54 replies to this topic

[History Matters]

 

How does the developer get to remove protected trees? 

 

Chad makes some good points, too.

 

Ducky, it is our understanding that the developer is paying the mitigation fees (how can you put a price on any tree - dead is dead).  As a sidenote, when this vote came up, Ernie Sheldon (the only council member that did so) disapproved the project and commented that he had concern about the neighbors and the wildlife habitat.

 

The lawsuit states in part, "...the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts, including...the City's cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, traffic, biology, open space, visual impacts, and inconsistencies with adopted land use plans, statutes, regulations, and ordinances". 

[History Matters]

Below is the Lawsuit that Deborah Grassl filed on behalf of all Folsom residents to preserve our City's resources - historical, cultural, and environmental:

 

This mandamus action is brought in the public interest to challenge approval of the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project in the Folsom Historic District without adequate environmental review and mitigation of the project's impacts, including significant impacts to cultural and historic resources.  The multi-phased project proposes condominiums, apartments, and single family homes that in turn require construction of underground utilities, driveways, parking spaces, retaining walls, and extending Leidesdorff Street.

 

Because environmental impacts, including but not limited to impacts to historic and archaeological resources, may be significant, the Folsom Historic District Commission recommended denial of the project's use permit, tentative subdivision map, and condominium plan.  The City Council rejected the recommendations and approved the project without adequately studying environmental impacts, including impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources, without adopting feasible mitigation measures requested by community members and the Historic District Commission, and without preparing an environmental impact report (EIR).

 

Each public agency in California must prepare an EIR whenever citizens or appointed commissioners present a fact-based "fair argument" that a proposed discretionary project may have significant environmental impact, regardless of evidence to the contrary.  Petitioner Deborah Grassl is among those that provided fact-based evidence of potentially significant project impacts.

 

CEQA (California Environmental Equality Act) is a citizen-enforced statute, and petitioner Grassl seeks a peremptory writ in the first instance.  To comply with CEQA, the City must set aside its approval of the project and reconsider its action only after preparing an adequate EIR that studies environmental impacts and adopts feasible alternatives and mitigations.

 

This Court has jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 21168 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.  The parties and the project site are located within the County of Sacramento in the City of Folsom.

 

Deborah Grassl is a resident of Folsom who enjoys and appreciates the environmental qualities of the City, including its cultural and historic character.  She brings this petition on behalf of all others similarly situated too numerous to be named and brought before the Court as petitioners.  Grassl objected to the approval of the project, requested the preparation of an EIR, and exhausted administrative remedies. 

 

Respondent City of Folsom, through its respondent City Council, is the governmental body that approved the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project on the basis of a mitigated negative declaration, and is the lead agency under CEQA.

 

Real parties in interest D & S Development and Steve Lebastchi are the project applicants who sought and received approval for the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project and are named in the Notice of Determination. 

 

Does 1 through 15 are named as petitioners and real parties in interest because true names and capacities are currently unknown to Grassl.  If true names and capacities become known, Grassl will amend this petition to assert them. 

 

The paragraphs below refer to and rely on information in documents relating to this action, all of which will be filed with this Court as part of the record of proceedings and are here incorporated by reference.

 

Real parties in interest D & S Development and Steve Lebastchi propose to develop a 4.25 acre site in the City of Folsom's Historic District.  The Leidesdorff Village Residential Project proposes development of 36 for-sale condominium units, 18 for-sale residential flats, and 2 single-family homes.  The project requires a rezone, Zoning Code amendment, tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, and planned development permit.

 

Local residents, including Deborah Grassl, expressed significant environmental concerns in recent years when the project has been pending, relating to project-related impacts on the City's cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, traffic, open space, visual impacts, lack of completion of city studies re biology and cultural resources, and inconsistencies with adopted land use plans, statutes, regulations, and ordinances, among other impacts.

 

In 2012, the City filed a Notice of Preparation with the State Clearinghouse, listing areas of environmental concern including biological resources, noise, soil erosion/compaction/grading, land use, and archaeologic-historic impacts.  A Notice of Preparation is only filed after an agency decides that an EIR is required for a project.  However, the City did not proceed to prepare an EIR.

