59 replies to this topic

[maestro]

Quoting earlier:    The City is in (or supposed to be ) updating the General Plan. I am sure there will be a significant discussion of all of these questions within that process (its required by state law).
The City has not "suddenly" rezoning giant swaths of land (other than S-50, which is a whole other issue). By in large the project that I am seeing get approved are consistent with the assumed land uses in the current General Plan.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

What if city is treating huge General Plan Amendments as if they some puny sign request?   

 

What if the GPA process, CEQA, OPR mandates, Public Hearings, Responses, Re-hearings, Responses to Objections  --   what if all that is ignored by the city just filing a Negative Declaration?     

 

What if our current guv's office of public reviews does nothing except  believe the papers they receive?   what if water supplier never even gets Notice of numerous GPAs -- amounting to thousands of new residents never planned for. 

 

 

Thanks Calgirl for telling us about all these new buildings in process --    and no one knew.    

 

Good work.

 

PS  The city has a drawer full of notices that it is violation of the 7 year Update of GP.   

Get the picture?

When is the last time our current guv permitted enforcement of laws?    And why does he continue to empty our prisons by renaming felonies as misdemeanors?

 

.

 

 

 

[Sandman]

For example, the apartment project near Broadstone Market that caused a whole bunch of acrimony for many folks, was in fact consistent with the General Plan. There was no secret change. Had people asked when they bought their homes, they would have seen that that property was zoned for high density residential... to expect it to remain vacant is foolish. I wonder what those opposed to the apartments would say if they saw the General Plan Map and realized that just south of the apartments is designated industrial?? https://www.folsom.c...eneral_plan.asp

 

 

^^THIS^^ is simply inaccurate.  I live in Talus Ridge and know many of the original home owners.  The "original" General Plan when these houses were built called for a MUCH smaller TWO story RETIREMENT home.  NOT the FOUR story 400u behemoth of a complex that is currently planned for that site.

 

NOBODY in this neighborhood is expecting that lot to stay vacant, just wanting to see that something similar to what was ORIGINALLY planned gets developed.  Get yo facts straight...

[kcrides99]

Show me the general plan amendments sandman! Did you speak up against the general plan amendments? Ignorance is bliss my friend.

The fact is the location is in proximity to shopping, transit, and the freeway, all good geographic factors for high density housing.

[2 Aces]

Why don't YOU show us the "high density residential general plan" that you are referring to.

If you don't, you are blowing smoke, pal.

[kcrides99]

https://www.folsom.c...eneral_plan.asp

[ducky]

Show me the general plan amendments sandman! Did you speak up against the general plan amendments? Ignorance is bliss my friend.

The fact is the location is in proximity to shopping, transit, and the freeway, all good geographic factors for high density housing.

 

Do you know if the homeowners in the proximity were specifically notified of the general plan amendments when they were proposed?  Otherwise, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to monitor the blurbs in The Folsom Telegraph every single week and then dig out the info, if it can even be found, on the city Website.  It would be like a full-time job monitoring all the meetings and changes that have occurred.

[kcrides99]

Let me ask you this ducky- did you check out the neighborhood before you bought? Did you see a huge piece of vacant land surrounded by development on all sides?

I am sorry if you assume it will be vacant forever, you are sorely mistaken! People check what school their kids are going to go to based on the neighborhood, shouldn't they at least spend a few minutes researching the possibilities of what may be slated for that vacant parcel?

I have not gone back thru history personally, but from my understanding the land has been designated high density residential for a long time.

[ducky]

Let me ask you this ducky- did you check out the neighborhood before you bought? Did you see a huge piece of vacant land surrounded by development on all sides?

I am sorry if you assume it will be vacant forever, you are sorely mistaken! People check what school their kids are going to go to based on the neighborhood, shouldn't they at least spend a few minutes researching the possibilities of what may be slated for that vacant parcel?

I have not gone back thru history personally, but from my understanding the land has been designated high density residential for a long time.

 

Well, my neighborhood was built in the '50s so there wasn't much vacant in the immediate vicinity of my home so probably not a good example.  

 

I'm not sure how you came up with the accusation that I assume all vacant land will remain vacant when I have stated no such thing.  I haven't said that I believed that, nor has Sandman.  There was a lot of vacant land near the lake (Briggs Ranch) and from Wales all the way out to Highway 50 (Lexington Hills, Broadstone, Empire Ranch, etc.) so I have no illusions.  I know that every piece of vacant land will be built on in Folsom no matter what the traffic and water supply impacts may be.

