48 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

Everyone take note.  Go to the meetings and give them your ideas.

 

Don't say you didn't know.

 

 

 

Community members are encouraged to share opinions on three site design examples, as well as offer unique ideas for the site. Feedback can be submitted on the City’s MindMixer forum at http://townhall.folsom2035.com.

 

 

 

City Seeks Input on Corporation Yard Site Redevelopment

The City of Folsom plans to move its corporation yard and is seeking  community input on the redevelopment of the 16.3 acre site located on the west end of Leidesdorff Street near the American River Parkway, Lake Natoma and Historic District. 

The City’s corporation yard houses the City’s bus fleet, construction equipment and police and fire vehicles, and serves as a maintenance center for all City-owned vehicles.   The City of Folsom intends to relocate the corporation yard south of Highway 50 to reduce industrial traffic in the Historic District and to serve all areas of the City more effectively.

The City is seeking citywide feedback to capture community visions and values for the uniquely located property on Leidesdorff Street in Historic Folsom.  Community members are encouraged to share opinions on three site design examples, as well as offer unique ideas for the site. Feedback can be submitted on the City’s MindMixer forum at http://townhall.folsom2035.com.

The three example land use scenarios emerged during a stakeholder visioning process with the city’s design consultant Jeffrey Demure & Associates and a focus group comprised of local residents, local business owners, historic preservationists, advocates, student leaders and community leaders. The examples are a starting point to stimulate discussion and comment; the City is also interested in receiving other ideas.

Community feedback will be collected through August 31 and will be shared with the Folsom City Council at the September 13 City Council Meeting. 

Learn more about the project on the City’s website or contact project manager Stephanie Henry at 916-351-3349 or shenry@folsom.ca.us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.folsom.ca...1336&TargetID=1

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

thanks for your post.  Appreciate the heads up.  Two comments:

 

-  PLEASE don't let them sell to developers who will turn it into a menagerie of matchbox houses that will be forever ugly.

 

-  I will submit several ideas for redevelopment.  1)  Make it a park.   2)  Make it a park.    3)  Make it a park. 

[Steve Heard]

thanks for your post.  Appreciate the heads up.  Two comments:

 

-  PLEASE don't let them sell to developers who will turn it into a menagerie of matchbox houses that will be forever ugly.

 

-  I will submit several ideas for redevelopment.  1)  Make it a park.   2)  Make it a park.    3)  Make it a park. 

 

They could make a spectacular park!

[ducky]

A park would be nice.

[4thgenFolsomite]

let them know!  there was a citizens stakeholders' workshop and they used ideas from the different teams to create three different plans that they resubmitted back to the group.  Each one of the three plans they returned to the group included a high density housing element, which wasn't anything they had actually suggested.  Please be sure to let them know your ideas!  this piece of property is such a beautiful and unique property surrounded by State Park land.  We can put high density in many other places, including south of the freeway, but there is only one piece of property like this.  Let's make sure its something special that everyone can enjoy and that compliments the historic district.

[2 Aces]

This City Council couldn't care less what we propose. They will do what benefits them. Folsom is a semi-banana republic.

Do you want me to give you examples?

If you go to give input, trust me: they will *pretend* to listen to you. Their mind is already made up, and it ain't no *park*.

I've seen this movie before. If you go to voice your opinion, God Bless you, but you just wasted your time.

[nomad]

This City Council couldn't care less what we propose. They will do what benefits them. Folsom is a semi-banana republic.

Do you want me to give you examples?

If you go to give input, trust me: they will *pretend* to listen to you. Their mind is already made up, and it ain't no *park*.

I've seen this movie before. If you go to voice your opinion, God Bless you, but you just wasted your time.

 

Exactly right. The only way to start to break this City Council down is vote Gaylord. Get someone in who hasn't been a 20+ year stooge. And please, don't split the vote between Roger and the 4th and 5th place candidates like Folsom did last time that pretty much wasted his efforts. 

[ducky]

If we don't provide input we don't have a right to complain about the outcome..

If they wanted great views and mixed use, they should have built Lake Natoma Crossing Ponte Vecchio style.

[2 Aces]

If you actually read my post, you'd realize that I didn't say to NOT give input. I said that if you give input, don't be shocked to find out that they went in their own direction. A park sounds like a nice, rational idea, which means it won't be a park.

 

Just my opinion, guided by experience. 

[New Girl]

This parcel of land is bounded along one side by the the most beautiful park.  It is a valuable piece of land and to convert it to further park would be uneconomic in my humble opinion.  It seems we all want bike paths, parks, art and rec, libraries etc. but we do not want to pay tax and we resent the city council from raising money to help pay for some of it.   I advocate making it an extension of old town, maybe a convention center.  Link it to old town with a lovely wide walk along the lake (keeping the bike trail separate so you can wander with the family) .  Something that will make money for the city.    At the very least include a restaurant with extensive patio seating overlooking the park and across to the lake.  

