Community Feedback and Recommendations. FAQ Section. 2. Will there be enough open space for the amount of new people proposed to live in the area?

Transcription

1 Community Feedback and Recommendations How long do we have to respond to the documents? Response: Comments must be received by October 1st Open Space FAQ Section 1. Where will the open space and/or parks go? 2. Will there be enough open space for the amount of new people proposed to live in the area? 3. Is their a minimum amount of open space that is mandated? If not, why? 4. How does the in lieu fee for developers work, and is their a safeguard against the abuse of this provision to ensure that residents have access to open space? Response: The Transit Area Plans will be amended to provide more direction on open space/parks needs. The maps will be amended to show target areas for public plazas, mini-parks, and other open spaces. The text will be amended to indicate that open spaces are to be provided over the life of the plan in a variety of options, to be coordinated with the Cordova Parks and Recreation District. Any residential proposal will be obligated to contribute toward the provision of these open spaces, either through dedication or inlieu payments in accordance with Title 22 requirements. Future Development Impact Homeowners near Butterfield Station 1. I am worried about the impact of potentially 2,345 new people in my neighborhood! 2. How can these developments be proposed before the The Landing and Riverstone projects are finished and their impacts fully assessed?

2 3. New residents could have their houses right up against four story buildings. How would you make compatible these two diametrically opposed land uses? 4. Page 14 states that the Special Planning Area does not affect any of the established residential communities on the north side of Folsom Boulevard. How can adding up to 2,345 people on one side of the street not affect the other side of the street? Response: The EIR for the SPA s will analysis the traffic impacts of potential new development and any associated mitigation for this level of development over the life of the Plan. This is a long-term Plan and developments envisioned with this Plan may take up to 20 year to be realized. With regard to height, the SPA s, in particular the Butterfield SPA, will be amended to reflect more sensitivity to the interface between potential development and existing single-family development. Four-story buildings directly abutting existing single-family will not be a land use allow outright. Parking/Traffic 1. How would parking issues be arranged between existing park and ride RT customers and proposed residential development with their own parking needs? Response: 2. Where will parking go when not available at Butterfield Station? Response: 3. What is SPA connection to the proposed interchange in Rancho Cordova? How will it affect southbound traffic into Gold River? Response: 4. I want to have RT parking adequately provided for in any development plan. If there is designated parking for specific businesses and/or residences then there should be adequate and convenient light rail parking also designated for RT only. Response: The SPA attempts to emphasize the continued need for park and ride facilities for the Light Rail Station. Plans for the station site are being revised to provide for the commuter parking need. With that said, future development will be given reduced parking requirements based on transit usage and mixed use. The SPA will be amended to reflect these goals. The EIR will analyze traffic needs and the relationship to the Gold River interchange. General Questions/Comments 1. The area should be considered in a scope larger than the ¼ and ½ mile radius around the transit stop. Response: The boundaries of the SPA were selected based on the land potentially available for TOD development, considering existing land use patterns and road and

3 pedestrian connections. The SPA area includes much of the area within ¼ mile and selected areas beyond ¼ mile. 2. More bike lanes and pedestrian facilities are needed beyond the TOD centers. Response: Bike and pedestrian connection in the larger area are part of the County Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bikeway Master Plan. Relevant parts o f these Plans will be incorporated, and in conjunction with the City of Rancho Cordova. 3. Make sure there is coordination with surrounding cities and communities to connect bike lanes with one another. Response: See above. 4. Error in Butterfield SPA Draft Document: What is referred to in the document as The Riverstone is incorrect. The correct name is Riverstone Square. Furthermore, there are no townhouses in the project area; they are all detached. Response: Noted. 5. The definition of mixed-use : is it just residential above retail/office uses, or can different uses next to each other also qualify as mixed use? Response: Mixed use development can be either vertical or horizontal. The key is interconnections between the uses. 6. Does the mention of mixed-use in the SPA mean it is required or just simply allowed Response: Mixed use will be the policy guide for future development, with an emphasis on interconnectivity. There may be some stand-alone residential, commercial or employment 7. The open space portion of SPA draft is lacking Response: See responses above on open space. 8. High rise buildings will be next to single family homes. The heights should be lower or set back. Response: Yes, the SPA will be amended with regard to height adjacent to existing single-family development. We will use the guidelines established in the Commercial and Mixed Use Design Guidelines and the Multi-Family Design Guidelines to provide better direction for these interfaces. 9. Competition from The Landing project prevents viable commercial activity in the mixed-use area. Response: The Landing project provides a key catalyst for redevelopment of the area. Other areas of the SPA can be redeveloped with housing, employment and other mixed use opportunities. 10. Development will encroach upon existing open space. Response: See open space responses above. 11. Within the SPA, why include some properties that lay beyond the ½ mile radius?