 

It's the changes.  Some of them occurred within just the last couple of years.  Of course, it doesn't have to be vacant for them to change the density or use, i.e., the school district property across from Sutter Middle, or industrial to multi-family (Granite City Apartments) or whatever the land was originally designated as for the homes squeezed on little lots off Parkshore..

[Sandman]

Anyone who is concerned with the size/scope of the current plan is encouraged to attend the Aug 23rd city council meeting. Many residents are exoected to speak. It should be a packed house.

Its also woth noting the builder USA homes is requesting a nearly $800K subsidy from the city to make up for the required "low income" units.

[maestro]

 

Do you know if the homeowners in the proximity were specifically notified of the general plan amendments when they were proposed?  Otherwise, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to monitor the blurbs in The Folsom Telegraph every single week and then dig out the info, if it can even be found, on the city Website.  It would be like a full-time job monitoring all the meetings and changes that have occurred.

 

 

 

Stick to your guns Ducky.     There is hard proof the city approved massive General Plan Amendments to over 65 acres of vacant land      ---    during just one month this spring.   

 

GPA are a HUGE operation in a place where the laws are respected.     GPAs involve Public Notices, multiple Public Hearings, filing a City-Engineer Approved set of plans with the OPR, complying with CEQA,  taking and publishing the Public Comments on each rezone, holding more Public Hearings to discuss the objections, publishing the RESPONSE LETTERs from all the agencies providing WATER SUPPLY, roads, planning for what used to be intended as Commercial-Business Zones --   not super-dense housing.

 

 

If you wish to see hard evidence the city by-passed certain agencies in the Cresleigh GPA dense up-zoning, go to the Planner in charge and ask to view the Cresleigh files --  BOTH of them.       Up-zoning 35 acres of vacant Intel area land to super-dense housing is insane.     And Reclamation never even received notice of it.    Neither did the other Utility Providers (except SMUD, which didn't like it).

 

 

If the city continues to make gigantic dense upzoning, rezoning to dense housing, without due process, someone will pay the price(s) -- and soon.      I think the entire city needs to know   a certain city lawyer has a lot to learn about obeying land-use laws, and Public Records Act laws.      When I last saw him in CA Superior Court, he was not impressive.     This month he wrote formally that if I continue to ask for the Cresleigh, Pique, and Rezone 34 acres at Costco, PLANS, he will use all the resources of the city to stop me from seeing the city-engineer approved PLANs, drawings, Development Agreements, and the files on both the 2010 and the identical 2015 Applications -- with different ownership.

 

Yes, I was refused public access to the Planning Department file for both Cresleigh applications.      I wrote the city clerk asking her to attach a copy of the refusal letter to these files.      Never seen anything like this in my many years in land use.      The city lawyer wrote I cannot see the Cresleigh LLC applications, plans, letters, minutes of alleged public hearings, etc.   Even Plan Commission Minutes do not seem to exist.   The city issued a Neg Dec prior to any open hearings.       Check the record --    if you're willing to fight to see these public records.

 

As for Cresleigh, it is a textbook example for all land-use experts:  a how not to, as it were.     

[maestro]

Anyone who is concerned with the size/scope of the current plan is encouraged to attend the Aug 23rd city council meeting. Many residents are exoected to speak. It should be a packed house.

Its also woth noting the builder USA homes is requesting a nearly $800K subsidy from the city to make up for the required "low income" units.

 

 

 

What do these comments refer to -- i.e. which of the General Plan Amendment Applications, Development Applications, land use change Applications?     

 

What General Plan Amendments,  specifically, are on the city council agenda?    How could they get there without the process of public hearings, agencies' replies, rehearings, copy of Development Agreements, city engineer Approved PLANS?

 

Silverbrook Island (now dense housing on Parkshore) was zoned for Office, Business, Commercial.    The General Plan Amendments were not any more public than the other massive up-zonings this council is doing north of 50.     Almost NO businesses are interested in owning & constructing offices here, because zoning is a "movable, changeable" item.    

 

 

For those interested in money,  compare city "development & application fees"  with those for Sac County, Citrus Heights, and other entities.       You might find its all about "follow the money."  

