HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08071990 - 2.3 Y
{ • _1 I
2 .3
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 7, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
(For vote see below)
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Initiative and the
Greenbelt Alliance Initiative
The Board received the report from the Director of Community
Development relating to the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation plan presented to the Board by County Counsel. (A copy
of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. )
The Board also received a report (Attachment A) entitled "The
Economic Impacts of the Land Use Initiative and the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Upon Contra Costa County" prepared by Economic and
Planning Systems, Inc. , of Berkeley, California. Mr. Walter Keiser
of the referenced firm presented a summary analysis of the scope of
the report which included comparison data of the two proposals and
potential fiscal impact on the County.
In referencing Mr. Keiser' s analysis, Supervisor Powers called
attention to the fact that if the Greenbelt Initiative was adopted
there would be no change in the amount of growth and jobs and housing
in the County or around the County. He noted that pressures for
growth are not something that are created or stopped by local
governments, they are only managed. He expressed concern that the
passage of the initiative would not mean the end of traffic
congestion but that this problem would still prevail. However, in
this case the County would have no control over the growth nor would
they have any revenue to offset the impact of that growth.
In referring to the two initiatives, Supervisor Schroder noted
that the Greenbelt initiative forces all development in the
incorporated communities (the 18 cities within the County) , thereby
increasing the population in those cities, but putting the burden of
services upon the County without the offsetting revenue to fund those
services. He noted that it is not a growth control measure at all
since it stops any and all suburban and rural development in the
unincorporated areas and compacts development within the cities.
Frank Pereira, representing the Citizens Land Alliance, 6040
Alhambra Valley Rd. , Martinez, spoke in opposition to the Greenbelt
Alliance Initiative. He requested the Board to defer action for one
week to allow those who would be directly affected to review staff ' s
findings. He advised that this additional time would allow staff
another week to gather other data relative to the effects of the
proposed initiative.
Jack Bloomfield, 4955 Discovery Point; Byron, spoke in
opposition to the establishment of an urban limit line and requested
that this matter not be submitted to the voters in November. He
advised that he was not concerned about the 65/35 rule in the term of
the General Plan because he did not believe it discriminated against
individuals as the urban limit line designation does in the Greenbelt
Initiative.
Frank L. Stone, Councilmember, City of Antioch, 1312 - West 10th
Street, Antioch, advised that the City Council is opposed to an urban
limit line as presented. He expressed concern with the potential of
real estate prices escalating in the cities and the inability of
young couples to purchase homes. Councilmember Stone also expressed
opposition to the Greenbelt Alliance Initiative.
- 1 -
Catherine Palmer, Mayor, City of Brentwood, spoke in opposition
to the urban limit line concept. She requested the Board to have an
urban service line and not an urban limit line. She spoke of fiscal
consequences to the County with the passage of the Initiative.
Lillian Pride, City of Pittsburg, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg,
advised of the City Council' s opposition to the Greenbelt Initiative,
the urban limit line under consideration by the Board and the
placement of the matter on the November ballot. She referred to the
requests made by the City of Pittsburg for some adjustments in the
boundary in the area of Bailey Road and the southeast area of the
city.
Howard Higgins, Citizens Land Alliance, P.O. Box 457 , Antioch,
spoke in opposition to the Greenbelt initiative and urban limit
lines. He advised of discussions with people in Bethel Island,
Knightsen, and Oakley who are opposed to these measures. He
commented on the negative impact passage of these measures would have
on County services and expressed a need for all groups to work
together to attain an equitable solution.
Guy Bjerk, Executive Director of the Building Industry
Association of Northern California, 1280 Boulevard Way, Suite 211,
Walnut Creek, advised that the Greenbelt initiative would attack the
County' s revenue stream by reducing property taxes and certain fees.
He commented on the possibility of the County incurring a liability
because of being required to compensate property owners whose
property had been down-zoned through the initiative process. He
noted that in 1984 the voters of Solano County had adopted a program
similar to the open space initiative and commented on the problems
that county has incurred as a result of loss of revenue required to
maintain county services. He recommended keeping both measures off
the ballot and giving Measure C (approved by the voters in 1988) with
its growth management provision a chance to work.
Frank Lehmkuhl, 1731 Claycord Avenue, Concord, spoke in support
of the Greenbelt initiative.
Ron Gatti, 311 Barton Court, Danville, and a property owner in
the Bollinger Canyon area, spoke of his opposition to the urban limit
line concept and the Greenbelt Initiative. He recommended that the
Board require staff to include within the urban limit line current
spheres of influence of certain cities. In reference to staff ' s
exclusion of the Bollinger Canyon area outside of the urban limit
line designation, he advised that the San Ramon City council had
voted unanimously for the inclusion of Bollinger Canyon in the
County' s urban limit line and that the Board should be receiving a
letter from the City shortly.
Fred Etzel, legal counsel to the, Citizens Land Alliance, 4
Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, recommended deferring decision to
place the Greenbelt initiative on the ballot for one week to allow
for ample review of the report prepared by Economic and Planning
Systems as well as the preparation of additional fiscal information
relative to the impact of the Initiative and the establishment of
urban limit lines on Contra Costa County. He expressed the belief
that the Greenbelt Alliance initiative will allow growth to occur to
the north of Contra Costa County in the Rio Vista area, with this
County then becoming a drive-through county for people to get to
their jobs. He advised that delaying the vote on these issues to
June 1992 will give the electorate the opportunity to thoroughly
understand the issue. In conclusion, Mr. Etzel urged the Board to
consider the urban services line concept in terms of accommodating
urban development because the County must have it.
Mark Evanoff, representing the Greenbelt Alliance, 116 New
Montgomery Street, Suite 640, San Francisco, commented on the
development of the initiative. He urged the Board to approve placing
the initiative on the November 6 , 1990 ballot.
A. B. McNabney, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society, 1161 Leisure Lane,
#7, Walnut Creek, advised of his support for the initiative. He
- 2 -
,
spoke on the need to retain farmland. However he noted that if there
are economic impacts on individuals as a result of the initiative, he
believes these impacts can be ameliorated.
Lucia Albers, 1400 Deer Valley Road, Brentwood, commented on the
negative consequences to the County and property owners if the
initiative is approved by the electorate. She stated that if the
Greenbelt Alliance wants open space, they should look for ways to buy
it.
Mike Farr, 18311 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, expressed
concern that approval of the initiative will reduce property values
on certain farmland and potential consequences to these landowners in
times of diminished fiscal resources. He proposed that if farmers
are to be precluded from subdividing their land because of the need
to keep it in agriculture, a procedure needs to be established to
purchase the development rights from farmers and yet still allow the
land to be kept in agriculture.
Gayle Bishop, 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 230, San Ramon, spoke
on the initiative process and advised that she did not believe it
would be proper to delay beyond November 1990 placing the Greenbelt
Alliance initiative on the ballot.
Ed Dimmick, 1251 Sheppard Court, Walnut Creek, commented on the
placement of the initiative on the November ballot.
Jack Roddy, representing the Contra Costa-Alameda County
Cattlemen' s Association, Rt. 2 Box 1774, (city not given) , commented
on agricultural economics relative to food production and land value.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
Supervisor Schroder spoke of his concern about the designation
of urban limit lines because of the inflexibility of drawing such a
line. He therefore moved to eliminate the urban limit line designa-
tion from the General Plan. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, Fanden
NOES: Supervisors Powers, McPeak, Torlakson
Board members discussed various provisions of the 65/35 Contra
Costa County Land Preservation Plan. Supervisor Schroder requested
the Board to give consideration to including in Section 7 of the
proposed Plan provision for a five year periodic review to determine
if a change to the urban limit line is warranted.
Supervisor Torlakson concurred and moved the inclusion of the
five year periodic review of the urban limit line designation.
Supervisor Schroder seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: Supervisor Fanden
Thereupon, Supervisor McPeak moved approval of the form of the
65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan as amended
(exclusion of the map) and the placement of the ordinance, including
the ballot language, on the November 6, 1990 ballot. The motion was
seconded by Supervisor Powers.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: Supervisor Fanden
- 3 -
The Board then considered approval of the map (delineating the
urban limit lines) which would be included as a part of the
ordinance.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that the City of Antioch has
requested inclusion of lands in the area along Deer Valley south and
along Empire Mine Road because of the city' s projected growth plan of
1, 000 housing units a year for the next five years. He expressed the
opinion that this projection may not be realistic and that the five
year review period included in the ordinance would take the City' s
growth into consideration at that time. Supervisor Torlakson
expressed support for the inclusion of Horse Valley within the urban
limit line as presented on the map for the Board' s consideration.
Supervisor Torlakson then referred to the projected growth plans
of the City of Brentwood and of its request to include within its
urban limit line parcels of land along Sellars Avenue adjacent to the
City' s business park, the Gerry and Garin parcels (which are a part
of the Redevelopment Agency) , and part of an area that the County has
requested to handle flood control drainage facilities. He advised of
a compromise proposal he is submitting which is to limit the
extension of the urban limit line to the Gerry and Garin properties,
those being the area bounded by Chestnut on the north, Sellars on the
east, and the city' s existing sphere of influence on the south.
Commenting on the feasibility of accepting this compromise proposal,
Supervisor Torlakson then moved its approval.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Supervisors Torlakson and McPeak commented on the feasibility of
participating in discussions with affected cities relative to
non-urban and urban planning. Supervisor Torlakson raised the
question of how much of the Cowell Ranch should be included in the
urban limit line to the west and south of Brentwood. Supervisor
McPeak proposed the extension of the current City of Brentwood line
to the west to include properties along Balfour Road with the
condition that development of these lands shall be jointly planned
between the City of Brentwood and the County of Contra Costa.
Supervisor Powers advised that he believed it was premature to
enter into discussions to allow memoranda of understanding to occur
since the electorate would be voting on the ordinance on November 5,
1990.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on the need to review the
concerns of the cities and if any changes to the urban limit line are
made, to incorporate those changes prior to the approval of the final
map by the Board.
