building fire incidents are listed further down the list:

Incident Type Count
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 41,482
611 Dispatched and canceled en route 5,901
311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 3,324
300 Rescue, emergency medical call (EMS), other 2,359
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 2,283
700 False alarm or false call, other 1,641
900 Special type of incident, other 1,617
600 Good intent call, other 1,445
554 Assist invalid 1,093
324 Motor vehicle accident no injuries 1,084
550 Public service assistance, other 1,079
622 No incident found on arrival of incident address 992
500 Service Call, other 806
143 Grass fire 487
510 Person in distress, other 474
111 Building fire 408

In fact, the report specifically identifies the bluff area as "High Hazard Severity Zone" on their map, which was included in the report.

Interestingly, here's an excerpt from the May 14, 2009 minutes:

Finding #10

• While it might be assumed that the District had a few fire stations too close together due to prior independent agency decisions, the fact today is that due to call volumes, simultaneous calls and a difficult to serve road network, there are actually very few if any areas where there is redundant fire station coverage.

Yet, Station #33 was closed.

What do we do next?

Roberta MacGlashen will be having her monthly community meeting this Friday at 7:30 am at Annie's Restaurant at the corner of Greenback and Beech (near Hazel). While there's not much Supervisor MacGlashen can do directly, I've been assured by her chief of staff that he will be looking into the interagency communication issues. I suspect there will be press coverage for this event.

The Metro Fire District meets every second and fourth Thursday, and is open to the public. The next meeting is June 11th at 6pm at 2101 Hurley Way in Sacramento. I and a couple of you have said that you're planning on attending, and I urge everyone to make it to this meeting if at all possible. We have strength in numbers. We have strength when there is media coverage.

If you're interested in the full report, you can find it here:

http://www.sacmetrofire.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=211&Itemid=221

Here's the hazard map:




Here are some still pictures from the interview, along with some recent lightning strikes in the area:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW.com/FireStationInterview?authkey=Gv1sRgCIqck9idv4Dndg&feat=directlink



Here is the petition form:

http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/Fire_Station_petition.pdf

Mather Airport - one solution

This is too funny.... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325428,00.html

Remember, check out the official website for Mather Airport noise issues at:

http://www.keepthepeace.org/

Mather Airport noise issues

As some of you know, we've seen an increase in airplane (specifically cargo) flights into Mather Airport. If you care about the quiet enjoyment of your community, get involved. (Many thanks to Bill Bryant and others for this information!)
Here's some of the latest....

A nice piece on CBS news:

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=26098@kovr.dayport.com

If you want to see what is actually happening over your homes, go here:

http://www.sacramentotracks.com/sacramento/introduction.html

Here's an example:

The EXPANSION OF MATHER will an impact on the 24 schools to be built in the Mather approach corridor. A large and growing body of scientific evidence has established that jet aircraft noise has a significant negative impact on learning. A study published in 2006 found aircraft noise much more harmful to children than road traffic noise, thus re-enforcing earlier doubts about school noise criteria. Clearly, classrooms at these schools must be sound-proofed, but at what cost, and will those measures be sufficient to eliminate the impact on children since not all activities take place in the classroom?

NOW IS THE TIME TO CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE SURE THEY RESPOND TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR FOR MATHER AIRPORT MASTER PLAN

THE COUNTY HAS BEEN SENT THE ATTACHED LETTER DATED OCTOBER 5, 2007. THEY HAVE 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT TO RESPOND.

EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU NEED TO CONTACT THEM TO ASK FOR A COPY OF THEIR RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION!!!!!!! BELOW ARE THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES.

DON'T WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT. IT IS TIME FOR THEM TO RESPOND.

IF YOU LIVE IN A DIFFRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT YOU NEED TO CONTACT THEM.

