278 replies to this topic

[New Girl]

I would far rather our city councilors researched a project, read all the reports, listened to everybody (experts and idiots alike) before making their decisions. The ability to change position when all the facts are known is, in my view, the sign of a 'good man'. Blindly going in one direction with a closed mind is not what we elected our officials for. Andy, and all other councilors, may you continue to look at the bigger picture and do what you were elected to do.

[Andy_Morin]

Ed,

Well done. I am enjoying this and I hope others are as well.

My responses follow.

Before getting to that let me make a little analogy illustrating my conundrum using another issue as an example. So Ed, Sara, Bob, Val, Cal, Tess, I and a few others get together and determine a direct mayor election might be in the best interests of our fine city. Everything looks promising as an initiative is developed for signatures. I’m in and supportive. During language refinement a clause that the mayor must reside in Lexington Hills is included. That is unacceptable to me but Ed gets mad that I won’t support an initiative I said I would.

Andy
Folsom City Council




Ed: Come on Andy....
Andy: OK

Ed: Let's be honest here ok....?
Andy: I have only observed differences of opinion on both sides of this issue, not dishonesty.

Ed: Regarding the Hwy 50 freeway requirement from Hazel to the El dorado County line...

Ed: I am sorry, but you are spreading a lie when you say there is the so called "poison pill" in our initiative...
Andy: Ed this is an opinion of mine, not a lie dripping in fact.


Ed: The reason why Cal-Trans will not build the additional lanes is because WE HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF AIR POLLUTANTS in the region... We are therefore "OUT OF COMPLIANCE" and that is why they won't build the freeways, no matter who pays for it...
Andy: Thank you for helping frame my “poison pill” argument. The reason isn’t particularly germane, just that Folsom is done having a say if this provision enters our municipal code. Our air quality problems are regional and topography based. Sunrise/Douglas will contribute for more than anything that would occur in this smaller area closer to home.

Ed: Inspite of the current gridlock, are you asking us the voters to believe that future development is not going to impact our traffic even more...? and your solution is to build "parrallel feeder roads" like Iron Point....which is "staff's proposal"....
Andy: Growth undeniably has impacts. I believe most can be effectively mitigated if all who care get involved in the visioning process. If we all agree to stop having more kids and keep the existing ones home for life then the pressure for development finally abates.

Ed: I will let Bob Fish refute your assertion that Rancho or the County would then be the next "logical" choice for the land owners to apply for development permits....
We discussed this outside of the June 8th Council meeting... Bob gave you tons of information... have you ever bothered to check it out for yourself...? Its dog gone almost impossible for them to go to the County or Rancho... you are spreading "mis-information"....
Andy: I have and “dog gone almost impossible” is not good enough for me or this city.

Ed: And this is why we don't trust the CC...
Andy: For the most part, I am proud of the way Folsom has grown. Quit inferring that anyone who has chosen to live in Folsom made a stupid decision because this city stinks. Quality of life in the form of recreation, schools and public safety are and always have been our highest priorities and I believe second to none in this region. The BUREC messed us up badly with the damn road closure, but your bad guys on the city council have worked hard to get almost $90M committed to have a replacement bridge, with bike lanes mind you, in place by 2008.

Ed: If your initiative passes, the power will still be in the CC's hands and you guys will just do the same old... same old.... "waive a little reg." here... we'll "give you a credit for this".... and we'll "delcare a negative impact there"...

Ed: The power of our initiative gives the voters not the City Council the final say on the development plan South of 50, yours keeps the "final say" in the hands of the "city hall" crowd....
Andy: It may not give you anything because someone else may be doing it. I would have been with you without the onerous preconditioning.

Ed: You all should know that the so called "visioning process" would never have happened had it not been for the citizens of Folsom bringing our petitions... City Hall only acts our way when we get involved....
Andy: No argument from me on this one. That is why I sincerely like you folks and was involved.

