Sacramento exploring annexation of Arden-Arcade, Natomas and South Sacramento

[urban_encounter]

City exploring annexation of Arden Arcade
Despite incorporation bid, a councilman says merger
would be a better option.
By Ed Fletcher - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 6:33 am PDT Monday, April 23, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1



Arden Arcade is a popular place.

Some residents are fighting to incorporate it. County officials desperately want to keep the revenue generated there. And now, some city of Sacramento elected leaders say the city should consider annexing the unincorporated county turf.

Sacramento City Councilman Steve Cohn said he respects cityhood backers' desire to break from the county but said he has an alternative.


"There is a an even better option, and that is annexing into the city of Sacramento," Cohn said.

Earlier this month, cityhood advocates were told their petition drive was successful, clearing the way for an intensive incorporation study and keeping a November 2008 election in sight.

Because Sacramento borders Arden Arcade to the east, north and south, annexing the 13.3-square-mile area east of the Arden Fair mall would create a "more seamless efficient government," Cohn said.

The city hasn't officially launched an annexation effort, but the council did authorize staff members to study the issue.

It also asked staff members to consider for annexation some areas of Natomas and south Sacramento.

The discussion about what's best for Arden Arcade illuminates a larger debate over whether the region is best served by larger regionally thinking governments or smaller governments with a careful eye on local neighborhoods.

Joel Archer, chairman of the cityhood campaign, said Arden Arcade residents aren't interested in I Street City Hall running things.

"Arden Arcade does not want to be a part of the city of Sacramento. The community does not want another downtown government," Archer said.

"What Arden Arcade wants is to be safer, cleaner (streets) and a more responsive government."

But that feeling is not absolute among residents.

Steve Eggert, a recent addition to the Arden Arcade community council, says small governments can result in parochial decision-making that doesn't take the wider community into account.

"I'm against Balkanization. I strongly favor annexation," Eggert said.

Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said he doesn't want to lose Arden Arcade to either self-incorporation or annexation into the city.

"It continues to make sense for Arden Arcade to continue to be part of the unincorporated part of the county," Dickinson said.

He said the cost effectiveness for providing police protection, fixing streets and picking up garbage is diminished as chunks of the unincorporated area are removed.

Still, if Arden Arcade were determined to change governance, Dickinson said, he finds annexation would be less onerous than incorporation.

"If we keep chopping up the county into more and more jurisdictions, it will have an adverse effect on the ability of the county and the region as a whole to come to agreement on issues."

As a former member of the local intergovernmental agency in charge of the incorporation process, Sacramento City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond said she helped clear the way for two of the region's new cities -- and doesn't regret her actions.

All the same, she said she's "growing increasingly concerned about the number of new cities."

She said cities need to work together.

"We are going to have to learn to be more regional, from water to solid waste," Hammond said.

As for Arden Arcade, Hammond said annexation might make sense.

"You talk to folks in Arden Arcade, and many don't know they don't live in the city," Hammond said.

"It might be better to just annex and square off our borders over time."

Cohn suggests the environmental study and fiscal analysis triggered by the incorporation petition also should study the merits and cost of annexation as an alternative. But annexation requires separate action.

Sacramento County Executive Terry Schutten said in a statement released last week that given the city's possible interest, "it stands to reason" that annexation should be studied as an alternative.

Peter Brundage, executive director of the Local Agency Formation Commission, said it's not clear how thoroughly the annex- ation possibility will be examined as part of the current process. He didn't know how much such a study would increase costs and who would pick up the tab.

He stressed, however, that annexation requires a separate proposal before LAFCO considers it.

"The proposal is an incorporation. It's not one or the other," Brundage said.

But while incorporation re- quires a vote of the people, annexation -- once revenue agreements between the city and county are made -- could proceed without an election.

Archer said cityhood backers shouldn't have to pay to study annexation.

"Why should we have to pay to research an alternative that the community doesn't want?" he said.

[goldcntry]

And once again... Rosemont, the red-headed step-children that we are, is unwanted for annexation by anyone...:shuffle:

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...

Rosemont: Stuck between Sacramento and Rancho Cordova :borg:

[urban_encounter]

And once again... Rosemont, the red-headed step-children that we are, is unwanted for annexation by anyone...:shuffle:

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...

Rosemont: Stuck between Sacramento and Rancho Cordova :borg:


I think the city council is exploring all unicorporated urbanized areas within the city's sphere of influence (and i would bet that Rosemont would be included in that study.)

I don't think that Rosemont is within the Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO..


I'm just curious why they didn't move to study annexation a lot sooner??


Frankly I'm surprised that the city is interested in doing this now. Since North Sacramento was last annexed, (I believe) the city had moved away from annexing older urbanized areas of the county and only seemed to show interest in newer neighborhoods and undeveloped land (ie.. the "Northern Territories")...

[reggiesquared]

What kind of population increase would result of a hypothetical annexation of arden-arcade? And or north / south sac (What areas does that even mean?)

[ozone]

Of course, as you know I'm very interested in this topic. I don't think simple annexation is acceptable to anyone -considering the fate of North Sacramento. However the balkinization of Sacramento County will only hurt the region IMO and it means that Sacramento will end up no different than LA of San Jose. That's why I think we need a restructuring of the city and not simple annexation.

[Sacdelicious]

According to everyone's favorite source, Wikipedia, the population of Arden-Arcade is around 83,000.

[urban_encounter]

What kind of population increase would result of a hypothetical annexation of arden-arcade? And or north / south sac (What areas does that even mean?)

There are now approximately 650,000 (+/-) people living in the unicorproated parts of the county known as "The Un-City"" of Sacramento


Sacramento County total population 1,374,724 (2006)

City of Sacramento 458,00
City of Elk Grove 120,000 (+)
City of Citrus Heights 85,400 (+)
City of Folsom 51,300 (+)
City of Galt 19,550 (+)
City of Isleton 840 (+)
Rancho Cordova 55,000 (+)

2000 census information for the unincorporated parts of the county...


Antelope 36,421


Arden-Arcade 96,025


Carmichael 49,742


Fair Oaks 28,008


Florin 27,653


Foothill Farms 17,426


Gold River 8,023


Herald unavailable


La Riviera 10,273


Laguna West-Lakeside 8,414 (Elk Grove Sphere of Influence)


Locke unavailable


North Highlands 44,187


Orangevale 26,705


Parkway-South Sacramento 36,468


Rancho Murieta 4,193


Rio Linda 10,466


Rosemont 22,904


Vineyard 10,109 (Elk Grove eyeing for future annexation)


Walnut Grove 669


Wilton 4,551




Arden Arcade had approximately 96,205 residents in 2000, so i would assume they are nearly around the same (maybe right at 100,000?),

South Sacramento (Parkway and Florin combined): 64,121

So that's approximmately 164,121 (+) residents in Arden Arcade and South Sacramento, not inlcuding Rosemont or any other locales within the county, that could become city residents. By annexing Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento, the City of Sacramento would instantly become the fourth largest municipailty in the state with an adjusted population of 621,121 (and assuming no other unincorporated neighborhoods are included)


I did place in bold letters, those unicorporated parts of the county that could be looked at by the city for annexation due to their proximity to the city or because they have already been part of the pseudo city for a long time (like North Highlands, La Riveria and Foothill Farms)..


Another alternative to more balkanization would be for Sacramento County to incorporate itself into a Metro City (Think Metro Dade).. That would allow it to collect Vehicle Licensing Fees that cities traditonally collect (i think that's still the case in California). Although we would effectively have two cities of Sacramento. Though this senario is highly unlikely since it would make more sense for the existing municipalities to annex the remaining urbanized areas of the County.


I think that unless Sacramento is going to be carved up into more competitive jurisdictions, Sacramento City is going to have to start annexing. I think they've watched Elk Grove and Folsom stake their claims in LAFCO for long enough and now the city has finally decided to study the idea.

[urban_encounter]

Of course, as you know I'm very interested in this topic. I don't think simple annexation is acceptable to anyone -considering the fate of North Sacramento. However the balkinization of Sacramento County will only hurt the region IMO and it means that Sacramento will end up no different than LA of San Jose. That's why I think we need a restructuring of the city and not simple annexation.



I think that if the city were to annex Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento you would deifinitely see restructuring of the city.

Most likely you would see one or two additional Council members to represent the new population and i think that the city would have to guarantee an increased level of service to the new city residents, since that's why they're looking at incorporation.

You could probably expect the City to contract with the County Sheriff to provide law enforcement service until the size of the City Police force could be beffed up. Sacramento Metro Fire would also probably continue covering fire protection until Sacramento City Fire could assume fire protection and County waste services would probably continue to provide trash collection.

Equipment and personell would probably simply change logos and uniforms and would simply be abosorbed into the city. The City would probably be asked to compensate the County to some degree.

Finances might be the stubbling block to this anyway.

Can the City of Sacramento afford to assume responsibility for another 164,121 new residents???


BTW the new Sacramento City Council Chambers was built to accomodate a few addtional Council members...

[otnemarcaS]

When I lived across from Cal Expo several years ago, I really had no idea that Arden-Arcade was not in the city of Sacramento even though I was somewhere in AA almost every day. Like Hammond said in the artcle, there's probably a whole lot of folks living in AA that don't know either. While it is a pretty dense area population wise, the size (21 sq miles) and boundaries of Arden-Arcade really makes me feel that the community should be annexed as part of Sacramento.

[urban_encounter]

When I lived across from Cal Expo several years ago, I really had no idea that Arden-Arcade was not in the city of Sacramento even though I was somewhere in AA almost every day. Like Hammond said in the artcle, there's probably a whole lot of folks living in AA that don't know either. While it is a pretty dense area population wise, the size (21 sq miles) and boundaries of Arden-Arcade really makes me feel that the community should be annexed as part of Sacramento.


That's the same problem with parts of South Sacramento/Florin and Fruitridge.

In fact I had to inform a couple of my friends who bought a house over off of 40th Avenue last year that they lived in the county and not the city.
They were quite surprised, but honestly i don't think that they care one way or the other.

They live in one the unincorporated pockets, that if you were to head in just about any direction (north/south/east or west) you cross back into the city limits.

[urban_encounter]

Editorial: Fruitridge's Uncity
Water problems point to neglected 'pocket'
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, April 23, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B4


An old water main broke the other day in a neighborhood known as Fruitridge Vista, outside Sacramento's city limits. The gushing water started to flood nearby yards and garages. The Sacramento Fire Department showed up, but it didn't know how to turn off the water mains.

Firefighters called the small private water company that provides water to the area. They had to leave a message. Eventually the Fruitridge Vista Water Co. realized it had a problem. Once again, the company and firefighters pledge better communications.

Yes, the incident exposed a glitch in the water company's 24-hour customer service system but, more important, the problems of government boundaries and government services.

This community, part of what is known as the Fruitridge Pocket, belongs in the city of Sacramento. Its services, including water, should be provided by the city. Its leader should be a member of the Sacramento City Council fighting hard for the community, just as Bonnie Pannell does for Meadowview and Lauren Hammond for Oak Park.

On a map, the area juts like a strange finger surrounded largely on three sides by Sacramento. The tip is to the north, at 14th Avenue. And then it jigs southward, bordered at times by Stockton Boulevard to the east and the old Western Pacific railroad tracks to the west.