4 Response: The boundaries were selected based on connectivity to the Light Rail Staion. 12. In regards to the Franchise Tax Board: Why take away an employment center for the development of residential mixed-use development? Response: The SPA provides the opportunity for alternative land use on the FTB property. We recognize that the FTB is a tremendous employment generator, and the location of the site lends itself to future mixed use opportunities if the State sees fit. 13. Why not look at north side of Folsom Blvd where single family housing exists? Response: The Plan attempts to respect the viability of existing single family development. 14. Don t want high density next to residential; the development needs to be compatible. Response: See responses on height amendments to the Plan. 15. I suggest you look into making the Mayhew Drain as a landscaped dedicated open space area. The Mayhew Drain could be a walkway to the pleasures of the American River parkway. Response: Noted. 16. This TOD needs to be less of an island. The micron shopping area (including Capitol Christian Church and Schools need better connectivity to the light rail. They are all within ¼ mile and could be walkable for many, or at least served by RT bus/shuttles. Response: Noted. 17. RT shuttles need to provide service to the Landing or any commercial centers in the ¼ to ½ ranges so that shoppers can get their goods back to light rail and use the light rail to reach these places in the rainy season. Response: Noted. 18. Density for residential components can be intense if underground parking is included (while folks may use light rail for daily commute, odds are in California they will continue to want autos for weekend use, etc). Response: Underground parking is certainly encouraged if financially feasible. Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates Feedback There is much overlap in the plans. We suggest having a single plan with sections for each station. Most of our comments are applicable to all the plans Sunrise Plan We recommend enlarging the proposed Special Planning Area by adding the area on the west side of Sunrise Blvd into the planning area. This area is within ¼ mile of the

5 station. The Sunrise/Folsom intersection is exceedingly problematic for pedestrians and bicyclists because of its width, traffic volumes and speeds. Land uses on the west side of Sunrise are poorly connected to the street with large setbacks to buildings and in some cases, no pedestrian connection through landscape areas and parking lots. For the Sunrise station to reach its full potential, these issues need to be addressed. Sunrise Blvd should not be a barrier to taking full advantage of the investment that the light rail station represents. Response: The area west of Sunrise is located in the City of Rancho Cordova. We will continue to coordinate with the City on Folsom Blvd. bike and pedestrian improvements. XX 5.3 Plan zones Recommend adding the area on the west side of Sunrise Blvd into the planning zones. See above. Widening of Sunrise appears to be inconsistent with the goals of Transit Oriented Development. XX 8.2 Circulation Plan We strongly support Folsom Blvd remaining a four-lane road. We oppose any road over four lanes as being inherently incomplete and inconsistent with Transit Oriented Development goals. Roads over four lanes discourage bicycle and pedestrian access because of noise, pollution, safety considerations and an overall lack of desirability based both on aesthetics and an engineering design focused primarily on automobile movement. We believe the focus should be on human scale and interactions. Response: These concepts are agreed. The County will pursue Transportation Plan amendments, similar to the City of Rancho Cordova, to redesignate Folsom Blvd for four lanes to be human scale. 8.1 We strongly support decoupling parking costs from residential and commercial lease costs. We recommend establishing vehicle parking maximums instead of defining standards for minimum parking quantities. Response: The SPA to be amended to include maximums Bicycle connectivity should include Citrus Road north of Folsom Blvd and a connection to the Folsom South Canal bikeway. We strongly support small block sizes. The Sacramento City/County Bicycle Advisory Committee should be consulted on the feasibility the proposed combined bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Folsom Blvd. Both long-term bicycle parking for employees and residents and short-term parking for visitors should be included for new and existing buildings. The distinction between the

