148 replies to this topic

[4thgenFolsomite]

I like this idea a lot. Yes you can modernize Sutter St while retaining the historic character. That median in the middle is unique but rather useless. I'd rather they use the space for wider sidewalks. I think outdoor seating adds a LOT of character to a downtown because you create a more social environment around the businesses, plus more space for tables.

I'm also open to going pedestrian only, at least for a few blocks, though that always seems to make business owners nervous.

the problem with widening the sidewalks is that its NOT HISTORIC. Its an historic street. Wider sidewalks may be charming and sophisticated and very appropriate somewhere else, but if you want to keep it historic, you keep the historic century old sidewalks.

and there are two useful aspects of the median. one: the shade. two: the visual barrier it will provide to block the view of the new construction that will be on the railroad block. when that construction is done, there will be a two-story new modern building on the northwest corner of sutter and wool. that is going to dwarf the old historic buildings. Trees are also relaxing. I think most people like them. They change color with the seasons. They're green.

I don't think any major changes should be made to the historic blocks until all the new construction is done on the railroad block. that way it will be easier to visualize how that has impacted the old and mitigate for it.

[crossski]

If you remove the old town folsom look, you will remove the soul of
Folsom's history and lose something you will never regain. Why in the
world would anyone want to do that? If you want new or 'expanded'
move to Citrus Heights. There you have a city without a soul.

Another example in the region is South Lake Tahoe. What a travesty
that none -I mean NONE of the old 1800's era, buildings are there to see,
enjoy , and ponder. Last one to go was the old store now replaced with what
-condos. Absolute tragedy.

I would think and hope that people do think that they should not destroy something for gain of space for more people or more cars/traffic/parking.

This area is the best Folsom has to offer- don't destroy it.

[Revolutionist]

it is amazing what 10 minutes on Google can deliver

I found this right here on myfolsom.com
http://www.myfolsom....hanandnow.shtml

notice about 1/2 way down the page, the picture of sutter street c.1914
with awnings looking very similar to the modern day awnings

I also found this image pre-1900
It is a little harder to see the entire picture, but you will see the posts and awnings as well. Note the wonderful wooden boardwalk.







As 4thGen has stated, the awnings are indeed historical, and as such ought to remain.

[Steve Heard]

4thgen was good enough to pm me regarding photos of Sutter. I'd love to see them.

I think it's impoprtant to understand that the plan is not to remove all awnings, but rather the conjoined ones which were added in the 60's.

Regarding what is or isn't historic, how far do we want to go with it?

We can go back in history to a time when the sidewalks were made of wood, or when the medians didn't exist, or when there was no electricity, or when the streets were not paved, or when there were no buildings at all. Who decides?

I wonder if there was debate when the sidewalks were replaced with cement, or when the gas lamps were replaced with electric one, or when the streets were paved. I doubt it. Back then it was considered progress.

Cities change all the time. It is important that we preserve our past, but also important that we keep moving forward.

[john]

Unanimously approved at the city council meetings.

Steve, I am encouraged to hear that not all awnings will be removed... that is some progress to me. The median, I can take it or leave it. I am more concerned about removing all the wooden awnings. I don't mind if they repaired all of them and treated the wood to look more rustic, but to rip out the awnings would rip the very essence of the gold rush away.

[mylo]

Okay, it's taken me all day to listen to just the public comments. Very interesting stuff for anyone interested in the Historic District Revlitalization

Watch the video on the city website:
http://folsom.granic...r.php?view_id=2

[john]

Some old photos of Sutter Street, to give context (note all the wooden overhangs)


1900


1900


1914

[4thgenFolsomite]

4thgen was good enough to pm me regarding photos of Sutter. I'd love to see them.

I think it's impoprtant to understand that the plan is not to remove all awnings, but rather the conjoined ones which were added in the 60's.

Regarding what is or isn't historic, how far do we want to go with it?

We can go back in history to a time when the sidewalks were made of wood, or when the medians didn't exist, or when there was no electricity, or when the streets were not paved, or when there were no buildings at all. Who decides?

Cities change all the time. It is important that we preserve our past, but also important that we keep moving forward.

