116 replies to this topic

[supermom]

do we really need this added to folsom? Do we have a housing shortage with people sleeping on the streets? Why not fix the soil and turn into a no entry park-let mother nature reclaim a little of what remains here?

[brown]

do we really need this added to folsom? Do we have a housing shortage with people sleeping on the streets? Why not fix the soil and turn into a no entry park-let mother nature reclaim a little of what remains here?

We're not talking about homes being built tomorrow. Like it or not, the region is growing, so housing will be needed in the future. If the developers don't build out the Aerojet property, they'll just move on to the next parcel.

[tessieca]

do we really need this added to folsom? Do we have a housing shortage with people sleeping on the streets? Why not fix the soil and turn into a no entry park-let mother nature reclaim a little of what remains here?

It will be developed when they get the landowners get their ducks in a row. The issue about annexation and SOIs is the question of who gets to decide HOW it develops. If you leave it as is, the county will make decisions. Folsom only has one rep out of 7 on that board. If you let RC move east and take over, they will decide. I'm much more comfortable with the people for whom I can vote making decisions that help and not hurt Folsom.

[Bob]

It will be developed when they get the landowners get their ducks in a row. The issue about annexation and SOIs is the question of who gets to decide HOW it develops. If you leave it as is, the county will make decisions. Folsom only has one rep out of 7 on that board. If you let RC move east and take over, they will decide. I'm much more comfortable with the people for whom I can vote making decisions that help and not hurt Folsom.

"If you leave it as is, the county will make decisions."

Tesicca. Step away from the coolaid. I know that you are still giddy with the $700million bond win for schools (By the way, congratulations. What a huge win.) but come back down to earth for a minute and lets talk reality.

Number 1a: The County has already made their decision. They adopted an urban services boundary (USB) that places the entire SOI out of their reach for development. County Planning Director Robert Sherry went so far as to send a very sternly worded letter to the City chastising them for casting a bad name on the County to facilitate the City’s own development aspirations. The letter went on to explain why the County will not and can not develop it and demanding that the City stop “lying”(of course in a PC fashion.)
Saying Rancho will is even more of a loosing argument.

Number 1b: The County also just underwent a complete General Plan update. Result, not only did the USB stay intact, but they refused heavy developer pressure (including from our own former mayor Holderness/land use attorney to SOI land owners) to even evaluate land, in particular just south of our SOI, for future development potential.

Number 2: Traffic. Bad now. Disastrous if the SOI is developed (City’ own studies confirm). Read the fine print. The City’s comments about “addressing traffic in the SOI area is the same as the BS in Empire Ranch. Yes, the newly developed areas will be designed to nicely accommodate “internal” traffic. But little will be done to address impacts within the current City and NOTHING for Hwy 50.

Number 3: Smog. We have the worst (yes, right here in Folsom) in the region. Will massive development directly south and 1 million new vehicle trips a day (official SOI study results) help or hurt our air quality?

Number 4: Water. From previous posts, you all get the point. Look for the City to claim that the water on loan to Aerojet is “new” water or that conserved water from future metering is “new” water (that had been written in a previous city study of how to develop the SOIA – they called “conservation” pricing. i.e. raise prices until residents are forced to conserve enough to supply south of 50). The fact is (per City report to the Ca. Depart. Of water resources, we need every drop we currently have and then some to cover us in a drought. They should be spending our tax money looking for such a drought reserve first, not for new development.

OK, here is my main point:
Did the City ever come to the residents to ask the most important initial question?

“Do you, resident of Folsom, want to expand our City?”

For those of you who are relatively new here, the answer is no.

They dictated to us that it was going to happen. All subsequent discussions involved “what kind of development” and the question was pushed aside. Of course, you (Folsom residents - voters, taxpayers, school bond payers) really have no say whatsoever as to what kind of development will occur anyway. Unless ……

[MikeinFolsom]

Well then Bob, if we don't develop it, someone will. Want RC to come further east and build more warehouses and the such, just like "their" south of 50? How about the area between Hazel and Sunrise, on the south side of Folsom Blvd. Want that look on the side of the freeway? Neither do I. The reason Folsom is moving on the SOI is so that they CAN have a say in what happens on that particular parcel.

And after they obtain those parcels, they want to address what is going to be adjacent to those areas as well. They didn't put forth that portion of the plan yet because they don't want the LAFCO people getting jumpy and giddy about how much Folsom wishes to expand just now.

