33 replies to this topic

[TruthSeeker]

 

"Bravo!  Bravo!", says the conductor, as she pats her self on the back and applauds, all with one sweep of the baton.

 

Does this snarky comment and the ones from others trying to detach the facts from the telegraph mean you all support the decision to pollute the river and build dense amounts of condo's???

 

Maestro seems to be the only one who seriously cares about the future of our city and is willing to speak up about it. I'm really surprised that you all are attacking the messenger instead of the city council who are the ones that keep making bad moves in the interest of developer dollars over quality of living. 

 

Maestro, I'd like to thank you for making these posts, don't let these turkeys stop you from continuing your valiant efforts.

[ducky]

 

Does this snarky comment and the ones from others trying to detach the facts from the telegraph mean you all support the decision to pollute the river and build dense amounts of condo's???

 

Maestro seems to be the only one who seriously cares about the future of our city and is willing to speak up about it. I'm really surprised that you all are attacking the messenger instead of the city council who are the ones that keep making bad moves in the interest of developer dollars over quality of living. 

 

Maestro, I'd like to thank you for making these posts, don't let these turkeys stop you from continuing your valiant efforts.

 

It's not that I don't think existing residents have valid concerns about increased traffic, and I sure don't like the idea of okaying a big project and then dealing with infrastructure problems after the fact with taxpayer dollars while developers walk away with profits, but I'd like to have facts about the subject at hand.  I'm not sure all these claims about the state of the sewer infrastructure are accurate.

[Steve Heard]

 

Does this snarky comment and the ones from others trying to detach the facts from the telegraph mean you all support the decision to pollute the river and build dense amounts of condo's???

 

Maestro seems to be the only one who seriously cares about the future of our city and is willing to speak up about it. I'm really surprised that you all are attacking the messenger instead of the city council who are the ones that keep making bad moves in the interest of developer dollars over quality of living. 

 

Maestro, I'd like to thank you for making these posts, don't let these turkeys stop you from continuing your valiant efforts.

 

I applaud Maestro for standing up and speaking up, but as others have pointed out, the Telegraph simply printed a letter from a reader.

 

They do the same each week on a variety of issues, often with letters from readers on opposing sides of an argument. 

 

None of these letter writers should take such as meaning the Telegraph supports their position.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

 

I applaud Maestro for standing up and speaking up, but as others have pointed out, the Telegraph simply printed a letter from a reader.

 

They do the same each week on a variety of issues, often with letters from readers on opposing sides of an argument. 

 

None of these letter writers should take such as meaning the Telegraph supports their position.

Which is why I requested that the title of this thread be changed. People may not read the thread and the title is misleading.

[tony]

 

Does this snarky comment and the ones from others trying to detach the facts from the telegraph mean you all support the decision to pollute the river and build dense amounts of condo's???

 

Maestro seems to be the only one who seriously cares about the future of our city and is willing to speak up about it. I'm really surprised that you all are attacking the messenger instead of the city council who are the ones that keep making bad moves in the interest of developer dollars over quality of living. 

 

Maestro, I'd like to thank you for making these posts, don't let these turkeys stop you from continuing your valiant efforts.

Yes, that was snarky. And if you have been around awhile, which you have, I'm sure you are aware that snarky is not my typical modus operandi.  But I do have a problem with someone who makes lots of vague accusations about illegality, and then pats themselves on the back anonymously for it.

 

Some of what maestro says is no doubt true, and yes, she puts lots of effort into rooting out problems in our city. On the other hand, it's really hard to get past all the hyperbole along the way.

 

