City Annexation Plan
#1
Posted 12 June 2007 - 08:29 PM
They intend to put the slides onto the City's website, so look for those. Simply, it designates potential commercial, business park, multi-family with different densities, single family with different densities, parks adjacent to school sites (including one private), civic buildings, cultural centers, approx. 18 miles of bike trails, and 30% open space (including the main oak grove and the river routes). There are two main east/west traffic routes; Easton Parkway which is planned to go from the county line all the way to Mather Blvd. and Whiterock Road. There are 4 highway crossings at Empire Ranch Drive, Bidwell, Oak, and Prairie City. It designates sites for 5 elementary schools, and one middle school/high school shared complex.
The plan calls for 12,000 - 12,500 residential units over 5 square miles or 3600 acres (less the 30% set aside as open space).
Some questions that came to mind for me:
1) If the current city is 5 x larger in acreage than the SOI, and has about 22,000 residences, how will they really be able to fit 12,000 there? Councilmember King questions this and was pointed to other areas that have developed around "town centers" like Walnut Creek.
2) With that level of density, how in the heck will traffic be manageable? Corollaries: Will the two east/west routes end up with stoplights every 1/4 mile like on Folsom's current main thoroughfares? Will they keep out the right turn lanes like in existing downtown and commercial areas?
3) No plans exist for light rail or other mass transit, other than a proposed bus line. The presenter stated that this type of plan wouldn't include that. Why not? Wouldn't it be essential to save the rights of way for such things and plan to move masses of people now instead of trying to infill later? Wouldn't it be necessary to mitigate the apparently highly dense residential traffic impacts?
4) Rumors have flown from time to time that developers want the city to relieve them of the Oak Ave. interchange requirement. This would be a disaster and would help to give the Northerners vs. Southerners feel and lack of connectivity.
5) What will they do to address the clash between new residential in the flight path to Mather airport? Schools are not sited in a manner that would require extra approvals from the state or airport authorities.
6) While working on annexation, does it make sense to also address potential new SOI areas surrounding the land to be annexed? There is the unincorporated Gencorp land between the SOI and Rancho Cordova, and the southern land toward Rancho Murietta.
There is a followup meeting they're calling an Open House on June 28, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. You can ask the "experts" questions at that meeting. I won't be able to attend because of conflicting meeting. The rest of you should (unless you're coming to my meeting ).
Any thoughts from others? Cal, I assume you were there although I didn't see you.
#2
Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:08 PM
#3
Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:17 PM
#4
Posted 12 June 2007 - 11:06 PM
RC can have the undeveloped aerojet property.
Why in the world would anyone want to annex land that was part of the Superfund toxic debacle?
I'll step up on my soap box again and say. "We need to get our water back from Aerojet!" We should be saying at every opportunity to the County and to RC, that at the end of the current agreement we will NOT be extending this agreement. Do NOT plan on using the water we sold you as a permanent source of water for development as we will need this water for Folsom.
Water is the most important issue regarding S50! It will be the most important issue for our children and our grandchildren and we can NOT allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers!
Water has been and always will be a debate in the west and by getting our water back that we sold to Aerojet, we can eliminate this issue for our children and their children!
I predict that our council will try and negoitiate getting a portion of our water back now in return for giving up the remainder forever. This will be so short sighted and wrong!
We can NOT allow this to happen!
#5
Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:01 AM
I live about 2 cities over from Walnut Creek and let me tell you ; it is NOTHING to aspire to. Part of why we have lived in Martinez is that it is a down to earth SMALL TOWN. Folsom seems like an improved version of that whole small town aesthetic that--if Folsom is not careful--will be changed forever.
- Walnut Creek is too densley packed. Traffic is a NIGHTMARE. While there might be good shops/restaurants --THERE IS NOWHERE TO PARK! I HATE going to Walnut Creek!
#6
Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:36 AM
#7
Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:49 AM
Why in the world would anyone want to annex land that was part of the Superfund toxic debacle?
Because the market value of environmentally impaired land is less than that of pristine land. Aerojet is undergoing remedial investigations of the 140 or so source areas on the property (the entire Aerojet property, not just the SOI) as well as the TCE and perchlorate plume. The property will be remediated to standards acceptable by EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB. It's not as if the property will be developed as is.
#8
Posted 13 June 2007 - 10:15 AM
#9
Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:31 AM
#10
Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:53 AM
#11
Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:56 AM
We read about stories all the time regarding higher than normal birth defects and higher rates of cancer around areas that have been remediated.
I wouldn't live there or raise a family there if they gave me a free house, therefore I don't want it in my community either. I don't want my children or their children burdened with future liabilities when we don't need to do this!
Anyone willing to move their children onto that land?
#12
Posted 13 June 2007 - 12:06 PM
I wouldn't live there or raise a family there if they gave me a free house, therefore I don't want it in my community either. I don't want my children or their children burdened with future liabilities when we don't need to do this!
Anyone willing to move their children onto that land?
Not me! And, again, I agree with you.
#13
Posted 13 June 2007 - 12:44 PM
I wouldn't live there or raise a family there if they gave me a free house, therefore I don't want it in my community either. I don't want my children or their children burdened with future liabilities when we don't need to do this!
Anyone willing to move their children onto that land?
I would definitely move into that area if all the other factors are right. Then again, I've been working on cleaning up Superfund sites most of my career, so I know the multiple safety factors that go into the cleanup and the many layers of regulatory oversight.
We read lots of stories about lots of things. Statistics can be skewed any way you want, depending upon your viewpoint. Elevated levels of birth defects and cancer can definitely be found around some contaminated areas, and there's no doubt that higher exposure to toxins causes higher cancer rates or illness. But what I've found is that in many instances, the sites
are located in predominantly poor areas where people do not get proper health care as children or adults, or have other lifestyle factors that contribute as well. Statistically, you're probably more likely to get hit by a truck hauling dirty soil from the site than you are getting cancer or illness from living on a former Superfund site that's been cleaned up.
With Aerojet, I believe most of the source areas are located south of Prairie City, so I doubt the cleanup would need to be as aggressive in the SOI area.
I'm not trying to sell you on it or blow you off, just giving you my 2 cents.
#14
Posted 13 June 2007 - 01:42 PM
#15
Posted 13 June 2007 - 01:56 PM
Yeah, that 's exactly what I'm saying.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users