Mayor Catherine Palmer, City of Brentwood, advised of her
opposition to urban limit lines, but expressed an interest in working
with the Board to reach an agreement.
Supervisor Torlakson moved the inclusion of the Garin and Gerry
properties within the urban limit line around the Harvest Business
Park with the inclusion of a 100-foot buffering zone so as limit the
impacts of the urban area on prime agricultural land. He advised
that this would allow the City of Brentwood to have economic
viability to pursue their business park and to do the flood control
improvements that the County Flood Control District has required.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor McPeak.
Supervisor Fanden advised that she would not be supporting the
map because she believed the proposed changes to be arbitrary and not
fair to all property owners.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden
4 -
r
r ,
Supervisor Torlakson referred to the Cowell project which had
previously been rejected from being a part of the General Plan. He
pointed to a triangular piece of land (owned by the Cowell
Foundation) on the proposed urban limit line map that points down and
straddles across Marsh Creek Road into an area that is the subject of
the Initiative. He moved that this area be removed from the urban
limit line. He noted that the City of Brentwood was in agreement.
Supervisor McPeak seconded the motion.
Supervisor Schroder advised that he believes it would be
improper to take a large parcel of property with one ownership and
cut a portion of that out of the potential for one large parcel of
planning.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, Fanden
Supervisor Torlakson then referred to consideration of the City
of Pittsburg for some changes to the urban limit line in the vicinity
of that city. He advised that he would support including in the
urban limit line the front end of the Nortonville area off Kirker
Pass (excluding the Wilson property) . He requested staff of the
Community Development Department and Lillian Pride of the City of
Pittsburg to confer on the proposed changes.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Barry advised that in reviewing the line
drawn by staff from the City of Pittsburg, it appears to encompass a
substantially larger area including the Wilson property, the subject
of an agricultural preserve contract. Mr. Barry then reviewed with
the Board the drawing submitted by the City' s staff.
Supervisor McPeak advised that she could not support the area
proposed by the City of Pittsburg.
Supervisor Torlakson moved to include the referenced area in the
urban limit line.
The motion died for lack of a second. '
Supervisor Powers then moved that the map be adopted as amended
and made a part of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Supervisor Schroder.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak
NOES: Supervisors Torlakson, Fanden
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken rid entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 7. /990
PHIL BATGRELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
CC: Director, CDD �•
- 5 -
a.3
.:. Contra
TO: Bp OARDSUPERVISORS o•.
Costa
.AWr
� County
FROM: Harvey E. Bra don ��srA�.--r" `
Director of mmunity Development
DATE: JULY 31, 1990
SUBJECT: 65/35 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN INITIATIVE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the form of the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation Plan presented to the Board by County Counsel.
2 . Approve the proposed ballot language and take the necessary
actions to place the ordinanace on the Novbember 6, 1990
ballot.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Community Development Department has been working to prepare
a new General Plan for the County for over four and one-half years.
In preparing thew new General Plan, staff has elicited the help of
numerous consultants, and conducted thousands of hours of study and
analysis. In addition, staff prepared a draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) to analyse the environmental effects of the new
General Plan, as required by state law. Copies of the Draft of the
proposed new General Plan were available for public comment between
March, 1989 and March 1990; the DEIR was available between January
and March, 1990. Staff is now in the process of revising the new
General Plan to respond to the many comments received on the draft
General Plan and DEIR.
2 . In connection with this process of developing the new General
Plan, the county held numerous public meetings and received
thousands of written comments on the new General Plan. From these
comments, staff identified three major concerns expressed by the
public:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
CTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVIS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NO ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAI MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED
County. Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Special Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Administrator AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
\DMB
CJA4:807bs.bo
t
a. Growing urbanization of the county is threatening the
long-term viability of the county's agricultural and open space
land, parks, wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines. Preservation of
the agricultural land is critical to maintaining a healthy and
competetive agricultural economy and assuring a balance in land
uses in the county. Moreover, presevation and conservation of
open space, wetlands, parks, hillsides and ridgelines is imper-
ative to ensure the continued availability of unique habitat for
wildlife and plants, to protect the unique scenery of the county
and to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for
county residents.
b. Growth is a natural and proper part of the life of the
community. However, growth should be responsibly managed to
preserve the quality of life for current and future generations.
New development should be guided into appropriate locations, and
should be allowed only after appropriate infrastructure (
Transportation, parks, schools, water, fire and police protec-
tion, among others) can be assured.
c. There is a critical need to make decent, safe and affordable
housing available to all Contra Costa County residents. Fair
housing' opportunities should prevail for all economic segments
of the county, and housing should be available in reasonable
proximity to employment centers. In addition, the county's land
use policies should not restrict growth so severely that they
preclude these affordable housing opportunities.
3 . To reflect those concerns in the new General Plan, the Board of
Supervisors, during May and June, 1990 requested staff to develop an
Urban Limit Line program. That program was intended to identify the
outer boundaries of potentiial development during the life of the new
General Plan, and insure that certain parts of the County were
preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands
parks, hillsides and ridgelines. The basic. principles of the Urban
Limit Line program were approved by the Board of Supervisors at their
meeting on May 22 , 1990.
4. As part of the Urban Limit Line prgram, the Board requested staff
to establish an actual urban limit line to identify outer boundaries
within which development could occur during the term of the new
general plan. In developing that urban limit line consideration was
given to the following criteria and factors for determining whether
land should be considered for location outside the urban limit line:
a. Land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class II in the
Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability classification, b. open
space, parks and other recreation areas, c. lands with slopes in
excess of 26%, d. Wetlands, and e. other areas not appropriate for
urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development,
ustable geological conditions, inadequate watwer availability, the
lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing develop-
ment, liklihood of substantial environmental damage, for substantial
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar
factors. Staff believes that those factors most appropriately reflect
the concerns of the public regarding the need to preserve agricul-
tural and open space land, wetlands, hillsides, ridgelines and parks.
5. As part of the Urban Limit Line program,the Board also requested
staff to determine the appropriate balance between the percentage of
land which should be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands,
parks and other non-urban uses, and the percentage that should be
available for potential development during the term of the new
general plan. After careful review and analysis of the available land
in the county, staff has determined that the balance is best achieved
by a policy which limits potential development to no more than 35
percent of the county and preserves 65 percent of the county for
agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
6. The Urban Limit Line program and its accompanying policies,
together with the 65/35 concept have now been formulated into the
65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan. The components of
the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan are included in
the proposed ordinance submitted to the Board by County Counsel.
Staff has reviewed the proposed ordinance and believes that it
accurately and most appropriately reflects the recommendations of
staff in earlier reports to the Board of Supervisors. Staff also
believes that the proposed ordinance reflects the needs and interests
of the public expressed in comments received on the proposed new
General Plan and DEIR. Staff understands that the proposed ordinance
does not call for an amendment to the County's existing General Plan,
but requires the County to reflect the policies contained in the
65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan in the new General
Plan.
7. Staff has also reviewed the proposed ordinance in connection with
any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and state and county guidelines. Staff believes that
submission of the proposed ordinance to the voters is not a project
under CEQA and that, as a result, no environmental review is re-
quired. Even if the submission of the proposed ordinance to the
voters were to be viewed as a project, staff believes that such
action would be exempt from CEQA compliance under both the CEQA
statute and the state and county guidelines. Furthermore, The ordi-
nance provides that upon its approval by the voters, the county shall
take all necessary and appropriate steps to reflect the policies of
the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan in the new
General Plan and analyse and disclose its potentially significant
effects consistent with the State Planning Law and CEQA. In that
regard, staff expects to complete the environmental review for the
new General Plan prior to the November, 1990 election.
8. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors place
the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation ordinance on the
November 6, 1990 ballot so that the voters of the county can deter-
mine whether or not the plan accuratelly reflects their interests and
concerns.
ATTACHMENT A
ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS
PRESENTATION DRAFT REPORT
Economic Impacts of the Land Use Initiative
and the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
Upon Contra Costa County
Prepared for:
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Prepared by:
ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS,Inc.
Berkeley,California
August 1990
EPS#884
1815B FOURTH STREET•BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710• PHONE (415)841-9190
717 K STREET•SUITE 501 •SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814•PHONE (916)444-2360
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
INTRODUCTION 1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2
Land Use Effects 2
Fiscal Impacts Upon Contra Costa County 3
Impacts Upon Public Finance Commitments 3
Financial Impacts Upon Landowners 3
Regional Economic Impacts 4
THE PROPOSED LAND USE INITIATIVE AND THE PRESERVATION PLAN 5
The Land Use Initiative 5
The Preservation Plan 8
BASELINE CONDITIONS AND PROJECTIONS 10
Land Use,Population,and Employment Trends 10
County Budget Conditions and Trends 12
Infrastructure Constraints 17
Trends in Government Organization 18
Emerging General Plan Amendments 18
IMPACT ANALYSIS 19
Fiscal Impacts Upon Contra Costa County 19
County Employees 24
Impacts Upon Public Finance Commitments 24
Financial Impacts Upon Landowners 24
Regional Economic Impacts 25
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 26
Fiscal and Financial Analysis 26
Growth Management Element 27
1 ' 1
' Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
INTRODUCTION
This report provides an economic analysis of the Land Use Initiative for the Unincorporated
Area of Contra Costa County. (Land Use Initiative). The Land Use Initiative, sponsored by
"Vision for a Better Contra Costa", has qualified for the November election by petition. An
alternative ballot measure, the 65135 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan (Preser-
vation Plan) has been prepared by the Board of Supervisors and County staff as an alterna-
tive to the Land Use Initiative. These ballot measures have emerged from the debate sur-
rounding the Contra Costa County Draft General Plan.
