Jump to content

- - - - -

Nov 22 Meeting: Housing development by Folsom High

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 webmaster



  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 18 November 2002 - 07:29 AM

An informational meeting to discuss Dan Chartraw's proposal to acquire and develop the City's property near Folsom High School, and to solicit public comments and input, has been scheduled as follows:

DATE: Friday, November 22

TIME: 6:30 - 8:30 pm

PLACE: Folsom Rotary Clubhouse located at Lew Howard Park, Folsom (7100 Baldwin Dam Road, Folsom)

DIRECTIONS: (1) Take Folsom Boulevard north and cross the river on the new bridge where it then becomes Folsom-Auburn Road. (2) Follow Folsom-Auburn Road approximately one block and turn LEFT onto OLD Oak Avenue (between McDonald's and Zittel Farms). (3) Go approximately 1/4 mile until the road deadends at Baldwin Dam Road. (4) Turn RIGHT on Baldwin Dam Road and continue up the hill until you reach "Lew Howard Park" at the top of the hill. (5) A short distance beyond is the Clubhouse.

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING: The purpose of the meeting will be to present Dan Chartraw's proposed housing development which involves building approximately 200 homes on less-than-standard sized lots (ie less than 6,000 sq.ft. lots) and interspersing the market rate homes with approximately 50-60 affordable homes. The affordable homes will be deed-restricted to prevent investors and speculators from buying them for profit. When a low-income family sells their home it must be purchased by another low-income family.

Sales of the affordable homes will be first offered to people who have lived or worked in Folsom for at least a year. Then the sales will be narrowed down to Folsom health and safety personel (ie, firemen, police officers, nurses, correctional officers etc.); and then to public employees (ie teachers, city employees, hospital employees, etc.).

The method of ensuring the project is built, and built as represented to the public, is through a Development Agreement which would be attached to the purchase contract. Mr. Chartraw would not take ownership of the City's property unless and until the project has been approved, complete with the Development Agreement that runs with the land. It has been proposed that a representative of the neighboring residents would be involved in the negotiations of the Development Agreement.


Representatives from the City of Folsom and Folsom Cordova Unified School District will be in attendance to answer questions.

I appreciate your assistance in providing notice to interested participants about this meeting. It is especially important that neighboring residents attend this meeting.

Marilyn Gautschi

MyFolsom.Com Message Board Tip #3
To view all new threads in the last 24 hours, Click on "Today's Active Topics" from the forum index.

#2 NRB



  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Willow Springs
  • Interests:Secretary, FIDO Inc. (Folsom Independent Dog Owners) dedicated to bringing a dog park to Folsom and promoting responsible dog ownership. www.fidoinc.org <br /><br />Secretary, Friends of Folsom Parkways

Posted 18 November 2002 - 11:09 AM

It's about time someone came up with a non-high density housing solution to this low income housing issue. While I am not thrilled about 200 more homes going in near my house and the high school...this alternative definetly beats out high density apartment complexes. Not only will we be providing low income housing but we also get the added benifit of pride in ownership. Look's like someone is finally starting to wise up! Now if we can just make sure that the 7 acres currently zoned "park land" actually becomes a park and provides the residents of Folsom access to Willow Hills Reservoir (behind Folsom High School)...this could be a very attractive development! rolleyes.gif
Want a dog park in Folsom?
Go to www.FIDO Inc.org

#3 camay2327



  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 18 November 2002 - 02:23 PM

During the last Parks and Rec meeting they said they don't have money enough to finish the parks that we have now, so I wouldn't expect much around this area.
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#4 bettyemahan


    All Star

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 05:29 AM

I find it interesting that "there is not enough money for------", finishing parks much less new ones, adequte sewer lines, library, etc., etc., etc.!! Doesn't it make anyone want to know WHY NOT????????

#5 john



  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 19 November 2002 - 01:09 PM

I find it interesting that "there is not enough money for------", finishing parks much less new ones, adequte sewer lines, library, etc., etc., etc.!! Doesn't it make anyone want to know WHY NOT????????

Poor planning! unsure.gif

#6 (catess)

  • Visitors

Posted 20 November 2002 - 08:43 AM

That particular park was never meant to be developed. It has always been considered a "passive park" site, where people simply enjoy the reservoir, great outdoors, and peace and quiet (right next to Highway 50!).

