HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08101999 - D3 CF SUPERVISORS
T _ ContraTO- ���',•._�_�--,�•��
.,: ,i _,. Costa
FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair C3ut f
Supervisor Donna Gerber
DATE. August 10, 1999
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON ITS PROGRESS ON THE
ISSUES OF ENCOURAGING INFILL GROWTH AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANIS
FUNDING THE ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION
REC0M1'elIENDATIONS�
ACCEPT status report from Finance Committee on the following referrals from the
Board of Supervisors° 1) incentives for encouraging infill growth and development of
affordable housing; and 2) funding for open space and agriculture preservation. And
AUTHORIZE the expenditure of not more than $20,000 to fund a pall to determine the
feasibility of a ballot measure to acquire open space land and easements and to better
define the interests of County residents on this issue.
FISCAL ll\ PACT
The prognosed poll would be paid for with funds from the Unfunded Mandates account
which has a total budget of $200,000 for Fiscal Year 1999/2000.
BACKGROUIgD/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 26, 1999, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee the
matters of infill development/affordable housing and funding for open space and
agriculture preservation. The Finance Committee has taken a number of steps to
address these referrals over the past several months, and this report is provided to
update the Board on the status of these discussions. Consistent with the timing of the
original referrals, the Finance Committee determined that it was important to provide
this status report at the same time that changes to the Urban Limit Line were
discussed in order to reinforce the concept that land use regulations, opera space
acquisition, and promotion of infill development and affordable housing are
complementary tools for improving the management of growth in the County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTS X YES SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR® RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _ OTH
SIGNATURE(S).
St " r" v oror John Gioia_ _ Chair Si ervisor-- rye Gerber
ACTION OF BOARS 10jqqj APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED v,' OTHER
rf
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact. John Kopchik, CDD (335-1227) ATTESTS
Orig; Community Development Department PHIL B�kHEWR, CLERK{ OF
cc, CAC THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel D
MINIT TOR
Public
TDUTEFlo �d Control
Redevelopment Agency �
Department of Agriculture
S\CONSERV\JOHN\OSFiNBOS.REP
REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 10, 1999
Page 2
This status report from the Finance Committee is organized according to the following
subjects:
A) Incentives for Infill Development, Urban Revitalization, and .Affordable Housing
("'Smart Growth");
B) Funding for preservation of open space and agricultural land (including
urban/suburban parks and creek corridors)
C) Integrating items A) and B) above with the possible renewal of a county-wide
sales tax for transportation projects (Measure C, 1988) and the related proposed
amendment to the California Constitution, SCA 3 (Burton).
A) SMART GROWTH/INCENTIVE FOR INFILL DEVELCBPMENTIURBAN
REVITALIZATION/AFFORDABLE HOUSING
"Smart Growth," including infill housing and urban revitalization has been suggested
as an alternative to sprawl development, Smart Growth principles assume a region will
experience growth, and suggests a myriad of approaches that influence the manner
and pattern of that growth, The Beard of Supervisors adopted the principles of Smart
Growth on January 2 , 1999.
In its review of smart Growth, incentives for infill housing, urban revitalization, and
incentives for affordable housing, the Finance Committee has considered staff reports
prepared by Community Development, including a July 7, 1999 report on "Incentives
for Infill Development/smart Growth," which is attached hereto. The report suggests
that moving towards Smart Growth principles will not happen overnight, nor is it
achievable by action of the County alone. Multiple layers of government (using
regulatory as well as affirmative initiatives), the private sector and private individuals
must engage in fundamental system reforms to accomplish Smart Growth. However,
the County has an important leadership role in achieving and setting the example for
these reforms. The discussion of system reforms were grouped into the following
thirteens groups:
1) Fiscal Reforms;
2) Land Use/Zoning;
3) Infrastructure/Facilities;
4) Consumer Preference;
6) Work Patterns;.
6) Construction legislations;
7) Local/State/Federal Investment Policies;
8) Regional Government
9) Work Force Development
10) Collaboration
1 1) The New Economy
12) Legislation; and
13) Biodiversity/Environmental Quality/Environmental Justice
The Finance Committee is recommending the following:
1 . That the Board endorses the considerations of Smart Growth principles
and initiatives as a complement to its discussion of General Pian and
Urban Limit Line changes;
2. Direct the Finance Committee to further examine best strategies to
facilitate the implementation of Smart Growth principles under the
REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 10, 1999
Page 3
General Plan and report back to the Board of Supervisors by December
14, 1999.
3. Request the County Administrator and the Community Development
Department to disseminate the Smart Growth materials prepared for the
Finance Committee to date to other regional governmental agencies
(local, state and federal), private and public interest groups in order to
stimulate additional discussion, input, and action on Smart Growth/infill
development/urban revitalization initiatives.
4. Conclude that in high median income counties such as Contra Costa, the
production of infill and affordable housing consistent with recognized
County priorities requires a combination of local incentives and public
financing to leverage other resources. These identified priorities include
but may not be limited to;
a. development of affordable housing for seniors on fixed income;
b. provision of affordable first-time home buyer opportunities,
C. development of affordable rental housing for very-low income
households, including large families;
d. revitalization of housing in older, core areas of the County;
e. implementation of redevelopment projects, including mixed use
and new urbanist projects designed to develop more sustainable
and liveable communities.
B) FUNDING FOR PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE
The Finance Committee has reviewed the report prepared by the Community
Development Department on Options for Funding the Acquisition and Protection} of
Open Space and Agricultural Land (attached), and has begun to analyze potential
County actions on this matter. During its deliberations, the Committee has considered
the following questions related to the opera space funding issue:
1} What role could and should the County play in developing funds for open
space?
2$ Which funding mechanisms should be explored further?
33 What types of lands should be acquired?
4} What process should be used to further explore implementation of any
open space funding measures?
The progress of the Finance Committee on each of the above questions is described
below.
1) What rale could and should the County play in developing funds for open space?
During their discussions, Finance Committee members expressed the view that the
County should have a role in pursuing open space funding, but that further work and
deliberation was required to determine what that role should be. Members generally
viewed potential actions to develop funding for open space as a complement to land
use policy actions to limit growth on the edges of existing urbanized areas, protect
agricultural resources, and encourage in-fill development and urban revitalization. To
reflect this purpose, it may be helpful to view any efforts to secure open space funds
as having a dual purpose: protecting land at the edges of communities while also
securing and enhancing creeks, trails, and parks within existing communities to
improve quality of life and complement infill.
To better define the County's potential role in this matter, the Finance Committee
requested that staff meet with agencies and organizations with expertise in open space
issues to solicit their input. These panties agreed that the County could play a
constructive role in developing funding for open space because it could offer a
regional, general government/quality of life perspective to the open space issue that
could be provided by no other agency. They also urged that care be taken to
complement rather than overlap the duties of existing organizations such as the East
Say Regional Park District ("EBRPD") and the private land trusts in the County. The
REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 1€3, 1999
Page 4
parties also suggested that, should the County succeed in developing additional funds,
a County-managed grant program would be an efficient and effective mechanism for
performing acquisitions important to the County while building on existing expertise
and resources in the public and private sector.
2) Which funding mechanisms should be explored further? The summary of options
provided by staff outlined three general categories of funding sources: grants, local
public funding, and developer fees. Each is discussed separately below.
Grants. The County could help to develop funds from this source in several
ways, including the followings a) supporting grant applications submitted by
ether organizations; b) supporting the creation or augmentation of state or
federal grant programs; c) providing local ;Hatching funds to make the
applications of other organizations more attractive to federal, state, and private
grant programs; and d) directly applying for grants for County initiated projects.
The Finance Committee is discussing which approaches to recommend to the
Board.
Local public funds. The representatives of open space interests convened by
staff supported the concept of a County-sponsored ballot measure to develop
new funds for open space. The Finance Committee is interested in pursuing this
possibility further, using the process described under item (4) below, luring its
discussions, the Finance Committee indicated that the most feasible local public
funding options were a general obligation bond and a parcel tax, since the sales
tax, the only other viable approach, can only be raised in 1/4 cent increments
(except for library purposes) and future increases may be targeted for other
purposes, such as libraries. The Finance Committee also discussed
opportunities for helping local neighborhoods to purchase small areas of open
space within their communities, and this idea may also be considered as the
Finance Committee develops its recommendations to the Bayard.
Developer fees. Some of the mechanisms described in the staff summary of
funding options are either in effect or will be considered by the Board for
implementation in the near future. For instance, the County already collects
developer fees and dedications on a project-by-project basis. The proposal for
a Habitat Conservation Plan for East County was discussed by the Board in
199E and will be brought back to the Board for further consideration soon,
perhaps in September. Likewise, Public Works staff is exploring the feasibility
of pooling creek and wetland mitigation funds from small projects to enable
more productive use of such funds. The Finance Committee continues to look
at other ;mechanisms, such as Transfer of Development Rights Programs,
especially as they relate to the infill development issue discussed .above.
However, it is clear that developer fees alone will not provide the funding
necessary to carry out the County's goals.
3) What types of lands should be acquired? The opera space professionals convened
by staff suggested the following acquisition priorities: buffers between developed or
developing areas and agricultural areas, creeks and watershed protection and
enhancement, trails, farmland protection, wildlife habitat and corridors, historic
preservation, and environmental education facilities. The Finance Committee is
considering acquisition priorities, but has already indicated a preference for increased
emphasis on buffers (both between developing areas and agricultural areas and
between industrial areas and residential areas) and opera space in urban areas, including
developed parks. The Finance Committee has also expressed interest in the use of
conservation easements or development rights acquisition in addition to fee simple
acquisition.
4) What process should be used to further explore implementation of any open space
funding measures? The Finance Committee intends to continue its work on this ;natter,
and to present a specific proposal to the Board of Supervisors by December 14, 1999.
As a first step to address one aspect of the open space funding ;matter, the Finance
REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 10, 1999
Page 5
Committee is convening a committee to advise it on the details of a potential County-
sponsored ballot measure for open space. The Finance Committee has asked that the
following organizations with expertise on open space and urban parks be invited to
participate on this new committee:
East Bay Regional Park District Bay Area Open Space Council
Martinez Regional Land Trust Sierra Club
Save Mt. Diablo The Trust for Public Land
Contra Costa County Agricultural Trust Urban Creek Council
Bay Area Ridge Trail Council Urban Habitat Institute
Greenbelt Alliance
Staff from Community Development, Public Works, Flood Control, Agriculture, County
Counsel, and the County Administrator's Office would also be involved. Once some
of the specific issues associated with proposing a County-sponsored ballot measure
can be defined, the Finance Committee would conduct or recommend an organized
discussion of this matter with a broad base of interests. In particular, city
representatives would need to be consulted to determine if and how a County-
sponsored effort could benefit cities.
To assist with defining the specific interests of the public with respect to the open
space issue, and to assess the feasibility of a County-sponsored open space measure,
the Finance Committee is recommending that the Board authorize the expenditure of
not more than $20,000 to fund a poll on this question. The Finance Committee is
recommending that this polling be detailed enough to document any differing
preferences among the various subareas of the County, enabling any county-wide
measure to be tailored to local open space needs.
C) RENEWAL OF MEASURE C (1988), SCA 3 (BURTON), AND THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THESE MATTERS TO THE ISSUES OF INFILL
DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE FUNDING
The Finance Committee discussed the relationship between the potential renewal of
the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation via the passage of SCA 3 and the issues of
infill development and open space funding, The Finance Committee received an
opinion from County Counsel (attached) which indicated that expenditures of tax
revenues approved via SCA 3 must be closely linked to transportation. Finance
Committee members expressed the view that, while construction of transportation
infrastructure was important, it needed to be part of a broader package of actions to
promote infill and protect open space. To explore options for achieving this
coordination, the Finance Committee invited representatives of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority ("CICTA"), the Contra Costa Economic Partnership, and the
Contra Costa Council to discuss the matter. Based on this meeting, the Finance
Committee has identified the following as the best available means for coordinating
renewal of Measure C with open space funding and infill development-
1 ) Complement SCA 3 with a separate measure to acquire open space.
2) To the extent possible, urge the OCTA to include promotion of infill/Smart
Growth/sustainable development in the expenditure plan to be developed for
renewal of Measure C. Potential options for accomplishing this objective within
the expenditure plan include the following:
* leverage infill by using Measure C funds to pay in lieu transportation fees that
would otherwise encumber infill development projects;
* link city and County access to Measure C funds to compliance with the Urban
Limit Line, affordable housing standards, and/or other "smart growth"
indicators;
* promote transit-related development by, for instance, using Measure C funds
to build parking structures at BART stations to enable development on lands
`REPORT FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 10, 1999
Fare 6
previously dedicated to parking lots.
Attachments;
July 7, 1999 report on "Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth"
prepared by Jiro Kennedy, Redevelopment agency (without attachments)
June 9, 1999 report on "Options for Funding the Acquisition and
Protection of Open Space and Agricultural Land in Contra Costa County"
prepared by John Kopchi , Community Development
July S, 1999 opinion from Vic Westman, County Counsel, on "Proposed
Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 ("SCA 3`p) and Open Space
Acquisition" (without attachments)
:\C0NSERV\J0HN\0sFI{ B0S.R_P
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street. N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez. CA 94553
Telephone: 335-1290 Fax: 335-1299
TO: Internal Operations Committee
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkerna, District II, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia,-District I
Finance Committee
Supervisor John Gloia, District 1, Chair
Supervisor Donna Gerber, District III
FROM: Dennis M. r Community Development Director
By: Ji nedy putt' Director- Redevelopment
DATE: Ju 7, 199
SUBJECT: I NTIVES FOR INFILIL DEVELOPMENT/SMART GROWTH
"Smart Growth" assumes a region will experience growth. It is the manner and pattern
of that growth that is under scrutiny. Smart Growth means excellent schools, affordable
housing near jobs; efficient transportation alternatives, safe neighborhoods, good
libraries, parks and open space, and a healthy, clean environment. Ultimately, says Hugh
McGill, President of Sank of America, Smart Growth is "about families and communities
creating neighborhoods with housing, employment, schools, houses of worship, parks,
services, shopping centers close enough together that our kids can ride their bikes
wherever they go." The challenge. how to sustain continued economic prosperity without
destroying the quality of life. Quality of life has become an increasingly important factor
in stimulating private investment and development. Smart growth must be compatible
with our natural environment, must benefit our existing communities, and must be fiscally
sound if it is to gain widespread support.
