95 replies to this topic

[valdossjoyce]

[B]The Folsom Initiative group is meeting tonight, Monday Nov. 10th, at 6:30 pm at Round Table Pizza (located next door to Kinko's on Riley St.) If you care about development south of 50, be there.

[cybertrano]

QUOTE (valdossjoyce @ Nov 10 2003, 01:47 PM)

[B]The Folsom Initiative group is meeting tonight, Monday Nov. 10th, at 6:30 pm at Round Table Pizza (located next door to Kinko's on Riley St.) If you care about development south of 50, be there.

I called David and left a message for him. Let us know how the meeting goes.

[Candy Apple]

Val-----

Some of us cannot drive at night so keep us posted. I will be glad to hand out flyers in my area and will help with someone I know at a table. I know you, EDF, Camay, Cyber----oops! excuse me----Blondie, etc. all of whom I met at the summer get-together. I am not good at walking or standing long. Let me know! Send me an e-mail.

[Bob]

It’s time to pick up on this thread where we left off. Much has happened in the past two months. We have reached some intermediate goals of establishing a regular committee, begin fund raising, establish a wide array of regional support, and strengthen the initiative language (see below).

Our schedule is now to have the initiative before the voters of Folsom at the November 2004 regular election. Sounds far away, but there is much to be done by then. To qualify the initiative, we must have about 4,000 signatures collected by May for submittal to the City for verification. Although we do not intend to begin collecting until the spring, we must organize and be prepared with both an education campaign and for the signature collection.

If you believe in following the County General Plan and preserve land south of 50 as open space, and believe that if the City of Folsom does end up controlling that land (by annexing it from the County) that you, the residents and voters of Folsom, should have direct control over the future of that land, PLEASE SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS. We need concerned residents who can spare some time, weather it is one hour a day or one hour a week, to join our committee in whatever capacity you can.

Regards,
Bob Fish
983-2410


OUR NEXT MEETING IS:

This Monday, January 12th
At Round Table Pizza on Riley St. (next to Kinko’s, across the street from the aquatic center)
At 6:30 pm

Come to help, or just come to listen and learn, all are invited.


INITIATIVE TEXT:

The following is the preliminary abbreviated text of the initiative. The full final text will be made available as soon as our esteemed attorney’s give us the go ahead. LIKE IT? HATE IT? CONFUSED BY IT? Please read and comment. The more comments and question we receive, the better.



The City of Folsom General Plan shall be amended to incorporate the following:

1. Zoning:
a. The zoning and/or pre-zoning, by the City of Folsom, of any land south of U.S. Highway 50 which could be annexed to the City, must remain as currently zoned by the County of Sacramento. Essentially:
· Agricultural Reserve (A-1-A) for land outside of the County Urban Services Boundary (essentially east of Prairie City Road).
· Industrial / Commercial or Natural Preserve for land within the County Urban Services Boundary (essentially west of Prairie City Road, essentially Aerojet property).
b. Any change in zoning of any land south of the current City of Folsom boundaries annexed to the City or any pre-zoning within any area under the Sphere of Influence that is south of the current City of Folsom boundaries, shall first require a majority vote of the residents of the City of Folsom. The election is to be paid for by the developer.

2. Schools:
Any new development proposed on annexed property south of U.S. Highway 50, which may impact schools within the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District or its successors, shall pay the maximum amount allowed under the California Government Code. The City shall make every effort to bring the maximum amount to 100%. Before giving approval to any new development project, the City shall reserve or designate real property for proposed school sites pursuant to authority granted under the California Government Code.

3. Highway 50 and Local Roadways:
If properties located South of U.S. Highway 50 are annexed to the City of Folsom, the following shall apply:
The City of Folsom shall ensure that safe and efficient transportation and circulation facilities are provided for concurrently with new development. Road improvements must be in place prior to the completion of any development project.

Prior to any development project approval, the developer of any proposed project must pay for an independent traffic analysis covering the traffic impacts of the project on the entire City of Folsom including the portion of Highway 50 located within or adjacent to the City of Folsom, it’s Sphere of Influence(s), and any land to be annexed.

Developer-paid traffic impact fees shall fully pay for building all necessary road capacity improvements to fully offset and mitigate all direct and cumulative traffic impacts from new development upon any highways, arterial roads and their intersections during weekday, peak-hour periods.

Before giving approval to any new development project, the City shall make a finding that the project will allow the City to achieve a Level of Service C or better at all intersections, except for those intersections shown on Table 22-2, as of August 1, 2002. If this finding cannot be made, then the City shall not approve the project, or give final approval to a tentative subdivision map.

No development can directly or indirectly reduce the Level of Service below Level of Service “C,” except for the road segments and intersections shown on Tables 22-1 and 22-2, as of August 1, 2002.

Traffic from new development projects South of U.S. Highway 50 shall not result in, or worsen, Level of Service “F” (gridlock, stop-and-go) traffic congestion during weekday, peak-hour periods on any highway, road, interchange or intersection in the City of Folsom.


4. Water:
If properties located south of Highway 50 are annexed into the City of Folsom, and notwithstanding any other provisions set forth in this General Plan, approval of the use of existing City of Folsom water sources for new development within this area shall be by majority vote of the voters of the City of Folsom. The election is to be paid for by the developer.

