Scaled back Auburn plans for Baltimore Ravine on front burner again
Scaled-back plans for Auburn’s last large vacant tract of developable land are moving toward a planning commission hearing Dec. 15. But instead of 1,203 residential units on 294 acres, The Baltimore Ravine specific plan calls for a bifurcated proposal that would add 725 residential units. Shrinking the development footprint even further, Baltimore Ravine Investors LLC is asking for designation of 130 acres on the southern end of the project properties as part of the initial specific plan while the remaining 147 acres closer to Interstate 80 would be designated as a future plan area. Development of the southern end during the first phase of Baltimore Ravine’s buildout would situate 270 detached, single-family homes on 68 acres of the 130-acre plan area. Another 55 acres would be taken up by open space. The remaining seven acres would be right of way. The future plan area would include a mix of 455 single-family houses, condominiums and apartments, plus 90,000 square feet of commercial space, a two-acre park and 88 acres of open space. Reg Murray, a planner with the city of Auburn, said the planning commission hearing will be a starting point for the revised project, giving residents their first opportunity to comment on it. The 160-page specific plan document was made public last month and plans are to merge it with required environmental studies in 2010 for eventual consideration by the City Council. Stephen Des Jardins, of Baltimore Ravine Investors, said Monday that the old plan had more residential development slotted in for steeper areas. Des Jardins said that initial plans would have meant a “higher price point per house” and, in most cases, a bigger environmental impact. The proposal Baltimore Ravine Investors is now proposing is now asking for development approvals on the part of the project that contains no multi-family or commercial construction, he said. The Baltimore Ravine proposal was first designated in the 1970s as an urban reserve for future development. Lifelong Auburn resident Bart Ruud said the land should never have been put in urban reserve and could be better as a candidate as a nature preserve. “I wonder what happens to the quality of Auburn life and the small-town feel,” Ruud said. “We’ll have to deal with traffic congestion and resultant air pollution. I submitted a list of 80 questions last year and the city has answered very few of those questions.” Robert Feldman, a South Auburn resident who lives near the Baltimore Ravine reserve, said that the 725 units still in the plan “are still a lot of units.” “Some of it needs to be preserved in the public trust,” Feldman said. “The question is whether we want Auburn to become another Roseville.”
|
Change Location:
|
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Feldman when he poses the question, (do) "we want Auburn to become another Roseville?".
There is not enough flat acreage within the city limits of Auburn to EVER become a city as large as Roseville.
Besides, we have an entire state park (ASRA) adjacent to our town that is dedicated to the Public Trust, Mr. Feldman. How much more open space does a community need?
Does the city of Auburn or surrounding area need more houses on the market? We don't need another Lake of the Pines...started in the 70's to be an upscale housing development and then ended up with small, run-of-the-mill trac homes because of the economy.
Where the heck is Baltimore Ravine? Names are used that do not correlate to a place on a map. Why do you do this? You think everyone knows these names that really don't identify where they are located. I've lived in the Placer County area for over 40 years and don't know the identity of these names (and it's more than just this one!). You should mention circumferenced street parameters.
pollywog,
Between I-80 and Auburn Folsom Road not too far from Newcastle and Ophir.
I typed baltimore ravine auburn ca into Google and the first choice was http://www.auburn.ca.gov/ which showed the BRSP as a choice and then had a land use map choice. so, to see where it is
http://www.auburn.ca.gov/dept/documents/brsp/Fig3_BaltimoreRavineSPLandUseMap.pdf
A better map at mapquest
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Auburn&state=ca#a/maps/l:::Auburn:CA::US:38.896702:-121.075798:city:Placer+County:1/m:hyb:13:38.885908:-121.088701:0:::::1:1:1::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e
Hope this helps
pollywog it's west of AF RD and south of the park on AF.
It just doesn't make sense that we keep building in the fertile valley. The foothills makes more sense, at least from an environmental point of view. I know everyone is going to say something about their quality of life. Getting down to it paving over the valley is a senseless act and, will affect the quality of life for all
gregcalac: Because the geographic area doesn't resemble Roseville isn't the point. I believe Mr. Feldman was probably referring to the resulting traffic & environmental impact this developement will create.
One of the reasons why the project had to be scaled down is because the property owners who own the 45 acres which was supposed to be the heart of the development (The Escaton Village site & commercial center), are now refusing to sell their propery to Des Jardins after experiencing the way this guy conducts business.