If city limits were drawn sensibly for residents, fire departments and water providers, this pocket wouldn't exist. A key southern boundary for Sacramento would be moved, possibly to Florin Road or beyond. It would take some experts at the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission to help figure that out.

In any unincorporated community, there are longtime residents who don't want to join anything. The turf of the water company and some small government districts would be challenged. The same goes for Sacramento County, nominally in charge of that area. It is far easier to neglect the struggling neighborhoods of the Fruitridge Pocket than for Sacramento to try to adopt them.

Maybe, however, Sacramento leaders will find the gumption to take on this project. The city is reviewing its growth document, known as the general plan. So it's the right time to consider boundary changes.

The Fruitridge Pocket neither makes sense on a map nor in reality. When the Fire Department doesn't know how to turn off a water main or whom to call, that is a sign of a dysfunctional community. This community needs a home and a government looking after the people who live there.

[ltsmotorsport]

I can't believe this has taken this long to come back to the attention of the City of Sacramento (or can I :rolleyes: ). This, along with the other areas talked about in the article, should have been annexed 10+ years ago. Now they'll have a fight on their hands from provincial-thinking homeowners.

Because Sacramento borders Arden Arcade to the east, north and south, annexing the 13.3-square-mile area east of the Arden Fair mall would create a "more seamless efficient government," Cohn said...

...Steve Eggert, a recent addition to the Arden Arcade community council, says small governments can result in parochial decision-making that doesn't take the wider community into account...

"I'm against Balkanization. I strongly favor annexation," Eggert said...

...Dickinson said, he finds annexation would be less onerous than incorporation...

..."If we keep chopping up the county into more and more jurisdictions, it will have an adverse effect on the ability of the county and the region as a whole to come to agreement on issues."...

...she said she's "growing increasingly concerned about the number of new cities."...

..."We are going to have to learn to be more regional, from water to solid waste," Hammond said...

...As for Arden Arcade, Hammond said annexation might make sense...


Excellent reasons why annexation is the best option for the region as a whole, not just a small portion of the population.

[urban_encounter]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/2city.jpg
Map of current city limits.


Map of possible annexation (city study area). Arden-Arcade, N. Natomas and South Sacramento (shaded in black) btw this was my handy work so the city could explore additional unicorproated portions of these areas or less. But at least it will give everyone idea where exactly the city is looking at.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/Council_Districts_Map3.jpg


Mike I agree with you that the city has been too indecisive for so many years and has essentially sat back and allowed smaller and newer cities to go on a territorial feeding frenzy. The City at one time had eyed West Laguna, but because of the way things move in Sacramento government, Elk Grove laid quick claim to that area.

The cities of Folsom and Elk Grove are seeking to move unincorporated areas of the county into their spheres of influence in LAFCO (the first step to annexation) and Sacramento City leaders may want a piece of th pie themselves.

I think they really see it as an opportunity to "square off" the "borders" of the city as Lauren Hammond said.

In any case, I believe that Arden-Arcade will probably end up incorporating into their own city. But in the case of South Sacramento and the unincorporated areas of North Natomas, I think you may see those areas annexed into the city within the next 5 years... (Or that's my prediction)..

Now if the cityhood drive were to fail in Arden-Arcade, then that might open the door for Sacramento to annex that area. But it would be the height of arrogance for Sacramento to move to annex them, while they're trying to incorporate.

Of course were Arden-Arcade a Chicago neighborhood, then they could kiss their incorporation efforts goodbye, because they would be annexed one night while they slept and wake up Chicagoans..... :haha:

[ltsmotorsport]

:haha: That's what I want Sacramento to do.

Originally, when Sacramento was fumbling around with annexation talks, the south eastern city limits would be bound by Calvine to the south, and Bradshaw to the east. I agree with the guys in Rosemont that they should also be thought of in this round of talk, but who knows if it will happen.

[foxmtbr]

^ I wouldn't mind if they snagged Gold River while they're at it. :P

[ltsmotorsport]

Naw, that's Rancho's job. ;)

[urban_encounter]

^ I wouldn't mind if they snagged Gold River while they're at it. :P


ltsmotorsport's right, Gold River (if memory serves me correctly is in Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO. Also Gold River doesn't border Sacramento's City limits...

[futurearchie317]

Is Carmichael not a city?? Because I know people write Carmichael on mail whereas you would write Sacramento if you lived in an unincorporated area of Sacramento County. In any case, I really think Watt ave. would provide a good eastern boundary for the city. Just seems less arbitrary I guess.


Random thought: Is anyone else annoyed by the inherently unurban sound of "Elk Grove". I mean it has 120,000 people. (yes I realize its really suburban btw)

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, Watt Ave always seemed like a natural eastern limit to me too.

And no Carmichael isn't a city. Just like Fair Oaks, Orangevale, and Rio Linda.

[TWAK]

are those places you listed in the city? I see them everyday at work (UPS)
good to know that I'm actually in the city (south pocket/greenhaven)

[Majin]

None of those places are in the city.

[foxmtbr]

ltsmotorsport's right, Gold River (if memory serves me correctly is in Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence as recognized by LAFCO. Also Gold River doesn't border Sacramento's City limits...

Yes, it's part of Rancho Cordova, and it has the same zip code. I know it doesn't border city limits (not even close), I was just putting that out there for fun, like the other people on here who wanted their respective neighborhoods annexed. :P

[urban_encounter]

I know it doesn't border city limits (not even close), I was just putting that out there for fun, like the other people on here who wanted their respective neighborhoods annexed. :P


So it would be kind of like Alaska or Hawaii, a remote territory???


O.K. I guess that could work....


;)

[foxmtbr]

:haha: That would be awkward on a map.

[Schmoe]

It would border the city if Sac annexed A-A, Carmichael and Fair Oaks too.

[creamcityleo79]

613,000 people------135 sq mi------4,541 people per sq mi. That is what we would have if Sacramento annexed Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento-Parkway, Florin, La Riviera, and Rosemont. Sacramento would instantly become the 20th largest city in the country...a pretty good jump coming from number 37...and finally beating Fresno...(I don't know which would be better...being #20 or finally beating Fresno). I think part of what makes Sacramento so underrated is the fact that we have a city with over 2 million in the Metro area and less than 500,000 in the city. Other cities with small population and large metros have to have really tall buildings (and lots of them) to garner respect from some people. (ie. Atlanta and Miami) Annexation is the way to go. If we were talking annexation of Carmichael, Orangevale, or Antelope, it might look silly. But, these places already identify fully with Sacramento because they ALL have Sacramento mailing addresses. Bring them into the city where they belong. Having said that, I now wonder what people in Arden-Arcade or Rosemont would think of smart, dense urban growth...with a more suburban lifestyle, would they really be for allowing TOD's and more rail transit. Would they really vote for the kinds of leaders that would keep these urban principles at the forefront? I actually may have to debate myself over this one now that I think of it! Hmmmm...thoughts?

[BrianSac]

613,000 people------135 sq mi------4,541 people per sq mi. That is what we would have if Sacramento annexed Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento-Parkway, Florin, La Riviera, and Rosemont. Sacramento would instantly become the 20th largest city in the country...a pretty good jump coming from number 37...and finally beating Fresno...(I don't know which would be better...being #20 or finally beating Fresno). I think part of what makes Sacramento so underrated is the fact that we have a city with over 2 million in the Metro area and less than 500,000 in the city. Other cities with small population and large metros have to have really tall buildings (and lots of them) to garner respect from some people. (ie. Atlanta and Miami) Annexation is the way to go. If we were talking annexation of Carmichael, Orangevale, or Antelope, it might look silly. But, these places already identify fully with Sacramento because they ALL have Sacramento mailing addresses. Bring them into the city where they belong. Having said that, I now wonder what people in Arden-Arcade or Rosemont would think of smart, dense urban growth...with a more suburban lifestyle, would they really be for allowing TOD's and more rail transit. Would they really vote for the kinds of leaders that would keep these urban principles at the forefront? I actually may have to debate myself over this one now that I think of it! Hmmmm...thoughts?

I have often thought those unincorporated areas you mentioned in Sac county should be part of the city of Sacramento. It would bring more recognition to Sacramento on a national scale, and perhaps more Federal dollars.

Regarding TOD's and smart dense growth, I dont think it would matter much. Many parts of the current city of Sacramento are only slightly more dense than those areas mentioned. The pocket, natomas, east Sac, and north Sac are not exactly that friendly towards smart dense growth. Perhaps Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento-Parkway, Florin, La Riviera, and Rosemont would be just as inclined or dis-inclined to vote for TOD"s and smart growth.

[goldcntry]

In regards to La Riviera and Rosemont, my gut feeling is that we would be favorable to smart dense growth. As it is, La Riv and Rosemont are almost fully developed with only small little pockets left. Any further growth would of a necessity need to be more dense as evidenced by Kensington Square over by the new Juvenile Hall and Rosemont High; more upright, compact, zero-lot line homes that, while gorgeous inside, don't have much yard room outside.

[urban_encounter]

613,000 people------135 sq mi------4,541 people per sq mi. That is what we would have if Sacramento annexed Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento-Parkway, Florin, La Riviera, and Rosemont. Sacramento would instantly become the 20th largest city in the country...a pretty good jump coming from number 37... I think part of what makes Sacramento so underrated is the fact that we have a city with over 2 million in the Metro area and less than 500,000 in the city. Other cities with small population and large metros have to have really tall buildings (and lots of them) to garner respect from some people. (ie. Atlanta and Miami) Annexation is the way to go. If we were talking annexation of Carmichael, Orangevale, or Antelope, it might look silly. But, these places already identify fully with Sacramento because they ALL have Sacramento mailing addresses. Bring them into the city where they belong.



Well I agree with some of what you said. However whether or not the areas are annexed really doesn't matter except on paper and the amount of state revenue Sacramento collects. I mean the Census Bureau, says that Sacramento (city) has 458,000 people, but i think anyone who has any knowledge of Sacramento understands that it is a much larger city.

Sacramento has one of the largest unicorporated populations of any county in the country (second to L.A. I believe). But when your driving around Arden Fair or South Sacramento, it's difficult to know where the city ends and the unincorporated areas begin.

Population by itself doesn't make a city. As you noted Minneapolis, Atlanta, Miami, St. Louis (for starters) have equal or smaller populations than Sacramento city.

The tall building will come (are coming). The population is already there.
What people remember though is what Sacramento is like on the ground. It's culture and arts, academics, transportation, waterfront and nightlife. That's what will shape Sacramento.

Like I said, I think you will see South Sacramento (Florin/Fruitridge/Parkway), La Riveria, and areas of North Natomas annexed eventually; and without a doubt they should be.

Arden Arcade will probably decide to form their own city however. In the end that's their choice. But if cooler heads prevail, they will look seriously at allowing Sacramento to annex, so as to provide a continuation of services.

[goldcntry]

Like I said, I think you will see South Sacramento (Florin/Fruitridge/Parkway), La Riveria, and areas of North Natomas annexed eventually; and without a doubt they should be.

Arden Arcade will probably decide to form their own city however. In the end that's their choice. But if cooler heads prevail, they will look seriously at allowing Sacramento to annex, so as to provide a continuation of services.


Hey! You didn't include Rosemont in that statement!:drowning: Ah well... we'll just mope around in the no-mans-land between Sacto and RC. :slob:

[Michael Kramer]

Don't Forget Vinyard and Foothill Farms. Also, Antellope and perhaps North Highlands. NH is really blighted (but improving) and would flounder on it's own.

