47 replies to this topic

[redman]

I can tell you from experience that regulatory agencies today VERY closely monitor the collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of wastewater and the sludge that is removed from it. Legitimate projects are quite difficult to plan, permit, and implement because of all the hoops a city must jump through to get approvals. 

 

Citizens should keep a close eye on what is going on and speak up when things are potentially amiss, but it's important to educate oneself on the topic first, and speak up responsibly. If you're not sure, my suggestion is to ask questions rather than throw stones. Otherwise misinformation can drown out legitimate information and cause a lot of unneeded concern.

[tony]

 

Uhhh - here's the State Clearinghouse info for that project - it's State Clearinghouse Number 2015032041

 

http://www.ceqanet.c...sp?DocPK=689559

 

According to the State Clearinghouse - the following State agencies submitted comment letters:  Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 2; Cal Fire; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 3 S; Air Resources Board; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Sacramento); Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission  

 

You can go here and search for every CEQA document filed by the City of Folsom - if that's your thing:  http://www.ceqanet.c...v/QueryForm.asp

 

It's all public information - what's the conspiracy?

 

Thanks for the info. A couple of interesting errors on the state clearinghouse listing: says the nearest cross street is E. Natoma Street (which doesn't cross Folsom Boulevard, but I suspect that is from copying a form for some other project at the water treatment plant, which is on E. Natoma), and it says the project is proximate to the Napa River.  Huh? 

[maestro]

 

Uhhh - here's the State Clearinghouse info for that project - it's State Clearinghouse Number 2015032041

 

http://www.ceqanet.c...sp?DocPK=689559

 

According to the State Clearinghouse - the following State agencies submitted comment letters:  Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 2; Cal Fire; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 3 S; Air Resources Board; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Sacramento); Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission  

 

You can go here and search for every CEQA document filed by the City of Folsom - if that's your thing:  http://www.ceqanet.c...v/QueryForm.asp

 

It's all public information - what's the conspiracy?

 

Cousin Eddie,

 

Naturally I am forced to disagree with your comments intimating that I am NOT totally informed.

You missed the entire point:    

Dated March 13, 2015, below is the ENTIRE city submission to SCH:   Declaring Negative (NO IMPACT).

 

You must work for the city, because you claim the agencies responded and you supplied URL Links which PROVE THE AGENCIES DID NOT RESPOND.

 

The coded # indicates SCH dated this submission March 20, 2015, a week after the video was posted.

 

You all must benefit from city,   because you FAIL TO MENTION, the Proof of Publication for Public Hearing,  Minutes of Public Hearings held before any Neg. Declaration, and omission of all the CEQA topics which are supposed to be in an Environmental Study.    Additionally, where is the NOI, the IS,  AND BEST OF ALL -- since you bring it up --- 

 

WHERE ARE THE LETTERs from objecting agencies, persons, and engineers?     Where is the USACE Permit application.    I spoke with SPK USACE, and USBR;    they knew nothing of this.

 

Your URLs lead to the PROOF  my video and research are correct.   It also leads to wonder whose cousin and local engineer keep posting information contrary to legal & scientific research.

 

 

 

 

 

SCH# Lead Agency Project Title Description Document
Type Date
Received 2015032041 Folsom, City of Pump Station No. 1 Storage Basin Reuse Project The Proposed Project will be entirely located within the City of Folsom's existing Pump Station No. 1 By-Pass Pond/Detention Storage Basin (Storage Basin) at 13305 - 13359 Folsom Blvd in the southwest portion of the City on the west side of Folsom Blvd and adjacent to Willow Creek in Folsom, CA. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to re-purpose the City's abandoned Pump Station No. 1 Storage Basin so that it can be filled in over time with clean native dirt from the City's water and sewer excavation jobs. Once filled, the facility will be returned to open space and let natural vegetation take over.

 

 

As for your own CEQA URL:   HERE IS entire comment found at that address:

Server not found
http://www.ceqanet.c...p/?DocPK=689559

 

" can't find the server at www.ceqanet.c...sp."

