116 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

I have some specific concerns.

#1. Easton Parkway is supposed to go all the way to Mather and this is agood thing. What happens if the other agencies Sac County/RC don't follow through with the plan? I don't want to hear excuses from our elected officials like, "We can't control what other agencies do."

#2. I see another east/west Rd just north of White Rock, does this road stop at Prairie City? If it does this will create a huge bottleneck at this intersection. there should be another east/west rd going all the way through to Sunrise, between White Rock & Easton.

It seems logical these east/west roads MUST be in place up to where Folsom's SOI exists, prior to any building permits being issued for any construction S50. It would demonstrate a complete lack of responsibility on our councils behalf to allow this plan to go forward without these roads in place up to our SOI are and issue building permits.

#3. I'm disapointed there isn't a park site adjacent to the HS. We MUST build our recreation facilities to maximize joint use efforts. The other school sites all seem to have a park site next to them except for the HS.

#4. I'd like to see MORE grid design in the proposal! This is truly the best design to maximize alternate forms of tranportation besides cars.

We only get one chance to do this right and NOW is the time to start asking questions!

[Robert Giacometti]

Hah, that was already done-signed sealed an affixed. Goes under heading ignore questions-push agenda- get paid and blame angry residents for a voting on the only measure they were offered-later.

That's ok though. I'm interested in why no one has answered my question yet. I think it's telling me something that they just can't say out loud but I'll wait.

Again- why can't the land be left alone? Why not let it just become a city protected lot of non invasive protected land? How much non invaded land is in our city--the great park and family oriented city?

Give that land another 20 years and see how much of our surrounding area has land for the terns and thrushes- coyotes and bobcats-turkeys and rattlers--ya know the small little parts of Folsom that make it so unique to other bedroom communities. (though I nearly got bit by a rattler again a few days ago.)

Supermom, your naivety and innocence is refreshing!

Land owners have rights to develope their land according to approved standards & guidelines. The land speculators/investors want to maximize their return and develope the land for as much profit as possible...which is their right.

The City NEEDS the development dollars to keep its HUGE growth bureacracy in place. If we don't grow we will need to make substantial layoffs at city hall....and no successful politician who wants to get elected, generally wants to do that. This development will create many public service jobs and opportunities for current employees to get promotions for supervisor positions in the new area.

So the land owners and Publice service employees generally help elect those who are willing to keep the staus quo without rocking the boat too much. There is nothing wrong or illegal with this and is what almost every other industry does.

Hence the reason why Folsom won't wait until the rest of the area within the USB is built out before we build S50!

Like me or not, I've never been shy about speaking my mind or asking questions!

[tessieca]

Hadn't noticed about no park next to high school/middle school complex. There are parks adjacent to all of the elementaries. Maybe the thought is that the open space is park-like? With the joint use agreement, the city can still benefit from school facilities such as ball fields.

[Rich_T]

Land owners have rights to develop their land according to approved standards & guidelines.

Speaking of naive, I'm probably more naive than anyone here. So answer me this: aren't those "guidelines" known as the zoning laws? Exactly what "rights" do developers have? If they have the right to decide on what gets rezoned, then why haven't they long since exercised that right, rezoned the land, and begun building already? Were they just too busy, or too lazy, or what?

I'm genuinely curious as to what inherent legal power the developers have (above and beyond their political influence on getting 3 of 5 council members on their side), and why Measure W should make one iota of difference in this respect. Did it suddenly grant them new powers?

[supermom]

Speaking of naive, I'm probably more naive than anyone here. So answer me this: aren't those "guidelines" known as the zoning laws? Exactly what "rights" do developers have? If they have the right to decide on what gets rezoned, then why haven't they long since exercised that right, rezoned the land, and begun building already? Were they just too busy, or too lazy, or what?

I'm genuinely curious as to what inherent legal power the developers have (above and beyond their political influence on getting 3 of 5 council members on their side), and why Measure W should make one iota of difference in this respect. Did it suddenly grant them new powers?

he he he he

That's what I was thinking.

