FINAL REPORT - Valley Blueprint · FINAL REPORT . Project funded by a ... Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost ... through local implementation strategies and a

FINAL REPORT

Project funded by a Proposition 84 Grant from the Strategic Growth Council administered by the

CA Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection

Project Manager: Fresno COG/Rob Terry (On behalf of the Eight San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies)

Report Prepared by

URS Corporation and

Circuit Planners:

Municipal Planning Services, Land Use Associates, and Collins & Schoettler

“The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Project is a Valley-wide program, funded through a Round 1 Prop 84 grant, to provide support to the 46 smaller Valley cities (populations under 50,000) in integrating Blueprint Smart Growth

principles into their General Plans and planning policies.”

SJV Blueprint Integration Project

*Adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (2009)

The 12 SJV Smart Growth Principles*

1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.

2. Create walkable neighborhoods.

3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration.

4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.

5. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective.

6. Mix land uses.

7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas.

8. Provide a variety of transportation choices.

9. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.

10. Take advantage of compact building design.

11. Enhance the economic vitality of the region.

12. Support actions that encourage environmental resource management.

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Final Report

i | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW 1 The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Planning Process – A Brief History 1 The Blueprint Integration Project 3

2. INITIAL SCOPE SUMMARY 4 Task 1 − Kick-off Meetings and Monthly Progress Reporting 4 Task 2 − Preliminary Needs Assessment and Triage 4 Task 3 − Preparation of Best Local Practices Menu of Options 4 Task 4 − Coordination of Workshops and Training 4 Task 5 − Circuit Planning 4 Task 6 − Prepare a Technical Memorandum for Sub-task Findings and Recommendations 5 Task 7 − Prepare Draft and Final Summary Reports of the Work Completed that includes

Sub-task Findings and Recommendations 5

3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 6 Kick-off Meetings and Monthly Progress Reporting/Project Management 6

4. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 8

5. BEST LOCAL PRACTICES OPTIONS 11

6. WORKSHOPS, CONVENTIONS, AND OUTREACH 14 Mid-Flight Convention: Modesto CA 14 San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference: Lemoore CA 17

7. CIRCUIT PLANNING 18

NORTH AREA TOOLS 20 San Joaquin County 20 Escalon: General Plan Blueprint Compatibility Audit 20 Lathrop: Municipal Code Enforcement Update 20 Stanislaus County 20 Ceres: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Guidance Report 20 Hughson: Mixed Use Zoning Compatibility Standards 21 Newman: Complete Streets / Living Streets Design Manual 21


ii | P a g e

Patterson: Zoning Performance Standards 22 Riverbank: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Review / Complete Living Streets Design 22 Waterford: Community Design Guidelines 23 Merced County 23 Livingston: Community Art and Mural Standards 23 Los Banos: Bicycle Master Plan 24

CENTRAL AREA TOOLS 26 Madera County 26 Chowchilla: Design Guidelines Assistance 26 Fresno County 26 Coalinga: Draft Zoning Ordinance Audit 26 Firebaugh Bicycle Transportation Plan 26 Fowler: General Plan Audit 27 Huron: Zoning Ordinance Audit 28 Kerman: Small Lot Design Guidelines 29 Kingsburg: Zoning Ordinance Audit 30 Mendota: General Plan Audit 31 Orange Cove: Bicycle Transportation Plan 32 Parlier: Bicycle Transportation Plan 33 Reedley: Multi-Family Design Guidelines 33 City of San Joaquin: General Plan Audit 34 Sanger: General Plan Audit 35 Selma: Small Lot Design Guidelines 35

SOUTH AREA TOOLS 37 Kings County 37 Avenal: Small Lot Design Guidelines 37 Corcoran: Design Guidelines 38 Lemoore: Mixed-Use Design Strategies 39 Tulare County 40 Dinuba: General Plan Review 40 Exeter: Voluntary Agricultural Easements Program 41 Farmersville: Zoning Ordinance Audit 43 Lindsay: Design Guidelines 45 Woodlake: Downtown Design Guidelines 46 Kern County 47 Arvin: Design Guidelines 47 California City: Infill Land Use Strategies 50 McFarland: Voluntary Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 51 Ridgecrest: Zoning Ordinance Sign Provisions 52 Taft: Zoning Ordinance Review 53 Tehachapi: Smart Growth Land Use Strategies 55 Wasco: Highway 46 Design Guidelines and Strategies 56


iii | P a g e

VALLEYWIDE 60 Sustainable Transportation Strategies for Valley Communities 60

8. GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FOR PLANNING 62 Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program 62 Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant Program 63 Our Town Initiative, National Endowment for the Arts 64 Community Facility Grants – USDA Rural Development 65 HUD Planning Grants 66

9. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67 Overview 67 Client City Questionnaire 68 Next Steps 68

10. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS 71 List of Attachments 71 List of Appendices (on included DVD) 71


1 | P a g e

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW The Blueprint Integration Project (BPI) is a Valley-wide program funded through a State Proposition 84 grant from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC). The contract, which was administered by the California Department of Conservation, provided support to 46 smaller Valley cities (populations under 50,000) in integrating Blueprint Smart Growth Principles into General Plans and other planning policy and practices. The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG), managing the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint on behalf of the eight Valley Regional Planning Agencies, contracted with a team led by URS Corporation that included local circuit planners to work with individual cities to identify strategies to integrate Blueprint Principles into local planning practices and assist with strategies for implementation. Attachment 1 is the Project and Team Introduction initially produced for the project.

This report documents the process implemented to fulfill the requirements of the Prop 84 grant, describes the tasks completed, explains the results and products of those tasks, and summarizes the project’s key findings and recommendations for implementation and continued ongoing activities.

THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BLUEPRINT PLANNING PROCESS – A BRIEF HISTORY Since its inception in 2006, the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint planning process has been a bottom-up and voluntary process, seeking to involve every community in the Valley. The Valley Blueprint is a vision for the future of the San Joaquin Valley according to which less land is consumed for development, more resources are preserved for future generations, distinctive communities are enhanced, and more travel choices are available (more information on the Blueprint can be found at www.valleyblueprint.org).

Merced CAG, in coordination with the Great Valley Center, led the Valleywide Blueprint effort on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley organizations. The following seven Valley COGs and one RTPA participated in the Valley Blueprint:

Council of Fresno County Governments (Fresno COG) Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) Stanislaus Council of Governments (Stan COG) Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG)

http://www.valleyblueprint.org/


2 | P a g e

The Blueprint is a long range vision for a more efficient, sustainable, and livable future for the Valley. The Valleywide Blueprint is made up three elements: a 2050

growth scenario diagram; a Valleywide average target density of 6.8 units per acre for new residential growth to the year 2050; and a set of 12 Smart Growth

Principles.

Throughout the Blueprint planning process, feedback from the majority of the smaller local agencies was

that they needed help in the form of actual bodies to incorporate Blueprint principles into their planning

documents.

Throughout this report these eight organizations are referred to collectively as the Valley COGs.

With funding from the California Regional Blueprint Planning Program, the eight Valley COGs prepared separate countywide blueprints, which were then consolidated into a single Valleywide Blueprint. The process included the following three major phases:

1) Values and Vision; 2) Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures; and 3) Evaluation of Alternative Growth Scenarios.

On April 1, 2009, San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council, the decision-making body for the Valleywide process, approved Scenario B+ and 12 Smart Growth Principles, thus concluding the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint planning process. The Valley COGs, together with their partners, then began the implementation phase of the Valley Blueprint process in two primary ways: 1) through collaborative local and regional programs and planning processes; and 2) through on-the-ground projects built primarily by private sector developers.

In early 2010, on behalf of the eight COGs, Fresno COG initiated preparation of the Valley Blueprint Roadmap. This resulted in a policy guide for implementing the Valley Blueprint vision and principles through local implementation strategies and a planners’ toolkit. The Guidance Framework is one of three products that make up the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Roadmap. The other two are the Blueprint Planning Process Summary Report and an Internet-based Planners’ Toolkit of programs and techniques local governments can use to implement the Blueprint. The Guidance Framework, based on input from the Regional Policy Council, selected 11 Blueprint implementation strategies. One of those strategies is to Translate Blueprint into City and County Policy Actions. Throughout the Blueprint planning process, feedback from the majority of the smaller local agencies indicated that they needed help in the form of supplemental staff resources to integrate Blueprint principles into their planning policies and practices.

The Blueprint Integration Project (BPI) took that feedback to heart. It was devised to provide assistance to Valley cities under 50,000 in population using a hands-on, circuit planning approach to integrate Blueprint principles into local guidance documents. With separate funding from the Smart Valley Places program, 14 of the larger cities in the Valley received similar support.


3 | P a g e

THE BLUEPRINT INTEGRATION PROJECT The Blueprint Integration Project (BPI) provided local circuit planner assistance focused on integrating the 12 Blueprint Smart Growth Principles into those small cities’ general plans and ordinances. For those that elected to participate, tools prepared addressed topics such as the following:

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions; Promoting sustainability, public health, equity, resource conservation and energy/water

efficiency; Increasing infill, compact development and housing affordability; Revitalizing urban and community centers, Reducing automobile use and improving air and water quality; Improving infrastructure systems; and Strengthening local economies.

The eight Valley Regional Planning Agencies (with the Fresno COG acting as the project manager) contracted with URS Corporation and their Circuit Planners (Municipal Planning Services and Randy

Hatch; Land Use Associates; and Collins & Schoettler) to provide Blueprint Integration services to each city that elected to participate. The three local planning firms, all with excellent knowledge, reputations, and experience working with and for communities throughout the Valley, worked with URS to identify the planning needs and desires of the interested cities and provided the hands-on assistance needed to integrate the selected principles into cities’ various guidance documents. This work is included on a DVD attached to this report and available on the Blueprint Planner’s Toolkit (www.toolkit.valleyblueprint.org), adding to the clearinghouse of tools available to all communities throughout the Valley.

The URS Team was selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process administered by FCOG and included participation of all eight Valley COGs in the review and selection process. Rob Terry, FCOG Senior Regional Planner, managed the project on behalf of the eight Valley COGs. Mr. Terry provided direction to the consultant team, requested input from Valley COG Blueprint Managers, and provided periodic reports and updates to the eight Valley COGs, in addition to progress reports to the Department of Conservation.

http://www.toolkit.valleyblueprint.org/


4 | P a g e

2. INITIAL SCOPE SUMMARY The Scope of Services for the consulting team was broken down into seven tasks as outlined below. As the project progressed, mutually agreed-upon adjustments to the initial scope were made as necessary to partner with other Valley-wide planning programs, take advantage of or accommodate current circumstances, better meet project needs, or to better serve the Valley COGs and the 46 client cities in achieving the grant deliverables. A copy of the SJVBPI RPA Grant Management Protocols were also provided to the URS consultant team (See Attachment 2)

Task 1 − Kick-off Meetings and Monthly Progress Reporting

Kick-off meeting with URS, Circuit Planners, and the FCOG Project Manager and staff.

Deliverables: Monthly Progress Reports (input to Quarterly Status Reports) Attend/Present at each COG Board Meeting in Feb/March

Task 2 − Preliminary Needs Assessment and Triage

URS to develop a Blueprint Consistency Assessment Tool. The Assessment Tool will facilitate comprehensive and consistent reporting on the status of each participating city. It will also establish a common frame of reference for compiling the individual assessments into a unified report to the client.

Circuit Planners will use the Blueprint Consistency Assessment Tool to assess all cities under 50,000 in population within the eight San Joaquin Valley Counties, understanding that participation by any City is voluntary.

Deliverables: Blueprint Consistency Assessment Tool (participation in development) General Plan Consistency Report.

Task 3 − Preparation of Best Local Practices Menu of Options

URS and the Circuit Planners will participate in local workshops to discuss and develop Best Local Practices Options to incorporate the Blueprint Principles into local planning policy and practices.

Deliverables: Best Local Practices Menu of Options for Blueprint Integration.

Task 4 − Coordination of Workshops and Training

URS, in collaboration with the Circuit Planners, will organize one Valleywide workshop and workshops in each Circuit Planner Area (North, Central, and South), one in each County. Where feasible, identify opportunities for piggybacking with other meetings.

Deliverables: Attendance at each county meeting in the N/C/S Area and at the Valleywide workshop.

Task 5 − Circuit Planning

Circuit Planner services will be provided for each participating city, divided by Area, to incorporate the Blueprint Principles into local planning policies and practices. As appropriate, the agreed-upon strategies will be summarized for inclusion in the web-based SJV Blueprint Planners Toolkit and will promote use of the Toolkit.


5 | P a g e

Deliverables: For each participating city, advisory services related to integrating Blueprint Principles into local

planning policy and practices. Level of involvement will vary according to local needs and interests. Summary of locally effective strategies for Blueprint integration for potential inclusion in web-based

SJV Blueprint Planners Toolkit.

Task 6 − Prepare a Technical Memorandum for Sub-task Findings and Recommendations

Develop findings and recommendations for continuation of and future implementation of the Blueprint Principals.

Deliverables: Technical memorandum summarizing the sub-task findings and recommendations, and

recommendations for future grant funding and opportunities.

Task 7 − Prepare Draft and Final Summary Reports of the Work Completed that includes Sub-task Findings and Recommendations

Prepare a summary report for the project. Propagate web-based Blueprint Toolkit.

Deliverables: Draft and final summary reports of the work completed that include subtask findings and

recommendations.

The key for successful execution of the project was the direct assistance and interaction of the Circuit Planners with client cities’ staff. This included conferring with those cities to determine the services that best suited their needs while promoting the implementation of one or more of the 12 Blueprint Principles, or those adopted by their COG.


6 | P a g e

3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

KICK-OFF MEETINGS AND MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTING/PROJECT MANAGEMENT URS provided meeting notes for the Kick-off Meeting (January 2012), monthly progress reports, and memo reports for the bi-weekly URS- FCOG status calls. These memos were used by FCOG as the basis for project updates to the Valley COG Blueprint Managers (see Appendix 1). URS and Circuit Planners attended and provided updates on the project at the quarterly Valley Planners Network meetings held during the project’s timeline. A weekly Team Conference Call was held between the URS Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager, and the Circuit Planners to discuss project status, develop protocols for project tasks, and collaborate on project deliverables. The decision was made early in the project to defer to the Circuit Planners in determining their approach to serving each of their cities. This deference acknowledged that the strength of the team was the Circuit Planners and their experience working with these smaller cities (in some cases, as the contract planner). It also recognized the wide difference in needs and circumstance among the cities. There was no one approach that would work for all the cities and the Circuit Planners, because of their experience and expertise, were in the best position to develop approaches best suited for each city. Templates and processes were developed to establish basic consistency in the information presented and type of information to be obtained. The FCOG PM was consulted on a regular basis for his input and approval on project protocols and deliverables. The open, consistent, and documented communication among all members of the consultant team and FCOG and the flexibility of all to adjust and adapt to changing circumstances and project needs allowed for a much more robust process and outcome for the project.

In March and April 2012, the URS Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager, and Circuit Planners made presentations to each of the Valley COGs in coordination with each COG’s Blueprint Manager. The purpose of the presentation was to introduce the project and Circuit Planner to the local agencies and gain any feedback from the local agencies’ representatives on the project. Local agencies were also invited to participate in the Valleywide Convention being organized under Task 4 of the project. A PowerPoint presentation was produced to highlight the 12 Blueprint Principles and their relevance to local planning efforts. The PowerPoint was tailored to each of the COGs as needed to reflect any unique circumstances such as county-specific principles (See Appendix 2).


7 | P a g e

Valley COGs Presentation Schedule

FCOG TTC/PAC (Fresno) March 9, 2012, 10:00am Presenter: FCOG: Barbara Steck URS: Eric VonBerg Circuit Planner: Bruce O’Neal

KCAG TAC (Kings)

March 14, 2012, 1:30pm KCAG Contact: Christina Lehn Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Eric VonBerg Circuit Planner: Karl Schoettler & Greg

Collins

MCAG Governing Board (Merced @ Dos Palos) March 15, 2012, 3:00pm MCAG Contact: Rich Green Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Eric VonBerg Circuit Planner: Bob Borchard

TCAG Policy Board (Tulare) March 19, 2012, 1:00pm TCAG Contact: Robert Brady/E. Wright Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Eric VonBerg Circuit Planner: Karl Schoettler & Greg

Collins

SJCOG Management & Finance Committee (San Joaquin @ Isadore’s Restaurant, Manteca)

March 21, 2012, 12:00pm SJCOG Contact: Kim Anderson Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Bob Lagomarsino Circuit Planner: Bob Borchard

MCTC Policy Board (Madera) March 21, 2012, 3:00pm MCTC Contact: Dylan Stone Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Eric VonBerg Circuit Planner: Bruce O’Neal

StanCOG Policy Board (Stanislaus)

March 21, 2012, 6:00pm StanCOG Contact: Charles Turner Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Bob Lagomarsino Circuit Planner: Bob Borchard

KernCOG Regional Planning Advisory Comm. (Kern)

April 4, 2012, 1:30pm KCAG Contact: Becky Napier Presenter: FCOG: R. Terry/B. Steck URS: Eric VonBerg Circuit Planner: Karl Schoettler & Greg

Collins

The presentations provided an opportunity for the BPI Team to meet each of the eight COG Blueprint Managers and representatives from client cities on the boards presented at, further educate attendees on the SJV Blueprint and its 12 Blueprint Principles, in addition to presenting the Blueprint Integration Project.


8 | P a g e

4. NEEDS ASSESSMENT A letter was sent to the City Manager of each client city introducing them to the project and their Circuit Planner, identifying the 12 Blueprint Principles, and requesting a meeting to discuss the Blueprint Integration Project. Below is an excerpt from the letter:

“We would be very interested in sitting down with you and discussing your thoughts on the Blueprint, the status of your General Plan, and how Coalinga could benefit from our assistance. Tasks could include, but would not be limited to, preparing a generalized evaluation of general plans to determine consistency with the Blueprint principles; providing examples of how your zoning ordinance could be updated, as well as a process for doing so; and providing guidance on development of tools to assist in such areas as design review, resource conservation, energy conservation, transportation planning/design, and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Very simply, we want to find out what your Blueprint priorities are and how we can help you address those priorities.” (See Appendix 3)

The Circuit Planners met with each of the cities that responded to our invitation. Additional outreach was conducted to cities that did not initially respond. A weekly reporting log was used to keep track of the COG presentations, introductory letters to the cities, and meetings with City Managers. This report was regularly provided to the FCOG PM to keep him up to date on progress.

The consultant team developed an information form to guide the Circuit Planners in their initial outreach to the client cities. The purpose of the form was to assist the Circuit Planners in gathering consistent information across city staffs, assessing consistency of city plans with the Blueprint Principles, and formulating lead-in questions in starting a dialog with staff. Also used was a list of implementation strategies for each of the 12 Blueprint Principles.

Based on discussions and correspondence with City staff, the Circuit Planners compiled a list of interests expressed by the cities for


9 | P a g e

becoming more “Blueprint Friendly.” The initial list of priorities is shown in Table 1. Several cities, particularly in the northern counties, had limited to no staff availability due to severe budget cutbacks, so the circuit planners had not received information on their tool needs at the time the priorities were compiled.

Table 1: Summary of Initial Blueprint Integration Tool Requests

BP Tool & Category by Color

Count Total

Count Firs

t Tool

Count 2nd Tool

Count 3rd Tool

Count Total

Count Firs

t Tool

Count 2nd Tool

Count 3rd Tool

Count Total

Count Firs

t Tool

Count 2nd Tool

Count 3rd Tool

Count Total

Count Firs

t Tool

Count 2nd Tool

Count 3rd Tool

1st Choice

Sum All C

hoices

SJ Valley North Area Central Area South Area BPI Tool Groups

Small lot design guidelines 7 6 1 0 1 1 6 5 1 0 14 20 1. Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 4 4 1 0 0 0 4 4 1 3 10 2. General PlanMultifamily design guidelines 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 8 18 3. ZoningMixed use design strategies 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 25 4. Ad Hoc Plans/PoliciesUrban design guidelines 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 20 5. Guidance ResourcesNeo traditional design standards for SFR 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 40 93 Total CountCommunity Art/Mural Standards 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 0Audit of GP for Blueprint consistency 5 3 2 0 1 1 4 2 2 0Policies to address the 12 BP principles to insert into GP

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Review consistency of GP Land Use section with Circulation element

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Goals and policies for Blueprint/375 consistency 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

Sustainable Element of GP (H20, air, energy, etc) 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

General Plan update 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Mobile home standards 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Audit of ZO for Blueprint consistency 6 3 1 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 0Mixed use zoning 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Update zoning ordinance 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1Update residential zoning standards/Accessory Uses in SF

3 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1

zoning ordinance 'variety pack' approach with targeted sections

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Mixed Use and Open Space districts in ZO 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0Downtown zoning standards 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Sign ordinance 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Mobile Food Vendors 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0Alternative Energy Standards 3 2 0 1 3 2 1 0 0Code Enforcement/Citation 1 1 0 0 1 1 0Bike plan 9 3 3 3 2 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 2

Strategy to link transportation/land use 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Input to Manning Avn Corridor Plan 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

tourist bus transit plan to Sequoia National 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0Downtown streetscape program 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Establish welcome signs at entrance to city 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Park master plan 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Ag mitigation program 4 1 2 1 1 1 0 3 1 2Open space preservation program 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1OHV trail plan 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Planning guidelines for specific plans 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Design standards for accessory uses on SFR lots 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Development Review / Performance Standards 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 0

Template of goals, policies to evaluate GP 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

Education Powerpoint tool 10 2 5 3 0 0 10 2 5 3Infill strategy 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1Update planning fees 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Complete Streets Standards 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 0DECLINED 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

TOTALS 94 41 38 16 23 10 8 5 30 14 14 2 41 17 16 9

SJ Valley North Area Central Area South Area


10 | P a g e

Additional attempts to engage those cities not initially responding occurred throughout the project. In the end, this effort resulted in 40 of the 46 cities participating (an 87 percent participation rate). Further discussions with cities and the team lead to the consolidation and refinement of the type of tools to be provided, as well, character and content of those tools. This work occurred under Task 3 of the consultant team’s scope of services.


11 | P a g e

5. BEST LOCAL PRACTICES OPTIONS

The information received from each of the cities was assembled and evaluated by the consultant team. A list of the tools initially requested from participating BPI cities was then established (shown in Table 1). This list was compiled based on Circuit Planner interviews with the cities and then organized by the team into tool groups or categories (shown in color in Table 1). This initial list of proposed BPI Tool Categories with associated tools is shown below.

