Forums » Franklin Reserve

 

Corner O f Bruceville and Bilby

This topic has been closed.
    • 1417 posts
    1
    September 19, 2007 8:41:03 PM PDT
    Just read the article on the front page of today's Citizen describing the new apartment complex planned for the corner of Bruceville and Bilby called The Seasons .The complex will have 222 "low"income units and 45 "very low" income units, and will be three stories high. Is the city also planning on widening Bruceville from Bilby to Whitelock to accomodate this housing complex, since it is currently only a 2 lane road? I am wondering what the people who live near Bilby and Bruceville think about this.
  • 2
    September 19, 2007 9:17:29 PM PDT
    If I remember correctly Bruceville is supposed to be 4 lanes all the way to Bilby when they are done.

    As far as a large portion of the complex being low income  housing due to the newest regulations every city must be in compliance with the percentages of low income housing mandated by the government.  Folsom and Elk Grove were prime examples of cities that refused to comply and just pay the fines.  They can no longer continue to do that, they must bring the numbers up.  What that means is we will be seeing an increasing number of rent-controlled propeties within Elk Grove.  We may not like it but if the city had chosen to comply with federal regulations in the first place the rent-controlled properties would not be so concentrated.
    • 1671 posts
    3
    September 20, 2007 12:02:31 PM PDT
    maybe they will finally build the grocery store and gas station then on whitelock and bruceville!
  • 4
    September 20, 2007 6:09:55 PM PDT
    The application for alcohol sales is up so figure on 12 months for the store and gas station.
    • 1104 posts
    5
    September 20, 2007 6:41:41 PM PDT
    I realize that low income housing in needed, but is this the best place for it?  How many people would want this development in their neighborhood?  Where should it be built?   Isn't there already low income housing on Bruceville?  Where else is it in the city?  Will it impact the home values, some which have dropped by 150K since the downturn?  Will it cause people to think twice about shopping at our new mall which is so near to this very low income housing?  Will it impact crime in the area? Hard questions. 
  • 6
    September 20, 2007 10:00:33 PM PDT
    Where would you suggest they put the low income housing?  We would not be having these problems of concentrations of low income housing if the city council had complied with federal regulations on low income housing many years ago.  This is an issue that has been waiting to boil over for many years.  We are not the only city in this dilema.  Folsom has the same problem and I am sure that many other towns throughout California that have experienced large amounts of growth have the same problem.

    As far as the drop in home values if the low income housing was built the values of homes in the area would not have been inflated as high as they were so consequently they would not have dropped as far.
    • 482 posts
    7
    September 20, 2007 11:19:31 PM PDT
    I'm not sure where they should put it.  I'm conflicted by it.  I keep typing and erasing, I'm not quite sure how to articulate exactly what I want to say.  So I think I will leave it at that...I'm conflicted.
    • 1104 posts
    8
    September 21, 2007 8:58:05 AM PDT
    So, If the low income housing had been built the home values would not have dropped so far.  You are right.  Many would not have purchased in that area if the low income housing had been there.  Prices did not seem inflated.  800K for a 3700 sq house did not seem like very much after coming from the bay area. It is all relative.  As long as the area does not change it is still worth what one paid as long as you are not looking to move.
    Again, not sure where this housing should go.  I am more concerned about the mall than my home. 
  • 9
    September 21, 2007 9:22:11 AM PDT
    The main problem with low income housing is that the few ruin it for the many, as it is with shopping and any other activities large groups of people enjoy.  The few that are disrespectful, rude and law breaking bring down the image  of the whole area.  I do not think it will negatively effect the mall to a great extent unless the negative element becomes such a large portion of the people going to the mall that the people looking for a pleasant shopping experience just stop going(similar to what has happened at the downtown mall).  I do not think that it will get that bad but if it does it will be related more to the bad element coming down from South Sacramento as opposed to the low income housing being built in EG.  IMHO
    • 11 posts
    10
    September 21, 2007 10:32:27 AM PDT
    I don't like low and very low income housing.  I'm not a fan of it being forced on us either.  If I wanted to be surrounded by low and very low income housing I would have bought my home in Valley Hi or Oak Park.  But, I bought my home in Elk Grove with the understanding that my neighborhood would reflect a community like my family.  I hold the philosophy that if you want to live in a different neighborhood that you feel is better than your current one then you must work for it.  Hand outs need to stop.  Just as we parents must teach our children to be responsible and self sufficient adults, others need to learn to grow up too.  And why not put in low and very low housing for the elderly?  I would prefer senior citizens, who have earned a helping hand for their many years of hard work and who generally take pride in their homes, to a felon just out on parole or an unwed mother who is a breeding factory.  It's time we hold people accountable for their choices. 
    • 449 posts
    11
    September 21, 2007 11:48:32 AM PDT
    Well said Giantsfans a little harsh but I agree 100%, but the last letter I got stated that was what was going up, a senior complex. I wonder what and when this changed. Anyone know?
    • 1104 posts
    12
    September 21, 2007 1:13:12 PM PDT
    How close do you have to be to receive a letter about the project?
    I wonder if Safeway will still come as it would be the closet store to the project. If they do, I see grocery carts in the neighborhoods as very low income people may not have cars.  I hope it does not end of looking like the typical grocery store in E. Palo Alto.  That was the first time I saw a grocery store w/o windows and armed guards patrolling. 
    This is not what I expected when I moved here.   I hope I am so very wrong and the neighborhood does not change.
    The only low income people I know are respectful, hardworking people.  The fact that they do not make much does not make them criminals or less deserving of a place to live. 