The precepts of Smart Growth are not new. The following excerpt from an American
Planning Association publication entitled "The Principles of Smart Development"
(September 1998) provide a summary of principles;
P. C
C h a p t e r I he following principles represent the most notable aspects of
smart development.Together they describe an interconnected system
of community building.
The PRINCIPLE 1. EFFICIENT USE OF LAND RESOURCES
Smart development supports the preservation of land and natural re-
Pr i n c i p 1 e s sources.These benefits result from compact building forms,infill develop-
ment,and moderation in street and parking standards.At the regional scale,
cooperative growth management can encourage more compact develop-
of Smart ment patterns,protecting farmland and open space from urban sprawl.At
the local scale,compact building patterns preserve land for city and neigh-
de v e l o p m e n t borhood parks as well as local woods and wetlands.Furthermore,compact
development shortens trips,lessening dependence on the automobile,and
therefore reducing levels of energy consumption and air pollution.Finally,
a compact development pattern supports more cast-effective infrastructure
than does low-density fringe development.
PRINCIPLE 2. FULL USE OF
URBAN SERVICES
The same frugality of land develop-
ment supports efficient use of pub-
lic and private infrastructure.Smart
development means creating neigh-
borhoods where more people will
use existing services like waterlines
and sewers, roads,emergency ser-
vices, and schools. Inefficient land
use,whether within or outside ur-
ban areas, places a financial strain
on communities trying to provide
for the construction and mainte-
nance of infrastructure needs.
Buildingcompactly does not mean
that all areas must be densely devel-
oped.Rather,the goal is an average density for the area,at a level tl-at makes
In Oregon,compact development full use of urban services. Averaging allows for areas to have a mix of low-,
patterns protect farmland from medium-,and high-density development.Mixing densities to encourage effi-
urban sprawl• c
eient use of services also rneai;s requiring a higl,leve of building and siting
compatibility,encouraging neighborhoods to have both character and privacy.
Careful street sizing and the accommodation of some parking on streets
reduces impervious surfaces and efficiently uses urban services by saving
7
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............ ......... ......... ......... ..............._........ .. .......... .......... ....... .._.......... ..................._.... ........._.. ......... .......... .. . .....................
on land acquisition,construction,and maintenance costs. In short,streets
should be sized for their use: lower density areas that have little through
traffic are best served by slower, narrower streets, while transportation
corridors that move districtwide traffic need wider travelways.
PRINCIPLE 3. MIX OF USES
Locating stores,offices,residences, schools, and recreation spaces within
Most codes prohibit the walking distance of each other in compact neighborhoods with
colocation of any residential and pedestrian-oriented streets promotes.
commercial buildings.This * independence of movement,especially for the young and-the elderly who
prohibition is based on the can conveniently walk,cycle,or ride transit;
functional and architectural
incompatibility of the buildings. * safety in commercial areas,through around-the-clock presence of people;
Using design standards,in
tandem with mixed-use toning, * reduction in auto use,especially for shorter drips;
overcomes incompatibility- a support for those Who work athome,throughnearbyseervicesand parks;and
* a variety of housing choices, so that the young and old, singles and
families,and those of varying economic ability may fired places to live.
Mixed-use examples include a corner store in a residential area, an
apartment near or over a shop,and a
I
unch counter in an industrial zone.
Most codes prohibit the coloration
of any residential and commercial
buildings.This prohibition is based
on the functional and architectural
♦ R incompatibility of the buildings.Us-
ing design standards,in tandem with
mixed-use zoning,overcomes incorn-
' patibility. Additionally,limitations
on commercial functions, such as
hours of operation and delivery truck
access,may be necessary.More fun-
damentally,to gain the full benefits
%' of a mix of uses,buildings must be
conveniently connected by streets
y
s. Otherwise, people will
and path
+yamstill be inclined or required to use
_.;. a
cars,even for the shortest trips.
Building compactly means that
neighborhoods make full use of PRINCIPLE 4.TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
existing urban services and can Transportation must be safe, convenient, and interesting. These perfor-
more easily afford amenities mance factors affect sidewalk and street design,placement of parking,and
such as parks. location of building fronts,doors,and windows.We! -designed bike lanes
and sidewalks protect people from vehicle accidents. Orienting windows
and doorways to the sidewalk increases awareness of street activity and the
safety of the streetscape.
Convenience begins with a connected network of streets that provides
alternative routes with reasonable walking distances between destina-
tions.A properly designed network also promotes neighborhood safety
by routing the heaviest traffic around neighborhoods,without sacrific-
ing street connectivity. Field studies have shown that the level of aes-
thetic interest is a critical factor in choosing a walking route. People are
unwilling to walk further than about 300 feet through a parking lot to
reach a desired destination, yet they will walk at least three tines that
distance along a street of storefronts.
8
�a C
Providing compact,mixed-use de- ,
velopment connected by safe, con-
venient,and interesting networks of
streets and paths promotes:
• walking, cycling, and transit as
viable, attractive alternatives to
driving;
• less traffic congestion and air pol-
lution;
+ the convenience, density, and
variety of uses necessary to sup-
port transit;
a variety of alternative routes, 1 t
1
thereby dispersing traffic conges-
tion;and
i
+ lower traffic speeds, making
neighborhoods safer.
f '
PRINCIPLE 5. DETAILED, $J .
HUMAN-SCALE DESIGN
11
Community acceptance of compact,
mixed-use development requires NA}
compatibility between buildings to Mo
ensure privacy, safety, and visual 83
coherency.Similar massing of build- 8'3
Ings,orientation of buildings to the ga
�_._.
street, the presence of windows, mow,
doors,porches,and other architec-
tural elements,and effective use of ;
landscaping all contribute to suc-
cessful compatibility between di-
verse building types.
Human-scale design is also criti-
cal to the success of streets and paths
as preferred routes for pedestrians,cyclists,and motorists alike.in getteral, Well-designed streets
smart street design considers the role of pedestrians along with that of comfortably accommodate
vehicular traffic,emphasizing the quality of the walking environment.For pedestrians,cyclists,and
instance,parallel parking may be considered a hindrance to vehicle flow, motorists.
but,for pedestrians and shop owners,on-street parking is a benefit because
it reduces speeding traffic and protects the sidewalk.
Designing streets that are balanced for pedestrians,cyclists,and mo- Convenience begins with a
torists promotes the development of community through the informal connected network of streets
meeting of neighbors.Neighborhood safety is improved,since neighbors that provides alternative routes
can more easily corne to know one another and watch over each other's with reasonable walking
homes. distances between destinations.
A properly designed network
PRINCIPLE 6. IMPLEMENTATION also promotes neighborhood
A community's ability to adopt smart development principles will, of safety by routing the heaviest
necessity, require an examination of its development review process. traffic around neighborhoods,
What is a community looking for in this examination. Primarily, the without sacrificing street
connectivity_
review should focus on ways that the review process can be streamlined
so that developers are encouraged to apply the principles. Frustrating,
costly,and tune-consuming delays due,in part, to inflexible standards,
9
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ......... ....................... .. ......_..... _ .... __ _ ..... __
regulations, and processes will almost certainly doom any innovative
approaches to development and design. providing for flexibility and
certainty in the application of standards,including provision for perfor-
mance standards and administrative approval of"minor"variances,can
Neap promote creative development that complies with the principles.
Changes to the Planned Unit Development (PULS) process can also
relieve some of the regulatory barriers for developers and lighten the
administrative load for planners,as can adopting a flexible process for
A community's ability to adopt applying design review standards.
smart development principles
will,of necessity,rewire an
examination of its development
review process.Providing for
flexibility and certainty in the
application of standards,
including provision for ti
performance standards and
administrative approval of
"minor"variances,can hasp
J
promote creative development
that complies with the a ~°
principles. ,—
Porches are a human-scale design element that connects the public and
private realms.
10
c
m � � 111 � �� �� - � c• '
w � �
y
E 8
i �c
•v I v v .c eel� ,n I ai I � vi �,`n' � vi� �� ".'� .
_ c E E �E
ts
y �m o cN vim+
ie
aF o -
N
V
C
.v
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 2
Smart growth principles are now attracting a diverse constituency, including planners,
environmental groups, and business organizations (see California Futures, Appendix B).
This policy consensus must be tempered by public opinion survey's which find that
Americans dislike sprawl yet prefer the type of development that creates it (see Appendix
A). Some conservatives have also stated that growth management is "ineffective" (see
Heritage Foundation, Appendix 1).
Smart Growth is not something one can go do tomorrow, There are practices which will
move us in the direction of Smart Growth, but fundamentally extensive system reforms
may be required. Discussion of system reforms have been grouped into thirteen (13)
areas:
I Fiscal Reforms
2) Land Use/Zoning;
3) 1 nfrastructure/Facl I ffies;
4) Consumer Preference;
5) Work Patterns;
6) Construction legislation;
7) Local/State/Federal Investment Policies;
8) Regional Government;
9) Work Force Development;
10) Collaboration;
11) The New Economy,
12) Legislation; and
13) Biodiversity/Environmental Quality/Environmental Justice
The listed measures have been drawn from a variety of sources, and may not be internally
consistent. They constitute a menu of choices, some of which are being done today, but
most are not being done on a comprehensive basis.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 3
1) Fiscal Reforms:
State diversions of local property tax base has forced Caled 6/99
fiscalization of land use.
The State should stabilize local revenues, reduce CA Counties
reliance on sales tax, and provide fiscal incentives to 6/99 p.70
encourage balanced land use planning.
The transfer of control of the property tax to the state CA Municipal Finan.
eliminated the primary source of self-controlled 3/6/99 p. 5
income for local governments and dramatically altered (Appendix C)
the correspondence between the level of government
responsible for generating and allocating revenue and
the level responsible for spending it. The situation
was further exacerbated by the state bailout of local
government that followed Proposition 13. The result
was an increased dependence on state revenues and
a decreased reliance on self-controlled revenues by
local governments.
Overall, local government has seen a significant CA Municipal Finan.
decline in discretionary revenues. As a result, local 3/3/99 p. 6
public officials have grown increasingly frustrated at (Appendix C)
the role of the state in constraining local choices.
Further, the expanded imposition of statewide
`average' preferences on local communities, coupled
with the constraints on new revenues...will make it
increasingly difficult for local communities to specify,
finance, and exhibit their local preferences for mixes
of services and programs.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 4
"The profile for counties is quite different than that for CA Municipal Finan.
the state. Proposition 13 led to a major decline in the 3/3/99 P. 5
proportion of county revenues that were locally (Appendix C)
determined, both overall and within the county...
These changes have led to a general reduction in the
ability of county governments ta raise and control local
revenues. Even though the property tax monies
remain at hone, control of the distribution of these
monies is transferred to a combination of the
legislature in Sacramento, where local voices receive
only a small voice, and voters in the local community
before 1973. These shifts have also resulted in a
significant increase in the agency role of county
governments—as they administer state-mandated
programs---- and a decrease in their ability to originate
and fund services on their own---as their discretionary
revenue base declines. The overall result has been a
marginalization of the role of the locally elected county
governments and, consequently, of local preferences."
Advocate changes in state legislation to provide local Compact for a
governments with adequate and stable tax revenue. Sustainable Bay
Area (Draft) 3/1/99
p.12 (AppendixD)
Encourage local governments to work together to Compact for a
determine how to allocate and share tax revenues. Sustainable Bay
Area (Draft) 3/1/99
p.12 (appendix D)
A ridership formula for current sales tax revenue BA alliance
distribution among transit agencies should be (Working Draft)
adapted. Transit service should be restored in Rev. 1112/99 p.3
underserved neighborhoods.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page b
The loss of our tax base is placing older working class BA Alliance
suburbs and core cities at risk, while suburban tax (Working Draft)
practices have the effect of destroying our ReV. 1612/99 p.2
environment and polarizing rich and poor. These
taxation and land use practices should be reevaluated
and reformed; suburban developers should pay for
externalized and regional impacts and costs. urban
re-investment should be one of our top priorities.
Share revenues among jurisdictions to reduce Framework for
geographically based economic, environmental and Sustainable
racial inequities. Development;
Strategies p.2
(Appendix E)
Reform state fiscal and local government funding Framework for
policies to encourage and support sustainable growth Sustainable
strategies. Development,
• Devise the Constitution and statutes to ensure Strategies p.3
stability in financing for local governments and (Appendix E)
schools that realigns responsibility with revenues
(adopted Bay Area Council policy).
• Enact fiscal incentives for local jurisdictions to
accommodate affordable housing and achieve a
jobs-housing balance and decrease the
"fiscalization" of land use decisions by modifying
state and local statutes to allow an equitable,
across jurisdictional boundaries sharing of
revenues gained from growth in order to meet
requirements and costs of sustainably serving that
growth on a regional basis.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Mage 6
2) Land Use/Zoning:
Remove disincentives and provide incentives for key Caled 6/99
industry cluster to develop in infill locations.
Redevelopment and land use regulatory system
reforms must link to mitigate the higher costs for
urban sites.
Champion new models of development including Caled 6/99
mixed use, higher density, transit- oriented, etc.
Open space, habitat, and agricultural preservation can Caled 6/99
be viewed as economic development tools.
Identifying these needs (a) raise quality of life; and (b)
can allow permit streamlining and reduced
development time frames.
Warning: Environmental constraints and various Cather Caled 6/99
Smart Growth measures can create an artificial deficit
in the supply of housing relative to demand.
New urbanist infill projects: New Urban News,
(a) face the public realm and contribute to a 6/99 p.7
pedestrian scale streetscape;
(b) street landscape is designed with sidewalks to
establish a physical space for pedestrians;
and
(c) quality public realm lure people out to walk; on
to front porches, creating eyes on street, and
further enhancing the public realm.
It all comes back to the land, and to convincing more Land & People
people that living on less of it--building more Spring, 99 p.9
densely--can be "livable and not just crowded."
