158 replies to this topic

[Dave Burrell]

totally agree. I don't want this place to look like Elk Grove. Nothing against EG, they just overdeveloped far too quickly. Now it's biting them bigtime. We have so many empty storefronts (some have never had occupants) that I'd like to see full before we have any more devlopment in this city. I don't care who owns the storefronts, the city should take ownership of making sure they get filled.

+ 1000! That's what I worry about with S50 development, the rest of Folsom will turn into a ghost town with empty storefronts all over while the developers and their money and city hall focuses entirely on S50. I also firmly believe there will be too many infrastructure issues with development there - starting with water availability. We already have shortages every year, how in the heck could our water resources support doubling the size of the city? Traffic will become a nightmare as well - Folsom will turn into another Roseville, that's not something I want to see anytime soon.

Look how run down things have become by the DMV and the surrounding area while all the focus is going to developing Palladio. Look at all the empty shops on Riley and E. Bidwell. (Hollywood Video is one place that comes to mind)

I'd like to see business property owners meet with the city council to come up with ideas and solutions to fill those buildings and get business back in those areas before the city goes chasing after the almighty developer dollars in other areas

[john]

I do know that e Bidwell will get more attention after Sutter Street redevelopment.

[Redone]

Look at all the empty shops on Riley and E. Bidwell. (Hollywood Video is one place that comes to mind)

I'd like to see business property owners meet with the city council to come up with ideas and solutions to fill those buildings and get business back in those areas before the city goes chasing after the almighty developer dollars in other areas

I believe the issue here is the rents they are asking are above market and won't entice someone to open a new business. They have 2 places that have drive thru so you'd think those would be in demand. The only reasoning could be the rent.

This is why WalMart remodel is a good thing. Remodel existing vs building new and vacating existing.

The KFC and it's center came out pretty nice.

[Dave Burrell]

I believe the issue here is the rents they are asking are above market and won't entice someone to open a new business. They have 2 places that have drive thru so you'd think those would be in demand. The only reasoning could be the rent.

This is why WalMart remodel is a good thing. Remodel existing vs building new and vacating existing.

The KFC and it's center came out pretty nice.

I believe you're right about the high rent, maybe if the city charged a fee of some sort for "city blight" that might encourage those property owners to bring down their prices to get renters?

I agree, the KFC center came out really nice - that place looks great now after the remodel. I've been enjoying going there to buy fresh meats and middle eastern spices and foods from the Folsom Butcher that's located there. It's not very well known but that place has the largest selection of spices in all of Folsom (and maybe Sac County too) and the prices are very low.

[Bill Z]

She's an engineer. Math is more likely her strong suit.
I'd rather judge my city council candidates on their vision for our city rather than their typos.

While I agree with your sentiment, I have two comments.

One, a person good in math can also be a good speller.

Two, good spelling is a sign of professionalism.

[Kerri Howell]

Bill Z - Thanks for the link.

LWoodward - Thanks for pointing out the typo. You are correct, I was typing too quickly. I can assure you all that I do, in fact, know the proper spelling of environmental - sorry for the extra "i" (but then again, 2 i's are better than one, unless you are a cyclops).

Ducky - Thanks for suggesting that my math skills are likely to be good - they are, but, I got A's in English too. I have even won a few spelling bees in my time (back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth).

Old Soldier - Fiesty Kerri is my favorite nickname!

With regard to the SOI - the property remains under the control of Sacramento County, with a requirement for notice being provided to the City of Folsom for any development application or proposal. The City of Folsom takes complete control, only after the property is annexed from the County, subject to approval by LAFCO. As I said in the previous post, the process has been ongoing for many years. Without the planning of the land uses, and the review of the environmental documents, the annexation application can not be presented to LAFCO. This is not a matter of Rancho filing some paperwork to do development in the SOI, or that, because they have not filed any paperwork, that means they have no interest. It is now within Folsom's SOI, and not within the Rancho SOI. The process started long before Rancho incorporated - though had that not been the case, I am pretty sure, given my knowledge of the history, they (Rancho) would have tried very hard to get that property within their SOI.