This isn't about going back in time. For me its about destroying what is still there. The current sidewalks are historic, over a century old. To widen then (double in size) is going to change the whole mass and scale of the street. The buildings will seem different. Additionally, making rounded corners and bulb outs for traffic is a very modern thing that will forever change the feeling of the street. Wood or concrete, everything from a century ago was in straight lines. The awnings are replacements of what was there historically. I am worried that property owners will now start putting up their own idea of what is historic so that we end up with a variety of really non-historic looks and end up being another Knotts berry farm with modern sidewalks. As for the median, its true its only about 50 years old, but when the town historians put that in, they really helped the street. People loved the trees down the middle and the lawn. It created a park-like setting, shade, and a traffic slowing devise. When I see people arrive in the district, the first place they head for is the 700 block. It feels like a destination. I know the new plan calls for trees in the widened sidewalks, but for them to be tall enough for shade, the trees will be have to be tall and large. Moving tall and large trees 15 feet closer to the buildings is going to do more to obscure the historic facades than the trees or the current awnings do now.

everyone agrees that infrastructure and safety need to be maintained. However, I think the current plan is far too drastic. Also, that is the ONLY THREE BLOCKS of historic Sutter Street. The very oldest part of the city. When its been changed, its not historic any more.

its true that things change, but the entire city is changed or new. The whole idea about historic preservation is PRESERVATION. This current plan is not going to maintain the only old part of the city we have left. It's going to do just the opposite.

[cw68]

Additionally, making rounded corners and bulb outs for traffic is a very modern thing that will forever change the feeling of the street. Wood or concrete, everything from a century ago was in straight lines.

While I agree with you in theory, a century ago pedestrians on the block didn't have to deal with motorized traffic, let alone motorized traffic speeding to and from the Riley Street Bridge. Some traffic calming measures have to be taken, history or not.

[john]

While I agree with you in theory, a century ago pedestrians on the block didn't have to deal with motorized traffic, let alone motorized traffic speeding to and from the Riley Street Bridge. Some traffic calming measures have to be taken, history or not.

"Traffic Calming" is a relatively new phenomenon since the 1990s, and traffic issues will die out when the new bridge is in. There is no reason we should be modernizing, other than where mandated by law. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a dirt road. If that wouldn't slow traffic down, I don't know what will...! I'm only half-joking on that... we should make it a dirt road every now and then for historical re-enactments. Yes, your stroller will get dirty, but our forefathers seemed to figure it out too.

[cw68]

"Traffic Calming" is a relatively new phenomenon since the 1990s, and traffic issues will die out when the new bridge is in. There is no reason we should be modernizing, other than where mandated by law. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a dirt road. If that wouldn't slow traffic down, I don't know what will...! I'm only half-joking on that... we should make it a dirt road every now and then for historical re-enactments. Yes, your stroller will get dirty, but our forefathers seemed to figure it out too.

Traffic issues will not permanently calm down with the new bridge. It's a hopeful thought, but after studying the region's growth and traffic patterns, it's obvious that it will only make a big impact at first. That impact will soon disappear.

Traffic calming may be a new phenomenon since the 1990s here in Folsom, but that's because short-sighted developers (main cause), engineers, city planners and others only focused on expanding pavement just for the sake of vehicular traffic. The focus didn't include pedestrian and cyclist traffic, nor did they focus on non-motorized retail centers.

[newsblaze]

I too think that historic folsom should be pedestrian (or horse) only.

Apparently 80% of malls fail.
The time to make a mall is when the area is so popular that pedestrians outnumber cars and it is obvious that it should be done. Until that point, you don't have a draw that keeps bringing people to the area. - According to the Main Street Association of Encinitas - they did a revitalization 10 years ago - Kerry Miller was their City Manager.
If you ask most people if they would like no cars, you will probably get a huge majority - I would like it too, but it could create a ghost town.

Interesting options.
People think it would be great to have no cars, but not wider sidewalks?

[newsblaze]

It took me almost six hours to write the story linked below. It is the proceedings of the council meeting.
Reading this is faster than listening to the video. I hope I only cut out redundant stuff. I didn't trim it to show a particular viewpoint.

Everyone had a point, but pay special attention to what these people say:
1. Jeff Ferreira-Pro
2. Candy Miller
3. Richard Gray
4. Ellen Hester
5. The Councilors.

