Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Meeting Announcement - Rezoning & Development Plan, Last Lots In N

Natoma StationRezoning Greenbelt apartments small lot homes Community meeting

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Barbara L

Barbara L

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Photography, Historic Preservation, Travel

Posted 15 June 2016 - 09:57 AM

NATOMA STATION COMMUNITY MEETING  - Please see our Facebook page as well - Natoma Station Community Organization
Date: Wednesday, June 22
Time: 6 pm to 8 pm
Place: Folsom Community Center meeting room, 50 Natoma Street.

This will be the final Natoma Station Community meeting with City Planning staff and Cresleigh Homes, the developer proposing a General Plan Amendment with a rezoning of two lots on Iron Point and Willard Drive before the project is reviewed and voted on at the July 6 Planning Commission meeting. If passed at the Planning Commission meeting the re-zoning and project will be reviewed and voted upon by the City Council, date to be determined.

What we know about the proposal based on information we’ve gotten from the developer and City Planning staff:
1) These two lots are currently zoned Commercial which would accommodate office space, shopping, restaurants, etc. The proposal includes 1) rezoning the graded, flat lot behind Safeway to R-3 - apartments to accommodate 276 units and 2) rezoning the currently forested and rugged terrain on Willard to R-1-M small lot single family residential to accommodate about 40 small lot homes. See Map.

2) Several members of the Natoma Station Community Organization Board met with the developer and other interested neighbors to walk the lot on Willard. If the rezoning is approved, the developer plans to clear-cut the forest and grade the site, creating a flat lot at an elevation above the rooftops on Bayline Circle. The tree line shown in the photos below would be replaced by a steep retaining wall, fence and new rooftops. The developer plans to transfer portions of the property below the retaining wall to several homeowners on Bayline Circle. This is land the developer does not want to re-plant or maintain. Therefore, there would be no screening of the retention wall, fences or rooftops unless homeowners who receive land transfers take it upon themselves to provide irrigating and planting, something that some may not be able to accomplish or afford. Some of the homeowners would receive relatively flat, usable land, others will have the proposed new homes backed up to their yards and/or be faced with a steep, bare hill/retaining wall.

3) The apartment complex being proposed behind Safeway would be “industrial” or “mid-century modern” in design, something the developer believes is appealing to young Intel workers. The project has proposed interior walkways and garages for each unit.

The Natoma Station Community Organization Board is requesting that a greenbelt between the retaining wall and fence and existing homes be developed and maintained as it serves to provide a visual aesthetic for our area, mirroring the Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway. This can be accomplished through the retention of viable trees and/or re-planting native trees to screen the proposed retaining wall, rooftops and fence.

If you cannot attend this meeting but would like to express concerns and support for retaining a viable greenbelt please submit comments to:

Steve Banks, Planner
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street,
Folsom, CA 95630
sbanks@folsom.ca.us

Attached Files



#2 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 08:25 AM

Barb,

 

What is the Public Notice Number   PN-16........  for this plan?

 

Is this the Intel properties which they want to develop for their own imported employees & others?

 

Did Steve Banks at city hall give you the official documents, Application File, including land owner(s)?

 

Since this is a major change to the General Plan,  where are the Responses from the Agencies who govern    traffic, sewage line capacity, erosion, flood control, 404 Permit, water supplies,   etc.?        If the city council proposes to do this silently, someone needs to contact the Governor Office of Planning & Research, because a change this significant requires Circulation to the multiple agencies.

 

 

FYI, the city was recently caught in a major issue with respect to Federal Permits NOT being sought for major land changes.     From the erosion description, clearly there are major land & water issues.    And, remember, Willow Creek, American River, etc., are all public water.    

 

 

 

Ask Steve in Development for the formal files, please.   And ask City Clerk Christa Saunders for the Development Department files.     write csaunders.folsom.ca.us          And please share.....

 

 

.

\

 

 



#3 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 08:45 AM

Is this some kind of joke by the city council et al?

 

Allegedly Helix did a study that wasn't circulated, wasn't filed, and

NO ONE signed off on it.    NO ONE!      All findings are "no impact", including making traffic go to D levels.       It says an 8" sewer line is the only one.    

 

Here I thought the council was brought under control, and now this unsigned document, not filed, NO Public Hearings, NO letters from agencies.  

 

 

.     https://www.folsom.c...px?blobid=27223

 

 

...



#4 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:20 PM

Is this some kind of joke by the city council et al?

 

Allegedly Helix did a study that wasn't circulated, wasn't filed, and

NO ONE signed off on it.    NO ONE!      All findings are "no impact", including making traffic go to D levels.       It says an 8" sewer line is the only one.    

 

Here I thought the council was brought under control, and now this unsigned document, not filed, NO Public Hearings, NO letters from agencies.  