As always, feel free to contact me with any questions, either by phone or email.

The next focus for redevelopment is scheduled to be the East Bidwell Corridor. We need to get the Historic District improvements completed before we divert attention from the ongoing construction on Sutter Street.

[ducky]

While I agree with your sentiment, I have two comments.

One, a person good in math can also be a good speller.

Two, good spelling is a sign of professionalism.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply the two talents can't coexist.

Having errors in what you post doesn't necessarily make you a bad speller. I think a lot of errors I see here are a result of bad proofreading or no proofreading at all or typing faster than one thinks. I count myself among the guilty.

Back to topic. I'd like to see candidates who are more focused on keeping what is currently Folsom vibrant both for residents and business rather than focusing on expansion.

[ducky]

Bill Z - Thanks for the link.

LWoodward - Thanks for pointing out the typo. You are correct, I was typing too quickly. I can assure you all that I do, in fact, know the proper spelling of environmental - sorry for the extra "i" (but then again, 2 i's are better than one, unless you are a cyclops).

Ducky - Thanks for suggesting that my math skills are likely to be good - they are, but, I got A's in English too. I have even won a few spelling bees in my time (back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth).

Old Soldier - Fiesty Kerri is my favorite nickname!

With regard to the SOI - the property remains under the control of Sacramento County, with a requirement for notice being provided to the City of Folsom for any development application or proposal. The City of Folsom takes complete control, only after the property is annexed from the County, subject to approval by LAFCO. As I said in the previous post, the process has been ongoing for many years. Without the planning of the land uses, and the review of the environmental documents, the annexation application can not be presented to LAFCO. This is not a matter of Rancho filing some paperwork to do development in the SOI, or that, because they have not filed any paperwork, that means they have no interest. It is now within Folsom's SOI, and not within the Rancho SOI. The process started long before Rancho incorporated - though had that not been the case, I am pretty sure, given my knowledge of the history, they (Rancho) would have tried very hard to get that property within their SOI.

As always, feel free to contact me with any questions, either by phone or email.

The next focus for redevelopment is scheduled to be the East Bidwell Corridor. We need to get the Historic District improvements completed before we divert attention from the ongoing construction on Sutter Street.

Can you give us an idea of what is planned for E. Bidwell, how much will it cost, and where the money is coming from?

Are there any plans residents can look at as to what is planned or in the works for the East Bidwell Corridor so far?

[Dave Burrell]

Can you give us an idea of what is planned for E. Bidwell, how much will it cost, and where the money is coming from?

Are there any plans residents can look at as to what is planned or in the works for the East Bidwell Corridor so far?

I'm interested in that information too. From what I understand, most all of old town's buildings are owned by an LLC(?) and so its easier to take on the entire block(s) with this project (one main owner to deal with instead of many) - are the buildings on the E. Bidwell corridor owned by the same or similar LLC?

[Robert Giacometti]

Kerri points out that all planning is being paid for by the developers, including city staff time,

I have call BS on the claim that the developers are paying for all the planning!

I submitted a request for public information to the city asking for all the costs for the planning S50 and all staff hours spent doing so far. All I got back was a 2 page spreadsheet showing what is being billed from 12/05. They didn't give me any hours. This indicates to me they have agreed upon a fixed price and aren't being billed actual hours. Since the quarterly amount is the same, I suspect it is a fixed cost

The city is currently getting reimbursed about $89,000 per year for its staff and since 12/05 has been paid a total of $252,550 for all the planning S50 for its staff. The $89,000 per year barely covers the cost of one Senior Planner and benefits. There are ongoing regular meetings with a room full of City staff, including senior management and Admin Staff.

There are about 13 consultants that have been involved in the planning along with I think outside legal advisors. The land owners are reimbursing the city for the costs of all the consultants, but we all know there are costs associated with staff managing the consultants.