Folsom Streetscape Concept Passes Council Approval, Unanimously

Main points:
Those huge trees were planted in 8 to 10 inches of soil. Highway 50 is directly under the trees, 12 to 18 inches of solid concrete below them, which is why their roots are so high. Care to guess what might happen if we get a big wind. Its probably unlikely a vehicle will hit one. An Arborist says the trees are near the end of their life - maybe the arborist has only read "Trees for Dummies".

The old clay sewer pipes under the street are close to the end of their life too. Should they be repaired one at a time as they fail or do them all at once?

The shed roof is entirely practical. It protects us from sun in summer and rain in winter. These have been in place since the 60s. They have never been maintained well - just like the ones they replaced. Each year they produce a great crop of grass. They are rotten - try putting a screw in one to put up a banner. They are destroying building facades by rotting them too.

I love the median too - it is unique and unusual (quirky). It is also a mess - and as Charles says its great for parking motorcyles on, for smokers - and for drunks. Its not historic - Richard told us when it was created.

I think putting the space taken up by the median into the sidewalks sounds good. - So there could be a couple of outside cafes that would make the street a more attractive and interesting place to be. Right now, it is a place to walk up and down. What if you could sit there for an hour and eat and drink and look at the architecture of the cleaned up, but historically authentic buildings?

Perhaps the merchants, building owners, Historic District Commission, Historic Preservation League and History Museum people are all really stupid. They would like nothing more than to turn Historic Sutter Street into a new mall just like broadstone, thereby destroying the jewel that makes the historic district what it is. Whatever goes up, the HDC has to approve it. What do you reckon is the chance of the HDC approving non-historic-looking facades? And what is the chance that all the merchants will want to make the front of their shop so hot or wet that nobody wants to be there?

The shed roofs need to come down. The artists/architects drawings were just ideas of possibilities.
Its a pity they didn't show at least a couple of shed roof replacements. New - but historic-looking shed roofs could be put back up, but first the damage they have caused needs to be repaired. Not only that, but the beautiful architecture everyone says they love is hidden by those shed roofs that cross multiple buildings. In much earlier times, the shed roof uprights were not 4x4 - they were beautiful turned wood, Wouldn't it be nice to see those?

Sutter street is decaying and it needs help. You can't see most of the decay, but it is there. Something needs to be done and now is the time. If you have an opinion and want to contribute, please, please come to the meetings or respond to emails and make a contribution. Thanks to FEDCorp and Jeff Ferreira-Pro, there is a general concensus amongst all of the groups interested in the Historic District. Its taken 20 years to get to this point - closing the dam road has nothing to do with this. The next step is to design what it will look like. Are you an architect with special expertise in restoring historic districts or have you participated in a revitalization that was done right - or was not - or do you care about historic Folsom - then you are invited to participate.

Don't think that theres a bulldozer moving this thing forward and everything is decided. Lots of people have made suggestions that are now incorporated into the conceptual plan. You can help with the design phase - just as Charles McCann participated in teh Conceptual plan - and he changed it and it changed him. We also have the benefit of having Kerry Miller as City Manager. He's been through at least one of these before and he knows how to get it done without causing major disruption.

I will write up a story of some of the things we learned from the Encinitas Main Street Association. They held a retreat here about a month ago and gave us a couple of hours of their time.

The 700 block is the last on the list to be done. You'll be able to see if the other parts turn into a modern mall and destroy the historic look and feel. Sutter Street has character. That's what we need to retain. Do nothing and we risk losing it all. Just do a few patch-ups and we risk losing it all. Do it all wrong and we risk losing the "Historic" part. There are too many "Historic" people involved to let that happen.

Please read the story or watch and listen to the video - and did I remind you to participate?

Folsom Streetscape Concept Passes Council Approval, Unanimously

[4thgenFolsomite]

Everyone had a point, but pay special attention to what these people say:
1. Jeff Ferreira-Pro
2. Candy Miller
3. Richard Gray
4. Ellen Hester
5. The Councilors.

PLEASE EXCUSE MY ALL CAPS. THIS WAY YOU CAN SEE MY RESPONSE.
WHY CHOOSE ONLY ADVOCATES FOR THE NEW PLAN IF YOU'RE A REPORTER? AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE AND TELL BOTH SIDES?

