203 replies to this topic

[lisasellshouses]

Lisa;
Speaking for myself, you have answered one question that I've had all along regarding this complex. When the public is not informed properly then perhaps we do jump to conclusions in the wrong way. I have wanted to hear the details of who would be living there, illnesses, etc. Not so much of what types of illnesses but perhaps to what degree. The spectrum of illnesses is wide and while some like your sister are managable, I was more concerned with tennents with unmanagable issues, and the safety concerns that would bring. I waited to hear or read from the city council of what the plans were but all I kept hearing was zoning issues. I can understand your point and commend you for wanting to help. There is still one question that I have, will there be someone living there that will be monitoring these people?

From what I heard from the transitionl housing, the people that would be elgible would be monitored several ways.

1. the criteria to get an apt is very strict. background checks, no violence, no drugs, no registered sex offenders.

2. They must be able to show that they can successful manage their illness. the application is nothing like just applying for a normal apt. these will not be people who need constant supervision. they would not qualify and should someone fall back and no longer be able to live successfully, staff and help is there to get them back on track.

3. They will be current clients of mental health but not at the stage where they should need daily checks.

4. there will be a manager on site 8-5pm, a counsoler, that will help them.

The fear is that this will be a facility for the mental ill. this will be housing for those that have a managable mental illness, low income.

But having someone close at hand, working with their counserlors and psychitrist is a step in making sure they dont go off meds.

Does that answer your question?

[lisasellshouses]

Robert, you just got my vote for city council...

Technically this is a rezone but it is really a rename of the zoning.

The city is rezoning the lot to comply with the general plan of Folsom. the general plan calls for multi family housing up to 25 units.

the applicant and the land owner is only asking for the rezone because the current zone language is no longer in use, the equivalant of the it today is multi family up to 25 units.

they plan on only having 19 units.

[Robert Giacometti]

Technically this is a rezone but it is really a rename of the zoning.

The city is rezoning the lot to comply with the general plan of Folsom. the general plan calls for multi family housing up to 25 units.

the applicant and the land owner is only asking for the rezone because the current zone language is no longer in use, the equivalant of the it today is multi family up to 25 units.

they plan on only having 19 units.

When did we last do a general plan update...sometime in the late 80's? So during the last nearly 20 years we have allowed this inconsistency to go on and did nothing?

Weren't we told that the city was updating and correcting all this during the affordable Housing lawsuit?

I'm very supportive of having these types of facilities in our community, its my belief they should be located in all developments not just the oldest! The city council had opportunities to require this facility get built in newer developments as a condition of approval, but chose NOT to.

[Redone]

If the existing zoning was such that it allowed this type of housing then there shouldn't be any complaints from anyone. However, since the Council is choosing to rezone this parcel, IMHO the neighborhood has every right to be up in arms about this decision.


Require the applicant find the site within the appropriate zoning rather than cater to the applicant by rezoning land while altering the General Plan and against the wishes and desires of the neighborhood.

Clearly the Council can deny this zoning change, but they are choosing to do so.

Different types of housing should be dispersed throughout Folsom and not just concentrated in the Historic District as this rezone does.

You're really shooting from the hip on this one. They rezoned because it's REQUIRED by FMC because the zoning was inconsistent with General Plan. The rezone , the project, and the $$$$$$$$$$$$ were all taken as separate items. So, listen to the tape (mp3?).

So , clearly , they couldn't deny the zoning. But the subdivision map is a different story........

[Robert Giacometti]

You're really shooting from the hip on this one. They rezoned because it's REQUIRED by FMC because the zoning was inconsistent with General Plan. The rezone , the project, and the $$$$$$$$$$$$ were all taken as separate items. So, listen to the tape (mp3?).

So , clearly , they couldn't deny the zoning. But the subdivision map is a different story........

Just because you swallowed what they are saying hook, line & sinker, doesn't mean they have to approve this project at this location. The rezone, is the carrot on the end of the stick and IMHO the council is about to give away the carrot, without getting what the community/ neighborhood wants. Once they grant the rezone, they limit what they can do from there.

If the applicant truly felt the council wasn't going to approve this I doubt if they would be pressing forward on this. The council meeting is the rehearsed dog & pony show, when it comes to these issues.

[michmies]

I too agree that these types of facilities are needed, but I don't think it is wise to have this type of facility basically across the street from a Junior High School and just 2 blocks away from a Daycare/Pre-school. I understand the rezoning and the need for low-income housing, but how about developing some nice condos there that could be attractive for teachers that would allow them to actually live in the district that they teach in.

I think instead of building all of these new shopping centers where a business goes in and closes up 3 months later because they don't get enough business, because our city is already saturated with so many restaurants, sign shops, etc, they focus on some affordable living there. It is ridiculous how many vacant business spots there are; yet they keep allowing more to be built. I think that is crazy!

I had no idea that little plot of land was going to be used for basically a halfway house for psychiatric problemed people. My husband and I looked at that piece of property when it was for sale and now I wish we had looked a little more seriously.

I am in support of trying to stop that type of property from going there.

[DrifeterDude13]

God forbid, someone making under a bazillion dollars a year, not driving a 2009 Mercedes Benz living in Beverly Hills. I mean Folsom.

[mylo]

God forbid, someone making under a bazillion dollars a year, not driving a 2009 Mercedes Benz living in Beverly Hills. I mean Folsom.

I make under a bazillion dollars and drive a volvo, can I live in Folsom and be against this development?

[Robert Giacometti]

God forbid, someone making under a bazillion dollars a year, not driving a 2009 Mercedes Benz living in Beverly Hills. I mean Folsom.

