Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Proposed Apartment Complex/golf Links & East Natoma


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16 gbfolsom

gbfolsom

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM

The developer says they are redesigning the project to try and mitigate some neighborhood concerns - it remains to be seen if that will be minor tweaking or wholscale revisions. I am cautiously optimistic that something can be worked out but at this point the developer wants the nieghborhood to make all the concessions and the precedent is rather disconcerting for established neighborhoods all over the city. For the record, the only neighborhood opposition there has ever been to development of the site through three separate proposals now has been the number of stories in the buildings and the number of units exceeding 200 - that's it.

While the lot is partially 'below grade' to Golf Links at some spots, it's significantly 'above grade' to its neighbors on Smith. For those homes a three-story structure is closer to 4-5 stories. It's also not construction allowable under the current zoning; they are asking for special consideration to accomodate them.

There are lots of good reasons to have affordable senior housing, and for the most part, the neighborhood is supportive of the concept if they could keep it to two stories bu the developer refuses to consider anythign less than a three-story building. But from a planning perspective, it goes against existing policy and practice to build this way adjacent to one-story homes, and it goes against best practices to build senior housing over a mile and a half from stores and services - the project is locked into being someplace where only driving gets you places - that's not smart development for low-income seniors, that's a convenience only for land sellers and project developers. This project would be far better placed somewhere like Cavitt, which is undeveloepd, zoned, for the use, and adjacent to both shopping and medical services.

The project is also dependent on a conditional use permit, which is not something you would normally do for permanent construction like a three-story building where one isn't allowed by the existing zoning. If the use ends up being a problem, it's pretty hard to revoke the permit in such a case. with two additional condo projects already slated for the lot next door, this experiment in use could go wrong and the neighborhoosd will have to live with it.

I don't appreciate having to sound like a NIMBY, because I do care about my community and I'm willing to look at bigger pictures. I see value in such a prioject. But this is just a bad idea and I think it's a bit disingenuous as well since there are better sites in the city that don't require special treatment. And I'm afraid if the city can do this, it can do anything it wants with any piece of land in the city - that's not planning...it's the absence of planning.

I agree with everything you've said here. My concerns with traffic are that Golf Links is only a two-way street and is really the only logical way for most of us in ER and the Parkway to get to Highway 50 or anything on East Bidwell. You have the high school at one end, the elementary school at the other, and pedestrian and bike crossings that cars are supposed to yield to, but many do not. It already backs up significantly during certain times of the day and then it is next to impossible to turn left from any of adjoining streets onto Golf Links. Adding 200-300 potential residents (not counting their guests who come and go) will make it even worse. I foresee many accidents happening from people trying to turn out of that complex. That being said, I think a senior complex is far more desirable than anything else I can think of for that spot. I don't think it's an ideal spot for a senior who doesn't drive. Something will be developed there eventually. I just hope there is some compromise for those of us who live in direct sight of the property and for the many who regularly travel on Golf Links. I feel bad for those who live along Silberhorn because more people will now use that as a thoroughfare.

#17 andy

andy

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 05:10 PM

I agree with everything you've said here. My concerns with traffic are that Golf Links is only a two-way street and is really the only logical way for most of us in ER and the Parkway to get to Highway 50 or anything on East Bidwell. You have the high school at one end, the elementary school at the other, and pedestrian and bike crossings that cars are supposed to yield to, but many do not. It already backs up significantly during certain times of the day and then it is next to impossible to turn left from any of adjoining streets onto Golf Links. Adding 200-300 potential residents (not counting their guests who come and go) will make it even worse. I foresee many accidents happening from people trying to turn out of that complex. That being said, I think a senior complex is far more desirable than anything else I can think of for that spot. I don't think it's an ideal spot for a senior who doesn't drive. Something will be developed there eventually. I just hope there is some compromise for those of us who live in direct sight of the property and for the many who regularly travel on Golf Links. I feel bad for those who live along Silberhorn because more people will now use that as a thoroughfare.


Traffic is definitely going to be a problem - it wasn't my intention to minimize that issue. This is just a poor site choice, likely driven by a cost model for the developer and Elliott's desire to finally do something with a difficult site. But making that the neighborhood's problem in perpetuity is no solution.

