25 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

12 single family x $500,000 = $6,000,000

25 townhomes a $375,000 = $9,375,000

[tony]

Here's a little more information. The proposed town homes (50 give or take a couple) are on property between Sutter and Leidesdorff Streets, just west of Folsom Blvd. and just north of the neighborhood park on Sutter St. in the Preserve. The developer, represented by their architect, David Mogavero, presented the project to the Historic District Commission -- for information only, not for review -- at their last meeting. Although I could not make the meeting, others from the Preserve did, and reports are that their comments were well-received by the commissioners.

The residents of the Preserve have been closely watching this project for well over a year, and have met twice with the developers to voice our concerns (while I have been involved in this, I am not, by any streetch, claiming to be leading the neighborhood's efforts). The original project was 100 apartments. Obviously, they got the message that that was unlikely to be approved, so they scaled back dramatically.

Here are a few of the neighborhood's concerns:
1) increased traffic on Sutter and Forrest (the only access to the Preserve, and half of the proposed development) -- this project would increase the number of residences using the Forrest St. access to Folsom Blvd. by nearly 50%
2) the fact that this additional traffic would all go by the neighborhood park
3) loss of the treed border of the park
4) proposed 3-story buildings that exceed the height limitations of the historic district (at least the previous version did)
5) failure to maintain the historic street grid, including abandonment of the Burnett Street right of way and an unnamed alley
6) the project would be in multiple subareas of the historic district, and therefore would require rezoning one or more parts of the property to allow multi-family housing
7) 50 units in a single development violates the HD guidelines preference for small, "organic" development
8) the proposed development would have private streets which would discourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation through this part of the historic district, which is already very limited by Folsom Blvd and the Corp Yard.
9) this project would be the first project in the River Way Subarea since the HD Guidelines were adopted, and -- despite rooms designated as "studios" on the floor plans -- is not consistent with the desire to create an "artist's colony" in this area.

In addition, I understand that the fire department has significant issues wit the proposed fire access to the site.


The Preserve residents will be holding a meeting at the Veteran's Hall this Sunday, November 14th, at 1:30 PM to further organize. I believe all our welcome. This project may be back on the HDC agenda for review at the second November meeting, but I could not confirm that.

[dave]

Townhomes sounds better to me than an incorporation yard. The corp yard has trailers, dirt roads, large trucks in and out, etc.

There is more than one way in and out. Besides Natoma, the main entrance to the corp yard is on Leidesdorff.

It would probably be a big improvement.

[maestro]

There are 4 acres next to the City Corporation Yard. Drive down Leidesdorff St, cross Folsom Blvd., continue west to Corp Yard area. The beautiful CLIFFs on left, wooded and full of critters and oaks, was proposed for several hundred housing units. We objected, but D&S developer lingers. Site is totally unsuitable for housing and is designated historic-commercial. D&S bought cheap, knowing the intended historic commercial & open space uses.
Historic District Plan zones this land "Specialty Commercial" -- limited retail consistent with Folsom General Plan, Sutter St., Lake, trails. Open space and historic have always been designated for area: Public uses generating revenue & celebrating history. Chinese settlement/relics are still on land.
Corp Yard (containing federally regulated contaminated site) will be historic & open space uses. General Plan intend these 4 acres (abutting Corp Yd) to be consistent with historic/open space uses. To cash in, developer seeks (believe it or not): Amendment to the Folsom General Plan Law; rezoning; Conditional Use Permits; voluntary abandonment by the city of the underlying Streets & Alleys -- to the betterment of the owners.
City staff cannot believe Council would Amend, Rezone, Abandon public dedications, etc. and ignore the Historic Dist. plan. We need public uses and tax revenue. Project is a fire hazard with 17 feet partially-grass "streets". Contact Fire Marshall Ron Phillips; or Chris Longley Planning Dept. We cannot afford to ignore decades of planning for $$$$$. Folsom historic preservation league is opposed. Laws prohibit this usage. Plans are poor. Need more facts? Save historic Folsom: this land is part of our heritage.