 

 

.     https://www.folsom.c...px?blobid=27223

 

 

...

Oh my God.....!   Just sue the city once again please over total nonsense and cost us all another million dollars.    Thanks for that........!   Maybe start going after ISIS or working against Hillary becoming our next president.  That would be a greater public service indeed....!   Give it a rest and get a life.   Chris


1A - 2A = -1A


#5 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 11:36 AM

Doesn't it make you wonder why this person hides behind ____ remarks, instead of getting the truth and using facts?    Suggest this person do to himself, what Muench did to most of his artworks........

 

Blocking secret rezoning demonstrates care for helping families, and others.     Proud to have had the judicial experience to do this.

 

Still waiting for the official city response to making these secret super-density rezones, and waiting for another Intel shoe to drop.    

 

 

 

*



#6 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 09:44 AM

June 20, 2016

 

Open letter to Folsom city council:    how dare you?     Last year some applicant sought to have MAJOR GENERAL PLAN CHANGES, REZONES, AND EXCEPTIONS, in order to accomplish at least:    23 major apartment buildings, a large number of single family homes, clubs, underground parking, easements, exceptions to the grading and waterway codes.     The bare-bones description is below as 2016042061   My Items TWO and THREE.

 

The advertisement for an alleged Public Notice of Continuation of Hearing was printed in a paper I have never heard of, and the original and Continuation ads cannot be located ---   right, ads cannot be located.   All one can find is my ITEM ONE.

 

How dare you and chosen staff violate the State of CA Govt Code listed below which absolutely mandates you to do certain actions in order to change land use designations?       Did you think you'd get away with this?     Someone posted the sole notice given in Folsom, which was a discussion before a minor city committee.      This is appalling.     Your documents include unsigned, unengineer initial study leading to  a Negative Declaration of Impact on the environment which is also not signed nor certified.

 

 

 

 

ITEM  ONE  search engines    ...About 8 results (0.49 seconds)  Search Results       for   16621784 PN 15-162 NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC | The ...    www.thepresstribune.com/classified/16621784-pn-15-162-notice-continuation-public
Jun 8, 2016 - General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned ... near the intersection of Iron Point Road and Willard Drive (PN 15-162) NOTICE IS GIVEN HEREWITH that the City of Folsom is continuing a Public ...

 

 

ITEM TWO   

state clearinghouse summary of postings  Page 32 of 95 https://www.opr.ca.g..._16-30-2016.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
May 26, 2016 ... Cresleigh Ravine and Campus at Iron Point Mixed Residential Development ... homes on Cresleigh Ravine, and dedication of 15 lots as ...

 

ITEM THREE:   sole description contained in OPR MND for major law changes =

https://www.opr.ca.g..._16-30-2016.pdf

Entire contents =    2016042061    Cresleigh Ravine and Campus at Iron Point          Mixed Residential Development         Folsom, City of Folsom--Sacramento    MND    ( MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:  for General Plan Amendment, Rezoning requests, special use permits, grading exceptions, et al.)

Submitted   05/20/2016          The proposed project consists of a mixed residential development containing a total of 276 units, which would include a General Plan amendment and rezone.      The proposed project includes the construction of 46 single family residential  homes on Cresleigh Ravine, and dedication of 15 lots as easements to existing property owners adjacent to the western project site boundary. The proposed project also includes the construction of 230 multi family units in 23 apartment buildings and a clubhouse with a fitness center and pool on the Campus at Iron Point.     Additional proposed improvements include underground utilities, parking spaces, driveways, drive aisles, retaining walls, sidewalks and walkways, fencing,  lighting, landscaping, and trash/recycling enclosure.

 

ITEM FOUR:   GOVERNMENT CODE, STATE OF CA

65352.  (a)  Before a legislative body takes action to adopt or
substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer
the proposed action to all of the following entities:
   (1) A city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the
proposal, and any special district that may be significantly affected
by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.
   (2) An elementary, high school, or unified school district within
the area covered by the proposed action.
   (3) The local agency formation commission.
   (4) An areawide planning agency whose operations may be
significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the
planning agency.
   (5) A federal agency, if its operations or lands within its
jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as
determined by the planning agency.



#7 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 10:15 AM

To all residents and people who shop, travel through, or recreate in Folsom,  this Forum is a valuable resource to everyone.     Sometimes people don't realize a small item is really something far more significant.    Posting your information and questions is helpful to all people and the environment.      We cannot guarantee immediate corrective reactions will occur, but we cannot ignore short-cuts, wrong-doing, and especially,  land use changes which are contrary to the public good.      Nothing should be built without full vetting -- like whether the water supply can handle new housing, whether tiny sewage lines must be replaced with new ones, whether traffic has reached grid-lock, whether natural resources are being protected.

