502 replies to this topic

[maestro]

Sandra,

 

Since you were part of the remediation group, go to the topic about city council making us owners of Aerojet SUPERFUND site toxic lands --    which are in Williamson Act coverage.

 

Resolution 9431 is notable for all the missing Engineering and Exhibits, and approvals/recommendations by Licensed Professionals.

 

Tell us what you think about the points raised in the Res., 9431   SUPERFUND land purchase topic -- before the council inks this messy deal on Tuesday.

 

Do any of you 3 candidates believe we should become owners of a liability like an EPA SUPERFUND SITE?

 

FYI that means it is one of the most dangerous and worst polluted sites in the entire country.    Do you get it?

[Sandra Lunceford]

Regarding the New Corporation Yard (Superfund site) - After looking over documents on the EPA Superfund website that apply to this particular location, I contacted Alex McDonald, Regional Water Quality Control Board, who has been providing regulatory oversight for Aerojet for as long as I remember.  He stated, and it looks by the documentation, that while this parcel is considered part of the Superfund site, it has never had any Aerojet activities on it. I will try to append more information as it comes in.

 

Water for south of Hwy. 50 - I have requested the Urban Water Management Plan for Folsom to help determine whether water recovered through infrastructure maintenance can reliably sustain south of 50 homes.  Drought conditions would seem to warrant increased reliability for north of 50 homes.  The question is whether it is truly excess water.  I have been told by the Water Transfer office in the Dept. of Water Resources, that this plan should hold some answers.

[cw68]

You know, the more I think about it, I think a slate will make the biggest impact at the ballot box.

Save R City. I like it.

[maestro]

 

Water for south of Hwy. 50 - I have requested the Urban Water Management Plan for Folsom to help determine whether water recovered through infrastructure maintenance can reliably sustain south of 50 homes.  Drought conditions would seem to warrant increased reliability for north of 50 homes.  The question is whether it is truly excess water.  I have been told by the Water Transfer office in the Dept. of Water Resources, that this plan should hold some answers.

 

 

 

Sandra,  no need to bother with the Water Mgmt Plan (Folsom) 2010 because NO ENGINEER WAS INVOLVED IN IT.    It is NOT approved/certified by a CA Licensed engineer, and it is NOT ACCURATE.   You have the right instincts, but you are slightly behind on the recent city council rush to develop Residential housing.    Bear in mind, businesses are too smart for this place, but housing developers rely upon this council to pass taxes and make anti-laws which the future home-buyers do not know about.   The city is already using many times its MULTI-YEAR DROUGHT Senior Water Rights, which is about 17,000 acre feet -- not the 33,000 the city claims.   

 

If you want a copy of the 2005 plan, get it from www.usbr.gov      If you have questions about water concerns, call the office of US Rep. Ami Bera and ask for his environmental staffer Kelly.

 

2005 Water Mgmt Plan at www.usbr.gov   --  the FINAL engineer-authored water plan for Folsom.

 

• 2005 Water Mgmt Report of Folsom (approved by a licensed engineer), in Section 4.3, tells the story that the city's WET YEAR allotment was used up in 2007.   The multi-year DROUGHT ALLOTMENT of 2014 is actually about 17,000 AF.   But the existing city North of highway 50 used much more than this every year.     The city council gave away to one single land owner of South of 50 4,000 acres, entitlement to Folsom Reservoir water.    This means the drought allotment of 17,000 acre feet must now stretch to the existing city, the much larger & densely-zone South of 50 land, the Aeroject land getting our "bulk water", the bottlers given our water at special rates, the three prisons, and Intel.

[maestro]

Posted also to council making us EPA SUPERFUND polluted site land-owners TODAY.

 

Posted A minute ago

http://www.folsom.ca...8/DO_128738.pdf

 

This is the 89 page text for council Resolution 9431,  

Last TEN PAGES = EPA SUPERFUND LISTING of land.