Density is the key, but the key to selling density is
liveability and you need green spaces to do that.
Advocate local government actions such as amending Compact (Draft)
general plans and zoning, and providing incentives 3/1/99 p.9
such as fast tracking to encourage affordable housing. (Appendix D)
Support community-based efforts to retain the supply Compact (Draft)
of existing affordable housing and prevent 3/1199 p.9
displacement. (Appendix D)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 7
Advocate in support of residential development in Compact (Draft)
areas with transportation and other services. 3/1/99 p.9
(Appendix D)
Managing growth, in the context of local decision Western City
making, requires: 6/99 p.12
1. Defining a community's vision within a regional
context;
2. Developing locally implementation strategies;
3. Creating community indicators/benchmarks;
4. Basing decisions on reliable data;
5. Presenting visual images of the choices involved;
and
6. Looking for win-win opportunities to gain
momentum.
Warning: Western City
Property rights groups have been successful in 6/99 p.6
expanding the scope of takings to include "regulatory
takings" as well as "physical takings." The "Institute
for Local Self Government" has established a
community land use project to assist communities in
effectively applying regulatory tools. The Institute for
Local Self Government is seeking funding for
w sponsoring conferences, publications and
education on takings issue; and
• developing a "brief bank" to help localities
defending their decisions.
Policies and zoning that facilitate greater intensity of Urban Ecology
land use include: Number 5 p.1
• increasing height limits and instituting height (Appendix J)
minimums
s reducing setback requirements or instituting
maximum setbacks
• allowing floor-area ratios of at least 1:1
• allowing smaller lot sizes for construction
® allowing for greater lot coverage
• reducing parking requirements
_. _ .... _ _... ......... .......................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ........ ...._ __ ..._ __
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/ mart Growth
July 7, 1959
Page 8
Establishing long-terra comprehensive plans that Smart Growth: gidg.
male available an ample supply of land for Better Places to
residential, commercial, recreational, industrial, and Live, Work& Play
environmental uses. 5/17/99 p.10
Removing barriers to allow innovative land-use Smart Growth: Bldg,
planning techniques to be used in building higher- Better Places to
density and mixed-use developments as well as infill Live, Work & Play
developments in suburban and inner-city 5/17/99 P.19
neighborhoods.
Working together to revitalize inner cities and inner- Smart Growth: Bldg.
ting suburbs. Better Places to
Love, Work & Play
5/17/99 p.19
Job-Dousing Footprint project of Bay Area Alliance for Job-Dousing
Sustainable Development is an attempt to define the Footprint Project
extent to which developable land in the 9-County Bay 6/99 (Appendix F
Area has the capacity to accommodate housing given
projected job growth.
Development plans to set priorities for natural Compact (Draft)
resource preservation, informed by best available 3/1/99 p.15
science. (Appendix D)
Advocate incentives for landowners to practice good Compact (Draft)
environmental stewardship. 3/1/53 p,19
(Appendix D)
Address the particular needs for open space, Compact (Draft)
environmental cleanup, and resource protection in 3/1/99 p.19
low-income neighborhoods. (Appendix D)
Support urban growth boundaries, provided that Compact (Draft)
complementary policies and incentives are adopted 3/1/99 p.15
that ensure that new jobs generated and needed (Appendix D)
housing are accommodated within the boundaries.
Encourage business incubators and vendors and Compact (Draft)
suppliers to large growth-engine industry clusters to 3/1/99 p.11
locate in impoverished neighborhoods. 1 (Appendix D)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 9
Establish an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to assist Compact (®raft)
jurisdictions in providing their fair share of affordable 3/1/99 p.12
housing. (Appendix g)
The Bay Area preserves open space critical for Compact (graft)
human enjoyment, recreation, and agriculture. 3/1/99 p.13
(Appendix g)
Facilitate the reuse of closed military bases. Involve Compact (graft)
local community, social equity, and environmental 3/1/99 p.16
organizations in base.reuse planning. (Appendix g)
Promote housing at transit hubs, in transit villages, on Compact (graft)
redeveloped "brownfield" sites, and on closed military 3/1/99 p.17
bases. Involve local community, social equity, and (Appendix g)
environmental organizations in planning for these also
sites. Framework
11/10/98 p.1
(Appendix E)
Strengthen requirements and incentives for the Compact (graft)
provision of affordable housing. 3/1/99 p.17
Encourage more integration of income levels to avoid Compact (graft)
isolating low income neighborhoods. 311/99 p.20
Secure commitments for (or require through Framework
legislation)jurisdictions to designate residential land p.1 (Appendix E)
uses in general plans and zoning such that it would be
possible to accommodate housing affordable to the
workforce for the jobs being generated within the
jurisdiction (or, in cooperation with neighboring
jurisdictions, within the sub-regional "transportation
shed").
Identify "sustainability" or "liveability" zones, such that Framework
once designated through a public hearing process p.1 (Appendix E)
consistent with CEQA, housing proposals that meet
the requisite density and design criteria are exempted
from project-level CEQA review and other NIMBY
legal challenges. (New law will be needed.)
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ........ ........ .............. __
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1333
Page 10
Promote mixed-income and mixed-use components in Framework
larger residential and commercial development p.1 (Appendix E)
projects.
Develop a "Jobs-Housing Footprint" for the Bay Area Framework
that identifies sufficient land to accommodate the p.1 (Appendix E)
housing needed to hatch within the region all the job
generation projected for the next 20 years (taking into
account proximity to job centers, housing affordability
matched to jobs, requisite density and urban design
necessary to achieve housing affordability closer to
jobs, and appropriate mix of detached and attached
units while excluding valuable environmental lands
and open space).
Establish an Urban Growth Boundary of the region BA Council
based on the "Jobs-Housing Footprint" (if—and only if 11110198 p.2
the above is implemented), such that significant legal
relief and "defiscalization" of land use decisions is
provided for growth within the boundary.
CEQA regulations, though they are sometimes BA Alliance
abused to prevent necessary housing from being built, (Working Draft)
are an important foothold for public oversight of rev. 1/12199 p.2
projects. CEQA was instituted to allow citizens to
challenge inappropriate development. We oppose
amending CEQA and suggest an alternative
mechanism for facilitating building in livability zones."
Current suburban zoning practices and development BA alliance
incentives that encourage inappropriate use of open (Working Draft)
space should be examined and restructured. Urban Rev. 1912139 p.1
zoning regulations must be reformed to serve
neighborhoods and communities.
Good neighbor programs that regulate industry's BA Alliance
responsibilities to the neighborhoods in which they (Working Draft)
locate and protect neighborhood health should be Rev. 1912199 p.1
implemented. Enforcement mechanisms such as
bonds or special takes for soil contamination clean-up
and prevention should be carried out region-wide.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 11
Establish urban growth boundaries to protect farmland Framework
and natural areas and to funnel growth to areas of p.2 (Appendix E)
existing infrastructure. .
Increase the supply of affordable housing, protect Framework
lower income families from any adverse effects of p.2 (Appendix E)
gentrification, and support socially and economically
diverse neighborhoods.
Preserve remaining prime agricultural land. Framework
p.3 (Appendix E)
Promote reuse of brownfields that is protective of Framework
human health and the natural environment. p.3 (Appendix E)
Provide increased funding and incentives for Framework
affordable housing. For example, consider increasing p.3 (Appendix E)
the state required housing "set-aside" by
Redevelopment Agencies.
Tennessee adopted a statewide growth management NaCo News
law in 1993. 4/26/99 p.11
Anticipating and planning for growth in an orderly, NAHB
predictable and timely manner. 4/99 p.6
Creating long-term comprehensive plans in each local NAHB
jurisdiction that allow ample land for future residential, 4/99 p.6
commercial, industrial and recreational development
while also protecting environmentally sensitive areas
and open spaces.
Removing regulatory and planning barriers that hinder NAHB
mixed-use, infill and inner-city development. 4/99 p.6
Making the planning process more balanced by NAHB
encouraging innovative planning concepts designed to 4/99 p.6
achieve Smart Growth's goals.
Ensuring that review of site-specific land development NAHB
proposals is reasonable, predictable and fair for both 4/99 p.6
applicants and neighbors.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 12
Wendell Cox of the Heritage Foundation, a NAHB
conservative think tank, argues that most efforts to 4/99 p.1
contain urban sprawl will not only fail to meet their
goals but will also fall short of providing the living
environment that most Americans want. Cox
challenges the assumptions of what he calls "a
relatively neer school of urban planners, the `new
urbanists'" (see Appendix).
In order to overcome government barriers to smart Growth/No Growth
growth, the National Association of Local Government Alert
Environmental Professionals recommends that 1) dune, 1999 p.1
local governments involve business leaders in land
use planning while creating predictability in the
development approval process and investing in
existing infrastructure; 2) businesses play a part in
land use and transportation activities, promote smart
growth among the business community, and
encourage their employees to use alternative
transportation; and 3) federal governments focus on
assistance to state and local efforts rather than
interfering with local land use decisions. Barriers to
smart growth that were cited include:
• Development approval processes for infill sites that
are slow and unpredictable.
• The perception (and often reality) that incentives
and approvals are easier to obtain in exurban
areas.
• Environmental regulations that create perceived
and actual barriers to doing business in existing
communities.
• Assembling and buying suitable land parcels for
infill can be very difficult.
• luny urban centers are struggling with social
issues like crime and school quality.
• Governments often underinvest in existing
infrastructure.
• Local and regional land use planning is frequently
inadequate.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1599
Page 13
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) allow local Growth/No Growth
governments to designate areas they want to Alert
preserve, and areas where development is June, 1959 p.3
appropriate (receiving area). Then the market
transfers development from one to the other. Pitfalls
arise when developers don't desire the increased
density in the receiving area, or homeowners in the
receiving area protest. Successful TDR programs
must have:
• Political leadership, with officials that are willing to
resist opposition and accommodate would-be-
developers of the receiving area.
• Zoning in the receiving area that developers can't
get otherwise and that gives them a marketing
advantage, with the flexibility to allow a range of
densities, housing types, and lot sizes.
• Infrastructure in place in the receiving zone.
• An ordinance that makes the process of
transferring development rights as simple and
straightforward as possible.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ........... . ...... ......... ......... . ....... ._.._._.. ......... ........ . .......... ..................... . ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ..............._.....
........ ........ ....._._. ........ _ _ __ _ _ ___
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Fuge 14
3) infrastructure finance:
Communities need majority vote approval for local Anglelides P. A
capital investments. (Appendix H)
Provide infrastructure funding incentives for Smart CA Counties
Growth. identify permanent sources of funding and tie 6/99 p.20
state investments in schools, parks, libraries, housing,
transportation to Smart Growth principles.
Counties will benefit from increased funding of GA Counties
conservation easements by relieving the fiscal 6/99 p.20
pressures that come with participation in the
Williamson Act program.
The definition of infrastructure should include CA Counties
affordable housing, open space and agricultural 6/99 p.20
preservation, and natural areas.
Develop a Smart Growth infrastructure plan that CA Counties
provides for necessary facilities—transit, roads, 6/99 p.20
schools, parrs, libraries, water/sewer— in existing
areas.
Planning and constructing new public infrastructure in earl: Growth: Bldg.
a timely manner to keep pace with current and future Better places to Live,
housing demand and finding a fair way to underwrite Work& play
the cost of that development. 5/17/99 p.10
Reach out to financial institutions to encourage Compact (®raft)
housing and mixed-use investments within urban 3/1/99 p.9
areas, near transit, reuse underutilized or deteriorated (Appendix D)
areas.
Advocate that IPTG continue to allocate a larger share Compact (Draft)
of future funds toward capital improvements for public 3/1/99 p.10
transportation. (Appendix D)
Work to assure that transportation improvements are Compact (Draft)
linked to land use and environmental protection. 3/1/99 p.10
(Appendix t0)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 15
Support efforts to improve the efficiency and Compact (Draft)
coordination of transit services. 3/1/99 p.10
(Appendix D)
Encourage the restoration of transit service to under- Compact (Draft)
served neighborhoods, including during non-commute 3/1/99 p.10
times. (Appendix D)
Encourage the development of a regional water Compact (Draft)
transportation system. 3/1/99 p.10
(Appendix D)
Advocate giving priority to the repair, maintenance and Compact (Draft)
improvement of existing freeways over the 3/1/99 p,10
development of new ones. (Appendix D)
Support an open space initiative/regional bond Compact (Draft)
measure. 3/1/99 p.10
(Appendix D)
Support coordinated advocacy efforts to obtain funds Compact (Draft)
for planning, acquisition, and stewardship incentives. 3/1/99 p.10
(Appendix D)
Work to assure that environmental,and infrastructure Compact (Draft)
problems in infill neighborhoods are addressed. 3/1/99 p.11
(Appendix D)
Support school reform programs and state and local Compact (Draft)
school bond issues. 3/1/99 p.11
(Appendix D)
Support efforts to provide needed services, such as Compact (Draft)
child care, in neighborhoods and at places of 3/1/99 p.12
employment so that people have time to participate in (Appendix D)
community events and decisions.
Improve the quality of public education at the primary, Compact (Draft)
secondary, and post-secondary levels and rates of 3/1199 p.15
graduation, especially for low-income youth and those (Appendix D)
living in impoverished neighborhoods.
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .....
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 16
Support the development of needed infrastructure Compact (Draft)
projects. Cooperative planning and economic 3/1/99 p.16
development programs at the subregional level can (Appendix D)
provide funds for needed infrastructure, including
transportation and public utilities.
Integrate and coordinate transit operations. Improving Compact (®raft)
the efficiency of existing transit systems will benefit 3/1/99 p.18
the economy by easing the commute for employees; (Appendix ®)
better serve all neighborhoods, including inner city
communities; and improve the environment by
reducing solo driving.
Improve multi-modal use of the existing freeway Compact (Draft)
system. 3/1/99 p.18
(Appendix D)
Emphasize modes other than the single-occupant Compact (Draft)
vehicle in expanding capacity. 3/1/99 p.13
(Appendix D)
Establish market-based incentives to reduce solo Compact (}raft)
driving. Address issues of social equity and income 3/1/99 p.13
disparity. (Appendix ®)
Adopt and implement the Transportation Action Plan Framework
developed by the Bay Area Council and endorsed by a p.2 (Appendix E)
broad base of business and economic development
organizations.
