Since the 2009 General Plan was adopted, there have been no plans submitted to the County to proceed with urban development in four of the five Specific Plan areas. Only one draft Specific Plan was prepared and submitted, for Dunnigan. The application for the Dunnigan Specific Plan was recently withdrawn after the Board of Supervisors directed staff not to proceed with environmental analysis for that draft plan. In May, 2016, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to remove all references to the Dunnigan Specific Plan from the 2030 Countywide General Plan and from the County Zoning Code. The Dunnigan Specific Plan was by far the largest (approximately 2,254 acres) and most ambitious (up to 8,100 housing units) of the five Specific Plans identified in the 2009 General Plan.
Staff is providing this update on the status of the remaining four Specific Plan areas as background information for the Board to use in determining whether a separate General Plan Amendment (GPA) study should be initiated to consider removal of the four remaining Specific Plans from the General Plan. The four other Specific Plan areas are located in Madison, Knights Landing, Elkhorn, and Covell. The remaining four Specific Plan areas are much smaller in size and scope than Dunnigan, ranging in size from 413 acres (up to 1,335 new housing units) in Madison and 212 acres (up to 800 units) in Knights Landing, to 384 and 343 acres, respectively in Covell and Elkhorn.
General Pan and zoning maps identifying each area are included in Attachment A.
Because of changed circumstances in each of the four Specific Plan areas, staff is recommended that the Board initiate a GPA study that evaluates the removal of the four remaining Specific Plan designations. During the GPA study, staff would conduct outreach with the landowners and the individual communities, and prepare an environmental document to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Public hearings would then be scheduled before the Planning Commission, followed by the Board of Supervisors. Following the public hearings, the Board would have the option to decide to remove one or more of the Specific Plans from the General Plan and Zoning Code, or to retain the status quo.
BACKGROUND
Five Specific Plan areas were designated for future urban growth in the unincorporated area when the Yolo 2030 Countywide General Plan was approved in November, 2009. The five growth areas are located in Dunnigan, Knights Landing, Madison, Elkhorn, and Covell. The designated Specific Plan areas are agricultural lands located outside the designated growth boundaries of existing unincorporated towns, or in one case, an incorporated city. Each of the Specific Plan areas is described in detail below.
The concept behind designation of the Specific Plan areas is to require that a comprehensive plan be required before any urban growth could occur in the five undeveloped locations. A key policy “encourages developers to show significant net benefit to the community” in each Specific Plan area, “to provide minimum quality of life services and sustainability standards” in each community, for existing and new residents.
For example, in Dunnigan, Knights Landing, and Madison, the “minimum quality of life services are defined in terms of providing grocery stores, schools, and fire and police protection. “Minimum sustainability standards for infrastructure” require that new growth provide new or upgraded water, tertiary-level wastewater treatment, drainage, and flood protection systems. Simply stated, the intent of the General plan policies that would allow Specific Plans to proceed in Dunnigan, Knights Landing, and Madison is to require that new growth raise the quality of services and life for the entire community, not just the new residents in the growth areas.
The General Plan includes very detailed policies and development criteria that must be met in each growth area. The criteria requires that each phase of planned communities must meet a jobs/housing ratio of 1.2 jobs per household and a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ratio of not more than 44 VMT per day per household.
For the proposed Dunnigan Specific Plan, the applicant determined that he could not meet the requirements of some of these development criteria. Staff suspects that there may be a similar inability for potential developers to meet these very high General Plan goals and standards, in part because of changes that have occurred since adoption of the General Plan, e.g., new FEMA requirements that placed the remaining four Specific Plans within the designated 100-year floodplain (see discussion below).
A further motivation to remove one or more of the remaining Specific Plans from the General Plan is to allow significant agricultural investments to go forward. With the Specific Plan General Plan designation and zoning in place, any new uses in these areas are constrained by policies and regulations that discourage or prohibit certain intensive interim agricultural uses until a Specific Plan is approved. This was an impediment to allowing a proposed almond hulling facility in Dunnigan. The Board will recall that the 183-acre site for the proposed huller was forced to go through a General Plan Amendment and rezoning process to be removed from the Specific Plan area, which was approved by the Board last December, 2015.