Missing exhibits and CA Licensed Engineer (or lawyer) approvals.

Williamson Act prevents use of land for any non-agriculture use -- some Corp Yard!

 

Aerojet-Rocketdyne   EPA SUPERFUND SITE land.

 

8.b.Resolution No. 9431 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement, a Secured Promissory Note, a Credit and Reimbursement Agreement and Other Related Documents with Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. for the Purchase of Property for a Corporation Yard

 

 

PS See, I don't make this stuff up --   it is incomprehensible to me.   How could anyone do this and run for another re-election????

Seriously!

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

SRC,

 

You need to listen to this advice.     The Phoenix  is a brilliant strategist, and has the experience.

 

BECOME A SLATE !

 

I'm open to the idea. Not sure about the others but I do think our chances go up if three of us come together. It does leave one of the challengers out though and I doubt any of us are likely to drop out. I've met with both Roger and Sandra - we could certainly make a go of the slate idea. And the SRC slogan is pretty darn good!

[maestro]

Some city council.  

Last night they approved Resolution 9431    unanimously.

 

The bought EPA SUPERFUND land in the name of city residents.        We get stuck with cleanup costs??????

 

Totally offensive and improper.     Land cannot be used because it has Williamson Act protection, and it is CONTAMINATED.

 

WTH

[giacomo]

WTH indeed. If this vote by our city council doesn't get Folsom residents mad as hell and vote these  3 incumbents out, I don't know what will. Then again therein lies the problem, that  likely most voters aren't even aware of this purchase and will vote solely on which candidate has the most signs.

[SacKen]

These issues, and many others (selling City land to developers way below market value and rumored vehicle vs pedestrian cover-ups, for example), have popped up on MyFolsom over the years. I never hear about them anywhere else.  Folsom is a nice city. One of the best to live in around these parts.  City Council members could be stealing millions from us to gamble away in Vegas and the average resident would still vote for them because we live in a nice city and the bad stuff isn't known or evident in their daily lives.  Very few people outside of this forum know anything about the water issues, S50, superfund sites, sewer problems, etc.

 

If all these things are true and are as bad as we think, there needs to be a better effort to inform everyone else.  A generic "No Incumbents" sign on the side of the road isn't enough.  The majority of Folsomites don't know why some of us support "No Incumbents" and why they should, too.

 

Someone should catalog all the questionable things that have happened over the past 20 years and put them in one place.  Probably a website not linked to MyFolsom.  Only state facts, why it is a bad thing, and any reasonable questions about those facts.  Mention any cases where someone has requested documents from the city to answer those questions and the city has not provided the documents for various reasons that do not appear to be legitimate.

 

Then get signs and flyers listing the top issues along with a URL to get more details and plaster the city to get the word out about what is going on inside City Hall.

 

Otherwise, we're going to have 3 incumbents re-elected by a general population that always votes for who they already know.

[cw68]

If there was a website built, we could all pull content from it, and link to it, on our Facebook and Twitter accounts.

[maestro]

average resident would still vote for them because we live in a nice city and the bad stuff isn't known or evident in their daily lives.  Very few people outside of this forum know anything about the water issues, S50, superfund sites, sewer problems, etc.

Then get signs and flyers listing the top issues along with a URL to get more details and plaster the city to get the word out about what is going on inside City Hall.

 

Otherwise, we're going to have 3 incumbents re-elected by a general population that always votes for who they already know.

 

 

Sacken, don't get me started.    Just last year the Folsom Telegraph had a front page story about all the roads coming into the city being posted with 55mph signage.     The count is now 16 innocent people killed on Folsom "55mph city streets".     The 100+ mph accidents made all the news.

 

Last year the city was sued by advocates for keeping city crap out of the American River.   

The city is currently under investigation by state water board -- and you can VERIFY that with a single phone call.

