Vote tonight on Intel Land
#1
Posted 10 December 2002 - 08:08 AM
http://www.folsom.ca...3942/Agenda.htm
#2
Posted 10 December 2002 - 10:57 AM
The two 10.5 acre sites R-4 (21 acres) and the 11.1 acre commercial site are the ones that are going to closed session.
Are they going to sell BLAS-B 21 acres of R-4 and 11.1 acres of commercial? If they sell it as commercial, BLAS-B will be right back trying to get it rezoned to R-4 or R-1 so they can build on it. So we will then have at least 32 acres of property they can build housing on. They say that the 7.2 acre site North and East of the Resevoir is supposed to be park land.
The FCUSD site of over 14 acres is still commercial and I believe that BLAS-B is trying to purchase that from the school district.
BE THERE!!!
CAL
#3
Posted 10 December 2002 - 02:40 PM
At the end of the council meeting tonight is a closed session in which the city is going to negociate with Blas B for the sale of 32 ac. around the high school for their proposed development. Currently 27 ac. have been rezoned. Are the other 4.6 ac. going to be rezoned to R-4? That is the question to be answered by the council tonight.
Please, attend tonight's meeting and show our council members that we do not agree to any more land being rezoned.
Janet
#4
Posted 10 December 2002 - 03:34 PM
It has been brought to my attention that tonight's meeting may be critical with regard to the sale of the property surrounding the High School to Blas-B. It's my understanding that the City Council will say that a majority of the citizens in the Prairie Oaks / Willow Springs area are now behind the sale and are in agreement that Bas-B has the best solution for the area. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I'm definately not behind the sale and not behind the re-zoning of ANY additional land.
Additionally, I would hope that the city doesn't take the easy route and approve it tonight.
If you have paid attention to any of the Sacramento Bee's articles. Take a look at this one and tell me if you agree with it.
Taken from the december 8th 2002 addition of the SacBee online, Community News Section.
"The challenge is, we've got to get the (required) acreage and spred it around the community as much as possible" quote from Eric King.
SacBee - Folsom to miss rezoning deadline
I hope to see everyone at the meeting tonight..!!
#5
Posted 11 December 2002 - 07:11 AM
Ben Stein
#6
Posted 11 December 2002 - 04:51 PM
The property around the school was about last on the agenda but around 20 of us stayed around to give our two cents worth.
After all was said and done, the city council voted not to sell the 32 acres to BLAS-B. I believe they might put the property up for bids again sometime early next year, either as commercial or R-4. There is 27 + acres that has been rezoned R-4, as far as I know the rest is commercial C-3.
Anyway, we the people in South Folsom won a bit of a stay of execution.
The INTEL property, C-14 was taken off but INTEL has suggested the property further back of the C-14 property 10 acres. It was not voted on yet.
Properties will be reagendized for the 1st and 2nd city council meetings in January 2003.
Other than that the meeting was just long, long. Try to watch it on TV, if you can.
Keep tuned in and we will try to keep everyone up to date. Everyone else keep me straight.
Calvin May
#7
Posted 12 December 2002 - 03:00 PM
On one hand, the zoning in South Folsom has been stopped. An equal and fair amount of zoning has been alotted to the South Folsom area.
However, the proposed development for in there did look pretty promising - not only would it have had qualified for low-incpome housing, it would have done it in the best possible way - though owner-occupied houses and duplexes. Now with small parcels scattered throughout the city, just about the only thing a developer can do is build apartments. Is that a good thing?
Again, I'm not complaining - south Folsom was getting this problem thrown over the fence, and fortunately, the city council had enough insight to realize that what they were doing was wrong. I just would have liked to see low-income housing done through owner-occupied houses, that's all.
#8
Posted 12 December 2002 - 09:01 PM
Owner occupied affordable housing is the best way to go.
"Our strength will be found in our charity." [Betty J. Eadie]
"Being a mom is the most rewarding job I have ever had!"
"SEMPER FIDELIS! USMC"
#9
Posted 14 December 2002 - 12:51 AM
I find it very "coincidential" that this item was next to last on the agenda and virtually no notice of this topic for the evening provided except for the posting on the city's web site. Mr. King, who put this topic on the agenda, aparently is eager to put nearly 50 acres of High Denisty Low Income housing surrounding the High School. I wonder if he would vote the same way if this cluster project was put in his neighborhood in the Parkway?
The Blas-B proposal was so vague that their representatives could not answer basic questions regarding the approximate size of the units let alone the total number for the project. R-4 High Density zoning allows up to 28 units per acre. No where in the submitted proposal was there specifics committing to less than maximum R-4 zoning. Another "coincidence" was the Blas-B proposal had to be voted on that night or their financing would expire. IF the proposal was such a sound developement wouldn't financing still be available 24 hours later?
The impending 400% increase in city service charges starting next year, would seem to require an expansion of the commercial tax base, not proposals that would minimize the commercial tax base. High Density Low Income housing on prime commercial office property on the Hwy 50 corridor permanently removes the higher contributing commercial office tax revenue from the city's budget to be replaced by apartments.
Just does not make sense, nor does the actions of some elected officials seem to credible.
WS res
#10
Posted 15 December 2002 - 12:20 AM
I couldn't have said it better!
#11
Posted 15 December 2002 - 12:32 PM
As far as mayor Miklos and council member Howell, I would like to have seen them gone too, but they are still around.
I do believe that we as Folsom residents do need to bring the voting of the mayor and vice mayor up and be able to vote for those two positions at the next election. The people should vote for mayor and vice mayor, at the minimum at least the mayor.
Someone, or I will, bring it up at one of the future meetings and I will go down to city hall and see that has to be done to bring this to a vote.
Cal
#12
Posted 16 December 2002 - 08:59 AM
Am I playing favorites? You bet. If Intel ever left Folsom, we'd be in a LOT of trouble.
#13
Posted 16 December 2002 - 10:16 AM
#14
Posted 18 December 2002 - 09:31 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users