Section 8-2.906(c) of the County Zoning Code regulates "interim agricultural uses" in the Specific Plan (S-P) zone and in the Specific Plan Overlay (SP-O) zone. The regulations state that “Capital intensive agricultural uses such as processing facilities, animal facilities uses, large accessory structures, and agricultural commercial, rural recreation, and agricultural industrial uses are discouraged in the S-P and SP-O zones.” Such capital intensive agricultural uses may be permitted in the S-P and SP-O zones, prior to adoption of a Specific Plan, through the issuance of a Minor Use Permit, provided that the interim agricultural use is consistent with any underlying base zone and provided the Zoning Administrator can make findings that the project “will not significantly hinder the adoption of a future Specific Plan or create an insurmountable obstacle to urban development of the future planned land uses on the parcel or parcels.”
These and other development constraints related to the existing Specific Plan regulations would be analyzed in greater detail in the General Plan Amendment Study, if the Board directs staff to proceed with a study. In addition, the GPA study and its environmental document must analyze the potential effects related to the typical range of environmental issues, including impacts on proposed roadway and other infrastructure improvements now outlined in the General Plan, and effects on affordable housing Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals for unincorporated Yolo County due to removing one or more of the Specific Plans from the General Plan.
New FEMA Maps Adopted in 2010
The most significant change that has occurred since the adoption of the County General Plan in 2009, which affects all four of the remaining Specific Plan areas, is the decision by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to place must of eastern Yolo County within the 100-year floodplain (Zone A). Flood maps approved by FEMA in June, 2010, dramatically altered the development potential in the rural communities of eastern Yolo County by imposing much more restrictive construction standards. In addition, enactment of new State legislation, e.g., Senate Bill 5 in 2008 and other related bills, tied new development approvals to the updated FEMA flood protection standards.
The updated 2010 FEMA maps basically concluded that the levees along the Sacramento River and other waterways in the county were not certified to provide 100-year flood protection. Thus, all new construction (and significant remodeling of existing structures) must either elevate the habitable areas of individual structures one foot above the base flood elevation, or improve surrounding levees to meet the new 100- and 200-year flood standards.
Other Growth Areas in the 2030 County General Plan
It should be noted that the five Specific Plan areas designated for future urban growth in the 2030 Countywide General Plan are not the only locations in the unincorporated area where development is expected to occur over the next several decades. However, if buildout of the five Specific Plan areas occurred, the growth is estimated to total between 6,728 and 9,635 housing units. This amount of housing growth represents about 30% to 44% of the growth projected under the General Plan (22,061 units). The table below is Table LU-8 from the County General Plan.
Without the Specific Plans, a significant amount of growth is still projected in the established unincorporated communities of Esparto, Knights Landing, and Madison, due to infill development on lands that are already designated for growth and from subdivisions that were approved in the 2007-2008 era. Buildout under the previous 1983 General Plan land use designations is expected to add over 4,000 housing units, including almost 1,000 units in Esparto and Knights Landing.
The most recent housing data collected by the State Department of Finance (DOF) indicates tha there has been relatively little growth in unincorporated Yolo County. In 2007, DOF estimated that there were 7,263 housing units in the unincorporated area. In 2016, DOF estimates that the housing stock has grown to only 7,389 units, an increase of only 126 units over the last nine years. This increase also takes into account demolitions or loss of housing units through other means. The only significant new housing that has been constructed in the unincorporated county is the first 40 units of the 100%-affordable Mercy Housing apartment project in Esparto. In addition to housing built in the unincorporated towns, a small amount of rural residences are constructed each year in the rural farmlands. In recent years, approximately 20 to 30 new homes have been built in the rural areas.
