At the April 26, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board directed staff not to proceed with the environmental review of the proposed Dunnigan Specific Plan and to return with recommendations on how to proceed. Staff has prepared three separate scenarios that could guide County actions. Staff requests that the Board discuss the options and recommend to staff which course of action should be implemented. Any of the options will involve the Board authorizing staff to proceed with a General Plan Amendment Study for the Dunnigan area, and will incur fiscal impacts of at least $12,000 in expenditures from the General Fund.
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan Areas
The Dunnigan Specific Plan is one of five areas in unincorporated Yolo County that is designated as a “Specific Plan” in the 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan. (The other four Specific Plan areas are in the Madison, Knights Landing, Elkhorn, and Covell areas.) The purpose of the General Plan designation is to require that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to any urban development being approved in any of the five locations.
The General Plan sets forth fairly detailed policies and development requirements to guide urban growth in each Specific Plan area, including the approximate number of acres devoted to specific land uses, and a range of the number of housing units and jobs anticipated.
Three of the five Specific Plan areas (Dunnigan, Madison, and Knights Landing) include existing towns. In these three locations, the General Plan designates a total Specific Plan area that encompasses both vacant undeveloped land and the existing town. The undeveloped agricultural land is designated by the General Plan as “Specific Plan” (SP); the already developed town is designated with a land use category that reflects the existing use, e.g., existing single family houses are designated “Residential Low” (RL) and existing retail businesses are designated “Commercial General” (CG). The existing town is also designated with a “Specific Plan Overlay” (SPO).
The zoning for each Specific Plan area follows a similar pattern. The undeveloped agricultural land adjacent to the existing town is zoned “Specific Plan” (S-P); the already developed town is zoned to reflect the existing use, e.g., existing single family houses are zoned “Low Density Residential” (R-L). and existing retail businesses are designated “Commercial General” (CG). The existing town is also zoned with a “Specific Plan Overlay” (SP-O).
Dunnigan Specific Plan Area
In Dunnigan, the General Plan identifies the Dunnigan Specific Plan area consisting of approximately 2,250 acres of mostly vacant agricultural land located generally west of County Road 99 and Interstate 5, south of County Road 5, and north of Bird Creek (Attachment A). The 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan designates the entire Specific Plan area for urban development of up to 9,230 housing units and 11,300 jobs. The existing developed land uses in Dunnigan (Old Town, the rural homes in the Hardwoods, Country Fair Estates, and the highway commercial uses along I-5) are not included in the Specific Plan (SP) General Plan designation but are designated with a Specific Plan Overlay (SPO).
Thus, any action to remove the Dunnigan Specific Plan from the General Plan would involve a General Plan Amendment and concurrent rezoning to change the “Specific Plan” land use designation (SP) and zoning (S-P) on the undeveloped lands to another designation and zoning district, such as Agriculture (AG in the General Plan) and A-N (the Intensive Agriculture zoning district). Removing the Specific Plan would also require that the “Specific Plan Overlay” designation and zoning be removed from the developed properties within the existing town area, leaving the underlying designation and zoning in place.
Alternatively, portions of the undeveloped agricultural lands that are currently designated and zoned Specific Plan could be redesignated and rezoned to a use other than Agriculture, to allow future urban development.
2001 Dunnigan Plan
Complicating matters is the fact that a community or area plan for Dunnigan was approved in 2001 (formerly known as the Dunnigan General Plan). When the 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan was adopted in November 2009, the new General Plan stated that the 2001 Dunnigan Plan was to be “retained and updated as the Dunnigan Specific Plan.” The land uses designated by the 2001 Dunnigan Plan are generally consistent with the land use map adopted for the Countywide General Plan, but most of the policies from the 2001 Dunnigan Plan were not carried forth and included in the updated 2009 Countywide Plan.
The 2001 local plan identified three “expansion areas” for new growth: 53 acres of Highway Service Commercial uses northeast of the Interstate 5/County Road 6 interchange;75 acres of “Truck Related” Highway Service Commercial uses at the Interstate 5/County Road 8 interchange; and 71 acres of Agricultural Industrial use east of the I-5/CR 8 interchange (Attachment B).
Accompanying policies in the 2001 Dunnigan Plan state that:
D-LU.15. Visitor and highway related commercial uses shall be encouraged on the east side of I-5, north of County Road 6, south of County Road 5, and west of County Road 99W. The businesses should focus on those uses whose primary clientele arrive by automobile, not trucks.
D-LU.16. Highway service commercial uses shall be allowed at the County Road 8/I-5 interchange. Uses on this property shall be limited to those that serve truck traffic such as truck stops with associated restaurants, motels, truck service stations, truck repair and maintenance, and overhaul facilities.
As part of the General Plan Amendment Study, these existing policies should be evaluated in relation to the Countywide General Plan, and revised, as needed.
Pending and Anticipated Applications
In December 2015, the Board approved an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone that had been submitted by Elliot Homes to redesignate and rezone 183 acres located west of the Interstate 5/County Road 8 interchange from "Specific Plan" to "Agriculture" and "Intensive Agricultural" zoning, to allow an application for a large almond hulling operation on a portion of the site (Attachment B). The almond huller application has been submitted and is pending approval.
In February 2016, an application was submitted by Valley Travel Center for a GPA, rezone, and subdivision of 20 acres in the eastern portion the 183-acre parcel, adjacent to the freeway interchange, to allow construction of a truck stop (Attachment C). That application is also under review and pending approval.
