Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

City Annexation Plan


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 08:29 PM

There was an interesting presentation of the proposed land use plan for the SOI tonight. It encompasses the feedback received through the SACOG blueprint process, the Folsom visioning process, and Measure W.

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 smile.gif ).

Any thoughts from others? Cal, I assume you were there although I didn't see you.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#2 MikeinFolsom

MikeinFolsom

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:08 PM

Rumor has it the Gencorp land is further along in the annexation process to Folsom than the SOI south of 50 is. Gencorp will be part of Folsom before anything else.

#3 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:17 PM

I think you mean that they're further along in the development process, not in the annexation process. That's land that is still claimed by RC, who hopes to rope it into their own boundaries.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#4 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 11:06 PM

QUOTE(tessieca @ Jun 12 2007, 10:17 PM) View Post
I think you mean that they're further along in the development process, not in the annexation process. That's land that is still claimed by RC, who hopes to rope it into their own boundaries.


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 mama_D

mama_D

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:01 AM

QUOTE(tessieca @ Jun 12 2007, 09:29 PM) View Post
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.


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!
The people there are more than a little snobby. If you aren't sure what "snobby" means please see this discussion: [topic=" Why Are We Folsomites So Snobish?, Because..."]http://www.tomatopages.com/folsomforum/index.php?showtopic=12985[/topic]

#6 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:36 AM

Link to SacBee article:

http://www.sacbee.co...ory/219681.html


"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#7 brown

brown

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 09:49 AM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Jun 13 2007, 12:06 AM) View Post
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?


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.


"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

#8 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 13 June 2007 - 10:15 AM

My wife and I did not make the meeting but we will be watching it on the TV broadcast Friday or Saturday.
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#9 MikeinFolsom

MikeinFolsom

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:31 AM

Hmmm, I dunno. From rumors passed around the department, Gencorp will be part of Folsom before the rest of it. Gencorp and Folsom both want the land to be in the city. They want to merge it with the piece of land the automall sits on, which is the city of Folsom as well.

#10 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:53 AM

From the rumors I've heard, Gencorp does not want to get into any tug of war between Folsom and RC. What they want most is to have their entire property within the boundaries of one or the other, instead of having to deal with two governments (or 3 if you count the county). Setting up a SOI is the first step toward annexation. Neither city has a SOI for that land. OTOH, the Folsom SOI is well into the annexation process and hopes to conclude it by Fall 2010. Easton and Glenborough are ahead of that in terms of development, but it will be developed within the county of Sacramento initially and not within any city.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#11 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:56 AM

QUOTE(brown @ Jun 13 2007, 10:49 AM) View Post
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.


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 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 June 2007 - 12:06 PM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Jun 13 2007, 12:56 PM) View Post
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?

Not me! And, again, I agree with you.

#13 brown

brown

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 12:44 PM

QUOTE(Robert Giacometti @ Jun 13 2007, 12:56 PM) View Post
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?


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.
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

#14 MikeinFolsom

MikeinFolsom

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 01:42 PM

So what you're trying to say is....if the drinking water is a little neon green, dilute it until it's clear?

#15 brown

brown

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts

Posted 13 June 2007 - 01:56 PM

QUOTE(MikeinFolsom @ Jun 13 2007, 02:42 PM) View Post
So what you're trying to say is....if the drinking water is a little neon green, dilute it until it's clear?


Yeah, that 's exactly what I'm saying.
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users