 

    This is cut & paste from URL you gave.

[FolsomEJ]

You can't cut and paste a link from here that has been shortened with the ellipsis. You see that ... part?  That means it was shortened.  Of course that won't work.

 

Click the link, not cut and paste.

 

As for the rest - why is it that anyone that disagrees must be "in bed" with or some other insinuation of motive?  "You must work for the city..."  Really?  How about me?  Do I work for the city too?  Does everyone that disagrees with you?

[tony]

 

Cousin Eddie,

 

Naturally I am forced to disagree with your comments intimating that I am NOT totally informed.

You missed the entire point:    

Dated March 13, 2015, below is the ENTIRE city submission to SCH:   Declaring Negative (NO IMPACT).

 

You must work for the city, because you claim the agencies responded and you supplied URL Links which PROVE THE AGENCIES DID NOT RESPOND.

 

The coded # indicates SCH dated this submission March 20, 2015, a week after the video was posted.

 

You all must benefit from city,   because you FAIL TO MENTION, the Proof of Publication for Public Hearing,  Minutes of Public Hearings held before any Neg. Declaration, and omission of all the CEQA topics which are supposed to be in an Environmental Study.    Additionally, where is the NOI, the IS,  AND BEST OF ALL -- since you bring it up --- 

 

WHERE ARE THE LETTERs from objecting agencies, persons, and engineers?     Where is the USACE Permit application.    I spoke with SPK USACE, and USBR;    they knew nothing of this.

 

Your URLs lead to the PROOF  my video and research are correct.   It also leads to wonder whose cousin and local engineer keep posting information contrary to legal & scientific research.

 

 

 

 

 

SCH# Lead Agency Project Title Description Document
Type Date
Received 2015032041 Folsom, City of Pump Station No. 1 Storage Basin Reuse Project The Proposed Project will be entirely located within the City of Folsom's existing Pump Station No. 1 By-Pass Pond/Detention Storage Basin (Storage Basin) at 13305 - 13359 Folsom Blvd in the southwest portion of the City on the west side of Folsom Blvd and adjacent to Willow Creek in Folsom, CA. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to re-purpose the City's abandoned Pump Station No. 1 Storage Basin so that it can be filled in over time with clean native dirt from the City's water and sewer excavation jobs. Once filled, the facility will be returned to open space and let natural vegetation take over.

 

 

As for your own CEQA URL:   HERE IS entire comment found at that address:

Server not found
http://www.ceqanet.c...p/?DocPK=689559

 

" can't find the server at www.ceqanet.c...sp."

 

    This is cut & paste from URL you gave.

 

So, I don't get the whole date thing. Yes, the SCH #implies a date of 3/20/2015, but that is presumably (since there is nothing stating what the number means) the date it was posted on the SCH.  However, at the bottom of the page, it says that it was received on 3/13/15, the date maestros posted the video. So, that seems like a problem with the SCH, not the city of Folsom. 

 

On the other hand, maestro is right that the SCH page indicates that none of the reviewing agencies listed by Cousin Eddie has commented (I missed it the first time, but the heading says those in bold have commented, and none were bold).  However, the review period is not over until April 13th, so they may very well still comment.

 

As for the dead link, in one part of the post, you allege (correctly) that the link shows the agencies did not respond, and then later you claim the link was dead. Which is it?

 

Finally, please clarify what information has been been posted that is "contrary to legal and scientific research"?  That's a pretty broad accusation with neither evidence nor even a  bit of explanation to back it up.  What is it about this project that is so evil in your mind? Or is it automatically a conspiracy because it is somehow related to Folsom's sewer system.  I'll ask again: what is it you would have the city do with this big concrete hole in the ground?

[maestro]

Hundreds of views happen, and still tp, "eddie cuz" and others do NOT post one single piece of hard evidence, such as a copy of a letter/opinion on the cement sewage basin Neg Dec.