#7 Bob



  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 20 November 2002 - 12:42 PM


There have been rumors that the pond is being eyed as a possible urban fishing pond. That is, it would be improved with trails, picnic facilities etc. (still passive as you indicated) and stocked. I believe that State Parks may be involved.

This would be a great amenity to Folsom. This is one reason that I had opposed the City's decision two years ago to place all their land that surrounds the pond (south and east sides) up for sale. Originally, they had intended to sell only a portion of it, leaving the portion adjacent to the High School and fronting Iron Point as the park/pond entrance.

However, it seemed that a former Council member, who will economically benefit from the land sale, persuaded the City that they had to sell ALL of the land if they wanted to attract the highest price from commercial buyers. I imagine that this is true, but the City’s mission is to do what is best for residents. If they followed this former Council members philosophy we could just sell off all of our undeveloped parkland. (This is just what this former council member allowed to happen in Lexington Hills while on the Planning Commission, leaving that community of 1400 homes with not even one square foot of park). The point is, preservation of land for open space and parks in Folsom has been a continuous disappointment for Folsom families. Our City Hall’s record has been dismal at best. This is an opportunity for the City to undue some of their past damage. Preserving as much land as possible around the pond for the benefit of ALL Folsom residents should take priority over the commissions to a few and selling City land to cover other budget shortfalls.

As you know, the city has now rezoned almost all (27 of about 34 acres) of that land, including, I believe, the front entrance portion, for high density/ affordable housing. The question is, which 7acres will be left for the park? At least a portion of the front area, along with the southern area that is covered by dense Oak would be the most logical. Actually, my greatest concern is that even the remaining 7 acres could be sold for commercial as this former Council member has pushed for. Losing all the land around this pond makes it less likely that it would ever be developed into it’s potential as a great amenity for the families of Folsom.

Bob Fish
Folsom Families First

The strength of democracy is in letting the people create the future, not the government creating it for them.

#8 (catess)

  • Visitors

Posted 21 November 2002 - 10:02 AM

I guess the poor planning was done in the earlier development days when Jack Kipp allowed the city to be built out to 40,000 people without requiring any park fees to be paid.

A 7-acre passive park would be pretty useless over there. There's scrubby growth and swampy land. I've run back there and come out with mud up to my knees ohmy.gif To be useable it would require at least some minimum development, like access. The fishing and picnic tables idea sounds great. But, you wouldn't need 7 acres for that. My best guess is they'll sell off most, leave maybe 2 acres and minimally grant access.

Maybe they could get the state to kick in more as it is the very site of the old Prairie City.

#9 klsx2



  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 22 November 2002 - 11:04 PM


I just returned from the meeting with the developer and I am so ramped up that I can't sleep. So, I decided to get some of my thoughts off my chest while they are still fresh. For those of you that attended the meeting you will undoubtedly recognize who I am by my major opposition to the project.

It never ceases to amaze me how our own representatives continue to try and pull the wool over our eyes. We originally started this battle for land around the high school because we thought it completely unacceptable to place a huge portion of the rezoning in a single area, especially around the high school. Our council took note of this fact and say that they have heard us, yet when you pull back the covers of this developers proposal you will find that not only are they looking for us to be happy with the existing 20 acres already rezoned MFHD, but that they now wish to add in an additional 11 acres at the southern end of the resevoir. Now if you attended the meeting and looked at the plans I will admit that the drawings and the talk was all very polished and looked good. However, this is still the same old stinking wreck of a car that we turned down earlier, just it has a shiny new coat of paint and now has an oil leak that wasn't there before. Meanwhile the developer, the broker, and our councilwoman are saying buy it quick, don't mind the problems because the big bad wolf is coming to get you (Legal Services/Some Judge).

We have a responsibility to rezone 128 acres of land in the City to meet our requirements of the agreement. Lets focus on doing just that and leave the actual development for a time when we have cooler heads and less pressure. Rash, rushed, and pressured decision making is what has gotten us into this type of mess. Lets not make another bad decision by jumping in bed with developer right now. If we do I am sure we will be extremely sorry to find out what we have gotten ourselves into when we wake up the next morning.