Teresa Stanley, Board President
Term Expires: 12/2008

To reach Mrs. Stanley
By Mail:
174 Orange Blossom Circle
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.985.3802
By Voice Mail:
916.985.3802
By E-Mail:
tstanley@fcusd.org
Richard Shaw, Board Vice President
Term Expires: 12/2010

To reach Mr. Shaw

By Mail:
230 Briggs Ranch Drive
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.351.9325
By Voice Mail:
916.351.9325
By E-Mail:
rshaw@fcusd.org
Mary McCormick, Board Clerk
Term Expires: 12/2008

To reach Mrs. McCormick

By Mail:
100 South Creek Circle
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.987.0834
By Voice Mail:
916.987.0834
By E-Mail:
mary.1mac@comcast.net

Edward Short, Board Member
Term Expires: 12/2010

To reach Mr. Short

By Mail:
125 E. Bidwell Street
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.362.9618
By Voice Mail:
916.362.9618
By E-Mail:
eshort@fcusd.org


Roger L. Benton, Board Member
Term Expires: 12/2010

To reach Mr. Benton

By Mail:
2364 Cobble Oak Ct
Rancho Cordova CA 95670
By Phone:
916.798.9953 (cell)
By Voice Mail:
916.798.9953
By E-Mail:
roger.benton@gmail.com

Some interesting emails:

From: "Barry" <xxx@xxxx>
Date: October 20, 2007 3:28:17 PM PDT
To: "David" <xxx@xxxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Mather Scoping Meeting
David (et al),
I have to admit I am becoming sympathetic to the anti-Mather expansion group. I see no reason why operations need to be expanded at night when it is very clear that day time operations are not even close to maximized.

I have an extensive career background in air operations and planning, and I suspect I might be able to assist in any organized effort to confront the county planners. I am hereby volunteering my assistance for such an effort.

Barry

From: David
To: email addresses removed
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Mather Scoping Meeting
Hi Everyone,

After being woken up by 4 planes this morning before 7:00 a.m. I’ve decided to get involved in the effort to oppose expansion of operations at Mather as proposed in the Mather Master Plan. I’ve been hesitate to get involved because the Sac County Dept. of Environmental Review (DERA) is a client of mine. However, after reading the master plan I am very concerned and my need for sleep must take precidence. My profession is environmental consulting and I specialize in environmental noise. So I am very familiar with the CEQA/NEPA process and how noise impacts from a project such as this need to be analyzed.

This morning is the first time I have looked at what is being proposed. If the current operations are bothering you in any way, you should be very concerned about the proposed expansion of operations. The master plan proposes to increase annual aircraft operations from the current level of 83,567 to 118,899, 42% increase. It proposes to lengthen the existing runway which means larger, noisier aircraft.

The current stage of the environmental review process is called “scoping.” This is a first and critical opportunity to let the county know about your opposition to expansion of operations. It is important that many letters get sent so that County staff understands the magnitude of the opposition and the issues that need to be addressed in the environmental document. Comments provided during the scoping process will help the county focus on the issues that are of concern to the community.

A few key issues that I see:

1. The draft environmental documents needs to address the return of major cargo operation to Sac International as an alternative. These operations were there prior to 1995. Development is expanding and growing around Mather (south Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Sunrise-Douglas area) and conflicts between development and noise will only get worse. Sac International is much better suited for these operations.
2. The noise analysis must address single event noise levels and the effect of operations on sleep disturbance using single event noise metrics. The cumulative 24-hour average noise metrics (Ldn and CNEL) traditionally used for this type of analysis are inadequate. Recent case law related to expansion at Oakland Airport require this. The noise analysis must evaluate the number of people likely to be awoken based on single event noise levels for each alterative evaluated. If Sac International is included as an alternative I sure the comparison of the number of people effected will be striking.
3. I've seen claims that expansion of the operations will not be greater than what was there when the facility was a military base so we shouldn't be concerned. Don't buy this. Military operations were rarely at night. Cargo operations are predominantly at night.
Please send a letter to Joyce Horizumi at the County. Information is on the flyer. If anyone knows about any existing organized opposition to the proposed expansion, please let me know who I can contact.

Dave

Future Expansion of Mather Airport Cargo Operations

My earlier item, “A Runway 22R Extension is Unnecessary and Wasteful,” established that the existing runway configuration at Mather is more than adequate to handle the 2021 high-range forecast for Mather. The “Sacramento County General Plan Noise Element” reveals the purpose of creating a second jet cargo runway by extending runway 22R to 7,200 feet (with another 300 feet of overrun when the planned runway 4L blast pad is considered). On page 60 of the Element, approved by the County Supervisors in June 1998, the true purpose becomes clear when it is stated that the “baseline scenario” for Mather assumes that “Air cargo operations are similar in magnitude to existing demands at Metropolitan Oakland International Airport.” Oakland is California’s second largest cargo airport with 80 to 90 cargo arrivals daily. Oakland handles 700,000 metric tons of cargo annually – more than twice the high-range forecast given in the Mather Airport Master Plan. And, that’s just the “baseline”; it could be more.