 

...... viewers beginning to catch the drift?  

 

Since they cannot attack the message, they try to attack the messenger.......

 

    

They are off-topic and boring.     When they produce one REAL COMMENT from a federal agency, 

or the state SI Unit,  let me know.   

[kcrides99]

Maestro -
 
May I suggest that you participate in a CEQA training 101 (https://extension.uc...tural-resources ) ? I am not trying to attack you in any way. What I am trying to do is add credibility to your message.
 
When you "cry wolf" without substance, those of us who WOULD get involved if it were of real substance, no longer regard your posts as credible.
 
Clearly you have a lot of free time on your hands and you are concerned with how the City operates (which are both great assets to have). I would love for you to use these assets to involve the rest of us when it actually merits concern and necessitates community involvement. Thus far, this has not been happening.

 

Unfortunately, you point fingers without evidence and your credibility is hanging on by a thread.

 

I think the posters above have every right to ask you to provide evidence when you make a claim. Just as you have asked for evidence (and been provided).

 

In terms of your claims above - every agency handles commenting on a CEQA document differently. Some agencies have form letters they use, others spend a great deal of time (depending on the potential impact of a project) it really just depends. I assume that given the nature of this project, very few substantive comments will be provided because these agencies are understaffed and frankly have bigger fish to fry.

 

In closing, I am REALLY REALLY trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and I encourage you to use your assets to make this a better community. I do not want to disregard you as another gadfly.

[tony]

Hundreds of views happen, and still tp, "eddie cuz" and others do NOT post one single piece of hard evidence, such as a copy of a letter/opinion on the cement sewage basin Neg Dec.

 

...... viewers beginning to catch the drift?  

 

Since they cannot attack the message, they try to attack the messenger.......

 

    

They are off-topic and boring.     When they produce one REAL COMMENT from a federal agency, 

or the state SI Unit,  let me know.   

The topic is the city's proposed project to fill the big concrete hole in the ground. I happen to think it is an OK idea, although I am concerned that it could take 24 years to complete.

 

You apparently think filling it in is a bad idea, though we don't really know why, because you won't tell us. So, what do you  think the city should do with the big concrete-lined hole in the ground?

[Cousin Eddie]

Oh my. Maestro - you said the city wouldn't give you the State Clearinghouse number - so I found it for you.

I also searched around a bit (Google is my friend) for anything about that overflow pond I could find and I came across a report by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board examining "complaints" filed by a citizen about spills to the American River and issues with Engineering seals and reports. You can read that here:

http://www.waterboar...o_staff_rpt.pdf

It all reads striking similar to the complaints I'm hearing here. You all can make up your own minds.

Found more from the RWQCB - this is Attachment A to the report (the citizen complaints):

http://www.swrcb.ca...._info_att_a.pdf

[The Average Joe]

Dayum Cuz.  Way to totally deflate the hyperbole with facts. It seems to me the city has done all that can be reasonably expected to address and mitigate any legitimate issues. How much money in staff time and effort has been caused by a chronic complainer? It would be one thing if the complaints had merit, but that staff report makes it pretty clear that Folsom has been doing a superior job of waste water management. Sorry Maestro, I'm trying my hardest to be nice. At this point, you're gonna have to bring a lot more than the repetitive claims you make to bolster your argument.

[kcrides99]

Seriously enough wasting taxpayer money on nonsense

[kcrides99]

Tony- perhaps a skate park would be a better alternative?

[FolsomEJ]

I think the public employees have been extremely reasonable in their handling of the LJ Letters.  

 

These letters are nearly word for word what we have read here over time.  Complete with the breathless references to the YouTube video channel for 4SewerDogs.

 

Those links were very informative.  I can only imagine what good work went undone while spending time on these items.

[redman]

Agreed - how wasteful. 

[tony]

Tony- perhaps a skate park would be a better alternative?

Sure looks like one, but perhaps not a great location; no parking and sort of out of the way.  Tough place to keep an eye on.