Table 1 Allowed Residential Growth (in units)
| Town |
2007 Existing
Units |
Buildout
Under 1983 GP |
New
Added Units |
Total Allowed Units |
| Capay |
576 |
53 |
0 |
629 |
| Clarksburg |
177 |
22 |
0 |
199 |
| Dunnigan |
340 |
173 |
8,108 |
8,621 |
| Esparto |
905 |
985 |
521 |
2,411 |
| Knights Landing |
380 |
993 |
420 |
1,793 |
| Madison |
137 |
83 |
1,413 |
1,633 |
| Monument Hills |
583 |
25 |
0 |
608 |
| Yolo |
155 |
56 |
0 |
211 |
| Zamora |
14 |
14 |
0 |
28 |
| Remaining Unincorporated |
3,996 |
1,610 |
322 |
5,928 |
| Total |
7,263 |
4,014 |
10,462 |
22,061 |
It should be noted that the housing projections included in the table above do not include housing provided by the University of California-Davis. However, when the County’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation is assigned by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, new housing constructed by the University (e.g., University Village) has been credited to the unincorporated area.
Retain Some Specific Plan Policies in the General Plan
Staff is recommending that some existing policies related to Specific Plans be retained in the County General Plan. The General Plan includes individual policies that identify standards for each of the Specific Plan areas. However, there are also policies that apply to any Specific Plans that may be submitted to the County in the future for processing.
These more general policies require that any Specific Plan include requirements to ensure a reasonable ongoing balance between housing and jobs by phase and that each phase achieve a jobs/housing balance of 1.2 jobs per household (Policies CC-3.7, and 3.8). Other policies that would be retained include the requirement that Specific Plans “shall strive to achieve the VMT threshold of 44 miles generated per household per weekday” (Policy CI-3.21), and shall be encouraged “to show significant net benefit to the community, after accounting for all mandated capital and operational costs.”
As part of the GPA Study, staff would also recommend any new or modified polices necessary to make certain that any future Specific Plan must meet certain development standards, such as the items listed in the existing Table LU-11 (Community Planning Guidelines) which specifies “minimum quality of life services and sustainability standards” for each of the designated Specific Plan areas.
Staff is also recommending that the General Plan land use designations of “Specific Plan” and Specific Plan Overlay”, as well as the accompanying zoning of “Specific Plan” and Specific Plan Overlay,” be retained. Keeping these polices in the General Plan and these zone districts in the Zoning Code will ensure that if, in the future, any applicant wishes to submit a Specific Plan, that the County will have policies and procedures in place to guide the approval.
Description of Specific Plan Areas
The following discussion focuses on each of the four Specific Plan areas under consideration. Maps identifying each area are included in Attachments A and B.
Elkhorn Specific Plan
Land Area: 343 acres
Landowners (APN, acres):
Woodland Development Co. LLC (part of 057-170-004, approx. 88 acres)
Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (057-210-004 and -016, 6.7 acres)
Sierra Railroad Co./Alamar LLC (057-017 and -018, 5.2 acres)
Buzz Oates LLC (057-210-001, -002, -009, -010; 057-220-001, -002, -006, -007, 225 acres)
James Craig TR (057-210-007 and -008; 057-220-003, 3.5 acres)
Warren McCray (057-220-004, 5.6 acres)
Lee Scott (057-220-005, 4.4 acres)
John Turner TR (057-240-006 (4.5 acres) (restaurant) in SP-O
Current Land Uses: Intensive agriculture (tomatoes, sunflowers, and other crops), rural residences, existing restaurant, newly constructed water intake plant
Recent Development History: newly constructed Woodland-Davis Clean Water intake plant
The Yolo 2030 Countywide General Plan includes two detailed policies related to the Elkhorn Specific Plan. The “Specific Plan Conceptual Sketch” for the Elkhorn Specific Plan is included in Attachment B.
Policy CC-3.16 states that “The goal for this location is a regional conference center and hotel facility, with appropriate general commercial development and industrial research and development uses, capitalizing on the existing natural amenities and riverfront. The Specific Plan shall emphasize aesthetic standards that recognize the importance of this site as the “visual gateway” to Yolo County along Interstate 5.”