[petro]

If you look at the type of land that should be developed for homes and businesses, I think this is prime. Limited farming value (soil conditions are very poor), adjacent to major transportation routes, connecting to other development. I would rather this type of area be developed than more prime farmland in the valley taken out of production, or more development in the floodplane. But I sure hate to loose the open space. I agree with the smog issue. All of the dirty air generated by Sacramento, Elk Grove, and other valley communities get pushed up to the foothills and stack up right on our doorstep. I never see this adressed in anyones environmental document.

Anyway i live in Broadstone and not happy with traffic now, once the mall is in problems will double in our area, once SOI area is developed it may be time to buy a scooter to get to the store.

[Bob]

Well then Bob, if we don't develop it, someone will. Want RC to come further east and build more warehouses and the such, just like "their" south of 50? How about the area between Hazel and Sunrise, on the south side of Folsom Blvd. Want that look on the side of the freeway? Neither do I. The reason Folsom is moving on the SOI is so that they CAN have a say in what happens on that particular parcel.

And after they obtain those parcels, they want to address what is going to be adjacent to those areas as well. They didn't put forth that portion of the plan yet because they don't want the LAFCO people getting jumpy and giddy about how much Folsom wishes to expand just now.

"if we don't develop it, someone will."

Mike,

Please define "someone". You obviously do not understand land use laws. The SOI area is now zoned as agricultural. In fact, the County, who holds current jurisdiction, defines that land as “permanent” open space not subject to change. So how will “someone” develop it under the County’s jurisdiction?

Again, using Rancho Cordova as the boogie man is a loosing argument. Also, you obviously do not know the history of how the industrialized/commercial areas within the new city of Rancho and those parts still within the County came into being. It was zoned decades ago when it was ‘far away” from residential areas. Slamming Rancho now is a pathetic argument. Their current development path is to provide residential areas the same as Folsom.

Also, try giving yourself a local geography lesson in the relationship between RC and the vast amounts of land they have left to develop (without a current water source to even develop those areas), County land, Aerojet (particularly the remaining superfund site) and the Folsom SOI area. Trying to scare Folsom residents into “building it first” before RC gets to it doesn’t wash.

The fact is, it is ONLY Folsom that wants to develop it. Even though well over 70% of Folsom residents are against it (City’s own polls), they refuse to fully address the issues of traffic and smog, and refuse to enter into a discussion with Folsom residents regarding the primary question I stated above. Do residents want to expand our City?

[supermom]

"if we don't develop it, someone will."

Mike,

Please define "someone". You obviously do not understand land use laws. The SOI area is now zoned as agricultural. In fact, the County, who holds current jurisdiction, defines that land as “permanent” open space not subject to change. So how will “someone” develop it under the County’s jurisdiction?

Again, using Rancho Cordova as the boogie man is a loosing argument. Also, you obviously do not know the history of how the industrialized/commercial areas within the new city of Rancho and those parts still within the County came into being. It was zoned decades ago when it was ‘far away” from residential areas. Slamming Rancho now is a pathetic argument. Their current development path is to provide residential areas the same as Folsom.

Also, try giving yourself a local geography lesson in the relationship between RC and the vast amounts of land they have left to develop (without a current water source to even develop those areas), County land, Aerojet (particularly the remaining superfund site) and the Folsom SOI area. Trying to scare Folsom residents into “building it first” before RC gets to it doesn’t wash.

The fact is, it is ONLY Folsom that wants to develop it. Even though well over 70% of Folsom residents are against it (City’s own polls), they refuse to fully address the issues of traffic and smog, and refuse to enter into a discussion with Folsom residents regarding the primary question I stated above. Do residents want to expand our City?

Wow. You should go to some of those meetings. Bob I do have a question for you. You mentioned that as of now the land is zoned as agricultural. Others have mentioned toxic issues that have/or are a danger to residents. They go on to say there is a general clean up scheduled.
Do you you if that is true--a clean up?

Also- How hard would it be to change a zoning from agricultural to non invasive park lands?
I think that A) if it's true there is a toxic history on that land that after it is cleaned up--we should allow mother nature to care for it for say 50 years. BTW-by non invasive I mean no sidewalks-buildings-bike paths, etc.

B) as much as I agree that the hwy 50 corridor is becoming a pollutant that seriously we can not afford to continue ignoring-we also have to consider the impact of not expanding.

I seriously think we should double decker the freeway-one level going one direction, etc.