[maestro]

You bet I am really sick of the shenanigans of the "permanent 4 city council members" and their BA educated minion controlling all public works and bogus up-zoning.      I refuse to "join" a private site to post my comments, so I sent them to the city to post at "Townhall2035" and to multiple public agencies who MUST be consulted before the city sneaks in again.

Here's the post -- lots to think about and act upon.

 

"Re:   Requirement to use private email address to submit comment and see site of 2035

Kindly post this to the commercial Townhall 2035 site!

California mandates General Plan Updates, and the city has been in violation of the 7 year Updates for years.   This council is selective and inappropriate with regard to planning.   

1.  No General Plan Announcements, Public Hearings at all.

2.  Lake Natoma Shores Residents were excluded from the "developer tours" this year.     It was city's private event.

3.  The "plans" shown by Jeffery or JD+A group include multiple violations of law governing streets, access, safety.

4.   Most notably city proposes to utilize 'alley-sized' 28 foot wide Residential lanes with curves, hills and poor sight lines, for open access to the Commercial, Multi, and whatever else the city has proposed unilaterally.

5.  Objection has been filed with the grant-giving agency SACOG because this is public money, and this city chooses to use it for unilateral proposals for illegal and dangerous and destructive uses.

6.   California State Parks abuts this land;   USBR protects it (allegedly).    City kept them out of the discussions as well.

7.   The city "trail improvement" project on federal assets proceeded without releasing the Geotechnical Reports being public.   The city hid these critical reports which also impact the dredged and mined city lands.

8.   Objections have been made to Dept of Interior to resolve the USBR failures.

9.   No essential 404 Permit was obtained for the disastrous trail which is collapsing in dry and rainy weather, endangering the American River.

10.  Objections are conveyed to the SWRCB director so they can act prior to the disturbance of our water supply by the city's improper actions.

11.   The city constructed a dam to hold water on top of the bridge foundation.     This approaches a Homeland Security issue.

12.  Speaking of HS, why is the city being permitted to contaminate a main water source?   Build dams?    Ignore 404 Permit?    Doesn't USBR have an obligation to deal with these threats?

13.   The gravest danger to the American is the city can build raw sewage lift stations to get sewage out of this huge development zone, however there is NO PIPE to receive it.    While 3 giant sewage-sheds collect at this very area, the Folsom Blvd. Mainline (mere 27" diameter) does not begin until a mile south of the river/junction of 3 sheds (including 3 prisons, north city, old city).     The city is stupidly paying for studies that ignore the most basic health and safety laws:    conveying sewage safely.     City sewer person Marcus Yasutake has been asked to give his Engineering opinion, with data.

14.    If this were really an outreach of any kind, it would be advertised and circulated to agencies in the entire area and state regulatory agencies.   This is another secret, no engineer reports  city money grab.  

This one is outright dangerous.

15.   To prove this, SACOG should politely ask the city to address the collapses of roads, houses, concrete-ADA ramp construction, foundations, and open spaces.    Youtube channel 4sewerdogs has multiple videos of dredge rock "land" collapsing.    If necessary, the federal funding agency behind the grant will be contacted about these wastes of money.

 

Sum:   There is much more, but as California Attorney General Harris noted in the Squaw Valley development case (Placer County), her office will intervene when the vetting and "public process" is wrong-headed."

 

OK city "engineers" whom we pay,  cough up real engineered materials!

[maestro]

Back in April, 2016,  Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision folks discussed the city excluding us from a private developer tour -- which we saw from our front windows.     A post was made, including a video of the "Folsom ADA ramp, trail improvement project".    The same rock piles exist in corp yard and D&S land, as those in the trail project.     UPDATE:    Reclamation called the city for inspection last week.   No 404 Permit from Army Corps, city built earthen dam to hold water on the bridge foundation;  city built concrete path into river and below high-water lines.  

Waiting for notes from Reclamation.   Here's the April post.     Some of us are "living on the edge", with more rock collapses impacting our lives every day.

 

 

 

As usual the local cabal is planning to rezone secretly and without any engineering reports.   Land is abutting State Park, at the current Corp Yard.      Private invitations were sent out and there's no way the city will let you know who was invited to tour the Corp Yard  April 23 at 9 am -- with the aim of recruiting developers to make this all "urban infill" construction.

Eventbrite is the only contact, and I wasn't invited.

I wrote the city council asking them to take the group on a tour of the Lake Natoma Trail and Enhancement Project ----   where the cliff side collapsed.