• Improve the efficiency of the current infrastructure.
• flake strategic investments in new capacity.
® Minimize impacts on the environment while
improving mobility.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 17
Develop strategies to provide other adequate Framework
infrastructure, particularly for water and sewage p.2 (Appendix E)
services, for a 21 st century economy.
Coordinate infrastructure investment efforts with the
California Business Roundtable.
Ensure an adequate, reliable, quality water supply
for the region (coordinate actions through the Bay
Area Water Policy Forum).
® Support and expand the capacity for"gateway
facilities" at airports and seaports.
Equity criteria should be adapted for new BA Alliance
transportation projects; an equity analysis must be (Working Draft)
part of the RTP process. Rev. 1/12/99 p.3
Expanding capacity should not jeopardize BA Alliance
maintenance priorities or transit service. We must (Working Draft)
emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety and the Rev. 1/12/99 p.3
maintenance of local roads and streets.
An affordable regional discount pass should be BA Alliance
created. (Working Draft)
Rev. 1/12/99 p.3
School reform should address parental involvement, BA Alliance
funding, and inequities—that often break down along (Working Draft)
race and class lines—between districts. Rev. 1/12/99 p.2
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart growth
July 7, 1999
Page 18
Reduce the vehicle Mlles traveled, congestion, and Framework
parking demand by Increasing direct payment for p.1 (Appendix E)
auto use.
Transportation is the most heavily subsidized sector of
the U.S. economy. Most of the subsidies promote
automobile use, fostering auto dependency and
dampening economic growth. Auto dependency is
defined as Increasing car use while decreasing the
availability of ether transportation modes. In the Bay
Area, automobile subsidies have been reinforced by
dispersed land use patterns, thereby creating
significant disadvantages for non-drivers. Most
people blame congestion on inadequate supply of
pavement, but the real problem is excess demand
caused by high levels of car subsidies. Dense, mixed
land use allows non-car modes to have travel times
similar to the car-suburb system at a fraction of the
cost.
Increase Investment in mass transit and Framework
complementary land use patterns. p.1 (Appendix E)
Public transit is consistently underfunded in the Say
Area. This has led to cuts in service and drops in
ridership. Renewed investment is critical.
Understanding the links between transportation and
land use requires understanding the type of land use
needed to support public transit and alternative modes
of transportation such as walking and bicycling.
People will walk, bicycle, or ride the bus only if their
homes and jobs are built in patterns that make such
means of transportation FAST, convenient and safe.
"Target transportation investments to encourage Framework
construction of affordable housing closer to job p.3 (Appendix E)
centers and to promote efficient land use. Recognize
the need to adequately serve existing affordable
communities with transportation facilities.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 19
Planning for the expansion of schools, roads and other NAHB
public infrastructure to accommodate current and 4/99 p.6
future housing demand, and finding an equitable way
to pay for the expansion of facilities without creating a
conflict between new and existing residents.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................-.........................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 20
4) Consumer 'reference:
Encourage financial institutions to accommodate Compact (draft)
housing and mixed use investments within urban 3/1/99 p.9
areas, rear transit, and which reuse underutilized or (Appendix 0)
deteriorated areas.
The most effective way to curb sprawl is to make CA Counties
existing communities more attractive improve the /99 p.20
schools, better services, enhanced safety.
Recognizing market forces and consumer Smart Growth: Bldg.
preferences, particularly the preference for a single Better Places to Live,
family home in the suburbs, Work & Play
5/17/99 P.10
Seek tax and ether incentives to encourage all Compact (Draft)
consumers to minimize environmental impact. /1/00 p.12
(Appendix D)
Emphasize the use of goods and services produced Compact (Draft)
and transported in an environmentally and socially 3/1/99 p.12
responsible fashion. (Appendix D)
Support local and regional recycling and resource Compact (Draft)
recovery programs. 3/1/99 p.12
Appendix D)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 21
5) Work Patterns:
Expand the measurements of economic development Caled 6/99
success beyond Job counts to measurements of
regional competitiveness.
As land becomes constrained, place increased focus Caled 6/99
on business expansion/retention rather than business
attraction.
Emphasize cluster based strategies to expand basic Caled 6/99
industries in a region. Emphasize high wage Jobs
because low wage jobs will follow naturally without
support.
Promote flex hours, TDM measures, advanced Caled 6/99
transportation technology, facility sharing, and support
services such as child care.
Encourage the location of Jobs near places where Compact (Draft)
workforce housing exists. 3/1/99 p.9
(.Appendix D)
Improve the jobs-housing balance: Take aggressive Framework
actions to not exacerbate the Jobs-housing imbalance p.1 (Appendix E)
from 1995 going forward.
Detain employers and the workforce within the region Framework
by strategically encouraging employers, where p.1 (Appendix E)
housing is not being or cannot be accommodated near
job centers, to expand within the region where housing
for all income levels has already been constructed or
is being accommodated.
The issues of transportation, child care, and re- BA Alliance
investment should be at the forefront of our (Working Draft)
discussions of employment. Child care should be Rev. 1/12/99 p.3
dramatically expanded and funded.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... .......... ........ _...... ........ ...................... ......... ... ........._.. ... ....... ......._..... ........ ........
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 22
6) Construction legislation;
Encourage more resource efficient production and Cori pact (Draft)
construction processes. 311199 p.12
(Appendix D)
Strengthen local regulations to-requirelencourage Compact (Draft)
green building design and energy savings techniques 311199 p.17
in new and rehabilitated employment and residential (Appendix D)
projects.
Reform construction defect liability law to provide Framework
relief from frivolous litigation, promote quality p.1 (Appendix E)
construction standards, and encourage homeowner
association accountability for proper maintenance and
management.
Many smart growth initiatives count on ability to SIA dews
deliver affordable housing in the urban core, yet May, 1999 p.14
Sacramento County was unable to secure a single bid
for a project because "every builder who had built that
product got their pants sued off." AB 1220 (Dutra) has
been introduced to establish a Home Construction
Warranty program as an alternative to a litigation
route.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 23
7) Local/State/Federal Investment policies:
Direct private activity bond authority (for single family Card 6/99
bonds/MCC's, multi-family bonds, industrial
development bands, and exempt facilities) to support
Smart Growth initiatives.
New Jersey voters approved bonds to protect open NaCo News
space. 4126/99 p.11
Pennsylvania has established a $1.3 billion "Growing NaCo News
Greener" initiative to provide grants to communities 4/26/99 p.11
collaborating on regional land use planning, shared
operations, and brownfields.
Utah adopted a Growth Quality Act to help localities NaCo News
develop sound growth management. 4/26/99 p.11
Maryland cut off state highway and sewer funds to NaCo News
areas beyond urban limit lines. 4/26/99 p.11
Working together to revitalize inner cities and inner- Smart Growth: Bldg.
ring suburbs. Better Places to Live,
Work & Play
5/17/99 P.10
Recruit business leaders to participate in developing Compact (Draft)
and adopting a Community Investment pact. 3/1/99 p.11
(Appendix D)
Work with economic development organizations to Compact (Draft)
direct investments into identified neighborhoods that 3/1/99 p.11
are in decline or at risk. 1 (Appendix D)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 24
Link economic growth to the 46 priority neighborhoods Framework
with concentrated and persistent poverty. (identified p.3 (Appendix E)
by the Bay Area Partnership.) '
® Facilitate access to capital for targeted investments
in priority neighborhoods.
s Establish a process and mechanism to facilitate
redevelopment partnership between private sector,
neighborhood residents and landowners, and
public agencies.
a Connect above neighborhood real estate
redevelopment projects to business incubators, job
training programs, and Cather community assistance
resources.
California has significant debt capacity, but lacks an Angelides P. vi
investment plan to direct outcomes toward sustained (Appendix H)
economic growth, environmental preservation,
equality of opportunity, and livability. Current needs
assessments tend to represent lists of projects
complied independently by various public agencies.
Investments that support livable communities, Angelides P. vii
sustainable development, and sound environmental (Appendix H)
practices strengthen the economy: California's long-
term economic health depends, in part, on a change in
our growth patterns. Infrastructure investments are a
critical determinant of growth patterns.
Smart investment policy requires a new focus on cost- Angelides P. ix
effectiveness, return on investment, and results to (Appendix H)
sustain California's economic growth.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 25
8) Regional Government/Regional Planning:
Establish cooperative planning at the subregiona€ Corhpact (®raft)
level. Form subregional entities, for example all local 311199 p14
governments within a county, including Local Agency (Appendix ®)
Formation Commissions, and involving community-
based organizations and businesses to do joint
planning for resource protection and sustainable
development practices.
A structured region-wide commitment to affordable BA Alliance
housing must be a central priority. (Working Draft)
Rev. 1/12/99 p.2
Encourage regionwide coordination for acquisition and Framework
protection of key open space areas and critical areas p.3 (Appendix E)
of biodiversity, and funding for maintenance and
monitoring.
Manage some basic jobs regionally to prevent a small Framework
number of jurisdictions from externalizing the housing, p.2 (Appendix E)
congestion, and pollution costs of excessive local job
growth.
Build policy consensus form the local to the regional Framework
level based on more specificity, using computer p.2 (Appendix E)
models of key regional systems such as the economy,
and transportation and land use.
Develop explicit performance-based accountability for Framework
implementation of these sustainable development p.3 (Appendix E)
strategies at the local jurisdiction level; consider
appropriate geographic scale necessary to
successfully implement the strategies.
The State's investment plan must rely on strong Angelides p. x
regional planning to meet its objectives. Issues such (Appendix H)
as affordable housing, jobs and housing balance,
open space preservation, and transportation transcend
traditional city and county boundaries.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 26
9) Work Force Development:
Meet workforce needs of companies locally. Caled 6199
Workforce development requires education and
training programs to align with the needs of
companies.
Make strategic investments; be selective in what you Caled 6199
say yes to in terms of development and jobs. Ask
what will serve the region best in the long term.
Link the land protection/management program to local Compact (Draft)
economic development and employment efforts. 3/1/99 p.10
(Appendix D)
Work with service providers to assure adequate job Compact (Draft)
training and support programs for local residents. 381/99 p.11
(Appendix D)
Encourage employers to recruit, hire, and train Compact (Draft)
currently unemployed or underemployed welfare 3/1/99 p.11
recipients and the working poor for jobs with career (Appendix D)
and income growth potential.
Provide mentor support. Compact (Draft)
3/1!99 p.11
(Appendix D)
Encourage parental involvement. Compact (Draft)
3/1199 p.11
(Appendix D)
Link workforce development to the schools, including Compact (Draft)
technical and vocational schools, private small 381199 p.11
businesses, large businesses, and non-profit (Appendix fid)
employers.
Link the efforts of business, non-profit, and Compact (Draft)
community-based organizations to maximize the 311199 p.16
employment of local residents. (Appendix D)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 27
Improve the employability of Bay Area residents who Compact (Draft)
are chronically unemployed or on public assistance. 3/1/99 p,19
Involve local community-based and social equity (Appendix D)
organizations in employment development planning
programs.
Improve services and opportunities within "` Compact (Draft)
neighborhoods. Involve community-based and social 3/1/99 p.19
equity organizations in planning for neighborhood (Appendix D)
services.
Resources should not be shifted from basic needs to BA Alliance
skill development. Nearly 20% of San Francisco (Working Draft)
children live in poverty; hunger and homelessness are Rev. 1/12/99 p.3
widespread. We should work on securing greater
funding not only for job training, but just as importantly
for access to jobs. Increasing "employability„ should
take into account discrimination, access, skills,
services, and housing.
A living wage ordinances should be implemented BA Alliance
region-wide to ensure that all Bay Area workers can (Working Draft)
gain access to a sustainable quality of life. Rev. 1/12/99 p.2
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart growth
July 7, 1999
Page 23
10) Collaboration:
Achieve competitive advantages through partnerships. Caled 6/99
Land use planning, capital improvements, workforce
development and economic development strategies
need to align.
Work with local community organizations to learn Compact (draft)
about their needs for housing and services, and to 3/1/99 p.3
encourage participation in planning and advocacy. (Appendix D)
"San Diego Dialogue" was founded as a public policy Western City
center to develop civic knowledge that enables 6/99 p.12
effective decision-making and build consensus around
a regional vision.
Fresno Growth Alternative Alliance, a joint effort of the Western City
Fresno County Farm Bureau, Fresno Chamber of 6/99 p.12
Commerce, the Fresno Business Council, the Building
Industry Association, and the American Farmland
Trust agreed on principles to guide growth in Fresno
County, including urban limit lines.
Work with local community organizations to learn Compact (draft)
about their needs for housing and services, and 3/1199 p.3
encourage their participation in planning and (Appendix D)
advocacy.
Establish cooperative, rather than competitive, Compact (Draft)
economic development programs at the subregional 3/1199 p.12
and regional levels. (Appendix D)
Engage local residents and community organizations Compact (Draft)
as equal partners in planning development, and 3/1199 p.12
investment decisions. (Appendix D)
Seek opportunities to support and participate in local Compact (Draft)
neighborhood social and cultural events. 311139 p.12
(Appendix D)
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 29
Support BAYTRADE, a regional marketing Compact (Draft)
partnership, to promote the Bay Area nationally and 311199 p.16
internationally and attract trade and employers. (Appendix D)
Include local economic development organizations,
community-based organizations, environmental
organizations, the Bay Area Economic Forum, Bay
Area Council, and California Trade and Commerce
agencies. Focus on the strongest sectors in the Bay
Area: information technology, bioscience and health
care technologies, telecommunications, multimedia,
environmental technology, movie and television
production, and tourism.
Promote partnerships among community-based Compact (Draft)
organizations, non-profit housing organizations, 3/1/99 p.17
developers, and community lenders. (Appendix D)
Public private partnerships for research and BA Alliance
development must be structured in such a way that the (Working Draft)
public is not shut out of the public's business. The Rev. 1/12/99 p.2
promotion of industry must not come at the expense of
local tax and employment needs.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 30
113 The New Economy;
The New Economy is based on new ways that Linking the New
business operates and new ways that people work. Economy to the
a People in the New Economy work in a variety of Livable Community
ways from a variety of places. 4/98 (Appendix G)
• People seek—and the New Economy makes
possible—greater integration of work and home life.