The potential impacts of the Land Use Initiative and the Preservation Plan must be viewed
within the context of existing trends and conditions. Accordingly,the analysis begins with a
summary of the following items:
• Land Use,Population,and Employment Projections
• County Budget Conditions
• Infrastructure Constraints
• Trends in Governmental Organization
• Impact of Emerging General Plan Amendments
The next step is to determine what effects the Land Use Initiative or, alternatively, the
Preservation Plan will have on land use. The Land Use Initiative imposes more stringent
restrictions on land use within unincorporated territory of the County than proposed in the
Draft General Plan. This will have a variety of direct and indirect effects on the amount of
development that occurs and where it will be located. The Preservation Plan maintains the
land use designations provided by the Draft General Plan but imposes an "urban limit line"
beyond which urban development would not be permitted.
The direct and indirect land use effects of the two ballot measures were quantified to the
extent possible and subjected to an economic analysis. The economic analysis addresses
several economic variables that could be affected and provides a quantitative and qualitative
assessment of the potential impacts. These variables include:
• Fiscal Impacts Upon Contra Costa County
• Impacts Upon Public Finance Commitments
• Financial Impacts Upon Landowners
• Regional Economic Impacts
The economic analysis was conducted by revising and updating the economic models and
information previously developed by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). Since the
beginning of the General Plan Program in 1986, EPS has assisted the Contra Costa County
Community Development Department with the development of land use projections and
data, land use analysis,fiscal impact analysis, and the development of policies regarding the
financing of public services and facilities.
1
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
LAND USE EFFECTS
The land use effects, and the related economic impacts, of either the Land Use Initiative or
the Preservation plan would be moderated during the 15 year planning horizon by two fac-
tors: First, there will be a more than adequate supply of development capacity created by the
Draft General Plan and existing city general plans relative to the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) growth projections; therefore,the measures do not constrain develop-
ment potential to a large degree in the foreseeable future. Second, infrastructure constraints
and the related Draft General Plan Growth Management Element policies, particularly in the
East County,would tend to moderate growth rates with or without the ballot measures.
The Land Use Initiative would eliminate proposed urban designations on a 6,100-acre area in
the East County around the existing development in Oakley and Brentwood. Development
capacity within this area, relative to the Draft General Plan, would be reduced by nearly
15,000 potential residential units and 5.6 million square feet of potential commercial and
industrial space. The ratio of residential demand, based on ABAG projections, to develop-
ment capacity in East County would increase from 63 percent to 82 percent. The ratio of
commercial/industrial demand to development capacity would increase from 32 percent to
38 percent.
The Land Use Initiative would also establish large lot size minimums (320 acres) on agricul-
tural and open space lands and in the Agricultural Core (40 acres). General Plan Amend-
ments in these areas would require Countywide voter approval. The Initiative would
remain in effect through 2010. These restrictions would virtually eliminate parcel maps and
subdivisions in portions of the County without urban designations in the Draft General Plan.
The Preservation Plan maintains the land use designations shown in the General Plan and
establishes an "urban limit line" beyond the area currently shown in urban designations.
This urban limit line would define an area wherein General Plan Amendments to urban uses
would be acceptable in the future. General Plan Amendments in areas beyond the urban
limit line could be accomplished under certain special circumstances, otherwise, they would
require Countywide voter approval.
The Preservation Plan would also establish large lot size minimums on "prime productive
agricultural land" (40 acres) although other rural designations would remain as proposed in
the Draft General Plan. The Ordinance would remain in effect through 2005.
2
' Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
FISCAL IMPACTS UPON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
The Land Use Initiative could cause direct and indirect fiscal impacts upon Contra Costa
County.
• Cutbacks of development potential could result in a loss of the anticipated net positive
fiscal margins which would have resulted from the development occurring in the area.
At full buildout of the area affected, it is estimated that the annual loss could be from
$1.1 million, if the area is annexed or incorporated, to $2.9 million, if the area remains
unincorporated.
• The increased incentive for development to occur in cities through annexation and/or
incorporation could reduce the County's share of property taxes in the affected area by
$4 million annually, which would lead to the net loss of $1.1 million if the area is
annexed or incorporated.
• The elimination of development potential in lands presently designated for agricultural
and open space uses in the General Plan would entirely eliminate opportunities for the
County to receive fiscal benefit from any future development in areas currently beyond
the Draft General Plan urban designations.
The Preservation Plan would accommodate the land use designations reflected in the Draft
General Plan. Thus, the potential losses described for the Land Use Initiative would be
avoided. However, the urban limit line would reduce development potential outside its
boundaries and eliminate related potential fiscal benefits that could accrue from such devel-
opment.
IMPACTS UPON PUBLIC FINANCE COMMITMENTS
There are no assessment districts or other financing instruments pending in the areas
affected by the Land Use Initiative. However, impact fee revenues expected from develop-
ment in the East County will be significantly reduced. The Transportation Impact Fee
revenue alone could be reduced by as much as $132 million, assuming full buildout of the
area. Assuming a 15-year build out period,the annual loss of revenue would be$8.8 million,
if the current rate structure is maintained. There will not be a corresponding reduction in
infrastructure costs. Park In-Lieu Fees levied by the County (if maintained at current rates)
would be reduced by a total of$3 million,or$200,000 annually.
As noted above, the Preservation plan would accommodate the land use designations in the
Draft General Plan. Therefore, the potential development would not be reduced,nor would
the expected fee revenues.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS UPON LANDOWNERS
The value of land in the unincorporated portion of the County which is designated Agricul-
ture/Open Space and Agricultural Core by the Land Use Initiative will be significantly
reduced. In some instances this reduction will be a lost opportunity to sell land for develop-
3
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
ment values at some future date. In other instances, particularly in the Oakley/Brentwood
area where cutbacks in the urban designations in the Draft General Plan are imposed, there
could be actual losses to individuals who have made investment purchases. The theoretical
present value of the land where the cutbacks are proposed is conservatively $200 million.
This potential loss would be avoided if annexation and/or incorporation could occur in the
near future, thus exempting the area from the restrictions imposed by the Land Use Initia-
tive.
The Preservation Plan would have lesser financial impacts. The lands beyond the urban
limit line would very likely lose its short-term investment value, related to its development
potential. Because of the remoteness of much of this land, it is difficult to quantify the sig-
nificance of any such investment value reductions.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Because the overall Countywide level of growth and development will probably not be
changed under either the Land Use Initiative or the Preservation Plan, regional economic
variables such as jobs, personal income, expenditures, etc. will not be significantly affected.
The Land Use Initiative could reduce the amount of available affordable housing if it is
assumed that the County would be more effective at creating affordable units than the cities.
4
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
THE PROPOSED LAND USE INITIATIVE
AND THE PRESERVATION PLAN
THE LAND USE INITIATIVE
The Land Use Initiative contains three major components that would affect land use and
subsequently could have economic and fiscal consequences for Contra Costa County.
• Cutbacks in Urban Designations. The Initiative eliminates urban designations on 6,100
acres of land in the Oakley/Brentwood area.
• Redesignation and Establishment of Large Minimum Lot Sizes. The Initiative would
refine all agriculture and open space land use designations and impose large lot zoning
upon all unincorporated territory shown in the Draft General Plan as "Agriculture
Recreation", "Commercial Recreation", "Recreation", "Agriculture Preserve", "General
Open Space", "Agriculture Residential", "Interim Agriculture", "General Open Space"
and "Agriculture Core". The minimum parcel size in the new Agriculture/Open Space
designation would be 320 acres. The minimum parcel size in the Agricultural Core (the
area around Brentwood) would be 40 acres.
• Future Changes in Open Space Land Use Designations. The Initiative would require
voter approval of all future changes to the General Plan (General Plan Amendments)
affecting lands designated Agriculture/Open Space or Agricultural Core, except where
these changes are achieved through annexation to an existing city or incorporation of a
new city.
The Land Use Initiative would have three direct impacts upon land use and development in
Contra Costa County:
Development Capacity Shown in the Draft General Plan would be Reduced.
The Land Use Initiative eliminates 6,100 acres of urban designations in the Oak-
ley/Brentwood area. These reductions would lower potential residential units in the County
by 14,800 units and potential commercial development by 5.6 million square feet, if the
acreage remains unincorporated. Table 1 provides a description of the development poten-
tial and related population and employment opportunities that would be eliminated within
unincorporated territory. Figure 1 shows the County areas with urban designations that
would be affected by the Land Use Initiative.
Although this analysis focused on the Brentwood/Oakley area as the portion of the county
that the Land Use Initiative will have the largest impact,subsequent analysis of the Initiative
may identify other areas that are also affected,such as Bethel Island. Our examination of the
impact of the Initiative on the Bethel Island area shows that the off-island bonus area,south
of the island will be affected to some degree by the Initiative. Since the number of potential
units that will be transferred to the bonus area is unclear at this time, this impact on this area
was not quantified.
5
WA •p _ ��
Figure I
County Land With Urban
Designations That Would be
'
Affected the Land Use Initiative
tlve
a
`..x<.:
pyx:,
• yl �x , .J N�zx
LI SH
i• r } •SIL MZ CO _ ,,//''�� �'. <� .<s<�� a ...
co
J ML Onley c6 , y x AL
CO
SL
-27 3v
SL+ OF ML
S� PS
r'SL" :..w SH Cp _'
• Y M1
PS
ML
Sm U
PS
A L
S"
ML
• 1
t l x
S.
Of qu PS fix' Sr+ f... SH
PSAL
L
-
5t� � S
co
+
PR
LOA
M A
s
(�Ml LL
.
SH Ml
Brentwood A C
z 1 BP $H .....
H
'i •.nom M1 ..,f..',..::<...;... •� V 5
SH I ,
} Y U
CS
J ' j PS
` I
For Illustrative Purposes Only
6
I
Table 1
Decreased Development Potential of Contra Costa County General Plan
As A Result of the Land Use Initiative
Oakley/Brentwood Area
Land Use Acres Development Residents or Jobs Assessed Value
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family 5,398 13,205 units 37,634 Residents $2,971,125,000
Multi-Family 242 1,636 units 3,109 Residents $204,500,000
Total 5,640 14,841 units 40,743 Residents $3,175,625,000
COMMERCIAL
Office 40 723,100 Sq.Ft. 2,748 Jobs $65,078,640
Retail 29 473,700 Sq.Ft. 1,125 Jobs $47,371,500
Industrial 253 2,479,700 Sq.Ft. 3,365 Jobs $99,186,120
Light Industrial 150 1,960,200 Sq.Ft. 3,724 Jobs $117,612,000
Total 472 5,636,700 Sq.Ft. 10,962 Jobs $329,248,260
Total Acres 6,112
Source: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
7
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
Incentives to Annex and Incorporate Unincorporated Territory would be Increased.
