34 replies to this topic

[caligirlz]

I received a packet of info on my doorstep detailing the concerns. For more info contact talusridge@sbcgloal.net

 

I finally found the facebook page. https://www.facebook...hc_location=ufi

[maestro]

http://www.bizjourna...nts-folsom.html

 

HELLO, THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO REZONED THE 20 ACRES OF CITY LAND ON LEIDESDORFF --  FOR "MIXED USE ZONE."      Not what the HD Plan nor General Plan intends to happen.

 

Thinking this HUGE APARTMENTS on Cavitt was a July  2015 article, I checked 3 things:

1.   Article which Ben Van Der Meer calls "HUGE" projects/buildings for market rate apartments.

2.   Folsom General Plan Map on www.folsom.ca.us   website:    the city has the 1988  -- yup, 1988 General Plan Map posted.    It show Industrial for the land in question.

3.   Folsom "Zoning Map."     Somehow or other, "SP"   specific plan was put on all the properties "SP  95-1".

 

NO WATER, NO sewer pipes, NO General Plan:

For the record, these apartments will be disaster in terms of NO water, NO sewer pipes, crowded roads, etc.    More than that, our state laws mandate all cities must obey their General Plan for development.    Folsom passed a law ORDINANCE 1183, in which the council claimed they are SUPERIOR to state law -- and the General Plan is NOT the ruling document.

Moreover, the city council directs the Development Director to alter the zoning on the "zoning map" at will.         Whoever brought this old topic to light, I wonder what is happening with this "secretly rezoned" and entitled HUGE apartment project of 400 or 500 market rate units. and very little parking onsite.

 

W. LEIDESDORFF SECRETLY REZONED, and Grant money spent for MIXED USE ZONE.

 

Who cares?     My lakeside neighbors are still reeling from the city secretly rezoning the 20 acres of city Industrial Zone land down on Leidesdorff --  next to CA State Park.       That's on the council agenda for next week.      Council is accepting a $100,000 SACOG grant to pay an outside planner to develop a plan of "Mixed Use Zone" usage for the 20 acres.  

 

The Folsom Historic District Plan & Guidelines, DO NOT SHOW this as "Mixed Use Zone" which is a brand new zone of multi-family residential and Commercial.     Even the Zone Map did not show it Multi-family dense residential combined with Commercial.

 

Hey, this is PUBLIC-owned land!!!

 

.

[ducky]

Lots of infill happening.  The house at 1000 E. Natoma Street (the one to the right of the Folsom Point road) is on the market saying it can be rezoned to high-density residential.

[Carl G]

I wonder how much of the high density push is due to the desirability of living in Folsom and the fact we don't have much land left?  Will South of 50 ease the push for high density or is this just natural for a town as they max out the land?

[kcrides99]

The property appears to have been designated residential high density for some time, so I don't think it's a new push.

Always check the zoning around your property before you buy...

As for the gridlock, the apartment will be a drop in the bucket compared to south 50.... And given the zoning has been around the road SHOULD have been designed knowing that the density would be coming

[FolsomEJ]

It was zoned this way, with plans filed at the city for over 5 years.  We passed on a home in Empire Ranch that would have a backyard facing this direction for this very reason.

 

We did our research and contacted the city to find out.  I'm sure that many people would not know to do that.

[Robert Gary]

I wonder how much of the high density push is due to the desirability of living in Folsom and the fact we don't have much land left?  Will South of 50 ease the push for high density or is this just natural for a town as they max out the land?

 

I believe the ratio of high density housing is a requirement by both the state and a leftist legal group with whom the city signed a legal settlement with a few years back to ensure more high density/affordable housing.

 

-Robert

 

Hey, this is PUBLIC-owned land!!!

 

 

Are you sure? Which "public"? City, state, feds,????

 

-Robert

[kcrides99]

The state requires City's to accommodate for growth. They have to demonstrate they have land that can accommodate affordable housing (typically 20 to 30 Units per acre). The City is not required to build housing but has to have land available to allow for it.

 

They also get credit for building deed restricted affordable housing, but ensuring there is land available is cheaper and easier.

