Granite Bay Community Forum – Granite Bay Community Plan Review
Lutheran Church of the Resurrection, Granite Bay
February 11, 2009
Introduction and presentation: Michael Johnson, Community Development Resource Agency Director
Mr. Johnson’s opening remarks focused on introductions of staff and Supervisor Uhler. He also expressed his appreciation for he large turn-out (estimated at approximately 450 persons).
Mr. Johnson then provided an overview of the work program from its origination in August of 2008 when the Board of Supervisors authorized the work program, to December 2008 when the Granite Bay MAC was provided an overview of the work program status and the subsequent decision to conduct a community meeting to answer questions about the community plan review. Mr. Johnson also explained the reasons why a review was being considered which includes the age of the plan (approximately 20 years) and the need to review plan assumptions and ensure consistency. Mr. Johnson noted that the current community plan was only designed to guide development of the area through the year 2000.
Mr. Johnson acknowledged the concern raised by residents about performing this update during the current economic downturn. He expressed that it is actually a good time to review the community plan since staff have more time available. Mr. Johnson added that typically outside consultants are hired to prepare an update since County staff lack available time. He stated that it would be more advantageous for County staff to review the community plan rather than an outside consultant given their work experience in the County.
Background was provided on the past planning efforts for the Granite Bay area, including the 1975 Loomis Basin General Plan, which was the predecessor to the existing 1989 Granite Bay Community Plan, and the 2005 Circulation Element update, which solely addressed through traffic between Folsom and Roseville. Information was also provided on buildout (29,000 persons) and the remaining holding capacity.
The balance of the presentation was a discussion on the initial six months of the work program and its emphasis on background data collection, and how the public can provide input. Mr. Johnson stated that background data collection will not only include looking at existing conditions, but identifying any changes that have occurred since 1989. With regards to public outreach, Mr. Johnson indicated that unlike other updates, where a steering committee is formed to provide feedback, the review of this community plan will be an open and inclusive process where the entire community could provide input. This includes input on land use changes and policy changes or just general comments. At the workshop, specific information was provided on electronic forms that are available online on the County website to make land use or policy change requests and the process by which staff will evaluate these requests.
Public Comments:
Speaker #1 – Is concerned about increased commercial development along Douglas Boulevard and the availability of infrastructure. A pilot study should be done to determine if the need for an update is warranted before entering into an expensive comprehensive update.
Speaker #2 – Is opposed to any changes in the GBCP because the original goals and policies are still relevant today; opposed to the cost and there is not a compelling argument for an update.
Speaker #3 – Has concerns about the manner in which the decision to proceed was made.
Speaker #4 – Has concerns about increased traffic & air quality and the GPCP should address the lowering of the overall build out.
Speaker #5 –Is not opposed to an update and it is premature to deem the plan inappropriate for the community.
Speaker #6 –Had several comments about the community.
Speaker #7 – Wants the GBCP written to ensure safety and comfort to the families and community while maintaining property values. Has concerns about additional traffic from Folsom bridge.
Speaker #8 – Change is good, necessary and inevitable and a new plan could be positive for the community. Owns a 4.8 acre parcel and would like to subdivide into 2.3 acres.
Speaker # 9 – Concerned about the cost and special interest group’s involvement in the process.
Speaker #10 – Comments on the various requests to rezone Itchy Acres. Opposes spot rezoning.
Speaker #11 – Community plan works well, but an update may be inevitable. What will the process be for zone change requests and what role will the MAC provide?
Speaker #12 – Concerns about roadway and the impact the growth in Folsom, Roseville and other areas may have on roads. GBCP should discourage strip development and encourage mixed use.
Speaker #13 – All elements of change, not just rezoning, should be considered. (e.g., parks & rec.)
Speaker #14 – Concerns about requests for land use being taken before update has even started and projects which continually come back to the MAC and benefits to the community.
Speaker #15 – Concerned about the process and how information is gathered and the communities’ need to be heard.
Speaker #16 – Concerned about the process and the motivation behind the update; questions about the MAC’s role and Government Code 65301.
Speaker #17 – The criteria, purpose and need for which the review process is established is important because it will serve as the basis for recommendations.
Speaker #18 – What is the decision making process and who are the decision makers?
Speaker #19 – Concerns about rezoning changing the community. We should only consider lower density in GBCP. What is required for local government to not consider update? What is process to proceed or not to proceed?
Speaker #20 – Why was 2005 update limited to circulation?
Speaker #21 – Do all 4 phases have to done or can it be stopped at phase 1? By show of hands, consensus of the community is to stop.
Speaker #22 – The Granite Bay voters should have a say in the GBCP. Has concerns about the MAC’s position routinely being overturned when decision-makers consider a project.
Speaker #23 – Concerned Granite Bay will turn into Folsom as a negative outcome to the process.
Speaker #24 – Community has suspicions and concerns regarding the update process. GBCP should not be solely staff driven; review and evaluations should be done by community members also.
Speaker #25 – There is lack of trust in decision makers. The community needs to voice their opinion.
Speaker #26 - Worked on 1989 plan. The current plan provides for a range of land uses; park and school system is good; Douglas Boulevard should have open space on the south and commercial should be limited to Sierra College and Auburn Folsom. Current plan is fine. Ultimate decision is made by three Board members.
Speaker #27 – Itchy Acre owners would like the ability to subdivide.
Speaker #28 – Concerns about communication; MAC’s opinion not being heard and the build out of 29,000 too high. Current policies have resulted in a good community.
Speaker #29 - Concerns about impacts on Dry Creek watershed and the Board taking MAC’s recommendations into consideration.
Speaker # 30 – Concerns about the community plan update process.
Concluding remarks: Supervisor Uhler
The Community Meeting ended at 9:10pm
County Staff Attendees: Supervisor Kirk Uhler, Brian Jagger, District Director, Michael Johnson, CDRA/Planning Director, Loren Clark, Assistant Planning Director, E. J. Ivaldi, Supervising Planner, Andrew Gaber, DPW
Approximate Attendance: 450 persons