I'm not speaking for everyone who is oppossed to this type of facility going in at this location, but it seems most of us are supportive of these types of housing and affordable housing in general. If the law requires X amount of new housing to be considered affordable, why NOT locate the affordable housing in the same project that is creating the requirements of affordable housing to be built?

It seems to be a more equitable way of diversifying housing throughout the city without having one neigborhood have a disappropriate share, like in the Historic District

[mylo]

It seems to be a more equitable way of diversifying housing throughout the city without having one neigborhood have a disappropriate share, like in the Historic District

But the Historic District doesn't have the developers with deep pockets to bribe their way out of providing these sorts of housing, so of course it's naturally imbalanced.

[Chad Vander Veen]

God forbid, someone making under a bazillion dollars a year, not driving a 2009 Mercedes Benz living in Beverly Hills. I mean Folsom.

Where do you live?

[Kerri Howell]

OK, it has now been over a week since the Council meeting on the Transitional Living proposal for 19 units on Bidwell Street (18 for low income tenants, medicated for depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, with the 19th unit for the manager). EDF at least admitted to having fallen asleep while watching the Council meeting - even if you missed it on Channel 14, you can watch it by going to the City's website, and clicking on the correct agenda item for the meeting on March 27 - why not watch on line, and get the correct information, instead of continuing to speculate?

Having said that, the "rezone" was really a change in terms, and to get the zoning in accordance with the General Plan. The General Plan allows for up to 25 units at that site. The funding issue was discussed at length, as were the existing laws that would preclude the City from denying the project simply because the tenants are in the County's mental health program - as it would be discrimination. We also discussed the parking (they have proposed to provide 27 spaces, as opposed to 36 - and it is unlikely that the residents will own cars in the same ratio as the typical tenants in multifamily housing that is NOT designated as "affordable housing") and they have proposed reduced set backs in order to save oak trees at the site. So, the discussion was about putting in more parking than will likely be used, and increasing set backs - in exchange for cutting down oak trees.

With regard to the comments that the City kept this secret, this project has been under discussion for about 2 years. In the last 2 months, I probably answered 50 emails on this subject, some of which were from posters in this thread. There was no "cover up", the city does not profit from this, and this is not about the City being in the pockets of the developers, as was implied in some of the posts. The reality is, this property has the right to up to 25 units, the property is available, and this is what the current owner wants to see built there. Denying it on the basis of the tenants being medically treated for depression related illnesses is discrimation, and therefore illegal, and the City would lose in court on that one - just like all those neighborhoods that have been unable to relocate residential care facilities. Those who posted that proposed tenants go through extensive background checks, so there will be no criminals or child molestors, are correct.

Please review the post from the woman who described the situation with her sister - somebody lives next door to that person already. I think many of you would also be surprised to find out how many of your friends, neighbors and relatives are on the same medications as the proposed tenants of this project - but, they are in different financial situations, so they manage their meds at home - with no supervision.

Please contact me with any additional questions or comments. My email is corrprincess@ardennet.com

Kerri Howell

[Duke]

OK, it has now been over a week since the Council meeting on the Transitional Living proposal for 19 units on Bidwell Street (18 for low income tenants, medicated for depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, with the 19th unit for the manager). EDF at least admitted to having fallen asleep while watching the Council meeting - even if you missed it on Channel 14, you can watch it by going to the City's website, and clicking on the correct agenda item for the meeting on March 27 - why not watch on line, and get the correct information, instead of continuing to speculate?

Having said that, the "rezone" was really a change in terms, and to get the zoning in accordance with the General Plan. The General Plan allows for up to 25 units at that site. The funding issue was discussed at length, as were the existing laws that would preclude the City from denying the project simply because the tenants are in the County's mental health program - as it would be discrimination. We also discussed the parking (they have proposed to provide 27 spaces, as opposed to 36 - and it is unlikely that the residents will own cars in the same ratio as the typical tenants in multifamily housing that is NOT designated as "affordable housing") and they have proposed reduced set backs in order to save oak trees at the site. So, the discussion was about putting in more parking than will likely be used, and increasing set backs - in exchange for cutting down oak trees.

With regard to the comments that the City kept this secret, this project has been under discussion for about 2 years. In the last 2 months, I probably answered 50 emails on this subject, some of which were from posters in this thread. There was no "cover up", the city does not profit from this, and this is not about the City being in the pockets of the developers, as was implied in some of the posts. The reality is, this property has the right to up to 25 units, the property is available, and this is what the current owner wants to see built there. Denying it on the basis of the tenants being medically treated for depression related illnesses is discrimation, and therefore illegal, and the City would lose in court on that one - just like all those neighborhoods that have been unable to relocate residential care facilities. Those who posted that proposed tenants go through extensive background checks, so there will be no criminals or child molestors, are correct.

Please review the post from the woman who described the situation with her sister - somebody lives next door to that person already. I think many of you would also be surprised to find out how many of your friends, neighbors and relatives are on the same medications as the proposed tenants of this project - but, they are in different financial situations, so they manage their meds at home - with no supervision.

Please contact me with any additional questions or comments. My email is corrprincess@ardennet.com

Kerri Howell

...what about co-tenants?

[lisasellshouses]

...what about co-tenants?

no co-tenants unless they are directly related to the main tenants.

According to TLCS( the applicant developing the apt complex) all adults living in the units will have criminal background checks.

The point was that this will not be like a usually apt complex will mutiple roommates.

[Folsom22]

More dissapointing news on the Historic District

http://www.sacbee.co...ory/101591.html

I think these recent developments (starbucks and low income housing) are tragic to the momentum the Historic District Revitalization effort has attained.

We call this area the "jewel of the city", and yet it's apparently becoming another strip mall and dumping ground for the housing nobody else wants.

mylo, looks like the story is no longer there.
what income is considered low and why is it so bloody tragic that people don't make tonnes of money?