Please don't buy the smokescreen of this plan! Our children's future and our neighborhood is at stake. Please look through all this mumbo jumbo, flashy, talk and get the word out that this plan is not acceptable, atleast not at this point in time. Don't let the council take the easy way out and shove all this into our area. There are still possible deals out there to be made, they are not as easy as rezoning the City property, but they can be done.

We must have the fortitude to see this through to the end.

#10 afr



  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 November 2002 - 06:28 PM

Hello All,

Yesterday what the developer proposed for the area looks acceptable, but there is a problem, and what klsx2 has said is right.

Today 27.2 acreas of land has already been rezoned around the high school, and to do what the developer is saying will do, they are saying we must rezone another 11.8 acreas to R-4, which brings it back to where we all started - approx 40 acreas around the high school rezoned to R-4.

Putting together a colorful presentation of what might be built there, the fact that another 11.8 acreas will be rezoned to R4 is being hidden, and this is not acceptable.

Look under the covers and you now have 40 acreas zoned to R4.

From what I understand, it is still possible to do this project without rezoning the 11.8 acreas to R4 - it could be done by rezoning it to R1 instead, and nothing in the proposed project would need to change.

If the project is so good and we should do it, then let us do without rezoning the extra land to R-4. It is possible to do that.

To meet the immediate December deadline of rezoning 128 acreas, the city has to look for land elsewhere, and not around the high school. The feeling I get now is that a fast one will be pulled over us if we are not careful.

#11 April



  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 23 November 2002 - 07:40 PM

These latest developments are sickening!
And there's that old word again, the "Developers".
I find it very odd that the only people who will benefit (money wise) by this rezoning is the developers who will build all this, and they are the ones pushing it!
Gee, do ya think maybe these developers could have helped that person start the law suit against the city of Folsom?????
I mean, are we to think this guy just came up with this thought by himself?
The last time you found a house for sale, that you couldn't afford, did you think, I'll sue the city for this? Most don't think that way....well, I take that back, there is that person who is trying to sue McDonalds for making him fat. I guess there are those who just can't control their own lifes.
The rest of the country laughs at our lax law enforcement, our deluxe prisons and our liberal attitudes. I guess they'll have another good laugh when they hear about how affordable housing brought this state to it's knees!
Folks, make no mistake....the high income people who pay the high taxes will move out of California if this state ceases to be a desirable place to buy a house and raise a family. Like it or not, we need their tax dollars and when they leave, those who are still here will be holding the bag.
Then who do you think will pay the taxes?
I say scream bloody murder from the roof tops!!!!
Let's start a recall!!!!!!

#12 Nagesh



  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 November 2002 - 07:42 PM

Hello All,

Last night I was one of the participants at the informational meeting where the developer presented their plan. For those of you who could not attend, here is a brief note about what happened and my thoughts.

The developer did a good job of presenting what they propose to build there - basically around 200 single family homes of which 60 (30 %) are low income homes. All homes are on small lots - less than 6000 sq. ft lot size. The low income homes are on corner sites and they are 'duets' - two homes share a wall, from garage all the way to the back. Since they are on corner sites, both could have their front door on either side of the road. To do this, the developer is asking for the 14 acre FCUSD property, the two 10 acre city property, the 7.2 acre city property (park land), and 11.8 acre city property behind the school.

The developer passed around some photographs of what the homes might look like (from a similar project?). Overall the project does not look bad.

However, there is one major issue. To achieve this, they are asking that we agree to rezone ANOTHER 11.8 acres of land to MFHD (R-4) - this is in ADDITION to the 27.2 acres that have already been rezoned, bringing it to a total of approx. 40 acres of MFHD land around the high school (gets us back to where we started!!!). I went to this meeting thinking that all of us would only be looking at what the project/ homes might look like, but I was taken by complete surprise at the attempt to get us to agree to rezone another 11.8 acres to MFHD. I am sure if this was published as an agenda item, there would be many more out there opposing it.

The way it is being projected is that if we do not agree to this, then all will break loose and the judge will be on our door step January 1st, doing what ever they want (and as somebody put it - it may not be a bad idea at all - we have a better chance at not getting a cluster here! :-). From what I heard and learnt from others, this is only a very remote possibility given that everyone - the staff, the council and the citizens are working hard to solve the problem.