Although no residential component was originally envisioned for the area, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan recommend three additional policies to Policy CC-3.16 to address housing and transit, and these were adopted as follows:
“Transit to move workers, customers, and visitors to and from the site shall be a key consideration in the preparation of the Specific Plan.
Modify and amend the Elkhorn Specific Plan to accommodate high density residential development to provide workforce housing. The inclusion of residential development is intended to achieve a jobs/housing balance and reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of the Elkhorn Specific Plan area. The precise number of units shall be determined through the specific plan
process and shall be analyzed for environmental impact in the specific plan EIR.”
Policy CC-3.17 identifies development capacities that shall guide development of the Elkhorn Specific Plan, which are illustrated in Elkhorn Specific Plan Conceptual Sketch (Attachment B):
- 170 acres of Commercial (4,095 new jobs assumed)
- 130 acres of Industrial (1,354 new jobs assumed)
- High Density Residential uses for upper story units (range of units to be determined through the Specific Plan)
- 23 acres of Open Space uses
- 20 acres PQ (no new jobs assumed)
During the General Plan review process in 2007-2009, no potential developer was ever identified who was interested in the development of the area. At the time, the City of Woodland expressed some reservations about the concept of creating a commercial conference center-type project at the location, since it would compete with the City’s plan for commercial growth in the downtown and on the east side of Woodland.
It should be noted that the County of Sacramento has planned for significant commercial development around the Sacramento International Airport, which could also compete with similar uses being planned in the Elkhorn area. The 1,900 acre Metro Air Park project along the I-5 freeway east of the airport has long been planned as a primarily industrial development. The recession and a 2008 building moratorium in Natomas stalled various plans and proposals. However, the moratorium has recently been lifted and Sacramento County has received an application for an 855,000-square-foot building in Metro Air Park, which is rumored to the site of a new Amazon fulfillment center. The owner of Metro Air Park is the Buzz Oates Group, which also owns 200 acres in the Elkhorn Specific Plan area.
Since the adoption of the County General Plan in 2009, there has been one notable development project that has moved forward in the Elkhorn area: the construction of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water intake plant. The project, located on the Sacramento River north of the I-5 bridge, is a jointly-owned and operated intake by the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency in partnership with Reclamation District 2035). The raw water pipelines connect the intake to a new regional water treatment plant in Woodland, and separate pipelines deliver treated water to Woodland, Davis and UC Davis.
Another landowner within the Specific Plan area wishes to proceed with a project and is constrained by the existing S-P zoning. The Sierra Northern Railroad operates the Sacramento River Train along a rail line from West Sacramento to Woodland. The owner has approached staff about the possibility of developing a boarding station and other amenities for its customers at its property in Elkhorn. These improvements would be difficult to approve unless the Specific Plan zoning is modified or removed.
The restaurant in the area formerly known as Elkhorn Station (designated as Specific Plan Overlay, S-PO, not S-P) continues to operate as the Elkhorn Saloon under new ownership.
Staff recommends that the entire Elkhorn site be studied for redesignation from Specific Plan to Agriculture and to Public/Semi-public (to apply to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water intake plant only). The existing restaurant would continue to be designated and zoned for commercial uses, as it is now.
Covell Specific Plan
Land Area: 384 acres
Landowner (APN, acres): Davis Land Company LLC (035-970-033, 384 acres)
Current Land Uses: intensive agriculture (tomatoes and others)
Recent Development History: The 1,884-unit Covell Village planned development was approved by the City of Davis in July, 2004. The project was subject to a Prop J public vote to approve the annexation to the City, and the project was rejected by the voters in November, 2005.
The Covell/Pole Line Road area was designated and zoned by Yolo County for industrial development going back to the Yolo County General Plan approved in 1983.