Main points:
Those huge trees were planted in 8 to 10 inches of soil. Highway 50 is directly under the trees, 12 to 18 inches of solid concrete below them, which is why their roots are so high. Care to guess what might happen if we get a big wind. Its probably unlikely a vehicle will hit one. An Arborist says the trees are near the end of their life - maybe the arborist has only read "Trees for Dummies".


THE TREES DEFINATELY NEED MAINTENANCE. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY ARBORIST SAY THE MAGNOLIAS IN THE 800 BLOCK WERE DIEING OR NEARING THE END OF THEIR LIVES. WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF SECOND HAND INFORMATION. WHEN THE SEWER WORK IS DONE, WHY NOT REPLANT MATURE TREES WITH PROPER HOLES THEN?

The old clay sewer pipes under the street are close to the end of their life too. Should they be repaired one at a time as they fail or do them all at once?

THE PLAN NOW, EVEN BY THE CITY, IS TO REPAIR THEM A BLOCK AT A TIME. THIS MAY REQUIRE REMOVING THE MEDIAN TO GET THAT WORK DONE. INFRASTRUCTURE ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED AND THOSE SEWER PIPES SHOULD DEFINATELY BE REPLACED NOW. BUT THAT JUST GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE THE MEDIANS IN A STRONGER AND MORE ATTRACTIVE ARRANGEMENT. MAYBE EVEN IN SECTIONS, SUCH AS TONY POWERS MENTIONED IN HIS PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL. BY REPLACING THE MEDIAN IN SECTIONS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE THE BETTER ACCESS IT DESIRES.

The shed roof is entirely practical. It protects us from sun in summer and rain in winter. These have been in place since the 60s. They have never been maintained well - just like the ones they replaced. Each year they produce a great crop of grass. They are rotten - try putting a screw in one to put up a banner. They are destroying building facades by rotting them too.

NO DOUBT SOME THOSE OVERHANGS NEED TO BE REPAIRED/REPLACED. HOWEVER, IF ITS UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REPLACE THE AWNING BUILDING BY BUILDING (WHICH IS NOT HISTORICALLY HOW THE AWNINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON THE STREET FOR THE MOST PART) THEN ITS LIKELY ITS GOING TO HAVE A HODGE PODGE FEEL WITH A FAUX WESTERN FEEL. PART OF THE CHARM NOW IS THE UNIFIED COMMUNAL FEELING OF THE OVERHANG.

I love the median too - it is unique and unusual (quirky). It is also a mess - and as Charles says its great for parking motorcyles on, for smokers - and for drunks. Its not historic - Richard told us when it was created.

WE ALL KNOW THE MEDIAN WAS CONSTRUCTED DURING THE EARLY 1960S TO BEAUTIFY THE STREET BY ADDING TREES AND PREVENT ACCIDENTS. APPARENTLY WHEN THERE WAS NO DIVIDER, CARS OFTEN RAN INTO EACH OTHER ON THE STREET. SINCE THEN IT HAS ALSO SERVED TO CALM TRAFFIC, PROVIDE SHADE, AND CREATE A VERY PARKLIKE FEELING, RATHER THAN AN URBAN STREETSCAPE. THE MEDIAN ALSO GIVES ENOUGH DISTANCE TO HAVE TREES LARGE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE SHADE ON THE STREET WHILE KEEPING THEM FAR ENOUGH FROM THE FRONTS OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS TO ALLOW THE BUILDINGS TO BE SEEN. IF THE TREES ARE MOVED 20 FEET CLOSER TO THE BUILDINGS, THEY WILL OBSCURE THOSE HISTORIC FACADES.

I think putting the space taken up by the median into the sidewalks sounds good. - So there could be a couple of outside cafes that would make the street a more attractive and interesting place to be. Right now, it is a place to walk up and down. What if you could sit there for an hour and eat and drink and look at the architecture of the cleaned up, but historically authentic buildings?