• The New Economy values a different kind of
community design. The New Economy values.
• Economic regions that provide a habitat for
clustering
• Distinctive quality of life that attracts
knowledge workers
• Vital centers that offer lively amenities and
opportunities for interaction
Choice for living and working that
acknowledges increasing diversity of career
and life paths
• Speed and adaptability that allow quick
access to decisions and resources
• The natural environment as an important and
compatible element of corhmunity.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 9999
Mage 31
12) Legislation; and
Advocate changes in federal and state legislation to Corfipect (Draft)
provide incentives for the development of affordable 3/1199 p,9
housing in the right places. (Appendix D)
Gentrification of working class urban neighborhoods = BA Alliance
must be dramatically curtailed through the aggressive (Working Draft)
use of rent control regulations, land use decisions, and Rev. 1/12/99 p,2
community empowerment. The displacement of
communities and the creation of homogeneous
neighborhoods is not sustainable.
Title IV enforcement should be strengthened at the BA Alliance
state and federal level. (Working Draft)
Rev. 1/12/99 p.2
Enact increased authority for local jurisdictions to Framework
ensure and enforce adequate property management p.2 (Appendix E)
for multi-family attached housing.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 32
13) Biodiversity/Environmental Quality/Environmental Justice
Establish an inner city environmental education and Corhpeict (Draft)
implementation program. 311199 p.12
(Appendix D)
The Say Area conserves its biodiversity, by Compact (Draft)
maintaining in a healthy state beth the species and the 311199 p.13
ecological processes historically native to a natural (Appendix D)
landscape.
The Say Area attains federal and state air quality Compact (graft)
standards and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 311199 p.13
(Appendix D)
All Say Area neighborhoods have high quality water Compact (graft)
and uncontaminated soil. 311199 p.13
(Appendix D)
All Bay Area residents, regardless of economic stags, Compact (Draft)
share in higher environmental quality. 311199 p.13
(Appendix D)
Establish a Bay Area land protection program. Compact (Draft)
Develop a 29-year regional wetlands, open space, /1199 p.14
biodiversity, and agriculture management plan and (Appendix D)
program. involve a wide range of environmental and
community organizations, scientists, and business
organizations in preparing the program. Present the
plan for adoption as a policy guide by all regional
agencies and local governments. Use the plan as a
basis for a region-wide land protection, acquisition,
and management program.
Enable residents of lover-income neighborhoods to Compact (Draft)
understand environmental impacts and improvement 3#1199 p.20
opportunities and to act in order to protect and (Appendix D)
enhance their communities.
Identify, adopt, and tract indicators of sustainability, Framework
Develop and promote sustainable development "Best p.2 (Appendix E)
Practices" for community development.
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 33
Protect and enhance environmental quality. Framework
• Identify key biodiversity habitat and regional p.2 (Appendix E)
ecosystems for preservation. Identify, acquire, and .
protect other open space important for quality of life
in the region.
• Protect and restore the Bay-Delta Estuary,(through
the CALFED process).
• Reduce air pollution, especially from mobile
sources, and embrace Spare the Air strategies,
particularly on days forecast for high ozone levels.
Reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental justice means accountability from BA Alliance
businesses that affect our neighborhoods, regulators (Working Draft)
who are responsible for protecting the health of our Rev. 1/12/99 p.3
communities, and neighborhood residents who have a
right to ready information on the activities of their
neighborhoods. 'Title VI can and should be
strengthened.
Enforcement of water pollution regulations should be BA Alliance
coordinated and strengthened between local and (Working Draft)
regional agencies. Regulators should coordinate with Rev. 1/12/99 p.1
MTC and Congestion Management Agencies to
improve air quality regionally. The Bay Area should
meet both federal and more stringent state air and
water standards.
Encourage greater watershed planning in the Bay Framework
Area including greater cooperation among entities p.3 (Appendix E)
within and between watersheds.
Assure compliance with environmental laws by all Framework
public and private entities. p.3 (Appendix E)
Protect remaining true viable wetlands and restore Framework
historical wetlands to expand total acreage, with a p.3 (Appendix E)
particular focus on former military bases (without
marginalizing the potential economic and housing
benefit of infill on the bases) and without impairing
existing economic activity (such as Cargill Salt).
Internal Operations Committee
Incentives for Infill Development/Smart Growth
July 7, 1999
Page 34
Implement strategies to reduce water pollution Framework
(particularly non-point source run-off) and promote P.3 (Appendix E)
watershed management practices for the Bay and
associated waterways.
Reinvestment in declining communities is essential to Angelides P. ix
reverse a dangerous trend toward "two Californias," (Appendix H)
one in poverty and the other enjoying an economic,
boom, California as a whole cannot succeed
economically if there are "two Californias.'"
DMB\JK:gms
d:\IOC-AfHs.jk
cc: Claude Van Marter,Assistant County Administrator
Tony Enea, Deputy County Administrator
Kathleen Hamm, Community Development
C'ONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
65:1 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, C.A. 94553
Telephone: 335-1290 Fax: 335-1299
TO: Finance Committee
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Donna Gerber
FROM: Dennis Ma Barry, AICP, Community Development :Director
By: John Kopchi
DATE: June 9, 1999
SUBJECT. Options for Funding the Acquisition and. Protection of Open Space
and agricultural ]Land in Contra Costa County
Attached please find a summary of options for funding the acquisition and protection of open space and
agricultural land in Contra Costa County. This surnmary has been revised and updated slightly since an
earlier version was submitted to the Board as a part of the report from.the Ad Hoc Committee on the Urban
Limit kine in January of this year.
Staff recommendations:
• Consider whether the County should have a role in pursuing new funding for open space acquisition,
• Consider identifying one or more funding methods from the summary of options for farther
examination by the Finance Committee or the Board. If any funding options are to be considered, staff
recommends a combination of public and private grants, local public funding and developer funding
in order to assure abroad-based and balanced program.
® Consider outlining a generalized acquisition strategy that describes how any new funds would be used.
For instance, the strategy might indicate whether acquisitions would occur via fee title purchase,
conservation easement purchase, or some percentage of each. The strategy might also indicate the
general regions in which acquisition is to be performed, propose the acquisition of buffers to reduce
conflicts between residential areas and private agricultural land,or propose to relate acquisitions to the
Urban Limit Line as is planned in Santa Mara. County in order to provide for more permanent and
publicly accessible open space near urban areas. Such an acquisition strategy may be needed to apply
for grants or to develop ballot measures.
• Consider what process should be used to explore these matters further. If any ballot measures are to
be considered, formation of an independent committee to develop the ballot measure is recommended.
• Report to the Board of Supervisors on the outcomes of the Finance Committee's deliberations.
Attachment.
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board
BGC File
SACt3NSER'V\0HN\OSC0VJ99.-V-EM
Options for Funding the Acquisition and Protection of Open
Space and Agricultural Land in Contra Costa County
Prepared by the Community Development Department.for the June 14, 1999
meeting of the Board of;supervisors Finance Committee.
This report provides a description of a range of options available to find the acquisition and
protection of open space and agricultural lard in Contra Costa County. The report is broken into
sections and organized as follows:
Introduction
1. Grants from the Public and private Sector
2. Local Public Funding Sources
3. Development Fees
A chart summarizing the primary features of these funding options is provided in Attachment 1.
Sample funding scenarios and explanatory background materials for selected local public funding
sources are presented in Attachment 2. The sources used to prepare this report are described in
Attachment 3.
Introduction
Dotes on receiving and spending funds that are raised: A variety of options are available for
receiving and spending any funds raised for the acquisition of land and easements. These include:
direct management of the acquisition program by the County
collection and management of the funds by some other existing institution, such as the East
Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
collection and management of the funds by a newly created special district which could be
either dependent on, or independent of. the Board of Supervisors (for example, an "Open
Space and Agriculture Conservation District")
g expenditure of finds by a land trust, such as the Contra Costa County Agricultural Trust, via
a contract arrangement with the County
management of a grant program by the County to award finds to agencies and land trusts for
specific acquisition projects
combinations of the above
The selection of one or more of these mechanisms should be based on a number of considerations,
including relative administrative costs, lard management funds, authority, expertise, and
accountability. When and if the Board elects to initiate a fund raising effort, this matter should be
examined more closely.
Acquisition options: Most of the funding options discussed in this report could be used both to
acquire full ownership of land via a fee title purchase and to acquire only the development rights of
the land via purchase of a conservation easement (a few minor exceptions are noted in the
descriptions). Although most conservation easements impose binding restrictions in perpetuity on
such activities as development and construction, other provisions of the easement can vary greatly.
For instance, a conservation easement intended primarily to protect natural resources might prohibit
grazing near water bodies and restrict grazing intensity and timing in other areas. A conservation
easement designed to protect agricultural activities might allow or even mandate intensive irrigated
and cultivated agriculture. Easements might include provisions for public trail rights-of-way or
explicitly prohibit public access. Depending on the provisions of the easement and the portion of
the land value associated with development rights, the costs of conservation easements in California
have ranged from 25%to 75%of the full land value'. The decision on whether to purchase the land
or an easement may be based on the importance of public access, the relative acquisition cost of the
two methods,the relative ongoing management costs,the management needs of the property, and/or
a host of other factors related to the particular acquisition.
1® Grants from the Public and Private Sector
There are many public and private grant programs which could be a source of funds for the
acquisition or protection of open space and agricultural land. Though grant funding alone probably
could not support substantial land or easement acquisition in the County, such sources remain
attractive because they could provide seed money for more ambitious fund-raising efforts. This
section provides a brief summary of the programs and their potential applicability to the Contra
Costa County.
PUBLIC GRANT PR
There are a number of public grant programs which can provide funds for acquiring open space
either in the form of development rights or fee title. This section provides information regarding the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Agricultural Lands Stewardship Program, the Habitat
Conservation Fund,the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program,and other public grant
programs (such as the Wildlife Conservation Board and future state bond measure for parks).
Some of the grant programs also provide funds to assist with planning programs to acquire and
protect agricultural and open space lands. In addition to the private grant programs discussed below,
which may provide funding both for planning and acquisition,planning grants may be obtained from
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the East Bay Community Foundation, the U.S. EPA
State, Tribal, Local Wetlands Grant Program(for planning wetlands protection), and, possibly, the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The State of California also offers funds for planning assistance, and
' The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation: and Open Space District reportedly pays,on
average, approximately 50% of full land value for the conservation easements it purchases.
2
...............................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... . ........ .......... . ....... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... .........
......... ......... ......... ........... .. ._ _ _ _ __
the Contra Costa County Agricultural Trust is exploring the possibility of receiving such a grant.
1A). Land and Water Conservation Fund
This is a federal program that was initiated in 1955 to provide grants for land and water
conservation. (wants are administered by a range of federal resource agencies including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although the annual appropriations have been substantially
reduced in recent years,the total grants nationwide has averaged approximately$200 million
ger year. Typical grants range from $100,000 to a few million dollars. In the past, this
program has focused on lands with exceptional promise as a natural park and/or wildlife
habitat. Congress is discussing legislation to significantly raise annual appropriations from
the band and Water Conservation Fund.
1B). Transportation Efficiency Act(` EAs21)
This is a federal transportation infrastructure program that was approved by Congress in
1998. The program includes a trails and open space acquisition components. Open space
projects must have a nexus to federal transportation projects. Brants range from
approximately $100,000 to a few million dollars. An open space acquisition project in
Dorris Canyon in Solano County near Interstate 80 received approximately$1 million from
this program.
IC.) Habitat Conservation Fund
This fund was created by the Wildlife Protection Act of 1990(Proposition 117) and provides
$2 million in Banding each year state-wide. The programa has a number of funding categories,
including funding for riparian areas, wetlands, trails, and endangered species. The Habitat
Conservation Fund Program is administered by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation. The County recently received a$225,000 grant from the Habitat Conservation
Fund on behalf of the Martinez Regional Land Trust to assist with the acquisition of Sky
Ranch. This fund awards up to $500,000 per project.
1D.) The Agricultural Lands Stewardship Program
This is a grant program administered by the California Department of Conservation that
provides funds for purchasing development rights for agricultural lands. Although the
program could provide funds for grazing lands, it focuses primarily on protecting prime,
intensively cultivated agricultural lands. The Contra Costa County Agricultural Trust is
currently working with the Department of Conservation to discuss the potential applicability
of the program to property located in the Agricultural Core area. This prograrn provides
exceptional assistance to those who are interested in applying for their funds.
IE.) Environmental Enhancement and litigation Program("EEMP")
EEMP is a state-sponsored grant program which is intended to complement and help mitigate
transportation programs. EEMP draws its funds from the gasoline tax approved by the voters
ander Proposition 111. EEMP annually disburses $10 million in grants throughout the state.
The gas tax and EEMP will sunset in two years,though renewal is a possibility. Grants tend
3
to be in the $100,000's range. Successful applications demonstrate a clear nexus to
transportation projects and to mitigating the impact of such projects.
IF.) Other Public Grant Programs: Wildlife Conservation Board and State Park Bond.
Measures
A number of other public grant programs could potentially provide money for acquiring open
space in one manner or another.These include the Wildlife Conservation Board,which exists
now, and a state park bond measure, which could be passed in the near future.
The Wildlife Conservation Board awards grants from an array of funds to acquire and protect
wildlife habitat and improve public access. The Wildlife Conservation Board had a budget
of approximately $100 million in FY1998-99. In 1999, the Wildlife Conservation Board
contributed$100,000 toward the acquisition of Sky Ranch by the Martinez Regional Land
Trust and $200,000 toward the acquisition of Clayton Ranch by the EBRPD.
California last passed a $776 million parks bond measure in 1988 (Proposition 70), and
funding from such a state-wide measure is no longer available. The Legislature has
discussed placing a new state park bond measure on the ballot for several years. Currently
active park bond measures include bills sponsored by Assemblyman Keeley and Senator
Hayden, which would provide $1.5 billion and $2 billion respectively statewide for park
acquisition and maintenance. If such a measure was approved, funds would be provided to
the California Department of Parks and Recreation, to regional park districts, local
governments, and others. Governor Davis has stated he would support placing a park,bond
measure on the ballot. If this occurred, November 2000 appears to be the most likely
election.date.