Ed: How many signatures could we have received if we took the whole time alotted.....? we got over 4,400 in just 5 weekends..... We had 180 days...
Andy: The “voter control” sound bite is admittedly sexy, but I fear the bylines oversell the content when the potential effect may be no control by Folsom.

Ed: How many votes did you get in the election Andy....? Just curious....
Andy: Why, you want to run against me in 2006?

Steve Miklos 6,957 16.5%
Andy Morin 6,545 15.5%
Kerri M. Howell 6,191 14.7%
Nancy L. Mitchell 5,744 13.6%
Douglas Udell 5,153 12.2%
Steve Fairchild 5,011 11.9%
Stephanie C. Jantzen 4,259 10.1%
Keith D. Cable 1,651 3.9%
Uri Joseph Schorch 603 1.4%

Andy
Folsom City Council

[camay2327]

Andy, thanks for your comments. I will be supporting the city sponsored initiative.



Also if we can get something going where we can vote in the mayor, count me in as a major helper!!!!!


Cal

[Bob]

I have respect for Council Member Morin, but on this issue, he has chosen to follow the “party line” rather than exercise some independent thought and research.

There is much of the same rhetoric within his post that has been around and promoted from the uncontrolled growth machine in this town well before Andy became a Council Member. If he finally chooses to investigate this issue on his own, I hope that he will report back to this Forum with FACTS. Even if he still disagrees with some points of our Initiative, I will appreciate that at least he has made the effort.

But please Andy, stop with the cute little denigrating adjectives such as “poison pill” and “outside environmentalists”, and the other misinformation contained in your posts.

I am the one responsible for the placement of the Highway 50 widening requirement, not someone from the outside seeking to install a “poison pill.” This decision was based on the following:

1. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Broadstone Development dated 1990. This document included as required mitigation the widening of Highway 50 by two lanes to accommodate increased traffic. That was FOURTEEN years ago! It was never done. Why?
2. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated 1997, for the Sphere of Influence Area (SOIA), the first 3,600 acres south of 50 covered by our Initiative. It includes as required mitigation the widening of Highway 50 by six lanes! We only ask for a good faith showing of two before development starts.
3. Letter from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, as reported in the Sacramento Business Journal, dated December 15, 2000. This letter of concern was written when the City was pursuing the SOI designation for the first 3,600 acres south of 50. These comments state that by their calculations, nearly ONE MILLION new vehicle trips PER DAY will be generated from that area if developed as City Hall intends. Also, about 8,000 pounds worth of additional smog will be added to our already bad air quality.

Andy, I am curious how you can possibly describe a required mitigation by YOUR OWN CITY HALL’S environmental impact report as a “poison pill?

Folsom Voters:

The Residents Initiative will give YOU a direct vote on what occurs south of 50, THEIR initiative will not.

The Residents Initiative will require that Highway 50 be widened as required by the City’s own EIR, THEIR initiative will allow complete development of that area WITHOUT widening Highway 50.

Our message has been very clear and consistent from day one. Just read our (YOUR) Initiative for yourself. It is short, simple, and straightforward. Then vote YES in November before it is too late.



Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[Bob]

Camay,

Just curious.
How can you state your support for the "City's Initiative" when you do not even know what it is yet? At the Tuesday night Council meeting, they spoke of only language it might contain. So at this point, there is no City Initiative.

I've read your posts on this Forum for too long to suspect you of any insincerity or connection with the uncontrolled growth machine that would like development to continue on THEIR terms, but it seems that you have been moving closer toward THEIR party line recently.

So I am asking you to please provide some feedback.

What is it that concerns you about the Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth Initiative that would push you toward an Initiative that does not even exist yet?

Are you going simply on blind faith that those who will profit from development and who are leading the charge against our Initiative will actually craft a "competing" Initiative that is good for Folsom Residents?
Or have you performed your own research and study to understand the many issues that are involved on both a local and regional issue?

These are sincere questions. This Forum is to exchange ideas and thoughts for the good of all Folsom residents so the feedback of those most involved in this Forum would be most helpful.