YES, ITS A LOVELY IDEA FOR THE CAFES AND BARS TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THEIR TABLE SPACE ON THE STREET. SOME ARE ALREADY DOING IT NOW. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE MAJORITY OF THE STORES. AND THIS CHANGE, EVEN MORE THAN THE MEDIAN REMOVAL, WILL DO MORE TO ALTER THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE STREET. IT WILL CHANGE THE MASS AND SCALE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT ON THE STREET. WHILE NOW WE CAN LOOK AT HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS AND INSTANTLY KNOW ITS SUTTER STREET, WIDENING THE SIDEWALKS WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO VISUALIZE OUR HISTORY. THAT IS NOT HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THERE ARE ONLY THREE HISTORIC BLOCKS LEFT IN THE CITY. THIS IS OUR LAST REMAINING HISTORIC AREA. I DONT THINK WE SHOULD BE SO CAVALIER ABOUT CHANGING THE VERY STRUCTURE OF IT.

Perhaps the merchants, building owners, Historic District Commission, Historic Preservation League and History Museum people are all really stupid. They would like nothing more than to turn Historic Sutter Street into a new mall just like broadstone, thereby destroying the jewel that makes the historic district what it is. Whatever goes up, the HDC has to approve it. What do you reckon is the chance of the HDC approving non-historic-looking facades? And what is the chance that all the merchants will want to make the front of their shop so hot or wet that nobody wants to be there?

MANY OF THE BUILDING OWNERS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH IT. AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION LEAGUE IS NOT FULLY IN FAVOR OF THIS EITHER. HPL PRESENTED A LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS JUST BEFORE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. AS FOR THE HDC APPROVING NON-HISTORIC FACADES, THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. ITS DIFFICULT FOR NON-PROFESSIONALS TO KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY IS HISTORIC. AS FOR THE MERCHANTS/BUILDING OWNERS? I AGREE THEY ARE MORE PRACTICAL ABOUT KNOWING WHAT THE DAY TO DAY CONSIDERATIONS ARE FOR THEIR EXTERIORS. MOST OF THEM, ESPECIALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE THE AFTERNOON SUNLIGHT HITS THEIR WINDOWS, KNOW THEY NEED TO HAVE A SHED ROOF OVERHANG TO PROTECT THEIR GOODS AND COOL THEIR STORES. THEY ALSO KNOW THE PRACTICALITY OF RAIN PROTECTION. HERE IS A QUESTION THAT HASN'T COME UP. DO THE NEW AWNINGS EXTEND OVER THE ENTIRE 20 FEET OF THE NEW WIDENED SIDEWALK? THAT WOULD BE AN ARBOR, NOT AN AWNING. ALSO IF TREES ARE GOING TO BE PLANTED IN THE EXTRA WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK, THAT WILL PREVENT AN AWNING FROM BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THE BUILDING BEHIND IT. WHEREEVER THERE IS A TREE, THE OWNER BEHIND THAT TREE WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT AN AWNING OUT TO PROTECT THEIR WINDOW AND SHOPPERS IN FRONT OF THEIR STORE.

The shed roofs need to come down. The artists/architects drawings were just ideas of possibilities.
Its a pity they didn't show at least a couple of shed roof replacements. New - but historic-looking shed roofs could be put back up, but first the damage they have caused needs to be repaired. Not only that, but the beautiful architecture everyone says they love is hidden by those shed roofs that cross multiple buildings. In much earlier times, the shed roof uprights were not 4x4 - they were beautiful turned wood, Wouldn't it be nice to see those?

MANY OF THE SHED ROOFS NEED REPAIR. WHY NOT RENOVATE THEM WITH COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC POSTS. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR DIVERSITY IN STYLE. JUST REMEMBER THAT STORES COME AND GO ON THE STREET. WHAT ONE MERCHANT MIGHT WANT TO ENHANCE HIS PARTICULAR GOODS, THE NEXT MAY HATE. IF THEY ARE TOO INDIVIDUAL, IT WILL LOOK MISMATCHED AND FAKE. IN THIS CASE, THE AWNINGS, JUST AS THE SIDEWALKS, MAY FIT BETTER IF THEY ARE MORE UNIFORM.

Don't think that theres a bulldozer moving this thing forward and everything is decided. Lots of people have made suggestions that are now incorporated into the conceptual plan. You can help with the design phase - just as Charles McCann participated in teh Conceptual plan - and he changed it and it changed him. We also have the benefit of having Kerry Miller as City Manager. He's been through at least one of these before and he knows how to get it done without causing major disruption.