From what I see, there are two issues here - one of solving the 128 acre problem by end of December, and the other of building a nice community next to the high school. The two should not be mixed - let us solve the 128 acre problem first. Let us find land else where to satisfy the agreement, without coming back to the land around the high school - yes, it might be easy since the city owns it, but, no, this should not be it.

The second is getting a nice community built there. If the developer needs all of this land to build the 200+ houses, then it can still be achieved, NOT by rezoning the 11.8 acres to MFHD (R-4), but to something like R-1. From what I learnt, the proposed project can still be done without any changes even if the land was R-1 - all that needs to be done is rezone from commercial to residential.

Summarizing, let us solve the 128 acre issue by finding land elsewhere, and not near the high school. If the proposed project needs to move forward, maybe we can think about rezoning the 11.8 acres to R-1, definitely NOT MFHD R-4.


#13 camay2327



  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 23 November 2002 - 11:03 PM

My wife and I also attended the meeting last night. We were very disappointed that more people from around the High School did not attend. There were only about 20 people there including Howell, Morin, Michael Johnson, the BLAS-B person, Marilyn (real estate agent) and I believe there were other real estate agents in there too. To make it short, I agree with what has been said by the last two or three people that have replied and did go to the meeting.

The city wants to sell this land for the money that they are going to get from the sale and of course if that can help them toward their 128 acres that is all they seem to be concerned about.

And then they brought up the fact that they wanted the additional 11 acres south of the lake. RIGHT!!! Now they will have the 40 plus acres they want for rezone. YES it is owned by the city and they say they have control of what goes on the land (200 units of housing).

All I can say is that you had best get everyone back to the next city council meeting to voice your concerns or it will be there.

From what I can see they have two members on the council (FOR SURE) and possibly 3 or 4 that will be voting for this unless we really stick to our guns. Make sure you get to the next meeting the evening of the 26th, and bring all your friends. Make the meeting last all night if we have to.

The developer did make it look good but we do not need it there.
The real estate agent also stands to make the big bucks on this sale and that is why we had the meeting last night in hopes we would all change our minds.

I feel that if the council tries to push this down our throats that we should not stand for it. Let the Judge come in and rezone some of that super sensitive property elsewhere that the council members do not want to rezone. For some reason they want over 100 acres of rezones in the south part of Folsom, most of it within 1/4 - 1/2 mile north of US 50.


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#14 April



  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 24 November 2002 - 06:43 PM

To Camay2327:

The reason my husband and I did not attend the meeting on Nov. 22, is because it was
obvious to us it was an attempt by the developer to soft pedal their development wishes.
Any meeting that involves a developer presenting his plans, is no doubt, going to be
disappointing when it comes to the health and welfare of this community. They are in the
business of building, not the business of being concerned about the good of the
Also, there has been a gross lack of reporting by our news sources on the status of the
rezoning in Folsom. Below are a couple of examples..........

The Sacramento Bee, Nov. 17, 2002, Section N, Forth Paragraph:


“The council decided not to rezone 13.8 acres near Folsom Hugh School, between Iron
Point Road and Highway 50.”

And also this;

Folsom Life, Nov.21, 2002, Page 16, third Paragraph:


“Michael Johnson, assistant director of the city’s Planning Inspections, and Permitting
Department, said the sites that were eliminated from consideration for rezoning included a
13.8-acre site south of Iron Point Road, east of Folsom high School, north of Highway 50,
and west of the proposed ISO site and a 1.6-acre parcel; the city owns in the same

I try to read all I can to keep up with the rezoning issue. But clearly, that is not enough
when the reporting leads one to believe that no rezoning will occur by the Folsom High
It is clear that we are not getting accurate news coverage of this issue.
Neither news paper said anything about the rezoning around the high school, accept what
I quoted above. Many details were left out. This may have lead many to believe that the
rezoning around the High School was no longer an issue to be concerned about.

It seems to me that there has been an determined attempt to keep the public in the dark
about this issue. I have not found complete coverage about the rezoning in any of the
local news paper.