Development restrictions on unincorporated lands would increase incentives for areas in the
path of development to annex to cities or form new cities. It is important to recognize that
future growth in Contra Costa County will be dominated by the County's cities, with or
without the Land Use Initiative. The Growth Management policies and fiscal and financial
policies included in the Draft General Plan may also create an incentive to annex or
incorporate,since in some instances the County policies would be more stringent than those
imposed by the cities. The Land Use Initiative would, in effect, further tip the balance of
development activity toward cities through additional annexations and incorporations.
Thus, development of agricultural and open space areas would continue and could
ultimately result in a land use pattern similar to what might occur without the Initiative,but
development would simply occur within cities rather than in unincorporated territory.
Development Potential on All Lands Designated Agricultural Open Space would be
Eliminated.
Loss of development potential on all lands designated Agriculture/Open Space and Agricul-
tural Core would restrict the County's ability to respond to future conditions and develop-
ment opportunities and would limit rural residential and recreational development, unless
the affected area is incorporated.
PRESERVATION PLAN
The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan would incorporated the following set of policies into the
new County General Plan in order to preserve open space and agricultural lands. The
Preservation Plan:
• Restricts urban development to 35% of the land in the County and preserves 65% of the
land for agriculture,open space,wetlands,parks and other non-urban uses until 2010;
• Creates an urban limit line outside of which development is limited to proposed rural
and open space designations of the Draft General Plan;
• Manages growth in the County by allowing new development only when minimum
infrastructure and service standards are met;
• Advises the Local Agency Formation Commission to honor the Plan in annexation and
incorporation decisions;
• Imposes a 40-acre minimum lot size on"prime productive agricultural land'
8
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
• Safeguards the County's obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing;and,
• Provides a strict set of policies that will protect open space,hillsides,ridge lines,agricul-
tural lands, and wetlands throughout the County that cannot be altered, except by a
vote of the people.
The Preservation Plan maintains the land use designations in the Draft General Plan, and
therefore would not reduce the development capacity of the General Plan.
9
i Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
BASELINE CONDITIONS AND PROJECTIONS
LAND USE, POPULATION, AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
The impacts of the Land Use Initiative will ultimately be caused by the changes to previously
anticipated development activity and related population and employment growth. Thus, it
is essential to establish development activity and related population and employment trends
that would occur without any assumption regarding the effects of the Land Use Initiative.
Establishing these "baseline" trends is relatively straightforward since a very detailed land
use and development data base (the Land Use Information System) was developed during
the General Plan Program. The Land Use Information System, which reflects the land use
policies of the County General Plan and the General Plans of the cities, was used to estimate
the impact of the initiatives on development capacity in the County.
Table 2 presents the development capacity created by the land use policies in the Draft
County General Plan and existing city General Plans, and corresponding theoretical popula-
tion and employment potential. The estimates of development capacity are based on
approved and proposed projects and potential development on vacant land given the desig-
nated development density in the General Plans. The figures do not consider infrastructure,
commutation and market constraints, all of which may act to limit full buildout of the devel-
opment capacity. (Commercial and industrial land uses reflected in the analysis of the Draft
General Plan at the 2005 horizon year were constrained to reflect market conditions and
labor force constraints).
The Draft General Plan and the city General Plans create additional development capacity
for 106,400 dwelling units and 80.9 million square feet of commercial space throughout the
County. This development could accommodate 271,100 new residents and 186,600 new
employees. The majority(59 percent)of the residential capacity lies in the East County com-
munities of Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley. The commercial capacity (measured in terms
of potential employment) is divided between the East County (42 percent) and Central
County (32 percent)areas.
Future urban growth throughout the County will be affected by a variety of factors in addi-
tion'to the development capacity created by the General Plans:
• National and regional economic conditions will affect overall economic growth in the
Bay Area.
• The high cost of housing in the County (and the Bay Area generally) may limit labor
force availability leading to a constraint on employment growth.
10
Table 2
Development Capacity In Contra Costa County From 1990 to Buildout
Under City and County General Plans
Retail Office/Industrial Total Commercial
Area Dwelling Units Population Building Space Building Space Building Space Employment
West County(1) 13,000 30,500 5,503,000 17,905,000 23,408,000 48,500
Central County(2) 30,300 74,300 6,387,000 15,224,000 21,611,000 60,300
East County (3) 63,100 166,300 6,685,000 29,168,000 35,853,000 77,800
Total 106,400 271,100 18,575,000 62,297,000 80,872,000 186,600
(1) Includes Richmond, San Pablo, EI Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules and unincorporated area.
(2) Includes Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon,Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Martinez,
and unincorporated area.
(3) Includes Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Bethel Island, Discovery Bay and other unincorporated area. .
Source: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
11
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
• Transportation network capacity constraints may limit mobility within the Bay Area and
also limit the ability of labor force participants to in-commute from outlying counties.
In Contra Costa County, the geographic separation of employment centers (located in
the Central County) and new housing supply (located in East County) will cause addi-
tional problems for the already congested Highway 4 and I-680 corridors.
• Infrastructure constraints, including water supply and sewage treatment and disposal
may limit growth in some areas.
The ABAG attempts to reflect these variables in regional growth projections that it regularly
publishes. Table 3 presents the Contra Costa County population and employment projec-
tions recently published by ABAG (Projections 1990) for the period from 1990 to 2005. Cor-
responding estimates of future dwelling unit and commercial space requirements are also
shown.
Over the 15-year period between 1990 and 2005, a total of 194,500 residents and 95,300 jobs
are projected to be added in the County. The projected growth will require 77,100 dwelling
units and 42.3 million square feet of commercial space. The majority of new residents are
projected to locate in the East County area, whereas the majority of the new jobs are
projected to occur in the Central County,reflecting the land capacity shown in Table 2.
In order to bring the development capacity created by the Draft General Plan and the city
General Plans into perspective, it must be compared with the growth projections. Table 4
shows estimated development based on ABAG growth projections as a percent of General
Plan development capacity. The following observations result from this comparison:
• Countywide, projected growth through 2005 represents 72 percent of the residential
development capacity and 52 percent of the commercial capacity.
• In the Central County,ratios of 100 percent are due to existing vacancies and redevelop-
ment potential,particularly within Concord.
• In the East County, projected growth over the next 15 years accounts for 62 percent of
the residential capacity and 32 percent of the commercial capacity designated in the City
and County General Plans.
• The projected demand in the East County relative to development capacity reflected in
the Draft General Plan indicates that these land markets should remain competitive with
other growing parts of the Bay Area.
COUNTY BUDGET CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
Contra Costa County, like many California counties, is undergoing a period of fiscal stress
due to a continued increase in public service costs that are not being offset by revenue
increases. Proposition 13, elimination of federal general revenue sharing and grants, limits
on State subventions, and increases in the costs of Countywide services have all contributed
to fiscal constraints. The County's budget conditions and the effect of demographic and fis-
cal trends on the budget are outlined briefly below.
12
Table 3
Commercial and Residential Development Necessary to Accomodate
ABAG Growth Projections for Contra Costa County: 1990 to 2005
Retail Office/Industrial Total Commercial
Area Dwelling Units Population Building Space Building Space Building Space Employment
West County(1) 8,900 20,900 1,357,000 7,572,000 8,929,000 18,100
Central County(2) 28,600 70,300 5,394,000 16,497,000 21,891,000 54,400
East County(3) 39,600 103,300 2,571,000 8,898,000 11,469,000 22,800
Total 77,100 194,500 9,322,000 32,967,000 42,289,000 95,300
(1) Includes Richmond, San Pablo, EI Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules and unincorporated area.
(2) Includes Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Martinez,
and unincorporated area.
(3) Includes Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Bethel Island, Discovery Bay and other unincorporated area.
Source:ABAG, Projections'90; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
13
Table 4
Estimated Development Given ABAG Growth Projections In Contra Costa County
As a Percent of Development Capacity in City and County General Plans: 1990 to 2005
Retail Office/Industrial Total Commercial
Area Dwelling Units Population Building Space Building Space Building Space Employment
West County(1) 680/6 69% 25% 420/6 380/6 370/6
Central County (2) 94% 950/6 84% 100% (4) 100% (4) 900/0
East County (3) 63% 626/6 386/6 31% 326/6 296/6
Total 726/6 72% 506/6 53% 526/6 51%
(1) Includes Richmond, San Pablo, EI Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules and unincorporated area.
(2) Includes Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Martinez,
and unincorporated area.
(3) Includes Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Bethel Island, Discovery Bay and other unincorporated area.
(4) Projected growth to capacity ratios of over 100% have been reduced to 100%. In this case either employment
growth will be constrained or additional capacity will be put in place through redevelopment or General Plan
Amendments.
Source: ABAG, Projections'90; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
14
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
The County Provides Countywide and Urban Services.
The County government provides a large number of services mandated by the State includ-
ing health and welfare, criminal justice,and libraries to all residents of the County including
those living in cities as well as those living in unincorporated areas. Urban services such as
police protection and capital improvements such as roads and parks are provided in
unincorporated areas. Library and fire services are provided to unincorporated areas and
many of the cities through Special Districts, administered by the County Board of Super-
visors.
Countywide Service Costs Have Required an Ever-Increasing Share of Available Revenue.
The rising demand for and cost of Countywide services have required an ever increasing
share of available general revenues. As of fiscal year 1989-90, over 95 percent of the
County's net operating budget was spent on services the County is obligated to provide.
