By Emerson Drake
1/3/10
Less than fifteen days after the November elections the Modesto City Council used the City Staff to charge full speed ahead with total disregard of the November 3rd annexation vote which overwhelmingly rejected the five annexations proposed by the council.
This is the only place you can read what was discussed at the meeting.
The City Staff and the Modesto City Council have no desire for you to read the topics that were discussed.
Will the citizens proposals fall by the wayside to be replaced by the concerns of the developers?
GPA-09-002 is the Proposed General Plan Amendment Draft Project Description.
A large mouthful of words saying the heck with the voters and we'll do what we and our political donors want to do.I
t's long and involved but the voters of Modesto deserve the right to know what's going on downtown.
It will be followed by the forty seven suggestions/complaints that were made at the November 18th meeting.
Which if the staff and the council gets their way will be the only public meeting for the proposal before the Planning Commission gets to vote on it.GPA-09-002PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTDRAFT PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11/18/09The following is a description of the proposed project, which consists of changes to certainGeneral Plan land use designations and the Sphere of Influence boundary.
The changes aredescribed below. The first section below describes the proposed changes in variousComprehensive Planning Districts.
The second section proposes changes in some of the landuse designations.
This project was authorized by the City Council as a result of the 2009 UrbanArea Growth Policy Review. Some miscellaneous policy revisions will also be considered.
1. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DISTRICTSKiernan Avenue Corridor CPDs
This area consists of three different Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) located along thenorth and south sides of Kiernan Avenue between Stoddard Road and McHenry Avenue (SeeExhibit A).
The first area is the portion of Kiernan/Carver CPD including approximately 500 acreseast of American Avenue, south of Kiernan Avenue, west of Tully Road, and north of BangsAvenue.
The project proposes to change the land use designation from Village Residential to a newBusiness Commercial Residential (BCR) designation that would emphasize business park usealong with commercial and residential uses. Table 1 below shows the proposed land use intensities.
Development would involve a mixture of business park, commercial, and multiple-family residentialwith a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The development should occur in nodes with anappropriate transition to the existing and proposed residential development south on Bangs Avenue.
The proposed project would also add approximately 230 acres of land designated Business Parklocated west of Kaiser Hospital into the Modesto Sphere of Influence (SOI). No change is proposedto the remaining 650 acres of the Kiernan/Carver CPD.
Table 1 Proposed Business Commercial Residential Land Use DesignationLand UseDesignationProposed Business Commercial Residential Land Use IntensityResidential 1 Minimum 20% Maximum 45%Commercial Minimum 05% Maximum 25%Business Park Minimum 50% Maximum 75%1 Multi-family residential with a minimum density of 20 units per acre
The second area is the entire Kiernan/Carver North CPD, which consists of approximately 460acres of Village Residential designation and 30 acres of Regional Commercial designation. Theproposal is to change the approximately 420 acres of Village Residential designation to BusinessPark, and 40 acres of Village Residential designation (just east of Dale Road) to RegionalCommercial.
30 acres of Regional Commercial designation located just west of McHenry Avenue isproposed to be changed to Business Park, consistent with the existing business park development.
The third area consists of approximately 320 acres within the Salida CPD, designated for BusinessPark development, located north of Kiernan Avenue and west of Dale Road. The project would addthis area to the SOI and change approximately 40 acres to Regional Commercial around theKiernan Avenue and Dale Road intersection.
1Hetch-Hetchy CPDThe proposed project would change the land use designation for approximately 60 acres of landin the Hetch-Hetchy CPD from Village Residential to Regional Commercial along Oakdale Roadbetween Claribel Road and Claratina Avenue (See Exhibit B).
The new Regional Commercialland use area would be in addition to 60 acres of new Regional Commercial area proposed inthe Roselle/Claribel CPD on the east side of Oakdale Road. Two new 60-acre RegionalCommercial nodes are shown on the land use diagram straddling Oakdale Road.
The nodes areintended to provide flexibility in terms of precise location, primarily due to the uncertainty of thefinal design and alignment of the North County Corridor.
Roselle/Claribel CPD
There are two proposed land use changes in the Roselle/Claribel CPD.
The first change is theaddition of 60 acres of Regional Commercial land use designation along Oakdale Road asdescribed above (See Exhibit B).The second change is re-designation of the 260-acre Business Park triangle to Mixed Use (SeeExhibit C).
The Mixed Use designation would be modified to allow Light Industrial land uses nextto rail lines, and to prohibit residential use within 500 feet of a rail line, subject to a noise study.Village One CPDNo change is proposed.
The 2009 Urban Growth Review concluded with a recommendation toreview the land use options for the Business Park triangle located at the east side of the VillageOne CPD (See Exhibit
D). The Mixed Use designation was considered as an alternative, but isnot recommended because of compatibility issues created by placing residential uses in closeproximity to the with Claus Road expressway and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line. Thecurrent Business Park designation allows for Regional Commercial uses.Highway 132 CPD
The proposed project would change the 660 acres currently designated as Business Park to140 acres of Mixed Use, 60 acres of Residential, and 460 acres of Rural Residential (SeeExhibit E).