[forumreader]

maestro:

What steps would the developer need to take in order to see the Folsom General Plan and the H.D. Plan amended, and obtain rezoning and conditional use permits?

[maestro]

maestro:

What steps would the developer need to take in order to see the Folsom General Plan and the H.D. Plan amended, and obtain rezoning and conditional use permits?

To start with, pay the required fees -- which are considerable. Fees pay for the research done by staff, public hearings, plan reviews, Environmental statement reviews, etc. Folsom Gen Plan is currently in violation of Calif law because it has not been fully re-done since late 80's. The recent battle over Affordable Housing only addressed the "Housing Element" of the GP.
(Current developer has been allowed to take up staff time without paying fees; staff does the work and it's called "informational meetings" rather than legally-mandated "public hearings." ) This "information meeting" stuff is for the birds. Sometimes residents show up and developer doesn't.

GP Amendment is done by the city council. It is not easy, especially since this is person seeking solely personal gain.

GP Amend & Rezoning require legal notices, public hearings, public input, environmental reviews, school district input, park adequacy considerations, notification of affected entities (This parcel impacts Federal waters, Federal lands at Fed waters, State Park land, local bike trails. Interested parties include US Bureau of Reclamation, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Parks, etc.
GP Amend, Rezone & Conditional Use Permits also require legal notices, public hearings, evidence, cross examination, city council altering laws.
General Plan and Zoning Map are actual laws. The existing designations for parcels are legally binding. People purchase property relying upon the GP and Zoning around them. Cities are made or broke depending upon the proper administration of their Land Use laws.

To change such laws, the city is mandated to ensure the CEQA laws are followed: the proposed change is supposed to registered with the Sac County Recorder, and it then distributed to all other governmental agencies. This step is intended to ensure that deleterious changes are not sneaked through -- without the scrutiny of agencies like State Parks, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Fish & Game, etc.

For example, a city foolish enough to rezone much of their commercial and/or industrial land to residential will lose their income producing zones/properties and acquire residents who bring huge demands upon resources: e.g. police, fire, schools, streets, sewers, and of course water to drink and parks for residents.

In a nutshell, it is purposely NOT easy to change so many existing laws.

And don't forget, we paid a huge amount of $$$ for the Historic District plan. It was completely thought out and planned over years. It is intended to protect the entire city and all people who wish to enjoy the land at the American River and Historic Sutter St.
It's hard to imagine any city wanting to diminish or tarnish a part of its Historic District protected by so many extant laws.
It's hard to imagine any politician jumping in to change Laws for a single parcel which is totally unsuitable for residential because of location, topography, magnificent forest, huge precipitous cliff, abutment to garbage and sewage facilities/vehicles at Corp Yard. Could you imagine any politician approving the placement of multi-family next to the least desirable land uses possible? Do you think there is any validity in putting residential use right next to heavy nasty uses?

Recipe for disaster.
Personally, I've always had great respect for long-standing laws that make perfect sense. What about you?


PS: Some argue there should be housing near the Sutter Light Rail Station. Indeed, there should be public uses near this particular station, not residential.

Moreover, people who buy $500,000 townhouses are NOT very likely to get on Light Rail rather than drive, are they?

[mylo]

maestro,

First, I agree with many of your comments, especailly the focus around "the plan was made this way for a reason, stick to it".

However, I disagree with this one personally:

Moreover, people who buy $500,000 townhouses are NOT very likely to get on Light Rail rather than drive, are they?

I, for one, am anxious to get light rail. We recently purchased in the HD (not quite $500k, but not "low income" either). I don't think housing price or income define need for light rail. My wife and I, although we could afford one, only have one car. It's inconvenient at times, but we just can't justify the expense.

I work off of Zinfandel, right near the new light rail station there, so my commute will be infinately easier when light rail comes in. This was one of the considerations we undertook when deciding where to move.