The majority of these costs,approximately 70 percent, are for social services and administra-
tion costs.
The County relies heavily on State and Federal Aid to finance mandated Countywide ser-
vices such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the courts, job training,
foster and convalescent care. State and Federal Aid has not kept up with cost increases in the
last few years. Additional State and Federal aid is unlikely as these entities struggle to
manage their own budget deficits. The recent State Budget adopted by the State Legislature
and Governor further reduces State funding of mandated programs.
Expenditures not offset by government aid or service charges are financed solely by general
revenues. As a result of the rising cost of Countywide services, declining State and Federal
aid, and constraints on general revenues, there has been an increasing dependence of
Countywide service costs on available general revenues. In the future, general revenues are
unlikely to experience significant real growth as Proposition 13 continues to hold down
property tax revenue and the cities capture a large share of growth-related revenues such as
sales and business taxes.
The Demand for Countywide Services Will Continue to Rise.
A variety of factors will affect the rising demand for Countywide services in the future,
including immigration, the aging of the population, and continued problems with homeless-
ness,AIDS,drug abuse,and crime related to demographic and social trends.
The County has Balanced Its Budget Partly by Pursuing Urban Development in
Unincorporated Areas.
During the 1980s, urban growth in unincorporated areas has produced net revenues that
have helped the County meet its Countywide service commitments.
15
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
As mentioned above, the County is responsible for providing urban services such as law
enforcement, planning, and road maintenance to unincorporated portions of the County.
Other urban services such as fire protection, and sewer and water utilities are provided by
special districts. In recent years, the increased burden of Countywide service costs has
diminished the County's ability to provide urban services to unincorporated areas. In the
face of inadequate revenues as additional urban growth occurs in these areas, the quality of
urban services will deteriorate, lowering the quality of life for existing and future residents
and causing environmental deterioration.
Shifting the burden of urban service costs to future development could free some of the
County's general purpose revenues to finance Countywide services. Although the shift to
fees and service charges is a positive response, these charges cannot fund the major expenses
associated with Countywide social services and the criminal justice system.
Future Development May Cost More Than It Produces in Revenue.
The fiscal soundness of new urban development in unincorporated areas is uncertain, espe-
cially when viewed independently of overall growth and economic development of the
County. A fiscal analysis conducted as a part of the County's evaluation of the Draft General
Plan addressed the ongoing costs and revenues of new development located in the
unincorporated areas where significant amounts of urban development is expected. The
analysis showed the implications of service standards proposed in the Draft General Plan
and provided an estimate of new development's impact upon the County's annual operating
budget.
The results of the fiscal analysis were consistent with the results of many fiscal studies:
• Residential development, particularly higher density development in areas where little
or no development presently exists,tends to produce negative fiscal impacts.
• Lower density,higher value residential development,particularly in built-up areas with
existing service capacity,tends to produce more positive results.
• Commercial and industrial development is generally fiscally beneficial.
• Capture of retail sales from residents of unincorporated areas, and the related shift of
sales tax revenues to the cities is a major contributor to poor fiscal performance of
unincorporated residential development.
New Revenues for Countywide Services will be Required.
Additional revenues will be required to achieve service standards incorporated in the Draft
General Plan, improve maintenance programs, and provide infrastructure improvements.
Securing long term funding for mandated Countywide social services and the criminal jus-
tice system is most critical.
16
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
Without new revenues the first services to suffer,as we have already begun to witness, will
be discretionary services such as neighborhood parks and libraries. Next, infrastructure
improvements will be eliminated or deferred. Finally, service standards in support services
such as sheriff and public works will diminish.
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
Existing public facility infrastructure, including highways and arterial roads, local streets,
sewers and water treatment and transmission facilities, schools, parks, drainage and flood
control facilities, and other community facilities are in many instances incapable of meeting
the demands of projected growth and development. During development of the General
Plan a major effort was undertaken to evaluate infrastructure capacities, constraints, and
improvements needed to accommodate planned growth. Results of these efforts are docu-
mented in the Draft General Plan and the Draft EIR prepared for the Plan.
According to the General Plan analysis, the cost of providing needed public facility infra-
structure will be high because many facilities required will be entirely new. The infrastruc-
ture costs on a per new dwelling unit basis will vary from area to area within the County
depending upon specific needs in each area. In all cases these per unit costs will be high rel-
ative to what is currently being charged new development in the County.
Estimates of per unit off-tract infrastructure costs prepared for the Draft General Plan indi-
cated a range from$15,000 to over$35,000 per dwelling unit depending upon the area.
Within East County, where most of the unincorporated growth is anticipated, major costs
will include highways,sewage effluent treatment and disposal,schools,and drainage.
Highway capacity is viewed as the major constraint upon development,in the East County,
even when the increased capacity provided by planned improvements. These improvements
are estimated to cost over$1 billion dollars. In addition to the impacts of congestion upon
real estate markets,the County General Plan and Measure C Growth Management standards
will impose level of service requirements that could limit or deter urban growth in the East
County. Growth significantly beyond that anticipated in the Draft General Plan would over-
whelm planned improvements in the East County and further degrade expected levels of
service on the I-680 corridor.
Sewage effluent disposal is another problem in the East County. Restrictions on Bay dis-
posal will require tertiary treatment or land disposal. Either approach will be very costly
and may ultimately limit development potential.
17
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
TRENDS IN GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Yet another trend that must be taken into account is the propensity of urbanizing areas to
annex to existing cities or incorporate as new cities. Over the past ten years such incorpora-
tions and annexations have reduced revenue available to the County. At the present time,
four additional incorporation efforts are being pursued including Oakley, Discovery Bay,
West Pittsburg, and Alamo. If these incorporations occur the County could lose millions of
dollars in property tax and sales tax.
Other areas shown for urbanization in the Draft General Plan are within or directly adjacent
to city Spheres-of-Influence. These include Lone Tree Valley, North Brentwood, Southwest
Pittsburg, and Dougherty Valley. It is highly likely that these areas will be annexed to the
nearby cities.
EMERGING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Another trend that must be considered is the existence of a number of large-scale develop-
ment proposals beyond the land use designations included in the Draft General Plan. Devel-
opment opportunities have led landowners and developers to pursue projects beyond the
areas designated for urban use in the Draft County General Plan and city General Plans.
Notable examples of such projects include:
• Cowell Ranch (East County,south of Brentwood)
• Discovery Bay II (surrounding the existing developed area)
• Veale Tract (East County,east of Oakley)
• Dougherty Valley(Central County,east of San Ramon)
• East County Airport (Byron area)
These projects all have active development proposals in preparation and can be expected to
be in the formal development application stage in the near future. The Land Use Initiative
would prohibit the Board of Supervisors from considering these projects;however,several of
them could be accommodated through annexation and/or incorporation proceedings.
18
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The direct effects of the Ballot Measures discussed above could cause a variety of economic
impacts. The following section documents these potential impacts.
FISCAL IMPACTS UPON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Given the excess land use capacity that exists in the East County (see Table 4), it is possible
that the development potential affected by the Land Use Initiative would not be fully built
out within the time frame of the Initiative, 2010. In this case,the Initiative would have a fis-
cal impact on the County Budget relative to the amount of development that does occur. If
development is assumed during the time frame, the Land Use Initiative will cause several
different fiscal impacts upon Contra Costa County: N
Net Positive Fiscal Margins from Development will be Foregone under the Land Use
Initiative.
Urban development within the unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County provides
tax revenues that assist the County in meeting its mandated service requirements. The
urban development proposed in the County was shown to produce positive fiscal impacts in
the fiscal analysis included in the Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
The potential for 14,800 units and commercial development of 5.6 million square feet would
be eliminated by the Land Use Initiative. Assuming that this land remains unincorporated
in 2010,the following fiscal impacts would occur by that year(figures are in 1990 dollars):
• $16.0 million of annual revenue for the County General Fund would be foregone.
• $13.1 million in annual County operating costs would be avoided.
• The annual net fiscal benefit of$2.9 million for the County General Fund would be lost.
Estimates of these impacts on specific revenue sources and operating expenditures are out-
lined on Table 5.
19
Table 5
Projected Maximum Annual Change In County General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
If Development Potential Affected by the Land Use Initiative Is Not Realized
Change in Annual
Item Revenue or Expenditure
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes ($12,442,000)
Sales & Use Tax ($675,000)
Real Property Transfer Tax ($447,000)
Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax ($1,562,000)
Cigarette Tax ($10,000)
Fines/Forfeits/Penalties ($308,000)
Franchises ($262,000)
Other License & Permits ($263,000)
TOTAL REVENUES ($15,969,000)
Operating Expenditures
General Administration ($1,677,000)
Environmental Protection & Planning ($114,000)
Police Protection ($4,095,000)
Criminal Justice ($3,283,000)
Health and Sanitation ($1,754,000)
Public Assistance ($1,604,000)
Library ($426,000)
Education ($5,000)
Public Ways and Facilities ($150,000)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($13,108,000)
CHANGE IN NET OPERATING BALANCE ($2,861,000)
Cumualtive Fee Revenue(1)
Parks ($2,954,000)
Area of Benefit(Traffic) _($131,775,000)
TOTAL FEE REVENUE ($134,729,000)
(1) Based on exisiting fee schedules.
Source: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
20
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
County will Receive Less Revenue if Affected Development is Annexed and/or
Incorporated.
The sharing of property taxes following an annexation and/or an incorporation is based
upon a formula contained in State law. The formula is subject to negotiation between the
County and the city, particularly with regard to the annexation proceeding. The amount of
property tax revenue that the County receives in the future from the annexed territory is a
direct result of these negotiations.
If the affected land is developed under the jurisdiction of a city, the County stills incurs a
variety of operating costs and receives some revenues. The figure below outlines the impact
on the County General Fund if the development affected by the Initiative occurs within
incorporated areas.
The first line shows the annual revenue, operating expenditures and net fiscal balance if the
development occurs under city jurisdiction. The second line shows comparable revenues
and costs if the development occurs under County jurisdiction. The third line shows the
impact of annexation and incorporation,or the difference between the two scenarios.