The Yolo 2030 Countywide General Plan originally did not include Covell as a designated Specific Plan area. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan identified a potentially significant impact related to land use inconsistency if the area were to be developed with industrial uses adjacent to existing subdivisions in the City of Davis. The FEIR recommend that a policy be added to the General Plan to ensure that a Specific Plan be developed if a growth plan was processed by the County.
The Covell site is surrounded on three sides by urban development within the City of Davis. It is adjacent to The Cannery, a planned development of 547 homes and associated uses which is now being constructed following approval by the City in 2012. In all likelihood, if the Covell site develops in the future, it will be approved and annexed into the City.
Staff recommends that the Covell site be studied for redesignation from Specific Plan to Agriculture.
Knights Landing Specific Plan
Land Area: 212 acres
Landowners (APN, acres):
Brad Howald (056-160-021, 117.8 acres)
Edson Trust (056-160-014, 27.0 acres)
Rafael Maestu (056-160-023 and -027, 8.7 acres) (Snowball Mansion)
Knights Landing Investors LLC (part of 056-170-37, approx. 33 acres)
Donald Newman (056-350-013 and 056-360-006, 17.3 acres)
Current Land Uses: intensive agriculture, residences
Recent Development History: none
The Yolo 2030 Countywide General Plan includes two detailed policies related to the Elkhorn Specific Plan. The “Specific Plan Conceptual Sketch” for the Madison Specific Plan is included in Attachment B.
Policy CC-3.12 states that “In addition to Table LU-11, achieve the following within the Knights
Landing Specific Plan growth boundary:
A. Ensure that the downtown area remains the community’s primary commercial center.
B. Develop specific and detailed analysis regarding how existing planned residential and commercial growth would impact key issues, including: 1) the loss of farmland; 2) levee stability and flood protection; and 3) traffic impacts to State Highway 113 and local roads.
C. 100-year flood protection for all development within the growth boundary.
D. Emphasize the use of waterfront land for public access and amenities, as well as tourism and entertainment-related commercial activities. These areas shall be highlighted in the Specific Plan with separate development design standards and economic development investment.
E. Encourage the Knights Landing CSD to explore the availability of Sacramento River water as an alternative source of municipal water.
Policy CC-3.13 identifies development capacities that shall guide development of the Knights Landing Specific Plan, which are illustrated in the Knights Landing Specific Plan Conceptual Sketch (Attachment B):
38 acres of job producing commercial and industrial land uses (assumes 532 existing jobs, no new jobs)
71 acres of residential uses in various densities allowing for 393 to 800 new units
103 acres of parks and open space uses
Note that a significant amount of residential growth could occur within the existing boundary of the town of Knights Landing, exclusive of whether a Specific Plan is ever adopted for the town. Under the designations and zoning set by the previous 1983 General Plan and re-affirmed in the 2009 General Plan, it is estimated that infill growth on vacant lands, including completion of two approved subdivisions, could reach almost 1,000 units.
At the time the General Plan was approved in late 2009, a major Sacramento-area homebuilder had acquired some of the land in the Specific Plan area east of the existing town. Most of the agricultural land within the Specific Plan is still owned by two long-time farm families, the Howalds and Edsons.
The major constraint to future development in Knights Landing is the need to construct costly levee improvements along the Sacramento River.
Staff recommends that the Knights Landing Specific Plan area be studied for redesignation from Specific Plan to Agriculture.
Madison Specific Plan
Land Area: 413 acres
Landowners (APN, acres):
Bellevue North 250 LLC (049-100-003 and part of 049-100-023, approx. 254 acres)
Myrna Spiva TR (049-090-003, 126.4 acres)
Madison SSP Ranch LLC (049-090-011, 190.8 acres)
John Karren (049-090-008 and -015, approx. 5 acres)
Current Land Uses: intensive agriculture
Recent Development History: none (other than planting of trees)
During the period that the General Plan was being discussed in 2008-2009, a major Sacramento-area homebuilder had acquired land around the existing town of Madison. The developer has since gone into bankruptcy and the agricultural land on the west and south sides of the town (254 acres) have been acquired by Bellevue North 250 LLC (Hostetler Ranches), a Los Banos-based agricultural land company.
