95 replies to this topic

[tony]

Expressway from EDH to 99 is in the works, independent of any development that might make it less expressy. Do we really need to go S of 50 for world class restaurants? Wouldn't you rather have them in the heart of town? ast time I checked, there was an ever-growing list of high-quality restaurants in town. Hotels: there are 5 and a couple of B&Bs and at least two more in the works. Pbulic ampitheater would be nice and may be included in the RR Block redwevelopment (unless you are talking about a 20,000 seat one, which the city turned down several years ago. Concert hall, theatre, conservatory: yeah, sure they might be nice, but the new high school has a brand new theatre and the community college would be a logical place for either of the other two. And there's no point in putting elementary schools S of 50 unless you put a bunch of houses there first.

But onto the important stuff...now I've been called OLD!!! Wow! As Arlo Guthrie said in his classic anthem (yeah, now I'm proving I'm old!): "Youv'e got a lot of damn gall...." Way to jump to conclusions and add labels to people just because they disagree with you. For the record, by most standards, I'm an old resident now, having been here for almost 12 years. But I doubt the real old time Folsom residents would be inviting me into their club with that kind of tenure.

Progress does not require developing every last acre of open land within driving distance. Ever hear of sprawl? Ever been to LA?

So I repeat. Folsom has a General Plan that calls for a buildout poplulation of about 70,000 people. That's a nice, managable sized city, big enough to have most of the ammenities of a medium sized city, but small enough that you can still retain some of Folsom's small-town charm, like running into your city council members at random events, and actually having an opportunity to talk with them. Is there really any benefit to expanding the city beyond 70,000 people?

OLD!! My 3 year old son thinks I'm old, but he's 3. Fourteen times his age (almost) is pretty old to him, but he can't multiply by 14.

[john]

Fact: it's going to get developed sooner or later. Call it sprawl, call it whatever, but you can't stop change. You absolutely will not be able to stop development over there. You may be able to stall it for 5 or so years, but developers OWN the land. I would imagine they'll do whatever's in their power to turn a profit off it (and I'm sure they'll make a small mint).
It's going to get developed sooner or later, period.

I'd much rather see it done in an organized fashion. I don't think it has to be done by the City of Folsom, but I certainly don't want to be done by the county. I wouldn't lose too much sleep if Rancho Cordova annexed it; now that they have cityhood, it can be done by them too, IMO.

I definitely think a major artery to 99 is long overdue. I hope it really is coming and not just a bunch of talk. I want to see bulldozers out there, doing it now, before there's miles of tract homes.

[melloguy]

Speculate = to engage in any business practice involving considerable risk for the chance of large gains.

When the developers purchased the land south of 50, they were speculating that it would be rezoned to fit their needs. In the last decade or so, there has been little risk to the developers in getting land rezoned - Western Placer and El Dorado Counties and the fringes of Sacramento County have had their arms wide open to the money developers bring. Passing an initiative to give the current residents a say in what is developed returns some of the risk to this speculation. So, no, just because the developers own the land and are speculating it will be rezoned does not mean that it a foregone conclusion it will be developed.

Is development a bad thing? Not necessarily. However, when it is done without consideration to current infrastructure limitations, such as the inability of current roadways to handle current traffic much less any additional traffic from new development, it can cause headaches where there were none before.

Is passing an initiative to give the citizens a stronger voice in what happens south of 50 a bad thing? I'd love to see the final version of the proposed initiative before making any decisions on that. One of the questions you should ask yourself when reviewing the initiative is whether you trust the residents on the City Council to make decisions regarding the development of this land that are best for the citizens of Folsom, not just the ones that are best for the developers.

[EDF]

I for one do not trust the city council to do the right thing... you only have to look at the past history...

This development is going to be "staff driven" and the council will just rubber stamp it...

This is all about "definitions"...

Open space... what we mean is "open space"... not front yards.. not golf courses and not parks... open space... they are supposed to leave 30% of it in its "natural state"...

Then on top of the 30% open space... we want parks... schools... maybe a nice golf course... nice front yards... but you watch.. they will try and do again what they did in Empire Ranch...

[zach5]

Whos the developer over there?