 

Also in 2013, the City's appointed Historic District Commission resolved to recommend the City Council's adoption of the project's proposed mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program, the rezone, and the zoning code text amendment.  The Commission then recommended that the City Council deny the propose tentative map, condominium plan, conditional use permit, and planned development permit for the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project.  The Commission found, among other problems, that the site is not physically suitable for the type or density of development and that the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood and that the proposed land use would have negative impact.  The Commission also found that the project would not comply with the intent and purposes of Chapters 17-38 of the Planned Development District of the Folsom Municipal Code and other applicable City ordinances, that it was not consistent with the objectives, policies, and requirements of City development standards, and would cause unacceptable traffic impacts.  The Commission recommended mitigation measures that were not adopted.

 

The City Council held two public hearings on the project in 2014.  Despite significant project opposition, the project was approved on December 9, 2014.  A Notice of Determination was filed on December 12, 2014, and this action is timely filed on Monday, January 12, 2015, the first court day following the 30-day statute of limitations.

 

Petitioner Grassl has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  Issuance of a peremptory writ is needed to avoid immediate, severe, and irreparable harm to Folsom residents and City resources via the construction of the project without compliance with environmental laws.  The City has the capacity to correct its violations of law, but refuses to do so.

 

Petitioner Grassl incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.

 

The City abused its discretion and failed to act in the manner required by law in approving the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project on the basis of a mitigated negative declaration rather than preparing an EIR, because the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts, including, inter alia , project-related and cumulative impacts on the City's cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, traffic, biology, open space, visual impacts, and inconsistencies with adopted land use plans, statutes, regulations, and ordinances.  The City failed to address cumulative impacts and reasonable foreseeable future development of the City's Corporation Yard facilitated by the rezoning and use permit issued for this project.

 

The City abused its discretion and failed to act in the manner required by law in approving the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project because it failed to adopt feasible mitigation measures, failed to adequately analyze biology and cultural resources, and failed to adopt an adequate mitigation monitoring program.

 

Wherefore, petitioner Grassl requests:

 

That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering respondents City of Folsom, et al., to set aside and void approvals of the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project and to refrain from further consideration of the project pending its full compliance with CEQA, including preparation and certification of an adequate EIR and adoption of feasible mitigations and alternatives based on findings supported by substantial evidence.

 

That the Court issue a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction enjoining the City respondents and real parties in interest and their agents and employees from any and all physical actions in furtherance of the Leidesdorff Village Residential Project or that would physically alter the project site while this petition is pending, including but not limited to grading, demolition, pre-construction, or construction activities of any kind;

For costs and attorney fees pursuant to CCP section 1021.5; and

For such other and further relief as the Courts finds proper.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY AND DEBORAH GRASSL NEEDS OUR HELP IN GETTING THE WORD OUT.    IT WOULD REALLY BE APPRECIATED IF YOU COULD TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS!

[JohhnyCash]

Just playing the drunk devils advocate......

 

 

Does history matter?  What does it matter?  In 200,000 years the earth will be devoid of water due to it leaking into space via the upper atmosphere and consequently DEAD..... in 5 billion years the sun will expand and engulf the earth, vaporizing everything.

In geologic terms the Chinese Camp is just a fresh blip on the map and in those same terms will be long gone in mere geologic moments.

 

As humans we tend to hang onto the recent past for some reason, but do we ever examine why?  and why it matters?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love history, but do we ever examine why we try to hold onto things that will eventually slip into oblivion without consequence to the universe?

 

JC

[Dave Burrell]

Yes history matters. We're looking at here and now though (where we can do something), not hundreds of thousands of years into the future where we can only hope history is still preserved by future generations (if they are taught that it history is important and not to be brushed off or forgotten)

 

Johnny Cash is part of Folsom history and obviously is significant enough to use as a myfolsom avatar, none of us would want to erase all knowledge of JC or destroy anything of his significant history, ever.