 

Great place to live?    How could you miss all the angry residents screaming at the council in front of all the TV cameras last year?    Sutter St is so degraded the Park n Ride lots ALWAYS have empty spaces because commuters avoid problems in this city.   Newspapers have been loaded with stories about problems on unregulated trails in the city, and the people who frequent them.   Empire Ranch people three times raised bloody-hell about city proposed rezones.

 

Google News has covered these stories.    Sacramento Business Journal covers the city's developments -- whether the city told you about them or not.   Sac Bee has done stories on neighborhoods with HUGE problems CREATED by the council.    TV has covered some horrific problems here.    The expensive bike race however, cost us over $1Million, and there was NO TV coverage at all.

 

None is so blind as those who will not see;   none so deaf as those who will not hear.

 

You want to know what realtors know:    my neighborhood is punished by city council's improper actions.   Just since they approved a bogus rezone on Leidesdorff,  9 houses went on the market and three more houses changed tenants.    That is   11% turnover.       Do you think people don't notice?  11%.

 

That happens when a bunch of _____  (name for city council four)  give development rights to a huge commercial-multi residential project -- connecting to your areas 4" sewer line --   the same sewer 4" line that serves the ENTIRE 20 acre Folsom Industrial Zone at the river.   I won't even go into the traffic issues because of huge commercial & industrial usages of a half-street in Residential Zone.    Two pets were killed a year ago.    Now the school bus doesn't even come here because the families with kids have all moved away.     How perfect is that?   This council IS HOSTILE to children and families.   The zoo was the first item cut to the bare bones.

 

Don't get me started........     

The only way a person could believe this place is NOT hostile to humans and environment is to NOT DRIVE, NOT WALK, NOT READ media,  NO TV,  No Google NEWS alerts, No Sac Biz Journal, no watching the screwy projects messing up Blue Ravine Rd., Parkshore, Folsom Blvd.  and that god-awful horrific 111 foot wide bridge screwing up the American River.     What should be a place of beauty is a damn wanna-be freeway where people DIE!

 

Here's more about the perfect place:    they changed the city voting process so that 100% of the local elections happens from, in, around, and under the control of city hall.    How perfect is that?    Read the city council agenda very often????   Have you noticed all the small businesses drive away from this place?    Have you noticed Intel doesn't seem to acknowledge their location?

 

There must be some cubbyhole where this city is perfect  for you....... where is it?

[TruthSeeker]

Does Miklos own Quick Quack Car Wash? I see he's got two large signs on the corner of their property.  Or is it just a buddy of his that leases the property to Quick Quack?

 

It's really odd that only the incumbents have signs up. I don't like this sham being played on our town with their manipulation of sign dominance by having city workers remove all their competitors signs.  I also think it's a sham they control the chamber of commerce to get their funds to help their campaigns.

 

Kerrie also made a comment to one of the new candidates that basically said screw you we own this town. Wow, if that doesn't say it all I don't know what does. People need to start paying attention.

 

I really dislike their superfund site sham they are inflicting on us as well. In addition to the water debacle and other messes.  

 

But yes I know, our city looks nice so they must be doing everything perfectly right according to the lemmings who will vote for them again and again without bothering to know anything about the city and the insider good ol' boys club deals they are cutting.

[Phoenix2014]

Sandra,

 
You already have a copy of the Urban Water Management Plan for Folsom (Folsom 2010 Water Master Plan Report to DWR). Make sure you are looking at the 2010 update (approved in 2011). As the Water Transfer office in the Dept. of Water Resources said it does hold the answers. Maestro's post responding to you contains some good info (highlighted by bold text). But more importantly is the observation that this report is not signed by an engineer verifying its contents - Why? It was likely developed by a consulting engineering firm for the City, so why no signature? For reports like this, an unsigned document is very unusual.