Those concerned with the future of development south of 50 should be interested in the following:

A professional phone poll is currently being conducted regarding the Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth Initiative and the City Hall's possible competing Initiative. It asks very leading questions that are heavily negative (at best, misrepresentations) toward The Residents Initiative and very Rosy (unlikely to actually be achieved) of what City Hall's Initiative would deliver.

The interesting thing is that the phone polling started BEFORE Tuesday nights meeting. Even though the Residents of Folsom had absolutely NO knowledge of what the City Hall's Initiative version might contain (it was not even available on the City web sites staff report as it should have been by the previous Friday), the Chamber and developers apparently did have it, and likely many days before as it takes time to set up and contract for such an expensive phone poll.

OK, at this point we do not know that the Chamber and developers are actually behind this poll / pre-election campaigning and mud slinging, but if it is not the City than who? The cast of possible characters does not go beyond those two groups.

So the point is, how and why did THEY get such critical information before the City's own residents? Why did City Hall give this group of mostly non-residents preferential treatment over it's own residents.

Camay, still believe that they are looking out for YOUR best interest?

Folsom Voters:

Our message has been very clear and consistent from day one. Just read our (YOUR) Initiative for yourself. It is short, simple, and straightforward. Then vote YES in November before it is too late.



Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[cybertrano]

FROM TODAY SACBEE.COM:


Dueling ballot plans in Folsom
The city is drafting its own growth initiative to counter a citizens measure.
By Jamie Francisco -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, June 26, 2004
To compete with a grass-roots ballot initiative to slow growth south of Highway 50, the Folsom City Council is drafting its own measure outlining development standards for the land.
This ballot-box approach to planning places the fate of Folsom's development directly in the hands of voters, said Mayor Steve Miklos.






"Why be afraid of another vote?" he said at a City Council meeting Tuesday. "Let the people have choices."
The activists' initiative would limit growth in the 3,600-acre site by requiring that a majority of city residents approve all land uses there, that 100 percent of the oak woodlands be protected and that at least 50 percent of the land be kept for agricultural use.

The city's competing initiative would codify many conditions that were set when the sprawling pastureland south of Highway 50 was first brought into the city's sphere of influence in 2001. A sphere of influence is viewed as the first step toward annexation.

The city took its latest step after staff members said the initiative proposed by Folsom Citizens for Sensible Growth contained elements that are not in the city's "best long-term interest." The council contends that the initiative would only block Folsom from expanding south of the highway but not bar developers from going through Rancho Cordova or Sacramento County to develop the land.

Members of the Folsom group were critical of the city-sponsored initiative, contending that the city is trying to confuse voters.

Many residents perceive the city as having a history of catering to developers' interests instead of acting in the best interests of its residents, said Sara Myers, a former city councilwoman and spokeswoman for the group. The initiative sponsored by the citizens group gives residents a say in how Folsom grows south of Highway 50, she said.

"Let the city add all the bells and whistles to persuade voters they will do a good job," Myers said. "I still think most voters will also choose having the power to approve or reject the specific plan the city produces."

Under the conditions of the city-sponsored initiative, at least 30 percent will remain open space. Developers are under tremendous pressures to develop the area within the sphere of influence, making it unlikely that the land would remain open space, said Councilman Andy Morin.

"This issue and choice on any development south of Highway 50, that has tremendous sex appeal when you're circulating an initiative with a short sound bite," Morin said.

The citizen-sponsored initiative is "not good" for Folsom, said Councilwoman Kerri Howell. She said that if it passes, it would jeopardize the city's ability to control what type of development occurs within its sphere of influence, opening the door to overcrowded housing developments or industries that would have a detrimental effect on Folsom's high quality of life.

"If the city of Folsom does not have control, we'll be very, very sorry," Howell said.

The city's biggest concern with the citizens initiative is its requirement to expand Highway 50 before any development could occur. City Council members call it "a poison pill" that would kill any future development in Folsom. The city estimates it would cost up to $75 million to expand the freeway.