Annual County Annual County Annual County
Scenario Revenues Costs Balance
City Jurisdiction 10,169,000 8,416,000 1,753,000
County Jurisdiction 15,969,000 13,108,000 2,861,000
Impact of Annex/Incorp. (5,800,000) (4,692,000) (1,108,000)
Specific estimates of the revenue and cost impacts on the County Budget if development
occurs under City jurisdictions are outlined on Table 6.
In addition to the annual loss of $986,000 in net County General Fund operating revenues,
the County would lose the cumulative payment of traffic and park impact fees, based on
existing fee schedules. This loss totals $134,728,000. Assuming a 15-year development
period,the annual loss of traffic and park fees would be$9 million.
21
1' . .ki
Table 6
Projected Maximum Annual Change in County General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
If Development Potential Affected by the Land Use Initiative Occurs Within Incorporated Areas
Change in Annual
Item Revenue or Expenditure
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes ($4,030,000)
Sales &Use Tax ($675,000)
Real Property Transfer Tax ($447,000)
Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax $0
Cigarette Tax $0
Fines/Forfeits/Penalties ($123,000)
Franchises ($262,000)
Other License & Permits ($263,000)
TOTAL REVENUES ($5,800,000)
Operating Expenditures
General Administration ($559,000)
Environmental Protection & Planning ($38,000)
Police Protection ($4,095,000)
Criminal Justice $0
Health and Sanitation $0
Public Assistance $0
Library $0
Education $0
Public Ways and Facilities $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($4,692,000)
CHANGE IN NET OPERATING BALANCE ($1,108,000)
Cumualtive Fee Revenue
Parks ($2,954,000)
Area of Benefit(Traffic)(1) ($131,775,000)
TOTAL FEE REVENUE ($134,729,000)
(1) Based on exisiting fee schedules.
Source: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
22
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
Net Positive Fiscal Margins from Future General Plan Amendments would be Foregone.
During the 15-year time horizon of the Draft General Plan it is possible that a number of
General Plan Amendments would be considered. As noted above, a number of large scale
projects are in the planning stage beyond the urban designations shown in the Draft General
Plan. These projects, when they become feasible from a market standpoint and can meet
infrastructure requirements and standards, can be assumed to provide fiscal benefits to the
County in much the same way as shown for the development that has been accommodated
in the Draft General Plan.
This is particularly true for "up-scale" residential projects and commercial/industrial
projects. For example, the East County Airport may provide a significant opportunity for
commercial/industrial development which could be a major net positive fiscal revenue gen-
erator for the County.
The Preservation Plan would maintain net positive fiscal benefits from future development.
The potential fiscal losses predicted for under the Land Use Initiative would not occur under
the Preservation Plan. On the contrary, fiscal benefits of additional development, assuming
that such development meets infrastructure and service standards reflected in the General
Plan's Growth Management Element,would be available.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Over time, the Land Use Initiative could cause a reduction in County employment in two
ways. First, if overall budget conditions worsen due to fiscal impacts associated with the
Initiative, the County will have to reduce costs wherever it can. This would likely include
across-the-board cuts in County employees. Second, the reduction in development potential
could have a direct impact on County employment by reducing the need for County services
that support the new development including Community Development,Building Inspection,
and Public Works.
Loss of the development capacity in the Oakley/Brentwood area alone would eliminate
nearly 15,000 housing units and 5.6 million square feet of commercial development. Assum-
ing that this development could have occurred over,the next 15 years, the overall workload
of the Building Department would be reduced by 40 to 50 percent depending upon the
assumptions made regarding annexation and incorporation. This reduction in workload
could lead to a reduction of line employees by approximately 13 to 18 positions.
The Preservation Plan would have no similar potential impacts on County employment.
23
�So •,
Presentation Draft Report
August 6,1990
IMPACTS UPON PUBLIC FINANCE COMMITMENTS
The Land Use Initiative,because it will result in a reduction of planned development capac-
ity, has the potential for disrupting existing or future public finance commitments. For
example, if special assessment debt has been issued in an area affected by the land use cut-
backs,the underlying security of the debt would be greatly reduced or eliminated.
Because no such public finance commitments presently exist in the area affected by the Land
Use Initiative,no immediate impacts will result. However, there will be a reduction in over-
all financing capability due to the loss of impact fee revenue.
Impact fee revenues would be reduced in direct proportion to the amount of development
cut back. Using current per unit traffic impact fee estimates by use type for the Oak-
ley/Brentwood area, the development potential foregone would result in a loss of$132 mil-
lion over time. The County also would lose $3 million in Park fee revenue. If the develop-
ment in the affected area occurred over the 15 year General Plan horizon, the annual impacts
would equal approximately$9 million.
It is unlikely that the reduction in land use capacity will result in a corresponding elimina-
tion or a significant down-sizing of the major planned transportation improvements in East
County. Analysis conducted for the Draft General Plan Draft EIR (Urban Transfer Alterna-
tive) suggested that a cut back in development on a scale that would be caused by the Open
Space Initiative reduced costs by approximately 20 percent. Fee revenues lost would equal
61 percent of the total revenue potential in unincorporated portions of the East County. To
maintain fee revenue needed fees from remaining development would need to be increased.
The Preservation Plan would have no similar potential impacts on County impact fee
revenues.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS UPON LANDOWNERS
The Land Use Initiative would cause a financial impact upon landowners because land use
restrictions would prevent future development activity in areas designated Agricul-
ture/Open Space and Agricultural Core. The Initiative would also remove urban designa-
tion from 6,100 acres of land in the Oakley/Brentwood area.
The present value of the land with an urban designation as proposed by the Draft General
Plan would be a function of its "residual land value" for the uses proposed, discounted by
some assumption regarding when development would actually occur. For example,
unimproved land designated for single family residential use in the Brentwood/Oakley area
might sell for up to $100,000 per acre if it could be developed within a year or two. If devel-
opment could not occur for 10 years due to market or infrastructure constraints the same
land could sell for perhaps $40,000 today. Applying this figure to the 6,100 acres affected by
the Land Use Initiative yields an amount of$244 million.
24
." Presentation Draft Report
• August 6,1990
Land values in all agricultural and open space areas within unincorporated territory would
be reduced in market value because of the effective constraint on parcel maps or subdivi-
sions as well as the inability to obtain a General Plan Amendment. Tens of thousands of
acres would be affected.
Under the Preservation Plan, potential land value effects would be less severe simply
because there are no proposed cutbacks in proposed land use designations, and the array of
rural land use designations is maintained as proposed in the Draft General Plan. Areas
beyond the Urban Limit Line would suffer a loss of its investment value,insofar as develop-
ment opportunities are diminished. Because of the remoteness of much of the land beyond
the Urban Limit Line,no effort was made to quantify the significance of any such investment
value reductions.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Regional economic impacts include employment-based indicators (jobs, national income,
and employee consumption) and population-based indicators (population, personal income
and population consumption). Growth in these indicators is normally viewed as a benefit of
development activity. If development is delayed or foregone in the unincorporated portions
of the County and not absorbed by the cities, these indicators would be proportionately
affected.
Because it is assumed that the Land Use Initiative will not cause an absolute loss of develop-
ment activity in the County,no absolute reduction in jobs or housing units is anticipated. It
is possible that the County's more aggressive policies for affordable housing could be
affected if a large part of territory that would have otherwise been developed in the County
is annexed or incorporated into cities. If this occurs, there could be a reduction in the
amount of affordable housing that is created in the County.
The Preservation plan, during its 15-year time horizon, will have less potential for affecting
regional economic variables since it maintains the land use policies of the General Plan.
25
•
w Presentation Draft Report
• ' August 6,1990
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
The Land Use Initiative and the Preservation Plan ballot measures are both based upon and
modify the Draft General Plan. In essence, they would add additional policies and restric-
tions to the land use planning process in Contra Costa County. In addition to the Land Use
Map, the Draft General Plan contains a variety of policies directly related to the stated pur-
pose and intent of both measures. Of particular significance are the fiscal and financial
policies of the Draft General Plan (pages 181 - 185); and the Growth Management Element
(pages 105 - 117). The following section summarizes the Growth Management Element and
fiscal and financial analysis conducted for the General Plan.
FISCAL AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Even though new development was shown to generate a net fiscal benefits in most instances,
it is questionable whether or not much of this increased revenue will be available for urban
services,since the Countywide services will continue to dominate the County's budget.
If revenues derived from new development are not available to fund urban services,a reduc-
tion of service standards for existing as well as new residents would be the likely result.
This outcome is often the de facto fiscal policy resulting from poor planning and an
inadequate tax base to provide Countywide services.
Fiscal balance for urban services in unincorporated areas can be achieved, even with service
standards being considered as a part of the Draft General Plan. The Draft General Plan con-
tains fiscal policies which, if implemented, will result in a variety of new and enhanced
revenues:
• Cost Recovery. Costs for County services will be offset, wherever possible through the
use of fees and charges.
• Local Funding for Urban Services. Urban service standards in unincorporated areas will
be met by creating one or more local entities designed to provide new revenue sources.
Principal examples of such entities include:
- Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts
- County Service Area
- Benefit Assessments Districts
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
- Special Taxes (e.g. for police protection)
• City/County Revenue Sharing. The County will pursue a broadening of the revenue
base to support Countywide services and a coordinated effort throughout the County to
develop new revenue sources that provide the County with adequate ongoing revenues.
26
Presentation Draft Report
August 6, 1990
Local infrastructure will be financed by new development through a number of mechanisms.
• Dedications. Developers will dedicate land, and, in some instances, finished improve-
ments,in order to meet the project-specific public facility requirement.
• Impact Fee Ordinances. The County will implement and regularly revise impact fee
ordinances to fund roads,parks,fire protection and other community facilities.
• SRecial Assessment Districts. The County will create special assessment districts,where
appropriate, to allow issuance of debt to fund facilities that directly benefit participating
properties. Debt is secured by land value and serviced through annual assessments on
participating properties.