Blueprint Integration Tools by Category

1. Design Guidelines a. Small-lot b. Multi-family c. Mixed-use d. Urban design e. Accessory uses on SF lots f. Neotraditional

2. General Plan a. Blueprint consistency audit b. Blueprint principle goals/policies c. SB 375 goals/policies d. Sustainability element

3. Zoning a. Blueprint consistency audit b. Variety pack c. Mixed-use d. Sign ordinance e. Downtown standards f. Mobile home standards

4. Ad Hoc Plans/Policies a. Bike master plan b. Park master plan c. Ag mitigation d. Infill strategy e. Transportation-land use linkage f. Downtown streetscape g. OHV master plan h. Manning Avenue corridor plan

assistance 5. Guidance Resources

a. Educational PowerPoint b. General plan consistency

checklist/tool c. Zoning consistency checklist/tool d. Development Permit Review

standards/checklist

The list of tools to be developed was further refined into a reasonable range of tools that met city and project requirements, and were feasible to prepare given the limits of this contract.

1. Design Guidelines 2. Small Lot (Design) Guidelines 3. Downtown Streetscape 4. Education PowerPoint Tool 5. Sign Ordinance 6. Transportation-Land Use Linkage 7. General Plan Audit Tool 8. Zoning Audit Tool

9. Bike Master Plan 10. Park Master Plan 11. Ag and Open Space Preservation 12. Alternative Energy Standards 13. Complete Streets Standards 14. Development Review Standards 15. Infill Strategy

A framework for preparing each tool type was then developed by the team. The framework goals provided a level of consistency among the tools, discussed applicability to the Valley and


12 | P a g e

implementation of Blueprint Principles, and ensured the grant guidelines for the project were being met. This method still allowed the flexibility for each tool to be tailored to the cities that accepted services and/or support under this project. Following an introductory narrative explaining the tool, the summary description of each tool was organized to address the following subjects:

• Type of Product/Document (GP policy, zoning code provisions, guidance document, review checklist, typical standards, annotated outline)

• Applicability: How does this tool apply generally to the Valley? Are there unique circumstances limiting its broad applicability? Which cities have requested assistance related to the tool?

• Relevance to Blueprint Principles: How relevant is this tool to the 12 Blueprint Principles? • Issues/Challenges: What unique issues or challenges will there be in developing and

implementing the tool? • Sample Products: What relevant examples are available either in the Toolkit or elsewhere

(preferably in the Valley)?

Team members were assigned specific tool summaries to prepare. The team then reviewed, discussed, and refined each of these summaries prior to providing them to FCOG for review and input. Attachment 3 includes the summaries for each of the initial tools developed. The summary for Downtown Streetscape is included here as a representation of the summary products produced.

The team, in developing the tool summaries, also reviewed and discussed the tools available on the Blueprint Toolkit website. The purpose was to ensure the Blueprint Integration team was not duplicating efforts, to assess the applicability of those tools to this project, and to better understand the framework and process for uploading tools to the website. Making the BPI Tools available on the Toolkit website is one of the project’s deliverables.

http://toolkit.valleyblueprint.org/

Welcome to the Planner’s Toolkit The Toolkit is an educational guide and reference source for communities who want to

translate the 12 Blueprint Smart Growth Principles into action.




13 | P a g e

Downtown Streetscape Summary

DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE

OVERVIEW Downtown is the heart of most, if not all, cities in the Valley. The appearance can “make or break” the downtown and can affect the vitality and livability of the city as a whole. Some cities have put their “best foot forward” in the downtown area with implementation of attractive streetscape improvements, including items such as landscaping, benches, special pavement treatments (cobblestones, stamped/colored concrete) special lighting, bulbouts at corners and mid-block crossings, and signage. These kinds of improvements can help bolster an already-strong downtown district, or can help to regenerate a downtown that has lost its shine.

TYPE OF PRODUCT/DOCUMENT This tool will combine procedural and technical guidance, with a focus on steps and considerations required to enhance downtown streetscapes, including funding strategies. Included will be photo examples of the easiest things to implement, stepping up to more difficult and costly items. Cities interested in pursuing a downtown streetscape plan could begin with general plan policy or preparation of a downtown Specific Plan, followed by adoption of a streetscape design plan.

APPLICABILITY Though only one city has requested this as a primary product, downtown streetscape plans are applicable to any city desiring to pursue this strategy. Downtown Streetscape planning is not called out as a distinct tool in the Blueprint Toolkit, however other categories overlap, most importantly the tools on complete streets.

RELEVANCE TO BLUEPRINT PRINCIPLES

Blueprint Principle Supports Indirectly Related

Limited or No Support

Create a range of housing opportunities and choices X Create walkable neighborhoods X Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration X Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place X Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective X Mix land uses X Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, critical environmental areas X Provide a variety of transportation choices X Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities X Take advantage of compact building design X Enhance the economic vitality of the region X Support actions that encourage environmental resource management X

ISSUES/CHALLENGES Requires significant funding (both for planning and construction). Requires City Council and Planning Commission support and support of the downtown business/property

owner community.


14 | P a g e

6. WORKSHOPS, CONVENTIONS, AND OUTREACH The initial project scope included holding one Valleywide conference and additional workshops in each county. The first step the BPI Team took in starting this task was to reach out to the Smart Valley Places program, the sister project to BPI which was working with 14 of the larger cities in the San Joaquin Valley, to collaborate on a Valleywide Convention.

As the project progressed, the value in holding individual county workshops became less apparent as other outreach needs became more important. One of those needs was the project team’s assistance at the 2012 San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference. Circuit Planners and URS staff also participated in other Blueprint outreach events, made tool presentations to several cities, and other programs in addition to the Fall Policy Conference.

MID-FLIGHT CONVENTION: MODESTO CA

The BPI Team proposed the idea of holding a joint Valleywide conference with the Smart Valley Places Program. The idea was enthusiastically received and coordination on the event began shortly thereafter. The two projects had similar purpose in promoting and implementing Blueprint Principles at the local level, and there was added value in bringing the small and large cities together to discuss the benefits of working together to achieve common goals and network (See Attachment 4, Mid-Flight Convention Flyer).

The Mid-Flight Convention was held at the Modesto Centre Plaza on May 31, 2012. Caltrans was a major sponsor for the event and provided the keynote lunch speaker in addition to a breakout session. Modesto Mayor Garrad Marsh and StanCOG Executive Director Vince Harris provided opening remarks as honorary hosts. The day included a morning Keynote Conversation, a series of morning breakout sessions, a lunch keynote speaker (Carrie Bowen, Caltrans District 10 Director, filling in for Malcolm Dougherty, Caltrans Director), afternoon break-out sessions, and a final Reflections of the Day Panel with BPI Project Manager Bob Lagomarsino participating.

BPI Team members were panelists and organized several of the breakout sessions including sessions discussing the Blueprint Integration Project, Blueprint Success Stories, and City/County/COG partnerships (presentations and convention packet are included in Appendix 4). The convention was well-attended and received positive feedback from the participants. Shown below is the full agenda from the convention.


15 | P a g e


16 | P a g e


17 | P a g e

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FALL POLICY CONFERENCE:

LEMOORE CA The Blueprint Integration Team participated in the San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference held in Lemoore CA at the Tachi Palace Hotel, October 10-12, 2012. Circuit Planners made themselves available to Client City staff during all the Conference events and the team participated in Making AB 32 and SB 375 Work – an Interactive Exercise as discussion facilitators (see below). Karl Schoettler, South Area Circuit Planner, made a presentation on the Blueprint Integration project. The full conference agenda is included in Appendix 5


18 | P a g e

7. CIRCUIT PLANNING The Circuit Planners worked directly with staff of the client cities to develop the tools requested by each city. Six out of the 46 cities eligible under this project declined to participate (see Table 2 and included as Attachment 5). Generally, the lack of staff or available staff due to limited or no funding was the reason for not participating. The process for developing the range of tools provided is discussed under Section 3 – Tool Development/Local Practices. Letters were sent to the City Manager for each city participating to confirm the tool requested by the city (see Appendix 6). Each Circuit Planner team was directed to work independently with each city in the capacity and style that best suited each city. It was understood by the URS management team and FCOG management that the Circuit Planners were in the best position to understand how to work effectively with the client city representatives, and in most cases had an existing relationship. With such a wide variety in style, size, and staff of the cities and the unique circumstances of each city, the team concluded that a standard one-size-fits-all approach was neither prudent nor effective for this project. A final letter was sent the week of April 15, 2013, to each city to confirm acceptance of their final product along with a questionnaire to provide feedback on the project. Results of this survey are addressed in Chapter 6 Findings and Recommendations.

During the development of tools for the participating cities, the nature or the type of tool adapted or changed based on additional discussion and collaboration with city staff representatives. Table 2 shows the final tools chosen by cities. Each city participating received a draft copy of their tool in the form of a “White Paper” and, if any edits or changes were requested, a final White Paper incorporating responses to those requests. A synopsis of each of the tools delivered is provided below. They are organized by project area - North, Central, and South - then within each area the cities alphabetically by county (north to south).

Included in each White Paper is a section on the relevance of the tool to the 12 Blueprint Principles. Each principle was evaluated with a finding of “supports,” “indirectly related,” or “limited or no

support.” It was noted that a tool did not need to be applicable to every Blueprint principle to be a worthy activity. Where a COG had adopted their own principles, those were assessed.


19 | P a g e

Table 2: Final City Tools List

Appendix 7 includes the tool produced for each City listed in the table above plus a tool on Sustainable Transportation Strategies for Valley cities. These tools are also available on the SJV Blueprint Toolkit at http://toolkit.valleyblueprint.org/ .

BPI Area Client City Tool Tool CategoryDraft Tool

to CityFinal Tool

to City

North Area Ceres Parks Master Plan-Ceres Design Guidelines 02/25/13 04/05/13North Area Escalon Escalon General Plan Audit General Plan 02/11/13 03/27/13North Area Hughson BPI Mixed Use Standards-Hughson Design Guidelines 03/08/13 04/05/13North Area Livingston Community Art and Murals-Livingston Zoning 03/08/13 04/05/13North Area Los Banos Bicycle Master Plan-Los Banos Guidance Resources 03/25/13 04/05/13North Area Newman Newman Complete Strees White Paper Design Guidelines 03/12/13 04/05/13North Area Oakdale BPI Zoning Consistency-Oakdale Zoning 03/25/13 04/05/13North Area Patterson Zoning Performance Standards-Patterson Zoning 03/08/13 04/05/13North Area Ripon Ripon Code Enforcement Update Zoning 02/28/13 03/27/13North Area Riverbank Riverbank Non-Motorized Transp. Plan Design Guidelines 03/19/13 04/05/13North Area Waterford Waterford Design Guideline Design Guidelines 03/08/13 04/05/13Central Area Chowchilla Chowchilla Design Assistance Design Guidelines 04/01/13 04/08/13Central Area Coalinga Coalinga ZO audit Zoning 02/27/13 03/20/13Central Area Firebaugh Firebaugh BTP Ad Hoc Plans/Policies 01/16/13 02/21/13Central Area Fowler Fowler General Plan Audit General Plan 03/08/13 03/08/13Central Area Huron Huron ZO audit Zoning 02/27/13 03/12/13Central Area Kerman Small Lot Residential Guidelines Design Guidelines 04/16/13 04/16/13Central Area Kingsburg Kingsburg ZO audit Zoning 03/29/13 04/03/13Central Area Mendota Mendota Gen Plan Audit General Plan 01/28/13 02/11/13Central Area Orange Cove Orange Cove BTP Final Ad Hoc Plans/Policies 01/16/13 02/21/13Central Area Parlier Parlier BTP Final Ad Hoc Plans/Policies 01/16/13 03/12/13Central Area Reedley Reedley MF Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 04/09/13 04/09/13Central Area San Joaquin San Joaquin General Plan Audit General Plan 03/22/13 03/29/13Central Area Sanger Sanger General Plan Audit General Plan 03/29/13 04/05/13Central Area Selma Selma Small Lot Residential Guidelines Design Guidelines 04/11/13 04/11/13South Area Arvin Arvin Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area Avenal Avenal - Small Lot DesignGuidelines Design Guidelines 01/10/13 03/15/13South Area California City California City - Infill Guidelines Guidance Resources 12/21/12 03/15/13South Area Corcoran Corcoran white paper Design Guidelines 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area Dinuba Dinuba White Paper General Plan 02/06/13 02/25/13South Area Exeter Exeter - Ag Mitigation Easements Ad Hoc Plans/Policies 03/01/13 03/15/13South Area Farmersville Farmersville Zoning Ordinance Audit Zoning 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area Lemoore Lemoore Mixed Use Design Strategies Zoning 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area Lindsay Lindsay Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area McFarland McFarland - Ag. Mitigation Easements Ad Hoc Plans/Policies 03/01/13 03/15/13South Area Ridgecrest Ridgecrest Sign Regulations Zoning 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area Taft Taft White Paper Zoning 02/25/13 02/25/13South Area Tehachapi Tehachapi - Smart Growth Principles Guidance Resources 03/01/13 03/15/13South Area Wasco Wasco Hwy 46 Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 02/20/13 02/25/13South Area Woodlake Woodlake - Downtown Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 03/01/13 03/15/13

40 Number of Participating Cities6 Number of Cities that Declined

46 Total Eligible Cities in ProgramCities that declined: Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Lathrop, Maricopa, and Shafter



20 | P a g e

NORTH AREA TOOLS

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Escalon: General Plan Blueprint Compatibility Audit This tool is an audit of the City of Escalon’s General Plan in relation to the 12 San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Smart Growth Principles and the eight San Joaquin Council of Governments – San Joaquin County Blueprint Guiding Principles. The report presents each of the 12 Smart Growth Principles in turn identifying relevant Escalon General Plan guidance and direction and then providing a discussion with possible suggestions. Document findings are that the Escalon General Plan very strongly supports and seeks to implement the Smart Growth Principles. The Escalon General Plan incorporates sound planning concepts, trends, and principles and embodies the same current philosophy as that underlying the Blueprint. The suggested modifications are relatively minor for further clarification and do not warrant immediate action. Escalon can wait until such time as other modifications or amendments to the General Plan are undertaken before these suggested modifications are considered.

The eight San Joaquin Council of Governments – San Joaquin County Blueprint Guiding Principles were also assessed in the same manner. There is a very strong overlap between the 12 Smart Growth Principles of the Valley Blueprint and the County’s Guiding Principles. The Escalon General Plan’s direction identified under the 12 Valley Smart Growth Principles analysis also addresses the eight County Guiding Principles and this overlap is presented. The report documents that both sets of principles are strongly addressed and that the Escalon General Plan is in conformance with both.

Lathrop: Municipal Code Enforcement Update This tool is an update of the City of Ripon’s Municipal Code’s enforcement provisions and procedures. This White Paper provides a brief overview of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint process and the San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin County Blueprint Guiding Principles. This White Paper discusses the relevance of an updated municipal code enforcement process to the Blueprint principles. The suggested amendments and deletions to the Ripon Municipal Code are presented. This Update provides for the use of the administrative citation process and establishes procedures, appeal hearings, and recovery of enforcement costs. All of the code enforcement provisions are consolidated in one Municipal Code Chapter with other Chapters of the Municipal Code referencing back to this Chapter as appropriate. A separate section listing various funding resources that may be available to assist in Ripon’s planning efforts is also presented.

STANISLAUS COUNTY

Ceres: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Guidance Report The City of Ceres requested documentation on Parks and Recreation Master Planning. The City has recently updated its General Plan (2008), and within the new Plan, provisions and policies have been established for the development and expansion of the City’s Park System. In addition to an extensive park and facilities network, the City of Ceres supports an extensive Parks and Recreation Program of


21 | P a g e

activities throughout the year. The Ceres Tool/White Paper provides an overview of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process and includes documentation on the possible form and content of a Ceres Parks and Recreation Master Plan along with a draft Request for Proposals for Parks and Recreation Master Plan services.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is intended to be a significant planning tool to help the City of Ceres plan for the changing scope of recreational activities. As such it will summarize themes, trends and community priorities, assess available resources, review existing and anticipated demographic conditions and provide strategies for parks, recreation programs and open space needs.

Hughson: Mixed Use Zoning Compatibility Standards The City of Hughson has requested that the Valley Blueprint Integration Team provide the City with some documentation on Mixed Use Compatibility Standards. The City has recently updated its General Plan and, within the new Plan, certain areas of the City have been designated as appropriate for Mixed Use type of development.

The City of Hughson is a unique small community located in the eastern side of Stanislaus County surrounded by rich agricultural soils and highly productive farms. The following document provides background information on the implementation of a Mixed Use Development program in the City of Hughson. Included, as attachments, is a draft Code Amendment to the Hughson Municipal Code (Title 17, Chapter 3, new section 17.03.42) that establishes the Hughson Mixed Use Development permit authority. Additional attachments include draft administrative/permit procedures and zoning code provisions related to implementing Mixed Use Zoning.

Newman: Complete Streets / Living Streets Design Manual The City of Newman requested documentation on Complete Street Standards and assistance in the preparation of a manual to assist with the new requirements of the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358). This State law mandates that a new circulation element of a general plan be based on complete streets principles. The manual is proposed to assist the City in complying with this law, and assist implementing these principles.

The City of Newman is an older Central Valley Community (established in 1888) that is located along Highway 33 near Interstate 5 on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley. The City has experienced significant growth over the past ten to twenty years as a result of the City’s strategic location along the I-5 Highway Corridor and its proximity to the job/industrial centers in Silicon Valley and the Livermore industrial/high-tech centers in the San Francisco Bay Area. The City has recently updated their 2030 General Plan (adopted 2007) and is in the process of adopting a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.

This document provides background information on a Complete Streets program for the City of Newman. Included as an attachment to the tool is a draft Complete Streets Design Manual that establishes standards for the application of Complete Streets principles in the City of Newman. The City of Newman’s Complete Streets Design Manual is proposed to address the requirements of State law in a manner that complements the City’s goals and objectives with respect to developing a range of


22 | P a g e

transportation options for the City’s residents and visitors. The proposed standards are a compilation of work and studies from around the country as they might apply to the setting of Newman.

Patterson: Zoning Performance Standards The City of Patterson requested documentation on Zoning Performance Standards. The City is experiencing significant demand for regional industrial, commercial and warehousing space as a result of the City’s strategic location along the I-5 Highway Corridor and its proximity to the job/industrial centers in Silicon Valley and the Livermore industrial/high-tech centers in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The City of Patterson is a west side small community located in the western portion of Stanislaus County along the I-5 Highway Corridor. Due to its proximity to the economic centers of the East Bay Area and access to the I-5 Interstate Highway, the City of Patterson has enjoyed strong job growth over the past decade. Recent projects include a new Amazon.com order processing center along with numerous other warehousing and retail service center developments. The City’s new General Plan contains policies and programs to support this strong economic growth. The City, to better guide and sustain this development, it was desirable to strengthen its zoning policies and standards to assure that new industrial and heavy commercial development does not create problems in the surrounding environment.

The document provides background information on the implementation of Zoning Performance Standards for the City of Patterson. Included, as attachments, is a draft Code Amendment to the Patterson Municipal Code. Attachment 1 contains suggested new Performance provisions (Chapter 18.98, new section 18.98.170) that establishes the Livingston Performance Standards for various nuisance and health and safety factors such as dust , air contaminants , combustibles and explosives , radioactive materials , light and glare, odor, vibration, heat and humidity, electromagnetic interference, and suggested public safety standards for the implementation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CEPTED) Principles in site plan and building layout.

Riverbank: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Review / Complete Living Streets Design The City of Riverbank requested support and documentation on a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the City. The Plan was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultant for the Stanislaus County Council of Governments (StanCOG). Draft elements of this plan have been under review by various City and County jurisdictions. This planning process is part of a major effort by various public agencies to comply with several requirements of State Law.

According to the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 890 through 894.2, local agencies must complete a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to qualify for grant funds issued by Caltrans through the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). Conforming plans must be no more than five years old. To maintain eligibility for BTA funding, the City needs to update the BTP on a five-year cycle. The Riverbank BTP establishes goals, policies, implementation actions, and priorities for the development of bicycle facilities in Riverbank as envisioned by the City’s newly updated General Plan.


23 | P a g e

In addition to the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) mandates that a new or updated General Plan Circulation Element be based on complete streets principles. Recently the Governor has proposed consolidation of the Bicycle Transportation Account with the Safe Routes to Schools Account along with other programs related to bicycle transportation funding. This tool was prepared for use by the City of Riverbank as the first step in developing a Complete Streets design system that will establish standards for the design and planning of non-motorized transportation infrastructure that implements City General Plan policies, the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, and complies with the requirements of AB 1358.

Waterford: Community Design Guidelines The City of Waterford wishes to prepare and adopt a set of design guidelines to supplement the basic standards of the City’s zoning ordinance. The City of Waterford has Community Architectural Design Guidelines that were prepared many years ago. Provisions in both their Subdivision and Zoning Codes require design review. The old Design Guidelines need updating to reflect changes that have occurred over the years. New Community Architectural Design Guidelines for the City are needed to reflect the updated community vision of the City of Waterford that reflects the City’s commitment to sustainability and quality of life for its residents. The City’s General Plan has set the tone for how the City will grow with respect to its policies and standards for sustainability, urban expansion and urban design.

The City’s need for this tool is as follows: • To generally improve the quality of design of future development projects • To help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability,

improve air quality, strengthening community character, and energy conservation, etc. • To facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Waterford.

MERCED COUNTY

Livingston: Community Art and Mural Standards This document is a White Paper addressing the development and implementation of Community Art and Mural Standards for the City of Livingston, California. The City of Livingston is a unique small community located in the northern portion of Merced County accessible to State Highway 99. The City has a rich cultural heritage and a thriving downtown commercial district. The City desires to enrich its central commercial district, and other commercial and industrial areas of the City, with artistic displays and murals that do not conflict with the City’s Sign Regulations.

This tool provides background information on the implementation of a Community Art/Mural program in the City of Livingston. Included, as attachments, is a draft Code Amendment to the Livingston Municipal Code (Chapter 2, new section 4.2.19) that establishes the Livingston Community Art and Mural permit authority. Additional attachments include draft administrative/permit procedures and some background information with respect to laws and regulations that are applicable to a community Art and Mural program.


24 | P a g e

The City of Livingston’s Community Art and Mural program is intended to establish clear guidance and guidelines for business owners, building owners, individuals and organizations to use in the development, design and execution of a Mural or similar art work in the City of Livingston. This document clearly identifies the distinction between community art and advertisement which is necessary to assure that artistic displays on buildings and structures serve a broad community or public purpose. The adoption and implementation of a Community Art and Mural amendment to the Livingston Municipal Code will require action by the legislative body (City Council). It would be suggested, due to the planning nature of the subject matter and regulation, that the formal adoption a Community Art and Mural code amendment involve the City’s Planning Commission as it is suggested that they become the prime review/approval body for a Community Art and Mural Permit.