Vinyard is slated for develepment and already has a Sacramento address. So does Foothill Farms. AResidents in Antelope used to use a Sacramento address until the 90's.

All in all, with all of the new development , annexing all of the mentioned CDPs, including Carmichael and Fair Oaks would bolt Sacramento past San Francisco in population.

Personally, I think Organgevale would be better off connected to Citrus Heights or Folsom.

With all of these incorporations, Sacramento County will have to get out the minicipal service business out of economic necessity. Almost all of the unincorporated areas will have to be in an incorporated city. I believe rules like that exist in Yolo and Solano counties.

It's my opinion that things haven't change much in Arden-Arcade becuase of apathy and ambivalance. What percentage of residents in "Arden Arcade" were unaware that they we're not in the city of Sacramento already (prior to the incorporation drive). I can see the confusion when giving their address out. Gee...I don't live at 2300 El Camino Ave in Sacramento any more, now it's 2300 El Camino Ave, Arden-Arcade, CA. Yuck.....

Michael Kramer

Los Angeles

formerly from...
San Francisco
Sacramento
San Mateo

[BrianSac]

I don't live at 2300 El Camino Ave in Sacramento any more, now it's 2300 El Camino Ave, Arden-Arcade, CA. Yuck.....


Yep, that sounds so Stupid.

Just call it Arden, Ca.

Better yet, incorporate into Sacramento. :yes:

[ltsmotorsport]

Nothing about annexation, but I figured an article about population numbers could go here. Really makes me want this annexation to hurry up so we could have the number 5 spot by next year. ;)



Lincoln no longer state's fastest-growing city
By Bobby Caina Calvan, Loretta Kalb and Jennifer K. Morita - Bee Staff Writers
Published 8:16 pm PDT Tuesday, May 1, 2007


Lincoln, the state's fastest growing city per capita last year, has been knocked from its perch atop the heap, tumbling to sixth on the list, according to population estimates released Tuesday by the state Department of Finance.

Beaumont - a city of 28,250 in Riverside County - is now California's fastest-growing, logging a 21.2 percent spike, state statistics show.

With a population of 37,410, Lincoln posted a still-robust 11 percent increase - the fastest growth rate of any city in the capital region - but less than half the 22.6 percent growth from the previous year.

The softening housing market kept the region's growth at modest rates. Sacramento, the state's 7th most populous city, grew by 2 percent and now has a population of 467,343.

Overall, Sacramento County grew by 1.4 percent to nearly 1.41 million.

Elk Grove grew by a healthy 4 percent - but well below the 7.8 percent of the previous year. Its population is now 136,318 and it's California's 41st largest city.

Rancho Cordova posted 4.6 percent growth with 59,056 residents.

Statewide, the number of residents grew by 1.3 percent, adding nearly 470,000 residents to the state's population.

Los Angeles, the state's largest city, passed the 4 million mark with a population of nearly 4.02 million.

[mhays]

This weekend I visited Sacramento for the first time, other than a pass-through on I-5 once... My uncle turned 70 and it was a family reunion.

The (north) Natomas area is growing at an amazing pace. Though I don't favor suburbia, I have to say its embrace was quite welcoming in this context, with dozens of people at the house, and someone always shuttling us somewhere.

I stayed at the Holiday Inn just east of I-5 near Del Paso. Others stayed at the Hampton across the street -- turns out they were built from the same plans aside from minor variations. My uncle lives a mile northeast. Everywhere, more suburban construction. Pretty amazing -- sort of an insta-suburb.

Also visited Rocklin, where a cousin has a big house and a pool. Got toasted.

[urban_encounter]

Planners postpone decision on annexation
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 1, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B3


Even though a local school district faces an $11 million penalty if a complicated proposal to annex land into Sacramento isn't speedily approved, both Planning Commission and City Council members said Thursday that they won't be rushed.

Sacramento Planning Commission members surprised a crowded audience Thursday night when they voted 4-1 to continue a recommendation on whether to bring the 1,430-acre "panhandle" area near North Natomas into city boundaries.

Commissioner John Boyd said he felt "extremely pressured" to push through approval of the plan because the Grant Joint Union High School District could pay a hefty fee if ground hasn't been broken for its new education complex in the panhandle by Sept. 30. For construction to begin, the panhandle land must be annexed into the city.

A vote on the issue Thursday -- two weeks after it went to the commission -- would have left inadequate time for members to absorb material on the complex plan, Boyd said.

"I'm not comfortable moving forward, even though it may be inconvenient," Boyd said. "We need to deliver the most solid, the most well-thought-out plan as possible."

The commission continued the issue until June 14.

Commissioner D.E. "Red" Banes was the only member to vote against the continuance. Two other commissioners were absent, and two recused themselves, saying they had clients who owned land in the panhandle.

The panhandle is a vertical swath of land bordered on the north by Elkhorn Boulevard and on the south by Interstate 80. It is bisected by Del Paso Road.

A proposal to annex the area was introduced in 2000 and has slowly been making its way through the approval process.

Commissioners at last week's meeting said they were stunned to learn about Grant's construction timeline problem and of the need for a fast-track decision on annexation.

After Thursday's meeting, however, John Raymond, Grant's assistant superintendent of facilities, said the commission "did the right thing."

Raymond said he'd had several meetings with city and county officials over the past few days and there seemed to be the will to work out a schedule that could allow better consideration of the issue and not place Grant in financial jeopardy.

"I'm hoping there are some options to meet our schedule," Raymond said. "Will we be able to start construction in September? I don't know. But I know there has been increased dialogue about working out a solution."

The Grant district purchased 70 acres of agricultural land in the panhandle in 2005 from Kenneth Cayocca and his family, paying less than $200,000 an acre, Raymond said.

The district looked at several parcels for a potential school site.

The district chose to consider only land slated for annexation into the city so it could operate under the city's habitat conservation plan and avoid having to seek federal and state building permits for environmentally sensitive land on its own.

"We made a conscious decision not to buy something out of the sphere of influence," Raymond said. "It would be difficult to negotiate for utilities, and we'd be accused of leapfrog development, something the city wasn't prepared to do."

Despite the slow progress of the project, Raymond said in meetings with city planners he was confident enough of the annexation timeline to sign off on a construction deadline starting this summer. Grading work had to start then, he said, to avoid disturbing giant garter snake hibernation from fall to late spring.

Raymond also said he'd contacted representatives of Mayor Heather Fargo, Councilman Ray Tretheway and Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy.

Raymond was surprised last week, he said, when he realized the commission was only then taking its first look at the annexation proposal.

Members from Fargo, Tretheway and Sheedy's offices said this week they knew nothing about Grant's deadline pressures.

Sheedy said the three leaders met today and agreed to call a meeting with Grant officials.

Sheedy said they'll be asking to see Grant's contract with its contractor.

"This is putting us into a position we don't want to be in; you'd think if they were going to lose $11 million, they'd put up a red flag," Sheedy said Thursday. "We need to be very diligent about this and what we do, and we are not going to be pushed into anything."

Raymond said he would not comment about previous discussions with those elected officials.

[innov8]

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2487/sacannexationplan2007rh5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Current Sacramento Overview of Annexation Process and Projects
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2007/documents/AnnexationProcess_StaffReport_07-19-07.pdf

Panhandle
Camino Norte
Greenbriar
Westlake
Town of Freeport
Arden Arcade
Rosemont
South Watt Ave.
Fruitridge-Florin

All these annexation projects are going to be heard tonight before the
Sacramento Planning Commission for review and comment.

[TWAK]

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2487/sacannexationplan2007rh5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Current Sacramento Overview of Annexation Process and Projects
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2007/documents/AnnexationProcess_StaffReport_07-19-07.pdf

Panhandle
Camino Norte
Greenbriar
Westlake
Town of Freeport
Arden Arcade
Rosemont
South Watt Ave.
Fruitridge-Florin

All these annexation projects are going to be heard tonight before the
Sacramento Planning Commission for review and comment.
Anybody have guesses on what the updated population would be? We could jump ahead of fresno and long beach!

[JeffZurn]

Great news, glad to see some progression on the annexation. Lets hope everyone is in favor

[wburg]

Annexation was one process that kept Sacramento healthy: we were originally just the downtown grid from the river to Alhambra (then 31st Street) and from the railroad tracks to Broadway (then Y Street.) Over the years we annexed the 19th century and early 20th century suburbs, the separate city of North Sacramento, and lots of surrounding former farmland.

Suburbs tend to form outside of city limits in an effort to avoid city taxes, but they end up taking from city services anyhow (because people work in the city and commute home.) Absorbing the "uncity" area makes economic sense to Sacramento in that we'd stop some of that loss. Small municipalities around a big city have an easier time engaging in practices like wilfully excluding things they'd rather not have (like low-income housing) which tends to place that burden back on the nearest big city.

Besides, it's just ridiculous to have a K-shaped city, with several "county" regions surrounded on three sides by Sacramento.

[ltsmotorsport]

It was always strange to me that Fruitridge and Floring were never part of the city proper.

It's still hilarious to me that Arden-Arcade thinks they should be their own city, when all they have is residents (hardly any job base) and would be surrounded by Sacramento on three sides.

[creamcityleo79]

Updated population would be approximately.............650,000!!!! We would be the 19th largest city in the country!!!!!!!!

[kryptos]

after reading that, it seems as though the planning commission will wait to see if the incorporation effort fails before they consider incorporating the arden arcade area...

regardless of the outcome, there should be a vote to incorporate every piece of unincorporated county land into the city of sacramento...

[Jay916]

Updated population would be approximately.............650,000!!!! We would be the 19th largest city in the country!!!!!!!!

I hope it happens. :banana: :banana:

[deeann]

It was always strange to me that Fruitridge and Floring were never part of the city proper.

I grew up right off Florin (when I wasn't in living another state) and that confused me also.



It's still hilarious to me that Arden-Arcade thinks they should be their own city, when all they have is residents (hardly any job base) and would be surrounded by Sacramento on three sides.

I see what you mean by the surround, but not sure what you mean by the job base. I've lived in the Arden-Arcade area for 20+ years now and never had a problem with getting a job out here. There are many jobs available in retail/service oriented and clerical/office. I've turned down several offers in this area.

[ltsmotorsport]

I know there used to be a large retail base there, but I thought a lot of the businesses "escaped" to the exurbs. As for office, now that I think about it, I have seen quite a few off Arden and Fulton.

[wburg]

The Arden-Arcade city map would include the auto dealerships along Fulton and Auburn, the Watt Avenue retail corridor and at least three shopping mall/shopping center districts. Not much open space in any of it, although I can see how one could easily take a spot formerly occupied by strip malls and build mid-rise or even high-rise structures. The problem would be, how would they draw the kind of businesses that would require such buildings? (Answer: Tax breaks and sweetening incentives, which an independent Arden/Arcade probably couldn't afford anyhow.)

Transportation would be a real problem: the only highway access is via BR-80, already impacted, and the other corridors are already busy surface avenues. I'd wager that at least some of the cityhood drive is people who don't want increased public transit in the neighborhood, like the planned BRT corridor along Watt Avenue, because of the old "Increased Public Transit = More Minorities" stereotype. I'm sure that some of the folks supporting this are the people with half-acre or larger lots in the area who want to oppose placement of denser development (like quarter-acre single family homes) adjacent to their own lots.

