Posted on

My 01/04/2021 Public Comments on Emergency Shelter Zoning

My Monday, January 4, 2021 public comment to Rancho Cordova City Council Meeting Agenda Item 11.1 : AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TITLE 23 ZONING CODE AND DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23 (Discussion and Direction – Emergency Shelter permitted in Zones OIMU, M-1, M-2)

Staff Memo/Report:
https://ranchocordovaca.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ar=1870

Map:
https://ranchocordovaca.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ad=1203

Donald Childs
2601 Barbera Way, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 | (916)207-2659 |donald.childs@gmail.com

January 4, 2021

TO:
Rancho Cordova City Council, City Manager Cyrus Abhar, Planning Manager Darcy Goulart
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670


Subject: RE Item 11.1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TITLE 23 ZONING CODE AND DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23 “Discussion and Direction”

I am opposed to the permitted use of Emergency Shelters in the OIMU (Office/Industrial/Mixed Use) and believe this decision should be moved through public workshops to address residential and business concerns with having emergency shelters located near neighborhoods, retail, business parks and motels.

I am also disappointed as to how this subject was placed on the agenda, inconsistent with standard practices of cities throughout the county, region and state.

This community has a storied and unjust history in land use decisions being made at our expense to address social problems, alleviating other communities from shouldering their fair share. The need for residents and local businesses to be real, empowered stakeholders remains.

I am in complete support of permitted use of Emergency Shelters in the M-1 and M-2 zones, with the condition that council form a commission addressing housing, housing insecurity and homelessness; that commission be comprised of members of the commercial real estate community, owners, tenants within the M-1, M-2 zones, as well as housing advocates, multi-family housing property management reps, homeless npo staff, and at large seats for residents.

This commission should receive a quarterly report on permitted emergency shelters from RCPD, Code Enforcement, homeless program managers/staff measuring how many clients were served, the number of calls for services, code enforcement complaints so that the commission may provide stakeholder oversight and recommend to staff and council needed changes.

I hope in the coming months you will consider the roll out of workshops to address the permitted zoning of emergency shelters and the re-instatement of the Planning Commission to participate in bringing stakeholders together to help make these decisions in traditional, conventional ways that every other city in California above 55,000 in population have been committed to doing.

Sincerely, Donald Childs

Posted on

Proposed Trumark at Kassis Housing Project


Proposed Trumark at Kassis Housing Project

https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/departments/community-development/kassis-property

I am opposed to approval of the Trumark at Kassis housing development, as currently presented/proposed, due to traffic, environmental impacts to the American River Parkway, as well as no traditional public stakeholder participation to date.

I have signed the petition circulated by SARA (Save the American River Association) and share concerns with Tiffany neighborhood residents about the project and the city council’s responses to date.

https://www.sarariverwatch.org/kassis_property_petition

I am also opposed to the concessions the city and community must make to facilitate this development being built as proposed in the FBSP designated “Parkway Corridor Overlay Zone” (RCMC 23.325.070 Parkway corridor (PC) overlay zoning district), which includes the orchard and river bank, sensitive areas to the health of the American River Parkway.

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/RanchoCordova/html/RanchoCordova23/RanchoCordova23325.html?fbclid=IwAR27xOjHvSmg261Kcyc010zibwWVOzqjz2oo9qjYflIYJwvZ-dpAFEResxo#23.325.070

As identified as an “Opportunity Site” in the Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan:

https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=9800

“The opportunity sites designate locations where the City will concentrate resources (e.g., economic development incentives, public investment, facilities, outreach, coordination) and community assets (e.g., public gathering places, events, activities) with the goal of catalyzing significant private investment in these areas.”

Chapter 5, Opportunity Sites 2013 Folsom Blvd Specific Plan Update

Nowhere in the FBSP Opportunity Site assessment of the Kassis Property does it mention the American River Parkway as a “community asset”. The major blind spot of the perspective of this specific plan is that it promotes private investment at the cost of the American River Parkway.

Our city must strike a balance between meeting our housing needs share identified in the SACOG “Regional Housing Needs Allocation”, the economic development opportunities and challenges facing Folsom Boulevard, and protecting the American River Parkway.