As development occurs, it may be more advantageous to create connector roads leading to the freeway to move traffic, and building additional lanes would not be the solution, Morin said.

Members of the citizens group contend the real reason the freeway has not been expanded has to do with air quality control, not costs, said Bob Fish, a leader of the group and a Folsom engineer.

The group has issues with several of the development standards outlined by the city. Some of the standards dictate that Folsom residents north of Highway 50 will not have to pay for schools in the sphere of influence, nor will they have to pay for the water in the area, he said.

"They paint a very rosy picture of what their competing initiative will deliver," Fish said. "They're offering things that can't be delivered."

In mid-July, the city will host its first "Visioning Process" workshop, aimed at gathering resident input on development south of Highway 50. City staff criticized the citizens group for not obtaining enough feedback from residents on its initiative.

The group collected nearly 4,400 signatures on a petition to place the initiative on the ballot, 50 percent more than was required, said Sara Myers.

"It is ludicrous to complain that there is no public involvement," Myers said. "It is the ultimate in public involvement to have a vote."

The city is expected to adopt a charter amendment placing its initiative on the November ballot by late July.

By November, the city's registered voters will have an opportunity to give their verdict on how development south of Highway 50 should be approached.

"Read it for yourself," Fish said of his group's initiative. "It's so simple. Nothing hidden, no surprises, and the number one thing voters get to look at is they get to directly decide what happens there."

[waterbaby149]

Thank you Bob for your comments and explanations. I support your ballot measure and appreciate that you provide valid factual information for evaluation and digesting on the subject - as part of the Save the Park group - it makes me wonder what counter ballot measure is being drafted on the library issue as we are out getting our final signatures. Instead of the cc working for the good of the citizens of Folsom, they are constantly working against our wishes and desires.
And Andy - you are well aware that u should watch those comments about your reelection in 2006 - because the memory of the Citizens of Folsom is not that short, and with two new members sure to be elected in November it is a warning to the existing members of the cc to reevaluate their positions and actions taken on behalf of the City of Folsom.

[camay2327]

Bob, first of all I guess I should have said that I would probabally support the city's Initiative, not that I would be.

First, I do no think you have a chance at all of keeping 50% of the land with no building on it south of 50.

Second, if there is no building to be done until they expand highway 50 to two more lanes, it will be forever before any building can be done south of 50. I don't think they are planning to expand 50 in the near future.

I think the biggest thing for south of 50 is water. I am sure that there is something we are not hearing about this. I am sure that the city must have some idea in mind for water south of 50, what????

That is it for now.

Cal

[Bob]

Cal,

Thanks for your additional comments. You bring up a good point regarding water. There is much going on "behind the scenes" regarding water for that area. Water is a commodity, and that land would become extremely valuable to the land speculators and developers if water is found and development allowed to occur. So I would not count on water being a long-term restraint.

However, there is one potential source of water that City Hall has already looked at as a potential source. I have a copy of the source on my desk as I type. It is the "Folsom Sphere of Influence Study and Master Services Element, June 9, 1997." (Prepared by the Planning, Inspection and Permitting Department, City of Folsom). This document addresses how Folsom would provide for any and all services in the SOIA (first 3,600 acres south of 50).

Regarding water, this document states the following as a potential source:

"According to the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) of the Folsom General Plan, water metering could reduce residential water usage by as much as 20% in Folsom. The MEA states that, combined with other water conservation methods, such as waste water reclamation for use on landscaping areas, golf courses, and parks, metering might stretch the water supply enough to support an additional 35,000 - 40,000 population."

Other documents from the Water Forum indicate that a 20% reduction can only be achieved with "conservation pricing." That is, raise the rates until the desired conservation is achieved to supply water for new development south of 50.