Of course, if the cityhood campaign does succeed, fiscal realities will catch up with them, and they'll follow up with whatever brings them the most sales tax/land use tax revenue in order to pay for city operations. The only "win" for the new city will be the ability to claim empty pockets for things they don't want and afraid they might have to deal with if they were annexed.

[Cynikal]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/2city.jpg
Map of current city limits.


Map of possible annexation (city study area). Arden-Arcade, N. Natomas and South Sacramento (shaded in black) btw this was my handy work so the city could explore additional unicorproated portions of these areas or less. But at least it will give everyone idea where exactly the city is looking at.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/Council_Districts_Map3.jpg


The City is in the process on annexing the panhandle as we speak so N. Sac is mostly a done deal. Delta Shores is next and possibly the town of Freeport, but that's always a sticky situation.

I totally support the annexation of AA from a geographical standpoint. It borders the City on 3 sides. Additionally, if they incorporated where would the town center be?

[creamcityleo79]

The City is in the process on annexing the panhandle as we speak so N. Sac is mostly a done deal. Delta Shores is next and possibly the town of Freeport, but that's always a sticky situation.

I totally support the annexation of AA from a geographical standpoint. It borders the City on 3 sides. Additionally, if they incorporated where would the town center be?
Town and Country Village, maybe?

[Phillip]

Additionally, if they incorporated where would the town center be?They'll have to tear down the Wienerschnitzel at Arden and Fulton and put it there.

Rancho Cordova's new town center is on a former Wienerschnitzel site.

Old Wienerschnitzels are where ALL the new town centers are going!

[TowerDistrict]

Donation lifts Arden Arcade cityhood bid
By Stan Oklobdzija - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, July 27, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2

A last-minute donation from Citrus Heights has given the Arden Arcade incorporation drive a push, but whether cityhood backers can keep the effort in motion remains to be seen.

Today, proponents of Arden Arcade cityhood are scheduled to meet with Sacramento's Local Agency Formation Commission -- the local body charged with drawing political boundaries and handling the incorporation of new cities -- to hash out a critical contract that may make or break the chances of a cityhood vote making the November 2008 ballot.

On July 19, the Citrus Heights City Council directed staff to donate $10,000 to the group's incorporation effort. The money came after the group missed a key July 1 deadline to come up with a deposit of about $28,000 to fund fiscal and environmental studies needed before the cityhood issue could be put to a vote.

But the studies can't start until a funding agreement is signed that spells out how the costly Environmental Impact Review and Comprehensive Financial Analysis will be paid for, said Peter Brundage, LAFCO executive director.

"Time is critical," Brundage said. "It's important to get the studies under way, we're already two months behind." The studies are expected to take six to eight months. "We'll make our best efforts, but that's provided they can continue making the payments as expected," he said.

Joel Archer, chairman of the incorporation effort, was more upbeat. "We're excited to continue on with the process," Archer said. "It's a long road, and it'll continue to be a long road, but we're excited that people and other cities want to help us succeed."

On Wednesday, Brundage confirmed that cityhood backers provided a check for $11,889, the balance of the deposit. But backers didn't bring the signed funding agreement, instead setting up today's meeting so their attorneys could review it. Archer said he expected the meeting to be routine. "We plan to have it final on Friday," he said.

Brundage said he wasn't sure. "(Archer) said he had some questions (about the agreement), but he didn't tell me what they were," Brundage said. "So we'll see." In order to keep the studies going, the consultants will need an average of $25,000 per month, Brundage said. The total cost could be about $300,000, with the incorporation backers' share expected to be about $200,000 and the LAFCO share about $100,000.

The terms of the funding agreement say LAFCO will be paid on the first day of each month, according to the document. If cityhood backers fail to pay within five days after that, the agreement says, LAFCO can cease work on the project, terminating it completely if the payment is not made in 30 days. Archer said he's confident his group can raise the money.

"There's enough of a pipeline," he said. "It's never a certainty, but it's enough to believe that we can keep going." Archer refused to say how much money the incorporation effort has on hand, only that he "believes it's sufficient," to carry the committee to a November 2008 cityhood vote.

Citrus Heights, which became a city in 1997, was the first of three cities in Sacramento County to incorporate over the last decade. It donated money to the incorporation efforts of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, which became cities in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Rancho Cordova has donated $25,000 to the Arden Arcade incorporation effort, said city spokeswoman Alexandra Miller. Elk Grove has not donated any money, a city spokeswoman there said.

Arden Arcade cityhood petitioners first went before the Citrus Heights City Council in March, when they asked for $35,000. The council unanimously denied that request. Mayor Jeff Slowey said his change of heart was due to a better developed presentation by the group and a clearer idea of their financial picture. Cityhood, he said, is "worth a vote of the people." Councilman Steve Miller agreed.

Though disappointed by the group's so-far bleak financial situation, he said he saw many similarities between Citrus Heights and the potential city-to-be. "With Citrus Heights, the deck was stacked against us, and it took a long time to get to the vote," he said. "But I truly believe we're a success story.

[JeffZurn]

City told North Natomas annexation would lose money
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 6:30 am PDT Thursday, August 2, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B4


One of the largest annexation proposals in Sacramento's history is in jeopardy because a city analysis has concluded the plan is a money-losing venture.

Should the city absorb the 1,430-acre "panhandle" near North Natomas, it would be saddled with road repairs and other needed improvements estimated at $7.4 million -- and wouldn't recoup enough in additional tax revenue to make it worthwhile, said Russ Fehr, city finance director.

"The result is very little gain for the city," Fehr told the Sacramento City Council this week. "I'd be hard pressed to say why we would go forward under these terms."

The panhandle is a vertical swath of Sacramento County land bordered on the north by Elkhorn Boulevard and on the south by Interstate 80. It is bisected by Del Paso Road.

The financial report raised doubts about the annexation plan that has been slowing moving through the city bureaucracy for seven years.

One possible but far-from-certain alternative exists, Fehr said. If the city were allowed to annex only the northern portion of the panhandle above Del Paso, it would have fewer expenses and the deal could pencil out.

Mayor Heather Fargo said the next logical step is to determine whether the annexation of just the northern portion is a viable option.

"The key to all this is reaching an agreement with the county or we can't go forward," Fargo said. "We need to figure out what we want to do."

Paul Hahn, the county's head of municipal services, said that the city's truncated panhandle plan is "problematic" but he'll continue to work with the city on a solution.

"We're not trying to be troublesome," Hahn said. "We thought we had an agreement already arranged."

Fehr warned City Council members that under state law the county has all the power in negotiations, with an ability to veto the project and a requirement that it must approve any financing plan.

"It's like we're playing poker and they're allowed to pick cards out of the deck," Fehr said.

If a deal can be worked out, the proposal must then be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission -- the agency in charge of political boundaries.

North of Del Paso Road is mostly raw agricultural land, and developers are seeking to construct 3,000 new homes there. The Grant Joint Union High School District also wants to build a $152 million education complex with both a high school and a junior high school.

The land south of Del Paso contains commercial buildings and industrial businesses. The older area needs $5.2 million in road improvements, $660,000 in storm drainage work and nearly $1.5 million to connect to the city's water system.

Attorneys representing the major landowner in the south as well as the home developers in the north said their clients supported the idea of lopping off the area below Del Paso. But LAFCO frowns on creating an island of unincorporated area surrounded by the city, said executive director Peter Brundage.

"It creates service problems," Brundage said. "The law discourages it."

Fehr said the question would go to county supervisors, as part of a final tax sharing agreement. So far, no firm arrangement has been inked.

Under the deal points as they are now, property taxes would be split evenly between the city and county. For sales taxes, the county would continue to get its current "base" level, and anything over that from the southern portion would be divided between the city and county. In the north, 100 percent of sales tax revenues would go to the city.

Residents and businesses would see their utility users tax go to 7.5 percent from the county's 2.5 percent. The county would keep the 2.5 percent and the city would get the rest.

Also under the plan, the city would get $12.6 million over time from developer fees for building needs in North Natomas, an area that currently is looking for $74 million for promised roads, parks and other improvements. The fees would help fund a library, community center, fire and police facilities, a regional park and traffic signals.

This arrangement would allow the county to continue receiving the revenue it currently collects. The city would become responsible for providing services.

Fargo wondered if the county seemed willing to look at other funding sources to pay for the area's current infrastructure needs. Fehr said they had other priorities.

"They had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude," Fehr said.

Even if financial details could be worked out, other obstacles remain.

Some Natomas residents voiced opposition to the plan Tuesday. They said before the city takes on another area to develop, it should first provide promised police and fire protection, as well as amenities such as parks, to the North Natomas community.

And, they said the city should not allow development in the area until they achieve 100-year flood protection.

"We'd like to see building cease until these issues are taken care of," said Tristan Godt, a North Natomas resident.

Scot Mende, the city's new growth manager, remained optimistic. "The area north of Del Paso has been planned for development for a very long time, and we'll find a way to get that annexed."

[kryptos]

Story appeared in ARDEN CARMICHAEL section, Page G1

The on-again, off-again drive to turn Arden Arcade into a city is inching its way toward next year's ballot.

After missing a July 1 deadline and a nine-day extension to come up with $33,000, cityhood proponents have paid their first bill and are working on their second payment.

The payments go toward funding their share of fiscal and environmental studies before the issue can be put before voters. The incorporation backers' total share is expected to be about $200,000.

"The consultants can start work," said Peter Brundage, executive director of the Local Agency Formation Commission.

But because of the missed deadline, LAFCO, the body in charge of political boundaries, cannot guarantee that the studies will be done in time for the November 2008 election.

Brundage also said though he has signed a contract with Joel Archer, chairman of the cityhood effort, the contract is binding only as long as there is money to cover the cost of the studies.

"We will make our best efforts, but if the money is spent before more money comes in, the work will stop," Brundage said.

Archer, who is not required to disclose how much he has raised until the election campaign begins, is confident he will be able to make the payments.

"We have it promised. I believe the money will be there," Archer said last week.

The next deadline, or "target date," as Archer likes to describe it, is Sept. 1 for $28,000 in cash.

"At this point, we don't see any reason we can't make it," Archer said.

Early on, Rancho Cordova donated $25,000, and the cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom, Galt and Elk Grove each gave $5,000. On July 19, Citrus Heights gave another $10,000.

Tonight, the nine-member board of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District is expected to lend its support to the incorporation effort.

"We are going to pass a resolution of support for the voters to decide if they want to be a city or not," board member Greg Granados said. "We have a general consensus that we support cityhood."

If the cityhood effort fails and Sacramento annexes the Arden Arcade area, the district could lose $20 million to $27 million, six fire stations, 90 employees and two board members, Granados said.

The district now provides fire protection services to Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova and serving a third city "wouldn't make much difference," Granados said.

Although the board can not legally donate money to political causes, the firefighters union, Local 522, can and has, said Pat Monahan, vice president of the union.

"We are absolutely in favor of the citizens going through the process and voting on it," Monahan said of the union that has donated $3,000 to the cityhood cause.

The union is considering giving more, Monahan said.

Mike Duveneck, committee chairman of Stay Sacramento, a group opposing cityhood, is critical of Archer's financial supporters, describing them as "special interests."

"The cities are spending taxpayer money to get involved in this, and they shouldn't," Duveneck said.

"This is not a fire board or firefighter union question. Their business is fire protection, not political issues," Duveneck said.