 

After 5 years of fighting the city and Reclamation for the soil reports, I finally obtained one of the Geotechnical Reports.    The city used our money to pay for reports 2010 and 2012, and they kept them SECRET.       Actually the city did much more than keep the Geo report hidden, but that's for another day.  

 

I asked city council to send  this group of developers  into  housing subdivision further inland than  Corp Yard/ city land -- to view all the cracked foundations, sinkholes, collapses, and dangerous situations.  

 

City Corp Yard land is discussed in the Folsom Historic District Plan & Guidelines. 

The last city engineer and business leaders said it should be PASSIVE to match its riparian location.       What part of collapses does the city NOT get?     These areas are ROCK PILES and blasted rock ledge.

Please take your videos of the Trail Project collapse(s), and tell the permanent council persons what you think.    What kind of "leaders" build a gigantic concrete "ADA" ramp on piles of loose rocks?      

.

[Steve Heard]

 

Exactly right. The only way to start to break this City Council down is vote Gaylord. Get someone in who hasn't been a 20+ year stooge. And please, don't split the vote between Roger and the 4th and 5th place candidates like Folsom did last time that pretty much wasted his efforts. 

 

 

In addition to Roger and the incumbents, there are 2 other strong candidates to consider; Chad Vander Veen and Rob Ross. 

 

I'm going to the debate to see them all before making any decisions.  

 

We have 2 other strong candidates to consider. Chad Vander Veen, who ran last time, is a former City Commissioner, has a background working with city governments, and is a former modworked in  

[maestro]

Did the city really seek public input from people and agencies who must provide WATER, SEWER treatment, State Parks, habitat?     Here's a letter by the city's "leader" on planning issues.     Yes I am very sick of secrecy and violation of sunshine laws.     Note he admits this General Plan Amendment will be a "community leaders" effort.    That would be developers who wish to commercialize this collapsing slope, piles of rocks next to the American River.

Begin forwarded message:

> Date: August 17, 2016 at 12:49:15 PM PDT
> To: Stephanie Henry <shenry@folsom.ca.us>, Shelbie Williamson <swilliamson@jdaarch.com>
> Subject: August 31, 2016 West Leidesdorff Workshop Postponed
>
> ON BEHALF OF DAVID MILLER   - August 31, 2016 Workshop Postponed
>
> Dear Stakeholders,
> First off, I would like to commend each and every one of you on your exceptional brainstorming and collaborative abilities.  Both staff and JD+A design team members were highly impressed by the creative ideas and common themes that flowed through this process.  In addition, I want to personally thank each of you for taking time out of your busy schedules to devote two of your Saturdays to the West Leidesdorff Street Master Plan workshops. 
>
> As you are aware, JD+A has prepared three alternative site design examples that incorporate a number of the dominant design themes your teams presented at the Charrette workshop.  Now, as part of the next phase of this process, the three site design examples are being shared (on MindMixer and the City’s website) with the entire Folsom community and community members are being asked to weigh in on what they like and/or don’t like about the alternative site design examples.  In addition, community members may suggest an entirely new idea that is not represented in the examples.  This data gathering process will close on August 31st. 

 We wanted to let you know that rather than hold a third workshop on August 31st as was originally discussed, we will instead bring a project update to the City Council at their September 13, 2016 City Council meeting.  This approach seems to make more sense at this early stage of the idea gathering process.  At the City Council meeting, staff will provide the Mayor and Council members with an overview of the stakeholder workshops, share the three alternative site design examples, and share results of the MindMixer community survey.  Please note that the Council will take no action on this issue at the September 13th meeting; they will merely be receiving information.  So please take the August 31st workshop off of your calendars.  

> I encourage you to continue to be a part of this effort by commenting on the MindMixer site and by encouraging your colleagues, friends and neighbors to do the same.  [Please note:  Staff has informed me that initially the MindMixer Forum experienced a technical challenge that only allowed comments to be viewed by the administrator.  The site has been reformatted now so that the comments can be viewed by all participants of the site.  I have been assured that all previous comments have been archived; however, if you previously commented under the original format, feel free to comment again if you want your comments to be viewed by other participants.]

> As this visioning process continues to evolve, we will keep you updated on next steps.  Once again, I want to thank you for your dedication and commitment to this collaborative effort and the role you have played.  The success of this effort clearly depends on community wide involvement and support from community leaders, such as all of you!

> Sincerely yours,
>
> David E. Miller, AICP
>
> Public Works and Community Development Director

[4thgenFolsomite]

The corporation yard property is such an important piece of Folsom's landscape with such tremendous potential for public use.  I suggest everyone take the time to drive over there and see the setting for themselves.  It really is ground zero for Folsom's history and set in the midst of one of the most popular state parks in northern California.