    I do hope it is a senior project.
    • 959 posts
    13
    September 21, 2007 4:30:55 PM PDT
    The problem with low income housing is that they ALWAYS put too many low income units in one area.  This is horrible planning from a number of perspectives: 

    First the people that move into these places are segregated from the rest of our neighborhoods.  They become their own microcosm within the neighborhood without the benefits that come from connecting to their surrounding neighbors.  Most will never realize the have the potential and the ability to improve their lot in life.

    Second, there are rarely any of these folks willing to call the police if they witness a crime because they tend to distrust police and fear retaliation.  

    Finally, because people are unwilling to contact the police criminal activity becomes rampant.  The low income housing units and the surrounding neighborhoods begin to decay.  Housing prices plummet, businesses close, and those that are willing to work to make the neighborhoods better move away. 

    There is a better way!   Build the same number of low income housing units but spread them throughout the city intermixed with other types of housing.   Limit the number of units to the smallest number that is financially feasible.  You will give those that need low income housing a vision of what they can be, as well a real opportunity to do it.  You'll also protect neighborhoods from the blight that so often occurs in proximity to low income projects. 

    Building 300 low income housing units in one location is just plain stupid!!! 
    • 8 posts
    14
    September 21, 2007 8:48:43 PM PDT
    Remember that low income housing does not ALWAYS mean trouble.  I have lived close to low income apartments in the past and it did not hurt the property value and it did not increase the crime rate.  I would rather look at apartments that are new and clean and kept up rather than look at the neglected yards and driveways of the foreclosed houses that seem to grow uglier each day.
    • 1417 posts
    15
    September 21, 2007 8:58:13 PM PDT
    Richard  -  I couldn't agree with you more. I also feel for the folks who are trying to sell their homes in the vicinity of Bruceville and Bilby, as this could further impact home sales in that area in this already depressed housing market.

    It also seems that most Franklin Reserve residents had no idea that a nearly 300 unit low income housing project was about to be built at Bruceville and Bilby. Is it too late to do something about this situation?
    • 1417 posts
    16
    September 21, 2007 9:08:33 PM PDT
    Kathy57  -  I also agree that low income housing should not and does not always mean trouble, but Richard raised an excellent point in that it is more beneficial both to the community and to the occupants of low income housing not to segregate 300 of those units in one specific location.
    • 482 posts
    17
    September 21, 2007 9:12:30 PM PDT
    I personally do not want to look at either...foreclosed properties or apartment complexes (low income or otherwise).  I have to admit I am very concerned about our neighborhood on many levels.  Most of us have worked, saved, struggled, sacrificed to be able to buy a home.  We didn't always live in the best neighborhood, the nicest house, we lived within our means and worked our fingers to the bone to be able to provide for our children. 