#18 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 07:06 PM

I do work in many senior facilities, and I can't think of a single one where they are within walking distance of grocery stores (or many stores at all). Most larger ones have their own van that provides transportation for the residents for their various needs. ALL of the managed care have such a service. Often, residents have their own vehicles.
That said, I do think a more commercial setting would be appropriate for a 3 story building.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#19 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 19 April 2013 - 08:45 PM

Just passing along this Facebook page in case you want to sign a petition against a proposed three-story apartment complex being built on the corner of Golf Links and East Natoma (if link doesn't work search for Just Say No to Serenade at Empire Ranch) https://www.facebook...576223589056150


Sorry, can't get on your NIMBY bandwagon here. Can't stand Nimby's, never could. Usually the same ones preaching freedom, inclusion, diversity, and tolerance until somebody they don't approve of moves in next door. Don't turn us into Davis or Berkeley. Lots of rich progressives who feel they need to control the neighborhood and who moves in and how they live. Just a simple question, where do your 20 something year old children live when they move out....? Do they have to move to Fresno, Bakersfield, South Sac, Fairfield, Richmond, or Rancho to afford a crappy apartment somewhere...? If we don't build apartments where we can then where do they go...? Think about it. Be careful what you wish for. Chris

1A - 2A = -1A


#20 Barb J

Barb J

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:23 AM

Chris: you are missing the point. Most ER residents don't have a problem with the Senior Apartment complex, it is the sheer size and scope of the project that has us concerned. Lets cram as big of a building as we can to make more money, irregardless of future issues that will arise. When those people who bought directly behind the lot purchased their homes (I am not one of them btw), they did so with the disclosure that the lot was zoned for light commercial - a small strip mall with a coffee place, dry cleaners etc. Now the city is going to change it to a massive three story apartment complex for seniors? And they dont have to go theough the rezoning process??? hmmmm.

No one opposed the Alzheimer's facility on Natoma and golf Links because it is a one story beautiful building that fits in with the neighborhood. The proposed apartment complex does not. I would not oppose a two story scaled down complex. They are eventually going to need to do something about traffic on golf links I'd they do build this facility. We already have had a child hit by a car at Golf links and Silberhorn. I can't imagine how bad it will be if there is a three story complex added.

#21 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:04 AM

When there was outcries against a three-story condo development proposed in old town right in a residential area, no one in east Folsom said a word. It's hard for those who have been ignored previously to show a lot of support when the same support was not shown in the past. I think that is part of the reason for the push-back in this thread.
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#22 Barb J

Barb J

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:48 AM

I don't think anyone is asking for your support or opposition. This is a thread about an ER topic posted in the ER forum asking people if they would like to sign a petition. If you care about the issue, sign the petition, if you don't then you don't have to!

#23 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:00 AM

I don't think anyone is asking for your support or opposition. This is a thread about an ER topic posted in the ER forum asking people if they would like to sign a petition. If you care about the issue, sign the petition, if you don't then you don't have to!


This may be in the ER forum, but it doesn't only affect ER. There are many Folsomites that might benefit from this project and want to see it go forward, but sympathize with the residents about the need for compromise on the height of the building in the setting. It's too bad, as 4thgen pointed out, there isn't a mutual respect for neighborhoods. We should all be in this together.

#24 Barb J

Barb J

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

We definitely should be in this together and calling people NIMBY's or rich progressives who want to control things doesn't help. This is part of the reason MyFolsom is dying off - you can't have a civilized discussion without resorting to name calling. I welcome a discussion on why you believe this is a good project and we can debate two vs three stories.

Was the condo project on as big of a scale as the proposed project in ER? I guess I probably didn't pay attention to the condo project because as a rule I have no problem with condo's. I would welcome a condo project at the corner of Natoma and Golf Links provided they are in scale to the lot size and aren't more than two stories.

Remember during election season whose signs were "allowed" on this parcel of land....wasn't a newcomer like Gaylord. Only incumbents. Guess who hasn't said a word in opposition to the size of the size of the project....yup the same folks who had their signs up on that parcel of land.

