SOI Public Outreach Meeting Recap
The following report of last night’s Elk Grove’s sphere of influence public outreach meetings was submitted by Eugene Rose of Wilton. Last n...
https://www.elkgrovenews.net/2010/03/soi-public-outreach-meeting-recap.html
The following report of last night’s Elk Grove’s sphere of influence public outreach meetings was submitted by Eugene Rose of Wilton. Last night was the the third of four “listening sessions” Elk Grove City Hall Chambers.
Presentations and questions were heavily weighted in opposition to inclusion of the flood plain in the SOI.
Members of various Environmental and Conservation Organizations addressed concerns over the MOU as “meaningless and unenforceable”. Concern was expressed over a lack of consideration of “any” of the many points submitted regarding water and mitigation problems. Those concerns, although submitted in writing, were not included in the draft MOU.
The Farm Bureau recommended the removal of the flood plain from the SOI as the County is better equipped to handle Agricultural Matters. They suggested that an MOU can better address the concerns of property owners whose property would be split by inclusion in two jurisdictions and that can occur without the floodplain being included in the SOI.
Two suggestions, which appeared as reasonable solutions, were put forth:
I-City of Elk Grove should “not apply for an SOI until 80% of existing undeveloped land within the current City Boundaries are developed.” The figure of 8,000 acres of undeveloped land has been noted on numerous occasions without challenge.
II-City of Elk Grove should withdraw the “Floodplain” from the SOI application and proceed with an agreement with the County (MOU) on “protection” of this very sensitive area (floodplain).
The City of Elk Grove continues to express a concern over development within the Floodplain and denies any interest in future development within the floodplain. Based on their expressed concerns it would appear that removal of the floodplain from the SOI and entering into an agreement with the County of Sacramento, as a means of protecting the floodplain from development, would satisfy those expressed concerns. However, if their intent is to “open the door” for potential future development within the floodplain then it is critical that the floodplain remain in the SOI and eventually within City Jurisdiction through annexation.
I suspect that the City Council Meeting of April 14th will bring clarification as to the “real intent/interest” in the floodplain. A huge turnout of individuals from within the City of Elk Grove as well as individuals residing adjacent to the City Boundaries is anticipated at that April 14th meeting. An opportunity to see if anyone is really “listening” to the voices of the majority in attendance at those previously orchestrated “listening sessions”.
Presentations and questions were heavily weighted in opposition to inclusion of the flood plain in the SOI.
Members of various Environmental and Conservation Organizations addressed concerns over the MOU as “meaningless and unenforceable”. Concern was expressed over a lack of consideration of “any” of the many points submitted regarding water and mitigation problems. Those concerns, although submitted in writing, were not included in the draft MOU.
The Farm Bureau recommended the removal of the flood plain from the SOI as the County is better equipped to handle Agricultural Matters. They suggested that an MOU can better address the concerns of property owners whose property would be split by inclusion in two jurisdictions and that can occur without the floodplain being included in the SOI.
Two suggestions, which appeared as reasonable solutions, were put forth:
I-City of Elk Grove should “not apply for an SOI until 80% of existing undeveloped land within the current City Boundaries are developed.” The figure of 8,000 acres of undeveloped land has been noted on numerous occasions without challenge.
II-City of Elk Grove should withdraw the “Floodplain” from the SOI application and proceed with an agreement with the County (MOU) on “protection” of this very sensitive area (floodplain).
The City of Elk Grove continues to express a concern over development within the Floodplain and denies any interest in future development within the floodplain. Based on their expressed concerns it would appear that removal of the floodplain from the SOI and entering into an agreement with the County of Sacramento, as a means of protecting the floodplain from development, would satisfy those expressed concerns. However, if their intent is to “open the door” for potential future development within the floodplain then it is critical that the floodplain remain in the SOI and eventually within City Jurisdiction through annexation.
I suspect that the City Council Meeting of April 14th will bring clarification as to the “real intent/interest” in the floodplain. A huge turnout of individuals from within the City of Elk Grove as well as individuals residing adjacent to the City Boundaries is anticipated at that April 14th meeting. An opportunity to see if anyone is really “listening” to the voices of the majority in attendance at those previously orchestrated “listening sessions”.
Posts
Post a Comment