Now the Council did pass a resolution a few years ago saying that they would not use any of our current water south of 50. But they did so only after we loudly protested their apparent intention. This is one of the reasons that the water meter initiative was so well supported. I believe that most Folsom residents support conservation, and may even accept meters, IF it were helping the environment or giving us needed insurance during a drought, but not to be siphoned off to the south.

Regarding Highway 50, we cannot predict the future. But we do know that at this time, it cannot be widened. With the immense additional traffic that would occur, and the requirements contained in TWO environmental impact reports that it be widened (see previous post), what sound person would promote that we ignore these impact and build anyway? Especially on the dubious grounds that someone other jurisdiction might if we do not.

Would it not be more logical to acknowledge this as a major concern and constraint to development and join this other jurisdiction (the County who has zoned that land as Permanent Agriculture) to ensure that development does not occur until such critical issues are addressed?

Andy, I am still looking forward to your reply to my previous question. Please explain to the families in Folsom why you believe it is OK to allow development south of 50 WITHOUT meeting the requirements of your own EIR? Also, please explain, particularly to the children, that it is OK to allow development south of 50 at this time even though it would pump 4 tons of additional smog into our air each day, and ruin the Air Management Districts plans to bring our air quality back to accepted standards? These are tough but fair questions, and if the only response you can think of has more to do with Chicken Little than fact, perhaps you should revaluate your stand against the Residents Initiative.



Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Residents for Sensible Growth

[billsfan]

I really think the Folsom Growth Initiative is misleading people when it says that it "will give City of Folsom voters the final say on future development plans south of Highway 50". The initiative's authors have included preconditions such as requiring 50 to be expanded, % of open space, and how water supply is handled; that I would like to have a say on as they are presented in the development plan that I vote on.

Why were these preconditions included? Don't the initiative's authors trust Folsom voters to have their say? Instead they have included preconditions that they believe are important and that make any kind of development near impossible. Whether they are a good idea or not, I would like that say/vote on them. I hope the City initiative is written in a way that allows voters to make the decision on how thinks are developed South of 50...

[melloguy]

"The council's ballot measure establishes standards for controlled and thoughtful development..." Folsom Telegraph, June 30.

Today's article is written as though the City has already written its ballot measure. It is my understanding that there may be an outline, but that the measure is not yet done. Does anyone have any information on the status of the City's proposed measure?

Billsfan - the initiative is an opportunity for voters to have a say in how things are developed south of 50. Without it, the City would not even have considered a comepting initiative and would have proceeded "business as usual." If you don't think the Citizen's initiative is the say you want to have, vote no on it and if enough people agree with you, we can have business as usual...

[billsfan]

Melloguy - my point is the people who have written the initiative are misleading voters into thinking they will have a vote on how things are developed. Many people will just read the title and say yes, without reading the title. The campaign slogans on the initiative will likely be the same.

They unfortunately won't realize that the initiative has already made decisions for them. The conditions were obviously put in place to prevent or severely delay development. Reading Andy Morin's original post it sounded like he was in favor of the initiative until these conditions were added.

I'm anxiously awaiting to see the city's initiative...

[camay2327]

Go to the following web site and get information on Folsom Visioning South of Highway 50. Search and read all the info available.


http://www.folsom.ca...oning/index.htm

WORKSHOP SCHEDULE

July 17th
9:30 am – 11:30 am
Folsom High School library
1655 Iron Point Road

Sept 8th
6:30 pm – 8:30pm
Folsom Community Center
52 Natoma Street

Sept 11th
9:30 am – 11:30 am
Folsom High School library
1655 Iron Point Road

Oct 16th
9:30 am – 11:30 am
Folsom High School library
1655 Iron Point Road



NEWS RELEASE

Contact: Sue Ryan, PIO                                                                                    Office: 916-355-7318                                                                        sryan@folsom.ca.us

For Immediate Release

July 1, 2004

PUBLIC INVITED TO VISIONING MEETINGS FOR SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 50

FOLSOM -- The City of Folsom will host two public meetings in July to launch its Visioning Process for the City’s Sphere of Influence area located south of Highway 50 between Prairie City Road, White Rock Road and the El Dorado County line.