The Noise Element policy is re-enforced by statements by County officials, such as: “Our vision for Mather is it will be THE air cargo facility, a hub not just for this part of California, but for the entire Pacific Rim,” Paul Hahn, Sacramento County Economic Development Director, The Sacramento Bee, page D 4, 2/14/97; and “Conveniently located between the Pacific Rim and Europe the County operates Mather . . . with a goal of making it into a premier cargo hub . . . The goal includes the continued expansion of cargo operations. . .” Cheryl Marcell, Director of Marketing and Public Relations, SCAS, 8/24/05. (Figure 1 illustrates the basis of this goal.)

The California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights 1 concluded: “We hold that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansions or actions if:
(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” It is clearly the intent of Sacramento County to expand Mather operations far beyond the 324,000 tons given in the Master Plan high-range forecast and the runway 22R extension makes that possible. And, more than doubling the stated amount of cargo is almost certain to increase environmental impacts. Moreover, air carriers have unfettered access to Mather, 24/7, due to the 1990 Airport Noise and C apacity Act and the lack of a means to limit cargo operations. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to conclude that the environmental studies must consider cargo operations similar to, or greater than, those conducted at Metropolitan Oakland.

From Bill Bryant:

See my comments in red. Another reason not to extend the runway and add CAT III ILS. More SCAS lack of support for Sacramento County residents. You would think they work for the FAA and not the citizens of Sacramento County. Wonder what his pay check says?

Bill Bryant
From: Rickelton. Glen
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:47 PM
To: Acree. Hardy; MacGlashan. Roberta
Cc: Wolter. Ted
Subject: RE: ORCA55

Dear Supervisor MacGlashan:

Radar flight track data (see attached graphic) confirms that the flight in question (ORCA55) was operated in the traffic pattern at MHR for approximate 2 hours, both an hour longer than the 1 hour time limit specified in the MOU and for an hour later than the 7:00 PM time limit also specified in the MOU. I have provided the radar flight track information to Travis AFB Standards Evaluation staff and requested that they look into the circumstances of this event, including duration, timing, and flight tracks, and provide an explanation. I will of course forward any explanations once received.

No update to either the Travis or Beale MOU has yet been completed, so the terms of the prior MOU (attached) are still applicable, though there are some specific items which are no longer applicable OTHER THAN THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FOLSOM, FAIR OAKS, ORANGEVALE, AND THE EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENTS (For example: Mather’s Runway 22L pavement has been rehabilitated in the last couple of years and is no longer a valid basis for restricting aircraft to two touch and go landings.) We will continue working with the various command staff at both Travis and Beale in order to update these agreements to remove dated information, add appropriate new information (inclusion of C-17 aircraft for instance), and to provide clarity on issues which are frequently misinterpreted. However, given the operational needs of the military, it is unrealistic to expect that any update will result in any more restrictive operating conditions for military flight operations at Mather.

As you are undoubtedly already aware, FAA grant assurances require us to provide access to the military for practically any aircraft in any number at any and all times of day. With that in mind, that these MOU’s, though completely voluntary on the part of the military, exist at all is a tribute to the willingness of the commands of both facilities to work with us to be good neighbors in the community while still being able to fully carry out their critical mission.

I will follow up this message as soon as I have additional information on this event. Thank you.

Sincerely,

J. Glen Rickelton
Airport Planner
Sacramento County Airport System
(916) 874-0482
(916) 874-0764 (Fax)

Some useful links/documents:

http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/rancho_scoping_meeting.jpg (Rancho Scoping meeting notice)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/scoping_comment_form.jpg (Public Comment form)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/impact.pdf (Comments about the impact of the airport)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/sample_lit.pdf (The impact of noise on learning)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/notice.jpg (Notice to our representatives)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/world_of_cargo.jpg (Where the cargo goes from/to Mather)

New FOIA request for foliage info

Here's the latest.