    While I don't agree with giants entire post I feel he said it best when he said " I bought my home in Elk Grove with the understanding that my neighborhood would reflect a community like my family.  I hold the philosophy that if you want to live in a different neighborhood that you feel is better than your current one then you must work for it".   
  • 18
    September 21, 2007 9:35:09 PM PDT
    Almost 300 low income units in one location is a lot;  when you also consider that there are 2 other apartment complexes on Whitelock Parkway that also have a high amount of low income units there seems to be a massive amount of low income units in this area.  Is this a "done deal" or can something still be done?
  • 19
    September 21, 2007 10:40:34 PM PDT
    Bulldog:  As far as the drop in home values if the low income housing was built the values of homes in the area would not have been inflated as high as they were so consequently they would not have dropped as far

    I guess that's one way to keep home prices down, build lots of low income housing. 

    There will be a lot more in Madeira.  The city needs a lot more of it as required by law so that area will see it's share since that land is vacant.
    • 1104 posts
    20
    September 22, 2007 12:09:31 AM PDT
    Sad but true, Doc.

    Madiera is not far from Bilby and Bruceville...I guess we have the title of the offical home of low income housing in Elk Grove.  I wonder if the people that are buying in Madiera know what is going on. 

    Anyone know where other low income housing is proposed?
    • 1104 posts
    21
    September 22, 2007 9:48:10 AM PDT
    Did anyone from FRNA attend any meetings regarding this development?
  • 22
    September 22, 2007 10:16:42 AM PDT
    Doc,

    You missed my point.  Home values in the area have dropped by about 20% in Franklin Reserve, I have not studied other areas of the city due to my wife's desires, and most of that is because the prices went up 30-40% during the end of the boom.  In the last 10 years prices in Elk Grove are up about 200%.  This is just an estimation.  During the same period prices in San Mateo County are up only 100-150%.  They have held steady due to no new housing developments to lower the prices.  If your house had only gone up say 100% and there were smaller numbers of low income housing interspersed throughout the city to comply with the law then this conversation would not be taking place.

    Elk Grove would not have expanded as rapidly, we would not be having issues with our parks and a number of other issues such as "big box" stores would be mute because the rapid development would have been slowed. 

    I am not a proponent of low income housing or government assistance in general but there are too many lawmakers in this state that believe it is the duty to help everyone so we now have laws that state every new development must have a percentage of low income housing.

    Enough of my rant.
    • 801 posts
    23
    September 22, 2007 10:36:26 AM PDT
    Just out of curiousity (and from my lack of knowledge), are there any low income housing units in the newer part of East Elk Grove (east of Waterman)?  I understand the need for low income housing, especially for older couples and single parent families.  I'm curious where the middle and high school students who live in this new complex will have to go to school - Toby and Franklin are full and off-loading students.  
  • 24
    September 22, 2007 2:03:36 PM PDT
    They almost have the school completed in Maderia.  They can be off loaded to there.
    • 1104 posts
    25
    September 22, 2007 3:06:28 PM PDT
    There are some low incomes either approved or proposed for Waterman and Bond. 
    • 7756 posts
    26
    September 22, 2007 6:19:29 PM PDT
    Richard stated some very valid points, I witnessed these same problems that he cites in Chicago...Large low income complexes were troublesome, crime was rampant and eventually (after about 50 years) they all had to come down..  You just cannot put that many people with little or no hope in a concentrated complex, it has been proven in more than one city...All our officials need to do is to just look at the experience of other cities and learn from their mistakes...Spread them out, make them smaller and less concentrated...
    • 7756 posts
    27
    September 22, 2007 6:32:35 PM PDT

    I am wondering, when I went straight out Franklin to Whitlock (or just beyond) what is that large complex over there?  Is it low income housing, I ask because I remember over hearing someone working in this complex (or one in this area) complaining about the many troublesome things that go on within it...

    I emphasize with those who will be directly impacted by this build out...there has to be a better way to comply with the law...I understand the law, just disagree with the way it is being implemented...

  • 28
    September 22, 2007 8:33:42 PM PDT
    yes Benita, there are already 2 large low income complexes on Whitelock-seems to be a lot for a small area and it will be troublesome when this new one is added in.
    • 172 posts
    29
    September 22, 2007 8:48:22 PM PDT
    Richard, you make so much sense I completely agree!!

    Newmom, where is the other low income complex besides "Agave "at Franklin and Whitelock? Are you talking about those condos that I think are called "Jasmine?" I thought those were just regular condos. hmmm

    Also can anyone confirm if this is set in stone yet?