#25 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:30 AM

This may be in the ER forum, but it doesn't only affect ER. There are many Folsomites that might benefit from this project and want to see it go forward, but sympathize with the residents about the need for compromise on the height of the building in the setting. It's too bad, as 4thgen pointed out, there isn't a mutual respect for neighborhoods. We should all be in this together.


This is exactly my point. We should all support each other throughout the community. We all want to see our community as a whole the best possible. As the city spreads south of 50, its going to be even more important we try to stick together, rather than be divided into North Folsom and South Folsom. I don't believe I have called anyone a NIMBY. We all pay more attention to what is most likely to directly effect us. I just think its important we pay attention to what effects the town as a whole too.

I remember when the first Lake Natoma Crossing was going in. There was a huge debate for years about the best place to put the first new bridge to be built in 70 years. The traffic studies showed that nearer the current Folsom Lake Crossing site was the best location because it would serve the residents of Folsom. Lake Natoma Crossing was seen as more of a benefit for commuters in Placer County trying to get to Hwy. 50. Despite the best efforts of many residents who didn't want to see Riley Street and Natoma (in the heart of the historic district), the Lake Natoma Crossing site was chosen after more connected and well-heeled residents in east Folsom complained they didn't want Oak Avenue as a thoroughfare (which it was obviously designed to become). When the dam was closed, the money and energy to build the Folsom Lake Crossing appeared and what a great thing it is! The City did a tremendous job on that bridge and it has been a great relief to historic district. However, it might have been many many more years before it was constructed, save for 9-11.

I agree with Ducky we could use more adult housing. I think the facilities on Blue Ravine (which I believe are three-story) are quite nice. You can do three-story elevations that have a residential feel, rather than a commercial feel. Perhaps the developer needs to have that occupancy to make the project pencil out. If it can't be built without that height, then I would suggest doing everything you can to make it feel residential and screened with vegetation to buffer the effect. I fully support your efforts. Let me just say that when you see someone posting about a drug treatment and food closet being constructed on the grounds of an elementary school, ask yourself if you would want this at your own children's school. If you would object, then please voice that opinion, even if its in another part of our community.
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#26 Barb J

Barb J

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 01:54 PM

The people who are most affected by various projects and the like at the ones that know about it. I rarely visit this forum anymore so I was unaware of the goings on at Judah. If I lived in that neighborhood I'm sure I would be well aware. Maybe this speaks to a broader message - we have to be able to get the word out about things that affect our community as a whole. This forum and frankly the Telegraph do not reach very many people. The ER issue has mainly been driven by FB and is very well organized.

As to the numbers not penciling out for the developer, then tough noogies! A three story project is not acceptable. I agree we could use senior housing, but it needs to blend in, not stick out like a sore thumb. Not to mention the zoning bait and switch. People bought in good faith that light commercial would be built on that corner. This is not light commercial. So lets compromise - we will give you your senior apartments as long as they aren't higher than two stories. Take a drive to that corner and see how low the houses behind that lot are - then picture three stories looming behind them. I sure wouldn't want to buy a house there. Who would?

#27 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 20 April 2013 - 06:09 PM

We definitely should be in this together and calling people NIMBY's or rich progressives who want to control things doesn't help. This is part of the reason MyFolsom is dying off - you can't have a civilized discussion without resorting to name calling. I welcome a discussion on why you believe this is a good project and we can debate two vs three stories.

Was the condo project on as big of a scale as the proposed project in ER? I guess I probably didn't pay attention to the condo project because as a rule I have no problem with condo's. I would welcome a condo project at the corner of Natoma and Golf Links provided they are in scale to the lot size and aren't more than two stories.

Remember during election season whose signs were "allowed" on this parcel of land....wasn't a newcomer like Gaylord. Only incumbents. Guess who hasn't said a word in opposition to the size of the size of the project....yup the same folks who had their signs up on that parcel of land.