PRIVATE GRANT PROGRAMS
1G.) Private Grant Programs
A number of private foundations provide grants and loans to support the acquisition of open
space. Private foundations may be more flexible and can act more quickly that public grant
programs. Private foundations may also be more amenable to providing funding for start up
costs or for agricultural enhancement activities. Grants range from smaller planning grants
to multi-million dollar funding. Three major private programs are summarized below.
With a budget of more than $100 million, the Packard Foundation may have the largest
program for supporting the acquisition of open space and agricultural land. A $19 million
dollar acquisition of more than 60,000 acres of ranch land in the mountains east of San Jose
by the Nature Conservancy in 1998 was funded, in part, by a loan from the Packard
Foundation. The Packard Foundation's latest grant program for our region includes Contra
Costa County within the area which could potentially receive funds. Grant funding requests
could be explored as a coordinated approach with the other land trusts operating in our
County.
4
.........................................................._...........................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... .......... ........ ......... ..._... ......... ....................... ........ .........._........... .......... ......... ........... . ......... ........ .............. .
.......... ........ ........ ......... ...................... _ _ _ __
The Irvine Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation are other major foundations which make
significant contributions towards lands conservation. However, all three foundations
emphasize preservation of prune agricultural land. These foundations and others may be a
potential source of funds to support planning activities related to the purchase of
development rights.
2. Local Public Funding Sources
There are a wide-range of methods and combinations of methods for securing local public funds
either county-wide or in specified sub-areas. For simplicity, only prototypical techniques are
described below, though many permutations and alternatives are possible. If and when the Board
decides to narrow its options and/or pursue enactment of one or more specific approaches, more
research should be dome on these methods to clearly define the legal guidelines and constraints
associated with their implementation.
Pay-as-you-go vs.bunds: Many new taxes can provide revenue on an on-going basis or can be used
in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the procurement of up-front money. General
Obligation Bonds are a special case because the tax which funds these bonds, the ad valorem
property tax, cannot be raised beyond its current level without passing a general obligation bond(a
provision of proposition 13). General Obligation Bonds also typically carry the lowest interest rates
of any government bonds because they are backed by a commitment to adjust the ad valorem
property tax each year to ensure adequate revenues. Other bonds have somewhat less steady
revenues and may carry higher interest rates, require a reserve fund, and require a portion of
anticipated tax revenues to be used on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than to fund debt service.
Many factors influence the decision on whether to sell bonds or receive revenue on an on-going
basis. Issuing bonds might allow acquisition to proceed more rapidly and might reduce
administrative costs slightly by reducing the length of the acquisition program. Bonds also provide
greater flexibility, removing obstacles to making acquisitions when the real estate market is down
or when unexpected opportunities may arise. tangoing revenue streams avoid the fiance costs
associated with bonds. .Also, there is currently some legal uncertainty regarding the impact of
Proposition 2118 on bonded indebtedness. That measure contained provisions protecting the power
of citizens to pass initiatives to repeal taxes, possibly increasing the risk that a revenue stream
dedicated to debt repayment could be terminated. However, the degree of the threat posed may not
be severe since the contract ;provisions of the U.S. Constitution may override. Likewise, since
initiatives may only take actions that legislative bodies are legally capable off taking, and since
legislative bodies are incapable of terminating revenues to certain types of bonds, it may not be
possible for an initiative to terminate funding for some bonds. Before a bond measure is passed,
further research and clarification of this matter is recommended.
One time levy vs. longer term revenue stream: Each of the local public funding options discussed
below could involve levying taxes on a one or two year term or a longer ten, twenty, or thirty year
term by including a sunset date in the ballot measure. Some could be levied indefinitely, though this
5
is not recommended for acquisition purposes since protecting and acquiring open space and
agricultural land is a finite task(however,some permanent revenue for new land management duties
would be necessary). Some advantages of initiating a one or two time levy are: a) voters may be
more accepting of such an approach, b) interest costs are avoided; and c) a very short term program
may save administration costs. Some advantages of initiating a longer term levy are: a) costs are
spread out over a longer period which puts less of a burden on tax payers; b) larger sums of money
may be raised; c) spreading costs out over a longer time better reflects the benefit that future tax
payers will receive from acquisitions. If a one or two year levy is considered, the sales tax may be
the most appropriate vehicle since a one--quarter cent increase could raise approximately$24 million
per year.
Proposition 218: Proposition 218,which was approved by voters in 1996, altered the requirements
for enacting new assessments,property-related fees(not including developer fees), and taxes, This
measure has two primary implications for raising local public funds for the acquisition of open space
and agricultural land in Contra Costa County:
1) assessments and property related fees are now less suitable for acquisition of open
space/agriculture because Proposition 218 clarified and strengthened the requirement that
such measures have a direct benefit to the property charged(beyond a benefit to property
values) and not be used to fund services which benefit the public in general; and
2) raising any tax in the County to create a dedicated source of revenue for acquisition of
open space/agriculture will require approval by 2/3 of eligible voters in an election
(Proposition 218 clarified prior requirements that all special taxes be approved by a 2/3
majority).
Proposition 218 also imposed a new requirement on enacting general taxes, limiting such measures
to general elections which coincide with the elections for members of the sponsoring agency's
governing board. General taxes still may be passed by a simple majority,but the resulting revenues
may not be firmly dedicated to any specific purposes.
Less feasible mechanisms for rasing local public funds: Additional mechanisms for raising local
public funds do exist, but, for a variety of reasons, may be less feasible than the four mechanisms
listed above and discussed in greater detail later in this report. Mechanisms which can only be
implemented in unincorporated portions of the County(barring concurrent approval in each city)are
considered less feasible because they are difficult to implement consistently on an county-wide or
sub-regional basis. A partial list of these and other less feasible mechanisms, and a short explanation
as to why they may relatively difficult to implement, is provided below:
real estate transfer tax: The County tax of.I I%is at the state maximum and special legislation
would be needed to raise it further. As an alternative to raising the rate, the County could seek
to change the procedures for determining which transfers are taxable to make the tax more
uniformly applicable to all transfers. However, state legislation would be required for this
approach as well.
transient occupancy tax: The County tax of 10% may be at the state-imposed limit already.
Also, the County only has the power to levy this tax in unincorporated areas.
6
business taxes: The County only has the power to levy this tax in unincorporated areas,
utility taxes: Preposition. 218 imposed restrictions on the use of many such taxes for general
public benefit (and uncertainty remains regarding how 218 will apply to some other utility
taxes). Also the County has discussed passing such a tax often in the past, and it has been
difficult to build support for the idea.
surcharges on landfill tipping fees:The implications of Proposition.218 on the use of such funds
for open space needs to be examined more throughly. In the past, it has been difficult to build
support for higher tipping fees. Use of existing programs, such as Feller Canyon Mitigation
Funds could be explored further. Such funds have been used in the past for open space planning
and maintenance,but annual revenues are not large and availability is uncertain.
Certificates of.participation: Certificates of Participation enable the issuer to raise capital
without creating a new revenue stream. Given the tight County budget, such an approach would
be difficult.
CQL'LITY-WIDE MECHANISMS FOR RAISING LOCAL PUBLIC FUNDS
This section provides information regarding potential countywide public funding mechanisms. The
mechanisms discussed include: sales tax(general tax),sales tax (special tax),parcel tax(which may
implemented in a number of different ways), and general obligation brands. Sample funding
scenarios for these options are presented in Attachment 2.
2A.) Sales Tax (General Tax)
The County could develop a new stream of general purpose revenue by raising sales taxes
in the County via approval by a simple majority of voters in a general election which
coincides with the elections for the Board of Supervisors. Recent legislative actions provide
the County with the ability to raise an increment of the sales tax, the "transaction and use
tax",by up to 1/2%,but only in increments greater than or equal to/4%. The current County
sales tax is 81/d%, which includes %z% for BART and '/2% for transportation and growth
management from Measure C (1988). In 1997, under a different statutory authority which
allows the sales tax to be raised in smaller increments for library purposes, Contra Costa
County's Leasure A for libraries would have raised the sales tax 1/e%, but failed to receive
the two-thirds majority required for special taxes.
A general tax increase could not be specifically dedicated to open space or any other purpose.
However, many counties have placed general tax measures on the ballet with companion
advisory measures that outline the purposes for which the voters recommend the new
revenues be used. In 1996, Santa Clara County sought to increase revenues for transportation
by raising its general sales tax. Two measures were placed on the ballot: one to raise the
sales tax to increase general fund revenues, and a second advisory measure to instruct Santa
Clara County to spend new revenues on specified transportation projects. The tax increase
only required a simple majority and passed. The tax increase was challenged,but in a recent
court decision,it was upheld. However,the Santa Clara measure was before Proposition 218
7
came into effect, and it is anticipated that subsequent attempts to use this approach will be
challenged again under provisions of Proposition 218 which defined special taxes to include
taxes imposed for a specific purpose but placed in the general fund. County Counsel is of
the opinion that, so long as the County is not legally bound to use the tax for any specific
purpose, this approach will survive legal challenge (an advisory measure would not be
legally binding).
Marin and Sonoma Counties placed similar pairings of a general sales tax increase and an
advisory measure on the November 1998 ballot(both primarily for transportation purposes).
In each case, the advisory measure passed but the tax failed to receive a simple majority.
Media reports prior to the election indicated that voter opinion of the tax measure was
influenced by confusion over the twin measure approach and some frustration with what was
perceived as an indirect approach to the problem(many other factors influenced the election
as well, including an independent analysis which claimed that the revenues would not be
adequate to accomplish the intended projects).
In theory, other general taxes could be used under this approach. However, property tax
shifts imposed by the state legislature in 1992/93 and 1993/94 have resulted in a cumulative
reduction in discretionary revenue sources for counties. The general sales tax may be the
only viable general tax available to the County because the real estate transfer tax, the ad
valorem property tax, and the transient occupancy tax (TOT) are already at the state
maximum. Also, as discussed previously, the County may impose the remaining general
taxes (as well as the TOT) are less attractive alternatives because the County may impose
them only in unincorporated areas.
213.) Sales Tax (Special Tax)
The County could also develop a new stream of revenue dedicated specifically to the
acquisition of open space and agriculture by raising sales taxes in the County via approval
by 2/3 of eligible voters in an election. As in option 2A, the tax increase could only be in
'/,% increments, though the increase could be shared among several special purposes.
Sonoma County's Agricultural and Open Space District is funded with a 1/4% special sales
tax. The District receives an annual revenue of approximately$12.5 million from the sales
tax. It uses these funds primarily to purchase conservation easements on agricultural lands,
including grazing lands and vineyards. A primary mission of the District is to purchase
properties/easements that create "community separators," a goal which is intended to
complement Sonoma County's approved urban growth boundaries. To date the district has
protected 26,600 acres,most with easements. The District was established via special state
legislation which enabled the sales tax to be passed by a simple majority popular vote.
Based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's 1998 revenue estimates for Measure
C (1988), a'•/a%sales tax increment would yield approximately$12 million annually, a /4%
sales tax increase would yield approximately $24 million annually, and a 'V2% sales tax
increase would yield approximately $48 million annually. These estimates do not include
8
..................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... .._..._.. ........ . ....._. .........._............ ....._....... ......
.............. .......... .... ....... ....... ....... .. ... .. ....... _ _ _ __ _ __
a market analysis of possible impacts of an increased sales tax..
2Cd) Countywide Parcel Tax(a special tax which can be implemented by a variety of means)
Revenues for open space and agricultural acquisitions could be created by establishing a nese
special tax on property or a parcel tax. This tax could be imposed on a county-wide basis
by 2/3 vote under a number different mechanisms. A summary of such mechanisms is
provided below.
1) direct taxing authority of'the County: This mechanism is direct and does not require
consent of the cities. However, as a practical matter, consent of the cities is
important to pass a Treasure.
2) dello .Rods comynunity facilities district: This mechanism has some general
requirements related to how the tax is calculated, but also enables issuance of a
specific type of bond which may be relatively safe from an initiative which
terminates the tax revenue. Mello Roos districts have frequently been used for new
developments to fund infrastructure construction,but have been and can be used for
established communities. Mello Roos districts can fund one-time expenses as well
as operations and maintenance.
3) County Service area: This mechanism could be initiated by the County but is
approved through a LAFCO process. Each city included in the area must pass an
ordinance consenting to inclusion.
4) Agriculture and Open Space district: A new special district could be created to
receive the revenue and acquire and manage the lard or easements. The title and
function of such a district may vary--"agriculture and open space" is just one
example. Earring special authorization from the state, such districts can only be
created by a citizen's petition.
The County could have significant flexibility in designing the special tax on property, or
parcel tax,which would be imposed under this funding mechanism. The tax could take the
form of a flat per parcel charge, could be imposed only on some classes of parcels but not
on others(for example, imposed on residential parcels but not on commercial or industrial
parcels), and could be graduated based on the size or value of improvements on the parcel.
The flexibility of parcel taxes differs markedly from the other mechanism for raising a
property-related tax,the general obligation bond. Furtherm. ore, a fiat per parcel tax applied
to all parcels would impose a much smaller burden on commercial and industrial property
owners than a general obligation bond. Attachment 2 provides a summary of funding
scenarios and includes pie charts from the County Assessor illustrating the differences
between the ad valorem and parcel tax base.
Parcel taxes carry a significant administrative charge(approximately $.74 per parcel taxed
in many cases), and more complicated formulas, such as formulas that differentiate between
the relative value or size of improvements, would carry a very substantial administrative
burden and cost. If this approach is to be considered for implementation, more research
should be performed to determine the actual administrative costs.
9
2D.) County-wide General Obligation Bond
General obligation bonds are another means for raising funds for open space acquisition.