[Bob]

Forum participants and readers,

I have enjoyed the latest round of posts for several reasons. Foremost, it shows that there is a high degree of interest in what may or may not happen south of 50. (There have been over 600 views of this topic in just the past few weeks). Second, there have been many reasonable arguments for and against our initiative, and they have all been pretty civil.

However, I believe that some are missing the point of our initiative. Its focus is not whether development should or should not occur. Its focus is:

Should Folsom residents have a direct vote on what is going to happen or not happen south of 50?

The most adamant objectors to the initiative seem to be Vanderveen, John and Love Folsom. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe they may not have read or understood the initiative (see earlier post of initiative provisions). It is apparent that they strongly believe that development will and should occur south of 50. Here are some of their comments:

“Our best choice is to demand that when development occurs, it is of the kind and quality we desire.”
“Sacramento county will build on it sooner or later.”
“….there is a vast area to the south that should and must be developed.”
“The "Sacrametropolis" is busting at the seams, and developing south of 50 is one way to allieviate some of the pressure.”
“South of 50 will get developed someday... it's inevitable.”

I challenge all of you to read the initiative and provide us with your opinion. Particularly, why would you be against it? If you adamantly believe that development will occur and development will be good for Folsom, would you not want to have the direct control that this initiative will provide? One of you had posted an analogy regarding development (I can’t find it now, so will paraphrase) “We should jump on development like a bull and ride it to where we want it to go!” Cute, and much more realistic an analogy than the writer may have realized, though not regarding the point he was trying to make.

Last time I saw a rodeo, the cowboy (residents of Folsom) was not very successful in getting the bull (developers) to go in the direction they wanted to go. It was quite obvious that the bull (developers) was trying to do everything possible to shake the cowboy (Folsom residents) off it’s back.

With the initiative, the bull (developers) would have no choice but to follow the chute that the cowboy (Folsom residents) directed it through.

Which cowboy do you want to be, the one holding on for dear life hoping things will turn out OK, or the one who is actually controlling the bull?

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Planning

[Bob]

In response to Zach5,

The only “developers” currently south of 50 is Aerojet. All other land is simply owned by ranchers or land speculators. I will explain.

First, envision a line running south from Highway 50 down Prairie City Road, adjacent to the eastern boarder of Aerojet. It continues south past White Rock Road a considerable distance, and then it starts to swing to the west toward Elk Grove. It continues south of Elk Grove to the Sacramento River.

This line is the Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary (USB) and was established in 1992. According to the county General Plan, all land outside of the USB (all land to the east including our Sphere of Influence Area (SOIA) – see below – and south) is zoned as “Permanent Open Space, not subject to change.

The county allows development inside this boundary (a recent reevaluation by the county has established that there remains enough undeveloped land inside the USB to last 70 years) and prohibits it outside of the boundary in areas like our SOIA.

The three areas of land below revolve around the issue of the USB.

The land south of 50 should be divided into three areas for our discussions.
1. The Sphere of Influence Area (SOIA) – This land is OUTSIDE of the USB.
It is 3,584 acres directly south of the eastern part of Folsom. It is bordered by Hwy 50 to the north, White Rock Road to the south, Prairie City Road to the west and extends to the County line to the east.

The major landowners are the Finn Family (who are cattle ranchers and own about 1,000 acres in the SOIA), Tsakopoulos (long time county speculator who recently purchased about 900 acres in the SOIA), and Aerojet (who owns 880 acres of “blast buffer land” in the SOIA, but has recently entered the realm of land speculator in that there).

However, they all have one thing in common, zoning. They are all zoned as Agricultural / Open Space by the county of Sacramento, and since they are outside the USB, it is unlikely that the County would approve rezoning for development. In a nutshell, it means that they do not have the “right” to develop. So this is not a land rights issue as they are all currently using their land to the “highest and best use” of its’ zoning – cattle ranching.

2. Land even further south of the SOIA (south of White Rock Road) - This land is also OUTSIDE of the USB. It is about 11,000 acres in size and extends to Rancho Murrieta.