Just because "low-income" ride light rail, does not mean light rail is specifically designed for them. I forsee many residents of HD townhomes using this service, or at least I hope they will so I can continue to

As for the Townhomes that are the topic of this discussion, it seems pretty obvious it's going to be an uphill battle. Do you really think the developers are going to go through all that? Succesfully? Is it worth it?

[maestro]

[quote=mylo,Nov 23 2004, 06:03 PM]
maestro,

First, I agree with many of your comments, especailly the focus around "the plan was made this way for a reason, stick to it".

However, I disagree with this one personally:
I, for one, am anxious to get light rail. We recently purchased in the HD (not quite $500k, but not "low income" either). I don't think housing price or income define need for light rail. My wife and I, although we could afford one, only have one car. It's inconvenient at times, but we just can't justify the expense.

I work off of Zinfandel, right near the new light rail station there, so my commute will be infinately easier when light rail comes in. This was one of the considerations we undertook when deciding where to move.

Just because "low-income" ride light rail, does not mean light rail is specifically designed for them. I forsee many residents of HD townhomes using this service, or at least I hope they will so I can continue to

My view of the light rail station at Historic Sutter St. is that is COULD provide access to the public uses in Sutter St. area. While you may have moved to the HD to ride Light Rail (from Sutter St.) -- enabling you to walk to the train -- I don't think very many people will do so. I believe most Sutter St. users will arrive in cars, and hopefully, will spend some money on Sutter St. as long as they are there.

You are fortunate to have the easy commute that you do. I don't ever recall equating light rail with "income level. I hope more people are able to utilize rail for work commuting because bad air is a real problem in the valley.

I sure hope you are right about the battle being uphill. Many people are concerned about preserving the history and heritage of the city. If rezoning were to occur, the entire city would lose access to and use of some valuable land right at the American River. The intent was always to allow some type of low intensity public use of this land. This land is part of River Way Subarea of the Hist. District.

Quote from FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE, Chapter 17, Sect. 5.0202:
"River Way Subarea of the Historic Commercial Primary Area:
"The primary intent of this area is to allow artists to combine their living, working, and sales space in one location, thereby encouraging artistic expression & enriching the cultural fabric of Folsom. Another purpose is to create a CORRIDOR which encourages pedestrian travel between the RESORT SUBAREA (i.e. the city Corp Yard land) and the SUTTER ST. SUBAREA by providing an interesting & pleasant walking environment. Artists are encouraged to open their working area to public view & to promote understanding of the Subarea's rich history."

I know you're wondering about the Resort Subarea, so:
"5.02.04(a) Site of city corporation yard... intended to be developed as a RESORT-CONFERENCE CENTER. ...majority control is to remain with the city... to assure that the greater part of financial and other benefits of the site's use accrue to the citizens of Folsom over the long term. Folsom's heritage, especially the historical uses of the site, such as the American Indian, Negro Bar, and Chinese settlements."

This is a great idea. The Folsom Chinese settlement was the 2nd largest in California. There are Chinese cemeteries, relics, old tunnels, temples, brick roads, etc. A living outdoor museum and recreation of the history here would be great, because the area has forest on the 4 acres, cliffs, culture, artifacts, lake proximity, public access via light rail.

It is my hope the wisdom of the Historic District Plan is respected.

Perhaps on their next junket to China, the city politicos could address the Chinese authorities about a living outdoor/indoor museum. What do you think?
What do you think about the Resort Subarea having a permanent home for the Farmers Market? A theater for live performances (indoor or out)? A place for display of arts & culture both indoors and out? Outdoor art sales like at Lake Tahoe? An American Indian Museum outdoor-at-the-river feature? Have you ever noticed the grinding holes in the large granite boulders near the River? The indians ground acorns into meal in these holes.
Have you seen the monument along the trail below the Corp Yard? It commemorates an ancient landgrant location.