Why do we keep on paving over paradise.
caltowash: Apparently, increased property tax revenue reigns supreme over land preservation according to some on this board.
pollywog, 40 years and you just now heard the term Baltimore Ravine. Where have you been hiding? It is the property directly behind the ARD, where James field and the swimming pool are located. It lays between the east and west bound Union Pacific tracks, I80 to the north, Indian Hill Rd to the south. It has been a dumping grounds for old appliances, furniture and stolen vehicles along with a some pot farming. A good planned development would be welcome. Access is the problem as Herdel Drive off Maidu Dr, is the road of choice that will bridge "bloomer" cut (sorry pw if you don't know this historic landmark), so far it is the only access that is "firm".
And what are we preserving the land for? So our children and grandchildren have to move out of the area to purchase homes. So the salmon can swim upstream in their pristine beauty. So CEO's of environmental groups and other non-profits can have high salaries and rich retirements. Let's stop Environmental and Non-Profit Corporate corruption now. (Paraphrased from CR's usual comments).
placerlover,
There are excess houses sitting unsold in every town in California. That is a temporary condition. We've seen stagnant housing markets more than a few times in the past, and they didn't last forever, and neither will this one.
Steely,
The point I'm trying to make is, there isn't sufficient developable land remaining within the City Limits of Auburn that will bring enough smog, traffic, or other enviro impact that will have a significant negative impact on us.
In fact, the addition of a decent amount of "affordable housing" could be a terrific boost for the shrinking population of our elementary school population. In addition to new single family housing units, it would be good to build a number of multi-family units to house people with lower income.
It would also be great if the empty lots around town could be built out before new tracts are constructed, and that's what a lot of urban planners are now saying. Fill in and increase the density so the public transportation is used more. There aren't so many vacant lots around Auburn that building on them would ruin the town.
If it is done correctly this development could be a wonderful addition to the City of Auburn.
JonGreen,
When you "paraphrase" CR's comments you loose all the bite. Besides, you forgot to blame Doolittle and McClintock for everything from global warming to ingrown toe nails!
it's hard to top CR's venom.
Actually, it's easy to copy her. All you need to do is put yourself into "rant" mode, carelessly link unconnected events and people with the general brush strokes of blind hatred and colorful vindictiveness, and voila!
I've offered several times to take her place if she needs to go out of town for a few days.
I'm not sure I could find the right combination of "uppers" and "downers" to copy her.
the phase 2 area closest to the freeway would be better served as a business district with an offramp from the freeway. who wants their home so close to the freeway and train track, but what do I know I'm not a city planner I'm just using common sense.
Apparently Mr. Des Jardins is counting his chickens a bit too early...a chunk of the area included in this map (where the proposed commercial center would be & where Eskaton Village was to be built) isn't even owned by him yet...the property owners have refused to sell. I guess that part is just wishful thinking for the future.
stump,
That's an interesting idea.
If an off-ramp were installed there would also need to be an over-pass. Talk like that and you're going to ruffle some feathers!
Just make sure that the developer pays up front for infrastructure upgrades, traffic mitigation, etc. Too ofter, well always, the developers build, sell and run leaving the taxpayers to pick up the mess they leave behind. Having witnessed the traffic explosion along Auburn Folsom, King, Horseshoe Bar, etc I view all development with a suspicious eye
loomis,
Fair enough. However, developers are going by what the County stipulates; they aren't just doing what they want, willy nilly.
Of course the County is the governing body and they set most of the rules. There are some zoning and regulatory rules that are state-wide and set according to state zoning codes. But our County authorities are the ones responsible for how and what developers do on a project.
But you already know that.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that all aspects of a project be included in one environmental review so the
agency can consider the overall cumulative environmental impacts of the whole of the project.
Segmenting larger projects into smaller pieces is prohibited and fails to meet CEQA’s core
purposes of impact evaluation and mitigation as well as full disclosure to foster informed public
decision-making. The courts have repeatedly rejected the approach of separating project
activities for independent CEQA review and required them to be reviewed together where, for
example, the second activity is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the first activity.
Trying to divid the Baltimore Ravine project into to separte development is a clear attempt to mimize the true impacts of this project. "Look we are only adding 200+ houses now and taking out xxx acres of open space, consuming xx acre feet of water." The clear intent is build both phases of this project, which cumulatively has unavoidable significant impacts on the infrustructure, water supply, and natural environment of Auburn. This will go to court and segmenting under CEQA regulations will be at the for front of the argument. The Planning Department and City should insist that the full scope of the project is analyized in the EIR.
This project is not under county building department control, it is in the city limits and in the city's jurisdiction.