Should Livingston decide that they wish to implement a Community Art and Mural program, it would be appropriate that a workshop (public) be held before the Planning Commission. The workshop should provide background and overview of the Community Art and Mural concept and identify community priorities and special needs. Based on the results of this workshop, staff would prepare a Community Art and Mural amendment to the Livingston Municipal Code and begin the public review/adoption process. This document is proposed to provide guidance in the documents preparation and content. Upon adoption of a Municipal Code provision, the focus should be on preparation and adoption of appropriate implementing documentation (i.e. application forms and standards).

Los Banos: Bicycle Master Plan The City of Los Banos has requested that the Valley Blueprint Integration Team provide the City with some documentation on the development of a Bicycle Master Plan for the City. According to the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 890 through 894.2, local agencies must complete a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to qualify for grant funds issued by the Caltrans through the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). Conforming plans must be no more than five years old. To maintain eligibility for BTA funding, the City should update the BTP on a five-year cycle. The BTP establishes goals, policies, implementation actions and priorities for the development of bicycle facilities in the Los Banos as envisioned by the General Plan.

Bicycle trips in smaller San Joaquin Valley cities are practical for several reasons. The built-up area of a small city is extensive (approximately 10 square miles) but Valley topography lends itself to easier rides. Advantages of a Bicycle Transportation Plan include identification and marking of routes, increased safety, and the ability to qualify for bike path and bike lane funding by complying with Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications.

An effective Bicycle Transportation Plan should accomplish the following goals: • Increase eligibility for grants at the local, state and federal level; • Enhance air quality; • Encourage safe and affordable transportation, including among school-aged children; and • Conserve energy and encourage physical activity.


25 | P a g e

The tool consists of a review of the update process for the City’s Bicycle Transportation including policies, recommended facilities, Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications, and next steps toward implementation. As with any worthwhile City pursuit, bicycle transportation planning requires a commitment by the public, City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council to implement long-term goals for a comprehensive bicycle transportation system.


26 | P a g e

CENTRAL AREA TOOLS

MADERA COUNTY

Chowchilla: Design Guidelines Assistance Staff with the City of Chowchilla expressed interest in creating and adopting design guidelines to improve the design of future development projects in the City. This tool provides guidance to the City of Chowchilla in preparing and administering design guidelines. Design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of cities. After many decades of utilizing the Zoning Ordinance to control basic development parameters (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, fencing, etc.), cities have found a gap exists in their ability to shape the character of the built environment. Design guidelines can provide the tool that supplements the basic standards of the Zoning Ordinance to help create cities with strong and memorable character.

The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is as follows:

• To generally improve the quality of design of future development projects. • To help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability,

improving air quality, strengthening community character, and conserving energy. • To facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Chowchilla. • To improve visual quality and functionality of the downtown district.

FRESNO COUNTY

Coalinga: Draft Zoning Ordinance Audit Coalinga’s BPI tool provides an audit of the draft zoning ordinance of the City of Coalinga to determine the draft ordinance’s consistency with the 12 smart-growth principles of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint.

Cities are required by law to prepare and administer a zoning ordinance to control the use of land and its development. The zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and is the primary tool used to implement the plan. A major objective of the zoning ordinance audit task under the Blueprint Integration Project is to review zoning ordinance standards as they support the 12 smart-growth principles in such areas as walkable neighborhoods, mixed use, strong visual character and compact building design. Zoning ordinance updates/audits are one of the more commonly requested Blueprint tools among cities. Seven communities requested some variation of a zoning audit or assistance with a zoning ordinance update. A number of cities also requested assistance with design guidelines to supplement their zoning codes.

Firebaugh Bicycle Transportation Plan Firebaugh’s BPI tool consists of a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan including policies, recommended facilities, and responses to Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications. Specific issues tailored to local circumstances are included, as well as recommendations for public


27 | P a g e

participation, hearings, and adoption of the plan. Maps of adopted regional bike plans are referenced, as well as successful Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications.

Bicycle trips in smaller San Joaquin Valley cities are practical for several reasons. The built-up area of a small city is not extensive and Valley topography lends itself to easier rides. Advantages of a Bicycle Transportation Plan include identification and marking of routes, increased safety, and the ability to qualify for bike path and bike lane funding by complying with Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications. In Fresno County, a Bicycle Transportation Plan is also required to qualify for Measure “C” funding for bike improvements.

The BTP applies to Firebaugh’s incorporated area and also outlines planned bicycle facilities in the City’s sphere of influence with interconnection to regional facilities planned by Fresno County. Formal bike paths and pedestrian trails in Firebaugh are limited to the existing three-quarter mile long trail along the San Joaquin River, north and south of the 13th Street Bridge. This trail also has an on-street spur that runs along the south side of 9th Street between Q Street (adjacent to the river) and O Street (to the plaza at West Hills College).

Several projects are needed to complete the proposed trails system. The City may modify projects and priorities as timing and opportunities arise. Feasible Class I, II, and III bikeways will continue to be developed throughout the community, as funding becomes available and development occurs. The City will continually assess the need, guidelines for development, and implementation strategies for such facilities. Additional engineering and environmental studies will be necessary to implement proposed BTP projects.

To provide a safe and convenient bicycle paths and lanes, the City will consider and review the following:

• Acquisition of right-of-way • Connectivity to existing paths and lanes (local and regional) and activity centers • Mid-block crossings • Vehicle parking on one or both sides of the street • Narrowing existing travel lanes and/or sidewalks • Restriping existing roadways • Installation of continuous left turn lanes • Widening the roadway • Eliminating travel lanes (“Road Diet”)

Fowler: General Plan Audit The City of Fowler requested a review of its General Plan to determine whether it is consistent with the Blueprint principles, and if not, to identify ways the Plan could be amended to be more “Blueprint-friendly”. It should be noted that there is no requirement that the General Plan be amended under this program – suggestions were simply offered as a service for the City to pursue – should they choose to do so. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City:


28 | P a g e

The City of Fowler has requested an audit of the General Plan to highlight areas where policies do not meet those set in the Valley Blueprint. Based on the analysis and recommendations, the City hopes to eventually update its General Plan to include incorporating principles of the Blueprint. When a city chooses to update or amend a General Plan, it can present a variety of challenges, including:

• Requiring the community and decision maker’s acceptance of new/updated development policies and standards;

• The development industry must also embrace new “smart growth” policies and standards to be consistent with the updated plan;

• Additional funding is required for staff time, consultants, and expertise; • A General Plan update can take significant time and commitment, and must include citizen

involvement and input.

Fowler is a general law city, incorporated June 15, 1908. The City has 1,842 housing units of which 6.5% are vacant. The average household population is 3.2. The median family income is $61,400 per year and an estimated 20% of the population lives below the poverty level.

With its distinct “Americana” atmosphere and friendly citizens, Fowler is known for its well-kept neighborhoods, attractive downtown, and highly acclaimed school district. While it offers small town charm, the City is also a successful business location with proximity to the Southern Pacific railroad, major highways and business routes such as Highway 99, Golden State Boulevard, and Manning Avenue.

During the 2004 update of the Fowler General Plan, several broad goals were identified. A primary focus of the General Plan is to foster expanded and diversified economic development, including the provision of a variety of additional and better paying jobs, a mix of housing opportunities to meet the City’s current and future needs, expanded retail shopping choices, and continued emphasis on the downtown as the center of the community.

Fowler’s General Plan is recent (adopted in 2004 and amended in 2009) and is more Blueprint-friendly than many General Plans in the Valley – especially older General Plans. However, this review demonstrates several policy recommendations and actions for Fowler to come into closer consistency with the Blueprint Principles. The audit lists 37 recommendations from increasing density for new growth areas to an average density of 6.0 units per acre to developing zoning ordinance standards to implement walkable neighborhood policies.

Huron: Zoning Ordinance Audit A major objective of the zoning ordinance audit task under the Blueprint Integration Project is to review zoning ordinance standards as they support the 12 smart-growth principles in such areas as walkable neighborhoods, mixed use, strong visual character and compact building design.

Huron staff selected for their BPI Tool the zoning ordinance audit as a way to improve the design of future development projects in the City. Their recommendation was for more consistent and understandable district standards, make the ordinance more flexible, and to determine whether it is


29 | P a g e

consistent with the Blueprint principles, and if not, to identify ways the ordinance could be amended to achieve that objective. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City was to:

• Generally improve the quality of design of future development projects, and to improve their zoning ordinance, if possible, and to give direction towards a stronger more user-friendly document;

• Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability, improving air quality, strengthening community character, and energy conservation;

• Facilitate an attractive urban environment that positively reflects the character of Huron.

The zoning ordinance audit, therefore, discusses many of the standards in the ordinance that relate to the Blueprint principles with recommendations for improving or adding to these standards to be more Blueprint friendly. In some evaluations, however, it remains necessary to point out discrepancies in the existing ordinance.23

Huron’s Zoning Ordinance is recent (adopted in 2007) and contains several “Blueprint-friendly” standards – many require clarification, however, to be an effective guide to future development. As the review demonstrates, several zoning ordinance sections require revision to come into closer consistency with the Blueprint Principles. The report lists 23 recommendations focusing on reducing redundancies, eliminating unnecessary sections, and clarifying standards to make the zoning ordinance is easier to understand and implement. Other recommendations included increasing density, adopting small lot and walkability development standards, and to invite public participation when the City amends or updates it’s zoning ordinance.

Kerman: Small Lot Design Guidelines The City of Kerman wishes to prepare and adopt small-lot single family design guidelines to supplement the basic standards of the City's zoning ordinance. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is to: • Generally improve the quality of design of future small-lot housing projects, and to highlight the

various amenities that should be considered when designing a project containing smaller lot parcels

• Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as increasing walkability, improving air quality, strengthening community character and encouraging energy conservation.

• Facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Kerman

Small-lot single family design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of neighborhoods and subdivisions. After many decades of utilizing traditional zoning to control single family development (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, etc.), cities have found a limitation in their ability to shape the character of many new projects. New single family subdivisions are now often proposed on lots smaller than the minimum lot size permitted by right in the city’s smallest lot district (generally, lots between 4,000 and 6,000 square feet).


30 | P a g e

The primary tools for dealing with such projects have been planned development overlays or ordinances which, while permitting higher densities and the “waiver” of development standards, often have insufficient standards as to how the project should look and function, and the amenities desired by the City. Rather than deal with small-lot projects on a case-by-case basis as part of a planned development or specific plan, small-lot single family guidelines would be used to plan for the more typical project on 10-20 acres, an occurrence that is common in today’s market and reflects currently proposed projects in several small cities in Fresno County.

Ideally, the support and adoption of these guidelines will expedite the review process and create a clearly understood and equitable interpretation of expectations for a small lot residential project.

The design guidelines developed for Kerman are specifically for small lot single family developments ranging in size from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. The guidelines may also be used informally in the review of other single family developments. While some guidelines include quantitative standards, most require qualitative interpretation. The City may choose to use these guidelines as a by-right process through a tentative map or site plan, or through a discretionary process. The advantage of a by-right process is that staff time is reduced and the process is streamlined. Many cities, however, utilize a discretionary process to evaluate small-lot residential development, most generally as a planned development/use permit process which requires approval by a Planning Commission. Ultimately, whichever process is used, the goal is to approve projects with a well-designed street network and amenities that create a quality neighborhood

The guidelines are intended to expedite the review process. The guidelines are specific enough to guide development, while at the same time flexible so as not to preclude creative design solutions. Variations may be considered for projects with special design characteristics to encourage the highest level of design quality. The guidelines are also intended to ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods.

Adopting and implementing small-lot design guidelines can present a variety of challenges. Input from the development community early in the adoption process can assist with envisioning a process that builders will accept or even help to shape. The key to successfully creating and implementing design guidelines is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and to work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable guidelines. When people are taken through a visual preference process and are asked to articulate what they find attractive (and what they don't find attractive), they begin to understand their benefits and drop resistance to design guidelines. As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with design guidelines - the idea that good urban design has a positive influence on a community.

Kingsburg: Zoning Ordinance Audit Kingsburg’s BPI tool is a Form Based Code zoning tool consisting of a “white paper” containing issue identification and analysis; proposed policies, standards, and guidelines for the downtown area taken from the Kingsburg Development Code final draft; a brief analysis of the draft Downtown Form Based


31 | P a g e

Code as it pertains to the Blueprint Principles; and recommendations for public participation, CEQA documentation, hearings, and adoption.

Cities are required by law to prepare and administer a zoning ordinance to control the use of land and its development. The zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and is the primary tool used to implement the plan. Kingsburg, like most cities, is divided into various zone districts (residential, commercial, industrial, public, etc.) and each district has standards that control property development.

In 2012, a Kingsburg Development Code final draft was prepared for the City funded by the Caltrans CBTP Grant Program. The document was prepared by Opticos Design, Inc., of Berkeley, California.

Form based codes are an alternative approach to zoning that reinforces walkable, sustainable, mixed-use development and builds upon the character of a place. Form based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than the separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. The Kingsburg Development Code update combines both form based and conventional elements. The Kingsburg Development Code update is meant to replace the existing zoning ordinance and would apply city-wide, both within the inner city and downtown, as well as for newly developing areas.

The primary challenge for the City is that inadequate funds for preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report have slowed adoption of the Code on a city-wide basis. The City has requested that the BPI program prepare recommendations to implement a Form Based Code in the downtown area only as the downtown represents the greatest immediate need for form based standards. In addition, the smaller project area and development scope will allow the City to prepare an environmental document - such as a Negative Declaration - at reduced cost.

Mendota: General Plan Audit Mendota’s Blueprint Integration Tool is a “white paper” providing a General Plan Audit for the City of Mendota. The purpose is to identify strategies to integrate Blueprint Principles into local planning practices and assist with strategies for implementation.

Cities are required by law to adopt and administer a General Plan to establish policies and maps controlling the use of land and its development. Mendota’s General Plan establishes policies dealing with a variety of issues, including land use, circulation, open space, conservation, and noise. The 2025 Mendota General Plan was adopted on August 11, 2009 and includes the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Noise and Safety Elements. The Housing Element was last updated in 2004 and is not included in the 2025 General Plan.

Mendota’s General Plan is recent (adopted in 2009) and therefore includes Blueprint-friendly elements not found in older Valley General Plans. However, as the review demonstrates, several policy recommendations may not be feasible for the City to undertake at this time, and there are actions Mendota should consider to be more consistent with the Blueprint Principles. The report lists 23 recommendations to the City of Mendota based on the General Plan Audit. This includes recommendations on a review of their current Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansion area density and land


32 | P a g e

use recommendations, zoning ordinance updates to implement mixed use provisions, affordable housing and choices, walkability, design guidelines, park space and farmland preservation. Additional recommendations include preparing an Economic Development element or strategy, regular review of their development fee structure, and additional strategies for the City’s public involvement program.

Orange Cove: Bicycle Transportation Plan Orange Cove’s tool consists of a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan including policies, recommended facilities, and responses to Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications. Specific issues tailored to local circumstances are included, as well as recommendations for public participation, hearings, and adoption of the plan. Maps of adopted regional bike plans are referenced, as well as successful Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications.

Bicycle trips in smaller San Joaquin Valley cities are practical for several reasons. The built-up area of a small city is not extensive and Valley topography lends itself to easier rides. Advantages of a Bicycle Transportation Plan include identification and marking of routes, increased safety, and the ability to qualify for bike path and bike lane funding by complying with Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications. In Fresno County, a Bicycle Transportation Plan is also required to qualify for Measure “C” funding for bike improvements.

The BTP applies to Orange Cove’s incorporated area and also outlines planned bicycle facilities in the City’s sphere of influence with interconnection to regional facilities planned by Fresno County. Existing formal bike paths and pedestrian trails in Orange Cove are limited to the 1.25 mile long Class I Orange Cove Rail Trail, a former railroad right of way which runs diagonally through the city, from Anchor Avenue to South Hills Valley Road.

Several projects are needed to complete the proposed trails system. The City may modify projects and priorities as timing and opportunities arise. Feasible Class I, II, and III bikeways will continue to be developed throughout the community, as funding becomes available and development occurs. The City will continually assess the need, guidelines for development, and implementation strategies for such facilities. Additional engineering and environmental studies will be necessary to implement proposed BTP projects.

To provide safe and convenient bicycle paths and lanes, the City will consider and review the following:

• Acquisition of right-of-way • Connectivity to existing paths and lanes (local and regional) and activity centers • Mid-block crossings • Vehicle parking on one or both sides of the street • Narrowing existing travel lanes and/or sidewalks • Restriping existing roadways • Installation of continuous left turn lanes • Widening the roadway • Eliminating travel lanes where practical (“Road Diet”)


33 | P a g e

Parlier: Bicycle Transportation Plan Parlier’s requested Tool was a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City. Bicycle trips in smaller San Joaquin Valley cities are practical for several reasons. The built-up area of a small city is not extensive and Valley topography lends itself to easier rides. Advantages of a Bicycle Transportation Plan include identification and marking of routes, increased safety, and the ability to qualify for bike path and bike lane funding by complying with Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications and to qualify for Measure “C” funding for bike improvements in Fresno County.

The tool consists of a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan including policies, recommended facilities, and responses to Caltrans standards for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications. Specific issues tailored to Parlier, as well as recommendations for public participation, hearings, and adoption of the bike plan. Maps of adopted regional bike plans are referenced, as well as successful Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications. An effective Bicycle Transportation Plan should accomplish the following goals:

• Increase eligibility for grants at the local, state and federal level; • Enhance air quality; • Encourage safe and affordable transportation, including among school-aged children; and • Conserve energy and encourage physical activity.

The BTP applies to Parlier’s incorporated area and also outlines planned bicycle facilities in the City’s sphere of influence with interconnection to regional facilities planned by Fresno County. Existing formal bike paths and pedestrian trails in Parlier are found along Parlier Avenue between Avila and Newmark Avenues (Class I) and the 1/3 mile long Class I bike path along Whitner Avenue, between 6th Street and aligned with Amigo Avenue to the west.

The draft Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City of Parlier includes the eleven required elements that comprise a Bicycle Transportation Plan listed in Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code, and the recommendations contained in Section 6, if completed, can be used by Parlier to present to the community for comment and to the City Council for adoption.

Reedley: Multi-Family Design Guidelines The City of Reedley expressed interest in creating and adopting design guidelines for multifamily development as a preferred tool under the Blueprint Integration program to improve the design of future higher density development projects in the City.

Design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of cities. After many decades of utilizing the Zoning Ordinance to control basic development parameters (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, fencing), cities have found a gap exists in their ability to shape the character of the built environment. Design guidelines can provide the tool that supplements the basic standards of the Zoning Ordinance to help create cities with strong and memorable character.

Multifamily housing is expected to increase as a percentage of total new housing constructed in the San Joaquin Valley. Potential impacts of multifamily housing include building orientation and aesthetics,


34 | P a g e

density, and impacts to adjacent single family residential land uses. Creating design guidelines for multifamily development will encourage site-appropriate development while giving developers, staff and decision makers a consistent framework to refer to in the planning process. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is to:

• Generally improve the quality of design of future multifamily projects. • Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability,

improving air quality, strengthening community character, and conserving energy. • Facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Reedley.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with multifamily design guidelines. Reedley is fortunate that its Draft 2030 General Plan as well as the existing Zoning Ordinance lay a foundation for the creation of design guidelines. Properly implemented, multifamily design guidelines can help further various Blueprint Principles, including:

• Improving walkability of neighborhoods and districts; • Improving the character and quality of multifamily development; • Improving the feasibility and public's acceptance of compact residential development; • Improving certainty in the development process.

The tool includes proposed multifamily design guidelines, recommended actions and generalized step-by-step process for developing and adopting the guidelines.

After multifamily design guidelines are adopted, it is important that they be reviewed from time to time to ensure that they are effective. It may be determined that some topics are not important, while other issues may have been missed and should be added. Design guidelines should be treated as a living document subject to review and revision over time, as necessary.

City of San Joaquin: General Plan Audit San Joaquin requested a review their Draft General Plan to determine whether it is consistent with Blueprint principles, and if not, to identify ways the Plan could be amended to be more Blueprint-friendly. It is noted that recommendations are offered as a service for the City to pursue should they choose to do so; there is no requirement that the Draft General Plan be revised to reflect the recommendations.

San Joaquin adopted its first General Plan in 1973; several revisions and amendments to the Plan have been adopted over time. In June 2011, students from the City and Regional Planning Program, within the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), prepared the San Joaquin 2040 Community Plan (Cal Poly Plan) as a class project following extensive community input. The City has now retained the consulting firm of Hauge Brueck Associates to update the existing General Plan by consolidating city policy and incorporating new policies and standards from the Cal Poly Plan. An evaluation of the existing General Plan and Cal Poly Plan for compliance with the California General Plan Guidelines was also conducted. The resulting City of San


35 | P a g e

Joaquin Draft General Plan (February 2013) is now undergoing review and is the subject of the audit under the BPI program.

The 1,147 acre Planning Area consists of residential, commercial, industrial, public, semi-public and agricultural uses and includes the City limits, the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and the waste water treatment plant located south of Manning outside the SOI. It is expected that over a 20 to 30 year period, areas within the SOI could be annexed by the City. There are several issues that should be addressed prior to adoption of the Draft General Plan. While the draft plan lays a solid foundation for smart growth and environmental protection, there are more than 750 goals, objectives, policies and programs, many of which have not been properly vetted by the City as to their desirability and feasibility.

Some recommended programs represent a departure from, or addition to existing City policy. San Joaquin is a small city with limited staff. There are many proposals for additional staff commitments or programs that the City may not be willing or able to commit to. Overall, thirty-eight recommendations have been listed. Finally, programs within the Draft General Plan appear to be “front loaded,” with the majority to be initiated or completed in the short term, or within the first five years after adoption. The City may simply be unable to undertake the level of commitment proposed by the Draft General Plan. It is therefore critical that the Draft General Plan undergo continued review and modification, including workshops with the staff and City Council, to insure that the plan accurately reflects the City’s objectives and ability to implement.

Sanger: General Plan Audit The City of Sanger has requested an audit of the General Plan to highlight areas where policies do not meet those set in the Valley Blueprint. Based on the analysis and recommendations, the City hopes to eventually update its General Plan to incorporate Blueprint Principles. Sanger’s General Plan is recent (adopted in 2003 and amended in 2009) and is more Blueprint-friendly than older Valley General Plans. As the review demonstrates, there are policy recommendations and actions for Sanger to consider coming into closer consistency with the Blueprint Principles.