6 parking types (long-term and short-term) should be explicit and design guidelines provided for each type. Butterfield Plan We strongly support a new road connection to Folsom Blvd between Butterfield and Bradshaw. As with the other stations, we support the smaller block size and keeping Folsom Blvd at 4 lanes. We recommend adding the additional detail on bicycle parking. Hazel Plan We support small block sizes. We recommend adding the additional detail on bicycle parking. Mineshaft We are very concerned about the bicycle and pedestrian connections from the elevated Rancho Cordova Parkway overcrossing to the light rail station and the Folsom South Canal. These connections will be extremely important in making the development near the station and the station itself accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians, especially those whose trips originate or end north of Hwy 50. Response: We will study these issues as part of the EIR. SyWest Development Feedback Page 9 The last paragraph mentions commercial uses, however it should also emphasize the need for retail services that serve the local community and reduce vehicle miles. Page 14 The description of Sub Area #8A in the last paragraph should be revised to reflect that The Landing is a Board approved project as illustrated in figure 3. Page 14 The description of The Landing in Sub Area #8A should be described per the approvals as a community theatre, restaurant, and retail complex (see page 4 of the County CEQA Findings dated ) or a Lifestyle Center rather than a major bigbox style commercial project. Page 14 The project statistics for The Landing are incorrect. Please modify to a 3,600 seat cinema, 413,675 s.f. of space and 2,042 parking spaces per the Board approvals. Page 16 You might consider switching pages 15 and 16 so that Section 4.2 can be read without interruption (Should figure 3 on the current page 16 be referenced on page 14?). Page 18 Section XX5.1 states that there are opportunities that could be redeveloped or developed. This statement could be better defined to state there are other opportunities.

7 Page 20 Section XX5.5 describes opportunities in near, medium and longer term, we are wondering if a timeline will be prepared with the SPA that defines these terms? Page 21 Section XX5.5 last paragraph notes Development Zone 4 as The Landing site, however The Landing is in Development Zone 3, please correct this notation and it should also be noted that The Landing project is Board approved. Page 21 Section XX-6 2 nd paragraph should read that existing permitted and approved uses are exempt from SPA guidelines. Page 21 Section XX-6 2 nd paragraph state that expansion or modification of an existing building proposed change of use or proposed site improvements must be consistent with the long-term goals and standards established. Will these standards be the SPA standard and does this create conflicts with allowing existing uses to be permitted uses? Page 23 The exhibit has a large open space in the middle of The Landing with a label that incorrectly notes this area as a Plaza, gathering place and focal point. Please remove this label from this exhibit as it conflicts with our Board approved plans. Page 27 Goals notes medium term and long term, a more detailed timeline would be helpful. Page 34 Why would General Commercial in all SPA zones be prohibited in Table 2? Page 36 Figure 10 shows a circulation pattern which promotes local vehicle traffic through our site which is contrary to our goals of creating a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Also, the grid extending throughout our site is contrary to the Board approved plan. The Landing will be making improvements to the local roadways (i.e. widening and signalization of Bradshaw, Cal-Trans on ramp, etc.) which should be emphasized. Page 39 Section XX-10, would any potential conflicts between these standards and project specific guidelines be resolved direct with the applicable project planner? Page 42 Section states frontage along those named streets, please define what those streets include. Response: We will amend the Plan to provide these clarifications. Please note that the open space designation in the middle of the project reflects the current Landing plan to provide a plaza area for public gatherings. The open space designation is intended to reflect privately-maintained gathering areas, as well as public open spaces. Fite Development Co Feedback Butterfield SPA Butterfield SPA May be difficult to achieve 50% residential and 50% commercial due to the zone 4 s proximity to petroleum tank farm. It is unlikely that a residential developer will embrace the location

8 Need better understanding of zone 4 s referenced 114,000 GSF of permitted commercial activity. Not knowing the zone s overall square footage, the permitted GSF appears light compared with minimum FAR of 0.5 and maximum FAR of 1. May be easily answered once we know zone s overall square footage. What retail uses meet the definition of specialty? Our concern is that the Folsom corridor has long suffered with retail vacancies above the Sacramento MSA average. Per CBRE, the current Folsom Corridor vacancy rate exceeds 15%. Even with addition of new residential density, there will not be enough new local residents that will support traditional specialty retail. Retail that would be supported would complimentary to The Landing. Some are specialty oriented but locate in or adjacent to regional retailer as they rely on the large customer draw regional retailer services provide. Some of the uses surrounding the retail anchors are specialty oriented but are not traditional small shop neighborhood tenants. For this reason we would anticipate, and request that retail uses permitted in an SC zone would also be permitted in zone 4. Response: Specialty retail will be modified to provide for broader retail opportunities. We will reexamine the GSF for Zone 4. The Plan is intended to fully recognize the limitations for residential in proximity to the petroleum tank farm and the EIR studies will provide any modifications to address that issue.