The proposed Residential designation is located at the northeast portion of the CPDmainly north of the MID Lateral No. 4, consisting of an existing single family neighborhood. Theproposed Mixed Use designation is the remaining portion of this CPD north of MID Lateral No.4.
The Mixed Use designation would allow some commercial development to take advantage ofthe future State Highway 132 route proposed along the north boundary of this CPD.
Theremaining 460 acres south of the MID lateral is proposed to be designated Rural Residential,which would be a new land use designation requiring a minimum lot size of two acres.
The newRural Residential designation is proposed because of the strong established pattern of the largelots and agricultural uses.Beckwith/Dakota CPD
The Beckwith/Dakota CPD is proposed to be added to the SOI, but no changes to land usedesignations are proposed (See Exhibit F).A summary of all the proposed changes are provided in Table 2 below.
22. PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND USE DESIGNATIONSThe changes described below are provided using the existing text in Chapter III. CommunityDevelopment Policies of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan with proposed new text shown as underlined.Rural Residential (RR)a. Purpose and IntentTo provide for large-lot residential development and limited agricultural uses.
Residentialuses include large-lot single-family detached housing. Compatible uses in the RuralResidential designation may include parks and open space, and certain limitedagricultural uses such as family farms, orchards and vineyards.
b. Location Criteria
This designation is applied to the south portion of the Highway 132 CPD that have anexisting pattern of residential development on large lots with some agricultural activities.
2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND USE DESIGNATIONSThe changes described below are provided using the existing text in Chapter III.
CommunityDevelopment Policies of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan with proposed new text shown as underlined.Rural Residential (RR)
a. Purpose and IntentTo provide for large-lot residential development and limited agricultural uses. Residentialuses include large-lot single-family detached housing. Compatible uses in the RuralResidential designation may include parks and open space, and certain limitedagricultural uses such as family farms, orchards and vineyards.
b. Location CriteriaThis designation is applied to the south portion of the Highway 132 CPD that have anexisting pattern of residential development on large lots with some agricultural activities.
Business Commercial Residentiala. Purpose and IntentTo provide for a combination of land uses which include business park, commercial, andmulti-family residential land uses.
The business park land use does not include RegionalCommercial uses.
This designation is intended to generate employment intensive usesthat will be a compact and walkable development.
Development should occur in nodesintegrating the different land uses that will provide opportunities for a live-workenvironment.
b. Location Criteria
This designation may be applied in areas that have adequate access to regional trafficroutes and transit corridors including being close to Freeway 99.
This designation isintended for those areas where the combination of land uses would be appropriate and would assist in the transition to neighboring existing and planned uses.
c. Land Use Intensity
For any new development site, the land use mix shall be a minimum of approximately 20 percent and a maximum of approximately 45 percent of the gross land area devoted to residential uses; a minimum of approximately 5 percent and a maximum of approximately 25 percent of the gross land area may be devoted to commercial uses, and a minimum of approximately 50 percent and maximum of 75 percent may be devoted to business park uses.
For residential uses, the intensity shall average 20 dwelling units per gross acre for the residential site.
For non-residential uses, the guiding intensity is approximately 0.35 square feet of building area per square foot of gross acreage of the entire site.
City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department
GPA-09-002 / General Plan Land Use AmendmentsSummary of 11/18/09 public workshop comments
This document is a list of comments given at the public workshop referenced above. The information presented is limited to comments only. Follow-up discussion or clarification by staff was not recorded during the meeting.
KIERNAN / CARVER CPDs
1. Is this project driven by a staff-initiated process or by City Council direction?
2. Do the proposed / recommended General Plan Amendments reflect the (negative) 11/3/09 Measure M advisory votes? Will there be opportunity to address the election results in the context of this project?
3. Five planning areas received a negative vote on 11/3/09. The typical planning process (annexation of Comprehensive Planning Districts in the Planned Urbanizing Area) takes five to seven years. The College West Comprehensive Planning District (CPD) will develop entirely non-residential, so should be allowed to proceed without further pre-requisites. Village One triangle should be changed to Business Park (BP) and/or Mixed Use (MU).
4. What street marks the eastern boundary of the Salida CPD? What is the location of Morrow Road?
5. Attendance / participation by City Council members was expected. A Modesto Bee article should indicate: City Council interest in development; water supply issues are concerning; development north of Kiernan would be detrimental due to the excellent agricultural soils and significant groundwater recharge (6,500 acre-feet) that exists there.
6. The Measure M advisory votes from the 11/3/09 election were negative, so this project is in direct conflict with those election results.
7. Regarding the area near Dale / Kiernan: 100+ curb cuts (driveways) already exist along Kiernan; the proposed project will result in significantly more traffic congestion, particularly near SR99, which will create difficulty in traveling to points east; BP land use will draw a large number of truck trips.
8. What Ag Mitigation component is built in to the project?
9. How is the City Council involved in this project? There is a technical component(s) to this project, and also a broad policy question related to the 11/3/09 election. This project IS about sewer extension. City Council should be involved now. Project should be stopped until the City Council gets involved.