There are 37 recommendations from the Sanger 2025 General Plan Audit. Recommendations include revisiting residential zoning densities and designations on the General Plan Land Use Map. Planned areas have an overall density lower than the set Blueprint Goals and are not reflective of current market trends. Other recommendations include setting minimum density requirements, making use of the Planned Unit Development process to increase residential densities, adopting small lot design guidelines, and policies to increase the walkability of neighborhoods including converting General Plan policies into zoning code standards.

Selma: Small Lot Design Guidelines The City of Selma requested, as their tool, small-lot single family design guidelines to supplement the basic standards of the City's zoning ordinance. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is to:


36 | P a g e

• Generally improve the quality of design of future small-lot housing projects, and to highlight the various amenities that should be considered when designing for a project containing smaller lot parcels.

• Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as increasing walkability, improving air quality, strengthening community character and encouraging energy conservation.

• Facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Selma.

Small-lot single family design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of neighborhoods and subdivisions. After many decades of utilizing traditional zoning to control single family development (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, etc.), cities have found a limitation in their ability to shape the character of many new projects. New single family subdivisions are now often proposed on lots smaller than the minimum lot size permitted by right in the city’s smallest lot district (generally, lots of 5,000 square feet and smaller).

The primary tools for dealing with such projects have been planned development overlays or ordinances which, while permitting higher densities and the “waiver” of development standards, often have insufficient standards as to how the project should look and function, and the amenities desired by the City. Rather than deal with small-lot projects on a case-by-case basis as part of a planned development or specific plan, small-lot single family guidelines would be used to plan for the more typical project on 10-30 acres, an occurrence that is common in today’s market and reflects currently proposed projects in several small cities in Fresno County, including Selma.

The result of adopting small-lot residential design guidelines is a clear set of design policies and standards to prospective developers, property owners, design professionals and City staff on what to expect in the development of higher density single-family projects. Ideally, the support and adoption of these guidelines will expedite the review process and create a clearly understood and equitable interpretation of expectations for a small lot residential project. The guidelines are specific enough to guide development, while at the same time flexible so as not to preclude creative design solutions. Variations may be considered for projects with special design characteristics to encourage the highest level of design quality. The guidelines are also intended to ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods.


37 | P a g e

SOUTH AREA TOOLS

KINGS COUNTY

Avenal: Small Lot Design Guidelines The City of Avenal requested creating and adopting small lot design guidelines as their preferred tool under the Blueprint Integration project. They see it as a way to improve the design of housing projects in their City as a supplement to the basic standards of the City’s zoning ordinance. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is to:

• Generally improve the quality of design of future housing projects • Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability,

improve air quality, strengthening community character, and energy conservation, etc. • Facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Avenal.

Small lot design guidelines (e.g. generally for residential lots that are 5,000 square foot lots and smaller) can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of neighborhoods and subdivisions. After many decades of utilizing the Zoning Ordinance to control basic development parameters (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, fencing, etc.), cities have found a gap exists in their ability to shape the character of the built environment. Design guidelines can provide the tool that supplements the basic standards of the Zoning Ordinance to help create cities with strong and memorable residential character. The document prepared for Avenal is a “white paper” offering guidance for the City to prepare and administer these design guidelines.

To effectively fashion design guidelines for small lot residential development, it is recommended that both Avenal's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance be amended. Policies would be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan outlining the benefits of small lot residential development especially as they pertain to implementation of Kings County Blueprint Principles. Small lot residential design guidelines would best be incorporated into Avenal's Zoning Ordinance by amending Chapter 14: Planned Development Overlay District. An important aspect of small lot residential design guidelines is to ensure that streets within this type of development meet certain design standards - wide sidewalks (five feet), tree-line streets, narrow width to slow down traffic, and bulb-outs at key intersections to improve pedestrian safety. Avenal’s Improvements Manual includes a variety of engineering standards for a variety of public improvements such as streets and utilities, and therefore should be reviewed to ensure it will allow for these types of streets.

Properly-implemented, design guidelines can help cities to further various Blueprint principles, including:

• Improving walkability • Improving the character and appearance of development • Improving the feasibility and public’s acceptance of compact residential development. • Increasing the percentage of owner-occupied residential units in Avenal. • Improving certainty in the development process • Conserving farmland and open space.


38 | P a g e

The key to successfully creating and implementing design guidelines is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, through a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable guidelines. Once most people are taken through the visual preference process and are asked to articulate what they find attractive (and what they don’t find attractive) they begin to drop their resistance to the idea of design guidelines and compact development. Bus tours of other cities can help plant the “idea” that good urban design has a positive influence on a community. As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with design guidelines.

Once design guidelines are adopted it is important that they be reviewed from time to time to ensure that they are effective. It may be determined that some topics are not important, while other issues may have been missed in the creation of design guidelines and should be added. Design guidelines should be treated as a living document – subject to review and revision over time, as necessary.

Corcoran: Design Guidelines The City of Corcoran selected as their Blueprint Integration Tool preparing and adopting a set of design guidelines to supplement the basic standards of the City’s zoning ordinance. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is as follows:

• Generally improve the quality of design of future housing projects • Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability,

improve air quality, strengthening community character, and energy conservation, etc. • Facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Corcoran.

The document prepared for Corcoran is a “white paper” offering guidance for the City of Corcoran to prepare and administer design guidelines. Preparation of design guidelines is mostly supportive or indirectly supportive of the Blueprint Principles adopted by Kings County Association of Governments and relevant to several of the Valleywide Blueprint principles. Properly implemented, design guidelines can help cities to further various Blueprint principles, including:

• Improving walkability • Improving the character and quality of development • Reducing the need to use the automobile for some trips • Improving the feasibility and public’s acceptance of compact residential development. • Ensure that new development fits into the core (downtown) areas of communities. • Improving certainty in the development process • Sample design guidelines (attached as an appendix) illustrate how cities can achieve the goals of

the Blueprint.

Flexibility can be one of the more difficult aspects of administering design guidelines. Design guidelines are just that: guidelines. In order to be workable they must be administered in a flexible manner. Flexibility will generally be up to the comfort level of staff administering the design guidelines. If the guidelines are administered so rigidly that they push development away from Corcoran, that can be a signal that more flexibility is necessary.


39 | P a g e

General design guidelines usually are not intended to dictate a particular style or strategy with respect to individual projects. They should encourage the highest level of design quality while at the same time, providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of the project designer

Good design doesn’t always increase a developer’s project cost; however, it always increases the value of the project, both for the property’s owners and occupants and for the community. Good design can also decrease long-term maintenance costs for cities.

Lemoore: Mixed-Use Design Strategies Lemoore’s Blueprint Integration Tool is a “white paper” offering guidance for the City of Lemoore to implement mixed use design strategies in areas of the community that have been zoned for Mixed Use development. Also prepared for the City are four alternative designs for two locations in Lemoore that are zoned Mixed Use.

Lemoore has taken a bold step by designating mixed use categories fixed to specific locations around the community, in both its General Plan and also Zoning Map. Therefore the City is indicating that it expects this type of development to occur in these locations. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is that per their General Plan, all of their land use policies (including mixed use) are to meet the following nine community objectives

• Compact Urban Form • Small Town Character • Economic Development and Jobs • Integrated Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Centers • Enhanced Community Character and Aesthetics. • A Network of Open Space and Parks • A Complete Roadway System • A Range of Commercial and Retail Opportunities • Adequate, Flexible School Sites

Lemoore’s Mixed Use zone establishes a strong vision and standards for the creation of mixed use developments in the City. In particular, the Zone includes a number of requirements that will facilitate strong pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. The City may want to consider making some adjustments to the mixed use ordinance to make it more user-friendly and easier for developers to realize projects. The report includes areas suggested for modification; block dimensions, parking, and clarify if residential uses are required or encouraged.

In response to the City’s request, the consultant prepared four alternative designs for two locations that are zoned Mixed Use in Lemoore.


40 | P a g e

Site 1 (East Bush and East D Streets)

Site 1 is located west of the intersection of Cinnamon and D Streets on the eastern edge of Lemoore. The site contains approximately 9.6 acres and fronts onto several streets, including East D Street and East Bush Street. Two alternative designs have been prepared for this site.

Site 2 (Iona and 19th Streets)

Site 2 includes approximately 20.8 acres located on the south side of Highway 198, east of 19th Avenue, and north of Iona Avenue. A portion of this site is planned for a future interchange for Highway 198 and 19th Avenue. This interchange will consume a significant portion of this site and is accounted for in the conceptual mixed use design. Two alternative designs were prepared for this site as well.

Obviously the four alternatives provided are only a few out of many design possibilities for the two sites. The City can at least use these designs to illustrate what it is looking for when developers come to the table to propose projects. The Mixed Use zone establishes a strong foundation of requirements and standards for the shaping of design considerations for mixed use projects. As noted previously, the City may want to consider some minor adjustments to make the standards more acceptable to the market – while maintaining the type of product that the City desires.

TULARE COUNTY

Dinuba: General Plan Review Staff with the City of Dinuba expressed interest in having their General Plan reviewed to see how well it implements principles of the Blueprint. In as such, Dinuba’s Blueprint Integration tool is a “white paper” providing an audit of their General Plan to determine the Plan’s consistency with the twelve smart-growth principles of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint. Based on this review the City could choose to make certain changes or amendments to the General Plan that would be in line (more consistent) with the Blueprint.

The City of Dinuba completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in 2008. At the time the document included the most current policies pertaining to sustainability. The audit highlights areas where policies do not meet those set in the Valley Blueprint. The City hopes to eventually update its General Plan to better reflect the goals of the Blueprint. It should be noted that there is no requirement that the General Plan be amended under this program – suggestions are simply offered for the City’s consideration.

When a city chooses to update or amend its General Plan, it can present a variety of challenges, including:

• Requires funding for implementation, staff time and expertise. • Done properly, a General Plan update can take a significant amount of time. • Requires decision-maker’s acceptance of new/updated development policies and standards. • The development market must also embrace new “smart growth” policies and standards for

them to be successful.


41 | P a g e

The Dinuba General Plan Policies Statement document – which includes the General Plan’s goals, policies and objectives for the nine key sections, was evaluated along with the General Plan’s proposed Land Use Map that includes land within the city limits and also land outside city limits but within Dinuba’s Sphere of Influence.

Dinuba’s General Plan is fairly new (adopted in 2008) and is more “Blueprint-friendly” than many General Plans in the Valley – especially older General Plans. According to City staff, when the General Plan was adopted, “at the time the document included the most current policies pertaining to sustainability.” This statement is true. As the foregoing review demonstrates it appears only relatively minor actions might be needed for Dinuba to come into closer consistency with the Blueprint Principles, including

• Converting relevant General Plan policies into Zoning Standards • Converting street and bike path policy standards into design cross-section standards in the

Dinuba Improvements Manual • Considering adopting specific policies about triggers for allowing growth to move outside

existing planning boundaries • Considering adopting an ag mitigation policy. • Amending the development impact fee schedule to ensure that infrastructure that serves

development can be financed.

The key to successfully updating and amending a General Plan is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission through a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable standards.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with a General Plan update. Dinuba is fortunate that its General Plan has a strong vision for the future, including many policies that support the Blueprint.

With limited budgets, one strategy is to prioritize and then focus on one specific issue at a time. Ideas include updating a policy that may not require a new CEQA review (fits within the EIR prepared for the 2008 update), or focus on key zoning provisions to develop better consistency with adopted General Plan policies.

From time to time the General Plan should be reviewed – to ensure that its policies are effective. It may be determined that some policies are not important, while other issues may have been missed – and should be added. General Plans should be treated as a living document – subject to review and revision over time, as necessary. Such a periodic review is provided for in the General Plan.

Exeter: Voluntary Agricultural Easements Program Exeter’s Blueprint Integration Tool offers guidance for the City towards promoting the use of voluntary agricultural conservation easements as a way to create “community separators” or to preserve farmland because it is a valuable resource that should be protected.


42 | P a g e

In general terms, an “agricultural conservation easement” is a tool to preserve agricultural land by purchasing the "development rights" on that land. Legally, it includes "the right to prevent, in perpetuity, the development or improvement of the land, as specified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 10211 and Civil Code Section 815.1 for any purpose other than agricultural production." The easement is granted by the landowner to a “qualified” entity that has conservation of agricultural land as one of its primary purposes. Several trusts have been established in the San Joaquin Valley and act as qualified entities.

A landowner owns many rights with their property, often referred to as a “bundle of rights”. Among these rights are the right to sell, the right to build, the right to graze, the right to farm and the right to develop. When a landowner enters into an agricultural easement, he or she voluntarily agrees to sell or donate the right to develop their land, while maintaining ownership of all of their other rights. The land restricted by the agricultural easement remains in private ownership.

A Property’s Bundle of Rights under an Agricultural Conservation Easement

There are two types of entities that are considered “qualified organizations” under California law: (1) governmental entities, including Exeter, Tulare County or the United States and (2) conservation or historic preservation organizations that qualify for tax exempt status under § 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In Tulare County, Sequoia Riverlands Trust is an example of a private conservation organization that holds several agricultural conservation easements. Central Valley Farmland Trust is one for the north valley.

Conservation easements are a tool that will not make economic sense for every landowner. Various factors such as the property’s potential for development, family dynamics and income level all contribute to what each landowner must consider before selling or donating a conservation easement on their property.

A few local jurisdictions in the valley presently require some form of mitigation for the loss of agricultural land that results from urban development. The cities of Davis, Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca

Right to Sell

Right to Build

Right to Farm

Right to Graze

Right

to

Sold or Donated

Right to Grant Access


43 | P a g e

and Tracy have established agricultural preservation policies in their municipal codes or elsewhere. Furthermore, Yolo, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties have established agricultural preservation or mitigation programs on a countywide basis.

Exeter can use General Plan policies to promote the idea that preservation of agricultural land is important to the community and local economy. Implementing this policy can be achieved by collecting development impact fees to purchase agricultural easements or requiring developers to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to an urban use. To facilitate the creation of agricultural preservation programs, Exeter can:

• Develop technical guidelines regarding a mitigation ratio (1 acre for one acre, 2:1, etc.), minimum and maximum land areas, fee structures, transfer of ownership rights, designated municipal agency to receive and administer funds;

• Complete land evaluation and site assessments to determine preferred areas for preservation and create market-based incentives (i.e. tiered mitigation fees) for developers to avoid these areas.

While governmental entities such as cities and counties can hold conservation easements, most often they do not have the capacity or the interest to undertake all that is required to create administer and implement a farmland preservation or mitigation program. Therefore, municipalities often choose to partner with a non-profit local or regional land trust whose staff are experts in easement transactions and whose primary mission is to protect farmland and/or other natural resources.

Farmersville: Zoning Ordinance Audit City of Farmersville staff have expressed interest in an audit of their Zoning Ordinance -in anticipation of a potential overhaul – as a way to improve the design of future development projects in the City, and make the ordinance more consistent with Blueprint principles. Their tool is a “white paper” providing an audit of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Farmersville – to determine the Ordinance’s consistency with the twelve smart-growth principles of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint.

Cities are required by law to administer Zoning Ordinances – to control the use of land and its development. Most cities (including Farmersville) are divided into various zone districts (residential, commercial, industrial, public, etc.) and each zone typically has development standards that control the development of property. Farmersville’s Zoning Ordinance is fairly dated – much of the ordinance was adopted in 1984. Characteristic of many zoning ordinances of that time, the ordinance only provides very basic development standards and (with some recently enacted exceptions) generally does not promote walkable neighborhoods, or commercial districts with strong visual character.

The City of Farmersville wishes to review its Zoning Ordinance to determine whether it is consistent with the Blueprint principles, and if not to identify ways the ordinance could be amended to be more Blueprint-friendly. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is to:

• Generally improve the quality of design of future development projects


44 | P a g e

• Help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability, improving air quality, strengthening community character, and energy conservation, etc.

• Facilitate an attractive urban environment that positively reflects the character of Farmersville.

The Farmersville Zoning Ordinance was evaluated with respect to consistency with the 12 Blueprint principles and with the Valley-wide density target of 6.8 dwellings per acre. In addition to those recommendations, there are a number of other issues that Farmersville should consider when updating its zoning ordinance, not only to make it more consistent with the Blueprint Principles, but also to make it more user friendly and effective. These include:

• Ensuring that the Ordinance is legally sound and consistent with recent State zoning laws, particularly on Housing Element issues, including

o Second residential units o Emergency housing, transitional housing o Farmworker housing o Employee housing o Reasonable Accommodations o Density Bonus

• Updated the Definitions section of the ordinance. • Incorporate incentive-based zoning standards • Eliminate un-used and unnecessary zone districts • Update standards pertaining to specific issues like fencing, parking, landscaping, accessory uses

and structures, handicap accessibility, etc. • Make the Ordinance more user-friendly through the addition of tables and graphic illustrations

of complex zoning standards o Establish an up-to-date and legally-sound adult businesses ordinance. o Eliminate unneeded and repetitious sections of the Zoning Ordinance o Correct problem issues identified by staff.

As noted previously, the key to successfully creating and implementing a zoning ordinance update is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable standards.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with the zoning ordinance update. Farmersville is fortunate that its General Plan lays a strong foundation for updating the ordinance. The City has also already updated some portions of the ordinance, including a new Central Commercial zone and a new sign ordinance, among others.

Once the zoning ordinance is adopted it is important that key sections be reviewed from time to time – to ensure that they are effective. It may be determined that some standards are not important, while other issues may have been missed in the update – and should be added. Zoning codes should be treated as a living document – subject to review and revision over time, as necessary.


45 | P a g e

Lindsay: Design Guidelines Lindsay’s Blueprint Integration Tool is a “white paper” offering guidance for the City of Lindsay to prepare and administer design guidelines. Design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of cities. After many decades of utilizing the Zoning Ordinance to control basic development parameters (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, fencing, etc.), cities have found a gap exists in their ability to shape the character of the built environment. Design guidelines can provide the tool that supplements the basic standards of the Zoning Ordinance to help create cities with strong and memorable character. The City of Lindsay desires to revitalize its downtown with design guidelines to enhance the region’s economic vitality, foster a distinctive, attractive community with s strong sense of place, make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective, to strengthen and direct development toward existing communities, and take advantage of compact building design.

Lindsay’s existing design-related policies and standards from the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Improvements Manual were evaluated to understand the extent of existing design policies and format for design guidelines.

Some cities adopt design guidelines as a stand-alone document, while other cities incorporate design guidelines into the Zoning Ordinance. The latter approach is more user-friendly because applicants and designers do not have to search through two separate documents to find all of the items they must consider in designing a project. It is also easier for staff to administer. For this reason it is recommended that design guidelines be incorporated into the zoning ordinance if possible. However, if this approach is not feasible, a stand-alone set of design guidelines is perfectly functional.

Lindsay has requested assistance with preparing design guidelines that will apply to future development communitywide. This means the design guidelines would apply to future residential (both single and multi-family residential development), commercial, downtown development, industrial and public uses. Given the lack of a dominant existing style or development theme, it is recommended that Lindsay’s design guidelines be general in nature.

A generalized step by step recommendation for Lindsay to prepare design guidelines has been provided with the tool. A layout of generalized design guidelines recommended for Lindsay could include the following:

Land Use and Neighborhood Planning - Land Use Arrangements and Connectivity - Walkability Strategies - Streetscape - Open Space Features - Solar orientation - Development around waterways (canals)

Single Family Residential - Relationship of the Dwelling to the Street - Architectural Styles - Other Design Mechanisms Multiple Family Residential - Site Planning - Architectural Character - Landscaping - Development Details


46 | P a g e

Commercial Design - Large Project Site Design - Corner Lot Design - Big Box Façade Design Strategies - Mixed Use - Small Commercial Sites - Architectural Strategies - Walkability Strategies - Signs - Landscaping - Parking Lot Design Strategies - Parking Lot Landscaping Downtown Commercial - General Concepts - Site Planning Concepts - Architectural Design - Building Mass and Scale - Signs - Landscaping - Right of Way Improvements - Parking

Special Uses and Design Details - Special Uses - Auto Repair - Service Stations - Fast Food/Franchise Businesses - Drive-Thrus - Metal Buildings Design Details - Roof-mounted Equipment - Backflow devices and Utilities - Lighting - Fencing Industrial Design - Site Design - Landscaping and Buffers - Screening - Parking - Service, Delivery and Storage Areas - Signs

It is imperative that design guidelines make significant use of graphics to illustrate the text and concepts therein. Most people are able to grasp complex design issues much more readily by looking at illustrations. Examples are provided in the sample Design Guidelines attached to the actual report. The Design Guidelines should also include an introductory chapter that explains the goals and basis of the Design Guidelines, and also how the Design Guidelines were prepared and adopted.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with design guidelines. Lindsay is fortunate that it has always paid close attention to principles of good design. This helps to establish a strong foundation for the preparation of design guidelines.

Once design guidelines are adopted it is important that they be reviewed from time to time – to ensure that they are effective. It may be determined that some topics are not important, while other issues may have been missed in the creation of design guidelines – and should be added. Design guidelines should be treated as a living document – subject to review and revision over time, as necessary.

Woodlake: Downtown Design Guidelines Staff with the City of Woodlake have expressed interest in creating and adopting downtown design guidelines as a preferred tool under the Blueprint Integration project – as a way to improve project


47 | P a g e

designs of development occurring in their City. Woodlake wishes to consider downtown design guidelines that will encourage a new type of urban development in the downtown that will be sensitive to Woodlake's past while embracing design techniques used in successful downtowns across the country.

Downtown design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of downtowns. After many decades of utilizing the Zoning Ordinance to control basic development parameters (building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, fencing, etc.), cities have found that a gap exists in their ability to shape the character of the downtown. Design guidelines can be the tool that supplements the basic standards of the Zoning Ordinance to help develop a viable and successful downtown.

Promoting a viable and attractive downtown is a land use objective embraced by most cities in California. The PowerPoint provided with this tool is intended to provide the merits and implementation mechanisms for utilizing design guidelines in downtown Woodlake. It illustrates for the reader the benefits of downtown design guidelines, ranging from building design to choices of hardscape, and from sign design to uses of public art in the downtown. In addition, PowerPoint can be used as an educational tool for local decision-makers and the public to gain insight into the various aspects that make up a successful downtown.

The key to successfully creating and implementing Downtown Design Guidelines is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable strategies. Bus tours of other cities can help plant the “idea” that downtown design guidelines have a positive influence on a community.

KERN COUNTY

Arvin: Design Guidelines City of Arvin staff expressed interest in creating and adopting design guidelines as a preferred tool under the Blueprint Integration project to improve the design of future development projects in the City. The City of Arvin wishes to prepare and adopt a set of design guidelines to supplement the basic standards of the City’s zoning ordinance. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is to:

• Generally improve the quality of design of future development projects • To help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability,

improving air quality, strengthening community character, and conserving energy, etc. • Facilitate an attractive urban environment that reflects the character of Arvin. • Improve visual quality and functionality of the downtown district.