And if the city council has the "power" to zone something agricultural--can't they also zone something as protected? or even undevelopeable for say 100 years?

[Robert Giacometti]

Speaking of naive, I'm probably more naive than anyone here. So answer me this: aren't those "guidelines" known as the zoning laws? Exactly what "rights" do developers have? If they have the right to decide on what gets rezoned, then why haven't they long since exercised that right, rezoned the land, and begun building already? Were they just too busy, or too lazy, or what?

I'm genuinely curious as to what inherent legal power the developers have (above and beyond their political influence on getting 3 of 5 council members on their side), and why Measure W should make one iota of difference in this respect. Did it suddenly grant them new powers?

The landowners can develop the land under the current zoning under the jursdiction of the county and as I recall its 1 home for every 40 acres ( please correct me if I am wrong). Since the land is outside of the USB, the county will NOT change this zoning without a lengthy time consuming process and they have already expressed thier intentions in a letter that they Don't intend on ever doing this!

The fastest way for this land to be developed and the landowners/investors to cash in is for the City of Folsom to annex the land, approve a master plan and then approve development.

Since Folsom has the SOI, any other agnecy would have to petition LAFCO to have our SOI decertified, ( lengthy process) apply for their own SOI ( another lengthy process) and then develop a master plan and apply for annexation (another lengthy process). If RC wanted to begin this process they would first have to have the control of the land next to our SOI land which again adds significant time to the process.

In the past we have heard from one of our council members hyping the threat of some other agency stealing this from us, the reality is it would be a very long time and process before that would happen.

[Rich_T]

The landowners can develop the land under the current zoning under the jursdiction of the county and as I recall its 1 home for every 40 acres ( please correct me if I am wrong). Since the land is outside of the USB, the county will NOT change this zoning without a lengthy time consuming process and they have already expressed thier intentions in a letter that they Don't intend on ever doing this!

The fastest way for this land to be developed and the landowners/investors to cash in is for the City of Folsom to annex the land, approve a master plan and then approve development.

Since Folsom has the SOI, any other agnecy would have to petition LAFCO to have our SOI decertified, ( lengthy process) apply for their own SOI ( another lengthy process) and then develop a master plan and apply for annexation (another lengthy process). If RC wanted to begin this process they would first have to have the control of the land next to our SOI land which again adds significant time to the process.

In the past we have heard from one of our council members hyping the threat of some other agency stealing this from us, the reality is it would be a very long time and process before that would happen.

Thanks, Robert. I am all in favor of Folsom having control of the area in question. But it seems that land development is only as "inevitable" as our council members decide.

[Orangetj]

Exactly. Is there some legal reason why the land must be rezoned? Where is it written that we must rezone land previously designated as "permanent open space"? What does "permanent" mean, again? I understand that this is a huge cash cow for the city, but in the long run once it's all developed, where will we get all of these funds we "need"? I think that something of this magnitude, which will have a tremendous impact on the quality of life in Folsom (positive or negative), should really be put to a vote.

[supermom]

Exactly. Is there some legal reason why the land must be rezoned? Where is it written that we must rezone land previously designated as "permanent open space"? What does "permanent" mean, again? I understand that this is a huge cash cow for the city, but in the long run once it's all developed, where will we get all of these funds we "need"? I think that something of this magnitude, which will have a tremendous impact on the quality of life in Folsom (positive or negative), should really be put to a vote.

iggggggggzactly!!!!!!!!!!

[tessieca]

Speaking of naive, I'm probably more naive than anyone here. So answer me this: aren't those "guidelines" known as the zoning laws? Exactly what "rights" do developers have? If they have the right to decide on what gets rezoned, then why haven't they long since exercised that right, rezoned the land, and begun building already? Were they just too busy, or too lazy, or what?

Nope, you're right. Zoning has to be changed by whatever governance body controls that particular property. I, for one, don't believe Bob's premise that the county will hold tight to the USB if landowners such as AKT start pressuring them. If you're holding on to that premise, then you need to go whole hog and fight the annexation. Forgive me if I don't join you.

