After more than a decade of planning, the city of Folsom pushed forward on its bid Tuesday night to annex 3,500 acres south of Folsom, voting unanimously to send the expansion plan to the local body empowered to make a final decision.

The issue brought protests from a handful of residents during the hearing but enthusiastic and lengthy support from members of the development community, the Folsom Chamber of Commerce, and auto dealers, among others.

"This is a really high-quality plan," said Mike McKeever, chief executive of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

He lauded the housing mix and the transit planning that would provide paths for walking, bicycle trails, open space and parks. "All of that is a home run as far as we are concerned," McKeever said.

The council vote sends the annexation plan to the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, perhaps later this year, for a final decision.

The city has worked on the plan for at least the past 10 years. There are seven landowners in the proposed annexation area. But only three own the largest share of property: AKT Development and Carpenter Ranch Partnership own about 41 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Easton Development owns 18 percent.

The plan calls for high-density housing – 41 percent of the 10,210 planned units – clustered around high-speed transit corridors.

It designates 30 percent of the land for open space and natural areas, and 9 percent for parks and schools. And it would create about 13,000 jobs and 10,000 homes – a better than 1-to-1 jobs ratio.

City officials say they expect high-paying jobs in high-tech and medical industries.

McKeever offered only a mild criticism: "We think on the commercial side you may be a little bit high," he said. "On the residential, you may be a little bit on the low side."

Still to be hammered out are a plan for sharing tax revenue with Sacramento County, a plan for bringing water to the area, perhaps from the Natomas area, and a strategy for routing truck traffic to Highway 50 from hard rock quarries planned south of the expansion area.

Before taking the vote, several council members were irate that one Folsom resident questioned the council about whether they had read the document and, in one case, whether campaign contributions played a role in the decision.

"This land is the most ideal place to build," City Councilman Jeff Starsky said shortly before the vote. "There is no floodplain. There is no agricultural production that can come out of this land. This is exactly where it should go."

But he reacted angrily to comments from resident Debbie Meier, who questioned whether he had read the document.

"How dare you!" Starsky said. "Did I read this? Lady, I read the drafts! I understand it probably better than you and probably better than most residents of Folsom."

City Councilman Steve Miklos, similarly angered when questioned about whether he had accepted contributions from developers in the area, countered that all contributions are matter of public record.

"That is the best you got?" he said indignantly. "You need to do your homework."

Council members talked at length about the years of work, the input from many residents and their ability to push developers into producing a project superior to many others in the region.

Before making its decision, the seven-member LAFCO is expected to address a range of topics: How the annexation would affect other government agencies in the area, how basic city services will be delivered, and the expected population growth.

If the commission approves the annexation, it also is likely to set terms and conditions. One, for example, could focus on the protection of open space. Another might address the sustainability of water to the area.

Before a formal hearing is held, the city and Sacramento County must create and adopt a tax-sharing agreement, said Peter Brundage, LAFCO's executive officer.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call The Bee's Loretta Kalb, (916) 321-1073.

• Read more articles by Loretta Kalb