Other projects that are moving ahead at the current time include the reconstruction of the former Oasis restaurant into a new Denny's restaurant east of I-5 on the south side of County Road 8, adjacent to the Pilot truck stop. Across the street on the north side of CR 8 the same applicant is also negotiating to purchase the 10-acre property which was previously approved for a highway commercial complex of approximately 24,000 square feet of gas stations, commercial store, drive-thru restaurants, and hotel uses.
Staff has also discussed with an applicant the possibly of another GPA to enlarge the gas station at County Road 89 and County Road 6. In order to expand the gas station the applicant would have to purchase and subdivide a portion of the adjacent agricultural property, which is currently designated and zoned "Specific Plan."
Finally, Elliott Homes has expressed an interest in rezoning portions of their properties to facilitate marketing and sale of land to accommodate highway commercial and other freeway-related uses.
Options for Removing the Dunnigan Specific Plan
There is a range of options that the County could pursue to remove the Dunnigan Specific Plan from the existing General Plan and Zoning Code. The options are presented from the least complicated and least expensive process to more complex and expensive processes. All options will require that the Board of Supervisors authorize a General Plan Amendment Study and direct staff as to how extensive the Study should be structured, which has budget ramifications.
Option 1: Remove the Specific Plan and rezone properties to Agriculture.
This option would be the least time-consuming and least costly in terms of staff time expended.
The Board would authorize staff to proceed with a General Plan Amendment Study that would result in the removal of the Dunnigan Specific Plan from all General Plan and zoning documents. This option would replace the "Specific Plan" General Plan land use designations and zoning for the approximately three dozen parcels included in the current Specific Plan area with an "Agriculture" (AG) designation and Intensive Agriculture (A-N) zoning. This would primarily affect only the undeveloped agricultural properties in Dunnigan that are currently zoned "Specific Plan."
This action would also remove the “Specific Plan Overlay” designation and zoning that applies to several hundred individual parcels, already developed within the Old Town area, the Dunnigan Hardwoods rural subdivision, and the existing highway commercial uses around the I-5 interchanges. These properties would retain their existing underlying designation and base zoning which includes Highway Commercial, Low Density Residential, etc. The only change would be to remove the overlaying “Specific Plan Overlay” designation and zoning.
This option would also involve the deletion of all references in the General Plan to the Dunnigan Specific Plan which would require revision of several policies, as well as background text, maps, and tables. This option would not revise any of the policies in the existing 2001 Dunnigan Plan. That plan would remain in effect.
It is assumed that this General Plan Amendment could be processed with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. These actions would be reviewed by the Dunnigan Citizens Advisory Committee, however this minimal option would not involve extensive work with the advisory committee to revise existing growth policies.
This General Plan Amendment would be subject to at least one public hearing at the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Staff estimates that this option could be completed within three months with staff time costs of approximately $12,000 (approximately 80 hours).
Option 2: Remove the Specific Plan, revise existing policies, and consider additional growth areas.
This option would include all of the steps outlined in Option 1 plus revision of the existing policies in the 2001 Dunnigan Plan. This option could also consider evaluation of additional potential growth areas and changes in zoning of individual properties.
This option would involve significant interaction with the Dunnigan Citizens Advisory Committee, individual landowners (including, possibly, Elliott Homes) and other agency representatives, e.g, Caltrans and California American Water. It is assumed that the General Plan Amendment would be discussed at several meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, and at least one public hearing at the Board of Supervisors. It is assumed that this General Plan Amendment could be processed with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Staff estimates that this option could be completed within six months with staff time costs of approximately $20,000 (approximately 130 hours).
Staff recommends this option.
Option 3: Remove the Specific Plan and involve the community in a comprehensive Area Plan Update process.
This option would be the most time-consuming and most costly in terms of staff time expended.
The Board would authorize staff to proceed with a General Plan Amendment Study that would launch a comprehensive update of the 2001 Dunnigan Plan which would result in the adoption of a new Dunnigan Area Plan. This would be a major planning process that would evaluate existing policies and zoning, and re-examine the growth potential and future for the Dunnigan area. The process would involve multiple meetings with the Dunnigan Citizens Advisory Committee, landowners, agencies, and other interested groups such as the Farm Bureau. A range of land use alternatives would be developed and studied for feasibility and potential impacts.
It is assumed that if this course of action is authorized by the Board, initial interim actions will still be required to remove the Specific Plan designation and policies from all General Plan and zoning documents prior to launching a comprehensive planning process. This effort would include the Option 1 actions described above and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would be required. Alternatively, in-lieu of the immediate removal of the Specific Plan designations and zoning, the Board could direct staff to not accept any additional development applications until after the comprehensive planning process is completed. Otherwise, individual applications could be required to go through the expensive and time-consuming GPA and rezoning process on a case-by-case basis.
Depending upon the scope and potential impacts of additional growth advocated by an thoroughly updated Dunnigan Area Plan, this General Plan Amendment could require a greater level of environmental review. If the potential impacts of the new plan were not dramatically different than growth buildout of the current base zoning (the existing developed areas) the update may qualify for processing with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). However, if major new growth areas are recommended, a full Environmental Impact Report may be required.
Staff estimates that this option could be completed within twelve to fifteen months, with staff time and environmental review costs ranging between approximately $50,000 (assuming an IS/MND is prepared in-house with some consultant assistance) to $100,000 (if an EIR prepared by a private consultant team is required). |