I have repeatedly ask Howard Hirahara and Charles Cooper for the specifics regarding the decision not to implement a foliage screeen. They have stopped responding, so I decided to open another Freedom of Information Act request with Western Area Power.

Here is the text of the request:

On or about January 11, 2007, Howard Hirahara (HIRAHARA@wapa.gov)
stated the following in an email to me:

When Western first proposed a vegetation management option, we understood that the residents were seeking as a desired outcome, an approach which would result in a permanent year-round screening solution. From our perspective, Western was also interested in an option which would not impose additional long-term burdens and obligations. Given the reluctance of the California Department of Parks and Recreation to consider an evergreen solution which would meet the resident's need for a year-round visual screening option and Western's objective for a low maintenance, long-term solution, Western does not plan to continue pursuing a vegetation management solution at this time.

To which, I specifically asked for the nature of the "additional maintenance" that would be required for natural oak trees vs. evergreens. I also asked Charles Cooper (COOPER@wapa.gov) the same question via email on or about January 31, 2007). Neither has responded. My FOIA request is for the analysis that lead to the conclusion that natural oak trees are more expensive to maintain than evergreens.

Comments:

We have waited many months for WAPA to act as responsible neighbors, but their only response to the ongoing situation is little action, less interest, stonewalling, and lack of complete information.

Appeal Letter to WAPA

I would like to thank all 34 people who signed this letter. The people at WAPA need to know that real people are involved, not just "residents" of a community!

WAPA Appeal Letter, April 10, 2006

Note that the following people were copied:

Michael S. Hacskaylo, WAPA adminstrator
Dianne Feinstein, senator
Dan Lundgren, congressional representative
John Doolittle, congressional representative
Dave Cox, senator/Vanessa McCarthy-Olmstead
Roger Niello, assemblyman
Kerri Howell, vice mayor, City of Folsom
Charles Brown, congressional candidate
Bill Durston, congressional candidate
Sunny Williams, natural resources planner, Sacramento County
Warren V. Truitt, board member, Save the American River Association
Lakeisha McGhee, reporter, Sacramento Bee

Here are the attachments to the letter.

Overview

Supporting Data

Sacramento Bee article, April 2, 2006

Here's the latest article on the noise and pole situation. We are in the process of writing a letter of protest to Charles Cooper's boss, Jim Keselburg, demanding they revisit this decision. If you would like to reach him directly, you can give him a call at 916-353-4416.

If you can't view the article by clicking on the following URL, you can find the article in the Community News section of the Bee.

Directly to the article:

http://tinyurl.com/kxee4

To the Community News section:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/

Meeting notes/action items from March 27, 2006

Arden Bluffs Community Meeting with WAPA March 27, 2006
The purpose of this meeting is get satisfactory action on two key issues related to Western Area Power Association’s impact on the surrounding lake environment and adjacent Arden Bluffs neighborhood.

Key Issues

1. Generator noise – WAPA has two compressors running almost constantly, and they emit a very annoying droning noise that carries across the lake and directly impacts quality of life for many residents. WAPA has said it would consider a temporary solution, and that a more permanent solution will address the issue in next year’s budget. In the community’s view, it is unacceptable for this noise pollution to continue until next year, when other budget issues could then intervene. This noise needs to be immediately reduced, then completely fixed as soon as possible.

2. Power pole and substation eyesore – WAPA has said it is willing to paint the pole, remove the isolation bars, and mitigate the view with a fence and plant material. However, community residents feel that a better solution would be to replace it with a smaller pole.

Agenda

1. Introductory statement (Jonathan Ganz, 5 minutes)

Welcome

Introductions

Summary of key issues

2. Discussion of noise (20 minutes)

Proposed short-term mitigation (WAPA)

Proposed long-term solution (WAPA)

Comments and questions (all attendees)

3. Discussion of pole and substation size (15 minutes)

Proposed changes (WAPA)

Comments and questions (all attendees)

4. Other related issues (All attendees, 10 minutes)

5. Summary of action plan and closing (Jonathan, 10 minutes)

Meeting notes and action item assignments will be available via e-mail and hard copy.