 

It would be detrimental to future generations to erase historical monuments and places and forget about them. We need to preserve the past to preserve our history and cultural knowledge, we don't need to pave over everything to make way for more damn condo's and mini malls.

 

 

Just my opinion.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Just playing the drunk devils advocate......

 

 

Does history matter?  What does it matter?  In 200,000 years the earth will be devoid of water due to it leaking into space via the upper atmosphere and consequently DEAD..... in 5 billion years the sun will expand and engulf the earth, vaporizing everything.

In geologic terms the Chinese Camp is just a fresh blip on the map and in those same terms will be long gone in mere geologic moments.

 

As humans we tend to hang onto the recent past for some reason, but do we ever examine why?  and why it matters?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love history, but do we ever examine why we try to hold onto things that will eventually slip into oblivion without consequence to the universe?

 

JC

 

You could make the same argument for "Why not murder everyone who even slightly irritates you?"

[supermom]

The Chinese camps are not just a part of Folsom History. Those bare-boned foundations were the epitome of the great strength and endurance of heart and mind that brought Folsom light, water, civilization. Literally. 

[Steve Heard]

 

You could make the same argument for "Why not murder everyone who even slightly irritates you?"

I struggle with that.

[History Matters]

The Chinese camps are not just a part of Folsom History. Those bare-boned foundations were the epitome of the great strength and endurance of heart and mind that brought Folsom light, water, civilization. Literally. 

 

I agree with you Supermom -  There is evidence that the site to be developed was the largest Chinatown outside of San Francisco.  In the late 1800's the Chinese merchants who initially served scattered gold mining camps made Folsom the center of supplying the needs of thousands of Chinese workers who also built the railroad over the Sierra Nevada. 

 

I am very grateful to those past generations who felt obligated to protect and preserve Folsom's unique history.

 

I hope we we can return the favor for future generations before paving it over.

[Dave Burrell]

 

I am very grateful to those past generations who felt obligated to protect and preserve Folsom's unique history.

 

I hope we we can return the favor for future generations before paving it over.

 

Amen to that!  Thank goodness there were at least few people around back when who knew the importance of preserving our history and heritage.

[History Matters]

Another thought as to why history matters is because tourism is the biggest industry in the world.  The more that  a community does to enhance its distinctiveness whether that's natural, architectural, cultural, or artistic, the more people want to go there.    Folsom's history includes in part, the gold rush, railroad, pony express, powerhouse, Folsom prison and Johnny Cash.  Preserving the Chinese Culture is also part of the heart and soul of Folsom.

 

For example, the San Antonio River-walk is the most visited place in the state of Texas.  It is the basis of their multi-billion dollar annual tourism industry and it's the single defining characteristic of San Antonio.  Many years ago the city thought so little of the small river they wanted to put it underground in a culvert!

 

Just as the  San Antonio citizens had a different vision for their city which proved extremely beneficial, we too have a similar opportunity to hold on to something of value.

 

[maestro]

http://www.kcra.com/...ifacts/32352526

 

 

Not only does history matter, but this developer got city permission to add their entire sewage burden to  LNS 4" sewer pipe.      The state water board said they would not permit this sewage travesty to occur.    Since  all "excess" sewage ends up in the American River,  this is an urgent situation from a health & safety point of view.

 

There are multiple reasons for the city to obey the Historic District Guidelines for this land, rather than give the potential developers a huge financial 'gift' at our expense.

 

Good for you, getting this coverage.   Thanks to KCRA.

 

Let's hope the entire downstream area takes a look at this city mess.   What sane person thinks an entire 20 acre Industrial Zone (corp yard) and this development -- can add their sewage to the LNS 4" line?    

Why did the Regional Water Board CEO Creedon claim the city is a shining example of good sewage?

 

[maestro]

 

 when this vote came up, Ernie Sheldon (the only council member that did so) disapproved the project and commented that he had concern about the neighbors and the wildlife habitat.

 

The lawsuit states in part, "...the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts, including...the City's cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, traffic, biology, open space, visual impacts, and inconsistencies with adopted land use plans, statutes, regulations, and ordinances". 