Further, when speaking about adding land into the city--people start asking questions. Pushing this development is adding fuel to the fire.
A) who is pushing folsom to develop this land
B) In what regards are they related to someone with special interest related to the development of this land?

Can the city really justify developing this land? How is this going to impact residents of Folsom?

[Robert Giacometti]

If you look at the type of land that should be developed for homes and businesses, I think this is prime. Limited farming value (soil conditions are very poor), adjacent to major transportation routes, connecting to other development. I would rather this type of area be developed than more prime farmland in the valley taken out of production, or more development in the floodplane. But I sure hate to loose the open space. I agree with the smog issue. All of the dirty air generated by Sacramento, Elk Grove, and other valley communities get pushed up to the foothills and stack up right on our doorstep. I never see this adressed in anyones environmental document.

Anyway i live in Broadstone and not happy with traffic now, once the mall is in problems will double in our area, once SOI area is developed it may be time to buy a scooter to get to the store.

Petro, you make some very good points here and I agree with what you are saying. To expand on your thoughts it seems logical to me we as a region should follow our plan and only develop land within the Urban Services Boundary (USB).

After that land is completely developed then and only then should we as a region look to expand the USB by choosing the best area to allow growth to occur, which vary well may be S50.

IMO, there is no need to develop that land now, until the already existing designated land within the USB is completely developed! If Folsom wants to be true partners in the region we need to wait our turn!

[cw68]

I seriously think we should double decker the freeway-one level going one direction, etc.

I think we need to look at ways to reduce the car traffic. If we build twenty lanes, that will just act as a catalyst for more sprawl. If you think we have smog, and other environmental issues now, just wait! See http://www.sacbike.o...r.php3?L_ID=378 for a good overview of Highway 50 problems and suggestions for correction.

My personal preference for SOI, should it get developed, would be as a smart community/New Urbanist community. These types of communities make sense for more than just the developer, which is pretty much what we get now. Most are very environmentally focused, they are community focused, they calm and reduce traffic and something like this would be a huge perk for Folsom. They are just smart!

If you're not sure what a smart community is, here's some info.

http://www.middleton...com/ehi/mhills/

Middleton Hills is a neighborhood for the present, designed with a sense for the past. The qualities of small town life will include friendly streets, houses with front porches, generous parks and open space, and a pedestrian oriented commercial center with shops and offices.

Some of the unique features are:

* Short setbacks, front porches: Smaller lots result in closer configurations and counter the sense of land waste and isolation that typify modern development.
* Generous greenspace and open areas: Grouping of housing units on smaller lots permits forty acres of undeveloped greenspace. The planners believe that a community's finest amenities should be enjoyed by all.
* Safer streets: Narrow streets that follow the topography of the land discourage speeding, and are therefore safer for pedestrians -- particularly children and the elderly -- to cross. They also encourage neighbor interaction. The criss-crossing of streets in a grid system provides more optional routes and less congestion than typical suburban thoroughfares.
* A range of housing prices: A range of housing will be encouraged, from smaller, more affordable cottages, apartments and townhomes to more spacious homes.
* Mixed use: In addition to a variety of residential units, Middleton Hills will offer commercial, retail and business space. Shops, all within an easy five minute walk or bike ride, will evolve to serve the needs of the neighborhood. For entrepreneurs or retirees with hobbies, the live/work units provide housing above a workspace.
* Harmonious architecture: A sense of design and proportion are critical to a sense of neighborhood. In Middleton Hills, the architectural codes will assure harmony through use of similar materials and an emphasis on midwestern architectural tradition, but will permit individual expressions and interpretations.
* A neighborhood covenant: Middleton Hills Neighborhood Association, comprised of all the owners in Middleton Hills, will oversee protection of the neighborhood through neighborhood covenants.
* And so much more: An added bonus for Middleton Hills is its physical setting: its proximity to the city center of Middleton, the urban advantages of Madison, the academic and athletic resources of the University of Wisconsin, and the natural beauty of lakes, hills and woods.


http://www.prairiecr...site/index.html

Prairie Crossing is a "conservation community" located 40 miles northwest of Chicago, and an hour south of Milwaukee, in the town of Grayslake, Illinois. Based on a set of ten guiding principles*, the community strikes a balance between preserving the natural landscape, providing energy efficient homes of Midwestern vernacular, and presenting a variety of opportunities for resident involvement. While most development to date has concentrated on relatively low-density housing, higher-density homes are being built near the Metra train station, and plans are in the works for a mixed-use "Main Street."