Arden Bluffs Community and WAPA Post-Meeting Action Items March 27, 2006
The purpose of the meeting held on March 27, 2006, was to effect action from Western Area Power Administration regarding two issues related to its impact on the surrounding lake community environment.

Action Items and Comments

Chiller/generator noise

1. WAPA immediately will contact a sound engineer to investigate mitigating the sound from the chillers. In addition, WAPA has agreed to include the community in the discussion with the engineer.

Community comments

a. Remove the two walls that are funneling the noise toward the lake.

WAPA did not comment about this idea.

b. Construct a third wall between the chillers and the lake to contain the sound.

WAPA did not comment about this idea.

2. WAPA, within two months, will investigate and report to the community the feasibility of running the compressors only during the day.

Community comments

Many of us found the explanation that a thermostat controls the chiller is inconsistent with the constancy of run times. The standard practice of having a maintenance record would make it easy to determine when the compressors are actually running. If a record is available, we would like to review it.

3. WAPA, by October 1, 2006, will investigate moving or burying the chillers.

Community comments

We believe this is an inordinately long time to wait for a feasibility study, given the highly annoying nature of the disturbance. The only way this period would be acceptable would be if wall removal or new system installation were done immediately (see action item #1).

Charles Cooper contended that this was not feasible, due to the effort required to reroute the control lines and dig through the concrete slab.

Safety/security of power pole replacement

1. WAPA immediately will forward to the community an explanation of the safety issues involved in replacing the pole.

Community comments

Charles Cooper insisted that there are safety/security issues that would prevent or hamper the removal/replacement of the pole, but this seems like an excuse in light of the fact that they could safely make other alterations, such as removing the isolation switches.

2. Charles Cooper immediately will send us his boss’s contact information.

Community comments

We will appeal his stated decision not to replace the pole with a smaller, more standard size (similar to the other poles in the line).

March 27, 2006 WAPA meeting

Here is a picture from the meeting. There were about 30 people in attendance.



This is the flyer that was distributed prior to the meeting.

The latest from WAPA

We recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request. In response, WAPA sent us a full CD worth of data, most of which had nothing to do with the request. (Please let me know if you would like a copy.)

However, one line in one document read "Structure shall be design self supporting: Guys are not permitted." There was no justification for this statement, since WAPA could easily have obtained easements on the State land for guy wire installations. The pole in question is on State land by way of an easement. The State has accepted guy wires on all other poles in this run where the wire direction changed.

When I questioned David Christy about this, asking for documentation to support the decision to use a stand-alone pole, I received the following, which also doesn't make much sense and seems to be inaccurate.

Jonathan Ganz 02/28/06 7:30 PM

David,

Regarding the guy wires, your response doesn't make seem to make
sense, given

1) The State has accepted guy wires on all other poles in this run
where the wire direction changed. It seems to me that WAPA could
have obtained easements on the State Land for guy wires for this
pole.

2) Previously, WAPA has claimed it was a security issue.

Do you have the documentation that supports the reasoning behind
the size/shape justification? The two responses don't seem to jibe.

His response:

Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:52:43 -0700
From: "David Christy" CHRISTY@wapa.gov
To: "Jonathan Ganz" , "Chuck Cooper" COOPER@wapa.gov

I gather your underlying question is why don't we put in a smaller pole
and support it with guy wires. Guy wires generally are used to support
a structure at an angle.

The pole behind the office is basically in line with the existing line,
not on an angle. The simplest engineering solution in this case was to
use a self-supporting structure based on a proven Western design that
would fit within the existing right-of-way. Guy wires would have to
extend into the bike path easement (which would have presented a
hazard to the general public) so are not a preferred option.

My reference to security relates to reliability. Western wanted a
self-supporting structure that would still function with the loss of
either the Folsom or Nimbus line.

Freedom of Information Act request made for WAPA engineering details

I made the following Freedom of Information Act request on the Department of Engergy website a couple of days ago.

NAME: Jonathan Ganz
SUBJECT: EFOIA Request
FEE: 100.00

FEE WAIVER REQUEST: I represent the concerned citizens of our community, known locally as the Friends of Arden Bluffs. We have no budget, no formal meetings, and no officers. We are not a formal group in any sense of the word. I am making this FOIA request on behalf of my neighbors.