I strongly urge the project proponents demand greater due process for their project and the neighboring property owners’ interests, by demanding that the City Council immediately restore the planning commission, allocate funds to hire additional staff to study this project, and create a task force of neighboring property owners, project proponents and regional parkway stakeholders to iron out project alternatives that don’t impact the American River Parkway and address traffic safety and preservation of quality of life in the established Tiffany neighborhood.

I would also ask that each of the candidates running in the November 3, 2020 election for Rancho Cordova City Council share their position or perspective on the proposed Trumark at Kassis project and protection of the American River Parkway.

Trumark’s most successful projects in other cities have moved through the planning process with a planning commission in play. This fact should inform their sense of urgency to avoid costly and wasteful litigation, and bring neighbors and parkway stakeholders together to achieve a successful housing project that meets the housing needs of the city, mitigates harm to the American River Parkway, and honors the property and due process rights of all involved.

-Donald Childs

Posted on

City of Rancho Cordova Standards for off-street parking for private residences.

23.719.130 Standards for off-street parking for private residences.

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/RanchoCordova/html/RanchoCordova23/RanchoCordova23719.html#23.719.130

Off-street parking and driveways for detached dwellings, manufactured homes, single-family attached dwellings, and two-unit attached dwellings shall meet the following requirements:

A. Any vehicle, trailer, or vessel which is inoperable or vehicles that are Certified as Non-Operation or Planned Non-Operation Certified with the Department of Motor Vehicles shall be stored entirely within an enclosed structure, where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property and shall not be parked or stored in any yard within a residential zoning district or neighborhood.

B. Unless specifically permitted by this code, required off-street parking spaces shall not be located within any required front yard or required street side yard setback of any parcel. Required parking must be provided within a fully enclosed garage or carport (see RCMC 23.734.040, Development standards).

C. Parking in excess of the required parking (e.g., driveways) may be provided within the front and street side yard setback, as follows:

1. Vehicle parking (including driveways) within the front yard area or as seen by the public street in residential areas shall be provided on a lasting, durable surface (e.g., concrete, asphalt, or similar material). Permeable paving materials, such as paver stones, pervious concrete, or interlocking grids with gravel, are permitted as an alternative to a standard asphalt or concrete surface. Use of grasscrete, ribbon drive (Hollywood strips) or other acceptable alternatives as determined by the director may be allowed for purposes of a driving surface that leads to a legal parking area outside of the front yard area or as seen by the public street. No parking is allowed on these features within the front yard area or as seen by the public street.

2. Parking areas shall not exceed the maximum impervious surface allowed on a parcel (e.g., impervious surface in front yards is limited to 40 percent coverage).

3. Parking may not occur within any required clear vision triangle area on a corner lot.

D. Each parking space shall be at least eight and one-half feet wide by 18 feet deep.

E. Tandem (end-to-end) parking is allowed to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements.

F. Required parking may be provided in the rear yard only when an alley is available for access.

G. The minimum driveway width is 10 feet. Driveway pavement shall be five feet from the side property line in order to provide an area of landscaping between adjacent lots. Deviations from these standards may be allowed through site plan and architecture review for small-lot single-family developments at the time of master home plan review where these standards cannot be attained due to design. Remaining unpaved portion shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained. See Figure 23.716-2 (Nonpervious Surface Limits in Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Zones).

H. The use of structures, temporary canopies, tarps, and other similar types of covering for vehicles is strictly prohibited within the front setback.

I. Commercial vehicles shall not be parked on residential property.

J. Parking of RVs, trailers, and vessels shall conform with the following additional regulations:

1. Parking on a lasting, durable surface (e.g., concrete, asphalt, grasscrete, or permeable paving material) is required.

2. Parking within the clear vision area is prohibited. [Ord. 15-2018 § 4 (Exh. A); Ord. 7-2018 § 3; Ord. 4-2018 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 4-2017 § 3 (Exh. B); Ord. 12-2011 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 27-2008 § 1 (Exh. A § 4.7.140)].