[Barbara L]

This development was posted in the Natoma Station section of this forum over a month ago with no one really paying attention.  The project was heard at the Planning Commission on July 20.  One of the big issues brought up by members of the Natoma Station Community Organization was tree mitigation for the 148 trees that are to be clear cut when the property on Willard is entirely graded.  The developer declined to do any mitigation and is giving property to the adjacent landowners - some of the property has already been in use by them for 25 years as the fence they thought was the property was not.  They are being given additional property between the existing fence and the fence which will be behind the small lot homes.  The developer and the property owners do not agree to having a greenbelt to replace the trees that are being removed.  The land will be deeded over after the project is approved.

Efforts by Planning Staff to create a landscape preservation area were shot down by the Planning Commission as the neighbors receiving property "don't want to be told what they can do in their back yards" despite the fact that the property they've been using and will be additionally deeded is part of the project at this time.

The traffic along Willard and Iron Point was already noted to be problematic with back ups on Willard essentially completely covering Willard at peak traffic times.  A cross walk was suggested by one Commissioner but not conditioned.

 

The rezoning and approval for 46 homes and a 250+ apartment complex (on the already bare lot behind Safeway) will be going to the Council for approval in late August or early September.

 

 

 

[maestro]

This development was posted in the Natoma Station section of this forum over a month ago with no one really paying attention.  The project was heard at the Planning Commission on July 20.  One of the big issues brought up by members of the Natoma Station Community Organization was tree mitigation for the 148 trees that are to be clear cut when the property on Willard is entirely graded.  The developer declined to do any mitigation and is giving property to the adjacent landowners - some of the property has already been in use by them for 25 years as the fence they thought was the property was not.  They are being given additional property between the existing fence and the fence which will be behind the small lot homes.  The developer and the property owners do not agree to having a greenbelt to replace the trees that are being removed.  The land will be deeded over after the project is approved.

Efforts by Planning Staff to create a landscape preservation area were shot down by the Planning Commission as the neighbors receiving property "don't want to be told what they can do in their back yards" despite the fact that the property they've been using and will be additionally deeded is part of the project at this time.

The traffic along Willard and Iron Point was already noted to be problematic with back ups on Willard essentially completely covering Willard at peak traffic times.  A cross walk was suggested by one Commissioner but not conditioned.

 

The rezoning and approval for 46 homes and a 250+ apartment complex (on the already bare lot behind Safeway) will be going to the Council for approval in late August or early September.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I paid attention and I got a written threat for my interest in the city engineer approved Plans, Blueprints, etc.

 

 

I also asked Reclamation how such a major land use change as hospital-type care multi-family housing rezones could be done from the business-office zoning -- without Reclamation assuring there was water for thousands more residents.

What about roads, sewers, schools, impact on highway 50?     

 

 

Do you realize there are absolutely NO Plan Commission Minutes showing a discussion of these huge land use issues!!

WTH.        How can Natoma Station residents watch their entire investment in housing and lifestyle go down the drain at the whim of this LLC developer and the city council four?

Does anyone intend to ask Reclamation how 35 and 35 more, and 35 more, and 5,000 more acres of vacant land can be made extremely dense multi-housing  --  at the stroke of a Negative Declaration by the city?       

 

 

Focusing on the minor land donations is spurious  -- this is about secret rezoning and changing of our General Plan law without public and agency involvement.     Go ahead, council four, act like supreme beings, then tell Reclamation, Reg San, Fed Highway Dept & SACOG.

 

 

 

.

[maestro]

Update August 7, 2016,

 

There's nothing like a written threat to establish where the lines are drawn.     And,  city still refuses to give public access to the 2010 file for Cresleigh Ravine, which is same up-zoning ideas  as the renumbered 2015 file (according to correspondence).     

 

 City is redoing almost all vacant land use designations NORTH of 50   --   without the mandatory General Plan   Public Hearings, Publications, Rehearings, Responses to Comments, City-Engineer Approved Blueprints and public  discussion of Development Agreements.      Will Natoma Station sit still for what the city council proposes to do to  them?          Will city residents accept  the city refusing to use the beautiful woods as a nature area?     Will Reclamation catch wind of the city giving away huge amounts of water for upzones of 1,000 multi-units  in a single month?      What about feedback on utilities, roads, schools, and businesses?    It's  mo' housing, mo' housing .........

 

 

PS not to say city stopped with numerous (vacillating)  land use changes for south of 50, but then S50  FPA seems to be another mystery land (in terms of water, land use, etc.)

 

.