95 replies to this topic

[Love Folsom]

Cyber - why should the land west of Prairie City Road be in Rancho Cordova? It is south of Folsom, just over the highway.

The Bee has an article today stating that not all of the Aerojet land was annexed into Rancho, as I thought. This is the piece of land I really think we should have a say on as it is so close to us and the closest to being developed. Rancho do have a SOI though. There was another article stating that El Dorado County is looking at an application for over 1,000 homes south of 50 at El Dorado Hills.

[zach5]

So is this aerojet land or land that belongs to a city or county

[dave]

the land belongs to aerojet (Gen Corp) and is in the county of Sacramento, not in any city (yet)

[zach5]

Anyone know how far along the plans are for the development over there?

[Andy_Morin]

Some of the Aerojet property, up to just west of Hazel is in the City of Rancho Cordova. Aerojet’s brand new Easton development proposal which encompasses 1400 acres on a band of property just south of highway 50 between Hazel and Prairie City Road is currently unincorporated county area. This plan is probably at best 2 years from commencement.

Here is a nice link to a map for all of you south of highway 50 aficionados.

http://www.saclafco....om-Area-SOI.pdf

Also more info on the Sphere of Influence Area(SOI).

http://www.saclafco....tion/index.html

During the next few months the city will be conducting a cost analysis of impacts of annexation of the Aerojet proposal area. As this discussion has clearly determined, this is an issue of cost vs control. Stay tuned.

[cybertrano]

Thanx Andy

[tessieca]

It is my understanding that Easton is an SF firm that failed to request information and input from surrounding jurisdictions; i.e., Cities of Rancho Cordova and Folsom and Folsom Cordova Unif. School District. I like the appearance of a "buffer" and lots of open space along the highway corridor. I like their plan to put in infrastructure in advance, such as light rail or other transportation. I like the lower density of housing. I don't like that even Gencorp, who has been in the area awhile, failed to concern themselves with getting input from the people who will be directly affected by any new development. The county's planners apparently feel no need to let surrounding jurisdictions know what's going on either. (Or, maybe our city knew but didn't mention it to the public). 3800 homes will create the need for an elementary school, an additional middle school, and 1/3 of a high school. The land is located in the Rancho Cordova school facilities improvement district (SFID#1), so school bonds, if needed in that area, would be passed in RC.

[Candy Apple]

I don't blame you for being upset Tessieca!

[Love Folsom]

This is exactly why I worry about any of the land south of 50 being under Sac.County control. I feel Folsom should have a say and the only way I think that is possible is if we have SOI or even annex it.

[Stephen]

Already we have big traffic problems, poor air quality, water quality issues, noise, on-going sewage problems, impacted (or nearly so) schools.... yet the "smart growth" buzz words are being tossed around for this possible development south of 50.

It seems that Folsom already has a taxed infrastructure, and has a lot of catching-up to support our current size. I'm not making an anti-growth statement. I am simply wondering if we are ready to undertake such a huge responsibility.

Has anyone been following the "Sibley closure" discussion? It seems like the residents in that area have not found our elected officials to be responsive. Do we have confidence in our City Council? Is the Council up to the task of managing intellilgent growth? -- Or will problems such as those in the Sibley/Historic District proliferate?

[intelkid]

I'd like to know how much of this "30% open space" is really "front yards and medians". That is one trick developers like to do and it is not going to fly if they try it again.

[cybertrano]

30% included the highway, underground tunnels dug by rodents, etc... , and of course the front and back yards.......

[tessieca]

The map was in the paper. The area along Alder Creek (much of which parallels the highway) is proposed to be open space. I never trust initial plans and pictures, though, because they always precede the sweet deals. I think the county requires 30% open space in developments, but I could be wrong. Bob Fish would know.

[malcontent]

Annexation is in the sights of our City Council. See Mayor's state-of-the-city speech on the City's website. It's now officially a position.

Thanks Andy--you're the first City Council (or staff, for that matter) to admit that annexation is being looked at. Usually we just get the same gibberish: there are no current plans...

Well, said Tessica. That's why the initiative is the only insurance residents have. Give City Council the power to "entitle" and the plan can morph into something hardly recognizable. All it takes is a few council meetings stretching into the wee hours of the night, a waiver here, a negative declaration there, and the mere residents don't have a clue what's happening until it's too late.

Don't be fooled with the requirements in the Memorandum of Understanding, which appears to set forth very good standars for development.

The annexation plan could meet ALL the requirements of the MOU----but once annexed, the plan can be changed, rezoning can occur and the MOU means absolutely nothing because it no longer exists.

If it must be developed, let's make sure it's done right.

[valdossjoyce]

Anyone wishing to volunteer to help with the initiative, please e-mail Bob Fish or me for details as to time and place of meetings.

Current schedule is to meet every other Monday evening, starting tonight. But that could change.

This initiative would give Folsom voters the choice to approve or disapprove any particular development plan to ensure that it conforms to the standards most everyone agrees are needed to preserve quality of life and prevent future financial burdens upon residents within our city.