There is absolutely NO WAY the $89,000 is covering all the costs and benefits off all the staff including Dept Managers, Planners, the City Attorneys office, The City Managers office, Park Planners, Public works. Traffic Engineers, Fire & Police, Accounting for billing, Public Information officer and all the support staff including ADM Asstnts in addition to the cost of managing the consultants.

Kerri is either misinformed or misleading us, you all can decide for yourself on that one.

Clearly this is a violation of Measure W and our City Council needs to step up and correct this and protect the Citizens and make the developers pay the real costs for the planning!

[Kerri Howell]

Dave, actually there are many landowners on Sutter Street - it would not be accurate to say we were dealing with only a handful. If you look at a map of the Sutter Street sub-area, at the time the approval was in process, the City owned the majority of the property, based upon the Railroad block and the public areas. That made it a bit easier to move the project along. We will be dealing with a similar situation along East Bidwell.

Though there have been meetings that have taken place over the years - and I mean many years, going back to when Cyndi's Flower Shop was on East Bidwell (and that was 20+ years ago), and shortly after Steve located his business there. Back then, there was little money available and they discussed things like signage and flower boxes. The only significant discussion of the physical condition of the area took place a few years ago, during a planning session at the community center that includes about 60 people. We talked about the FCUSD property, realignment of the intersection of Riley and East Bidwell and a number of other things, including a planning charette that was based upon a complete re-do of the area (not likely to occur, but it was an interesting exercise to see what people thought the area ought to look like, in a perfect world). The most popular view was a mix of retail, high density residential and "walkable".

As I said in my earlier post, I expect to begin working on this in the very near future (and I will be serving on a subcommittee of the Council for this effort). In order to move forward with the planning, I envision a meeting of the subcommittee and City Staff, followed by meetings with the property owners and merchants). Once a plan for the extent of the project has been developed, we need to look at the cost, determine what funds are available (much of the area is withing redevelopment, so we need to see what of the funds designated within the redevelopment agency, and set aside for such work, will be available over the period) and proceed from there. We continue to work with potential new businesses, keep in touch with existing businesses to ensure they stay in town, and market the benefits of relocating to Folsom, together with our partners at FEDCORP (a joint venture between the City and the Chamber). However, the City can not force the landowners to find tenants, nor can we dictate what rents they charge, just like we could not force homeowners to lower the rent on their rental properties to keep them occupied or to spruce them (beyond exiting rules and regulations) to keep tenants in place. This is a very hard economy and Folsom is in much better shape than most other locations in the region - both in terms of housing and business.

Continuing the movement toward annexation of the SOI is not a redirection of activities toward building elsewhere outside the existing City boundaries - it is planning for the future when the economy turns around. The City of Folsom is what it is because of the planning that took place over the past 30 years. The movement toward annexation will lead to the annexation. It is not approval of projects or building of houses. All those activities will take place, in the future, at Parks and Rec meetings, Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings, just like it always has. As we move forward with planning for East Bidwell, I wil be happy to keep those of you who are interested informed.

[ducky]

I have call BS on the claim that the developers are paying for all the planning!

I submitted a request for public information to the city asking for all the costs for the planning S50 and all staff hours spent doing so far. All I got back was a 2 page spreadsheet showing what is being billed from 12/05. They didn't give me any hours. This indicates to me they have agreed upon a fixed price and aren't being billed actual hours. Since the quarterly amount is the same, I suspect it is a fixed cost

The city is getting reimbursed about $89,000 per year and since 12/05 has been paid a total of $252,550 for all the planning S50. The $89,000 per year barely covers the cost of one Senior Planner and benefits. There are ongoing regular meetings with a room full of City staff, including senior management and Admin Staff.

There are about 13 consultants that have been involved in the planning along with I think outside legal advisors. The land owners are reimbursing the city for the costs of all the consultants, but we all know there are costs associated with staff managing the consultants.

There is absolutely NO WAY the $89,000 is covering all the costs and benefits off all the staff including Dept Managers, Planners, the City Attorneys office, The City Managers office, Park Planners, Public works. Traffic Engineers, Fire & Police, Accounting for billing, Public Information officer and all the support staff including ADM Asstnts in addition to the cost of managing the consultants.