General obligation bonds are backed by a pledge to annually set the ad valorem property tax
at a rate sufficient to pay the annual principal and interest due on the bonds. They are
considered the most secure type of municipal bond, and therefore are the least expensive
bond local governments can issue(the interest on these bonds is lower than the interest on
other types of bonds). The term of general obligation bonds may vary,but cannot exceed 40
years. General obligation bonds must be approved by a 2/3 majority in a popular election.
Measure AA, approved by voters in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in 1988 to fund
local parks, is an example of such a bond. Measure AA authorized the sale of$225 million
in bonds, of which$126 million was to be used by the East Bay Regional Park District for
park and open space acquisitions. Nearly all of the authorized bonds have been issued, and
the East Bay Regional Park District may consider a re-authorization proposal in the next
several years. Another example of such a bond is California Proposition 70 in 1988 which
provided$776 million in bond revenues for parks,wildlife, and open space. The Legislature
is considering placing a new park bond measure on the ballot, perhaps in November, 2000
(see Section 1).
A profile of the financial aspects of a number of different bond amounts and terms is
provided in Attachment 2.
MECHANISMS FOR RAISING LOCAL PUBLIC FUJNt DS ON A LESS THAN COUNTY-WIVE
BASIS
Mechanisms are available to raise local public funds on a less than county-wide basis. There are few
if any limits on how such sub-areas may be designated. This approach could be designed around an
acquisition program.which only targets certain areas of the County for acquisition and only imposes
the costs of such a program on those communities which could benefit most. Alternatively, this
approach could be used in a county-wide manner to provide different sub-areas with separate funding
streams and better associate the costs of local open space with the communities benefitting. This
latter approach could not only provide a more direct connection between tax payers and the open
space they are funding, but could also enable the local costs to reflect differences in the amount of
local open space acquisition needed or desired. Two mechanisms are available to implement this
approach: a localized parcel tax and a localized general obligation bond.
2E.) Localized Parcel Tax
Options for implementing this mechanism would be identical in implementation to option
2C (County-wide Parcel Tax).
2F.) Localized General Obligation Bond
The County has the authority to issue general obligation bonds that are restricted to
designated County Service Areas. The process for creating such County Service Areas is
10
briefly described in option 2C (County-wide parcel tax). Features of a localized general
obligation bond are identical to those described of a County-wide general obligation bond
(Option 2D).
3. Development Fees
Section 66000 of the State of California Government Code authorizes development impact fees and
defines the circumstances under which they can be legally collected and spent. Such fees have been
and can be used to fund the acquisition of open space. However, exaction and use of such fees is
subject to specific state and federal regulations. New legislation and court rulings, such as that in
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, have
required increasingly strict demonstration of nexus between the fee and its purpose. Funding
mechanisms which involve development impact or mitigation fees should be carefully examined
before enactment to ensure legality. Five options are discussed below.
3A. Collections of Development Impact Fees and Dedications on a Project-by-Project Basis
Development rights or fee title ownership of opens space and agricultural lands could
continue to be acquired by negotiating development impact fees and dedications from new
development as a part of the development review process. Such an approach was used as a
part of the recently approved proposal to build a golf course or,Roddy Ranch. Dedications
have been more common in Contra Costa County than the collection of impact fees. Other
areas have favored impact fees,with some of the highest fees being levied in the Livermore
area. For example, The Ruby Bills development in south Livermore, a project which
included luxury homes, paid $10,000 per unit in open space mitigation. Developments in
Contra Costa County face a different set of economic circumstances (sometimes much
different) and a different degree of nexus to open space preservation, so this estimated
maximum fee may not apply.
The amount of funding and/or dedications that could be generated from these sources would
depend on the number of snits that will be approved in the near future and the size of the fee
or dedication that could be negotiated. Both factors are extremely difficult to estimate.
The advantage of this project-by-project approach is that it can be tailored to a particular
project and the particular open space needs and assets of the surrounding area.
Disadvantages include the inability to coordinate dedications and fees from:several projects,
and the time and money required to perform this process one project at a time.
3B.) Habitat Conservation Plan
A regional Habitat Conservation flan ("HCP") provides an endangered species permit for
developers and a coordinated system for protecting species by pooling fees (and other
funding sources) and acquiring habitat from willing sellers (fee simple or easements).
Regional HCPs are generally prepared by local agencies through an active public
11
involvement process. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for approving the
plan and providing a regional incidental take permit for species covered by the plan. The
terms of the HCP remain in effect even if the status of species covered by it change. HCP
initiatives can be expanded in scope to include streamlined permitting for state-listed
endangered species, for wetlands fill,for stream bed alterations, and/or other natural resource
protection regulations. HCPs can also be linked to other general policy goals such as open
space and agricultural protection (agricultural practices typically continue on protected
lands).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game sent a
letter to the County and other agencies in 1998 recommending that an HCP be prepared in
East County. The BoaL,&has since authorized staff to continue to examine the advantages and
disadvantages of this approach and to identify potential sources of funds to support staff and
consultant costs associated with preparing such a plan. Staff will be reporting back to the
.Board in the next few months. Opportunities for including other areas of the County in such
an effort could be considered.
San Joaquin County is close to approving the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan which will provide an endangered species permit for the
development of 72,000 acres of habitat(plus 37,000 acres of undeveloped,non-habitat lands)
and protect more than 100,000 acres through acquisition. Developers of most types of
habitat lands (other than vernal pools) will pay a$1500/acre impact fee. By the end of its
50 year term,the plan is expected to raise approximately$263 million for habitat/open space
acquisition and management(current dollars).
HCPs have the potential to raise significant amounts of money through fees(as well as grants
and taxes),but the amount of funds is generally proportional to the amount of development.
One benefit is the potential to raise acquisition funds cor coordinated acquisition program
while reducing developers permitting costs. However, developing HCPs can be a time-
consuming and contentious process.
3+Cn) Mitigation Bank
Funds for open space acquisition in the County could be secured by establishing mitigation
or conservation banks which could sell mitigation credits to developers in other areas. Such
banks are established by surveying resources and consulting with the California Department
of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the types of habitat
and endangered species mitigation which the bank can support and the number/density of
credits which can be sold. Once established,developers seeking mitigation for habitat and
endangered species impacts can purchase such mitigation from the bank at a mutually agreed
upon price. The development seeking mitigation need not be close to the mitigation bank.
Banks have been allowed to accept mitigation from developments as much as forty miles
away. Lands protected by the mitigation bank must be placed under permanent conservation
easement. Such easements generally preclude development and may constrain land
management practices to some extent. Continuing grazing practices would probably be a
requirement of such easements.
12
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........................._. ......... ........ ....................... ........._.... ............. __ ..........._......._....... .........
_._._. ... ....... ........ _ _ _ _ _ __
Most mitigation banks are a single property with a single owner who agrees to puce the
property under easement at the outset. Mitigation banks could be used in the County to
recoup funds spent to acquire a property in order to develop more funds to buy additional
property. Alternatively, it may be possible to establish a mitigation bank which is simply
a land trust or other organization which pools mitigation money and buys easements from
willing sellers in a designated area according to protocols developed when the bank was
established. A trust could also attempt to negotiate installment purchases with willing land
owners which could enable payments to be shade as mitigation credits are sold.
The American Land Conservancy purchased 650 acres on Pleasanton Ridge in Alameda
County,relying on loans for a large portion of the acquisition costs. ALC is in the process
of establishing a mitigation bank on the property to recoup their expenditure and repay their
loans. Many mitigation buyers have already expressed interest.
Mitigation banks can be attractive because they may obtains funds from developers without
requiring the County to impose fees. Mitigation banks can also generate revenues from
public agencies such as Caltrans which have projects throughout the state in need sof
mitigation, a noteworthy option considering the anticipated small magnitude of future
development mitigation it the local area. However, further economic analysis is needed to
determine what land prices the mitigation market will bear. It should also be noted that
establishing such banks is a time-consuming process,and it can require years of effort before
funding is received.
TRAN FER QF DEVELOPMENT R-TGHTS 1"T
Transfer of development rights or credits systems have been used to achieve conservation goals by
allowing property owners with land in areas where increased density is acceptable or desirable to
purchase development rights from property owners with land in areas wlsere lower density is
desirable. TDR programs can rely solely on market incentives, or they can also be linked with
regulations, such as policies restricting development in one area and allowing it in another. The
County has a TDR program in the Bethel Island area to encourage off-island development,but it may
not yet have been used. An active TDR programs in Lake Tahoe is currently the subject of a court
case. However, before sending the case back to a lower court, the I.J.S. Supreme Court ruled only
on a narrow question of standing and refused to rule on the legality of the program.
3D.) Transfer of Development(tights,Agricultural Land Conversion
The County could fund protection of open space and agricultural land in areas where new
development is occurring in areas formerly used for agriculture by initiating a TDR.program
which allows property owners in one area to buy development rights from property owners
in another area. Such a program would require a clear definition of baseline development
opportunities and protocols to govern all transfers. Transactions could occur directly
between property owners or could be facilitated by a trust.
The South Livermore Ilan includes a number of open space/agricultural policies, including
designated growth areas and protection areas, impact fees, and TIER(and similar)programs.
In one program, lands with 100 acre zoning can create 20 acre parcels by agreeing to place
13
the new parcel(s)under an easement which requires vineyards on 75% of the land, restricts
building on each parcel to a 2 acre envelope (for I house, 1 winery, etc.), and allows up to
3 acres to be both undeveloped and uncultivated to protect creeks, avoid areas with steep
slopes, etc. In a second program within the plan,property owners seeking increased density
in a designated receiver area negotiated purchase development credits from property owners
in a designated donor area. It has been reported that development rights are currently selling
for approximately$60,000 to $70,040 each.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency("TBPA")regulates land use in both the California and
Nevada portions of the Labe Tahoe Basin using a complicated TDR program. Under this
system., development rights,construction authorizations,and tree clearance rights are bought
and sold. TRPA established the following baselines for each tradable credit: 1) each parcel,
regardless of size(unless,presumably,of sub-standard size), can develop one house; 2) 300
construction authorizations are issued each year; and 3)tree clearing is limited to 30%of the
land area. Lands in stream zones cannot develop,but can sell their development rights. The
Tahoe Conservancy facilitates trading most of the credits.
3E. Transfer of Development Rights, In-Fill
The County could fund protection of open space and agricultural land in the Tassajara area
by implementing a TDR program which allows property owners with land suitable for"in-
fill"to purchase increased density from property owners in the Tassajara area. A thorough
analysis of this concept is needed to determine: a) if it is feasible; and b)what lands might
be suitable for in fill development. Lands surrounding BART stations are often suggested
as appropriate places for in-fill development. The area surrounding the Pleasant Hill BART
Station is an example of in-fill development encouraged by County policy.
The primary advantage of this program is that it could fund protection of open space and
agriculture while directing growth to areas that are determined to be advantageous. Further
research would be required to determine feasibility and funding potential.
C:\M ROCU-1\JKOPC\JOHN-OLD\OSFUNDOP.J99
14
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
a�
w p p
Ti(U.0 r u �
0
+� Z i�
a�
CIS
LZ
iy cd c� ccS cn cC,r, IN t.s :-
C4
'
w
� v
u �
a a
O i 0 .0
E.
z z w ice ° c
44
5 CJ 0
cz
cli
LA
all
® >, n �
i ctcz
-�
CL 0 70
i
cu
CL
3 ccS C5 C u w In
TQ M
ran
x
o
Cd
0 w 4.Y w CU tlJ rF"d
, Cd
-�
o o Ln .c
v� v Kn a
cis
d o
` as bO a�
E c� ct
�
0 '" ° C.6
tt ct• otos U
nc� C�
CJ c �J ta � iC� so Ubro I CCA �
41
v
i0
6 E cj v � -� tea. v °�
Cz
75
y c
„� avrtdCIO
'Cot _
En
vb.0 IZ
u Z5
bjo
46
C>d
ed O tt a� 0 d'1j
gcl
U s� i s O
3` � a 13 a) >
z
cit d3 E
cl
�_ �_(� ° � � "� � � � �. Ce$ C'-•' � �r ,moi i.�
R C'tl i CN C'ti M cn : W
M M M
ATTACHMENT 2
Sample Funding Scenarios for Some Local Public Funding Sources
(rough estimates only)
G.O. BUND Net AV in the County=$70.650 billion
Annual Tax per Annual Tax
Amount Tenn Rate Annual Debt Total $100,000 on.a$250K
Service Debt Service Of Assessed Value douse
$ 50M 20 6% $4.25M 89M $ 6 $15/year
$ 50 M 30 6% $3.59M $1111 $ 5 $13/year
$1001 20 6% $ 8.5M $179M $12 $30/year
$1001 30 6% $ 7.2M $223M $10 $25/year
$150M 20 6% $12.8M $268M $18 $45/year
$150M 30 6% $10.8M $334M $15 $38/year
$200M 20 6% $ 17M $358M $24 $60/year
$200M 30 6% $ 14M $445M $20 $51/year
COUNTY-WIDE PARCEL TAX, FLAT (approximately 307,000 taxable parcels in County)
$10/parcel=$3.1M/year $20/parcel=6.1M/year $30/parcel=$9.2M/year
$40/parcel= 12M/year
COUNTY-WIDE PARCEL TAX, GRADUATED (one sample only, infinite permutations passible)
Annual
Type of Parcel Feature Amount 4 Parcels Revenues
of Tax
Single Family (0-1000 sq. ft.) $ 15 35,553 $ 533,295
Condos, Duplexes
(1000-2000 sq. ft.) $ 20 167,619 $3,352,000
(2000-3000 sq. ft.) $ 25 57,688 $1,442,125
(3 000-�- sq.ft.) $ 30 13,546 $ 406,380
Apartments (3 to 12 units) $ 40 5007 $ 200,280
(more than 3 (12 - 59 units) $100 1437 $ 143,700
units) (60 + units) $300 1464 $ 439,200
Commercial (AV <$1M) $ 50 4799 $ 239,950
(AV > $1M) $100 1005 $ '100,500
Industrial (AV <$1M) $ 50 1489 $ 74,450
(AV >$1M) $100 2011 $ 201,100
Total = $7.1M
SALES TAX INCREASE 1/8 cent increment= $12M/year, 1/4 cent increase =$24M/year, 1h cent
increase =$48M/year
_.