 

 

History Matters quoted this.    It is very constrained language because the actual dosier/file for this project does not have the City Engineers Approval/Seal of proper engineering.         The "streets" are tiny driveways, the city 1850's Rights of Way are given to the developer for more "mixed multi-housing and commercial uses.      There is NO sewage system whatsoever, no Sealed Plat of Survey for the Subdivision,  no fire access which is to code, and this project totally ignores the Public Usage intention of the Zoning Overlay on it for many years:    Folsom Historic District Guidelines and Plans.     

 

KCRA noted the developer D&S had no comment, and of course the city council and staff had no comment.     The Regional Water board CEO has been totally silent, even though the American River is right below this project and the 20 acre Folsom Industrial Zone.     The river is where excess Folsom sewage goes.       Yup, it is difficult to comprehend why we have not seen the cavalry yet because sewage (especially from 3 prisons) is so dangerous.     On the other hand, consider the logistics of remediating the long-time city problems.      Four "permanent councilpersons" have served over a collective 100 years during which there has been no independent City Engineer to ensure our health and safety are protected.

 

Of course I am glad the cultural argument is the subject of a lawsuit, and the media is finally covering that part of the story.    When reporters view sworn engineers'   evidence about city sewers (including from the Regional Water Board Engineers who wrote the city sewer Permit),

  their eyes glaze over from the technical nature -- and from (I think) pure shock.    

 

This is not Bell CA:    this is water supply, environment, sewage, lives, freeway-city-streets........

 

 

 

.

[Steve Heard]

Another thought as to why history matters is because tourism is the biggest industry in the world.  The more that  a community does to enhance its distinctiveness whether that's natural, architectural, cultural, or artistic, the more people want to go there.    Folsom's history includes in part, the gold rush, railroad, pony express, powerhouse, Folsom prison and Johnny Cash.  Preserving the Chinese Culture is also part of the heart and soul of Folsom.

 

For example, the San Antonio River-walk is the most visited place in the state of Texas.  It is the basis of their multi-billion dollar annual tourism industry and it's the single defining characteristic of San Antonio.  Many years ago the city thought so little of the small river they wanted to put it underground in a culvert!

 

Just as the  San Antonio citizens had a different vision for their city which proved extremely beneficial, we too have a similar opportunity to hold on to something of value.

 

 

I sat on the Folsom Arts and Culture Commission for many years (I think, 10), and I quickly learned that the impact of tourism is not fully appreciated by the majority of folks.

 

Visitors come to check out our historical assets, recreational amenities, dance, shop, visit wineries, listen to music and sometimes, visit our art galleries. 

 

They stay in our hotels, buy food, gas, and retail products. The money they spend goes into the pockets of local businesses, their employees and the city coffers.

 

Still, funding for the arts, for preserving and maintaining our historical assets, and for promoting tourism are often seen as fluff or unnecessary, and the first thing we cut when times get tough. That's like a business cutting advertising because not enough people are buying. 

 

Many of the same people who are anti-growth and anti-development are also against bringing more tourists to town. 

 

Last year, the Telegraph published a letter from a resident who said, 'Shame on the City Council for trying to bring in more tourists!'  

 

We can't count on developer fees to keep the city going. 

 

If we want more tourism, we have to protect and preserve what we have, add to it, promote it, and welcome tourists and the money they spend.

[4thgenFolsomite]

all of the people I know who are concerned about our heritage are just aching for there to be more tourism promotional work, especially directed at cultural tourism.  I would guess whoever complained in that Telegraph article was more concerned with one of the big Sutter Street music events, like Folsom Live.  But I don't think of that as tourism. 

[FolsomEJ]

I am fairly sure that our chronic complainer is looking for excuses to delay or prevent anything she believes is impacting her quality of life.  I bet that if Folsom offered to rip up the streets and plumb a triple-sized sewer line that there would be a new flurry of activity about how wrong it all was.

 

The letters were VERY enlightening.  I can not take any further complaint seriously now.  There is zero credibility.