DOCDESC: On or about 1/15/04, Western Area Power Admiinstration (WAPA), Sierra Nevada Region (SNR) filed an environmental impact report according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for consideration in building a substation and power pole behind the SNR office located at 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, Sacramento County. The project number is 040101-J. The approximate project date was September - December 2004, and was completed some time during 2005. This project was intended to tap into the Folsom-Nimbus line. Power to be supplied by the Folsom Substation. The power pole and substation were designed by engineers at or contracted by WAPA, and we in the community affected by this construction would like access to the engineering drawing, studies, and related material in order to complete an independent review.

COMMENTS: We have waited months for WAPA to reevaluate the construction, and we have repeatedly requested the technical reasons for the engineer's original decision. In fact, WAPA agreed in principle to give us access to the information so that we could have it reviewed independently, but they never followed through, and they are quite unresponsive to both our requests and those of our elected representatives (Congressman John Doolittle, Congressman Dan Lungren, Senator Dianne Feinstein) and our local newspaper (Sacramento Bee).

WAPA responds, sort of

We received the following response from David Christy.

He has yet to respond to our concerns regarding:

(1) having an independent engineer assess the situation
(2) find a way to mitigate the noise from the generator(s) currently operating
(3) give us formal assurance that the community will be involved before future work is completed

Here's the letter he sent:

Latest Sacramento Bee article

Here's a link to the latest article regarding the WAPA site across the river. This one concerns their generator that they've supposedly been testing for the last month.

Maybe they should consider replacing it with a modern, non-polluting version???

http://tinyurl.com/eyxbb

Time for picketing of WAPA?

It seems to me that the officials at WAPA are disregarding our interests, and may be attempting to mislead us. As noted in a recent email from Robert Simin, and as observed by several of his neighbors including us, there is a huge generator right next to the power pole installation that is running and making lots of noise.

This is totally UNACCEPTABLE and it needs to be permanently shut off.

Several of us have sent email to Heidi, David, and Chuck, and while we need to give them some time to respond, I don't think we should give them very much time.

I strongly suggest that if you read this, you should give them a call:

Heidi Miller: (916) 353-4420
David Christy: (916) 353-4436
Chuck Cooper: (916) 353-4400

In addition, you should probably give the following officials a call.

John Doolittle, (916) 786-5560. He's our representative for better or for worse, and he needs to be urged to do something about the situation.

Dianne Feinstein, (202) 224-3841. She's requested and received a letter from Western Administrator Mike Hacskaylo that seemed to contradict what we've been told at the local office.

It probably wouldn't hurt to give Mike Hacskaylo a call at (928) 645-2741 or the local Regional Manager James Keselburg at (916) 353-4418.

Here's the text of Robert's email to Heidi, et. al.

From: Simin, Robert D
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:08 PM
To: 'Heidi Miller"
Subject: Please respond ASAP

Heidi,

What are the big generators running behind Western Power? They have been emitting a very annoying humming sound for at least the last four days. This noise can not only be heard on the bluff and across the street but at times inside my house! How long will this continue?

Rob Simin

Here's the latest from Heidi:

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for passing on the comments. We will send you a draft after
we have had internal review.

Have a good day!
Heidi

Fire safety and the California Parks Department

There is a situation brewing over the land behind the houses on the bluffs. This certainly affects the homes on the bluffs, but in the event of a fire, all of our homes would be at risk.

Here is the text of a letter from the State of California,Parks Dept. to one of our local and fellow neighbors on Mississippi Bar, Orangevale, CA . . . Don and I have had conversations with several other neighbors along Mississippi Bar; all of whom find it hard to believe that the Stateof CA. Parks Dept. thinks that it would be ok to allow ahazardous situation to develop on their property! Note the incorrect math.

Also, here is what Don has sent to several of our State Representatives and other officials, along with my comments.

Don, et. al.,

Thanks for taking the time to follow up on this. I will be posting this on the neighborhood website blog. We spoke with Kevin Overholt re the letter he received, and he's certainly not happy about the situation.

Amazingly, after attempting to get him to pay for the "restoration," he wasinstructed to water what the Parks Dept. is going to plant there. So, I guess trespass is in the eye of the beholder. It's ok for him to trespass if he's doing their bidding, but it's not ok to trespass to protect his property from a wildfire!