_ _
N8U-08--198B 10:50 3137488 337488 P.06/13
1991-99 Parcel QLstributlon
Taxable Parcels = 306,594
Land
EIndustrial
0.78®�__._�
'!,Commercial
4.90%
Attachment 2, continued
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
HD)-013-19 398 1050 3437488 3137488 P05/13
1998-99 TAX M&QC_OAfrRlBU77ON
15.54%
INDUSTRIAL
1,58%
LJANU
13.39%
COMM#oF #AL
RESIDENTIAL
68.52%
Attachment 2, continued
09-Nov-98 7.27 pm Prepared by Paladin Financial Group (4.00OPaladin:CON-rRA-OPE-,NSPAC) Pagel
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Contra Costa County
Open Space GO Bonds
20 Year Term
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 100,000,000,00
100,000,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
ACQ 99,750,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 190,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 60,000.00
250,000.00
100,000,000.00
Attachment 2, continued
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................---.......................... ....................... .........................................................................
09-Nov-98 7:27 p.-n Prepared by Paladin Financial Group L 4.000 Paladin:CO34ITRA-C}PENI SPAC) Wage 2
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Contra Costa County
Open Space GO Bonds
20 Year Term
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
01/01/1999
07/01/1999 3,000,000 3,000,000
01/01/2000 2,500,000 6.000% 3,000,000 5,500,000
06/30/2000 8,500,000
07/0112000 2,925,000 2,925,000
01/01/2001 2,650,000 6.000°/u 2,925,000 5,575,000
06/30/2001 8,500,000
07/01/2001 2,845,500 2,845,500
01/01/2032 2,810,000 6.000% 2,845,500 5,655,500
06/3312302 8,501,000
07/01/2032 2,761,200 2,761,200
01/01/2003 2,980,000 6.000% 2,761,200 5,741,200
06/30/2003 8,502,400
07/01/2003 2,671,800 2,671,800
01/01/2004 3,155,000 6.000% 2,671,800 5,826,800
06/30/2004 8,498,600
07/01x'2004 2,577,150 2,577,150
31/01/2005 3,345,000 6.000% 2,577,150 5,922,150
06/30/2005 8,499,300
07/01/2005 2,476,800 2,476,800
01/01/2005 3,545,000 6.000% 2,476,800 6,021,800
06/3012005 8,498,600
07/01/2006 2,370,450 2,370,453
01/01/2007 3,760,000 6.000/0 2,370,450 6,130,450
06/30/2007 8,530,930
07/01/2007 2,257,650 2,257,650
01/01/2008 3,985,000 6.000% 2,257,650 6,242,650
06/30/2008 8,500,300
07/01/2008 2,138,100 2,138,100
01/01/2009 4,225,000 6.030% 2,138,100 6,363,100
06/30/2009 8,501,200
07/01-1/2009 2,011,350 2,011,350
01/01/2010 4,480,000 6.000% 2,011,350 6,491,350
06/30/2010 8,502,700
37/0 /2010 1,876,950 1,876,950
01/01/2011 4,745,000 6.000% 1,876,950 6,621,950
06/30/2011 8,498,900
07/01/2011 1,734,600 1,734,,600
01/01/2012 5,030,000 6.000% 1,734,600 6,764,600
06/30/2012 8,499,200
07/01/2012 1,583,700 1,583,700
01/01/2013 5,335,000 6.000% 1,583,700 6,918,700
06/30/2013 8,502,400
07/01/2013 1,423,650 1,423,650
01/01/2014 5,655,000 6.000% 1,423,650 7,078,650
06/30120114 8,502,300
07/01/2014 1,254,000 1,254,003
01/01/2015 5,995,000 6.000% 1,254,000 7,249,003
06/33/2015 8,533,333
Attachment 2, continued
09-1-ov-98 727 pm Prepared by Paladin Financial Group (4.000 Paladin:CONTRA-OPENSPAC) Page 3
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Contra Costa County
Open Space GO Bonds
20 Year Term
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
07/01/2015 1,074,150 1,074,150
01/01/2016 6,350,000 6.000% 1,074,150 7,424,150
06/30/2016 8,498,300
07/01/2016 883,650 883,650
01/01/2017 6,735,000 6.000% 883,650 7,618,650
06/30/2017 8,502,300
07/01/2017 681,600 681,600
01/01/2018 7,135,000 6.000% 681,600 7,816,600
06/30/2018 8,498,200
07/01/2018 467,550 467,550
01/01/2019 7,565,000 6.000% 467,550 8,032,550
06/30/2019 8,500,100
07/01/2019 240,600 240,600
01/01/2020 8,020,000 6.000% 240,600 8,260,600
06/30/2020 8,501,200
100,000,000 78,510,900 178,510,900 178,510,900
Attachment 2, continued
.............................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................-..............-................................
_....... ............ ... .... .................. ......... ..... ........ ........ _ _ _ ___
09-Nov-98 7:31 pm Prepared by Paladin Financial Group 4.000 Paladin:CO-N. -OPENSPAC) Page I
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Contra Costa County
Open Space GO Bonds
30 Year Term
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 100,000,000.00
100,000,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
ACQ 99,750,000.00
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 190,000.00
Underwriter's Discount 60,000.00
250,000.00
100,000,000,00
Attachment 2, continued
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.. .......................................................................................................................................... ............ ............ ....................................................................................
09-' ov-98 7:31 pm Prepared by Paladin Financial Group (4.000 Paladin:Ct N—.-RA-OPE.NSPAC) t age 2;
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Contra Costa County
Open Space GO Bonds
30 Year Tenn
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
O1/0€/1999
07/01/€999 3,000,000 3,000,000
01/01/2000 1,180,000 6,000% 3,000,000 4,€80,000
06/30/2000 7,180,000
07/0€/2000 2,964,600 2,964,600
O1/0€/2001 1,-450,000 6.000% 2,964,600 4,214,600
06/301200'1 7,179,200
07/01/2001 2,927,100 2,927,100
01/01/2002 1,325,000 6.000% 2,927,100 4,252,100
05/30/2002 7,179,200
07/01/2002 2,887,350 2,887,350
01/0€/2003 1,405,000 6.000% 2,887,350 4,292,350
06/30/2003 7,179,700
07/0€/2003 2,845,200 2,845,200
0€/01,12(304 1,490,000 6.000% 2,845,200 4,335,200
06/30/2004 7,180,400
07/0112004 2,800,500 2,800,500
01101/2005 1,580,000 6.000% 2,800,500 4,380,500
06/30/2005 7,181,000
07/0112005 2,753,100 2,753,100
011/01/2006 1,675,000 6.000010 2,753,100 4,428,100
06/30/2006 7,11-81,200
07/01/2006 2,702,850 2,702,850
0110112007 1,775,000 6.1300% 2,732,850 4,477,850
06/30/2007 7,183,733
07/0112007 2,649,600 2,649,600
01/0€/2008 1,880,000 6.000% 2,649,600 4,529,600
06/30/2008 7,179,200
07/01/2008 2,593,200 2,593,200
01/01/2009 €,990,000 6.000% 2,593,200 4,583,200
06/30/2009 7,l 76,4:70
07/31/2009 2,533,500 2,533,500
01/01/2010 2,110,003 6.000% 2,533,500 4,643,500
06/30/2010 7,177,000
07/02/2010 2,470,203 2,470,200
31/01/2011 2,240,000 6.000010 2,470,200 4,713,200
06/33/2011 7,180,433
37/31/2311 2,433,330 2,433,300
01/31/2012 2,375,303 6.033010 2,433,303 4,778,333
36/30/2312 7,181,330
117/01/2012 2,331,750 2,33€,750
0€/01/2013 2,515,000 6.000% 2,331,750 4,846,750
06/30/2013 7,178,530
07/31/2013 2,256,300 2,256,300
01/01/2014 2,665,000 6.000% 2,256,300 4,92€,300
06/30/2014 7,177,600
07/01/2014 2,176,350 2,€76,350
011/011/2015 2,825,000 6.000% 2,176,350 5,001,350
06/33/2015 7,177,703
Attachment 2, continued
09-Nov-98 7:31 pm Prepared by Paladin Financial Group (4.000 Paladin:CONTRA-OPENSPAC) Page 3
BOND DEBT SERVICE
Contra Costa County
Open Space GO Bonds
30 Year Term
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
07/01/2015 2,091,600 2,091,600
01/01/2016 2,995,000 6.000% 2,091,600 5,086,600
06/30/2016 7,178,200
07/01/2016 2,001,750 2,001,750
01/01/2017 3,175,000 6.000% 2,001,750 5,176,750
06/30/2017 7,178,500
07/01/2017 1,906,500 1,906,500
01/01/2018 3,365,000 6.000% 1,906,500 5,271,500
06/30/2018 7,178,000
07/01/2018 1,805,550 1,805,550
01/01/2019 3,565,000 6.000% 1,805,550 5,370,550
06/30/2019 7,176,100
07/01/2019 1,698,600 1,698,600
01/01/2020 3,780,000 6.000% 1,698,600 5,478,600
06/30/2020 7,177,200
07101/2020 1,585,200 1,585,200
01/0112021 4,010,000 6.000% 1,585,200 5,595,200
06/30/2021 7,180,400
07/01/2021 1,464,900 1,464,900
01/01/2022 4,250,000 6.000% 1,464,900 5,714,900
06/30/2022 7,179,800
07/01/2022 1,337,400 1,337,400
01/01/2023 4,505,000 6.000% 1,337,400 5,842,400
06/30/2023 7,179,800
07/01/2023 1,202,250 1,202,250
01/01/2024 4,775,000 6.000% 1,202,250 5,977,250
06/30/2024 7,179,500
07/01/2024 1,059,000 1,059,000
01/01/2025 5,060,000 6.000% 1,059,000 6,119,000
06/30/2025 7,178,000
07/01/2025 907,200 907,200
01/01/2026 5,365,000 6.000% 907,200 6,272,200
06/30/2026 7,179,400
07/01/2026 746,250 746,250
01/01/2027 5,685,000 6.000% 746,250 6,431,250
06/30/2027 7,177,500
07/01/2027 575,700 575,700
01/01/2028 6,030,000 6.000% 575,700 6,605,700
06/30/2028 7,181,400
07/01/2028 394,800 394,800
01/01/2029 6,390,000 6.000% 394,800 6,784,800
06/30/2029 7,179,600
07/01/2029 203,100 203,100
01/01/2030 6,770,000 6.000% 203,100 6,973,100
06/33/2030 7,176,200
— — 100,000,000 122,548,800 222,548,800 222,548,800
Attachment 2, continued
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........._ ..................................... . ......._ _ _.................
Attachment 3
Sources
Barrett, Gordon. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,personal communication, September 1998.
California Debt and Investment Advisory Corrnnision. California Debt Issuance Primer, April
1998.
Chapman, John. East Bay Community Foundation, personal communication, September 1998.
Doyle, Robert. Assistant General Manager for Acquisitions and Advance planning, East Bay
Regional Park District, personal communication, September 1998.
Economics Research Associates. A Financial Analysis for the Acquisition of Open Space in the
Cites of San Luis t bispo, 1993.
Economics Research.Associates.North Livermore men Space Feasibility Stu ff, 1996
Hansen,.David. Executive Director, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space
District, personal communication, September 1998.
Juarez, Lance. City of Oakland,personal communication, September, 1998.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships, edited
by Eve Endicott, 1993.
Mead, Deblyn. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication, September
1998.
Merle, Gerald. Executive Director, planning and Conservation League, personal communication,
September 11.998
Orrick, Herrington& Sutcliffe. Develolaers' Handbook on Tax-Exempt Financia,&in California,
1993
Raymond, Valerie. South Livermore Walley Agricultural Land Trust, personal communication,
Septer:rber 1998.
Roselli, Lesley, American Land Conservancy,personal communication, September 1998.
Ritzrna, Ann. Interim Community Development Director, City of Albany,personal
corn unication, September 1998.
The Trust for Public Land. On Saving Land, Volume 7, Number 3, May/June 1998.
Wilcox, Carl. Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, September 1998.
Woodbury, John. Executive Director, Bay Area Open Space Council, personal communication,
September 1998.
,4 number of f County sta.�,f from a variety of departments also provided substantial assistance.
Office of the County Counsel Contra Costa County
651 line Street, 9th Floor Phone:(925)335-1800
Martinez, CA 94553 Fax:(925)646-9070
Date: July 3, 1999
To: Supervisor John Gioia, District 1
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Re: Proposed Senate Constitutional Amendment leo. 3 ("SCA 3") and
Open Space Acquisition
At the Finance Committee's June 23,.1999 meeting, this office was asked
whether it agreed with comments evidently made earlier by J.D. mIth at a Board of
Supervisors'Transportation Committee meeting coneeming,SCA`3. Appreritly,J.Di.
Smith commented that it appears the only open space that could be acgUired_using any
sales tax funds derived pursuant to SCA 3 (should it be adopted)would bat that .
necessary for"environmental mitigation directly related to transportation ptojoct,Imp ct"®`
Peer reviewing the attached copy of SCA 3 (as last amended In the Senate on June 14
1999), we agree with the above-stated view of Mr. Smith.
In subsection (a) of SECTION 1 OF SCA 3, It states that SCA 3's exclusive
purpose Is to fund various aspects of local and regional transportation "and
environmental mitigation directly related to transportation project impacts". (See page 3
of the attached copy of SCA3.) In the last subsection (d)of SCA 3 (page 6), it states
that all sales tax revenues received pursuant to SCA 3 "shall be expended exclusively
for local and regional transportation...and environmental mitigation directly related to
transportation project Impacts". The two above-cited portions of attached SGA 3
appear to this office to Indicate that sales tax funding from SCCA 3 could only be spent
for open space acquisition if it met the criteria of"environmental mitigation directly
related to transportation project impacts".
Finally, attached for your information and file is an article from the July 1999
"Cal-Tax Digest" concerning proposed SCA 3.
VJW/j h
cc: Supervisor Donna Gerber, 3rd District Office
Steven Goetz, Community Development Dept.
Anthony Fnea, County Administrator's Office
HAMAN flV„LY�ca3.wpc;