    • 1417 posts
    30
    September 22, 2007 9:12:13 PM PDT
    Jasmine condominiums are beautiful, with lofts and towers, and they run to 1725 sq. ft. They are owner occupied. I don't know where the second low income project on Whitelock referred to in these posts is located, so maybe someone can post that information.

     Another concern could be the Dunmore units across Whitelock from Agave. If Dunmore has gone belly up these units potentially could be auctioned off, and further lower property values in the area. The question remains, as voiced by several of us here - does anyone know if there is still time to block the low income complex from going in at Bruceville and Bilby? I haven't noticed any previous threads in the Franklin Reserve forum on this topic.
    • 7756 posts
    31
    September 22, 2007 9:42:25 PM PDT
    Thanks newmom...what I over heard (and this was last year) was very disturbing about what was going on, I wondered if that was the one...mostly lack of parenting issues...kids running wild and free with no supervision and destroying the property...
    • 482 posts
    32
    September 22, 2007 10:18:04 PM PDT
    Here is a copy of the article.  I am not sure that it has final approval.  If we want to oppose this massive complex I would recommend we all (Franklin residents) send emails to the board and work together to voice our concerns.

    Citizen Staff Writer - The Elk Grove Planning Commission will see a relatively short agenda at their Sept. 20 meeting with the design review of a new affordable housing project placing itself as the key agenda item.
    “The Seasons at Laguna Ridge” is an 18.48-acre affordable housing concept with 222 “low” and 45 “very low” income units. The three-parcel project will be located at the northeast corner of Bruceville and Bilby Roads.
    The Seasons will be equipped with a 45,250-square foot courtyard, which will include amenities such as a swimming pool, gazebo and gardens, the staff report said.
    The project comes before the planning commission after the Elk Grove City Council approved the issuance of tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of the Seasons on June 27.
    “Furthermore, a loan request of $9.1 million in city funding is scheduled for city council consideration on Sept. 27, 2007,” the staff report said.
    The project meets many of the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the number of units allowed.
    “A maximum of 231 units is permitted to be built. The Seasons project proposes a total of 222 units, which is consistent with the zoning district,” the staff report said.
    The project includes an innovative trash system as well. Trash and recyclables will be disposed of through “gravity chutes” which will collect waste in a “hauler” located in trash rooms.
    “This waste/recycle system will eliminate the need for outdoor trash enclosures and provide benefits such as reducing odors, waste leakage, garbage truck pick-up, noise and air pollution and pavement wear,” the staff report said.
    The site location currently holds four rural residences, which will be demolished once construction begins. It is surrounded by agriculture land with rural single-family homes to the north, south and east.
    “The properties to the west are built-out with single-family homes that are part of the Machado Dairy Unit 1 subdivision,” the staff report said.
    The building is proposed as being three stories with varying roof heights that range from 34 to 38 feet.
    “The façade of each tenant space has its own architectural character that is distinctive and differs from the adjacent tenant spaces,” the staff report said.
    The two remaining agenda items are for more wireless antennas to go up on existing towers around the city. Similar antennas have been brought to the planning commission for approval in recent months.
    Clearwire Wireless Broadband is setting up for business in Elk Grove sometime next year and their wireless antennas are being built within existing towers to allow for service and to provide camouflage.
    The two different conditional use permits for antennas are being proposed on Laguna Boulevard and Bond Road.
    For more information on the meeting visit www.elkgroveplanning.org.
    • 1104 posts
    33
    September 23, 2007 11:46:07 AM PDT
    The planning commission's report states that this is project was approved as senior apartments.  I really do not have  a problem with low income senior housing as long as who moves in is monitored. 
    • 482 posts
    34
    September 23, 2007 12:13:14 PM PDT

    Hi Cross,

    Did you read that on the meeting minutes/agenda report or under the major projects report?  Please let us know where you located that is was going to be a senior only project.  There are so many pages of documents.  Thanks!

     

    • 1104 posts
    35
    September 23, 2007 1:20:40 PM PDT
    • 172 posts
    36
    September 23, 2007 1:28:27 PM PDT

    sorry if it's clear (clear as mud to me), but I can't see where it says anything about it being a senior residence. Does it and I'm missing it? thanks :)

     

    • 449 posts
    37
    September 23, 2007 1:33:50 PM PDT
    It does state senior facility (page 6 or 7) but it also says single family homes...so which is it? I'm so confused.
    • 1104 posts
    38
    September 23, 2007 2:11:31 PM PDT
    On page 1 under project description # 3 says 222 unit senior apartment.  It will be next to single family homes built by Treasure homes.
    • 172 posts
    39
    September 23, 2007 2:29:01 PM PDT

    thanks...

    ok, I see it.

