Bringing Neighbors Together

Concern regarding item in Board Minutes

 In reading the Minutes of the BOD's Meeting on January 23rd,  I found the statement as written under REPORTS - A.-  Presidents Report -  to be interesting. It was in regards to a letter provided to Pulte from Kent and Hal regarding the Annexation and that they were currently working with the city.  Now I do not recall that being publicly done, but it's always possible I dozed off or had a temporary blackout.  It would seem that if what I'm reading is in fact what happened and I have no reason to believe it did not, that letter should be DISCLOSED to the community.  Kent and Hal are our resident Directors and as written it would seem this letter was their take on representing the community regarding the Annexation and we have every right to know their dealings with Pulte regarding this. 
This info can be found by logging in to the Official web site under Board Room...Agenda & Minutes.
Perhaps this letter exchange is perfectly legal between Directors, but since it is in regards to the Annexation and written by our "resident" Directors regarding an important upcoming vote, I, for one,  am very uncomfortable with this.  Also, exactly in what capacity are they working with the city under?  Doubtful Pulte needs their expertise in the process.    JMHO

8 Responses »

  1. I "believe" what is written in the minutes is formatted incorrectly because I understood at the meeting that the letter from Hal and Kent was our community wants and needs (facilities report) as passed to Pulte. The "working with the city" reference was what Gregg said Pulte was now doing. This is as I remember the discussion. The minutes should have been better worded.

  2. Interesting, I spoke with Elk Grove Planning Department regarding the general plan for the area and he said he knew nothing of Pulte's plans.

    That area is zoned R-5 and R-7. You can view the mster plan online at ElkGrove Planning but the color codes are a little difficult to see on computer monitors.

  3. Thanks Walt........You know, it's really just not worth the effort. They're in the "ballpark" most likely, "letter" can equal any piece of paper and "They" can mean any two+ people. Sounds good to me. just hope they don't mix up the words Annexation and Transition when we vote. Those two words always confuse me.

  4. Come on people, get real! It's been a builders nightmare for the last few years and things seem to be picking up some. I'm thinking Pulte is wanting out of EG and the sooner the better...what direction they may take is anyones guess and it's doubtful that decision will have anything to do with what this GCA wants or needs. It's always about the bottom line. IMO, Pulte always knew what they had to offer Glenbrooke in exchange for a YES vote, it's just a little game builders play. Most likely in the end they can do whatever they like with the property...like a "sister" Glenbrooke without our vote or maybe it's on the market now. Just my unsolicited opinion............. LOL

  5. The subdivisions across Whitelock according to the general plan is R-5 and R-7. Pulte CANNOT do anything it wants with the land. They can build R-5 R-7 zoning only. (iResidental 5 -7 houses per acre).

    No apartments, no high density, no low income, etc. etc. There is also a strip zoned commerical.

    If pulte wants to build age restricted homes, they can as long as it is R-5 and not any more dense. The planner told me that establishing whether it is age restricted does not involved the city. Neither does a possible annexation into the GCA. That is civil and between the parties (US as GCA and Pulte).

    Yes, Pulte could possibly sell it. BUT if they did, the new owner could only build R-5 R-7 density. The general plan is very difficult to change and since this was revised in 2011 it is not likely they will look at it again for years.

    Bottom line, we will have single family homes over there - along with another park and a strip of commercial.

  6. With reference to Darcie's post about the Housing Plan. There was an article posted recently regarding a public meeting to review the Elk Grove Housing Plan. It included the statement
    ..."A public meeting to discuss the update to the General Plan Housing Element ..."
    I don't know if that would affect the Whitelock properties but...

  7. Article regarding this meeting..............

    As part of Elk Grove's eight year housing element plan as required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), a workshop was held yesterday afternoon at City Hall to gather public comments on the report the planed to be reviewed by the Elk Grove City Council this June.

    The process is driven by HCD which formulates regional housing needs. For Elk Grove, those housing needs are derived from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

    According to the information presented at the workshop, Elk Grove's share of regional housing over the next eight years has been determined to be an additional 7,402 new housing units between now and 2021.

    Of these new units (does not include unoccupied current housing units) there are five housing classifications based on income categories. Those classifications included extremely low income, very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate.

    Below find the income categories and the percent of housing unit (our of the the 7,402 new units) that city must plan for.
    •Extremely low income $0 - 22,850 1,018 units 13.75 percent
    •Very low income $22,851 - 38,050 1,017 13.74
    •Low income $38,051 - 60,900 1,427 19.28
    •Moderate income $60,901 - $91,300 1,377 18.6
    •Above moderate > $91,300 2,563 34.63

    During the session Elk Grove Planning Director Taro Echiburu explained that the city must provide the means for accommodating the various housing classifications and said that is done primarily through zoning. The city has also provided subsidies for the construction of high density housing for the lower income categories.

    According to Echiburu, if the city does not provide the means for the new units, the legal remedy is covered by California's so-called anti-NIMBY law.
    During the workshop several participants expressed concern that among other things the plan does not allow inclusion of existing vacant units, that several high density developments are not located within easy walking distance of services and that the three level apartments meant for lower income families do not include elevators thereby effectively excluding physical disabled people. Participants also urged to plan for walkable communities and to see what is being done in several East Bay cities.

    It is expected the Planning Commission and City Council will both hear the plan in June prior to submission to the HCD. Based on HCD action, the plan is expected to be adopted in December

Glenbrooke Community Association (GCA) Information

Arbour Lodge
Phone 714-1010; FAX 714-1374
Address 7700 Del Webb Blvd. EG 95757
Office hours are M-F 8AM to 5 PM
GCA Website: www.glenbrookeca.com

(Mouseover for details)
Association Staff
Board of Directors
Design Review Committee
Riverside Management

Disclaimer

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. Posts/Comments: All Posts and comments are the sole opinion of the author, and do not reflect the opinions of GlenbrookeNews or the the owner who shall NOT be held responsible for the accuracy or legitimacy of any information posted by its contributors.