Bellevue North 250 has also acquired approximately 1,200 acres of land north of Winters and land in Zamora. The company has been represented in Yolo County by Jeff Roberts, with Granville, a large Fresno homebuilder. Roberts has indicated to staff that the firm is interested in acquiring land for agricultural investment (planting trees) with eventual development in the future. The land around Madison has been planted in pistachios and almonds.
Another developer, John Kaufman was representing the 190 acres east of Madison around the I-505 freeway interchange during the General Plan sessions, but the property has now apparently been transferred to another entity (Madison SSP Ranch LLC of Lincoln).
Policy CC-3.14 in the General Plan states the following goals to within the Madison Specific Plan growth boundary:
A. Policies to ensure the creation of a downtown area will be required.
B. The sewer ponds shall be moved and improved.
C. Workforce housing shall be the focus of the residential development.
D. Storm drainage impacts affecting the entire growth area shall be resolved. To address some of the existing needs in the community, infrastructure (drainage, sewer and water) services
and facilities could benefit from a cooperative arrangement between the Madison and Esparto County Service Districts. Additional infrastructure improvements are to be gained through
development agreements with recommended highway commercial development.
F. Existing conditions in this community are not acceptable. New development shall not proceed until, at minimum, the items in Table LU-11 have been addressed (or are reasonably expected
to be addressed by the time such development is completed).
G. The need for intersection and roadway improvements on State Route 16 between Madison and I-505 shall be identified as part of the Madison Specific Plan consistent with the policy
thresholds of the Draft General Plan.
H. Encourage the Madison CSD to explore the availability of Cache Creek water via the Flood Control District as an alternative source of municipal water.
Policy CC-3.15 identifies development capacities that shall guide development of the Madison Specific Plan, which are illustrated in the Madison Specific Plan Conceptual Sketch (Attachment B):
131 acres commercial (assumes 3,065 new jobs)
44 acres identified for agricultural industrial land uses (no new jobs assumed)
125 acres of residential uses in various densities allowing 630 to 1,335 new units
63 acres of parks and open space uses
50 acres public uses (20 new jobs assumed)
As in the other three Specific Plan areas, the major constraint to future development in Madison is the regional solution to protect the area from flooding from the nearby branches of Willow Slough.
Staff recommends that the Madison Specific Plan area be studied for redesignation from Specific Plan to Agriculture.
In addition to the action related to the Specific Plan area, staff is recommending that the scope of the General Plan Amendment Study include ten additional properties within the existing town of Madison. The ten properties are located in the 29000 block of Main and Archer Streets (Attachment C). The parcels are currently designated and zoned for commercial use. However, most of the properties are occupied by single family homes, which is not consistent with the General Plan and zoning. Staff recommends that this GPA Study propose redesignating and rezoning the parcels to residential use.
Conclusion
Seven years after the approval of the 2030 General Plan, staff believes it is appropriate to reconsider the role of the Specific Plans in that guiding document. Since the General Plan was adopted, there have been changed circumstances that have affected the viability of the proposed Specific Plans, including recently adopted FEMA flood restrictions and a depressed real estate market that is only now recovering in unincorporated Yolo County.
Other than in Dunnigan, there has been no developer interest in proceeding with a Specific Plan. Most of the land that is designated for Specific Plans is in active intensive agricultural production. Some substantial investments have been made in the Specific Plan areas, and more can be anticipated. General Plan policies and zoning regulations governing what interim uses may be approved on lands designated as “Specific Plan” has restricted some proposals, and removing the Specific Plan requirements may assist some landowners in these areas.
The Board has made a decision not to proceed with the largest of the Specific Plans in Dunnigan. The Board has directed staff to remove all references to the Dunnigan Specific Plan from the 2030 Countywide General Plan and from the County Zoning Code. Staff recommends that the Board initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate whether one or more of the remaining four Specific Plans should also be removed from the County General Plan. |