I THINK KERRY MILLER IS GOING TO BE A GOOD CITY MANAGER. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY THAT TEARING UP THE MIDDLE OF SUTTER STREET, INCLUDING THE LATERAL UTILITY LINES LEADING INTO THE BUILDINGS, IS NOT GOING TO DISRUPT BUSINESS. THE SEWER REPAIR HAS TO BE DONE. I'M GLAD THAT KERRY IS DEDICATED, AS HE STATED, TO MAKING SURE THAT WORK IS DONE WITH AS LITTLE IMPACT AS POSSIBLE TO THE PRESENT BUSINESSES. HE SEEMS SINCERE IN THAT. HOWEVER, OTHER POSTS I HAVE SEEN ON THIS FORUM HAVE DISCUSSED HOW THERE NEEDS TO BE A NEW MIX OF STORES AND THAT SOME OF THE OWNERS DON'T MAINTAIN THEIR BUILDINGS. I WONDER IF SOME OF THE PROPONENTS ARE HOPING THIS FORCES SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE OUT.


The 700 block is the last on the list to be done. You'll be able to see if the other parts turn into a modern mall and destroy the historic look and feel. Sutter Street has character. That's what we need to retain. Do nothing and we risk losing it all. Just do a few patch-ups and we risk losing it all. Do it all wrong and we risk losing the "Historic" part. There are too many "Historic" people involved to let that happen.

THIS IS A GOOD SENTIMENT AND I APPLAUDE IT. HOWEVER, IF WE DON'T START WITH A COHESIVE PLAN FOR THE LENGTH OF THE STREET BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS ON ANY ONE BLOCK, WE COULD END UP WITH A MISHMOSH. IF THE 600, 800, AND 900 BLOCKS HAVE WIDENED SIDEWALKS, HOW COULD THE 700 BLOCK BE LEFT ALONE WITHOUT IT LOOKING ODD? THIS PLAN SHOULD BE COHESIVE.

THE 700 BLOCK IS CLEARLY THE ONE PEOPLE ARE MOST COMPELLED TO PROTECT. WHY? THERE ARE 19TH CENTURY BUILDINGS IN THE 800 BLOCK AS WELL. I BELIEVE ITS BECAUSE OF THE SHELTERING PARK FEELING CREATED BY THE TREES AND THE UNIFORM AWNINGS. IT FEELS LIKE THE PLACE TO BE, WHERE WE NATURALLY GRAVITATE TO. RATHER THAN CHANGE THAT, WHY NOT EXTEND THAT. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE TREES PLANTED IN SEGMENTED MEDIANS ALL THE WAY FROM THE FRONT OF THE NEW BANK BUILDING BY THE LIGHT RAIL STATION ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SCOTT STREET. LEAVE THE HISTORIC SIDEWALKS AS THEY ARE, WITH NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS FOR ADA (NO BULB OUTS OR ROUNDED CORNERS). THE SHELTERED AREA BENEATH THE MEDIAN TREES WOULD LEND ITSELF TO STREET FAIRS ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN THE STREET IS CLOSED TO TRAFFIC. THE PARTIAL MEDIANS WOULD ALSO GIVE ACCESS FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT AND ALSO SLOW TRAFFIC. BIKE RACKS COULD BE INSTALLED ON THESE MEDIANS SO MORE VISITORS FROM THE TRAIL COULD COME UP AND EAT AND RELAX.

WE KNOW WHAT WORKS ON THE STREET. THE 700 BLOCK. WHY NOT EXTEND ITS FEELING ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE STREET. THAT WAY THE NEW BUILDINGS ON EITHER END OF THE STREET GET THE BENEFIT AS WELL. I BELIEVE THE PRESENT PLAN IS GOING TO HOMOGENIZE OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT TO LOOK LIKE SO MANY OTHER "REVITALIZED" DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRY. GO CHECK OUT NOVATO'S HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SAME MODERN SIDEWALKS AND BULB OUTS THERE. ITS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER TOWN NOW.

[Redone]

"MANY OF THE BUILDING OWNERS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH IT."

This is not true, more like it than don't.