It seems to me that if the Parks Department wants to pay for a fire insurance policy against the possibility of a fire destroying the 200+ homes in the Arden Bluff neighborhood, then I have no objection to them allowing the over-growth of brush.

I would also like to know that they have the funds in place (perhaps in a trust fund) to pay off the millions of dollars of lawsuits that would ensue if people are injured or killed by the Parks Department negligent behavior.

I suspect that they are unwilling to insure our homes and unwilling to accept responsibility for injuries or loss of life.

I've been attempting to reach the local fire inspector (Russ at 916-942-3324), but we've been playing a less-than rewarding game of telephone tag. I will keep trying.

This is a very distressing situation, and we're all hoping that our State representatives will get involved before we have an Oakland Hills disaster.

Perhaps we need to have an Arden Bluff community meeting to discuss this inperson. We're happy to host this at our house.

Quoting "Don and Ann @ HOME" :
> Further, it is my understanding from Sacramento County Metro Fire Prevention
> District that it is the responsibility of the home owner to keep clear at
> least 30 ft - and up to 150ft of defendable space:
> http://www.smfd.ca.gov/wildland.htm
>
> I would sure like Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan to get involved and see what
> Fire Chief Rick Martinez (tel 916-566-400) has as a take is on this . as we
> may need another immediate town hall meeting to do some "emergency fire
> prevention planning."
>
> Here is more from Sacramento County Metro Fire Prevention District on 'Weed
> Abatement' which is again a 30ft minimum -and up to 150ft of "Clear Space"
> that can be done by discing (rototilling), scraping, mowing or weed eating.
> http://www.smfd.ca.gov/weed_abatement.htm which goes on to say that if you
> fail to abate, you may be cited and billed for the abatement clearing
> charges. (For more information, please call Scott Castill at 942-3300.)
> Several neighbors have been issued these blanket notices in past years . . .
> if you have a copy please forward.

You might also want to check out the "hostile perscriptive easement link: http://www.escrowhelp.com/articles/20031104.html

Jonathan

Yet another update from Heidi Miller re power pole

I just got this from Heidi Miller. We've had a couple of email exchanges, with her giving me a rather sketchy update and with me (and a couple of you) trying to get more information.

I'm not sure what this means, but we need to keep the pressure on. Feel free to email her with your concerns!

Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:45:23 -0600
Heidi Miller

Cc:
David Christy , Chuck Cooper

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the message. We plan on meeting with you and your neighborsafter we have gathered enough information to present what we think is possible for mitigation, hopefully fairly soon.

We are still evaluating the possibility of installing a smaller pole. We have not contacted an independent engineer at this time pending development of a specific proposal for them to review.

We will let you know when we have more details.

Have a super day!!!

Heidi

>>>From: Jonathan Ganz 9/23/2005 12:11:17 AM
>>>
>>>Hi Heidi,
>>>
>>>Thanks for getting back to me. Several people asked me if one or moreof us will be able to participate in >>>these meetings. I know there are clearance/security issues, but perhaps the effort could be undertaken >>>for one or two of us? For example, I already have had several background checks, which included a >>>recent one from the DHS (for my Coast Guard license). Also, a couple of people asked again if there an >>>independent engineer that has looked at the situation.
>>>
>>>Sorry to be a nag about this, but we are deeply concerned.
>>>
>>>If I don't talk to you, have a great weekend!
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Jonathan

At 04:45 PM 09/19/2005 -0600, Heidi Miller wrote:

>>Hi Jonathan,
>>Thank you for the e-mail. We are still working on the feasibility of a
>>replacement pole. In addition to pole design, we need to consider the
>>installation feasibility given the communications fiber, foundation, and
>>outage requirements. There will be meetings, probably next week, to
>>look at the installation feasibility. As soon as I have more
>>information, I will let you know.
>>
>>Have a great day!!!
>>Heidi

>Jonathan Ganz 9/18/2005 11:09:51 PM
>
>Heidi,
>
>Could you give us an update about the pole issue... it's been quite a
>while since you sent this. Have the designers come up with an alternative?
>Has an independent engineer been located?
>
>Thanks
>Jonathan