• Community Facility Districts. The County will create Community Facility Districts to
allow issuance of debt to pay for large, community-serving public facilities. Debt is
secured by a special tax levied upon participating properties.
Assuming that these policies are implemented,new development will pay the major share of
infrastructure improvements with new residents funding increases in ongoing maintenance
and public service costs. This approach will assure that new development will "pay its own
way" and assure positive fiscal balances for the County resulting from new development
occurring in unincorporated territory.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Policies outlined in the Growth Management Element (GME) of the Draft General Plan have
been designed to meet specific performance standards for infrastructure, urban services,
open space and parks, and jobs\housing balance. Unless specific development projects can
meet these performance standards they could be deemed inconsistent with the General Plan
and denied.
The Growth Management Element is intended to fully incorporate the requirements set forth
in Measure C,(The Contra Costa County Transportation Improvement and Growth Manage-
ment Program) passed by the voters in November 1988.
The GME adds a variety of functions to the planning process including a land supply and
development monitoring process, guidelines by which development projects can mitigate
impacts over the adopted performance standards, and a framework for inter-jurisdictional
cooperation on land use and infrastructure issues.
If implemented, these policies will help ensure that new development will offset their
impacts on the infrastructure systems and public services.
27
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on August 7 , 1990 , by the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: Supervisor Fanden
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
(See attached Board Order for vote on map reflecting, urban limit lines. )
SUBJECT: 65/35 Contra Costa County ) RESOLUTION NO. 90/530
Land Preservation Plan )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT:
1 . The County is in the process of preparing a new General Plan
for the County. . The proposed new General Plan represents years of research
and analysis by the staff of the County Community Development Department
and outside consultants . To maximize public participation in the process
of preparing the new General Plan, the County has held thousands of hours
of public hearings and received extensive written comments . In addition,
the County has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report on the new
General Plan. The new General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact
Report are presently being finalized.
2 . As described in detail in the Staff Report from the County
Community Development Department dated August 7 , 1990 (the "Staff Report" ) ,
public comments on the new General Plan have identified several concerns
related to future planning or the County. Those concerns have focused on
three main issues: (1 ) the preservation of agricultural and open space
land,. wetlands and parks, ( 2 ) the need to manage growth to preserve the
quality of life and ( 3 ) the need to provide decent, safe and affordable
housing as required by state law. The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation Plan has been prepared to address those issues .
3 . The Board has decided to submit the 65/35 Contra Costa County
Land Preservation Plan, as set forth in the ordinance on file with the
Clerk of the Board and given the number 90-66, to a vote of the people in
the County, as permitted by the State Elections Code. The Board desires to
ensure that the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan reflects
the needs and desires of the people in the County.
4 . The Board has received comments from the public on the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan. Having considered these
comments , the Board hereby directs that the ordinance on file with the
Clerk of the Board and given the number 90-66 , be submitted to the
qualified voters of the County for their approval a the November 6, 1990
election, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 3750 .
5 . The following ballot language for submittal of the ordinance
to the' voters is hereby approved:
e:\2.bosem
RESOLUTION NO. 90/530
1165/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation Plan. Shall an ordinance
entitled the 1165/35 Contra Costa County
Land Preservation Plan71 , which (1)
preserves 65% of all land in the county
for agriculture, open space, wetlands,
parks, and other non-urban uses, (2)
confines urban development to 35% of the
land within the County, (3 ) establishes
an urban limit line that identifies the
outer boundaries of urban development,
and (4 ) restricts hillside development
throughout the County, be adopted?"
6. The approval of the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation Plan by the voters is not intended to be an
amendment of the County's existing General Plan. Rather,
the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan, if
approved by the voters, is intended to be . reflected in the
County's new General Plan and will thereby become the
official policy of the County with respect to the
preservation of open space and agricultural lands and the
protection of valuable environmental resources such as
wildlife, wetlands, and hillsides.
7 . As described in the Staff Report, the submittal of
this ordinance to the voters is not a project or is
otherwise exempt under the California Environmental Quality
Act and its Guidelines (collectively, 110EQA11) . If this
ordinance is approved by the voters, the County will be
required to take all necessary and appropriate steps to
reflect the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan
in the new General Plan for the County, consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and the State Planning Law. Nothing
contained herein shall prevent the County from complying
with applicable requirements of state law relating to the
adoption and amendment of general plans.
8 . The clerk is directed to mail a copy of the
complete text of the ordinance with the sample ballot to
each voter in the County at least ten days before the
aforementioned election by including it with the ballot
pamphlet.
9 . The Auditor-Controller is directed to review the
measure and determine whether the substance thereof , if
adopted, would affect the revenue or expenditures of the
County, and prepare a fiscal impact statement which
estimates the amount of any increase or decrease in revenues
or costs to the County if the measure is adopted.
Orig. Dept. : County Counsel
cc: Co. Clerk, Elections Dept. I herehy certify that this is a true and correct copy of
County Administrator an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Community Development Dept. Board of supervisors on the date shown.
Auditor-Controller ATTESTED: Atlaittt 7. 1gA0
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
2
THE 65/35 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAND PRESERVATION PLAN
TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
No. 90-66
The People of the County of Contra Costa hereby ordain as
follows :
Section 1 Title
This ordinance shall be entitled the "65/35 Contra Costa
County Land Preservation Plan. "
Section 2 Summary
Through this ordinance the people approve the policies
contained in the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation
Plan and direct the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
to reflect those policies in the new general plan (the "New
General Plan" ) for the County. These "65/35 Land
Preservation Plan" policies are intended to:
• Restrict urban development to 35% of the
land in the County and preserve 65% of the
land in the County for agriculture, open
space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban
uses;
• Prohibit any changes to the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan standard except by a vote
of the people;
• Create an Urban Limit Line to identify the
outer boundaries of urban development in
the County;
1
• Protect and promote the economic viability
of agricultural land by appropriate
standards and policies, including a policy
that increases the minimum parcel size for
prime productive agricultural land outside
the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres;
• Protect open hillsides and significant
ridgelines throughout the County from
development by zoning and other measures;
• Manage growth in the County by allowing new
development only when infrastructure and
service standards are met;
• Advise the Local Agency Formation
Commission to honor the County's 65/35 Land
Preservation standard, Urban Limit Line and
growth management standards in annexation
and incorporation decisions;
• Promote cooperation between the County and
cities to preserve agricultural and open
space land, wetlands and parks, by
requiring the County to pursue preservation
agreements with cities where feasible; and
• Safeguard the County's obligation to
provide its fair share of safe, decent and
affordable housing.
Section 3 Statement of Findings and Policy
The voters of Contra Costa County approve the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. Contra Costa County (the "County" ) is nearing
completion of a major revision of its general plan. The New
General Plan will represent a comprehensive, balanced
approach for accommodating the diverse variety of needs and
interests of the people of the County. To maximize public
participation in preparing the New General Plan, the County
2
has held thousands of hours of public meetings and received
extensive written comments on the New General Plan. All
segments of Contra Costa County society have participated,
including ranchers, developers, farmers, environmentalists,
labor groups, cities, special districts, business and
industrial associations. The proposed New General Plan
expresses the variety of concerns and hopes stated in this
public process . The proposed New General Plan consists of
over 400 pages and represents years of research and analysis
by the staff of the County Community Development Department
and outside consultants . In addition, in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) , the
County has prepared and circulated for public review a draft
environmental impact report ( "EIR" ) to assess the
environmental impacts of the New General Plan. The draft
EIR, comments and responses to comments have been circulated
to agencies and individuals and readily available at County
offices, libraries and other public places .
B. During this process of preparing the New General
Plan, the voters expressed a number of concerns related to
future planning and development of the County. The most
important of those concerns were:
( 1) Growing urbanization of the County is
threatening the long term viability of the County's
agricultural and open space land, parks, wetlands, hillsides
and ridgelines . Preservation and buffering of agricultural
3
land is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive
agricultural economy and assuring a balance in land uses in
the County. Moreover, preservation and conservation of open
space, wetlands, parks, hillsides and ridgelines is
imperative to ensure the continued availability of unique
habitats for wildlife and plants, to protect the unique
scenery in the County and to provide a wide range of
recreational opportunities for County residents .
(2) Growth is a natural and proper part of the
life of the community. However, growth should be managed
responsibly to preserve the quality of life for current and
future generations . New development should be guided into
appropriate locations, and should be allowed only after
appropriate infrastructure (transportation, schools, water,
fire and police protection) can be assured.
( 3) There is a critical need to make decent, safe
and affordable housing available to all Contra Costa County
residents . Fair housing opportunities should prevail for
all economic segments of the County, and housing should be
available in reasonable proximity to employment centers . In
addition, the County's land use policies should not restrict
growth so severely that they preclude these affordable
housing opportunities .
4
C. The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan implemented in
Section 4 is intended to address these concerns of the
voters . The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan is intended to
carry out the voters ' desire to both preserve agriculture
and open space land, parks, wetlands, hillsides and
ridgelines, manage growth to protect . the quality of life,
and provide for the County's fair share of decent, safe and
affordable housing.
D. It is appropriate and reasonable to present to the
voters for their approval the key policies that would guide
the County's future under the New General Plan, as those
policies are set forth in the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan.
With the guidance and confirmation the voters can provide
through approval of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, the
County can complete the environmental review and detailed
documentation necessary for implementing these principles .
E. The approval of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan by
the voters is not intended to be an amendment of the
County's existing general plan. Rather, the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan, if approved by the voters, is intended to
be reflected in the County's New General Plan and will
thereby become the official policy of the County with
respect to the preservation of open space and agricultural
lands and the protection of valuable environmental resources
such as wildlife, wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines .
5
Section 4 Implementation of 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
To implement the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, the following
chapter is hereby added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code as Chapter 82-1 and numbered appropriately:
A. New General Plan
The County shall adopt a new general plan by
December 31, 1990 (the "New General Plan" ) .