Adopting and implementing Design Guidelines can present a variety of challenges to cities, including:

• Requires funding for implementation, staff time and expertise; Design Guidelines could be difficult for small cities to implement on their own, given budget and staff constraints.


48 | P a g e

• The application of design guidelines to specific projects could be considered arbitrary. • Requires decision-maker’s acceptance of design standards. • The development market must also embrace design guidelines for it to be successful. • It is critical to provide a number of visual samples/photos of positive examples. • Design Guidelines should be flexible.

Some cities adopt design guidelines as a stand-alone document, while other cities incorporate design guidelines into the Zoning Ordinance. The latter approach is more user-friendly because applicants and designers do not have to search through two separate documents to find all of the items they must consider in designing a project. Arvin illustrates this situation with its previously-adopted downtown design guidelines. They are separate from the City Ordinance and it is not clear whether they have been used. Therefore, it is recommended that the design guidelines be incorporated into the zoning ordinance if possible.

Properly-implemented design guidelines can help cities to further various Blueprint principles, including:

• Improving walkability of neighborhoods and districts • Improving the character and quality of development • Reducing the need for residents to use the automobile for some trips • Improving the feasibility and public’s acceptance of compact residential development. • Ensuring that new development fits into the core (downtown) areas of the community. • Improving certainty in the development process

Flexibility can be one of the more difficult aspects of administering design guidelines. Design guidelines are just that - guidelines. In order to be workable they must be administered in a flexible manner. Flexibility will generally be the responsibility of staff administering the design guidelines. If the guidelines are administered so rigidly that they push development away from Arvin, that can be a signal that more flexibility is necessary. Conversely, if too much flexibility is allowed the future character of the community could be sacrificed.

Arvin has requested assistance with preparing design guidelines that will apply to future development communitywide. This means the design guidelines would apply to future residential (both single and multi-family residential development), commercial, downtown development, industrial and public uses. Given the lack of a dominant existing style or development theme, it is recommended that Arvin’s design guidelines be general in nature.

A layout of generalized design guidelines recommended for Arvin could include the following:

Land Use and Neighborhood Planning - Land Use Arrangements and Connectivity - Walkability Strategies - Streetscape - Open Space Features

- Solar orientation - Development around waterways (canals) Single Family Residential - Relationship of the Dwelling to the Street


49 | P a g e

- Architectural Styles - Other Design Mechanisms Multiple Family Residential - Site Planning - Architectural Character - Landscaping - Development Details (carports, trash enclosures, etc.) Commercial Design - Large Project Site Design - Corner Lot Design - Big Box Façade Design Strategies - Mixed Use - Small Commercial Sites - Architectural Strategies - Walkability Strategies - Signs - Landscaping - Parking Lot Design Strategies - Parking Lot Landscaping Downtown Commercial - General Concepts - Site Planning Concepts - Architectural Design

- Building Mass and Scale - Signs - Landscaping - Right of Way Improvements - Parking Special Uses and Design Details - Special Uses - Auto Repair - Service Stations - Fast Food/Franchise Businesses - Drive-Thrus - Metal Buildings Design Details - Roof-mounted Equipment - Backflow devices and Utilities - Lighting - Fencing Industrial Design - Site Design - Landscaping and Buffers - Screening - Parking - Service, Delivery and Storage Areas - Signs

The Design Guidelines should also include an introductory chapter that explains the goals and basis of the Design Guidelines, and also how the Design Guidelines were prepared and adopted.

It is imperative that design guidelines make significant use of graphics to illustrate the text and concepts therein. Most people are able to grasp complex design issues much more readily by looking at illustrations.

As noted previously, the key to successfully creating and implementing design guidelines is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable guidelines. Once most people are taken through the visual preference process and are asked to articulate what they find attractive (and what they don’t find attractive) they begin to drop their resistance to the idea of design guidelines. Bus tours of other cities can help plant the “idea” that good urban design has a positive influence on a community.


50 | P a g e

California City: Infill Land Use Strategies California City staff expressed interest in adopting land use strategies that will promote residential infill. California City has an extensive backlog of vacant residential lots that are served with water and public roadways and are patrolled by police and fire. It would be more efficient for the City to develop vacant parcels in the core area than developing lots on the fringe of the community. The City’s tool is a “white paper” offering guidance for California City to prepare land use strategies that promote residential infill development.

California City wishes to prepare and adopt a set residential infill strategies that will encourage development of existing vacant residential lots in the City. The City has over 20,000 vacant residential lots that are provided with water but no sewer or curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. The purpose of this strategy is to better utilize the City's existing core-area water and road systems by increasing the number of residences using these systems. This will spread the cost of maintenance of these systems over a larger number of residences. Construction of new homes on infill lots will also enhance the fiscal condition of California City by increasing developer impact fees and building permit fees collected by the City.

Cities spend a tremendous amount of local, state and federal tax dollars, developer impact fees and local fees and charges, towards paying for public services, infrastructure and roads that serve residential development. Public services can range from public safety (police and fire) to solid waste collection departments, and from parks and recreation services to wastewater collection and treatment. Residential development also requires infrastructure (sewer, water and storm drainage improvements) and a road system to facilitate travel from one section to the city to another.

From a fiscal perspective, developing vacant residential land within the core area of the city limits of California City is more cost effective than serving land outside the city limits or in outlying parts of the City. From a service delivery perspective, as the service area gets larger (though annexations) the cost of that service goes up because more miles are traveled and time consumed to serve the new territory. New development on the fringe of a city will require the extension of roads and sewer, water and storm drainage lines. While the developer pays for most of these improvements the city is often saddled with cost of oversizing and other related costs like maintenance and repair. Obviously, it is more fiscally beneficial for the city to encourage residential infill rather than promoting that same type of development on the city's fringe.

Preparation of Residential Infill Strategies can be a fairly simple process consisting of the following steps:

Workshops: The City convenes a committee and holds a workshop with staff to discuss and develop residential infill strategies. The Committee could simply consist of the Planning Commission since they already have a vested interest in development and planning issues. Other community members that might be solicited include developers, business owners, designers and architects, and even students.


51 | P a g e

Preparation: Staff (or a consultant) prepares a list of residential infill strategies based on feedback from the committee. These residential infill strategies could come in the form of amendments to the general plan and zoning ordinance, modification to developer impact or building permit fees, or amendments to the Municipal Code involving connections to the city's water system.

Public Input/Hearings: The City then conducts public meetings to gain public input and support, and hearings for adoption of the residential infill strategies with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

The key to successfully creating and implementing Residential Infill Strategies is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable strategies. Bus tours of other cities can help plant the “idea” that good infill strategies has a positive influence on a community. Information on the high cost of fringe development can also help influence decisions.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with these infill strategies. California City is fortunate that its General Plan lays a good foundation for the creation of infill strategies. Once infill strategies are adopted it is important that they be reviewed from time to time – to ensure that they are effective.

McFarland: Voluntary Agricultural Conservation Easement Program McFarland’s Tool offers guidance for the City of McFarland towards promoting the use of voluntary agricultural conservation easements as a way to create “community separators” or to preserve farmland because it is a valuable resource that should be protected.

In general terms, an “agricultural conservation easement” is a tool to preserve agricultural land by purchasing the "development rights" on that land. Legally, it includes "the right to prevent, in perpetuity, the development or improvement of the land, as specified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 10211 and Civil Code Section 815.1 for any purpose other than agricultural production." The easement is granted by the landowner to a “qualified” entity that has conservation of agricultural land as one of its primary purposes. A couple of land trusts have been established in the San Joaquin Valley and act as qualified entities.

There are two types of entities that are considered “qualified organizations” under California law: (1) governmental entities, including McFarland, Kern County or the United States and (2) conservation or historic preservation organizations that qualify for tax exempt status under § 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In Kern County, Sequoia Riverlands Trust is an example of a private conservation organization that holds several agricultural conservation easements.

A landowner owns many rights with their property, often referred to as a “bundle of rights”. Among these rights are the right to sell, the right to build, the right to graze, the right to farm and the right to develop. When a landowner enters into an agricultural easement, he or she voluntarily agrees to sell or


52 | P a g e

donate the right to develop their land, while maintaining ownership of all of their other rights. The land restricted by the agricultural easement remains in private ownership.

McFarland can use General Plan policies to promote the idea that preservation of agricultural land is important to the community and local economy. Implementing this policy can be achieved by collecting development impact fees to purchase agricultural easements or requiring developers to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to an urban use. To facilitate the creation of agricultural preservation programs, McFarland can:

• Develop technical guidelines regarding a mitigation ratio (1:1, 2:1, etc.), minimum and maximum land areas, fee structures, transfer of ownership rights, designated municipal agency to receive and administer funds;

• Complete land evaluation and site assessments to determine preferred areas for preservation and create market-based incentives (i.e. tiered mitigation fees) for developers to avoid these areas.

A few local jurisdictions in the valley presently require some form of mitigation for the loss of agricultural land that results from urban development. The cities of Davis, Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca and Tracy have established agricultural preservation policies in their municipal codes or elsewhere. Furthermore, Yolo, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties have established agricultural preservation or mitigation programs on a countywide basis.

These ordinances generally allow developers to satisfy farmland mitigation requirements by granting a farmland conservation easement, or by paying in-lieu fees sufficient to purchase an easement and pay for administrative costs. These ordinances require 1:1 mitigation for the loss of agricultural land. An ordinance in the City of Brentwood (in Contra Costa County) also allows for transfer of agricultural credits from certain areas to satisfy the mitigation requirement.

Ridgecrest: Zoning Ordinance Sign Provisions The City of Ridgecrest desires to update signage regulations contained within the Ridgecrest Zoning Ordinance. The reasons for updating the ordinance, as expressed by the City are:

• Make the sign regulations more user friendly by: o Simplifying o Shortening o Adding graphics

• Eliminate confusing, duplication and/or conflicting language, • Eliminate references to other Ordinance sections, • Update by offering standards related to electronic signs, • Providing a subsection designed for downtown, (pedestrian) signs and murals, and • Providing a mechanism to require that signs be professionally designed from quality material.


53 | P a g e

Updating any city code can present a variety of challenges. For most cities, the sign ordinance is one of the more complicated parts of a zoning ordinance. This can make it difficult to update. Other challenges include:

• Updating the sign ordinance requires funding. • Updating the sign ordinance requires City Council and Planning Commission support and

possibly support of the local business community. • Updating the sign ordinance can cause some existing signs to become legal, non-conforming

structures.

The City could take several actions with respect to updating its sign regulations, including updating only key critical portions of the existing sign ordinance, or conducting a complete overhaul (replacing the existing ordinance with a new sign ordinance). Based on this review and comments by the City, it is likely that a complete overhaul would be more effective.

Legally an update of the sign ordinance must undergo public hearings before the Ridgecrest Planning Commission and the Ridgecrest City Council. Prior to the public hearings, it is important for the City to conduct workshops to gain public input and direction on updating the ordinance. At least three workshops with the Planning Commission as the review committee is recommended. These workshops and activities should be conducted to review the existing ordinance showing what it has produced, a visual preference survey to understand what residents and Commissioners like and don’t like, present the survey results, and then present a draft ordinance to receive comments prior to the adoption hearings. The key to a successful update of the sign ordinance is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable regulations.

Before beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with the sign ordinance update. In addition to clarifying and simplifying regulations, many cities updating their ordinance do so with a desire to improve community appearance and aesthetics - by establishing increased limits on the size, height, and number of signs. For example, a city may choose to eliminate future pole signs in favor of lower-profile monument signs. Standards for wall signs may be tightened to ensure that signs are in proportion to the walls on which they are mounted. Time limits may be placed on temporary signs (banner signs, A-frame signs, etc.).

It is also important to note that a strong sign ordinance is not worth much if the City does not enforce the regulations. The City must have a commitment to code enforcement that includes the sign ordinance. A gentle but firm approach will ensure the greatest chance of success. New sign regulations are also more likely to stand the test of time if they have the backing and buy-in of the Planning Commission and City Council, and also other key groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Taft: Zoning Ordinance Review The City of Taft wishes to review its Zoning Ordinance to determine whether it is consistent with the Blueprint principles, and if not, to identify ways the ordinance could be amended to be more “Blueprint-


54 | P a g e

friendly” and auditing the Zoning Ordinance as a way to improve the design of future development projects in the City and make the ordinance more flexible and consistent with the Blueprint principles.

The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is as follows:

• To create a zoning ordinance that addresses the uniqueness of the City of Taft, allowing for flexibility within guidelines for landscaping, signs, and fee assessments.

• To help implement key Blueprint objectives in project design, such as promoting walkability, improving air quality, strengthening community character, energy conservation, etc.

• To facilitate an attractive urban environment, including the downtown area that positively reflects the character of Taft.

Cities are required by law to administer Zoning Ordinances – to control the use of land and its development. Most cities (including Taft) are divided into various zone districts (residential, commercial, industrial, special zone, etc.) and each zone typically has development standards that control the development of property. Taft’s Zoning Ordinance is fairly new – much of the ordinance was adopted in 2008. Characteristic of many traditional zoning ordinances, the ordinance only provides very basic development standards and generally does not promote walkable neighborhoods, a mix of land uses or commercial districts with strong visual character. In 2009, Taft’s General Plan was adopted, with several sections that directed the City to guide future planning actions towards sustainable practices. The General Plan has also incorporated a 36-page appendix of sustainable goals and policies to further highlight the commitment to principles reflected in the regional Blueprint.

There are a number of other issues that Taft should consider in updating its zoning ordinance, not only to make it more consistent with the Blueprint Principles but also to make is more user-friendly and effective. These include:

• Ensuring that the Ordinance is legally sound and consistent with recent State zoning laws, particularly on Housing Element issues, including;

o Second residential units o Emergency housing, transitional housing, daycare o Farmworker housing o Employee housing o Reasonable Accommodations o Density Bonus o Update the Definitions section of the ordinance.

• Incorporate incentive-based zoning standards • Eliminate un-used and unnecessary zone districts • Update standards pertaining to specific issues like fencing, parking, landscaping, accessory uses

and structures, handicap accessibility, etc. • Make the Ordinance more user-friendly through the addition of tables and graphic illustrations

of complex zoning standards • Eliminate unneeded and repetitious sections of the Zoning Ordinance • Correct problem issues identified by staff.


55 | P a g e

Step-by-step recommendations for Taft to update its zoning code are provided. References to zoning ordinances for other Central Valley cities prepared by the Circuit Planners are included (Exeter, Woodlake and Firebaugh, among others).

Task 1: Form a Zoning Ordinance Update Committee Task 2: Educate the Committee Task 3: General Workshops Task 4: Finalize Zoning Ordinance for Public Hearings Task 5: Adoption

As noted previously, the key to successfully creating and implementing a zoning ordinance update is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, though a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable standards.

Once most people are taken through the visual preference process and are asked to articulate what they find attractive (and what they don’t find attractive) they begin to drop their resistance to the idea of adopting new regulations. Bus tours of other cities can help plant the “idea” that good planning has a positive influence on a community.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with the zoning ordinance update. Taft is fortunate that its General Plan lays a strong foundation for updating the ordinance.

Once the zoning ordinance is adopted it is important that key sections be reviewed from time to time – to ensure that they are effective. It may be determined that some standards are not important, while other issues may have been missed in the update – and should be added. Zoning codes should be treated as a living document – subject to review and revision over time, as necessary.

Tehachapi: Smart Growth Land Use Strategies Tehachapi wishes to consider smart growth principles that will encourage a new type of urban development that will create fewer problems - fiscal, environmental, aesthetic and economic - than traditional types of urban development. Their Blueprint Tool contains a series of “white papers” offering guidance for Tehachapi to prepare land use strategies that promote smart growth development.

Promoting smart growth is a land use objective embraced by most cities in California but often neither the merits of this objective nor the process by which it can be implemented are fully understood. The white papers attached to this report are intended to provide the merits and implementation mechanisms for smart growth. The PowerPoint file accompanying these white papers can be used as an educational tool for local decision-makers and the public to gain insight into the principles.

Adopting and implementing Smart Growth Principles can present a variety of challenges to cities, including:


56 | P a g e

• Amending its general plan, zoning ordinance and improvements manual - can be expensive and time-consuming.

• Developers may be more comfortable with constructing traditional types of development versus development types called for in some of the white papers, like mixed-use, alley-loaded residential units or pedestrian-friendly shopping centers.

• Decision-makers may not be committed to some of the strategies contained in the attached white papers.

Preparation of smart growth strategies can be a fairly simple process consisting of the following steps:

Workshops: The City convenes a committee and holds workshops with staff to discuss and develop smart growth strategies. The Committee could simply consist of the Planning Commission since they already have a vested interest in development and planning issues. Other community members that might be solicited include developers, business owners, designers and architects, and even students.

Preparation: Staff (or a consultant) prepares a list of smart growth strategies based on feedback from the committee. Implementation of these strategies could come in the form of amendments to the general plan and zoning ordinance, modification to developer impact or building permit fees, or other amendments to the Municipal Code.

Public Input/Hearings: The City then conducts public meetings to gain public input and support for adoption of the smart growth strategies with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Twelve white papers are attached to Tehachapi’s Blueprint Tool that details for the reader the benefits of Blueprint principles, ranging from creating a range of housing opportunities and a "sense of place" to preserving energy and conserving open space. In addition, a PowerPoint presentation file is also included that details the attributes of the Blueprint principles.

Wasco: Highway 46 Design Guidelines and Strategies Staff with the City of Wasco expressed interest in creating and adopting design guidelines and strategies for the Highway 46 corridor as their tool under the Blueprint Integration project as a way to improve the design of future development projects and strengthen the overall character of the corridor to positively reflect on the City. In particular, staff has asked the Blueprint team to review a previous study called the “Economic Opportunities Plan for the Highway 46 Corridor” and help to prioritize and expand on strategies identified in that study. In addition to Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance updates this report suggests some physical improvements to the corridor.

The City of Wasco wishes to prepare and adopt a set of corridor design guidelines to supplement the basic standards of the City’s zoning ordinance. The purpose of this request as expressed by the City is as follows:

• The Highway 46 corridor is recognized as our principal commercial area and a large part of our economic base. We want to try and enhance its appeal as part of our effort to attract new


57 | P a g e

development, but at the same time allowing it to be developed in a controlled manner that will best serve the community both functionally and aesthetically. This effort addresses the following Blueprint goals:

o Promote economic development and vitality o Promote mixed-use, efficient development that is transit oriented o Improve city infrastructure

Properly-implemented design guidelines can help cities to further various Blueprint principles, including:

• Improving walkability • Improving the character and quality of development • Reducing the need to use the automobile for some trips • Improving the feasibility and public’s acceptance of compact residential development. • Ensure that new development fits into the community. • Improving certainty in the development process

The consultant evaluated existing design-related policies and standards from the Wasco General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Improvements Manual, and the Economic Opportunities Plan for the Highway 46 Corridor. Several key observations and issues are important to realize in moving forward with the recommendations of the Highway 46 Corridor Plan:

• Highway 46 is, for the most part, Wasco’s front door to the world – for better or for worse. The image travelers get of Wasco from the view along the highway will form a lasting image (again, for good or for bad) of the community.

• The Corridor Plan was written during the residential boom that occurred between 2003 and 2007. Some of its assumptions (about population growth and economic growth and development) are likely no longer valid.

• The use of Redevelopment was recommended fairly extensively in the Plan. Redevelopment has been terminated in California. The ability to use redevelopment to finance improvement and effect change is gone – at least for the time being.


58 | P a g e

• According to surveys conducted during preparation of the Plan, the community no longer wants to settle on “good enough” and agree that the bar for quality design needs to be raised in Wasco.

• The Corridor Plan found that Wasco’s Zoning Ordinance is overly complicated and difficult to understand.

• Caltrans’ Highway 46 Widening Project is not expected to occur for many years – not until 2030 at the soonest. This makes it difficult for the City to undertake major improvements to the corridor right-of-way given that these improvements would likely be removed with the widening project. However, the City could coordinate with Caltrans to see if certain improvements can be made in the short-term.

Preparation of Design Guidelines can be a fairly simple process consisting of the following steps:

Workshops: The City convenes a committee and holds workshops with the staff to discuss and develop design guidelines. The Committee could simply consist of the Planning Commission – since they already have a vested interest in development and design issues. Other community members that might be solicited include developers, business owners, designers and architects and even students.

Preparation. Staff (or a consultant) prepares design guidelines based on feedback from the committee.

Public Input/Hearings: The City conducts public meetings to gain public input and support, and then hearings for adoption of the design guidelines with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

As noted previously, the key to successfully creating and implementing design guidelines and planning policies is to work closely with a local group such as the Planning Commission, through a series of workshops to educate this group on the issues involved, and work with them to arrive at a consensus on desirable guidelines and strategies. Once most people are taken through the visual preference process and are asked to articulate what they find attractive (and what they don’t find attractive) they begin to drop their resistance to the idea of design guidelines. Bus tours of other cities can help plant the “idea” that good urban design has a positive influence on a community.

As with many planning endeavors, prior to beginning, staff should have in mind a clear vision of what they hope to attain with design guidelines. Wasco is fortunate that its General Plan lays a strong foundation for the creation of design guidelines.

Once design guidelines are adopted it is important that they be reviewed from time to time – to ensure that they are effective. It may be determined that some topics are not important, while other issues may have been missed in the creation of design guidelines – and should be added. Design guidelines should be treated as a living document – subject to review and revision over time, as necessary.


59 | P a g e

As for physical improvements within the corridor it is critical to work closely with Caltrans to ensure that desired outcomes can be achieved while adhering to State standards. Early consultation is necessary to ensure satisfactory results. Caltrans may be saddled with standards that appear to be inflexible but it is likely that creative approaches can be identified in other communities that will work for Wasco.


60 | P a g e

VALLEYWIDE

Sustainable Transportation Strategies for Valley Communities This document is a “white paper” offering guidance for cities to prepare land use, transportation and financial strategies that promote a reduction in vehicle miles traveled by Valley residents, and on a more global scale, a reduction in heavy duty truck traffic that moves goods throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

Two of the San Joaquin Valley's major environmental challenges are improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gasses (GHG). Land use and transportation strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and heavy duty truck traffic (HDTT), can lead to these environmental issues being reduced or mitigated.

In order to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases in the Valley, cities need to reduce VMT and HDTT. These two environmental problems can be positively affected through a city’s general plan and zoning ordinance.