Kerri is either misinformed or misleading us, you all can decide for yourself on that one.

Clearly this is a violation of Measure W and our City Council needs to step up and correct this and protect the Citizens and make the developers pay the real costs for the planning!

I was paraphrasing what Kerri wrote. Here is what I was referring to:

"Also as a point of clarification, the planning of the area, and the preparation of the environmental document and many other tasks associated with the annexation are being paid for by the landowners, including City Staff time."

Robert, thanks for the info you have gathered. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails out of the spreadsheet. I guess the argument could be made that the landowners shouldn't have to pay for park planning since that land would ultimately become city property. Maybe the same would be said in regards schools.

This is why I have concerns about costs that the rest of us pay that aren't being pointed out with this expansion.

[Dave Burrell]

Dave, actually there are many landowners on Sutter Street - it would not be accurate to say we were dealing with only a handful. If you look at a map of the Sutter Street sub-area, at the time the approval was in process, the City owned the majority of the property, based upon the Railroad block and the public areas. That made it a bit easier to move the project along. We will be dealing with a similar situation along East Bidwell.

Though there have been meetings that have taken place over the years - and I mean many years, going back to when Cyndi's Flower Shop was on East Bidwell (and that was 20+ years ago), and shortly after Steve located his business there. Back then, there was little money available and they discussed things like signage and flower boxes. The only significant discussion of the physical condition of the area took place a few years ago, during a planning session at the community center that includes about 60 people. We talked about the FCUSD property, realignment of the intersection of Riley and East Bidwell and a number of other things, including a planning charette that was based upon a complete re-do of the area (not likely to occur, but it was an interesting exercise to see what people thought the area ought to look like, in a perfect world). The most popular view was a mix of retail, high density residential and "walkable".

As I said in my earlier post, I expect to begin working on this in the very near future (and I will be serving on a subcommittee of the Council for this effort). In order to move forward with the planning, I envision a meeting of the subcommittee and City Staff, followed by meetings with the property owners and merchants). Once a plan for the extent of the project has been developed, we need to look at the cost, determine what funds are available (much of the area is withing redevelopment, so we need to see what of the funds designated within the redevelopment agency, and set aside for such work, will be available over the period) and proceed from there. We continue to work with potential new businesses, keep in touch with existing businesses to ensure they stay in town, and market the benefits of relocating to Folsom, together with our partners at FEDCORP (a joint venture between the City and the Chamber). However, the City can not force the landowners to find tenants, nor can we dictate what rents they charge, just like we could not force homeowners to lower the rent on their rental properties to keep them occupied or to spruce them (beyond exiting rules and regulations) to keep tenants in place. This is a very hard economy and Folsom is in much better shape than most other locations in the region - both in terms of housing and business.

Continuing the movement toward annexation of the SOI is not a redirection of activities toward building elsewhere outside the existing City boundaries - it is planning for the future when the economy turns around. The City of Folsom is what it is because of the planning that took place over the past 30 years. The movement toward annexation will lead to the annexation. It is not approval of projects or building of houses. All those activities will take place, in the future, at Parks and Rec meetings, Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings, just like it always has. As we move forward with planning for East Bidwell, I wil be happy to keep those of you who are interested informed.

Mucho thanks for the info!

[Darth Lefty]

While I agree with your sentiment, I have two comments.

One, a person good in math can also be a good speller.

Two, good spelling is a sign of professionalism.

Seventh, pedantry isn't helping further the subject of the thread.

[ducky]

Yes, thanks for the info, Kerri.
Any chance of eminent domain(either residences or commercial property) coming into play for this renovation of East Bidwell?

I think I remember that past meeting you are talking about. Apparently, some people, "in a perfect world," thought it would be great to put multi-story buildings right up to other people's back yards.

I hope the residents who might be impacted are given plenty of notification of future meetings.