Additionally, an onsite regional branch of Lake Forest Hospital is under construction. There is also a public charter school and a working 10-acre organic farm with revenues of over $90k per year. At this farm, residents can maintain a community garden plot or "subscribe" to receive a weekly basket of vegetables. Also housed in the original farm buildings is a community center and offices.

Out of the 677 acres, over 60% is permanent open space. Lot sizes range from 5000 to 23,000 square feet. Houses are designed for maximum energy efficiency and minimal construction waste. Ten miles of trails wind through a landscape of farm fields, pastures, lakes and ponds, native prairies and wetlands. Residents use them to walk, run, bike, ski, ride horseback, and watch the many species of birds, butterflies and other wildlife that are attracted to a healthy ecosystem and native landscaping. In addition, Prairie Crossing is linked by regional trails to the Liberty Prairie Reserve, over 3,200 acres of legally protected land.

California examples:
http://www.clarum.com/envirohome.html (Palo Alto)
http://www.smartcomm...s/village.shtml (Davis)
http://www.northcoast.com/%7Estartrak/ (Arcata)

More info: http://www.smartcomm...v/stories.shtml

*Environmental protection and enhancement, a healthy lifestyle, a sense of place, a sense of community, economic and racial diversity (though this hasn't been much of a reality, the houses are expensive compared to the surrounding neighborhoods), convenient and efficient transportation, energy conservation, lifelong learning and education, aesthetic design and high-quality construction, and economic viability.

[brown]

If you're not sure what a smart community is, here's some info.

http://www.middleton...com/ehi/mhills/

And several local examples are here:

http://www.sacregion...ovtFeatures.cfm

[cw68]

And several local examples are here:

http://www.sacregion...ovtFeatures.cfm

Thanks Brown!

[old soldier]

glad to see old Bob back on the air. thought this south of 50 push might bring him out of retirement. hey supermom, you joined after old bob sort of retired but he and Robert are two of our smartest posters and old Bob has got the handle on the south of 50 capers

you asked some good questions and if you listen to old Bob you will get the picture. You can be like the grasshopper on Kung Fu. You have a good energy level and will probably get all rared up about whats going on.

the folks got it right about there is no need to rush out and develop land outside that boundary...except when you think about the land speculators who will make loads and loads of money once the land gets moved into the city. they want to make a bunch of money and don't much care about traffic, polution or water.

Old Bob and his troops a couple of years ago wanted to have the citizens vote on what happens over there and had a petition signed by a lot of citizens. the smart developer folks got a hot shot attorney and shot the citizen initiative out of the sky. the one that passed was a kind of tricky and called for just 30 percent open space. the citizen one was looking for more

bottom line is the fewer houses that get built over there the less traffic polution and fuss, but the fewer houses the less money the developer folks make. all the developer folks have to do is pllay a tune for the council to dance to and they don't have to worry much about citizens.

old folsom has grown and grown and lots of new people haven't figured out the politics yet. these folks live in empire ranch and other new places which are really going to get impacted with the extra traffic and they guy who thinks he might need a scooter is probably right

its kind of funny that the folks who will have the most negative impact are the ones not paying attention to what is happening. it was said somewhere on here that the city council never met a developer they didn't like. the other rule the new comers should listen too is in our elections it seems the candidate with the most and prettiest signs is the winner and the developer folks know how to get signs it seems for the folks they like.

welcome back bob, give em hell.

[brown]

"if we don't develop it, someone will."

Mike,

Please define "someone". You obviously do not understand land use laws. The SOI area is now zoned as agricultural. In fact, the County, who holds current jurisdiction, defines that land as “permanent” open space not subject to change. So how will “someone” develop it under the County’s jurisdiction?

Tsakopoulos owns a significant portion of the SOI, so it'll get developed. That's what he does - purchase large tracts of land, secure the entitlements, and sell it. And he's very, very effective at it.

[brown]

Others have mentioned toxic issues that have/or are a danger to residents. They go on to say there is a general clean up scheduled.
Do you you if that is true--a clean up?

The toxic issues pertain to the Aerojet Superfund site, which covers a small portion of the SOI. The groundwater cleanup is happening right now - Aerojet is under orders from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to clean up the groundwater at the site. A large-scale environmental investigation of the soil at the site is also ongoing at Aerojet; after all the data is collected and evaluated, several cleanup alternatives are evaluated and a preferred alternative is selected and implemented.

You can google 'Aerojet Superfund' to find all kinds of info.