 

 

To be honest this is probably one of the best places the City can put higher density housing. This is close proximity to retail/grocery/etc., the infrastructure is in place, it has access to the freeway, etc.... And as always, be careful what you wish for... if it doesn't become housing, it could be rezoned to commercial... traffic would REALLLY be a nightmare then!

[maestro]

While few post comments, there are thousands of views.

Probably most of those viewers are wondering when the city council permanent four members will be forced to obey the CA state laws mandating all agencies to have a  development plan.

 

A General Plan, written after Public Hearings, held at LEAST every 7 years, is the mandatory state document.  

Folsom disobeyed the 7 year law, and finally last year passed an Ordinance saying Folsom's council says they are above the laws.    The heck with General Plan observances, and actual engineering.

Bet most viewers are waiting for boots to drop on the appropriate law-defying necks.

 

This is NOT about anything except the legal mandates for ORGANIZED, SUSTAINABLE growth, development, public infrastructure and enough WATER........

 

 

 

.

[Sandman]

The state requires City's to accommodate for growth. They have to demonstrate they have land that can accommodate affordable housing (typically 20 to 30 Units per acre). The City is not required to build housing but has to have land available to allow for it.

 

They also get credit for building deed restricted affordable housing, but ensuring there is land available is cheaper and easier.

 

 

To be honest this is probably one of the best places the City can put higher density housing. This is close proximity to retail/grocery/etc., the infrastructure is in place, it has access to the freeway, etc.... And as always, be careful what you wish for... if it doesn't become housing, it could be rezoned to commercial... traffic would REALLLY be a nightmare then!

 

1) Horrible and already congested access to freeway

2) I can't see commercial having more traffic than the current proposed parking for 600+ cars.  Were talking about 4 stories here...

 

I really don't have much issue with the proposed housing other than the overreaching size of it.  2-3 stories and scaled down somewhat would be acceptable to most everyone I imagine.

[2 Aces]

wondering when the city council permanent four members will be forced to obey the CA state laws

Come on, maestro, be serious. If we can have a President decide which laws he's going to obey, then we certainly can have that attitude trickle down to state and local govts. Right?

We seem to have a semi-rogue City Council on several issues. And their attitude is, "what are ya gonna do about it?". Remember, WE are here to serve THEM. Vote 'em out next time. Let's get some decent citizens in there for a change.

[caligirlz]

Apparently the planning commission (led by a call from Ernie Sheldon) voted to deny the application for the proposed development of 33 high density houses on Silberhorn Dr by Parker Development after 2 hours of public comment by Lexington Hills, the Parkway & other residents. It was also recommended that the city council not approve the development. 

 

The residents near Broadstone & Cavitt are not anti-growth, just smart growth. 

 

The next planning commission meeting is Aug 19. 

See the FB page for further details.

[Robert Gary]

Apparently the planning commission (led by a call from Ernie Sheldon) voted to deny the application for the proposed development of 33 high density houses on Silberhorn Dr by Parker Development after 2 hours of public comment by Lexington Hills, the Parkway & other residents. It was also recommended that the city council not approve the development. 

 

The residents near Broadstone & Cavitt are not anti-growth, just smart growth. 

 

The next planning commission meeting is Aug 19. 

See the FB page for further details.

 

Yes, fingers crossed on the Siblerhorn project. To be clear that area is already zoned for development and will be built up either way. The issue was the density of housing, single family homes vs high density. Unfortunately I think a lot of us assumed this was part of the preserve and will be sad to see the trees, etc torn down, especially the nice path the bike trail runs through.

 

-Robert

[nomad]

I especially like how their "Proposed Development" sign keeps getting painted over with messages like "Don't build here" and "Conserve."

[ducky]

The property appears to have been designated residential high density for some time, so I don't think it's a new push.

Always check the zoning around your property before you buy...

As for the gridlock, the apartment will be a drop in the bucket compared to south 50.... And given the zoning has been around the road SHOULD have been designed knowing that the density would be coming

 

 

I found that it was zoned Residential, Multi-Family (RM), not Residential Multi-Family High Density (Table 39), but it does say that RM zoning allows for 4 stories.  

Residential Multi-Family High Density shows "n/a" for how many stories tall it can be.

 

As for "Always check the zoning around your property before you buy...," I agree, except, as Caligirlz' post shows, that's not even a sure thing because the city rezones all the time.