There are many landowners. Unfortunately, per a recent article in the Sacramento Business Journal, over 70% of that land is now owned or optioned by land speculators. However, this is not an immediate concern. For those of you who have been here for more than two years, you should recall Measure ‘O’ regarding about 4,000 acres of Oak woodland just north of Rancho Murrieta. The owner/land speculator CC Myers tried to convince the County to rezone his land for development. They said no. He then spent about $3million of his own money to get an initiative before the voters to try and convince them that development should b allowed there. Voters handed him a huge and resounding loss with 70% against development.

What does this tell us? In the face of considerable money and clout wielded by the speculator, both the County Board of Supervisors and County voters stuck to their (our) regional growth plan as defined by the USB. Folsom voters were in line with the rest of the county also coming in at 70% against that development.

As with the SOIA, all of that land is zoned as Agricultural / Open Space by the county of Sacramento, and since they are outside the USB, it is unlikely that the County would approve rezoning for development. In a nutshell, it means that they do not have the “right” to develop. So this area also is not a land rights issue as they are all currently using their land to the “highest and best use” of its’ zoning – cattle ranching.

3. Land west of Prairie City Road, essentially Aerojet – This land is WITHIN the USB. It is about 14,000 acres in size and extends White Rock Road and Grant Line to the South, and nearly to Sunrise Boulevard to the west.

This is a complicated area to explain. All of this land had been zoned as industrial by the County and most of it remains as a Superfund site where little, other than continued Aerojet operations, can be done with it. However, There are two other categories of land owned by Aerojet. Land that was never in the Superfund site (of which 1,100 acres near Sunrise Boulevard was sold to Elliot homes for development) and an additional 2,600 acres called the “carve out” that Aerojet recently was able to have removed from the superfund site (essentially land adjacent to Highway 50 and along the sunrise corridor.)

Of these areas, it is this “carve out” land that Folsom residents should be most concerned with. It is directly adjacent to Folsom and includes the Oak forest along Alder Creek that you see to the south as you drive on Hwy 50 between Folsom Blvd and Prairie City Road.

Unlike the other two areas of land above, Aerojet does have some entitlements to develop and it is within the USB. Our initiative acknowledges this by providing some exception to requiring a vote by residents if certain agreements are made, such as preserving the Alder Creek Oak forest, and modifying their water contract with the City of Folsom to return much of it to the City for use on this side of 50.



That is a pretty rough summary of the land involved. I can provide considerable more detail but some maps and aerial photos I have would be worth far more to the understanding of the issue.

Webmaster John, can you show me how I can post these?

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Planning

[folsomBlondie]

Thanks Bob. You are doing a great job for caring of Folsom.

[Terry]

Looks like development is coming via Sac County.

http://www.bizjourna...19/daily13.html

[cybertrano]

.............Called Easton and touted as an example of "smart growth" principles , GenCorp's project site is close to growth hot spots: adjacent to Highway 50 between Rancho Cordova and Folsom, from Hazel Avenue eastward to Prairie City Road and south of Highway 50 and Folsom Boulevard.............

1. Smart growth - the main word. The land belongs to GenCorp so it looks like the company will have more control over the development. That's good I assume.

2. Is this area part of Rancho Cordova or Folsom?

3. We can not use this development to say that - if they do it we do it too attitude.

[Terry]

Aerojet property is part of Rancho Cordova. When Aerojet came to town in the late 50s, Rancho was the thriving community with its airbase and new homes and such. Folsom was still just a sleepy little prison town with nothing to offer. Schools in Rancho were much better and there was more to do there for adults and kids. My, how things have changed!

[Chad Vander Veen]

GREAT! I read that article this morning. If this area refuses to build up instead of out, then we better start using the land that is available. All you people that protest this expansion, do you want more and more and more houses crammed into our cities? Are you willing to allow developers to build highrise condos? If you answer no to both, then by default you must endorse expanding our cities. We can't just stop people from coming here, as much as you'd like to remain a "small town".

[Love Folsom]

Terry
I may be wrong but I don't think all of Aeorject is in the City of Rancho Cordova. I think part of it is in Sac County.

[Candy Apple]

You are right Terry. Bob Fish has accurate maps he said he could post on the FF.

[cybertrano]

If it's in Sac County then it should be part of Rancho Cordova.