Steve-these are my questions after going to meeting tonight.
I don't have all of the answers, but I'll do my best based on what I've heard, seen, and read. 1. Why only 2 fire stations? Seems that with the amount of wooded area being set aside-the density of housing beside thses areas-it would make sense to worry about even 1 pyro living in folsom.
I don't what standard is used for determining the number of fire stations, but would guess that it is based on the size of the development and to the proximity to other stations. For example, the Clarksville Rd station is very close to the area to be developed. 2. Where in that pretty map is there a zoning for industrial growth? 20 years after the developement- how else will the area sustain itself if it is only a bedroom community?
Most would be in the northern area along the freeway according to past presentations as well as the one last night. There will be a mix of business types, including office and retail. 3. I am interest in the projected types of parks. Dog park? Tennis courts? Baseball,softball bike and skateboard parks? Water features?
That will come, I believe, after land use is approved and they move on to the master plan. 4. I find it odd they put the middle and highschool oon the outer edge of the soi. Why? Will those students share the highschool with a different community?.
I don't know. There was a great deal of conversation that mentioned LAFCO. What does lafco mean?
See Harmill's post aboveThe two main throughfares to run east and west-planned 4 lane roads....I would like to see wide (20 foot) islands in the middle. Tree lined. Planners seem to be focusing on parks as the only green havens in the community. It is always nice to have a greenbelt drive as part of your commute.
I agree, hope and believe that the city will continue doing the great job they've done with areas such as Oak Ave Parkway and Empire Ranch Rd. Final designs are a ways off, however.Also, the city community area seems rather vague. My understaning is that there is a wish to move the pd headquarters out of the building it is in now- and move to the soi area.
I haven't heard that one. I think it's a good idea keeping it next to city hall.Also-won't a whole new area need a library?
Yes, and that was mentioned as part of the plan last night. Wouldn't it be nice to nix the planned mall and get a convention center with a proper dance and drama consortium added to the city? (I would love to not have to drive to downtown sac to see balllet.
I think the new performing arts center at Folsom Lake College will help with that, as well as the amphitheater on Sutter and the new entertainment plans in the SOI. By the way, did you know that we have a Folsom Civic Ballet? http://www.stages-pe...rts.org/ballet/As for city enhancements-this would be a great time to add a tripple a ball field to our cities sight seeing lists..
One other point I must share. There are several examples of South of 50 new development that may or may not be good examples of what to do - Capitol Center on Zinfandel, and Anatolia on S. Sunrise. I know that when Anatolia was built the homeowners were promised shopping and services that did not initially materialize and they faced long drives to Folsom Blvd, or Folsom itself to run errands. Capitol Center has attempted some higher-density housing and retail. What can be learned from those?
That was mentioned last night as well, as examples of what not to do.
"It's not like anyone could stop it. It's going to happen sometime."
The annexation application is going according to the city council's plan. When the economy is suitable, development will start. Everything is legally in place. Not only will it be too late to do anything later, it is already too late now.
Oh, as for why the city wants more development, city government feeds off of development fees. Rapid growth of our existing city boundaries kept city hall filled with employees and funded city services that should have been paid for by past developments. Funding has never kept pace with community needs. Hence, the hunger for new development.
In last night's presentation, the mayor mentioned that there were projections for 10 million new Californians over the next 20 years (forgive me if I'm messing up the numbers), and that the state wants all communities to accomodate growth. We cannot wall off the city.
The county says they have no plans for developing the area, but when the demand for housing and industrial space grows, they may change their minds. That's why it is important for us to control it rather than other jurisdictions.
Development is years off, but by setting the stage now, when the economy comes back, and it will, we'll be ahead of the curve instead of just getting the ball rolling.
I know that Rancho and Sac Co have said they aren't interested in the area, but they can change their minds.
I am not pro-development of the area and would love to see it stay as it is, but if it does get developed, I'd like to know that it is done right.
PS. Welcome back Val. We haven't seen you around in a while.