This process has been designed to offer Folsom residents, and other interested parties, the opportunity to play an active role in shaping the City’s future.  On Wednesday, July 14, and again on Saturday, July 17, City staff and the selected planning consultants will be on hand to provide background information about the physical conditions and planning issues for the South of 50 area, and to give interested citizens a full understanding of how the visioning process will work.  Participants will also have the opportunity to share their views on how they can be most effectively involved. 

Guest speaker Mike McKeever, of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, will discuss how insights gained through SACOG’s regional blueprint process can help the City make the best decision about the Sphere of Influence area. 

The meeting on July 14 will be held from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Folsom Community Center, 52 Natoma Street.  The meeting on July 17 will be held from 9:30 am to 11:30 am at the Folsom High School library, 1655 Iron Point Road.

For more details on the Visioning Process, please visit www.folsom.ca.us/visioning or call Principal Planner Gail Furness De Pardo at 355-7248 or by email at gdepardo@folsom.ca.us.


-----


Check this one too::::

http://www.folsom.ca...=1&ar=2303&st=3




Search and read and attend one of these workshops.

I also just emailed the city to see if they have their South of 50 initiative together yet and if they do to email it to me. If and when I get it I will put it out here.

Cal

[Andy_Morin]

Friends,

Sorry for the length but below are a link and the text of the proposed city growth ballot measure that will be discussed at our July 13th council meeting.

In the absence of a direct public vote on a plan at the end of a visioning process, this ballot measure would codify into our city charter as a starting point, many stringent yet realistic and achievable guidelines to any future city growth in this area. Although I personally am comfortable with a final public vote enough of my colleagues on the council have clearly stated that they are not. Ballot box land use planning can be risky and I respect their position.

A very good example of a bad or deceptive ballot box land use initiative is the recently qualified Bob Fish initiative. This was dubiously circulated as a vote for control. Make no mistake, this is a no growth initiative cloaked in the guise of voter control. By clear admission by some of the initiative sponsors on this board, their cleverly inserted highway 50 widening mandate is an unachievable condition. Now, if you are a no growth proponent and this property were inside the city limits we could all vote with some certainty. But the reality is simply that this property is not now in Folsom, we have no control now and if the Fish initiative passes we never will.

I’ll be responding to Bob’s comments in previous posts in the days to come. As with many of you, I am very busy with the family summer festivities and vacation jaunts. Please stay tuned in. This is an extremely important issue requiring our most deliberate consideration.

Andy
Folsom City Council

www.folsom.ca.us/index.asp?page=450

Sphere of Influence South of Hwy 50

City Council to Consider Charter Amendment for
Local Control of Land South of Highway 50

The Folsom City Council will discuss the following proposed ballot measure at the regularly scheduled Council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 13. The ballot measure contains an amendment to the City Charter that will set policies for any development in the City’s Sphere of Influence area south of Highway 50 between Prairie City Road, White Rock Road and the El Dorado County line.

The proposed ballot measure requires two readings and would also be considered at the July 27 City Council meeting. Local residents and other interested parties may provide public comments on the proposed amendment at the July 13 or 27 City Council meetings. However, the City Council would be unlikely to change the text after the July 13th meeting in order to satisfy legal deadlines for placing this measure on the November 2004 ballot.

City Council meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall, 50 Natoma Street.


Proposed Ballot Measure
ORDINANCE NO. 1002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER REGARDING LOCAL CONTROL OF LAND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 50 TO A VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 FINDINGS

The City Council hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the people of the City of Folsom to control development of the land south of Highway 50, which is located within the City of Folsom’s Sphere of Influence, as approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. To insure this control, the City Council should seek to annex this area to the City of Folsom, but only after the actions described in this Charter Amendment have been completed.

The City Council further finds that it is necessary to amend the City Charter to provide for the orderly and controlled development of the land south of Highway 50, and in particular, to protect the natural qualities and open space within this area, and to insure that property owners seeking to develop land within this area pay the full cost for schools, water supply, and roadways.