As for the sewer issue (it's actually two, one related to the sewer along Folsom Blvd. and one related to the pump station in the Preserve/Lake Natoma shores) that she keeps bringing up, I have not studied it, and sewers are certainly not my specialty, but I do know that (unless things were changed in the field) the design of the sewers associated with construction of the Leidesdorff Lid, to which maestro refers, included a reduction in size from an 18" gravity sewer on the Lake Natoma Crossing, to a 6" forced main sewer (i.e., pumping uphill) leaving the pump station along the west side of Folsom Blvd. between the Lake Natoma Crossing and the Leidesdorff Lid. The 6" forced main feeds into the 27" gravity sewer just south of the Leidesdorff Lid, not a mile away. Four points to make here: 1) the information I have shows the 6" forced main carries only the sewage from the 18" sewer on the Lake Natoma Crossing, not all of the historic district and the prison, and 2) the reduction in size at the pump station is appropriate, if not necessary, for the forced main to work (if the pipe were 27", the pump would be pumping air much of the time, which is inefficient and bad for the pump), 3) the pump station was required not so much for the Lid, but because there was not enough fall from the north side of the river to make a gravity sewer work (the south end of the Lake Natoma Crossing is about 6' lower than Folsom Blvd. near Natoma Street, and 4) even if the pump station were necessitated by the Lid, would you rather have an at-grade intersection with Leidesdorff and have to cross Folsom Blvd. to get from the Preserve to the commercial part of the HD (oh, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no "hand laid brick tiles" on or below the Lid; there is a brick veneer on the sound walls and stained concrete "rock" on the retaining walls, if that's what she is referring to)? While Folsom definitely had some major sewer issues in the late 1990s (including the big spill in Lake Natoma to which maestro refers), I'm not aware of any evidence that the pump station had anything to do with any of them; and the city has spent a fair amount of money on upgrades since (and, as I understand it, the regional sewer line along Iron Point and Folsom Blvd. alleviated the issues that caused the Lake Natoma spill). 

 

OK, now for one of my pet peeves: maestro says: "People are actually parking in front of their doors."  I know this is a common assertion out here in the burbs -- that no-one should park in front of your house -- but yes, folks, the street and sidewalk in front of your house are public property. So, just as people are allowed to drive down the street past your house, so they are allowed to walk down the sidewalk and park at the curb, right there in front of your house.

 

So, as for the original topic, yes, the cc approved what the HD Commission denied. It's a long (about 10 years), complicated issue, and simply stating that the council is breaking laws (doubtful) and policies (definitely) doesn't do much, unless you address exactly which ones and how. Unfortunately, the HD Guidelines are just that, giudelines, which don't carry the force of law. And while I'm not excited about what was approved, I would say that it is much better -- primarily because of the efforts of the neighborhood over so many years -- than it could have been (the original proposal was for an 110-unit apartment building; the approved one about half that. I also am not convinced it will get built anytime soon.I suspect at this point that the developer will merely cash in on the entitlements and sell the land. 

 

And while I share concerns about the future development of the Corp yard, as a long-time property owner and former long-time former resident of the Preserve, I always try to remember that what makes that such a great neighborhood is not so much the small enclave of single family homes with unmatched Lake Natoma access, but all the things that are in and around it that make it a unique and uniquely-interesting place to live, some of which can be annoying at times. The list includes the historic Chinese cemetery, the historic Lakeside Cemetery, the tot lot, the State Park and bike path access, the Murer House, the Corporation Yard (not generally seen as an asset), the Veteran's Hall (yes, it comes with noisy Harleys and occasional drunk drivers, but is otherwise a great neighbor), the light rail station just outside the neighborhood, the Leidesdorff Lid that provides a seamless pedestrian connection to the commercial part of the HD, and...the commercial part of the HD a short walk over the Lid to the other side of Folsom Blvd. (the traffic from which rarely impacts the Preserve). Barring a rich benefactor purchasing the Corp yard and donating it to the city of state as a park, the Corp yard is going to get developed, and probably not with a bunch of single family homes (a conference center has always been the stated goal, but that is changing, it appears, with the current study). So, it behooves the neighborhood to be concerned, but also to be realistic and engage the city, because rarely is it the case that purely being against a proposed development will stop it cold. And even if it does, as seen with the demise of the co-housing proposal for the land across from the Corp Yard, be careful what you wish for.The alternative could be worse.

 

BTW, maestro, thanks for the vote for CC, but at this point in time, I've got to go with Steve's reasons...and the four school-age boys who keep me running around. Besides, I'm not sure Folsom is ready for bike boxes, cycle tracks, a local carbon tax, replacement of all traffic signals with roundabouts, and a bridge-building spree to include one named after every rock star in the ....can't remember the name.... of the neighborhood east of McAdoo and north of Iron Point) 

[cw68]

BTW, maestro, thanks for the vote for CC, but at this point in time, I've got to go with Steve's reasons...and the four school-age boys who keep me running around. Besides, I'm not sure Folsom is ready for bike boxes, cycle tracks, a local carbon tax, replacement of all traffic signals with roundabouts, and a bridge-building spree to include one named after every rock star in the ....can't remember the name.... of the neighborhood east of McAdoo and north of Iron Point) 

Well, FWIW, except for the bridge building, I'm solidly behind all of these options, especially the roundabouts!

[maestro]

 

I applaud Maestro for standing up and speaking up, but as others have pointed out, the Telegraph simply printed a letter from a reader.

