54 replies to this topic

[History Matters]

Recently, residents in Folsom's Historic District filed a lawsuit against the City and a Sac builder over a pending condo development on the site of Folsom's former Chinatown.  The 4-acre site near Lake Natoma and Leidesdorff Steets is known to have evidence of daily life of the Chinese from 1860-1930s.  The Historic District Commission recommended denial of the project.  The City Council approved high-density housing over Folsom's rich history, prompting citizens to sue. 

[TruthSeeker]

That's great to hear! I hope they win!  Our city council members need to get off their stupid Growth Growth Growth mantra!  

 

None of us (with the exception of the city council and their developer buddies) want our paradise completely paved over!

[supermom]

less new, fix whats already here. 

Better mantra

[maestro]

Recently, residents in Folsom's Historic District filed a lawsuit against the City and a Sac builder over a pending condo development on the site of Folsom's former Chinatown.  The 4-acre site near Lake Natoma and Leidesdorff Steets is known to have evidence of daily life of the Chinese from 1860-1930s.  The Historic District Commission recommended denial of the project.  The City Council approved high-density housing over Folsom's rich history, prompting citizens to sue. 

 

 

Welcome Newbie.

 

The 4 acres was "rezoned to Planned Unit" via council Ordinance 1210.    Unfortunately this law/ordinance is INCOMPLETE and it is NOT a Planned Unit document.  

 

There is NO SEWAGE system for this riverside project --  no planned sewer system whatsoever.    They planned to connect illegally to a very small sewage system near the river -- with a mere 4" diameter sewer pipe (that already has the entire Folsom 20 acre Corp Yard connected to it.)

 

Also, there is NO Street plan, and that means the council is giving the owners a huge free package -- making the city pay for the eventual streets for emergency access.     In fact, the city council GAVE the developers some of our land to add to their housing project.

 

No doubt there are cultural resources there, and the city council did not care.

No doubt 4 of the council did not care about the Historic District Plan & Guidelines -- which DOES NOT show residential and commercial on this land.    HD Plan states the 4 acres should be passive and match the American River Conservation Zone below this forested land.

 

I hope the lawsuit triumphs as well, and think it is criminal when a council thinks they are above health & safety & zoning & engineering.   

 

One thing I do know:   the state water quality board Special Investigations Unit formally assured me this project needs to comply with raw sewage standards in order to proceed.     

[Chad Vander Veen]

Good. Are we sick of this council paving over everything in the city yet? This sort of project is an atrocity. There are so few places to even access the waterfront in Folsom and the city council wants to stuff high-density housing there.

[EAH]

That's great to hear! I hope they win!  Our city council members need to get off their stupid Growth Growth Growth mantra!  

 

None of us (with the exception of the city council and their developer buddies) want our paradise completely paved over!

Not disagreeing with you, in fact In total agreement. However, I remember back in the late 70's - early 80's my grandparents complaining about how the city of Folsom had sold it's soul to the developers.....sadly, this is nothing new here in Folsom.

[Steve Heard]

This sort of project is an atrocity. There are so few places to even access the waterfront in Folsom and the city council wants to stuff high-density housing there.

 

Don't forget that there is a 'don't build access to the waterfront' movement as well.

 

Not disagreeing with you, in fact In total agreement. However, I remember back in the late 70's - early 80's my grandparents complaining about how the city of Folsom had sold it's soul to the developers.....sadly, this is nothing new here in Folsom.

 

Late 70's? An old timer once told me at a Folsom History presentation that the townsfolk were against the construction of the dam, and feared that the construction workers would come here and cause trouble.  That was in the 40's!

[History Matters]

Thanks for all your comments and contributions regarding the direction the City Council is taking this community.  In 2012, the City filed a Notice of Preparation with the State Clearinghouse, listing areas of environmental concern including biological resources, noise, soil erosion/compaction/grading, land use, and archaeologic-historic impacts.  A Notice of Preparation is only filed after an agency decides that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for a project.  However, the City did not proceed to prepare an EIR.  Makes you wonder if the City is just going to keep building until there is no natual space left?  This is the last of Folsom's Riparian Forest and they want to build high density housing...Really?

[ducky]

Is this going in at the corporation yard or somewhere else?  I've heard that also used to be the town dump site.  

If it's being described as a Riparian forest, I must be thinking of the wrong location.

 

I don't understand why they can't be mindful when they do the building like they did on Sutter St. and collect any artifacts they find.

 

I don't like seeing every inch built on either, especially since I know it will just make it more expensive to live here in the future.  I miss the horses that used to run where Briggs Ranch is now.  I miss the cows that used to run where the homes in Empire Ranch are now.  I probably rolled my eyes when they built Lake Natoma Shores going, "Are they going to build on every square inch?"

I guess I'm officially jaded.

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

Don't forget that there is a 'don't build access to the waterfront' movement as well.

 

 

I know and it's a movement I disagree with. People have forever sought to live near the water. It makes communities stronger when everyone can access such an amazing resource. I mean think of how many cities have spent millions on riverwalks and similar projects. Limiting water access is short-sighted. But filling what little access we do have with high-density housing is just plain stupid.  

[History Matters]

Ducky, from Leidesdorff Street it is the area left of the corporation yard entrance.  The 4.25 acres has 161 trees and the developer would remove 105 trees (61 being interior live oak trees on site).  As far as the corporation yard, it appears to be heading in the same direction. I miss the old days too.  Change is inevitable, but why does it always have to be high density building.  Hey, here's an idea-how about the corp yard and this area be a park and open space for people to enjoy?    

[TruthSeeker]

I really like new user History Matters.  Many thanks for all the great information.

[ducky]

Ducky, from Leidesdorff Street it is the area left of the corporation yard entrance.  The 4.25 acres has 161 trees and the developer would remove 105 trees (61 being interior live oak trees on site).  As far as the corporation yard, it appears to be heading in the same direction. I miss the old days too.  Change is inevitable, but why does it always have to be high density building.  Hey, here's an idea-how about the corp yard and this area be a park and open space for people to enjoy?    

 

That would be awesome if they could somehow make that happen with grants or something.  The fact that the city just upped the park fees for new development because they are short on funds because they weren't charging enough for previous development to maintain our existing parks makes me thing that might be a hard to do.

 

How does the developer get to remove protected trees?  There's another thread here where a homeowner can't even trim an oak to make it safe.  If they pay a fine for 61 trees, plus the new higher park fee per unit the city just instituted, it seems like it would cost a lot of money to build.

 

Chad makes some good points, too.

[SCA]

The council hasn't yet adopted the increased park fees on new development. It was tabled for 30 days.

[ducky]

The council hasn't yet adopted the increased park fees on new development. It was tabled for 30 days.

 

I was assuming it was adopted.  Thanks for the updated info and for keeping things accurate.