Well, it is because of those of us who disagree with you, call others out on their NIMBY or progressive politics but yet when we do those of us who do are called "intolerant", "mean" or according to you "uncivilized". So I disagree with you on land use and therefore (I am Conservative or Libertarian in my views) I am "uncivilized" and the reason for this forum going into the gutter, to the dogs, and downhill.......! So if we all agree with your opinion then we are all "ok" and the forum is good and well and can go on with great delight and progressive enlightenment and exclude others from our very cool, clean, and civilized neighborhood...? Do you remember the "Black Codes" or whatever they were called back in the day for home ownership and deciding who can move in next to you..........? Again, where do my kids move when they go away from my house at 22 or 23 years old..............? Down the street would be great.....! Rancho, not so cool......! Chris

1A - 2A = -1A


#28 Barb J

Barb J

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

Wow Chris I am utterly flabbergasted. Either you have skimmed through my responses or read into them what you wanted. I said it was uncivilized to call people names, not that it is uncivilized to disagree with me! I'm not saying that we don't want affordable senior housing in our rich progressive neighborhood (another unnecessary mischaracterization), I merely said the size and scope of the current project is not acceptable. So how does that make me an NIMBY? And by the way, I too am a conservative who actually leans more Libertarian and I generally agree with and enjoy your posts. Our kids won't be moving to this community when they are 22 as it is a 55+ apartment complex.

We definitely do not need to or should it have to agree. I enjoy differing opinions. But maybe you should read the posts thoroughly before you start disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

#29 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:07 PM

Frankly, a 22 or 23 year old should have to pay some dues before being able to afford to live in one of the 100 best cities in America. I know you lived in less desirable places (as did most of us) when we were young. You should be able to live where you can AFFORD to live. I would love to call Hope Ranch home...unless I hit the lotto (gotta play if I want to win tho!), it's not going to happen. If ny kids decide to choose a non-marketable major, or don't finish college, or just get flaky, they better not expect to be entitled to live the "good life." Most things in life are EARNED, and that is a good thing. Living in a crummy part of town provides a good incentive to improve ones condition.

But back to the topic at hand. It sounds like a good deal for the developer...not so much for the community. Sounds like the council is pretty much ignoring the wishes of the residents. It's a pretty common problem. 20+ years ago, I almost bought a house in EG. There was a vacant corner lot zoned for a church nearby. Luckily, I did not buy there, as the council re-zoned that lot for low income housing despite well organized opposition from the community.

Senior care is something we will have to deal with based on the demographics of America. Lots of seniors have to go somewhere. There will be full-on care facilities, managed care facilities, subsidized senior facilities, luxury facilities, active senior communities, and many more categories.

Distributed housing will be a component for the future as well. Down the street they converted a home to care for 8 seniors (I think). At first I was opposed, but the home looks like any other house from the front, and there has not been any disruption to the neighborhood that I have noticed (traffic or otherwise). I did live by a facility that catered to developmentally disabled once, and it was ok as well. But then again, I did have one of the tenants from there have a seizure on my front lawn. That was not a pleasant moment for her or myself.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#30 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 21 April 2013 - 07:50 AM

Wow Chris I am utterly flabbergasted. Either you have skimmed through my responses or read into them what you wanted. I said it was uncivilized to call people names, not that it is uncivilized to disagree with me! I'm not saying that we don't want affordable senior housing in our rich progressive neighborhood (another unnecessary mischaracterization), I merely said the size and scope of the current project is not acceptable. So how does that make me an NIMBY? And by the way, I too am a conservative who actually leans more Libertarian and I generally agree with and enjoy your posts. Our kids won't be moving to this community when they are 22 as it is a 55+ apartment complex.

We definitely do not need to or should it have to agree. I enjoy differing opinions. But maybe you should read the posts thoroughly before you start disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.


Barb, I know it is being sold as a 55+ plus apartment complex....... What I am saying is that if we don't allow new things to be built on land that we all know was there when we moved into our nice homes then we are being NIMBY's... I think originally that parcel was zoned small retail, then condo's, now three story apartments. We all knew the land was there. Anyway, three story apartments make sense there in my opinion, high density and more economically viable than two story apartments on the same land. I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. My opinion, plain and simple as that. I also don't mind the planes flying overhead to Mather at night. I knew the airport was there when I moved in so that is that. Now I would be on your side if this was forced on us by the "affordable" housing lawyer group (Legal Services of Northern CA..?) that keeps suing Folsom to allow dirt bags, welfare mongers, druggies, and thieves to move into Folsom and next to us and on our dime. Chris

1A - 2A = -1A





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users