They do the same each week on a variety of issues, often with letters from readers on opposing sides of an argument. 

 

None of these letter writers should take such as meaning the Telegraph supports their position.

READ July 16, 2014  TELEGRAPH article by DON CHADDOCK Editor.

 

Don has often refused to print my letters or portions thereof;   he only prints what he supports in my letters.   Don and I both support obeying important LAWS.    He put me on the front page when the Folsom 55mph city streets were killing too many people (15 at last count).

 

OK doubters:   look at the Folsom Telegraph July 16, 2014  top headline,   featuring the historic, cultural, and natural features of the D&S land.    Please remember the Folsom Historic District Plan does NOT include these condos and multi-family residential.    That is to say, the laws of the city do not support these private/dense usages next to the CA State Park and American River.

 

FIGHT to SAVE OUR riverfront environment and access to natural features -- save the HD Plan from council four!!

 

Now you are ready to read one FANTASTIC article by Don Chaddock. 

 

   Don is speaking up in support of the existing HD plan, and he is using their own 2003 conclusions to prove this land should be available for everyone.   It should not be condos/commercial.   

 

Please won't you write letters to the editor to show your support for Don's efforts to save our resources and respect the HD Plan & Guidelines.    If this goes through, you lose all future rights to rely upon the HD Plans.

 

The council four have already approved on First Reading the changes to all the laws necessary to do this mess.     They probably intend to approve on Second Reading too.    Their opinions are very questionable.    My expertise in this case is the lack of any sanitary sewer conveyance lines in the 20 acre Corporation Yard/city land with illegal commercial.   D&S have no choice but to construct a pump to get raw sewage to the city system -- unless they illegally attach to the Lake Natoma Shores 4" line.   But even that insanity means disrupting the crowded corporation yard for a long time.     I fought for the blueprints and sworn documents which prove all this is true.    

 

Currently I am waiting, and waiting, and waiting for City Engineer to respond to my public record requests.     Unless certain engineers wish to have complaints filed against their licenses, they better cough up the Leidesdorff and city land subdivision plans showing the mandatory sewer pipes.     

 

Which engineer will put his seal on the Tentative Subdivision Maps for these projects?     Which engineer will have a complaint against her for not enforcing the oversight laws?

 

Keep watching.    Remember the city has ceased attacking these complaints because they are 100% true.    All the council four can do is try to control the media from publicizing it.

 

This is a clear case of violations, strong-arming, keeping the lid on, and intimidation tactics.   There's a shortage of cash in town, and no one is buying city-backed securities (except the land owners).    They think D&S will bring in some permit monies, but this project will cost residents more money and sacrifices than you can imagine.

[mrdavex]

Here is the story Laurie is referring to:  http://www.folsomtelegraph.com/article/7/16/14/remnants-folsom%E2%80%99s-once-thriving-chinatown-buried-under-brambles 

 

The article is in the News section.  It does not indicate Don's personal position for or against this project.  But it does indicate that Don felt this issue was important enough to publish for the informational benefit of our citizens.  Kudos to him, and Laurie, if your letters to him helped inspire him to write this, then Thank You.  As you said, those who are concerned about this project should write to the Telegraph, Bee, City, State, Feds, etc.

 

---

 

However, I still stand behind my position that printing or refusing to print one's letter to the Editor are in no way indicative of the Editor's position on that issue.  Don has limited space in the Telegraph.  It's a free paper, so he has to allocate a certain amount of space for advertising and classifieds just to keep it in circulation.  I'm sure Laurie and other concerned citizens have written many letters, but Don has to make the decision on what to print solely on what is best for the Telegraph's business.  Due to space constraints, he may have to abridge letters. To allow other concerned citizens a place to express their views, he may have to refuse to print letters from frequent writers, even if he fully agrees with them.  Not everyone in Folsom agrees with each other, so I'm sure Don wants to maintain a diverse forum in the Opinion Section.  

 

In this day and age of digital and instant media, many local newspapers have gone out of business.  The Sac Bee closed their local Folsom office years ago.  We are really lucky to have our own free printed newspaper in town, whether we agree with its content or not.  If you like the paper, support its advertisers (tell them you saw their ad in the paper), and write to the staff.  If you don't like it, write to the Editor, don't support the advertisers, and/or don't read it.

[maestro]

Tony,

It is amazing you can express sewer conveyance opinions without possessing a copy of the "as built" blueprints issued by the last public works engineer/director.