B. 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
The policies contained in this chapter shall be
reflected in the New General Plan, as ultimately adopted by
the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and State Planning Law.
( 1) 65/35 Land Preservation Standard
Urban development in the County shall be limited to
no more than 35% of the land in the County. At least 65% of
all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture,
open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses .
(2 ) Changes to the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
No change shall be made in the New General Plan
after its adoption that would result in greater than 35% of
the land in the County being permitted for urban
development. This limitation shall not prevent any increase
in agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands or other non-
urban uses to greater than 65% of the land in the County.
( 3) Urban Limit Line
To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set
forth in (B) ( 1) above, an Urban Limit Line shall be
established, in approximately the location depicted on the
illustrative 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation
Plan Map attached as Exhibit A. The Urban Limit Line shall
be incorporated into the County's Open Space Conservation
Plan. The Urban Limit Line shall limit potential urban
development in the County to 35% of the land in the County
and shall prohibit the County from designating any land
located outside the Urban Limit Line for an urban land use.
The criteria and factors for determining whether land should
6
be considered for location outside the Urban Limit Line
should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as
Class I and Class II in the Soil Conservation Service Land
Use Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and
other recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of
26 percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not
appropriate for urban growth because of physical
unsuitability for development, unstable geological
conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of
appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing
development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage
or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat,
and other similar factors .
(4) Growth Management
In accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Program adopted on
August 3, 1988, the County shall manage growth by allowing
new development only when infrastructure and service
standards are met for traffic levels of service, water,
sanitary sewer, fire protection, public protection, parks
and recreation, flood control and drainage and other such
services . Land located inside the Urban Limit Line may be
considered for changes in designated land uses , subject to
County growth management policies and any other applicable
requirements . Location of land within the Urban Limit Line
shall provide no guarantee that the land may be developed.
If land is developed within the Urban Limit Line, a
substantial portion of this land shall be retained for open
space, parks and recreational uses .
(5) Agricultural Protection Policies;
Minimum Parcel Sizes
The County shall establish standards and policies
designed to protect the economic viability of agricultural.
land. These standards and policies shall include a minimum
parcel size for prime productive agricultural land located
outside the Urban Limit Line to 40 acres . These standards
and policies may also include, but shall not necessarily be
limited to, preservation agreements, conservation easements,
clustering, establishment of an agricultural soils trust
fund, and agricultural mitigation fees .
7
( 6) Hillside Protection
Development on open hillsides and significant
ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and
hillsides with a grade of 26% or greater shall be protected
through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate
actions .
( 7 ) Changes to the Urban Limit Line
There shall be no change to the Urban Limit Line
that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in B( 1) above.
After adoption of the New General Plan, as long as there is
no violation of the 65/35 standard, the Urban Limit Line can
be changed by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after
holding a public hearing and making one or more of the
following findings based on substantial evidence in the
record:
(a) a natural or man-made disaster or public
emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of
housing and/or other community needs within land located
outside the Urban Limit Line,
(b) an objective study has determined that the
Urban Limit Line is preventing the County from providing its
fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as
required by state law, and the Board of Supervisors finds
that a change to the Urban Limit Line is necessary and the
only feasible means to enable the County to meet these
requirements of state law,
(c) a majority of the cities that are party to
a preservation agreement and the County have approved a
change to the Urban Limit Line affecting all or any portion
of the land covered by the preservation agreement,
(d) a minor change to the Urban Limit Line
will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics
or legal boundaries,
(e) a five (5) year periodic review of the
Urban Limit Line has determined, based on the criteria and
factors for establishing the Urban Limit Line set forth in
B( 3) above, that new information is available ( from city or
County growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstances have changed, warranting a change to the Urban
Limit Line;
8
( f) an objective study has determined that a
change to the Urban Limit Line is necessary or desirable to
further the economic viability of the East Contra Costa
County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation
related environmental or community impacts attributable to
Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation
related needs; or
(g) a change is required to conform to
applicable California or federal law.
Any such change shall be subject to referendum as
provided by law. Changes to the Urban Limit Line under any
other circumstances shall require a vote of the people.
(8) Annexations and Incorporations
The Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO" )
shall be advised to (a) respect and support the County's
65/35 Preservation Standard, Urban Limit Line and growth
management standards when considering requests for
incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts,
(b) apply the stricter of the growth management standards of
either the County, the incorporating city or the annexing
city or service district, when considering requests for
incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service
districts, and (c) require unincorporated land located
within the Urban Limit Line that is included in the
incorporation of a new city or annexed to a city to provide
a fair share of affordable housing when and if such land is
developed.
(9 ) Housing
As required by the State Planning Act, the County
shall periodically review and update the New General Plan to
conform to state housing requirements and to ensure its
capacity to accommodate a variety of housing types and
prices throughout the County. In accordance with the
provisions of B(7) above, the Board of Supervisors may make
findings of necessity that the Urban Limit Line should be
changed to allow the County to meet its fair share of
affordable housing and other state housing requirements .
( 10) Cooperation with Cities
To the extent feasible, the County shall enter into
preservation agreements with cities in the County designed
to preserve certain land in the County for agriculture and
open space, wetlands or parks .
9
C. Application to Projects Prior to Adoption
of New General Plan
From the effective date of this chapter to adoption
of the New General Plan, prior to issuing a permit for any
project or adopting any legislation which requires an
initial study under the California Environmental Quality
Act, and prior to issuing a permit for any demolition,
conversion, or change or use, and prior to taking any action
which requires a finding of consistency with the general
plan, the County shall adopt findings as to whether or not
the proposed project or legislation is consistent with the
policies established above.
D. Duration
The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect
until December 31, 2010, to the extent permitted by law.
E. No Violation of Law by this Ordinance
( 1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed or
interpreted in such a manner as to operate to deprive any
landowner of substantially all of the market value of
his/her property or otherwise constitute an unconstitutional
taking without compensation. If application of any of the
provisions of this chapter to any specific project or
landowner would create an unconstitutional taking, then the
Board of Supervisors may allow additional land uses,
otherwise adjust permit requirements or take such other
actions to the extent necessary to avoid what otherwise
might be construed to be a taking. Any such additional land
uses or other adjustments shall be designed to carry out the
goals and provisions of this section to the maximum extent
feasible.
(2) Nothing contained in this chapter shall
constitute an amendment of the existing general plan. Upon
approval of this chapter by the voters, the County shall
take all necessary and appropriate steps to reflect the
policies of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan in the New
General Plan for the County, consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and the State Planning Law. Nothing
contained herein shall prevent the County from complying
with applicable requirements of state law relating to the
adoption and amendment of general plans .
10
F. Definitions
( 1) As used in this chapter, the phrase "land
within the County" shall mean all of the acreage within the
boundaries of Contra Costa County except the water area of
the County west of Stake Point.
(2) As used in this chapter, the term "non-urban
uses " shall mean rural residential and agricultural
structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for
public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or
operated, which are necessary or desirable for the public
health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law.
Section 5 Amendment and Repeal
This ordinance may be amended or repealed only by a vote of
the people, except as expressly provided herein.
Section 6 Conflicts with Other Measures
The following provisions shall apply in the event that the
voters approve any other initiative or referendum related to
the County's general plan contemporaneously with approval of
this ordinance:
( 1) In the event that the voters approve any other
initiative or referendum related to the County's general
plan, or zoning, planning or land use regulations within the
County contemporaneously with approval of this ordinance and
this ordinance receives a higher number of votes than such
other initiative or referendum, the provisions of this
ordinance shall supersede and are hereby deemed to be
inconsistent with the provisions of such other initiative or
referendum, and no provision of such other initiative or
11
referendum shall be implemented. This provision shall apply
regardless of whether all or any part of this ordinance is
invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) In the event that the voters approve any other
initiative or referendum related to the County's general
plan contemporaneously with the approval of this ordinance,
and such other initiative or referendum receives a higher
number of votes than this ordinance, the provisions of this
ordinance shall nevertheless be implemented to the maximum
extent legally feasible.
Section 7 Severability
If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to
be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all
remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence,
phrase, part or portion of this ordinance would have been
adopted and passed regardless of whether any one or more
sections, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions
was declared invalid or unconstitutional.
12
' Y
J V
D
m
a
D �
m
O
m
< 2
-1
)NINO-
m W W v m
D C C N Z ! 2\
p V It i
O -4 -4 O A `
Z p D s Z s
In
O O O Z m
3 Z �-
c y m 3 f
z m
D
Gm
�ft7 m C 1 a
i
Or y
a \
n
ti
D
0
/...r.!ii:�iiiiii:�.�}•: is
2 O x
� y
m
m
DI Z `
D � O w
-1 y
D
m
m
D
z z
o r a
A
D
n
T O
m D t
9
O
j
Z
z
m
. D
D
C :� C •�.••� �Z a
z a m e
z =Dm- e
y rD
....... ... 0 :a v ?.:
/:: ;22 ::?::>:>"
v V7 Z
D
i
m
Z -�
I
r
i
C
D
r
}f m
D
y r•
D
n
I Q
Q
D
Z
C/)
3
O
D
Z
r
D
O
Z
ul
C
W
Z
'• c
y
x �
D
s
v
\/
0
D
2
Z
1
O
JJ O
S
D t�'
nX.
DD
Z
0
n — m
Tcn
r
z
c w �
x
C _
O r
0
N
x
G
O
D a
�.0
f
m
Z
m 1 e
O
<
y
m
^ h
.�4
iS
DX.
�i.............................
f�
,4
t }
GLr r
€;
st
:.tl
t
t..:
C
F
C 4y r.
.t
fi t -
� c -
e,
(dYi
................................
.....................::::::::
..................................
m pC� •,� C" =`a4' moi;'
' S
O —
.a
CD
r DCN ..::::::X-
X
ii - .K"e�• 4 0 :<•a:ii'r:�iiiii}i: _
v
6
8
0
A
..�:. :t:i:<:i:�iiii::: W
F