The US Environmental Protection Agency classifies air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, composed of eight counties, as "serious" for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10), and "moderate" for carbon monoxide in several large Valley cities. The San Joaquin Valley is second only to the Los Angeles basin in terms of “severe” air pollution conditions (Air Quality Guidelines for General Plan, September, 1994, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District).

To meet state and federal air quality standards, the District must rely on local governments to implement strategies to reduce air emissions. One of the cornerstones of this goal is the implementation of transportation control measures (TCM). TCMs are defined as any program to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, or to increase average vehicle ridership.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) defines TCMs as “any strategy to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions”. There are numerous TCMs that reduce vehicle emissions but are outside the scope of this white paper, including alternative work schedules, use of telecommunications equipment and rideshare programs.

Encouraging people to drive less, rideshare or seek alternative modes of transportation is difficult. Even when people understand the consequences of their actions (transportation choices) on the Valley’s air quality, they still adhere to their travel habits, even when the price of gasoline has far surpassed four dollars a gallon.

To effectively design programs and design strategies that will reduce mobile source emissions, it is imperative that decision-makers understand the characteristics of an operating motor vehicle. Vehicles emit different levels of air pollution during three distinct phases of a trip - cold start, running exhaust, and evaporative.


61 | P a g e

Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and heavy duty truck traffic (HDTT) are two objectives shared by most Valley cities. In combination, these two objectives can have major positive environmental implications on Valley air quality. Each objective will require its own set of policies, development standards and strategies. To reduce VMT, supporting policies and development standards should be added to a city’s General Plan and zoning ordinance.

Development of facilities to increase the use of freight rail over heavy duty trucks to move freight through the Valley has the potential to greatly reduce diesel emissions and highway congestion, thereby reducing GHG emissions in the Valley. Reducing HDTT would have the additional benefit of reducing wear and tear on the State’s highway system. State and federal grants could assist with installing these types of facilities (e.g. additional tracks, freight terminals, preservation of existing short-line tracks and right-of-way, etc.)

Adopting and implementing VMT and HDTT reduction strategies can present a variety of challenges, including:

• Promoting higher density and mixed-use development rather than the more traditional single-family dwelling.

• The community's acceptance of additional train traffic, which comes with more noise issues. • Decision-makers may not be committed to providing financial incentives to promote

development of the rail facilities. • Promoting circulation connectivity can sometimes pit one neighborhood against another if

"through roadways" are proposed. • Securing the necessary state and federal grants to finance the construction of the rail facilities.

The Valley wishes to reduce VMT and HDTT. Cities need to recognize that if air quality is to be improved in the San Joaquin Valley and greenhouse gases are to be curtailed, unique and bold measures need to be implemented. A commitment to reduced VMT and supporting additional rail facilities are such measures.


62 | P a g e

8. GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FOR PLANNING Included in the Blueprint Integration Tools is a section on potential funding sources for cities for further implementation or for future planning efforts. This section focused on state and a federal program generally offered annually, but also includes programs historically available. Links to these programs are provided as the rules and available funding for these programs can alter with changes in administrations, state and federal budgets, and other factors. Information provided here was the most recent as of January 2013.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLANNING GRANT AND INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentive Program supports metropolitan and multijurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of: (1) economic competitiveness and revitalization; (2) social equity, inclusion, and access to opportunity; (3) energy use and climate change; and (4) public health and environmental impact. The Program places a priority on investing in partnerships, including nontraditional partnerships (e.g., arts and culture, recreation, public health, food systems, regional planning agencies and public education entities) that translate the Federal Livability Principles into strategies that direct long-term development and reinvestment, demonstrate a commitment to addressing issues of regional significance, use data to set and monitor progress toward performance goals, and engage stakeholders and residents in meaningful decision-making roles.

The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program is being initiated in close coordination with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), co-leaders with HUD in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The program is run by California’s Strategic Growth Council, funded through Prop 84 (Safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, river and coastal protection bond act of 2006) grants.

For questions regarding grant solicitation, contact the DOC Planning Grant and Incentive Program staff by phone at (916) 322-3439, Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. – 5 p.m., or by email: [email protected].

Round II Planning Grants awarded in 2012, focused on three areas:

Focus Area #1: Local Sustainable Planning

Focus Area #2: Regional SB 375 Plus

Focus Area #3: Regional Planning Activities with Multiple Partners

Round III Planning Grants are to be awarded in 2013 after evaluating options for most effectively distributing remaining funds, based on Round I and II.

mailto:[email protected]


63 | P a g e

Urban Greening Planning Grants will provide funds to assist entities in developing a master urban greening plan that will ultimately result in projects to help the State meet its environmental goals and the creation of healthy communities. Communities must have an urban area, existing or planned, that has an approximate density of 10 dwelling units per acre.

CALTRANS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning awards funding yearly through six grant programs. They will award approximately $9 million in funding through those six Grant Programs for Fiscal Year 2013-14. Applications for fiscal year 2013-14 are due via email by 5:00pm, Tuesday, April 2, 2013. These programs provide monetary assistance for transportation planning projects to improve mobility and lead to the programming or implementation phase for a community or region. Your local District office is available to assist communities with their applications, and encourage you to contact them.

Caltrans Grant Application Guide can be found here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/FY_13-14/Grant_Guide_FY_13-14_Final.pdf#zoom=70). Grant applications must be sent via email.

Caltrans’ six transportation planning grants programs: Community-Based Transportation Planning Environmental Justice Partnership Planning Transit Planning

o Statewide or Urban Transit Planning Studies o Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies o Transit Planning Student Internships

The Environmental Justice (EJ) and Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant programs promote a balanced, comprehensive, and multi-modal transportation system. These are discretionary programs that provide key methods by which many California communities plan for closer connection between transportation and land use. Caltrans provides these planning grant funds to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies, cities and counties, transit agencies, and Native American tribal governments. EJ and CBTP final products are expected to help leverage funds from other program sources that will forward future project activities. These programs are State funded.

EJ grants must include public participation components that address the interests of low-income, minority, Native American, and other under-represented communities. In many cases, these communities do not have the resources to influence transportation decisions and project outcomes. Therefore, the EJ grant program helps disadvantaged communities get involved to produce an outcome from their community input.

The Partnership Planning and Transit Planning grants are federally funded and adhere to slightly different administrative requirements than the EJ and CBTP grant programs. The Partnership Planning grant program is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (State Planning and Research, Part I).

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/FY_13-14/Grant_Guide_FY_13-14_Final.pdf#zoom=70

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/FY_13-14/Grant_Guide_FY_13-14_Final.pdf#zoom=70


64 | P a g e

Approximately $1.2 million is to be available for the 2013-14 grant cycle. The maximum amount per grant cannot exceed $300,000. The Transit Planning Grant Program is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (Section 5304). The Federal Transit Administration has authorized Caltrans to distribute these grant funds and distribution will depend on the quality and amount of applications for each Transit Planning program. An estimated $1.5 million is available for the 2013-14 grant cycle, with a maximum of $330,000 per grant.

The objective of the Partnership Planning Program is to encourage or strengthen multi-agency and/or government-to-government partnerships. The projects must be jointly performed with Caltrans. The proposed Partnership Planning projects must have a statewide and/or regional benefit. The anticipated benefits of the project must ultimately result in improvements to the statewide or regional transportation system.

Tailored to BPI cities, the Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies grant program helps transit providers with technical planning for the operation and maintenance of their transit system. The intent is to support transit and/or intermodal planning studies that show benefit to rural or small urban service areas with a population of 100,000 and less. For 2013-14, $900,000 available, $100,000 max per grant

The objective of the Transit Planning Student Internships Program is to provide student internships in transit planning at public transportation agencies. The intent is to foster the education of university and community college students with an interest in the field of transit planning. For 2013-14, $300,000 available, $50,000 max per grant.

OUR TOWN INITIATIVE, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

Our Town grants support creative placemaking that strategically shape the physical and social character of a neighborhood, town, tribe, city, or region around arts and cultural activities. Forty-one of the 80 grants in 2012 went to communities with populations of less than 50,000 and five grants were made to communities with less than 1,000 residents (Teller, AK; Last Chance, CO; Star, NC; Uniontown, WA; Dufur, OR). Our Town will invest in creative and innovative projects in which communities, together with their arts and design organizations and artists, seek to:

• Improve quality of life. • Encourage greater creative activity. • Foster stronger community identity and a sense of place. • Revitalize economic development.

For program inquiries, contact Jamie Hand, [email protected], 202-682-5566. Link to the NEA website for grant information: http://arts.gov/grants/index.html

The National Endowment for the Arts was established by Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government. To date, the NEA has awarded more than $4 billion to support artistic excellence, creativity, and innovation for the benefit of individuals and communities. The NEA extends its work through partnerships with state arts agencies, local leaders, other federal agencies, and the philanthropic sector. To join the discussion on how art works, visit the NEA at arts.gov.

http://arts.gov/grants/index.html


65 | P a g e

COMMUNITY FACILITY GRANTS – USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT Community Programs provides grants to assist in the development of essential community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in population. Grants are authorized on a graduated scale. Applicants located in small communities with low populations and low incomes will receive a higher percentage of grants. Grants are available to public entities such as municipalities, counties, and special-purpose districts, as well as non-profit corporations and tribal governments. In addition, applicants must have the legal authority necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facility and also be unable to obtain needed funds from commercial sources at reasonable rates and terms.

Fund Uses: Grant funds may be used to assist in the development of essential community facilities. Grant funds can be used to construct, enlarge, or improve community facilities for health care, public safety, and community and public services. This can include the purchase of equipment required for a facility's operation. A grant may be made in combination with other CF financial assistance such as a direct or guaranteed loan, applicant contributions, or loans and grants from other sources.

The Community Facilities Grant Program is typically used to fund projects under special initiatives, such as Native American community development efforts; child care centers linked with the Federal government's Welfare-to-Work initiative; Federally-designated Enterprise and Champion Communities, and the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative area. For more information about this program, or to file an application, contact the local Rural Development office in your area. The Valley offices are listed below.

Valley Rural Development Offices: Fresno Service Center-Rd 4625 W Jennifer Ave Ste 109 Fresno, CA 93722-6424 (559) 276-7494 (559) 276-1791 Fax Merced Service Center 2926 G Street, Suite 102 Merced, CA 95340 (209) 722-4119 (209) 722-0974 Fax Modesto Service Center 3800 Cornucopia Way Ste E Modesto, CA 95358-9494 (209) 491-9320 (209) 491-9331 Fax

Visalia Service Center 3530 W Orchard Ct Visalia, CA a 93277-7055 (559) 734-8732 (559) 732-3481 Fax Bakersfield Service Center 5000 California Ave Bakersfield, CA 93309-0725 (661) 336-0967 (661) 336-0857 Fax

Link to the USDA Rural Development website: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-CF_Grants.html

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-CF_Grants.html


66 | P a g e

The Partnership for Sustainable Communities (US HUD, DOT, EPA, and USDA) published a guide titled, Federal Resources for Sustainable Rural Communities, that provides information on federal resources and funding. It can be found at: http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/pdf/federal_resources_rural.pdf

HUD PLANNING GRANTS Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants support the development of comprehensive neighborhood revitalization plans which focused on directing resources to address three core goals: Housing, People and Neighborhoods. To achieve these core goals, communities must develop and implement a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization strategy, or Transformation Plan. The Transformation Plan will become the guiding document for the revitalization of the public and/or assisted housing units while simultaneously directing the transformation of the surrounding neighborhood and positive outcomes for families.

More information can be found at this link:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn/planninggrants

http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/pdf/federal_resources_rural.pdf

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn/planninggrants


67 | P a g e

9. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OVERVIEW The Circuit Planners, in working with the 46 Cities, found the most prevalent and pressing issue for all cities was a lack of funding, both for current and long-range planning. The recession of 2008 was very hard on small city budgets, and planning took a hard hit. In several cases, planning staff was completely eliminated. In other cases, contract planners were used on a part-time basis to replace staff. In most cases staff in other departments were deployed to handle planning duties or part-time staff was hired-on at a few hours a week. The responsibilities often ended-up with the City Manager. The most extreme case was the City of Atwater, which filed for bankruptcy. The shortage of funding prevented some cities from participating in the Blueprint Integration Project due to a lack of available staff, staff time, and/or over-taxed staff without the time and/or expertise to effectively participate.

Small cities with limited staff and budgets, even in better times, have difficulty keeping their plans up-to-date. The initial list of tools/assistance requested by the client cities demonstrates the magnitude of need throughout the Valley (see Table 1). All 46 cities were contacted initially, resulting in 43 different tool suggestions, even with several cities not initially responding. Adding these cities’ first, second, and third choices of tools resulted in 94 total tool requests even when limiting the assistance to implementing Blueprint Principles. A frequent comment from the initial interviews was a need to cover daily activities such as handling front counter work or writing staff reports. Many of the needs of the small Valley cities are similar, and strategies to take advantage economies of scale are attractive (e.g., sharing the costs for zoning updates or developing design guidelines).

Many of the tools developed under the Blueprint Integration Project will require additional follow-on work, and many cities may not have the capacity or technical familiarity to complete this work. Planning staffing needs for these small cities is also inconsistent, dependent often upon the number of project applications received. Cities could benefit from shared planning support or having an available on-call resource capable of completing work on as-needed basis. CDBG funds were used in the 1970s by Valley counties to provide this type of service, and Valley MPOs have been exploring options and researching funding sources that could resurrect such services.

More specific examples of current needs include housing element and general plan updates and zoning updates to establish consistency with newly adopted general plan policies. According to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 19 cities in the Valley have land use elements not updated since at least the 1990s. Housing element updates for Fresno County cities are due in the next year and a half; the small cities could benefit from a countywide approach to consolidate the development of baseline data for all the cities to use and providing a guideline or templates to the cities. Cities could also collaborate to contract with an agreed-upon consultant to provide an economy of scale by completing several housing elements together.


68 | P a g e

CLIENT CITY QUESTIONNAIRE A Final Letter and Questionnaire (See Attachment 6) were sent to all client cities that participated in the project. The purpose of this letter was to confirm delivery of a Final BPI Tool to their City and to request feedback from the City Managers or delegated staff on the services provided. Actual letters and questionnaires sent to the participating cities are included in Appendix 8.

The questionnaire was a short rating matrix on the services provided under the BPI project with three open-ended questions to allow for further comment. The results of the survey are provided below. Only six city representatives responded, so the utility of the survey in evaluating the outcomes of the BPI project is limited.

Low -------------------------------High

Rating Scale: (#) = count for that rating 1 2 3 4 5

Overall satisfaction with the Blueprint Integration Program (BPI) (3) (1)

Overall value of the BPI Program for your City (1) (2) (1)

Value of the Mid-Flight Conference held in Modesto (May 2012) (1) (2))

Satisfaction with your Circuit Planner (availability, communication, professionalism, etc.) (2) (1) (3)

Satisfaction with the services provided by your Circuit Planner (2) (3)

Please rate the quality of the BPI Tool provided (2) (2) (1)

Did you find the Tool developed useful for your City? (2) (2) (1)

Did this help your City integrate your Blueprint goals? (3) (1)

Please rate the value of your BPI Tool in implementing long-range planning efforts (2) (2)

Likelihood of using BPI Tools developed for other cities (available on the Blueprint Toolkit) (2) (2)

Would your City use Circuit Planner Assistance if it was made available in the future? (3) (1)

Total Count for each rating 1 1 25 12 9

NEXT STEPS Adoption or implementation of the tools developed for the client cities is recommended as the priority next step toward implementing Blueprint Principles at the local level. There are tasks identified in the BPI Tools that will not take a lot of time, effort, or money to implement. These tasks could be looked at as the first tasks to be addressed by city staff or a follow-on circuit planner. These tools are generally transferable between cities, so a city could start with a tool from another city that is more easily implemented if the scope of their specific tool is too large (e.g., comprehensive zoning ordinance or general plan update).

As an example, a general editing of the Huron zoning ordinance to clarify standards and eliminate inconsistencies has been recommended. This could be done without a large expenditure and is likely


69 | P a g e

transferrable to other small cities as numerous small Valley cities adopted similar zoning codes during the same time period. Another example, the draft Bicycle Master Plan prepared for Orange Cove was carried forward by the City Engineer and adopted by the Council with minimal additional effort.

The second level of effort would be those tasks that require securing larger funding sources, such as a zoning ordinance or general plan update or preparation of design guidelines. Individual components of such an update may be manageable – such as amending the zoning ordinance to permit small lot development – but the larger issue of comprehensive updates and funding must be addressed. As identified in tools prepared, updates to city codes can include streamlining review processes to include more by-right or non-discretionary permits. This can reduce the staff time and expertise required to review and process projects, adding efficiency to the process for the city and making development decisions more predictable, fair, and cost effective – one of the 12 Blueprint Principles.

It is also recommended that future assistance include at least basic California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, as necessary, to allow for adoption of a tool. This should at least include categorical exemptions and simple negative declarations. This will ensure that a City is not left with a product that cannot be readily adopted because the city does not have the capacity or ability to prepare CEQA documentation.

Another approach would be to develop templates for updating zoning ordinances, following on the zoning tools developed under this program. Suggestions would be small lot design standards, a prototype of a small mixed-use project, or a list of updated and flexible permitted uses (allowed by-right) in zone districts. An example is allowing small offices in an industrial zone, which would be helpful for those opening new businesses.

The key to any additional follow-up implementation work is securing funding for this effort. The most effective approach would be a medium- to long-term annual funding cycle that would allow cities to program this work across more than one year/budget cycle. Most, if not all, comprehensive planning updates will take more than one year, especially when you include environmental review (CEQA). It is also easier for small cities to budget for these larger programs if funding spread across two or more budget cycles.

A minimum three-year grant or other funding program (five or more would be more effective) that allows cities to access funds over several funding cycles would provide a level of confidence to local decision-makers that they have funding to continue or finish a project in the next or follow-on fiscal cycles. This also would create more interest from professional planners by assuring that positions would be funded through more than one budget year if funds are used to hire staff to conduct the work. It would also allow for a county or regional planning agency, or Valley-wide program, to set up a multi-year circuit planner program. The advantage to this approach is efficiency in combining similar efforts across several cities and cities getting to share the cost, or payin only a matching portion of the cost with the regional agency covering the remaining costs through the grant program and/or other funds. Contracting with a private sector planning firm or team to provide these services has the advantage of providing a greater range of services and experienced planners on an as-needed basis. This is especially


70 | P a g e

helpful when completing CEQA documentation that requires input from many disciplines and on complex projects where a seasoned planner could provide the knowledge to manage the controversy and politics.

The funding, as implemented under the Blueprint Integration program, needs to allow local control of the funds to best address unique planning needs, as determined locally. The small cities of the San Joaquin Valley will slowly recover from the recession of 2008, but these cities are unlikely to see much growth in the near term, even as the national housing market shows signs of recovery. Those cities that can update their general plans, zoning codes, and other programs to encourage and allow quality market development that is sustainable, good for their community, and meets current market trends, will have the best chance for a strong recovery.


71 | P a g e

10. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - SJVBP Integration Info Sheet Attachment 2 - Prop 84 SJVBP Integration Protocols Attachment 3 - BPI – Initial BPI Tool Summaries Attachment 4 – Mid-Flight Convention Save the Date Flyer Attachment 5 – BPI – Final City Tools Table Attachment 6 – City Follow Up Letter to City Managers Attachment 7 - Circuit Planning Questionnaire

LIST OF APPENDICES (ON INCLUDED DVD) Appendix 1 – FCOG-URS Status Memos Appendix 2 – Valley COG Blueprint Integration Introduction Presentations Appendix 3 – BPI Introduction Letter to Client Cities Appendix 4 – Mid-Flight Convention Materials Appendix 5 – Fall Policy Conference Full Agenda Appendix 6 – City Agreement Letters Appendix 7 – BPI Tools Appendix 8 - Final Letter and Questionnaire to each City

ATTACHMENT 1 - SJVBP INTEGRATION INFO SHEET









ATTACHMENT 2 – PROP 84 SJVBP INTEGRATION PROTOCOLS

Prop 84 - San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Grant Management Protocols DRAFT

DRAFT - December 2, 2011 P a g e | 1

PROP 84 ‐ SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY BLUEPRINT INTEGRATION

RPA GRANT MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS

OVERVIEW These protocols provide guidance and structure for the oversight and management of the Prop 84 - San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Grant. The grant is managed by a designated Grant Manager at the Fresno COG (Grant Manager), a hierarchy of Regional Planning Agency (RPA) Staff operating as the Project Managers Work Group (PMWG) and RPA member agency representatives acting as the Project Advisory Committee (PAC); all overseeing the contracted project and circuit-planning services of URS Corporation. The RPA Directors are ultimately responsible for the oversight of the project (with Fresno COG acting as the lead agency). The PAC operates by providing direction and feedback regarding the progress of individual projects and feedback on circuit planning activities being provided by URS Corporation within their local areas. The PMWG supports the PAC by providing a method in which the local feedback obtained from the PAC can be disseminated regionally when/where needed. The Grant Manager works at the direction of the RPA Directors; with support from the PAC and the PMWG, conducting day-to-day oversight, maintenance, outreach and co-ordination of the overall grant program as defined in the Prop 84 – Blueprint Integration RFP and in accordance with the Agreement for Contract Services with URS Corporation.

The following protocols establish the responsibilities of those involved in managing the Prop 84 - Blueprint Integration Grant and provide guidance on the steps involved in the overall management of grant activities.

Project Advisory Committee (PAC)

Roles and Responsibilities The PAC is an ad-hoc group of local planners representing the eight counties within the Valley that is responsible for reviewing the tools and methods being utilized by the circuit planner’s (employed through URS Corporation) within their county and their organization, where applicable. PAC members then provide specific feedback to the Grant Manager pertaining to the effectiveness and relevance of the circuit planner activities being conducted.

The PAC responsibilities are limited to providing comments and feedback to the Grant Manager and PMWG on the effectiveness and relevance of the circuit planner activities. PAC members volunteer to be responsible for reviewing the tools and methods being utilized by their local circuit planner to indicate whether or not the needs of Blueprint Implementation are being met within the participating communities. PAC volunteers are only asked to review and provide feedback on activities within their County.

Membership Membership on the PAC is voluntary and open to all local planners from cities and counties located within the San Joaquin Valley’s smaller cities (populations under 50,000). At a minimum, the PAC will be comprised of one local planner from each of the eight counties within the Valley.



Meeting Frequency and Attendance The PAC does not hold regular meetings. PAC members provide input and feedback directly to the Fresno COG Grant Manager via email. Special meetings may be requested at any time to discuss relevant items. These meetings may be held as part of PMWG meetings or as special meetings. Meetings are held in person, via teleconference or video conference, or some combination. Attendance at all PAC meetings is voluntary.