 

Post what you hear about or read in some outside newspaper.



#8 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 21 June 2016 - 09:45 AM

Will someone tell us about the houses below the wooded slope whose owners have been promised land will be deeded over to them -- to expedite these huge General Plan Amendments?    quickly, silently, without sunshine on them?

 

How can city avoid the hillside, grading, and tree ordinances if land is simply deeded over to homeowners to silence them.    New owners cannot avoid all the laws applicable.



#9 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 21 June 2016 - 08:57 PM

Doesn't it make you wonder why this person hides behind ____ remarks, instead of getting the truth and using facts?    Suggest this person do to himself, what Muench did to most of his artworks........

 

Blocking secret rezoning demonstrates care for helping families, and others.     Proud to have had the judicial experience to do this.

 

Still waiting for the official city response to making these secret super-density rezones, and waiting for another Intel shoe to drop.    

 

 

 

*

Not hiding from anything Herr Maestro.....Unlike you I actually sign my name to my posts.   I just can never understand your point and I wonder how much your next frivolous lawsuit is going to cost the city.....?   All because you have a grudge against someone or some department in the city of Folsom who probably fired you or barred you from meetings for being a pain in the rear.  Just guessing of course but I bet I am pretty close.  Chris


1A - 2A = -1A


#10 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 22 June 2016 - 07:15 AM

Using education, experience, and qualified staff, it was possible to review the file for PN2010 252, which the city planners have strangely numbered as PN2015 162.      It is the same plan, possibly same actors hidden under LLC names and some huge tax defaults.     

 

The area in question includes beautiful woodlands, perfect for  trails and parks.    2010 and 2015 proposal is for housing for thousands of people.    It came as a shock such a development was rushed through, even though "General Plan Amendments" are occurring on every bare plot of land north of 50.      All of these GPAs are for dense housing:   converting long-term office zoning to more housing.

 

If you can follow that, you can probably follow this:    the city has thrown out compliance with the rules of land use changes.    I saw the 162 file after the city clerk did not have the documents I requested via PRA Request.       I thought there was something wacky when the few agencies who were notified and responded actually submitted their Response Letters prior to any public hearings where we had input.

 

There was disregard for the Process of Notice of Initial Study, Notice of Determination, Notice of Intent, and all the rest of the public steps.     The city treated a major General Plan Amendment like a simple internal permit process.     What they sent to Governor's OPR Clearinghouse was deception that this is a major change of vacant land's future.      The list of agencies copied excluded those with the most at stake.

 

Don't believe it?     Check  https://www.opr.ca.g...ning_041998.pdf

 

Even the village idiot should understand it:  major land use changes involve the public in the entire area because it involves water supply, infrastructure we pay for, and utilities ability to expand to exploding populations.

 

The process involves multiple steps to involve & inform the public.     I saw 162 records and referrals to the 2010 application, so it is sure:    city council and chosen staff are pursuing clear attempts to dodge the laws and prevent public input, as well as agency & utility inputs.     The records are clear.     More people should demand to see the file -- the planning file which was never released to me via PRA Request.

 

Learn how the "owner/developer" is/has misled the Natoma Station residents with promises of deeded lands to private owners.     Look at the color photos of the natural path of beauty through a significant grove of native trees.     Look at the city check list to see which agencies were NOT notified.     Look for the NOI,  NOD, Public Hearings on these actions of Intent and Determination.     Look for the missing water agency assurances of adequate water supply, and compliance with the state laws requiring a ten year supply of water for new development must be present.

 

 

You won't find much except self-serving rehash of PN 2010 252, a head-long, non-engineered rush to pave every single inch of natural beauty with dense multi-housing ---   for which we lack the water, roads, utilities, and amenities.        Someone better fix this because the records are in public hands now and residents are screaming angry.

 

 

.



#11 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 03 July 2016 - 02:31 PM

Friday late afternoon, July `1, 2016, this notice came from city planning:
NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
Cresleigh Ravine and Campus at Iron Point  

General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development
Permit, and Consideration of Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration near the
intersection of Iron Point Road and Willard Drive (PN 15-162)



NOTICE IS GIVEN HEREWITH that the City of Folsom is continuing a Public Hearing (PH)  originally scheduled for July 6, 2016 to July 20, 2016. The Planning Commission (PC), at its   regular meeting on Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 50   Natoma St., will hold a Public Hearing (PH) to consider a request from Folsom Urban Homes,   LLC and Folsom Residences, LLC for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Planned Development Permit for development of a 276-unit mixed residential development near the intersection of Iron Point Road and Willard Drive.    
Present zoning classification for the site is C-3 PD and the General Plan land-use designation is CC.   [community commercial for Intel factories].
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in accordance with the  requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The PC will review this proposal at its  July 20, 2016 meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council. Project Planner, Steve  Banks, Principal Planner may be reached at 355-7385 or e-mail at sbanks@folsom.ca.us.
 