SECTION 2 MEASURE SUBMITTED

The City Council submits the following measure to the electorate of the City of Folsom at the regular municipal election to be held on November 2, 2004:

Shall Section 7.08, providing for local control of land south of Highway 50, be added to the Charter of the City of Folsom to read as follows:

Section 7.08 Local Control of Land South of Highway 50:

The City Council shall not apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of the land bounded by Highway 50, White Rock Road, Prairie City Road and the El Dorado County Line, hereafter referred to as “the Area,” until the following actions have been completed:

(A) Water Supply. A water supply is acquired for the Area that does not reduce the water available to serve residents or businesses north of Highway 50. This water supply shall not be paid for by water users north of Highway 50.

(B) Transportation. Adoption of a plan by the City Council providing for the construction of roadways and transportation improvements, including, but not limited to, improvements to U.S. Highway 50 that are necessary to mitigate traffic impacts caused by any development of the Area, and requiring construction of the necessary transportation improvements before the occupancy of any buildings in the Area.

© Open Space. Adoption of a plan by the City Council requiring thirty percent (30%) of the Area to be maintained as natural open space and preserving oak woodlands and sensitive habitat areas. Natural open space shall not include golf courses, parking lots, active park sites or front yards.

(D) Schools. Submission of a plan to the Folsom Cordova Unified School District providing for the funding and construction of all necessary school facilities for the Area, so that Folsom residents north of Highway 50 are not required to pay for school facilities serving the Area and existing schools are not overcrowded.

(E) Development Plan. Adoption of a General Plan Amendment by the City Council to serve as the blueprint for development in the Area. The General Plan Amendment for this Area shall only be adopted after the completion and certification of an Environmental Impact Report. The environmental review shall include an evaluation of cultural, archaeological and prehistoric resources.

(F) Public Notice. The General Plan Amendment for the Area shall only be adopted by the City Council after comprehensive public meetings and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Every registered voter in the City shall be mailed a notice of the time, place and date of the public meetings and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, along with a summary report on the proposed development plan. Further, the summary of the development plan and a summary of the associated environmental review shall be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, at all Folsom public libraries, and on the City website.

(G) Implementation. All existing City plans, policies, ordinances, and other legislative acts shall be amended as necessary, as soon as possible and in the time and manner required by State law, to insure consistency between this Charter Amendment and those plans, policies and other provisions. Any plans required to be adopted by the City Council in Sections (A) through (E) above shall take precedence over any other plans or policies relating to the Area, regardless of the manner, method or time of enactment.

SECTION 3 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

In the event that this Charter Amendment is inconsistent with the Folsom General Plan, or any amendments thereto, the Charter Amendment shall govern.

SECTION 4 CITY CLERK DUTIES
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to request the County of Sacramento to consolidate this election with the next regular election, and to conduct said election on behalf of the City, to give notices of the holding of the election at the time, in the form and manner required by law and to take such further actions as are required by law to insure that this Charter Amendment is placed on the ballot for the regular municipal election to be held on November 2, 2004.

SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY
If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. The voters of the City of Folsom declare that each part of this Ordinance would have been enacted irrespective of the fact that any other part is declared invalid or ineffective.

SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE

If a majority of the voters of the City voting on this proposed Charter Amendment vote in favor of it, the amendment shall become effective at the time the approved amendment is filed with the Secretary of State.

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on July 13, 2004, and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on July 27, 2004.

[EDF]

So Andy... even though you support the people's right to vote on it... you just couldn't bring yourself to support it with a council vote...?

and ....

Since, as you point out, the widening of Hwy 50 is "unacheivable"... constructing more houses along that corridor is going to do what to the already choked traffic there....?

and please tell me how the city hall crowd down there is going to "mitigate" that.... ?

Would you at least be honest and tell the folks on the forum why the freeway widening is "unacheivable"....?