Project Managers Work Group (PMWG)

Roles and Responsibilities The Project Managers Working Group (PMWG) functions as the support committee for the grant. PMWG members are copied on all correspondence between and among the Grant Manager and PAC members. PMWG members are responsible for providing further direction and feedback to the Grant Manager regarding the circuit planning activities being provided by URS Corporation to their participating member agencies. The main function of the PMWG is to ensure that all RPAs remain aware of the Valley-wide circuit planner activities in order to fully utilize available tools and resources, as well as be involved with adjustments to grant-related activities when/where needed.

Membership Membership in the PMWG is voluntary and is comprised of one staff member from each participating RPA, representing each of the eight Valley Counties.

Meeting Frequency and Attendance The PMWG will meet on monthly basis, as a standing agenda item on the Blueprint Project Managers conference call scheduled for the first Tuesday of each month; with special meetings scheduled as needed.

Fresno COG Grant Manager

Roles and Responsibilities The Fresno COG Grant Manager provides for the overall grant management and coordination of the Prop 84 – Blueprint Integration Project on a daily basis. Working with the feedback of the PAC and assistance of the PMWG, the Grant Manager is responsible for the following:

Support and participate in the PMWG. Schedule meetings, prepare agendas and action items; facilitate keeping meetings on track and keeping meeting minutes.

Manage the PAC. Identify and recruit members (with the assistance of the PMWG). Conduct regular follow-up with each PAC member to invite feedback and ensure current and open communication regarding circuit planner activities.

Coordination with URS Corporation project activities. Receive and organize all comments and feedback from the PAC and PMWG; summarize comments and feedback for review and input/action by URS, as managers of the circuit planners. Conduct regular follow-up to discuss received feedback from the PAC, PMWG and RPA Directors regarding circuit planner activities, project schedule and overall project management.

Report to the RPA Directors. Provide for monthly reporting to the RPA Directors as to the status of the project; specifically the functionality of the circuit planners, project



scheduling, overall project management and relevant Blueprint Implementation activities throughout the Valley.

Report to the Department of Conservation. Prepare and maintain required quarterly reports relating to the Strategic Growth Council Prop 84 Grant funding this project.

ATTACHMENT 3 - INITIAL BPI TOOL SUMMARIES

BPI Memo Summary of Proposed BPI Tools

1 of 26| P a g e

To: Rob Terry, Barbara Steck Cc: Blueprint Team, Bart Bohn From: Bob Lagomarsino Date: July 24, 2012 Memo Subject: Summary of Proposed BPI Tools

Memo This document summarizes each of the tools proposed in response to the initial consultation with the 46 cities covered by the Blueprint Integration Project. Each of these will be developed for placement in the Blueprint Toolkit either as a new tool or to supplement tools already in the Toolkit. More importantly, they will be tailored to apply to the cities that have requested services and/or support related to the subject. URS is requesting FCOG review and direction on the proposed summary of tools and their proposed application.

Following introductory narrative explaining the tool, the summary description of each tool is organized to address the following subjects:

Type of Product/Document (GP policy, zoning code provisions, guidance document, review checklist, typical standards, annotated outline)

Applicability: How does this tool apply generally to the Valley? Are there unique circumstances limiting its broad applicability? Which cities have requested assistance related to the tool, either as a primary or secondary priority?

Relevance to Blueprint Principles: How relevant is this tool to the 12 Blueprint Principles? Issues/Challenges: What unique issues or challenges will there be in developing and implementing the

tool? Sample Products: What relevant examples are available either in the Toolkit or elsewhere (preferably in

the Valley)?

Proposed Blueprint Implementation Tools 1. Design Guidelines 2. Small Lot (Design) Guidelines 3. Downtown Streetscape 4. Education PowerPoint Tool 5. Sign Ordinance 6. Transportation-Land Use Linkage 7. General Plan Audit Tool 8. Zoning Audit Tool 9. Bike Master Plan 10. Park Master Plan 11. Ag and Open Space Preservation 12. Alternative Energy Standards 13. Complete Streets Standards 14. Development Review Standards 15. Infill Strategy

Summary of Proposed BPI Tools

2 of 26| P a g e

1. Design Guidelines

Overview

Design guidelines can be a powerful tool to help shape the character of cities. After many decades of utilizing the zoning ordinance to control basic development parameters (e.g., building setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, fencing), cities have found that a gap exists in their ability to shape the character of their communities. Design guidelines can provide the tool that supplements the basic zoning standards to help create cities with strong and memorable character.

Type of Product/Document

Prepare a customized white paper on how to evaluate specific local needs and how to prepare design guidelines that respond to those needs. In particular, the white paper would emphasize design qualities focused on furthering Blueprint principles and fostering development designs that promote walkability, compact development, sustainability, and community identity. Materials produced for/by individual cities could start with general plan policies calling for the creation of design guidelines. This could be followed by preparation of design guidelines provisions that could either be published as a free-standing document or incorporated into the zoning ordinance.

Applicability

Within the Valley, design-related needs vary broadly, with local interests ranging from community-scale urban form to specific architectural design details. In coordinating with representatives of the cities with an interest in design guidelines, the circuit planners will need to focus on clearly defining local needs. A general how-to on developing Design Guidelines would increase the applicability of the tool.

The following cities indicated that this tool is a top priority:

Avenal Corcoran Lindsay Arvin

Chowchilla Reedley Kingsburg

Other cities suggested design guidelines as a secondary product.

Relevance to Blueprint Principles





3 of 26| P a g e

Issues/Challenges

Requires clearly-defined needs and local objectives to ensure proper focus and efficient use of resources. Requires funding, staff time and expertise, and political support. Can also require additional procedural requirements, as well as additional training on the part of those

charged with reviewing and enforcing compliance (e.g., planning commissioners).

Sample Products

Design guidelines are prominently featured in the Blueprint Toolkit, including links to at least 15 examples.

City of Farmersville Design Guidelines. City of Sanger Design Guidelines.


4 of 26| P a g e

2. Small Lot (Design) Guidelines

Overview

With the emphasis on more compact, dense forms of development advocated by such programs as the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint and SB 375, as well as increasing interest in the development community, several cities have expressed interest in small-lot single family design guidelines. The interest includes concerns for the public tradeoffs associated with small-lot developments, including the need to maintain amenities such as open space, street connectivity, and community identity. Small-lot single family development should be of high quality and respond to a number of challenges facing all communities in the San Joaquin Valley, including:

Preserving and protecting farmland Enhancing air quality Building a strong sense of community and livability in new neighborhoods Conserving energy Fostering walking and bicycling Affordable housing


The tool will consist of a sample document(s) outline and implementation recommendations on how to prepare and adopt small-lot design guidelines. Specific issues tailored to local circumstances will be included, as well as templates and contacts from other cities.

The BPI tool may include the following:

General Plan policy and zoning recommendations Subdivision design standards Lot size and density Street layout and design standards Single family design standards Park and open space standards

The small-lot design tool will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of standards vs. guidelines. Although there is interest shown by some cities in creating mandatory design standards within the zoning ordinance, creating advisory guidelines allows for greater flexibility while offering a consistent framework for applicants and staff during the planning and design review process.

Applicability

Given the number of requests for this tool from client cities, there will be a need to create not only templates for the small-lot design tool, but case studies for those cities looking for examples and contacts. It is also likely that many client cities expressing priority in other tools will benefit from small-lot design tools developed in the BPI program.


Hughson Selma Coalinga Kerman Fowler San Joaquin.


5 of 26| P a g e





Issues/Challenges

Requires funding for implementation, staff time and expertise; would be difficult for small cities to implement on their own.

Requires decision maker’s acceptance of small-lot housing products and neighborhoods. The residential housing market must also embrace this concept for it to be successful. It is critical to provide visual samples/photos of positive examples.

Sample Products

City of Exeter zoning ordinance (Cottage zones) Reedley Specific Plan Dinuba General Plan Urban Design Element


6 of 26| P a g e

3. Downtown Streetscape

Overview

Downtown is the heart of most, if not all, cities in the Valley. The appearance can “make or break” the downtown and can affect the vitality and livability of the city as a whole. Some cities have put their “best foot forward” in the downtown area with implementation of attractive streetscape improvements, including items such as landscaping, benches, special pavement treatments (cobblestones, stamped/colored concrete) special lighting, bulbouts at corners and mid-block crossings, and signage. These kinds of improvements can help bolster an already-strong downtown district, or can help to regenerate a downtown that has lost its shine.


This tool will combine procedural and technical guidance, with a focus on steps and considerations required to enhance downtown streetscapes, including funding strategies. Included will be photo examples of the easiest things to implement, stepping up to more difficult and costly items. Cities interested in pursuing a downtown streetscape plan could begin with general plan policy or preparation of a downtown Specific Plan, followed by adoption of a streetscape design plan.

Applicability

Though only one city has requested this as a primary product, downtown streetscape plans are applicable to any city desiring to pursue this strategy. Downtown Streetscape planning is not called out as a distinct tool in the Blueprint Toolkit, however other categories overlap, most importantly the tools on complete streets.





Issues/Challenges

Requires significant funding (both for planning and construction). Requires City Council and Planning Commission support and support of the downtown business/property

owner community.

Sample Products

Downtown Clovis streetscape. Downtown Firebaugh streetscape plan.


7 of 26| P a g e

4. Education PowerPoint Tool

Overview

There is a strong interest in presentation material that local staff could share with Planning Commissions and City Councils to bring them up to speed (or as a refresher) on the Blueprint Principles. Enthusiasm seemed to be strong for the creation of a PowerPoint presentation that would showcase Blueprint principles and how they can be implemented on a local level.


PowerPoint file

Applicability

Presentation would be useable by any interested city (with modification as appropriate to reflect local interests and circumstances). This tool could also be added to the Blueprint toolkit to supplement information already present there.





Issues/Challenges

Easily implemented. Need photo samples from other cities to customize to fit their needs.

Sample Products

Powerpoint file provided to each city staff.


8 of 26| P a g e

5. Sign Ordinance

Overview

Signs are a basic element of the visual environment that defines a city’s character (for good or bad). Uniform or theme-based signs can show a sense of place, provide direction (way-finding) to tourists and the public, and provide a cohesive or community feel for a city or specific sections of a city. Several cities expressed interest in updating their sign ordinances to help improve the visual environment and strengthen community character.


We will prepare a white paper on steps and considerations required to prepare a sign ordinance- tailored to the City requesting it. This could include provisions for City way-finding signage as a component of the overall sign ordinance. City follow-up actions would include preparation of the Sign Ordinance (which could be preceded with a General Plan policy calling for update of the sign ordinance).

Applicability

At least one city requested a sign ordinance update as a primary product, while several other cities noted it as a secondary desire. Sign ordinances are not directly addressed in the Blueprint toolkit, but are indirectly mentioned in sections on design guidelines and form based codes.





Issues/Challenges

Requires funding for development and implementation. Requires code enforcement efforts to maintain compliance. Requires City Council and Planning Commission support and usually support of the local business

community.

Sample Products

Sign ordinances from Farmersville, Firebaugh, Sanger, and Visalia.


9 of 26| P a g e

6. Transportation-Land Use Linkage

Overview

Concern was expressed about a greater need for policies and regulations that better link land use planning with transportation planning. The concern seemed to be that sometimes cities use innovative land use strategies while continuing to rely on outmoded transportation philosophies and mechanisms (or vise-versa).


We would prepare a white paper on steps and considerations required to implement policies and strategies linking land use and transportation planning- tailored to the City requesting it.

This could result in citiess adopting General Plan policies and revising the layout of their land use and circulation maps to reflect these policies and concerns.

Applicability

This concern was expressed by the City of Shafter, however it could have implications and benefits for any city that desires to implement. There is not a distinct product referenced on this issue in the Blueprint toolkit, however the Land Use section includes several related products.





Issues/Challenges

Requires funding. The market also must embrace this concept for it to be successful.

Sample Products

Complete neighborhoods policies.


10 of 26| P a g e

7. General Plan Audit Tool

Overview

The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Roadmap Guidance Framework recommends that COGs and other regional agencies, “Assist counties and cities in updating their general plans to incorporate Blueprint smart growth principles,” and to, “Create a protocol and checklist for evaluating and certifying consistency (self-certification) of city and county general plans and general plan amendments with Blueprint principles and target densities.” In addition, a major component of the Prop 84 grant for the BPI program is assisting the counties and smaller cities in updating their general plans to incorporate Blueprint smart growth principles.

The purpose of this tool is to assess a client city’s General Plan, providing information on which Blueprint Principles are supported by policies and implementation measures; which policies may be inconsistent with specific Principles; and which Principles are not strongly supported by adopted policy. This will assist the city in any future amendments to the General Plan or evaluation of Blueprint compliance.


A two-tiered system will be developed for self-evaluation of a General Plan for consistency with the Blueprint Principles. The goal is to have a standardized auditing process that city planners can customize to fit their specific circumstance. The two-tiered system framework is as follows:

Tier One – A general assessment of each General Plan Element for consistency with the Blueprint Principles.

Tier Two – A more detailed review focusing on policies and implementation measures that could help implement the Blueprint Principles. The focus of the circuit planner’s review will be on need rather than criticism of the city’s General Plan.

Tier One is a simplified process to be completed by the circuit planner to see how consistent, or in conflict, General Plan policy is with the Blueprint Principles. This is a more quantitative approach to the evaluation identifying what Blueprint Principles are consistent and what policies to consider developing for better consistency. Sample policy statements would be provided to better implement Blueprint Principles.

Sample Consistency Checklist

Blueprint Principles

GP Mandatory Elements Conf

lict

Neu

tral

Supp

ort

Conf

lict

Neu

tral

Supp

ort

Conf

lict

Neu

tral

Supp

ort

Conf

lict

Neu

tral

Supp

ort

Land UsePolicy 1

CirculationPolicy 1

HousingPolicy 1

ConservationPolicy 1

Open SpacePolicy 1

NoisePolicy 1

SafetyPolicy 1

BPP1 BPP2 BPP3 BPP4


11 of 26| P a g e

The General Plan Audit tool will include a white paper on the consistency analysis, instructions for more detailed review by the client city, and implementation recommendations for amendment of the General Plan.

Applicability

The General Plan Audit tool has broad applicability to smaller cities in the Valley. State planning law requires general plan review and update and the audit tool would be appropriate for all cities during this review and amendment cycle.


Riverbank Sanger Mendota





Issues/Challenges

Evaluating a city’s General Plan has potential for controversy. Local planners or decision makers may not agree with the evaluation or disagree in general with certain Blueprint Principles.

This could lead to conflicts between local and regional planning efforts.

Because the General Plan audit would only be undertaken for those cities that request this tool, however, these concerns are minimized.

Sample Products

There is currently no complete sample product. Two draft audits have been prepared in the Valley with slightly different approaches and include:

City of Porterville General Plan audit

City of Farmersville General Plan audit


12 of 26| P a g e

8. Zoning Audit Tool

Overview

Many zoning ordinances for small cities in the Valley date from the 1970s and are difficult to interpret, lack recent state zoning requirements, and are often inconsistent with the city’s General Plan. The disconnect between a zoning ordinance and the General Plan is common with cities, especially those which lack the resources to update their ordinance. As with the General Plan Audit tool, this effort would assess a client city’s zoning ordinance, providing information on which Blueprint Principles are supported by zoning provisions; which regulations may be inconsistent with specific Principles; and which Principles are not strongly supported. This will assist the city in any future amendments to the zoning ordinance or evaluation of Blueprint compliance.

This effort would highlight the most troublesome inconsistencies for future correction, focusing the city’s resources on areas that may be easily corrected or gain the biggest bang for the buck.


A template checklist will be developed similar to the General Plan Audit tool. Draft regulations would be developed tied to implementing Blueprint Principles; sample products could include specific ordinance sections such as mixed-use, design guidelines, density bonus provisions, or second unit requirements.

The Zoning Ordinance Audit tool will include a white paper on the consistency analysis, instructions for more detailed review by the client city, and implementation recommendations for amendment of the zoning ordinance.

Applicability

There is moderate applicability as a generic tool since reviewing a zoning ordinance is labor-intensive and specific to a city; but high applicability for the individual client city. Other client cities could benefit from the recommended specific ordinance sections.


Oakdale Huron Taft






13 of 26| P a g e

Issues/Challenges

An audit requires individual analysis of a particular city’s zoning ordinance.

It is unlikely that a general template will provide the detail necessary for drawing conclusions as to the consistency of a particular document with the Blueprint or the actions needed to bring a document closer to the principles.

The Zoning Ordinance Audit tool is a time intensive, project specific tool, with a final report containing recommendations for further action to amend the client city’s zoning ordinance.

Sample Products

None have been identified.


14 of 26| P a g e

9. Bike Master Plan

Overview

The primary purpose of a bike master plan is to improve and encourage bicycle transportation and allow for connections with the surrounding area. Bicycling is ideal for shorter trips in smaller communities. Some of the benefits include fewer vehicle trips, recreation, improved public health, reduced noise, and energy conservation.

A secondary purpose of a bike master plan is to qualify for bike funding by complying with the eleven required elements that comprise a Bicycle Transportation Plan, as listed in Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code (required for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications). In Fresno County, a bike master plan is also required to qualify for Measure “C” funding for bike improvements, and the Fresno COG has a master plan “template” that can be reviewed for applicability to client cities.


In small communities the plan can be straightforward, consisting primarily of goals and policies, a preliminary bike route plan, and compliance with standards from the Streets and Highways code. The document and bike route plan would be subject to further refinement by staff to include community input and public hearings.

The Bike Master Plan tool would provide: A template for cities to create a bike master plan Maps of adopted regional bike plans Samples of existing bike plans and successful Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) applications Educational materials

The Bike Master Plan tool will include a white paper on recommended goals and policies, analysis of the eleven required elements listed in Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code, and implementation recommendations for adoption of a bike master plan.

Applicability

The Bike Master Plan tool has high applicability as a generic tool for small cities. Specifics on grant applications could be a generic tool, if kept current regarding deadlines, amounts, and successful applications.


Parlier Orange Cove Firebaugh




Create a range of housing opportunities and choices X Create walkable neighborhoods X Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration X Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place X Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective X Mix land uses X Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, critical environmental areas X Provide a variety of transportation choices X Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities X


15 of 26| P a g e



Take advantage of compact building design X Enhance the economic vitality of the region X Support actions that encourage environmental resource management X

Issues/Challenges

Intra-agency communication, understanding expectations Expectations of citizens regarding routes/usage Documenting other grant opportunities (Measure C, CMAQ funds) Coordination with bicycle advocacy groups would likely require more intensive and detailed bike planning Environmental justice: Safe transportation for youth to school, jobs

Sample Products

The Blueprint Planners Toolkit includes a variety of tools relevant to bicycle master planning under the “Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Design” section under “Transportation.” This includes recommendations for the creation of a bicycle master plan. In addition, several bicycle plans have been prepared for Valley communities, including the following:

City of Fresno Bicycle Master Plan City of Sanger Bicycle Master Plan City of Clovis Bicycle Master Plan City of Elk Grove Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan


16 of 26| P a g e

10. Park Master Plan

Overview

A park master plan can help to supplement and focus policies contained within an Open Space and/or Conservation Element of the General Plan. In particular, some cities have recreation districts that may be focused more on day-to-day maintenance and recreational programs than on park planning and land acquisition.


A park master plan would be city-specific and consist of a draft document of goals, policies, and standards for park development. The BPI tool could include:

A template of goals and policies for a small-city master plan, considering types of parks, acreage per population standards, Quimby Act requirements, etc.

Case studies of funding opportunities, including park development fees, public/private partnerships, and requiring amenities from developers

Multi-generational, multicultural use of park space. Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) policies Public park space vs. private parks

Applicability

A small-city park master plan would have moderate utility as a generic tool, as each community is different. However, the standards proposed – type of parks, acreage standards, funding alternatives – could serve as good examples for other smaller cities considering a master plan.

The BPI product would have high utility for the specific cities requesting the tool. There appear to be no such tools currently listed on the Planners Blueprint Toolkit website.






17 of 26| P a g e

Issues/Challenges

Existing vs. planned space Maintenance, funding, and related issues Possible link to Prop. 84 Funding, nonprofits (e.g., CA Endowment) Possible coordination with local school district to share resources Storm drainage opportunities Public/Private partnerships Canals/waterways/flood control, possible sites

Sample Products

Tehachapi Valley Parks Master Plan (ongoing) County of Kern Parks and Recreation Master Plan


18 of 26| P a g e

11. Ag and Open Space Preservation

Overview

Many cities in the BPI area are surrounded by prime agricultural land. Consumption of farmland to accommodate growth of cities has long been a challenge for valley communities. There is a growing interest in seeking out more effective mechanisms to preserve farm land, while allowing cities to grow. Other cities are surrounded by open space (such as rangeland) that acts as a resource and buffer the community, and there is interest in mechanisms to preserve this resource.


We would prepare a white paper on how to establish ag/open space mitigation policies/fees - tailored to the City requesting it, along with contact names/samples. The paper would highlight a variety of measures, including preservation impact fees, growth boundaries, infill strategies, etc.

Cities could implement such strategies through general plan policy, followed up by the establishment of an impact fee. Such fees could also arise as an environmental mitigation measure for particular projects.

Applicability

This tool would be applicable and useable by any Valley city, and has been requested by Exeter, Farmersville, McFarland and Tehachapi. This issue is addressed in the Blueprint Toolkit under “Agricultural Preservation,” where ag mitigation programs and conservation easement strategies are highlighted.





Issues/Challenges

Requires political support and support of affected land owners, as well as the development community.

Sample Products

Stanislaus County ag mitigation program. City of Fresno is currently studying. Was a policy in Reedley General Plan, but never implemented.


19 of 26| P a g e

12. Alternative Energy Standards

Overview

This is a cutting-edge issue, particularly in small San Joaquin Valley communities. The project White Paper would discuss how the economic needs of many small communities is to have cost effective and reliable energy supplies for their residents and businesses. It is also important for the community to be able to balance the ability to meet energy needs in a manner that preserves a community’s character and reflects aesthetic values. Modern technology and declining system costs are making solar an attractive option for home-owners and businesses alike. Concerns over solar access rights and aesthetics are the primary drivers of this issue. Secondary concerns are over the use of back-up generators, development of individual wind-power installations and location selection of large alternative energy facilities.

There are unique power utility grid issues, particularly in the northern counties, where many irrigation districts compete with PG&E to supply electricity. This has created variations throughout the Valley with respect to “grid” policies and practices. One size definitely does not fit all on some of the principles and standards that can be developed in this area of alternative energy. Alternative energy, and the entire issue of energy use and consumption, goes to the heart of SB 375 and the ability of any city to reduce its carbon footprint. The broader energy conservation issue has been a somewhat mandated topic in California planning law for many years. Issues of solar access are also matters of law (zoning). Most cities in the Central Valley would benefit from policy and zoning standards that directly addresses this issue. Policies promoting alternative energy design and development may provide a greater opportunity for alternative energy and air quality grants for small Central Valley cities. The application of such policies could result in cost of living reductions for community residents and could reduce the costs of owning and operating a business in small Central Valley communities.