5. Exclusions:
Aerojet property that is not within the boundaries of a superfund sight and is currently zoned by the County for development may be excluded from provision 1.b. and 3. above, provided the following conditions are met:
· 100% of the Alder creek riparian habitat, (essentially the oak forest along highway 50 between Folsom Blvd. and Prairie City), designated as Natural Preserve by the County of Sacramento, is permanently preserved as open space.
· Aerojet renegotiates their water contract with the City of Folsom to, as a minimum, immediately return 5,000 acre feet per year of water to the City. Provision 4 of this initiative shall also apply to all returned water.

[Chad Vander Veen]

We need to vote FOR development. Why build out all of our existing space? The land south of 50 is of little value to anyone at this time. This city has an incredible opportunity to develop INTELLIGENTLY. Don't be fooled by naysayers. Voice your opinions.

Can someone recap what the arguments are against development?

[Love Folsom]

C Vanderveen - how nice to hear and bit of sense on this subject. If anybody had the opportunity to see maps of projected development south of 50 they would see that the only bit left undeveloped would be our little sphere of influence. El Dorado County is building right up to the county line and way, way east of it. Rancho Cordova is advancing from the other side. Aerojet have to throw their hat in somewhere. They have a choice to go with Rancho or Sacramento county. Remember that land comes all the way to Prairie City. Of course if Folsom were more friendly they could come in with us and Folsom would have some say as to what goes on there. With developers already owning the land in the sphere of influence I can not see it being open space for long. And who benefits from it being open space - nobody but the owners have any access to it. I would far rather Folsom had control over the neighboring land and as C Vanderveen says - why build out what we have totally. If we miss this opportunity we will just become a suburb of some other City. Business will not be drawn here, we will stagnate. I love our vibrant growing city. Lets keep it that way.

[folsomBlondie]

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ Jan 13 2004, 08:18 AM)

We need to vote FOR development. Why build out all of our existing space? The land south of 50 is of little value to anyone at this time. This city has an incredible opportunity to develop INTELLIGENTLY. Don't be fooled by naysayers. Voice your opinions. Can someone recap what the arguments are against development?

1. Chad - you mentioned the word INTELLEGENTLY, which currently is not the case with our city development. It's out of control.

2. This issue is about the old residences vs. the new..... I think.

[tessieca]

Don't forget the trees and the lack of infrastructure (water, sewer, schools). At least in El Dorado, they were not taking out zillions of trees to build. It was open, open space there.

[Love Folsom]

That is why folsom needs to take control. We can dictate that the trees remain, what infrastructure needs to be provided. I can not see the 'faces' at Sacramento county being so concerned about what happens to a few acres (relatively) on their borders. We will have to live with it - not them. We have to look at how we want the land developed and stop bickering about 'no developement' - it will be developed no matter what anybody does about it.

[folsomBlondie]

Love Folsom - you got a good point there.

The deal is we, as the residents who live in Folsom, have no control over how all the lands have been developed. It is under the control of the Folsom city government and THEIR developers.

If we vote to have the land south of 50 giving to the city and THEIR gangs for development, what make you think they will develop it according to OUR needs?

[tony]

C Vanderveen says:

QUOTE

Why build out all of our existing space? The land south of 50 is of little value to anyone at this time.

All of our existing space WILL be built out. It's in the General Plan. South of 50 is not an alternative place to develop, it's the next place to develop after everything to the north is developed.

Folsom currently does have a say (although not the final say) via the sphere of influence. The county has consistently resisted attempts to allow development in this area, which is outside the limits of the county's urban services boundary. That's why CC Meyers had to go the initiative route to try to get Dear Creek Hills developed, and failed miserably. That property is now protected open space, and is accessible to the public, with some restrictions.

To those who think south fo 50 should be developed, my question is why? What good would it do for current Folsom residents? What could possibly be built there that Folsom doesn't already have? It would add traffic to 50, not to mention city streets like E. Bidwell, Oak Ave. (potential interchange site) and Prairie City Rd. It would ultimately cost the taxpayers money as new development never covers the costs of services required to serve it. It would eliminate, or at best marginalize, some of the last and best Oak Woodlands in Sacramento County. It would add to our already top 10 in the nation (that's top 10 worst) air quality problems. It would put more pressure on our overloaded school system. So, why do it? Inevitability is a poor response, reflecting nothing more than impotence and distrust in our democratic system of government.

[Candy Apple]

Thank you Tont!!! I wholeheartedly agreeE

[Candy Apple]

Sorry about the typo TONY!

[Chad Vander Veen]

"To those who think south fo 50 should be developed, my question is why? What good would it do for current Folsom residents? What could possibly be built there that Folsom doesn't already have?"

Wow, you really think we have everything we could need already? How about we build a big city park there? How about we encourage a new expressway (which is in the early planning stages) to run from El Dorado county to 99? Perhaps some world class restaurants. Maybe some hotel rooms? Maybe a public amphitheater for the arts. A concert hall. A theater. A conservatory. Maybe a new elementary school.

I know a lot of the older residents here are happy with their little world and oppose change. But think of it this way: You can either be an obstacle in the path of progress and let it drag you through the mud or you can rope it, harness it, and ride it where you want to go.

Change is coming, regardless of how you feel about it. If you are an older person, why not make your voice heard so the new growth is positive for the next generation. If you just wish it not to happen, you will do yourself and the next round of Folsomites a disservice.

[john]

great insight, CV!