    Sorry, when I opened your link, it went to pg 11 and I didn't realize I could turn the page :) oops!

    So maybe it is for low income seniors. That doesn't bother me as much. Low income doesn't bother me so much either, if it's mixed in with market rate units as well.

     

    • 1417 posts
    40
    September 24, 2007 7:38:40 PM PDT
    cross  -   thanks for posting the information from the planning commission. I wonder why the article last week in the Elk Grove Citizen never mentioned senior housing.
                  the  planning commission agenda describes 222 low income senior housing units, but I didn't notice - unless I missed it - any mention of the 45 very low income units mentioned in the Elk Grove Citizen. Are those 45 units described in the agenda also?
    • 30 posts
    41
    September 24, 2007 9:22:34 PM PDT
    Isn't the apartment complex on the corner of Whitelock Pkwy and Willard Pkwy low income housing, too?  That will be two low income complexes within a 5 mile radius!
    • 1104 posts
    42
    September 24, 2007 10:01:37 PM PDT
    Yes, it does mention the 45 very low income units as part of the same project.
    • 482 posts
    43
    September 24, 2007 10:21:17 PM PDT
    yes the apartments at Whitelock and Willard are low income.
    • 125 posts
    44
    September 25, 2007 2:16:43 PM PDT
    In terms of providing low income housing, is there a credit or offset for the number of Section 8 rentals in the city?  Perhaps there should be . . .
    • 1104 posts
    45
    September 25, 2007 9:50:59 PM PDT
    Does the fact that these are supposed to be senior units change how you feel about this project?
    • 482 posts
    46
    September 26, 2007 8:54:26 AM PDT
    It does change how I feel.  I am not as opposed to it being senior housing.  I still think it would be better if the complex was smaller.  I agree with Richard, low income housing should be small and spread throughout the city within the neighborhoods. 
    • 567 posts
    47
    September 26, 2007 11:13:33 PM PDT
    When I hear "low income housing project" I think about some of the housing projects around town.  CV Circle on Broadway just west of the cemetary near Target, or the other "housing project" off of Richards Blvd off I-5 just north of the J street off ramp.  I never associated housing projects with apartments.  So are these actual "housing projects" like the ones I mention and similar to the notorious Queens Bridge Projects in New York that Ron Artest grew up in ( just a little dolled up)?  Or are these apartments that fetch $700-1200 of rent a month?

    Not liking the idea of Project Housing in the area.  Just great...more good news.       
    • 1104 posts
    48
    September 27, 2007 8:19:53 AM PDT
    I meant project as in plan, not projects as in a type of housing.
    • 482 posts
    49
    September 28, 2007 6:47:30 PM PDT
    I am going to post the site for the entire plan.  I am not experienced in reading these plans but this is a huge project which includes 1110 multi family units consisting of 3 apartment complexes.  While there will be some senior housing (I believe someone came up with 300+) I can only assume that with 1100 units there will be other low income housing as well.    The total residential units to be built are 7767 including the apartment complexes.  If anyone has the time, patience and expertise to go through this and post a summary we would all appreciate it.

    I am not familiar with city building commitments but we have plenty of available homes right next door to this project in Franklin Reserve, do we really need an additional 7767 residences????

    Once again if I have rwad something wrong I would appreciate feedback.

    http://www.egplanning.org/projects/lagunaridge/LRSP_080204/lrsp_080204.html
  • 50
    September 28, 2007 8:49:30 PM PDT
    You read it right, there is 1100 rd-20 units which is the big apartment complexes like Agave.  No I do not believe there is a need for 8000 new residences in Elk Grove.  We probably have 2-3 years worth of inventory in Franklin Reserve but the city committed to this project and developers bought the land so it will need to be built out for the developers to get their money back.  IMO nobody within the development period had the foresight to predict the end of the housing boom so we are stuck with this and unfortunately that means it will take 10 years before we get the equity back that has been lost.
...