Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Sara Letter Re Folsom Trail

Sac Bee Google news

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#16 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 10:16 PM

Well said Bob! I hate u for south of 50 but spot on for the trail!

#17 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 08 November 2015 - 07:12 AM

Thanks
How far west from the bridge will the paved over section extend ? I hate the idea of any of it being paved over as the handicapped can use the existing bike trail which I am sure is ADA compliant if they add the entry way...

 

 

I think it is a loop that is supposed to go all the way to behind the old city corporation yard with some overlooks along the way and non-motorized water access below where Qbole used to be.

If you do an Internet search for "Lake Natoma Waterfront and Trail Access Project," you should be able to find a pdf that shows the scope of the project.



#18 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 08 November 2015 - 05:19 PM

Thanks
How far west from the bridge will the paved over section extend ? I hate the idea of any of it being paved over as the handicapped can use the existing bike trail which I am sure is ADA compliant if they add the entry way...

Glad to hear Holderness is objecting - will check that and add more...

 

I looked for a link to the plan, but could only find one to the EIR, which generally shows the plan, but may not accurately reflect the final design. That said, my recollection of the plans when I saw them was that the westerly terminus of the trail would be about the bottom of the first hill on the bike path west of the bridge where the trail curves to the right, then sharply to the left and then back an d forth a couple more times. Or, if you're walking on the dirt trail west of the bridge, just after you climb the stairs; there is an existing dirt trail that connects the shoreline dirt trail to the bike path at the bottom of the hill. That's about where the new paved path will end and also connect to the bike path.  

 

BTW, the existing bike path does not meet ADA; the hill is way too steep.

 

I did find a link to the appellate court decision.



#19 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 07:16 PM

Wow thanks for posting! Sounds like the judges were annoyed with Sara based on the tone of the decision.

This statement sounded like the judges were describing one of maestros rants:

"nor does SARA point to any substantial evidence that the proposed modifications will change the project area from a mostly natural setting to a developed structural setting

Sounds like the case was based on speculation on actual facts.... Sounds like a big fat waste of tax payer money paying some attorney $400 an hour to defend this over speculation and misinformation

#20 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 06 May 2016 - 08:09 AM

FYI, readers,

 

A certain Folsom official in the 1990's had the gaul and temerity to demand a paved road all around the federal

Conservation Zone, protecting "Lake Natoma" portion of the American River.     Some "unknown official"  pressured for laborers to suddenly dump asphalt on the CA State Park Multi-Use Trail.      If you wish confirmation, do Public Records Request for the Folsom Lake State Park Recreation letters, especially that of Folsom Area Director Scott Nakaji, a sworn law officer.        Please do call the CA SP Legal Office as well.    They are familiar with the city.       Ask the California Resource Dept Director John Laird what he knows about Folsom's history with federal land and lower American River.

Read Save the American River lawsuit brief and reject stupid "ad hominem" arguments against SARA's Presidents.  

 

 

Ask the city for a copy of the Insurance Policy covering the Folsom LNT Project on federal conservation land.   Oops!

Ask Westcon for a copy of a valid Insurance company policy.   Oops!

Ask for a copy of the California Building Permit necessary for the current project.   Oops!

Ask for the City Engineer's Report, Soil Borings with Certifications.   Oops.

Ask Drew Lessard to finally provide his Engineering Certification behind his FONSI signature 12 22 2015.  

 

Ask city for the June 2012 Geotechnical Report and the still-hidden 2010 Geotechnical Report  which clearly disqualify the south slope and banks of American River between Folsom and Nimbus Dams as urban construction sites.   Entire area was dredged,  hydraulically fractured, damaged, soil blasted away, during the pursuit of gold 19th and 20th centuries.

 

Before you believe posted opinions, join me in demanding all of the Certified Engineering Reports dated 2012, 2010, and one other one.

 

If you really want to get angry, look at the city "soil study" comments in the environmental record.    Someone took snippets from the USDA website, and used a few sentences saying "what is a soil report?"   as the Folsom "soil study.

Collect, demand the withheld Engineering Studies & Reports.     You paid for them.     Yes, they were withheld despite over 100 objections made to the city and USBR.