 
*****************************************************************************************************************
 
RESPONSE to this:   
 
Does this "continuation" have any bearing on the City Engineer's refusal to give me Engineer plans, infrastructure approvals, Development Agreements, Subdivision Map Act regulations being violated by the city?
 
Does this mean the Project, which is the same 2010 project --   be revealed to the public -- with all its impacts?      (Including the default of payment of Sac County RE taxes?)
 
Or, does this mean the city continues thumb its nose at all  local, state and federal regulations -- by altering and intensifying land uses without input from the MOST IMPACTED residents and Planning Organizations?      This is a formal OBJECTION:   My PRA Act Requests for Engineer-approved plans, agency responses, have been unfulfilled.  
 

Thus far the city has NOT even notified and solicited comments from our WATER PROVIDER (federal govt, Folsom Lake operations),   nor has the city got a response from the Road Planners, Water Forum, or other utility providers.     One state agency even responded to me by saying they have never heard of this large UP ZONE of 30 vacant acres of dredged/mined land (with a small forest) over which the state has enforcement rights/duties.

 
 
Agency chiefs need to wake up and smell the sewage in the midst of water-starved land.    It is not possible to Amend General Plans secretly, or fraudulently.      No wonder Natoma Station is split, confused, concerned, worried about their values:     builder has made so many conflicting promises NS could go nuts, and watch their L&L terms suffer.
 
 
.



#12 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 08:49 AM

Update:    city said they had copied pages they were willing to sell me from these files,

BUT  they are withholding documents (some attorney-client privilege, or some-such).

 

EVERYTHING (regardless of form) which is part of conducting  the People's Business

is Public Record --   no excemptions.       If they violate Sunshine Laws, it goes to the peoples' attorneys.  

 

 

.



#13 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 09:42 AM

..

 

city attorney office responds

.Thank you for your email.  In reading the email from the Clerk’s Office, it is clear that the responsive requirements under the Public Records Act have all been met.  As to the privileged documents withheld from production under the attorney-client privilege, they are exactly what they are, and as such they will not be produced.  The privileged documents do not include written communications with the project applicant since, as you correctly pointed out, our office does not represent the applicant."

 

 

 

Don't you wonder what the city is keeping hidden about this large up-zone/Gen Plan Amendment?

City clerks office only shows me copies of hand-selected papers from the files --

usually non-approved, non-signed "reports" of no value.

 

Law gives us the right to every single part of the peoples business --  unless city meets Exemption Requirements --   bet they cannot.   

 



#14 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 24 September 2016 - 07:52 PM

I am thinking you don't get invited to the city Christmas Party.............?    Then again you might sue them for that.........?    Oops, don't want to give you any more litigation ideas.....   Forget I said that.   Chris


1A - 2A = -1A


#15 caligirlz

caligirlz

    Living Legend

  • Moderator
  • 3,163 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 25 September 2016 - 10:51 PM

 

NATOMA STATION COMMUNITY MEETING  - Please see our Facebook page as well - Natoma Station Community Organization
Date: Wednesday, June 22
Time: 6 pm to 8 pm
Place: Folsom Community Center meeting room, 50 Natoma Street.


2) Several members of the Natoma Station Community Organization Board met with the developer and other interested neighbors to walk the lot on Willard. If the rezoning is approved, the developer plans to clear-cut the forest and grade the site, creating a flat lot at an elevation above the rooftops on Bayline Circle. The tree line shown in the photos below would be replaced by a steep retaining wall, fence and new rooftops. The developer plans to transfer portions of the property below the retaining wall to several homeowners on Bayline Circle. This is land the developer does not want to re-plant or maintain. Therefore, there would be no screening of the retention wall, fences or rooftops unless homeowners who receive land transfers take it upon themselves to provide irrigating and planting, something that some may not be able to accomplish or afford. Some of the homeowners would receive relatively flat, usable land, others will have the proposed new homes backed up to their yards and/or be faced with a steep, bare hill/retaining wall.

 

3)  The Natoma Station Community Organization Board is requesting that a greenbelt between the retaining wall and fence and existing homes be developed and maintained as it serves to provide a visual aesthetic for our area, mirroring the Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway. This can be accomplished through the retention of viable trees and/or re-planting native trees to screen the proposed retaining wall, rooftops and fence.


 

Excellent ideas Barbara,

I'm grateful for the neighbors on my side of town who have been fighting/meeting with the developers and the city, and got some concessions on size & scope of the complex at Broadstone & Cavitt.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Natoma StationRezoning, Greenbelt, apartments, small lot homes, Community meeting

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users