Several types of documents could be prepared under this topic, including the following:

A general overview of the issue and application of Alternative Energy Standards with particular application to Small Central Valley Communities.

Zoning Code provisions that address Alternative Energy System standards and regulations. Subdivision Code provisions that implement requirements of State Law with respect to lot design and

orientation for maximum energy conservation and provision of Solar Access to individual lots. Solar/Wind Turbine design considerations for inclusion in zoning codes, municipal improvement

standards, and community design guidelines. Alternative energy “nuisance” provisions with respect to emergency back-up generator location, noise,

fuel storage, wiring, etc., and general permit processes.

Applicability

The Central Valley has a variety of settings with respect to energy resources and constraints on energy development. The entire Valley has excellent solar potential, and some areas have significant wind energy resource potential. Many areas of the Valley already derive electrical power from hydroelectric plants associated with foothill/mountain water reservoirs; many of these facilities are operated by local irrigation districts, as opposed to being served by major utility companies (e.g., PG&E).

Homeowners and businesses throughout the Valley are looking at reducing energy costs and improving energy reliability. Reduced costs of developing alternative energy systems, combined with technological advances in the field, have made the installation of alternative energy systems more common.


20 of 26| P a g e

Regardless of local circumstances and the scale of alternative energy systems, there is a need for tools to supplement most Valley communities’ development review (zoning-subdivision) processes. Without such tools, cities will continue struggle with issues of aesthetics, safety and solar access/shading disputes. Development of clear standards regulating the location and design of these alternative energy systems would benefit most Valley cities (large or small).

Based on initial consultations, one city (Livingston) has indicated that this tool would be a top priority.




Create a range of housing opportunities and choices

X Create walkable neighborhoods

X

Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration

X Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

X

Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective

X Mix land uses

X

Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, critical environmental areas

X Provide a variety of transportation choices

X

Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

X Take advantage of compact building design

X

Enhance the economic vitality of the region X Support actions that encourage environmental resource management X

Issues/Challenges

These development of tools to address alternative energy systems is relatively straight forward and can be easily adapted to municipalities’ code and administrative enforcement structures.

Sample Products

Alternative Energy Systems (Zoning Provision) Wind Turbine Energy Systems (Zoning Provision) Emergency Generator Back-Up Power Supply Systems (Zoning Provision) Subdivision Lot Design Standards (Subdivision Code Provision) Solar Energy System Design Standards for Multi-Family/Cluster Type Developments


21 of 26| P a g e

13. Complete Streets Standards

Overview

The concept of complete streets calls for integration of various modes of transportation (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.) into our existing street system. State law requires that local General Plans (when updated) address this issue and, by extension, local jurisdictions will need to adopt policies or measures for implementation. Effective institution of complete streets will involve consideration of local policies and standards (general plan, subdivision, zoning) to determine how to better incorporate “Complete Streets” principles, including modifications to improvement standards. The tool will focus on the implementation of State Mandated GP principles and standards, particularly with application to small rural communities in the Central San Joaquin Valley. A checklist can be developed to assist local planners in evaluating their existing General Plan Circulation Elements for compliance with State General Plan law.


Most modern General Plan Circulation Elements have all of the components of a Complete Streets policy; that is if they comply with the GP Guidelines. This BPI Product would complement existing local government GP Circulation Element efforts to articulate the Complete Streets strategy in a manner that complies with State Law.


A general overview will be prepared that describes the overall issue and application of Complete Streets Standards with particular application to Small Central Valley Communities.

General Plan “Checklist” for “Complete Streets” Goals, Policies and Standards. Subdivision Code provisions that promote “Complete Street” development designs (Subdivision Code). Zoning Code provisions that incorporate “Complete Street” standards into the zoning permit review

process (Zoning). Modification of city improvement standards to incorporate “Complete Streets” standards. (Municipal

Improvement Standards).

Applicability

Complete Streets concepts and standards, as might be applied in the Central Valley, appear to have a considerably different (narrower) application than those that apply in “urban” or “metropolitan” areas (Multi-Modal Transit Facilities, etc.). Adaptation of the concepts to recognize the material differences will be essential to effective application.

Based on initial consultation, two cities (Waterford and Newman) have identified complete streets as a priority.




Create a range of housing opportunities and choices X Create walkable neighborhoods X Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration X Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place X Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective X Mix land uses X Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, critical environmental areas X Provide a variety of transportation choices X Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities X


22 of 26| P a g e



Take advantage of compact building design X Enhance the economic vitality of the region X Support actions that encourage environmental resource management X

Issues/Challenges

Past experience with large projects that employed Complete Streets principles has taught us the devil is in the details. Making streets more pedestrian friendly, diverting service and access into alley ways, slowing and calming traffic, promoting alternative parking standards, etc., can encounter strong opposition from public safety interests, particularly fire protection agencies concerned with potential effects on response times and equipment access.

Sample Products

From Policy to Pavement Implementing Complete Streets in the San Diego Region. The report is structured around five key assumptions: 1. A city’s streets are its largest landholding and one of its greatest assets. Complete Streets maximize the

value of that asset. 2. The way streets look and function should represent a community’s vision of itself, not simply an

opportunity to move vehicles. Cities need to regularly update their understanding of what the community values.

3. When a street is being designed or retrofitted, representative user groups and partners in their departments or agencies should be thoroughly consulted. The Complete Streets approach is as much about the design process as the outcome.

4. Good street design must be combined with compatible land uses to take best advantage of a Complete Street treatment.

5. Complete Streets help induce compatible land uses, but land use changes, by themselves, rarely induce Complete Streets.

Caltrans Complete Streets Action Plan – Sets forth actions, including priority actions to implement Complete Streets in conformance with Deputy Directive 64-Revision #1: ‘Complete streets: Integrating the Transportation System’ (DD-64-R1)

Toolkit for Improving Walkability in Alameda County (link in SJV Blueprint Toolkit). Includes the following: Innovative pedestrian planning practices State-of-the practice pedestrian facility design Studies and research Programs shown to encourage walking Funding opportunities for pedestrian improvement projects Land use that encourages walking

Article: America Needs Complete Streets by Dan Burden and Todd Litman, ITE Journal, April 2011 Argues for Complete Streets policies to balance access for all modes Includes statistics and studies showing the benefits of Complete Streets Policies

Complete Streets Checklist, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (link in SJV Blueprint Toolkit) This checklist is intended to disclose information about how bicyclists and pedestrians have been

considered in the planning and design of transportation projects and to provide a vehicle for discussion about specific accommodations.


23 of 26| P a g e

14. Development Review Standards

Overview

The new fiscal reality faced by all small city planning agencies is that they must do more with less. Limited budgets have reduced planning staff resources to a point where review of current planning applications can become a major problem and concerns over timely review have forced local agency planners to narrow the scope of review” in some cases.

This tool is becoming increasingly important to small cities as a result of staff reductions that have occurred during the past few years. Development Review Standards and Processes provides consistency of project review in various settings and limits a cities exposure to litigation resulting from the inconsistent review practices that might be employed by small cities with limited Planning Staff resources.

The development and implementation of standardized application review procedures and standards of review can be codified and provide a legally consistent set of review items that must be addressed in any discretionary permit review situation. These provisions can be narrowed to reflect a city's primary focus or concern area and to limit some types non-applicable staff report and public discussions of a project’s merits.


Standards of Review would typically apply to Municipal Code Sections dealing with the Development Review process (Zoning, Subdivision Codes). This concept could be extended to general municipal code enforcement/appeals procedures.


A general description of this tool will would describe the overall issue and application of Development Review Standards and Processes with particular application to Small Central Valley Communities.

Zoning code provisions that include review standards for various types of zoning permits that list the municipal criteria by which a project is deemed in compliance with local policies and guidance.

General municipal code provisions that define local issues, standards and thresholds of concern (environmental, design, public safety, public service and utilities).

Applicability

This development review approach can be linked to an extensive list of types of developments/uses and groupings. Another aspect of this process is a comprehensive list of performance standards that set thresholds for uses or activities that would typically be subjects of some project level review but is not a codified standard for all uses in a particular Class of use. The objective here is to try and reduce the necessary staff time to craft a unique project review report and, in some cases, reduce the range of projects that require PC or CC action.

The codification of development review standards provides a base for sound community land use decision making. The issue of subjective v. objective review standards is the basis for the growing field of land use litigation. All cities, large and small would benefit from reducing the subjective discussion of a project’s merits and focusing on issues and concerns that have specific community interests as a focus. This approach does not limit the NIMBY potential in most land use decisions but it does provide a reasonable guide for decision makers to focus on the objective concerns of a city.

This process approach has broad implications for the permit processing/plan implementation function of a city. Of course, moving a project from the discretionary to administrative class has huge implications in CEQA. With respect to the Blueprint Principles, providing certainty in the permit process has a huge benefit to a community’s economic development agenda and promotes the provision of cost-effective planning services.


24 of 26| P a g e

The less time necessary to review an application, the less planning budget is expended in the current planning function and the more time that can be dedicated to the advance planning function. This class of tool is great potential with respect to having long term benefits to small city planning departments.

Based on initial consultation, the City of Patterson has identified complete streets as a priority.




Create a range of housing opportunities and choices

X Create walkable neighborhoods

X

Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration

X Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

X

Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective X Mix land uses

X

Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, critical environmental areas

X Provide a variety of transportation choices

X

Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

X Take advantage of compact building design

X

Enhance the economic vitality of the region X Support actions that encourage environmental resource management X

Issues/Challenges

Most Central Valley cities have evolved development review codes (zoning & subdivisions) from models borrowed from other cities. Most of these codes were typically not written by planners and, as a result, they tend to reflect legal concerns over good planning concerns. As a result, the broad discretionary review nature of our local development policies presents a daunting obstacle to anyone other than a seasoned and experienced developer. This system can create distrust for the local government decision making process and discourage localized innovation at all levels of the development review process. The establishment of codified standards of review sets a basis for the local decision making process. It allows a community to determine its development review priorities and focus on big picture issues and concerns.

Sample Products

Standards of Review Use Classifications General Regulations (Zoning Code Section) General Administration of Zoning


25 of 26| P a g e

15. Infill Strategy

Overview

Infill development is one of the key strategies a city can employ in reducing its costs of supporting growth and reducing its carbon footprint. Undeveloped or under-utilized property within a city’s boundaries are often a source of blight and can pose hazards with respect to fire, the accumulation of waste or creation of public nuisances.

This Tool would address the circumstances of infill properties within and why they have not developed and suggest alternative approaches to directing growth away from greenfield development and towards potential infill properties. Local government infill strategies include such approaches as reduced infill fees, and similar types of incentive based policies and programs. The reduced fee approach has its limitation because fees must be based on actual costs. When fees are reduced, these costs typically become a benefit given to a property owner paid for by the entire population of a city.

Experience has taught us that the primary reason that we have infill potential is that there is a development problem with a specific in-fill property. Past experience has taught us that sometimes it’s an ownership desire, sometimes there are real infrastructure gaps that make development cost prohibitive. As a general rule, these obstacles make it more profitable to develop a green-field than a town-field.

One of the most effective ways of re-directing development to an infill site is to change the economics of development site selection. Taking the profit out of green-field development, through fees etc., is a popular technique. Other approaches could be policy based. An Urban Expansion element in a city’s general plan can set up some policy standards for guiding annexations which could steer development away from a city’s edge and into existing and available land within the city’s existing boundaries. It should also be noted that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) plays an important role in this issue.


The San Joaquin County Council of Governments had developed a GIS based inventory of potential infill properties for cities within San Joaquin County. This GIS data-based approach can be extended to other County COG organizations. The GPI Project can develop approaches for small cities to use this data resource to develop a strategy for the utilization of potential infill properties within their boundaries.

It is proposed that several types of documents be prepared under this topic as follows:

A General Overview that would describe the overall issue and application of various infill strategies with particular application to small Central Valley communities.

Infill Inventory form. General Plan policies, standards with respect to urban expansion and utilization of in-fill properties for

public and private use. Infrastructure inventory/plans for eliminating problems of water/sewer/storm drain deficiencies within a

city.

Applicability

Infill, or the development of undeveloped or underdeveloped properties within a city’s boundaries, requires the establishment of general plan policy commitments as the primary tool to direct new urban growth to these sites. The objective of these changes would be to facilitate infill and discourage unnecessary Greenfield development.

It must be recognized that, in large measure, un-developed or under-developed town-fields exist because of some obstacle to their being fully developed. These problems typically fall into the following categories:


26 of 26| P a g e

Ownership desires. Sewer/water/storm drain deficiencies. Access issues/problems of internal circulation. Land area not sufficient to support market-driven development. Identified hazards and hazard mitigation costs.

Each of these problems has a different solution with respect to promotion of in-fill development. An inventory of available in-fill properties coupled with identification of the appropriate approach to resolving the reason why the property is un-developed or under-developed is the first logical step to promoting in-fill development.

In-fill strategies have great applicability to all Central Valley Communities; large or small. As a result of the speculative development boom throughout the Central Valley during the decade of the 90s and early 2000s, leap-frog type of development has left un-developed areas throughout most cities.





Issues/Challenges

One approach that has been promoted to encourage infill is the reduction of fees. This approach does not, typically, resolve the reason why an available infill property exists. Another approach is to increase the costs of greenfield development. Both cost approaches have limitations and, often, do not directly address the reason infill opportunities exist. The resolution of an infill property’s problem is often complex and expensive. In some cases they cannot be easily and cost effectively resolved and more appropriate uses should be identified for the property (park-land, community gardens, public use sites, etc.).

In-fill problem resolution in the Central Valley is directly linked to the economy of the region. Until there is a significant change in market demand conditions for new development cities are not likely to see much movement in this area. The critical tool that can be developed during these economic times is to develop policies that reduce the availability and accessibility of Greenfield development opportunities through limiting the city’s Sphere of Influence and potential for Greenfield annexations.

Sample Products

Simple inventory sheet for Undeveloped/Underdeveloped property in a City. Draft Urban Expansion General Plan Policies and Standards. Outline of a LAFCO required “Municipal Service Review Document” required for all annexations of

Greenfield land.

ATTACHMENT 4 – MID-FLIGHT CONVENTION SAVE THE DATE FLYER

Save the Date: May 31, 2012!Please join us for our Mid-Flight Convention!

It’s an exciting time to be planning for the future of the San Joaquin Valley.

Over the past year the Smart Valley Places compact of larger cities, non-profit organizations and other governmental agencies have been working together to promote sustainable development in the urban areas of the Valley. With the recent start of the Blueprint Integration Project, now smaller cities in the Valley are also working to address the issues of smart growth within the rural areas.

These efforts represent an unprecedented opportunity to build relationships, share knowledge, and generate enthusiasm for smart growth in the Valley. The Smart Valley Places and Blueprint Integration project teams invite you to participate in the Mid- Flight Convention to further take advantage of this unique coordination of efforts to enhance development in the Valley.

At the Mid-Flight Convention you will:Participate in thought-provoking commentary from leaders from the public, private, and non-profit sectors. Share specific tools and strategies to implement smart growth in the Valley.Strengthen working relationships with colleagues and explore opportunities for continued regional cooperation.

Please register by May 23, 2012 at www.midflightconvention.eventbrite.com or by contacting Carey Stone at (510) 848-3815 or [email protected]

Questions? Call or e-mail: Ben Noble at (510) 848-3815, [email protected] or Rob Terry at (559) 233-4148, x222, [email protected]

When:

Where:

Registration:

Time:

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Modesto Centre Plaza 1000 L Street, Modesto$15, includes lunch

9:30 am - 4:00 pm*

*Coffee and Registration - 8:30 am - 9:30 am

For more information about Smart Valley Places, please visit:

www.smartvalleyplaces.org

For more information about the Valley Blueprint Integration project, please visit:

www.valleyblueprint.org

Join the conversation about how to create a more sustainable San Joaquin

Valley!

ATTACHMENT 5 – BPI – FINAL CITY TOOLS TABLE

Blueprint Integration Final Tool List

BPI Area Client City Tool Tool Category

North Area Ceres Parks Master Plan-Ceres Design GuidelinesNorth Area Escalon Escalon General Plan Audit General PlanNorth Area Hughson BPI Mixed Use Standards-Hughson Design GuidelinesNorth Area Livingston Community Art and Murals-Livingston ZoningNorth Area Los Banos Bicycle Master Plan-Los Banos Guidance ResourcesNorth Area Newman Newman Complete Strees White Paper Design GuidelinesNorth Area Oakdale BPI Zoning Consistency-Oakdale ZoningNorth Area Patterson Zoning Performance Standards-Patterson ZoningNorth Area Ripon Ripon Code Enforcement Update ZoningNorth Area Riverbank Riverbank Non-Motorized Transp. Plan Design GuidelinesNorth Area Waterford Waterford Design Guideline Design GuidelinesCentral Area Chowchilla Chowchilla Design Assistance Design GuidelinesCentral Area Coalinga Coalinga ZO audit ZoningCentral Area Firebaugh Firebaugh BTP Ad Hoc Plans/PoliciesCentral Area Fowler Fowler General Plan Audit General PlanCentral Area Huron Huron ZO audit ZoningCentral Area Kerman Small Lot Residential Guidelines Design GuidelinesCentral Area Kingsburg Kingsburg ZO audit ZoningCentral Area Mendota Mendota Gen Plan Audit General PlanCentral Area Orange Cove Orange Cove BTP Final Ad Hoc Plans/PoliciesCentral Area Parlier Parlier BTP Final Ad Hoc Plans/PoliciesCentral Area Reedley Reedley MF Design Guidelines Design GuidelinesCentral Area San Joaquin San Joaquin General Plan Audit General PlanCentral Area Sanger Sanger General Plan Audit General PlanCentral Area Selma Selma Small Lot Residential Guidelines Design GuidelinesSouth Area Arvin Arvin Design Guidelines Design GuidelinesSouth Area Avenal Avenal - Small Lot DesignGuidelines Design GuidelinesSouth Area California City California City - Infill Guidelines Guidance ResourcesSouth Area Corcoran Corcoran white paper Design GuidelinesSouth Area Dinuba Dinuba White Paper General PlanSouth Area Exeter Exeter - Ag Mitigation Easements Ad Hoc Plans/PoliciesSouth Area Farmersville Farmersville Zoning Ordinance Audit ZoningSouth Area Lemoore Lemoore Mixed Use Design Strategies ZoningSouth Area Lindsay Lindsay Design Guidelines Design GuidelinesSouth Area McFarland McFarland - Ag. Mitigation Easements Ad Hoc Plans/PoliciesSouth Area Ridgecrest Ridgecrest Sign Regulations ZoningSouth Area Taft Taft White Paper ZoningSouth Area Tehachapi Tehachapi - Smart Growth Principles Guidance ResourcesSouth Area Wasco Wasco Hwy 46 Design Guidelines Design GuidelinesSouth Area Woodlake Woodlake - Downtown Design Guidelines Design Guidelines

40 Number of Participating Cities6 Number of Cities that Declined

46 Total Eligible Cities in ProgramCities that declined: Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Lathrop, Maricopa, and Shafter

ATTACHMENT 6 – CITY FOLLOW UP LETTER TO CITY MANAGERS

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Project

Enclosure

April 19, 2013

Name, City Manager City of Address City, CA ZIP Subject: Final BPI Tool - San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Project Dear Name: You recently received the Final BPI Tool prepared by Circuit Planner as your Circuit Planner on the URS Project Team. The City selected this tool for preparation under the Blueprint Integration Project, a Prop 84 grant from the State of California administered by Fresno COG, on behalf of the eight valley Council’s of Government. The delivery of the Final document constitutes completion of the consultants’ work for your city under this contract. We are writing to you to affirm that a final tool has been delivered to your city and to request feedback from you on the services provided under this contract. City staff has been consulted during your city’s participation in the project and was provided a draft for review. Any comments received have been addressed or discussed with your planner and/or other appropriate staff prior to submittal of the Final document to your city. We have included a short questionnaire to provide us feedback on the services provided and any suggestions for similar future projects or services. We hope that you can take two minutes to complete and return the questionnaire. Your feedback is important to assist us in evaluating the value of this type of service to our member cities. If you have any questions or prefer to provide your feedback directly to me, feel free to contact me at (559) 233-4148, or [email protected]. You may also contact Barbara Steck, SJV Blueprint Planning Process Program Coordinator, at (559) 233-4148, or [email protected]. Please return the questionnaire and any comments you may have no later than May 3, 2013. Thank you for your participation and comments. Sincerely, Rob Terry, SJV Blueprint Manager Senior Regional Planner Fresno Council of Governments


ATTACHMENT 7 - CIRCUIT PLANNING QUESTIONNAIRE

San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Integration Project Circuit Planning Services Questionnaire

Fold Up First

City Name, Title or:____________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire. Please return via mail (just fold, tape, stamp, and drop in the mailbox), scan and email to Rob Terry at: [email protected], or go to: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/W93ZSVW and fill out the survey online.

Please circle appropriate number for each question and include any comments in space provided

Low -------------------------------High

Overall satisfaction with the Blueprint Integration Program (BPI) 1 2 3 4 5

Overall value of the BPI Program for your City 1 2 3 4 5

Value of the Mid-Flight Conference held in Modesto (May 2012) 1 2 3 4 5

Satisfaction with your Circuit Planner (availability, communication, professionalism, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5

Satisfaction with the services provided by your Circuit Planner 1 2 3 4 5

Please rate the quality of the BPI Tool provided 1 2 3 4 5

Did you find the Tool developed useful for your City? 1 2 3 4 5

Did this help your City integrate your Blueprint goals? 1 2 3 4 5

Please rate the value of your BPI Tool in implementing long-range planning efforts 1 2 3 4 5

Likelihood of using BPI Tools developed for other cities (available on the Blueprint Toolkit) 1 2 3 4 5

Would your City use Circuit Planner Assistance if it was made available in the future? 1 2 3 4 5

If you had to pay a portion of the cost, what would be preferred payment method (please circle one)? Flat Fee Hourly Other/or comments:

Is there a specific need or service you need from a Circuit Planner?

Any additional Comments on the Blueprint Integration Program?


http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/W93ZSVW

City Address

Fold Under First

First Class

Stamp

Rob Terry, Senior Regional Planner Fresno County Council of Governments 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93721

Documents

FINAL REPORT - Valley Blueprint · FINAL REPORT . Project funded by a ... Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost ... through local implementation strategies and a