 

 

Plainly said:    if you feel safe on tons/tons of concrete laid on a pile of dredged rocks and hydraulically blasted remnants,  you need to wake up and demand a copy of the Certified Geotechnical Report, Lk Nat. Trail Folsom Project.

 

Justice abhors secrecy.   ADA concrete on a pile of marbles?     The work has already collapsed and adding billions of pounds of concrete would probably result in a new "dam" falling into the river.      Don't bother criticizing me for obtaining the legal and engineered documents:    after thousands of land use cases, I don't care about threats, etc.

 

 

 

 

...



#21 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 06 May 2016 - 08:22 AM

In re the SARA appeal:

 

What occurred in the courtroom shocked long-time appellant lawyers.      Never before had SARA's  seasoned attorney been refused the right to address the Court.      Shocking shock.   It is consistent with problems in the California justice system and political leadership.

 

If you don't get it, this Folsom "ADA Trail"  is 100% different:    it is on a federal Conservation Zone and in our American River water.       This is a federal case -      my favorite type.       Let's talk 43  CFR and make the Geotechnical Reports part of the record.      Did you know SARA was never given a Certified Engineer's Blueprints, Certified Soil Report, and the existing, but withheld Certified Geotechnical Reports?

 

Fact:   Marbles collapsed on Project mid-December and apparently other tiems.

Folsom is proceeding, watching the marble piles collapse, knowing no real insurer will give them Liability Insurance, including coverage for USBR,  DOI, Cal. State Parks, and us --- the fools who paid for the 2012 and 2010 Geotechnical Reports.     Experts state verbatim this Project absolutely requires a CA Building Permit, and real Engineered Blueprints and Monitoring with Mitigation that could cost billions.

 

 

 

PS to critics, ask for the Contract and many expensive Change Orders.    Look at the city's provisions.    If you run a business, it will make you sick.

 

 

,



#22 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 06 May 2016 - 09:34 AM

Maestro now you are just making stuff up!

The project was engineered... Look at the last several pages of this doc: http://reports.analy...final_ea-is.pdf

Also most public works projects do not require a building permit unless they are building something like a structure. Since this is trails and sidewalks it is unlikely a permit is required.

Finally ALL public works contracts require proof of insurance from th contractors. You could waste MORE taxpayer dollars and do a public records request for the contract and insurance but I garuntee the city shifts the liability to the contractor, all cities do.

#23 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 06 May 2016 - 10:29 AM

maestro,

 

The entire Preserve neighborhood, indeed, most of current Folsom, including your house, is built on formerly dredged cobbles. 

 

As for the foundation issues at the site. I am not familiar with the details (I have nothing to do with this project), but I have seen no evidence of a "failure". From the CC staff report approving the change order, it is clear that they did have delays and a change order due to unforeseen soil conditions (unsuitable soils at the foundation level that required over-excavation and replacement), which is one of the most common reasons for change orders on construction projects, because you really don't know exactly what you're going to run into until you excavate (you can't do borings everywhere).  The change order was for $111,000, certainly not insignificant, but not unusual either. http://www.folsom.ca...eport137625.pdf

 

The engineering plans in the environmental document are not signed because they are not final. They are merely support documents for the environmental doc, as is the soils report in the appendix (although I must agree with you that what is in there is a little unusual).  You'll note on the plans that there is a geotechnical engineer, Youngdahl, listed. They would have prepared a foundation report covering all of the structures in the project.



#24 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 06 May 2016 - 11:57 AM

Justice abhors secrecy.

 

It just gets worse every day.    City Clerk supplied an "insurance document" which is NOT an Insurance Policy.     In fact, the document belongs to CA State Parks.       No SWPPP was located to protect our drinking water, so water board was informed.    Contractor was told to re-read his contract -- and realize he's holding the bag.    I want the hidden remaining Geotechnical Engineers' Certified Reports, and the 3rd one mentioned in hundreds of pages of text.

 



#25 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 06 May 2016 - 02:52 PM

Once again you are WRONG!!!

Here is your Swppp: http://www.bidnet.co...?/358167948.pdf

So excuse me if I don't buy the rest of your crap!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users