The city of Folsom won unanimous approval Wednesday night to grow by 3,500 acres south of Highway 50 in what city officials said was a win for the city and the region.

Minutes after the 7-0 vote by the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, City Councilman Jeff Starsky said the decision "secures the city's future for the next 30 years from an economic standpoint."

The mix of jobs and housing with companies such as Intel will help produce a new "center of employment" that will avoid added commutes and help the region prosper, he said.

Mayor Kerri Howell said the effort has been more than a decade in the making and that the city would demonstrate that its plan for the area will be positive.

"We have said all along that Folsom would be a very good steward of that land and it would be a regional asset," Howell said after the vote.

The meeting in Sacramento County supervisors' chambers lasted little more than an hour. Even so, the proposal to annex drew several vocal critics.

Some opponents urged the commission not to act until the city had nailed down a future water supply and demonstrated that it would meet future housing needs.

Sarah Ropelato, staff attorney for Legal Services of Northern California, told commissioners that annexation was premature because the city had not shown that it could accommodate housing for families of all incomes as required by state law.

Ropelato cited, among other issues, the city's decision last year to stop requiring developers to provide low- income units with every large residential project.

The problem, she said, is that the city did not first establish an adequate replacement plan to meet moderate and low-income housing needs.

Nancy Miller, counsel for Sacramento LAFCO, rejected that criticism, countering that state Department of Housing and Community Development had found Folsom to be in full compliance with housing law.

The city also has said voluntary initiatives would get the job done.

Several other speakers challenged the city's long-term plans for water, saying needed commitments had not been obtained.

Commissioner Christopher Tooker, a public member on the panel, also raised that concern.

The commission previously set strict conditions for allowing annexation, he said, including securing water rights.

"Tonight, we cannot say they have the rights to water," Tooker said.

To LAFCO counsel Miller, he asked if she believed LAFCO under those circumstances could defend its vote.

"I do," Miller said, noting that the city has demonstrated that it has several options for a potential supply.

The city has reached agreement with the Natomas Central Mutual Water Co. for 8,000 acre-feet of water a year.

Still, that "reassignment" of water rights must be approved by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

City officials said after the meeting the project had to be approved before the water could be reassigned.

"It's an anomaly in the law," Starsky said. "We did everything we could up to that point. LAFCO had to move next for us to lock that down."

The annexation area is virtually untouched by development, and advocates have said it is a clean slate, prime for efficient local public transportation that will connect to the region.

At build-out, in about 30 years, the plan envisions 1,000 acres of open space and wetland corridors and 120 acres of neighborhood parks. Also planned are nearly 1,474 acres of residential construction and another 511 acres of commercial, industrial and office space.

The area is to follow smart-growth principles adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. It emphasizes transit, both locally and regionally. It calls for expansion of the city's bike and hiking trail system.

The incorporation is to take effect in February.

Development is expected within about five years.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

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

• Read more articles by Loretta Kalb