[Redone]

#3. I'm disapointed there isn't a park site adjacent to the HS. We MUST build our recreation facilities to maximize joint use efforts. The other school sites all seem to have a park site next to them except for the HS.

Joint use will be maximized by having the HS and MS share some facilities. They are on the same plot with 2 different entrances.

[Rich_T]

Nope, you're right. Zoning has to be changed by whatever governance body controls that particular property. I, for one, don't believe Bob's premise that the county will hold tight to the USB if landowners such as AKT start pressuring them. If you're holding on to that premise, then you need to go whole hog and fight the annexation. Forgive me if I don't join you.

I accept your position, and pretty much agree.

Though what does it mean to say landowners can "pressure" county or city officials? Is it along the lines of "Rezone this land or else..."? Or else what?? Will they hire someone to "whack" them? Hardly.

Or is it along the lines of "rezone the land, and life will become pleasant for you..."? i.e. politics...

[old soldier]

old tessica has a point, my question is who dances better to the AKT music, the county supervisors or our city council

the only folks with the clout to say what will happen are the elected officials and the question is do they listen to the will of the people.

seems like Bob said 70 % are not for annexation and anybody would be crazy to want them to pack loads and loads of houses in there to up the traffic and polution.

[Bob]

Rich_T and old soldier:

Do not be so quick to agree with Tessieca.

Contrast the County who has a long record of rejecting developers proposals to look at land outside of the USB for development, to this City who has a long record of never rejecting a proposed development, regardless of the cost to current residents, lack of adequate facilities, and unmitigated adverse impacts.

In 1993 the County established the Urban Services Boundary (USB). They also imposed stringent conditions on themselves, that basically require a finding that there is insufficient land left within the USB to accommodate growth before the USB can be moved. As you will see below that’s at least 50 years away, if ever.
Since then, it has never been breached – anywhere in the County, not even once. That’s a 14+year record!

There have been many challenges to it by “influential and wealthy” interests but I will give our two most notable local examples:

First:
In 2000 CC Myers (wealthy local bridge building contractor with strong political ties around the State) bought over 4,000 acres of oak ranch land just north of Rancho Murrieta. His intent was to develop the site for residential (mostly a golf retirement community for seniors). The County turned down his proposal as it was outside of the USB. They continued to reject his requests so he paid for an initiative campaign to get his proposal on the ballot. (Recall County Measure O). It went down in flames with a 70%+ No vote from County (including Folsom) voters. This despite the fact he spent over $3million to campaign for it as compared to the opposition who spent just over $100,000. He was then forced to relinquish the land, at a reported loss of $20million (paid speculative price for ranch land, sold back at ranch land prices).

Second:
Just a few months ago the County completed it’s General Plan update. They were heavily lobbied by AKT (Tsakopoulos) and his local land use attorney (our former mayor Bob Holderness who, in my opinion, has a long list of undercutting the best interests of Folsom residents to his own personal benefits and those of his clients) to include land south of our SOIA in the update. The County rejected them. Not only did they not consider moving the USB for them, but they would not even consider including the land for study of potential land for possible future growth.

In addition, the County’s General Plan update once again showed that the County has enough undeveloped land within the USB to accommodate another 50+years of regional growth (much more if you consider redevelopment of existing areas, infill, etc.). There are some 74,000 developable acres, left inside the USB. Despite pressure around the entire perimeter of the USB, the County left it 100% intact. By the way, General Plan updates are a BIG deal and do not happen often. The last County update was in 1993 when they initiated the USB!

[Robert Giacometti]

Joint use will be maximized by having the HS and MS share some facilities. They are on the same plot with 2 different entrances.

Will the HS school and the city require a swimming pool for S50? If so the pool should be built on city park land adjacent to the HS. This way citizens can access the pool without going onto the school site and student athletes can access the pool without having to be transported to another site.

We can use the same example for Ball fields and Gyms. It is very difficult for citizens to get access to recreation facilities when they are located on a school site, but if you locate these facilities on an adjacent park site its a win/win.

We need to design the location of facilities in a way that makes them as efficient as possible to operate.