[ltsmotorsport]

Down with Arden-Arcade. All power to SACRAMENTO!!!!!!:evil:

[kryptos]

Down with Arden-Arcade. All power to SACRAMENTO!!!!!!:evil:

im in support of eithera new city or sac annexing the arden arcade area....doesnt matter as long as it is taken away from sac county...

a new city wouldnt be so bad , but the name is a lil bit hard to like...

id rather see it named:
arden point
fulton park
american river

but i suppose arden arcade can work

[creamcityleo79]

It'd be better as it's own city. But, either way is fine with me. But, kryptos is right! The name MUST be different...what city is hyphenated like that? Wilkes-Barre, PA!?

[kryptos]

It'd be better as it's own city. But, either way is fine with me. But, kryptos is right! The name MUST be different...what city is hyphenated like that? Wilkes-Barre, PA!?


theres not too many...winston-salem, NC comes to mind....

i think they should pick arden or arcade, not both

if A-A does incorporate, wouldnt a nice chunk of carmichael be part of its sphere of influence?

[JeffZurn]

Urban plan, but city keeps options open
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Last Updated 12:17 am PDT Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (1)| Digg it | del.icio.us

The new general plan in the works for the city of Sacramento marks a big departure from growth as usual.

Rather than embracing a future of strip malls and single-family homes, a draft map endorsed by the Sacramento City Council in June envisions a far more urban Sacramento than exists today.

Twenty-four-story buildings would punctuate the landscape in satellite downtowns near Arden Fair mall and Arco Arena. A university town would bustle at 65th Street.

Tired-looking arteries now devoted mostly to shopping would be transformed with thousands of housing units.

"We're looking at a different way to accommodate growth; it's not just going to be out, it's going to be in," said City Councilman Rob Fong.

Mayor Heather Fargo said the idea is to "correct some of the suburban, less functional parts of our previous communities and add enough density that there are things to walk to, and they're safer."

Yet even as the city plans a facelift of its older neighborhoods, Fargo and other City Council members have directed their staff to study the pros and cons of annexing thousands more acres of farmland -- the key ingredient for suburban subdivisions.

The city also is considering whether to pursue annexation of large swaths of unincorporated urbanized territory, such as the Fruitridge area, Arden Arcade, Rosemont and the town of Freeport.

That would give the city responsibility for additional aging neighborhoods that need redevelopment.

If Sacramento annexed all the areas it is studying, the amount of land within city limits would increase 75 percent.

City staff members working on the 2030 growth plan say all this land won't be needed for growth in the next quarter-century -- if the city sticks to the ambitious density goals under discussion. Those goals call for a 50-percent increase in population with just a 4 percent increase in land.

"Do we need the acreage? No," said Tom Pace, director of the city's long-range planning effort. "But it's a question of what kinds of homes people want to live in."

Bob Overstreet, strategic projects executive with the city, said Sacramento needs to offer large-lot housing for executives who might otherwise choose new homes in Placer County or elsewhere. "If we want new companies here, that's going to be really important," he said.

Sacramento's environmental community -- which has advocated more focus on existing neighborhoods -- is gearing up to oppose this expansionist vision, saying it undercuts the supposed thrust of the new general plan.

"The city's got God knows how many acres of land that it's ignoring or only giving lip service to in terms of revitalization," said Graham Brownstein, executive director of the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

If the city continues to focus on growing outward rather than on improving its existing neighborhoods, he said, "I see a potential future 50 years down the road where other than midtown and the central business district you just have this endless sea of Central Valley suburban mess."

Councilman Fong, however, said he thinks the city can have it both ways: rebuilding urban neighborhoods while continuing to build new ones on open ground.

Fong said the city should stake out its future borders, particularly because cities such as Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove continue to jockey for position. New suburban growth, he said, can produce fees to offset the costs of redeveloping inner-city neighborhoods.

Critics don't buy this argument. Jim Pachl, a lawyer for Friends of the Swainson's Hawk, noted that Bay Area cities with little or no room left for growth have focused on redeveloping existing communities with notable success.

"Local governments there still seem to be in business," he said.

The genesis for Sacramento's new urban focus lies in the Blueprint, a regional growth plan adopted in 2004 by Sacramento and other members of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. This plan aims to improve walkability of communities and slow the region's suburban spread.

The Blueprint is not binding on individual governments. Nonetheless, Sacramento is trying to stick to it, officials said.

The city is working on the environmental review and written policies for the general plan, and plans to have it ready for adoption in fall 2008.

Other jurisdictions, such as Placer and Yuba counties, already have deviated from the Blueprint. City staff members says this puts pressure on them to provide more suburban housing options with larger lots.

"Even if Sacramento stuck to our guns, it wouldn't matter because nobody else is," Overstreet said.

All of the areas being studied by the city are included in the Blueprint for eventual growth, he pointed out. It's a question of when, not if, they will develop.

Even without the new areas added for study, the general plan anticipates building on several large chunks of open land, including the 577-acre Greenbriar property just outside the northwest edge of the city, the 1,430-acre panhandle in North Natomas and the nearly 1,000-acre Delta Shores property, which lies between Sacramento and Elk Grove along Interstate 5.

Combined, these properties account for a 4 percent increase in the city's footprint.

In addition, the Sacramento City Council has designated as "special study areas" all of unincorporated North Natomas to the Sutter County line, a portion of the east county stretching to Excelsior Road, and land on its southeastern flank out to Elk Grove-Florin Road on the east and Calvine Road on the south.

Some of these same areas are also being studied by Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova for potential growth.

"They've got great interest in our interest," Overstreet said.

About the writer:
The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@sacbee.com.

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
2100 Q St. P.O. Box 15779 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 321-1000

[creamcityleo79]

Here is the picture that went along with the article! It excites me to no end! :)
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/08/20/23/79-sacplan.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.gif

[ltsmotorsport]

Cityhood aid questioned

Are cities' contributions to Arden Arcade's bid legal?
By Ed Fletcher - Bee Staff Writer

Suburban Sacramento cities have given at least $50,000 to the committee working to turn 13 square miles of unincorporated Sacramento County into the city of Arden Arcade.

Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove and Folsom all have chipped in.

Beyond contributing out of good will, some suburban city leaders say adding new cities within the county strengthens all of their hands when skirmishes arise with the region's dominant players.

"Sacramento city and Sacramento County do dominate the local politics. I have friends down there -- they are good people -- but the decisions they make are not always the best decisions for Citrus Heights," said Citrus Heights Mayor Jeff Slowey.

But some have questioned whether the cities' contributions are legal.

State law prohibits government entities from making gifts of public funds. Contributions must have some benefit to the government entity.

Rancho Cordova ($25,000) and Citrus Heights ($15,000) have given them most to date. Folsom and Elk Grove each gave $5,000.

Citrus Heights Councilwoman Jayna Karpinski-Costa said she doesn't see the benefit.

"I can't find anything good for the city of Citrus Heights when these cities incorporate," Karpinski-Costa said. "We need streets paved. We need street lights. We should not be giving money away. I do believe it's a gift of public funds."

Karpinski-Costa's fellow council member James Shelby said, "The more cities we have in the region, the more we benefit from a political perspective. (The contribution) will come back to us in changing the balance of power."

Regional boards dealing with air, water, waste, flood control, libraries, and transit issues are composed of elected leaders from throughout the region. The power once held by Sacramento city and county leaders has been watered down as new cities have been formed and the boards expanded.

With key local businesses slow to jump on the incorporation effort and new rules requiring the committee to pay more money upfront, contributions from local governments has become a key funding source for cityhood backers.

Karpinski-Costa, who was the lone voice against a July 19 vote to give $10,000 to the Arden Arcade committee, said the political benefit argument did not apply to the city's $25,000 contribution in 2001 to a failed effort to create the El Dorado County city of El Dorado Hills, since it involved a cityhood bid in a different county that wouldn't affect the balance of power among Sacramento governments.

Peter Detwiler, who teaches a graduate course on land-use policies at California State University, Sacramento, concedes he's not a lawyer, but said he has questions about the practice.

"Why isn't that a gift of public funds?" Detwiler asked. "It strikes me as a very curious way to spend local taxpayers dollars."

Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova and the failed El Dorado Hills effort all benefited from the generosity of nearby cities.

But state officials said they don't think the practice is common statewide.

"I find that kind of unusual. Most of them typically raise funds from the local community," said Bill Chiat, who heads the state association of Local Agency Formation Commissions -- the local bodies in charge of creating or changing political boundaries.

Since the incorporation committee won't release donor lists, it's impossible to say how the cities' contributions compare with checks written by Arden Arcade residents and business owners.

The committee's chairman, Joel Archer, has spoken in general terms about fundraising, but has declined to provide detailed records on committee income and expenditures.

There is disagreement over whether existing law requires or allows the the Local Agency Formation Commission, which controls the incorporation process, to collect information on incorporation committees' finances.

In February, the Arden Arcade group said it had collected $84,000 toward incorporation. But that money was spent on preliminary studies, paying professional signature gatherers, validating petition drive signatures and other expenses.

The group has since been struggling to keep up with payments needed to study the financial viability and the environmental impacts of the proposed city just east of Arden Fair mall.

One hundred Arden Arcade residents and business owners have helped fuel the effort, Archer said.

He added that some business owners are reluctant to donate and damage their relationship with Sacramento County.

The area's biggest business -- car dealers along Fulton Avenue -- have been slow to get onboard.

LAFCO has changed the rules since other cities formed -- forcing the Arden Arcade committee to raise more money and at a faster pace than earlier efforts.

LAFCO is requiring that the Arden Arcade committee make monthly payments in order to keep the fiscal and environmental studies going. Earlier efforts were allowed to pay up when the studies were done.

Archer and other committee members are continuing to make the rounds.

On Sept. 11, the Folsom City Council is scheduled to consider contributing another $10,000 to the effort.

Archer said outside cities may be aiding the effort, but Arden Arcade voters will ultimately decide on cityhood.

"People inside and outside believe that Arden Arcade should have that opportunity to choose its own destiny," said Archer.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/09/01/21/408-7M2ARDEN_C_320px.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.gif

[kryptos]

Cityhood aid questioned

Are cities' contributions to Arden Arcade's bid legal?
By Ed Fletcher - Bee Staff Writer

Suburban Sacramento cities have given at least $50,000 to the committee working to turn 13 square miles of unincorporated Sacramento County into the city of Arden Arcade.

Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove and Folsom all have chipped in.

Beyond contributing out of good will, some suburban city leaders say adding new cities within the county strengthens all of their hands when skirmishes arise with the region's dominant players.

"Sacramento city and Sacramento County do dominate the local politics. I have friends down there -- they are good people -- but the decisions they make are not always the best decisions for Citrus Heights," said Citrus Heights Mayor Jeff Slowey.

But some have questioned whether the cities' contributions are legal.

State law prohibits government entities from making gifts of public funds. Contributions must have some benefit to the government entity.

Rancho Cordova ($25,000) and Citrus Heights ($15,000) have given them most to date. Folsom and Elk Grove each gave $5,000.

Citrus Heights Councilwoman Jayna Karpinski-Costa said she doesn't see the benefit.

"I can't find anything good for the city of Citrus Heights when these cities incorporate," Karpinski-Costa said. "We need streets paved. We need street lights. We should not be giving money away. I do believe it's a gift of public funds."

Karpinski-Costa's fellow council member James Shelby said, "The more cities we have in the region, the more we benefit from a political perspective. (The contribution) will come back to us in changing the balance of power."