10. Financial concerns need to be addressed by the City Council as a first step. North County Corridor funding could be better spent on something else.
11. The City Council could decide to proceed with annexation and development, despite the 11/3/09 negative election results. Measure M advisory votes could / should be binding, in order to facilitate further discussion (regarding the merits of additional development).
12. What is the difference between Village Residential and Residential? What is Mixed Use? Is the business park of the future simply Mixed Use without Residential? Business Park development should create jobs. Is the BP designation consistent with the description presented at this workshop?
13. The Village One Business Park triangle has significant restrictions / constraints. Prior development proposals have been discouraged. This area is better designated MU.
14. Long-range (50-yr timeframe) planning should happen now, so that the framework is in place to facilitate job creation, establishment of appropriate development fees, etc.)
HETCH-HECTHY
15. Has there been any discussion with the commercial development community? It appears that this project includes a lot of proposed non-residential development.
16. Are proposed RC nodes / areas prioritized? Will all development contemplated by this project be connected to City of Modesto utilities?
17. Proposed future development overlaps two CPDs (Hetch-Hetchy and Roselle / Claribel). So, do both need to be planned & annexed together? How does the North County Corridor change the project approach or strategy?
18. The timing of this project / workshop is insulting to voters in Modesto. The City Council should vote in an official capacity if advisory vote election results are to be overridden.1
9. Regional planning, smart growth planning and (the lack of) agricultural mitigation in Modesto is an embarrassment. The best soils on earth exist here, but there is no real plan to protect this resource.
20. New high schools are under-utilized. City population is decreasing, so why should we expect future non-residential investment? Staff has indicated that future development demand will exist Taxpayers funded high schools that are not fully utilized
21. Has the City consulted with Riverbank?2
2. Many empty commercial buildings exist in Modesto today should we not focus on redevelopment of these existing blighted areas? Focus on current issues and problems, rather than future development, would improve staff's credibility.
23.Where is the long-term planning for no-growth areas? Why are we not discussing protection of the excellent agricultural soils?
24. Is this project not an opportunity to establish policies to account for protection of the best agricultural soils? These soils have high value. What about water? What about greenbelts/buffers? What about the value of soils?
25. Constraints are significant: water, air, soils.
26. What can citizens do to promote a comprehensive General Plan update? (AB32, SB375, Climate Action Plan)
27. When objections to proposed development have been articulated in the past, the response often has been: Regional Housing Needs Allocation requires residential development to accommodate the needed dwelling unit count. Now we have new rules, regulations, and laws regarding climate change. So, what has changed? What is different now?
28. There has been no discussion of General Plan (GP) boundaries. Some of the planning areas covered by the project are in the current GP boundary, and some are outside?ROSELLE / CLARIBEL CPD
29. Claratina Ave. south of future North County Corridor. No plans to extend Claratina east of railroad / no plans for a future Claratina / NCC interchange? It is a good idea to make this change.
30. How did staff determine the 500 non-residential buffer along the railroad?VILLAGE ONE CPD
31. Prior development proposals ultimately proved in feasible, so those businesses located elsewhere. The Business Park Triangle should accommodate light industrial uses.HIGHWAY 132 CPD
32. What density would be allowed under the Rural Residential designation? What density is allowed in the County today?
33. Why not extend the MU designation across the entire north boundary?
34. Why designate RR adjacent to VR to the south (Paradise / Carpenter CPD)?BECKWITH / DAKOTA CPD
35. Planning in Modesto has been admirable. Why not accommodate growth on the west side of SR99? Beckwith interchange improvements will alleviate some congestion at the Briggsmore interchange. Beckwith side of the Standiford Ave. interchange needs upgrades (currently transitions from seven lanes to two).
36. The proposed project will add congestion to the busiest interchange between Sacramento and Fresno. There is a lack of credibility in promises for non-residential development. Costs for traffic (and other) mitigation are very high. There is adamant opposition to development west of SR99.
37. The City's financial situation, and the school districts financial situation, are not good. Commercial activity is down, air quality is declining, social/family values are eroding. So, bring jobs in is the right thing to do.
38. This project/plan is a benefit. Some infrastructure (fiber-optic) is already in place to facilitate future development.
39.West side of SR99 (including Beckwith / Dakota) should remain in agricultural production.
40. Development in San Joaquin County and Turlock has jumped to the west side of SR99. This is a negative precedent that Modesto should not follow.
41. What will be the impacts of Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansion?
42. Does inclusion in the SOI indicate guaranteed or assured future development? Are areas within the SOI precluded from designation as an agricultural preserve?
43. There are no properties north of Beckwith and east of Dakota that are under Williamson Act contract.MISCELLANEOUS / WRAP-UP
44. If staff has been directed to initiate and complete this project, then what is the purpose of this workshop?
45. Annexations affect the entire City, not just the property owners within the project boundaries.
46. What exactly will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council? Is this a scoping meeting? Where, when and how does the public participate in this process?
47. There appears to be a disconnect with the public regarding recognition / understanding of opportunities to participate in the process.