 

There's nothing vague about it:     three major sewage sheds drain into the Leidesdorff- Wool- Sutter area.     An approximate combined diameter much in excess of 66 inches of pipes -- from north city via the bridge, from three CA State Prisons, from all of Pre-1982 Folsom.    You think you know what becomes of all this sewage?    How?    Do you have the as-built blueprints?

 

You posture and criticize and maintain blueprint comments are "hyperbolic".     That only speaks to you -- not to me or my research.

 

Where does the combined sewage of about 25,000 to 30,000 flushers go?    As you state, it's OK for all that to go into the 6" lines from the Pump Station 2 and old city lines?    

 

Do you know where the 27" Folsom Blvd. mainline begins?     If not, you should stop speculating and criticizing.  

You should learn that all major city sewage lines are PRESSURIZED and the manholes sealed shut.

Do you get it?     Is it too hyperbolicly vague?    Folsom has 137"   of raw sewage lines ALL OF THEM channeled into ONE SINGLE LINE connected to REgional Sanitation.   The Folsom Blvd. Line is 27" in diameter.

 

You can hear my testimony to the water board online.    They don't take video of the board members reactions -- but mouths gaped open when they saw the sworn engineer's documentation.

 

You have not a clue unless you possess the sworn documentation which proves wrong-doing.   Do you think the expert engineers at the water quality board used my research because it was wrong, or hyperbolic?     Do you think they sent it to the Criminal Investigation Division unless it could meet the standards for prosecution?   

 

Your responses make it clear it was a mistake to propose you might consider public office and be a benefit.

[maestro]

Here is the story Laurie is referring to:  http://www.folsomtelegraph.com/article/7/16/14/remnants-folsom%E2%80%99s-once-thriving-chinatown-buried-under-brambles 

 

The article is in the News section.  It does not indicate Don's personal position for or against this project.  But it does indicate that Don felt this issue was important enough to publish for the informational benefit of our citizens.  Kudos to him, and Laurie, if your letters to him helped inspire him to write this, then Thank You.  As you said, those who are concerned about this project should write to the Telegraph, Bee, City, State, Feds, etc.

 

---

 

However, I still stand behind my position that printing or refusing to print one's letter to the Editor are in no way indicative of the Editor's position on that issue.  Don has limited space in the Telegraph.  It's a free paper, so he has to allocate a certain amount of space for advertising and classifieds just to keep it in circulation.  I'm sure Laurie and other concerned citizens have written many letters, but Don has to make the decision on what to print solely on what is best for the Telegraph's business.  Due to space constraints, he may have to abridge letters. To allow other concerned citizens a place to express their views, he may have to refuse to print letters from frequent writers, even if he fully agrees with them.  Not everyone in Folsom agrees with each other, so I'm sure Don wants to maintain a diverse forum in the Opinion Section.  

 

In this day and age of digital and instant media, many local newspapers have gone out of business.  The Sac Bee closed their local Folsom office years ago.  We are really lucky to have our own free printed newspaper in town, whether we agree with its content or not.  If you like the paper, support its advertisers (tell them you saw their ad in the paper), and write to the staff.  If you don't like it, write to the Editor, don't support the advertisers, and/or don't read it.

 

Can you guess how much is going on behind the scenes?    

Can you imagine how residents and small businesses  have suffered retaliation for free expression?

 

Clearly Don has "pressures" put upon him.   

Thanks for adding the link.    

Don did a terrific job of studying the 2003 "D&S impact" report -- and telling us how important this forested land at the river is to all of us -- for many different reasons.     You are right about the vanishing print media --   but please credit Don's article as revealing some very important information which he had to dig for, analyze, summarize, and put on paper.     OK, he does the "balancing act" required by competing opinions.    But this article is worthwhile IMO because it contains the ORIGINAL SOURCE DATA.

Go Don!

It's all about spreading the truth and protecting ourselves, our environment, our laws, our children, and pets.

[mrdavex]

Somehow whenever I click the link I posted, the Telegraph's website says Not Found.  I can't figure it out.

Just go to  http://www.FolsomTelegraph.com > News > Remnants of Folsom’s once thriving Chinatown buried under brambles?

 

[mrdavex]

And while we're talking about crap, here's the map from the SRCSD to show how Folsom connects to their mainlines that take all our sewage to the treatment plant near Freeport

 

http://www.regionals...s_sept_2013.pdf

 

There are actually 2 connections from Folsom that converge at the N37 Folsom East interceptor near Iron Point & Folsom Blvd.  A 54" gravity main from Folsom Blvd and a 36" gravity main from Iron Point.  I presume that the 54" line covers North Folsom, Old Folsom, Central District, Natoma Station, Parkshore, whereas the 36" line covers Prairie Oaks, Lexington, Broadstone, Empire.  This map only shows the SRCSD owned pipes, and not those owned by City of Folsom (will try to do put that in another post).