Regional boards dealing with air, water, waste, flood control, libraries, and transit issues are composed of elected leaders from throughout the region. The power once held by Sacramento city and county leaders has been watered down as new cities have been formed and the boards expanded.

With key local businesses slow to jump on the incorporation effort and new rules requiring the committee to pay more money upfront, contributions from local governments has become a key funding source for cityhood backers.

Karpinski-Costa, who was the lone voice against a July 19 vote to give $10,000 to the Arden Arcade committee, said the political benefit argument did not apply to the city's $25,000 contribution in 2001 to a failed effort to create the El Dorado County city of El Dorado Hills, since it involved a cityhood bid in a different county that wouldn't affect the balance of power among Sacramento governments.

Peter Detwiler, who teaches a graduate course on land-use policies at California State University, Sacramento, concedes he's not a lawyer, but said he has questions about the practice.

"Why isn't that a gift of public funds?" Detwiler asked. "It strikes me as a very curious way to spend local taxpayers dollars."

Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova and the failed El Dorado Hills effort all benefited from the generosity of nearby cities.

But state officials said they don't think the practice is common statewide.

"I find that kind of unusual. Most of them typically raise funds from the local community," said Bill Chiat, who heads the state association of Local Agency Formation Commissions -- the local bodies in charge of creating or changing political boundaries.

Since the incorporation committee won't release donor lists, it's impossible to say how the cities' contributions compare with checks written by Arden Arcade residents and business owners.

The committee's chairman, Joel Archer, has spoken in general terms about fundraising, but has declined to provide detailed records on committee income and expenditures.

There is disagreement over whether existing law requires or allows the the Local Agency Formation Commission, which controls the incorporation process, to collect information on incorporation committees' finances.

In February, the Arden Arcade group said it had collected $84,000 toward incorporation. But that money was spent on preliminary studies, paying professional signature gatherers, validating petition drive signatures and other expenses.

The group has since been struggling to keep up with payments needed to study the financial viability and the environmental impacts of the proposed city just east of Arden Fair mall.

One hundred Arden Arcade residents and business owners have helped fuel the effort, Archer said.

He added that some business owners are reluctant to donate and damage their relationship with Sacramento County.

The area's biggest business -- car dealers along Fulton Avenue -- have been slow to get onboard.

LAFCO has changed the rules since other cities formed -- forcing the Arden Arcade committee to raise more money and at a faster pace than earlier efforts.

LAFCO is requiring that the Arden Arcade committee make monthly payments in order to keep the fiscal and environmental studies going. Earlier efforts were allowed to pay up when the studies were done.

Archer and other committee members are continuing to make the rounds.

On Sept. 11, the Folsom City Council is scheduled to consider contributing another $10,000 to the effort.

Archer said outside cities may be aiding the effort, but Arden Arcade voters will ultimately decide on cityhood.

"People inside and outside believe that Arden Arcade should have that opportunity to choose its own destiny," said Archer.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/09/01/21/408-7M2ARDEN_C_320px.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.gif

if arden arcade goes to a vote, sacramento area will have a new city...

[ozone]

It's such a joke. These suburban Anywhere USA's thinking that incorporation will turn them into 'cities'. I know people who live in the Arden Arcade area and they do not have a strong sense of belonging to a distinctive community. This is all about the suburbs gaining political clout- as the article pointed out. But in the end I'd rather have more incorporated townships than a bunch of diaphanous entities. Also I believe the people in the Arden-Arcade district have every right to determine what kind of community they wish to live in even if I think it would be better if they were consolidated into Sacramento.

While I support annexation if, and only ,the city is restructured into a borough system, the City of Sacramento needs to be careful about annexation of certian districts so as not to inherit the host of problems that exist in those districts.

[deeann]

...I know people who live in the Arden Arcade area and they do not have a strong sense of belonging to a distinctive community...

Generally- I think for those who have not lived or spent a lot of time in this area, things probably *look* to the casual eye the same as they have for the last several decades. No identity, never had it, never will, blah blah blah (the "blah blah blah" isn't addressed to anyone in this thread- it's just something I've heard a lot)...

But- I wonder what the response to sense of identity would have been say, 10 or 15 years ago. Before the Rite Aid was in the space Las Brasas was, or Tiny's and the Vagabond was torn down to expand the Filco parking lot, the funky bit neat looking Orbit gas station became another Quik Stop, when my friend had to replace his fun handmade storefront sign he'd been using for years with a generic slip-in backlit model to match the surrounding area by the landowner for uniformity, etc... When your "neighborhood grocer" or restaurant owner or employees actually knew *you*, what you liked and not just reading your name of the receipt or credit card.

At the end of the day a Latino culture _inspired_ building facade with spray on stucco at the chain owned store doesn't *really* replace the locally owned and designed Latino-American business that came before it.

(edit/add) ***

As far as community goes, besides being absorbed into the super-landscape, many of the things that could (and would) bring people together have been pretty much disallowed. Want to have a night-time picnic at one of the many parks in the area? Expect a low flying helicopter with the spotlight on you to see what you're up to. Holiday decorations on the street lamps? They will be removed and you'll probably get a ticket (if caught). Pretty much the only time you'll see a gathering of my neighbors anymore are on voting days (or on really hot days, the public pool).

***

(edit2) My husband did bring up some "community building" events that were not mentioned here, but I'll probably include that in another (later) post.

[ozone]

All very good points. Maybe if that district did become an independent city then it would build a sense of community over time, maybe mom and pop stores could flourish again if a 'center' could be found.

Most of the people I know in that district have only been there say less than 10 years. When I asked a couple of them where they live they said rather resentfully that they lived in Sac County..and in the same sentence almost longingly said they didn't live in Sac City which led me to believe that (maybe incorrectly since it's just two people) that people in the Arcade-Arden area would like to be incorporated into the City of Sacramento and this is just a scheme of a few power-trip'n folks. :shrug:

[deeann]

I'm of "three" minds over the issue, which I'll go into further (just finished up work for today/tonight).

[JeffZurn]

New fee for city studies assailed
LAFCO orders exploration of benefits, liabilities of capital annexation for Arden Arcade.
By Ramon Coronado - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 13, 2007
Story appeared in CITY section, Page G3

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)| Digg it | del.icio.us

Advocates who want Arden Arcade turned into a city are crying foul over a recent requirement that they pay an extra $40,000 for an additional study.

"We don't believe in it. We don't accept it, but we have to pay for it," said Joel Archer, leader of the incorporation effort.

The additional fees are to pay for a study of the benefits and drawbacks of annexing Arden Arcade into the city of Sacramento.

The Arden Arcade committee is already struggling to make monthly payments on consultant studies of the environmental and fiscal impacts of incorporating the 13-square-mile area that is now being serviced by the county.

As Archer sees it, the Arden Arcade committee is being impeded by unfairly having the rules changed.

The Local Agency Formation Commission, which governs the incorporation process, has changed the payment rules since other cities formed, forcing the Arden Arcade committee to come up with money faster than other cityhood efforts.

LAFCO has threatened to shut down the studies, which began last month, if the Arden Arcade committee fails to keep the money flowing.

LAFCO officials have said they can't guarantee that the studies will be completed in time for the November 2008 election.

That posture is a departure from LAFCO's handling of the cityhood efforts of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, which were allowed to pay when the studies were done.

"It's not fair. We made our application. We were in the middle of a process, and to have your expectations change is tough to swallow," Archer said.

Peter Brundage, executive director of LAFCO, said the latest rule change last month was made after commission members recognized that annexation into the city of Sacramento was an option that had been overlooked.

"The commission can't approve annexation, but it can deny incorporation, making annexation an alternative," Brundage said.

"It is an option you have to consider in evaluating any given proposal. It is part of doing a thorough analysis," he said.

Archer claims that Sacramento annexation of Elk Grove could have been raised during that city's incorporation efforts, but it wasn't.

Brundage said the commission's makeup has changed since the Elk Grove cityhood effort.

"It wasn't an issue before because no one raised it in previous incorporations," Brundage said.

Raising the annexation issue were commissioners Rob Fong and Steve Cohn, who are also Sacramento City Council members, Brundage said.

The Sacramento City Council is considering annexation of Arden Arcade as part of its new general plan. It is also considering annexation of the Fruitridge area, Rosemont and the town of Freeport.

The decision to require regular payments to keep the incorporation studies going is a policy decision also made by members who were not on the commission during previous incorporations, Brundage said.

"It's a different commission," he said.

Although a monthly payment schedule has been set, the first deadline of July 1 and the second, Sept. 1, were not met.

The first payment of $33,000 eventually was paid, and most of the second payment was expected to be paid Tuesday, Archer said.

The Arden Arcade committee's total share is expected to be about $200,000.

"The weight is on our shoulders to raise the money and keep it coming," Archer said.

The next payment of $26,000 is due Oct.1.

About the writer:
The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1013 or rcoronado@sacbee.com. Bee staff writer Ed Fletcher contributed to this report.

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
2100 Q St. P.O. Box 15779 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 321-1000

[innov8]

City set to take lead on Greenbriar project
Developing Greenbriar is seen alternately as wise or overreaching.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga of The Sacramento Bee

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Despite an outpouring of angst from North Natomas residents, who complained that their community already is starved for public services, the city of Sacramento on Wednesday extended its reach over another big chunk of Natomas land.

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/520/288projecthighlightprodex1.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Members of the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission voted 4-3 Wednesday evening to allow the city to extend its sphere of influence over Greenbriar, a 577- acre square of land northwest of the existing city limits. Members representing special districts and the public voted no, while those representing the county and its cities voted yes.

Expanding the sphere of influence sets the stage for the City Council to annex and allow development on the land, owned by a partnership of developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and Woodside Homes.

City staff members say an annexation vote could come before the end of the year, but that would need another nod of approval from LAFCO.

The Tsakopoulos partnership proposes about 3,000 housing units and about 40 acres of commercial development.

Tucked into the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 99, Greenbriar is bounded on three sides by existing or planned development -- a circumstance that city officials say makes it a logical choice for development.

"It really does make sense if we're talking about a logical, orderly path of development," said LAFCO member and City Councilman Rob Fong. "The future growth of this region is inevitable. We have to plan for it."

Supporters offered a variety of reasons for developing the property, much of which is now classified as prime farmland.

A planned light-rail line to Sacramento International Airport would traverse the property, and Regional Transit officials support development there because it would help provide riders.

"I think Greenbriar is a perfect example of what we call smart growth," said LAFCO commissioner and Sacramento County Supervisor Jimmie Yee, who offered a lengthy speech backing the project. Yee is a former mayor of Sacramento.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments, meanwhile, applauded Greenbriar -- where the houses and apartments would be packed together at an average of about 11 per acre -- as a good example of development that complies with the Blueprint, the growth plan adopted by SACOG members in 2004.

"We think they've done a really excellent job," said SACOG Executive Director Mike McKeever.

Yet critics countered Wednesday with reasons they think Greenbriar epitomizes an ill-thought-out choice for growth.

Like the rest of North Natomas, it sits in a floodplain. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency has revealed that levees protecting the area are weaker than previously thought. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is preparing to reclassify the area as a flood-risk zone.

City officials have applied for a special A99 flood designation that would allow development to continue while the levees were strengthened -- first to withstand a 100-year flood and then a 200-year flood. A 100-year flood has a 1 percent chance of happening in any given year.

Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, president of her family's firm, AKT Development, has submitted a letter pledging that no houses will be built until the Greenbriar property is certified as having 100-year flood protection, a threshold expected to be met by 2010.

That pledge did not silence those who raised flooding as an issue, however.

"The plan tonight, and the analysis put forward to support it, is one that doesn't deal with the uncertainties created by climate change, and its impact on flooding," said LAFCO Commissioner Chris Tooker.

"I don't know what's so magical about 100-year flood protection," Tooker added. "I don't have the confidence that it is going to provide me with adequate protection in the future."

Environmentalists also raised concerns that federal and state wildlife agencies haven't signed off on the amount of habitat Greenbriar will be required to set aside for endangered and threatened species such as the giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk.

LAFCO Commissioner Charles Rose wondered why a residential community should be built under the flight path of Sacramento International Airport, even if the planes overhead don't violate commonly accepted noise limits.

"For the life of me, I can't understand why we're building in the flight path," Rose said.

Much of the concern expressed Wednesday night came from residents of North Natomas, who said the city should improve their police, fire and other services before taking on more land.

"Every day people are just shaking their heads and saying, 'What are we going to do? Even the barest minimum of services we've been promised have not been delivered,' " said resident Holly Brickner.

City staff members maintained that Greenbriar would produce excess money that could be used to help fill what they described as a $70 million gap in funding for services promised to North Natomas, including a library, roads, police and fire.

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9025/floodmx6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Stephemento]

Annexing Fruitridge-Florin area would actually be financial loss

Sacramento Business Journal - September 21, 2007 by Michael ShawStaff writer

As the general manager of the Southgate Recreation and Park District during the mid-1970s, Robert Overstreet successfully fought the city of Sacramento's attempts to annex portions of the Fruitridge-Florin neighborhoods in south Sacramento.

Three decades later, Overstreet is on the other side of the fence. He's now the architect of the city's general plan update, and one of his tasks is contemplating future expansion. That includes the possibility of adding thousands of acres in Fruitridge-Florin and another neighborhood to the east, Rosemont.


Overstreet and others, despite the city's past failures, think a southward push might still be a good idea, even though it would unquestionably be a financial loss for Sacramento and residents are likely to resist absorption as they have repeatedly over the years.

So why does the idea keep hanging around? It goes beyond an aesthetic desire to square off the city limits.

"There's a benefit to having local land use under your control," said Scot Mende, Sacramento's new-growth manager. "To create a coordinated neighborhood, you have to have a consistent land use."

The unincorporated portion of Fruitridge-Florin reaches like a twisting finger of county property up into Sacramento's southern city limits, surrounded on three sides by city boundaries. Mende and others note awkward lines cause overlapping and overextended services. In Fruitridge, jurisdictional divisions leap across some streets; a sheriff's deputy might be dispatched to one side of Stockton Boulevard while a Sacramento city police officer is patrolling the other. Or both could arrive at a crime scene because of the mutual aid agreements, a needless duplication of services, some say. Garbage pickup, likewise, requires both governments to provide services in an area where one collection service would be more efficient.

"If you have a more unified effort in providing services to the area, it helps others around it as well," Mende said.

Signs of economic life
Sacramento County is willing to entertain annexation discussions as long as any agreement ultimately compensates the county for loss of tax revenue, said Paul Hahn, administrator of Sacramento County's Municipal Services Agency. Officials say both Fruitridge-Florin and Rosemont are considered financial losers -- they will cost the city more in services and tax-sharing agreements with Sacramento County than they'll return in tax revenue.

"Cities don't make money off of residential land," Hahn said. "They make it off commercial property."

As commercial uses have dwindled in south Sacramento areas, roads and other infrastructure are aging.

"Florin Road has taken a beating," Mende said, noting auto dealerships that once dotted the landscape have moved elsewhere. The city and county are working together on a plan to restore the Florin Road commercial corridor perhaps a precursor to working together on an annexation agreement.

There is still economic life in the region, however. A new $67 million Florin Towne Center is planned to replace the demolished Florin Mall.

The 2,500-acre Rosemont area looks attractive because it acts as a bridge to an additional 3,500 acres to the east coveted by the city and the county. The property, owned primarily by Granite Construction Co. and Teichert Inc., has been mined for years, but operations are slowing with the anticipation that the property will become suitable for development.

Meanwhile, undeveloped portions of North Natomas hang like a peach ripe for annexation to the north because new residential construction provides a one-time spark of tax revenue that older neighborhoods do not. So, the city's active efforts are focused there, meaning it might be years before there's political will to seriously consider pushing south, other than a small, 140-acre strip near Freeport that includes the city's Bartley Cavanaugh Golf Course.

Hahn noted there are significant challenges once the effort starts in earnest.

The city's utility tax is 7.5 percent, 5 percentage points higher than the county's tax. That means residents in annexation areas will have to agree to pay more in taxes, a roadblock that has halted previous annexation attempts. County residents have grown accustomed to their services, including Overstreet's former employer, the Southgate Recreation and Park District, which oversees the parks for 110,000 residents between Sacramento and Elk Grove.

"Our board hasn't had a chance to discuss this," said district spokeswoman Veronica Carloni, noting that board members had only recently viewed a map that shows Fruitridge-Florin as possible future expansion. "We don't have an official opinion on it -- it's too early on in the process."

The district's residents won't easily embrace changes, she said.

But Overstreet said any new effort to annex Fruitridge-Florin will be viewed more favorably than previous attempts. His objection 30 years ago stemmed from the city's effort to enfold shopping centers within city limits while leaving residential neighborhoods within the county. Regulations now prohibit such maneuvers, he said.

He suggested annexation agreements might allow the park district to remain in place, at least for a period of time. That could ease a transition into the city.

"It's a new day, regardless of what has happened before," Overstreet said.

[kryptos]

Arden Arcade given $15,000 by Elk Grove
Council OKs gift to help cityhood bid after protests staged.
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, September 28, 2007


Advocates of Arden Arcade cityhood got a boost Wednesday night from the Elk Grove City Council with its 4-1 approval of a $15,000 gift to the effort.

The action, with Councilwoman Sophia Scherman opposed, followed protests from the Stay Sacramento! Stop Arden Arcade Cityhood committee.

The committee, whose chairman resides in Arden Arcade, met with reporters outside Elk Grove City Hall and later urged the council not to fund the effort, a video of the meeting shows.

"We do not see how the city ... can justifiably take taxpayer dollars from your city's general fund and make a gift" to a committee hoping to establish another city, Mike Duveneck, chairman of the anti-cityhood committee, told the council.

State law prohibits government entities from making gifts of public funds without some benefit to the contributing entity.

But some suburban city leaders have said that there is a benefit, noting that new cities strengthen the clout of existing municipalities.

Cityhood advocates had sought $30,000 from Elk Grove.

While all council members were willing to help, they proposed varying amounts.

Scherman was willing to give $5,000 to supplement the $5,000 the city gave to the Arden Arcade cityhood effort in 2004.

Councilman Michael Leary suggested giving another $20,000 or $25,000.

But Councilman Gary Davis' $15,000 "middle ground" proposal won council votes.

"Every community deserves their day at the ballot," Davis said. "They want what we've got.

"We stood on the backs of others. They need to stand on our backs. It's no different than (donating to) the League of California Cities every year."

This wasn't the first time Elk Grove supported a city's incorporation.

The council gave $35,000 in January 2002 to successful efforts to turn Rancho Cordova into a city.

Arden Arcade cityhood advocates also have found support from other cities. Rancho Cordova has given $35,000 to the cityhood committee, according to a report by Kara Myers, assistant to the Elk Grove city manager.

Citrus Heights and Folsom each gave $15,000 to the effort, according to the report.

[Phillip]

But some suburban city leaders have said that there is a benefit, noting that new cities strengthen the clout of existing municipalities.

Can anyone explain how incorporating Arden-Arcade would benefit Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, and Citrus Heights?

[wburg]

It gives them an ally in big core city vs. small slurb city battles, for starters.

[innov8]

Foreclosure lawsuit throws new twist into Panhandle saga
Sacramento Business Journal

Friday, January 11, 2008

As if annexation of undeveloped Natomas land known as "The Panhandle" hasn't been contentious enough, now one of the applicants is being sued by a bank that loaned money to buy part of the land.

Comerica Bank wants to foreclose on part of The Panhandle belonging to Dunmore Land Co., alleging in a lawsuit filed late last month that the developer has missed payments on a $4.7 million loan.

The company is owned by former Dunmore Homes president Sidney B. Dunmore. He kept it when he sold Dunmore Homes last year for $500 to an investor, who put the new firm into bankruptcy to reorganize.

Dunmore Land is one of the applicants seeking annexation of The Panhandle into Sacramento; the other is Vaquero Land Holdings LLC, which is not involved in the Comerica lawsuit. The owners want to build more than 3,000 homes on 595 undeveloped acres there.

A decision on the possible annexation has been delayed several times by the Sacramento City Council, but the lawsuit isn't the reason, said the city's new-growth manager, Scot Mende. The city is more concerned with getting the correct land uses than with who ultimately owns it. If the bank forecloses, any subsequent user would likely stick to what's approved under development agreements.

So what's been holding it up? The city and Sacramento County are still working out the complicated tax-sharing agreement that's part of any annexation.

There also was a change late last year to the area in question. The city won't annex the southern portion closest to the "pan" -- a developed industrial area with a lower utility tax rate. If the northern "handle" is annexed, it would leave an 840-acre island of county land surrounded by the city. The city is expected to take up the issue again Jan. 29.

[urban_encounter]

Council OKs Greenbriar annexation
by Michael Shaw Staff writer Sacramento Business Journal -
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 12:04 PM PST

The Sacramento City Council on Tuesday night gave conditional approval to annexing Natomas land despite a recent designation by the federal government that the area is a flood zone. The land is the site for Greenbriar, a 577-acre proposal by Angelo K. Tsakopoulos' AKT Development Corp. and Woodside Homes for a transit-oriented development to the northern city limits. The developers don't plan to build there until the flood issues are addressed.

The council voted unanimously to approve the annexation, though Mayor Heather Fargo was absent. The council is expected to formally approve the annexation in a week after two issues are resolved. The city and county still need to formalize their tax exchange agreement, which will determine how tax revenue will be divided in order to provide services for the new development. Environmental groups and Natomas residents had objected to the annexation.

The city must also override land use that would preclude a light rail station within Sacramento Airport's overflight zone.

[urban_encounter]

Council OK's Greenbriar development in Natomas
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - mlvellinga@sacbee.com
Published 6:57 pm PST Tuesday, January 29, 2008


The Sacramento City Council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to annex and rezone 577 acres of North Natomas farmland just outside the city limits and allow construction of 3,500 houses and apartments.

Council members took an initial "intent" vote in favor of the Greenbriar development last week, but Tuesday's vote was the final action. Mayor Heather Fargo, absent last week, joined her colleagues in supporting the plan.

Building is unlikely to begin before 2010, however, because the federal government has announced it intends to designate North Natomas a flood hazard zone, essentially halting construction.

The Sacramento Area Flood Protection Agency expects to complete sufficient levee improvements by 2010 to ensure the minimum level of 100-year flood protection required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which would allow growth in the Natomas basin to resume.

[TWAK]

what about all the other annexing? Lets beat freaking Fresno already....jeeze.