But, there is an article that hints at where we are going in the future, in regards to housing
and what our local government plans for us.
Read the Sacramento Bee, Sunday Nov. 24, in the Forum. Untitled, LEARNING FROM
They compare the Sacramento area with the city of Atlanta, as to how we will become in
the future if we don’t plan wisely. Their idea of planning wisely is to build high density
housing to cut down on commuter travel and air pollution.
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE CAREFULLY! You will read how it is viewed as
unwise for people to have homes with decent sized yards, and they call our current type of
housing “Suburban Sprawl”. They feel that to stack people on top of each other is
preferable. I don’t think most of us would agree, but that is what we are now fighting in
Folsom with the rezoning; high density housing.
The developers are right in there with the government, giving all the energy to this they
can, because clearly, a developer can make more money by building more houses on less
land...which means larger profits for them.
So for those who have been critical of the $300,000 houses on tiny lots, with small back
yards, guess what, you may see even smaller lots in the near future!
My husband and I hate this sort of squeezing of the houses together, but it is hard to get
away from, when our own government is pushing so hard to compact us all so tightly
Studies have proven that closely housed rats will begin to attack and kill each other when
the density creates more stress than the animals can handle. As I know we are not
animals, I also know that more crime occurs in highly populated areas. People still need
to feel some space around them to live healthy lives.
The concern in this article for the health and air quality of the people who will be so tightly
packed together, if the government makes it’s plans reality, they feel will be better than the
alternative of Suburban Sprawl. I don’t agree!
I think we are seeing a turning point in housing, and what could be the worst decision
making by the government ever known to history.
I don’t have any magic solutions, but I don’t feel that packing people together in high
density housing is going to solve our population problems.
There are already places, like Roseville, where one can see huge three and four story
buildings, that look a lot like the barracks on the old McClellan Air Force base, that are
new apartment complexes. They are very unattractive and depressing to look at, and I for
one am reminded of the “Projects” when I see them.
High density housing is not a healthy way to live, no matter if they are low-income or high

Instead of encouraging businesses to move to the areas with need for more employment, it
seems the government would rather we all live in a localized area within the city limits!
“Suburban Sprawl” is not something that is harmful until there is a breakdown in roads
and highways, a lack of hospitals, a lack of shopping and a lack of employment. People
have proven they would rather work and shop in their own communities. So it is clear to
me that to prevent the negative impacts of growth, a community should have ample
incentives for large businesses to develop in those communities to provide employment for
their residents, as well as plan correctly to ensure that adequate services are available.
I also think that to give tax incentives to people to move closer to their jobs, would be
another solution to having more traffic on the highways in commuting. The low income
people are not the only ones who should get a break in living close to one’s employment.
I think ALL residents should be given a tax break for living in the same community where
they work. Maybe a free DMV registration also, to the people who put less mileage on
their cars every year and higher fees to those who have higher mileage. I think the drivers
who create the most smog should pay for it.

Since some have said that low-income housing is needed here in Folsom to provide for
some of the workers who can not afford to live AND work here..... what about RENT
CONTROLS? I thought they had been in effect already, by law.
What happened to them??????

Lastly, it may sound extreme, but I’m for allowing the time to lapse on the Folsom
settlement to build affordable housing and deal with the state on the matter. I don’t think
they can do much worse than we have already seen from the City Council and may have
more of an unbiased view about where to place these low-income dwellings.
It’s clear to me that our City Council has been bought and paid for by the developers, and
has lost the ability to be reasonable about where to place them.
Losing prime commercial property, which would bring in badly needed tax revenue for our
city, doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me; no matter where it is located.
And I don’t think I’m alone when I say it is grossly irresponsible for our City Council to
consider doing so. Once these properties are developed into residential housing of any
kind, they are lost forever and there is no new land going to pop up to take it’s place. dry.gif

#15 Terry


    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts

Posted 24 November 2002 - 09:22 PM

April - where are you from? There is no rent control in Folsom, and never has been! I believe there are some locations in the Bay Area and southern California that do have rent control, but absolutely not here.

Affordable housing is required in every community by California state law to promote diversity in communities and prevent discriminatory housing practices. You can kick and scream and dig your heels in the dirt about it, but it's not going to change. Even Beverly Hills has the affordable housing requirement, although like Folsom, hasn't been able to provide its required number of units. But, they haven't been sued either, so it's not likely they'll have to do as we're doing right now.

I find it amusing that there are many residents who objected to various development projects proposed for properties that are now being considered for affordable housing. It's true - you do need to pick your battles carefully, and I'll bet there a more than a few residents who would like to go back and have another chance at choosing what goes on those properties.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users