[mrdavex]

Ok, more boring info:

 

Folsom is divided into 16 sewage basins, which are basically neighborhoods:  http://www.folsom.ca...px?blobid=21430

The basins either discharge into a 27" mainline on Folsom Blvd or a 33" main on Blue Ravine (http://www.calfog.or.../FolsomInfo.pdf), which I believe goes to the Iron Point SRCSD Main via the lift stations at Oak Ave & Creekside and Iron Point & Outcropping.   

 

To ease the load on the 27" main, there have been projects in the last few years (1 in progress right now) to help divert the flow from Basin 6 (Central District + Willow Creek) into the 33" Main: http://www.folsom.ca.us/agendas/MG126797/AS126804/AI127502/DO127543/DO_127543.PDF 

The construction going on right now at Blue Ravine & E Bidwell is Phase 2 of this effort.  According to this report, to date 2.3 mgd of wastewater from Basin 6 have been diverted away from the 27" Folsom Blvd main. 

[maestro]

And while we're talking about crap, here's the map from the SRCSD to show how Folsom connects to their mainlines that take all our sewage to the treatment plant near Freeport

 

http://www.regionals...s_sept_2013.pdf

 

There are actually 2 connections from Folsom that converge at the N37 Folsom East interceptor near Iron Point & Folsom Blvd.  A 54" gravity main from Folsom Blvd and a 36" gravity main from Iron Point.  I presume that the 54" line covers North Folsom, Old Folsom, Central District, Natoma Station, Parkshore, whereas the 36" line covers Prairie Oaks, Lexington, Broadstone, Empire.  This map only shows the SRCSD owned pipes, and not those owned by City of Folsom (will try to do put that in another post).

 

Glad someone else takes an interest in raw sewage.   However this is a diagram of Reg. San "maintained facilities."  

 

My research is based upon the official perjury-sworn city engineer's documents which are not at all congruent with the illustration shown at this site,(showing what Sac Regional maintains not owns/not designed).     

 

If Sac Regional did own & operate the pipes which are pressurized with manholes bolted shut, do you believe for one second this would be allowed to continue???

The city map shows all of the pipes which are currently exceeding design capacity -- operating in a "pressurized" condition.  

 

Reg. San was somehow involved when the city willfully undersized the East Area sewage pipes, but they certainly never claimed responsibility for the current existing situation.    Last century Reg. San. did enter the fray -- but quickly left when the lawsuit began.

 

Please do not assume Regional San is providing a part of the city of Folsom Sanitary Sewer Conveyance System.    This is not a system map -- it is a "maintained facilites (sic)" map.      Assumptions you make about Reg. San owning and operating lines in the city are not correct.    The city of Folsom sewage conveyance system map is the city's system.    

 

The $750,000 fine on the city did not include Regional San.    The federal permit did not include anything but the city system.    Ditto the perjury-sworn map.    The truth is not online.    

    

If you look even further, you will find the city's sewage flow monitors mysteriously malfunctioned all at once.   City's Data show  malfunctions all began at about the time the federal permit was stupidly removed.   The city currently does NOT have operative sewage flow monitors producing reliable data.   Some of the SCADA transmission devices are also caput.   The CA State Prison 20" line has mysterious "events"...  upstream events, like the Lew Howard Park open-air raw sewage pit lined with plastic.   City dug a huge hole lined with plastic.   It was intended to illegally pull excess raw sewage out of the north city line just above the bridge.

[mrdavex]

Correct, as I said it is only of SRCSD owned and maintained facilities, not City of Folsom.  I don't have a map of the City sewage system, but if you do, please post, I'd be interested in having a look.  I couldn't find via a simple Google search.  

 

Out of curiosity, have you experienced a sanitary sewer overflow in or around your neighborhood? 

 

Glad someone else takes an interest in raw sewage.   However this is a diagram of Reg. San "maintained facilities."  

 

Please do not assume Regional San is providing a part of the city of Folsom Sanitary Sewer Conveyance System.    This is not a system map -- it is a "maintained facilites (sic)" map.      Assumptions you make about Reg. San owning and operating lines in the city are not correct.    The city of Folsom sewage conveyance system map is the city's system.    

 

 

 This map only shows the SRCSD owned pipes, and not those owned by City of Folsom .