[Majin]

what about all the other annexing? Lets beat freaking Fresno already....jeeze.

Fresno? If we were to annex the majority of sac county not already incorporated we could easily hit #3 (after LA and SD).

[urban_encounter]

Fresno? If we were to annex the majority of sac county not already incorporated we could easily hit #3 (after LA and SD).


The council generally avoids annexing older parts of the unincorporated county, because it costs more to provide services than they contribute in property taxes.

It's unilkely that we'll see any more annexation for awhile unless Arden Arcade cityhood efforts fail. But Aden Arcade is an older part of town, so who knows if the city would really be interested..

If they were going to annex anywhere, Arden Arcade, South Sacramento/Fruitridge and Florin would be the best places to start.

[wburg]

Urban Encounter raises a good point...annexation of outer areas is generally done because it's an economic benefit (or perceived future economic benefit) to do so, not as a statewide sausage-measuring contest. Annexation along the holes in the "K" (like the Panhandle, Arden/Arcade and south Sacramento) make sense in terms of efficiently consolidating city services in a logical geographic area, but that's not a justification for an effort to consolidate the city/county area--such a measure would help bankrupt the city even faster than we are now.

[Majin]

It is a statewide sausage measure contest, and we need to win it.

[urban_encounter]

It is a statewide sausage measure contest, and we need to win it.


:haha:

Well I have to agree with wburg.

If annexation makes sense to square off the city limits, then we should do it. But if it's bad economics for the city then we shouldn't do it, just so that we can say that we're bigger. That would be silly.


Minneapolis, Atlanta, Oakland St. Loius are all techincially smaller or of equal size (when measured municipality against munisicpality)... Yet they all sit at the center of very large vibrant urban centers, like Sacramento.

[urban_encounter]

November ballot unlikely for Arden Arcade cityhood question
LAFCO to make call tonight
By Ed Fletcher - efletcher@sacbee.com
Last Updated 4:11 pm PST Wednesday, March 5, 2008



Arden Arcade incorporation proponents' dream of a 2008 cityhood vote appears to be dead.

Cityhood backers are pushing to create a city out of 13-square-miles of unincorporated Sacramento County. They hoped the issue would be on the November ballot.

The executive in charge of the government body that oversees political boundary changes said there just isn't time to finish the studies and sufficiently examine the viability of the city before a decision is needed on whether allow voters to weigh in.

"Based on current progress, it is not possible to complete either the (environmental or fiscal studies) in time for the November 2008 election," reports Pete Brundage, executive director of the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission.

The commission, comprised primarily of local elected officials, meets at 5:30 p.m. today at Sacramento County Supervisors Board Chambers at 700 H St.

Brundage, in an interview Wednesday, said he was responsible for the studies being behind schedule.

"I have to take responsibility for not managing the contracts. We didn't get the work done," Brundage said.

The plan was to have the studies done by June so the commission could decide whether it makes fiscal sense.

Joel Archer, chairman of the incorporation committee, acknowledged that the 2008 ballot no longer looks feasible. He said the commission should fix the problem by funding a special election.

"At this point we lost the opportunity for November," Archer said. "LAFCO should make right what is wrong."

[Stephemento]

Does anybody have a plausible explanation as to why Fresno has a higher population than Sacramento? According to Wikipedia, Fresno is about the same size as the city of Sacramento, yet Sacramento trails by almost 10,000-15,000.

Is it because Fresno went on an annexation spree of inhabited areas?
Has Fresno been on a building spree and added more to its population?

At one time, Sacramento (pre-1980ish) had a higher population then Fresno. But after the 1980 census Fresno overtook Sacramento.

Does anybody know how Fresno added to its population then?

Hello everybody, BTW. I'm new to the forum.

[Majin]

Who cares? Fresno is a shithole.

[BrianSac]

Does anybody have a plausible explanation as to why Fresno has a higher population than Sacramento? According to Wikipedia, Fresno is about the same size as the city of Sacramento, yet Sacramento trails by almost 10,000-15,000.

Is it because Fresno went on an annexation spree of inhabited areas?
Has Fresno been on a building spree and added more to its population?

At one time, Sacramento (pre-1980ish) had a higher population then Fresno. But after the 1980 census Fresno overtook Sacramento.

Does anybody know how Fresno added to its population then?

Hello everybody, BTW. I'm new to the forum.

Welcome to the forum. I believe you can pack a lot of people into 9 sq miles. Fresno: 105 sq miles, Sacramento: 96 sq miles.

[Pistola916]

Does anybody have a plausible explanation as to why Fresno has a higher population than Sacramento? According to Wikipedia, Fresno is about the same size as the city of Sacramento, yet Sacramento trails by almost 10,000-15,000.

Is it because Fresno went on an annexation spree of inhabited areas?
Has Fresno been on a building spree and added more to its population?

At one time, Sacramento (pre-1980ish) had a higher population then Fresno. But after the 1980 census Fresno overtook Sacramento.

Does anybody know how Fresno added to its population then?

Hello everybody, BTW. I'm new to the forum.

Why does Sacramento have a higher pop than Minneapolis, Atlanta and Miami?? Why is the sky blue? I don't know, it just is. SF is only 49 square miles and its over 800,000, Sac is twice the size of SF but a lower pop. Who cares of Fresno has more people.

Welcome to the Board.

[sactivity]

Incordial bunch, Stephemento ! It's all about population divided by square miles equals density. SF and San Jose are good examples. SF has roughly 800,000 people while nearby San Jose is pushing a million. (hell, it may have it by now)... The former; 47 sq mi. The latter; over 300 sq mi. Big dif in density. You do the math. For me, metro pops are more important to look at than city pops.

What's more, Sac still has a lot of uninhabited space within it's city limits (North Natomas) that can still fit large amounts -- although that is quickly changing. Fresno, does not.

[Phillip]

Fresno isn't landlocked by its suburbs like Sacramento. Clovis, with about 80,000 people, is Fresno's only real suburb. The city of Fresno has been able to grow by annexing vast tracts of unincorporated Fresno county.

Sacramento and Fresno areas population exploded over the last 20 years and mostly for the same reasons. (Also Stockton, Modesto, and Bakersfield.) But most of Fresno area's growth went to the city of Fresno or areas that were later annexed into the city of Fresno, while most of Sacramento area's growth went to the suburbs.

More than 50% of Fresno MSA's population lives in the city of Fresno. Less than 25% of Sacramento MSA's population lives in the city of Sacramento. If Elk Grove had become part of Sacramento rather than its own incorporated city then Sacramento would be larger than Fresno today.

[urban_encounter]

Fresno isn't landlocked by its suburbs like Sacramento. Clovis, with about 80,000 people, is Fresno's only real suburb. The city of Fresno has been able to grow by annexing vast tracts of unincorporated Fresno county.

Sacramento and Fresno areas population exploded over the last 20 years and mostly for the same reasons. (Also Stockton, Modesto, and Bakersfield.) But most of Fresno area's growth went to the city of Fresno or areas that were later annexed into the city of Fresno, while most of Sacramento area's growth went to the suburbs.

More than 50% of Fresno MSA's population lives in the city of Fresno. Less than 25% of Sacramento MSA's population lives in the city of Sacramento. If Elk Grove had become part of Sacramento rather than its own incorporated city then Sacramento would be larger than Fresno today.



You explained it well. Fresno has enjoyed rapid growth as you noted as well as annexation.

It's interesting to note that Sacramento almost went after Laguna West for annexation, but backed off when Elk Grove saw that the city of Sacramento eyeing that area and quickly petitioned LAFCO to have Laguna West fall under their sphere of influence. Of course EG eventually annexed Laguna West themselves and Laguna West wasn't too eager to join Sacramento. In retrospect though I wonder if residents regret that decision considering what is happening to Elk Grove.

[Majin]

Clovis, with about 80,000 people, is Fresno's only real suburb.

Suburb of a suburb? Wow thats crazy :runaway:

[urban_encounter]

Suburb of a suburb? Wow thats crazy :runaway:



Call it a "suburb" if you will, but it still doesn't erase the fact that Fresno is still the largest "city "in the Central Valley. I'm not sure why it matters to people anyway?

What is important, is how it grows. Like Sacramento Fresno has soaked up valuable open space in favor of sprawl (unfortunately).

But like Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, a healthy Fresno is in the best interest of the Valley as a whole.

[wburg]

Both cities, like pretty much every Western city that could, soaked up that valuable open space because, at the time, it was cheap open space. Cities that annexed outlying areas have traditionally done better (in terms of minimizing population loss during the suburban era) than cities that did not or could not do so.

Fresno is not a suburb, it's just a typical Western city. Majin considers anything that isn't a skyscraper to be a suburb (like the eight-story suburban ranch house he lives in) so it kind of skews his perspective a bit.

[Cynikal]

Does anybody have a plausible explanation as to why Fresno has a higher population than Sacramento? According to Wikipedia, Fresno is about the same size as the city of Sacramento, yet Sacramento trails by almost 10,000-15,000.

Is it because Fresno went on an annexation spree of inhabited areas?
Has Fresno been on a building spree and added more to its population?

At one time, Sacramento (pre-1980ish) had a higher population then Fresno. But after the 1980 census Fresno overtook Sacramento.

Does anybody know how Fresno added to its population then?

Hello everybody, BTW. I'm new to the forum.

Are you looking at the city limits or and the MSA's?

[Phillip]

The good news from Downtown Fresno is that last week the former Fresno Hilton, which has sat empty and abandoned for the last 5 years, reopened as the Fresno Holiday Inn, after a total gut and remodel. It's a real lift for a Downtown that hasn't seen much construction since the Grizzlies AAA baseball stadium went up in 2002.

[Majin]

The good news from Downtown Fresno

I stopped reading there.

[Phillip]

Allright, no free cocktail coupons to the Fresno Holiday Inn's 9th floor Sky Room lounge for you, Majin!

[Majin]

9th floor :haha:

[urban_encounter]

The good news from Downtown Fresno is that last week the former Fresno Hilton, which has sat empty and abandoned for the last 5 years, reopened as the Fresno Holiday Inn, after a total gut and remodel.



That's good to hear...

[innov8]

Monday, January 5, 2009
Arden Arcade group wants out of general plan
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

A group hoping for Arden Arcade cityhood is asking Sacramento to remove the area from its draft 2030 General Plan, where Arden Arcade appears as a special study area. A special study area is a region outside of city limits were the city has designs on annexation and where communities might support the idea of annexation.

The city council is expected to vote on adopting the plan at a Jan. 20 meeting.

The group objecting to future annexation is the Arden Arcade Incorporation Committee, which tried unsuccessfully to get the cityhood issue on the November ballot.

Arden Arcade is an area of Sacramento County east of the Sacramento city limits.

The group plans a news conference about the issue on Jan. 15.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/01/05/daily6.html?surround=lfn

[ltsmotorsport]

So I had something negative to say last night about these people, but lost it and now it's morning. Something along the lines of that area is not a city, everyone describes it as Sacramento, so just go away already. You know, the same old thing that's always said about this group. ;)

[TWAK]

Just been driving around and man, there is soo much county land. I wonder if the counties budget would be helped if we annex some of it.

[Majin]

Just been driving around and man, there is soo much county land.

Welcome to 1970, I hope you enjoy your stay :sly:

But seriously, you just now finding out county land area is huge? Isn't the population of unincorporated sacramento county like 800k?