There are two key aspects to this report that should be your focus:

1. Water sources:
   • Page 2-6, second bullet - The water source for the SPA (annexed land south of 50) is shown to be from the Sacramento River, pumped from Freeport
   • Page 4-8, Table 4-2  - The water source for the SPA, from the Sacramento River, is shown as the NCMWC (source from which the Sacramento River water was to be purchased from) a total of 8,000 acre feet
2. Water Demand:
   • Page 5-14, Table 5-4  - It shows a current NORMAL year supply of 37,250 acre feet, which can be derived from Table 4-2.
   • Note that the "third" year drought row shows we are back to our full water supply because the "rules" for this report allow the City to assume that typical droughts last only 2 years - we are now solidly in a third drought year.
   • It does not include the 8,000 acre feet from the Sacramento River.
   • However, it does include the GET water (treated superfund groundwater pumped form AEROJET) of 3,250 acre feet to be used for industrial uses on Aerojet property only.
   • It does not deduct the 2,900 acre feet the City GAVE to Aerojet (can no longer be shown as part of the City's water supply)
   • Therefore, if they really wanted a factual report that was in the best interest of the residents, the total NORMAL year supply should only be about 31,000 acre feet
   • Now back to the table - The table future projects account for only growth in the CURRNT city and water supply boundary. Not the south of 50 area. This is fine, since it does not include the water supply for that area either - this is a very important point.
   • So, even with the inflated water supply, the table still shows we are short during a drought, even after tightening our belts and drastically reducing usage during a drought.
   • How the H___ then can we support development South of 50, on the same water supply?

Now back to the previous question I asked you. Have you spoke again with Mr. Yasutake, City water engineer about his claim they have "recovered" 4,600 acre feet by stopping "leaks". Although this is not relevant to the forgoing, because we still need that water north of 50, it shows the City is willing to lie. Again, the "recovered" water is a combination of our conservation - which would make up most of it - and maybe some repairs that did sop some leaks. Regardless, this "recovered" water CANNOT be used as a source to develop South of 50. Remind him that he will be reported to BORPLS (engineer licensing agency) if he cannot prove that 4,600 acre feet were recovered by stopping leaks.

 

All,

 

This is extremely serious and hopefully more of you will finally realize this. The City is locking us in to a permanent state of drought, that will lead to the next time (if we ever end this one) we are in a real drought of extremely severe shortages.

[cw68]

Does Miklos own Quick Quack Car Wash? I see he's got two large signs on the corner of their property.  Or is it just a buddy of his that leases the property to Quick Quack?

 

It's really odd that only the incumbents have signs up. I don't like this sham being played on our town with their manipulation of sign dominance by having city workers remove all their competitors signs.  I also think it's a sham they control the chamber of commerce to get their funds to help their campaigns.

 

Kerrie also made a comment to one of the new candidates that basically said screw you we own this town. Wow, if that doesn't say it all I don't know what does. People need to start paying attention.

 

I really dislike their superfund site sham they are inflicting on us as well. In addition to the water debacle and other messes.  

 

But yes I know, our city looks nice so they must be doing everything perfectly right according to the lemmings who will vote for them again and again without bothering to know anything about the city and the insider good ol' boys club deals they are cutting.

 

 

Looks like they did away with the maximum combined sign size on commercial property regulation. During the last election, Starsky violated that at Quick Quack, but even with numerous complaints to the city, none of his signs were taken down. Now it appears as if anyone can put up as many big signs as they want, as long as it's on commercial property.

 

Residential Property: One or more signs are permitted on any parcel of land with a maximum combined sign size of 10 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet. (FMC 17.59.030© (13)(a))

 

Commercial Property: One or more signs are permitted with a maximum sign size per sign of 32 square feet (FMC 17.59.030©(13)(b))

 

Anyone on this forum have commercial property on which they would be willing for non-incumbents to plaster?

[maestro]

Sandra,

 
You already have a copy of the Urban Water Management Plan for Folsom (Folsom 2010 Water Master Plan Report to DWR). Make sure you are looking at the 2010 update (approved in 2011). As the Water Transfer office in the Dept. of Water Resources said it does hold the answers. Maestro's post responding to you contains some good info (highlighted by bold text). But more importantly is the observation that this report is not signed by an engineer verifying its contents - Why? It was likely developed by a consulting engineering firm for the City, so why no signature? For reports like this, an unsigned document is very unusual.

There are two key aspects to this report that should be your focus:

1. Water sources:
   • Page 2-6, second bullet - The water source for the SPA (annexed land south of 50) is shown to be from the Sacramento River, pumped from Freeport
   • Page 4-8, Table 4-2  - The water source for the SPA, from the Sacramento River, is shown as the NCMWC (source from which the Sacramento River water was to be purchased from) a total of 8,000 acre feet
2. Water Demand:
   • Page 5-14, Table 5-4  - It shows a current NORMAL year supply of 37,250 acre feet, which can be derived from Table 4-2.
   • Note that the "third" year drought row shows we are back to our full water supply because the "rules" for this report allow the City to assume that typical droughts last only 2 years - we are now solidly in a third drought year.
   • It does not include the 8,000 acre feet from the Sacramento River.
   • However, it does include the GET water (treated superfund groundwater pumped form AEROJET) of 3,250 acre feet to be used for industrial uses on Aerojet property only.
   • It does not deduct the 2,900 acre feet the City GAVE to Aerojet (can no longer be shown as part of the City's water supply)
   • Therefore, if they really wanted a factual report that was in the best interest of the residents, the total NORMAL year supply should only be about 31,000 acre feet
   • Now back to the table - The table future projects account for only growth in the CURRNT city and water supply boundary. Not the south of 50 area. This is fine, since it does not include the water supply for that area either - this is a very important point.
   • So, even with the inflated water supply, the table still shows we are short during a drought, even after tightening our belts and drastically reducing usage during a drought.
   • How the H___ then can we support development South of 50, on the same water supply?

Now back to the previous question I asked you. Have you spoke again with Mr. Yasutake, City water engineer about his claim they have "recovered" 4,600 acre feet by stopping "leaks". Although this is not relevant to the forgoing, because we still need that water north of 50, it shows the City is willing to lie. Again, the "recovered" water is a combination of our conservation - which would make up most of it - and maybe some repairs that did sop some leaks. Regardless, this "recovered" water CANNOT be used as a source to develop South of 50. Remind him that he will be reported to BORPLS (engineer licensing agency) if he cannot prove that 4,600 acre feet were recovered by stopping leaks.

 

All,

 

This is extremely serious and hopefully more of you will finally realize this. The City is locking us in to a permanent state of drought, that will lead to the next time (if we ever end this one) we are in a real drought of extremely severe shortages.

 

 

Phoenix knows how to summarize my research better than anyone.     The latest Folsom water management report was NOT approved and sealed by a Licensed Engineer because NO ENGINEER would approve a pack of LIES, OMISSIONs, and ANTI-LAWs.

 

In fact, engineers who left the city have sworn under penalty of perjury what the city council is peddling is nonsense.     This city council endorses (IMO 'causes')   pollution, which is why the Woodside Homes project, the Willow Creek sewer projects  and others were SHUT DOWN.      Check it out.    Marcus? Director of sewers?    He did not even know the 27" Folsom Mainline sewage line DOES NOT extend to Sutter Street area and American River.    

 

Sandra and other candidates need to listen to Phoenix.  

 

If you intend to win, MAKE a SLATE of three candidates, to avoid splitting the votes.     If Sandra doesn't want to,   Chad and Roger need to get together and assemble a strong slate --  FAST.

 

 

MAKE A SLATE!    MAKE A SLATE!     

MAKE A PLATFORM!      

CONSULT WITH AGENCIES INVESTIGATING THIS COUNCIL'S CITY!      

FACTS!     NO OPINIONS!       

 

MAKE A SLATE AND TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH   AT A PRESS CONFERENCE TO ANNOUNCE YOUR SLATE!

 

ORGANIZE NOW, and you can have all the media contacts you need.