HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07252006 - D.6 (2) ��s t •
i !
f `E1
W J {
1
I IMAIPMUr MR 97,315
'M I FA Ig AIUR
KI T
lb
y
>
N
#..r r t f rh 7 �^s. .� I t8 _tom i �t•uL- ; •�
ttr-1 �(b. r'7
gg
r
I'�
.ra +ftN
,++ z`t-j'-- CL
'
14 =qu
`y4�4,+yt� a t t�a St �i x 1 '✓..j z i # 3''. C4044•
•
. x� a • • .
+1 7 qfi a a t3 f 1E5 o
1
_ -tt }t7 Cs F' ;i >!' t .0. '" i .,,y3 w - '�' •
yr S 1 ! •
K
Fl
tz
oo CD
B' �� d sps�Ta,
'�
7�.
��yy''� t� y'� J t d i r�u��,�7�Sy.. .�'�r r�+�y '�,t ri q 7.�' � t _^��''`tP a.'.��t z � •
4r I
S9+F.i-1'+.. z ,73"Ys'Za�R Y�y. i �{ t. Ve 'c; s S _ P i •
i •
�rG � u�{ V i
• •
IN
rt ; F t ya
si�e'+
+e � -y1 - a :i T • ��I ����-�+++� �� v
2
y
.�t k'3y,Fn .�.ut '' a ,.t`". :I -.3• fy.'ity x�'G
' t�a•��-. �Y& � � � _ - �� '"'+{ -:.` - -.��fist
� '
I
iQ Q
JN-INNb'Id wmsodwm-Au+.ul"•�•� 311R1J911HJTItl 2E�� �'� � E � � a
99f-M6StO xd 9606-314JI•A]1 VlKH0JrIVO'ZANllIVW QRIVAI'In OH 03ffHOVd SSLh9d11IIAwS6Z919
910dM]V15 WlUd UVISDOO OIAVO liH5#e 4� �d�yea y�■ppp� U NUzW
'DNI S139,LrHDxd SOJKVD V JAVA3O-W'I J 9 -KIVH Q OR Q I I I gfill
� w
1:7
�N1
h¢
am
i
yu'Ba v fie. ?;$:�,nr .�±. ;i;- `"'"��i,.��,.,Z.�a;;,'i. ,,�°�,-�Y"- ..,x,Er,�•, a _i f�-��:c"h{��� e
'�•- � -� ^.�£.awl t � r.'%�}r }�r�4 � 1
T�' �c�..�P���'- f.Z°.. � ,�-�"�����,;r�. .v_•. 71�'z�?y �t.�'` �`�TaN� _�;� �n�FY7 � .�yj����'-
rt+'�'� 4�"4 `� if. t�L�� t S•z,�` -*. ��`� 't Wit..' k� ��' E --
+'t -
„ '•v..tir ro nuc�.' - .. _ •", -�'
Wr -f
a
k" n rslj
t7 � rl $^s+Y 3 t ;�'•fi:� � •�0:. i i I I � I
r�
�—d
n
I
t
x.-
'�'sa*.s°I '�� r,a_. ''� ��-��, � � � y§.,ig � €,.xe-,3:a -t�•�5
J
-`W, o �- FL•`£� .-�h�l}v 5�+,. -�.� �d�"-� ,�T � ,may
Yy. f
Q
s
rD
__..._._. . .........
I
s I '�"' ,y
gl
ix
yy i I � ail Ii
}
5`�ar
4
.. 3�i�r 1 g••
F t 1 i
i v, k .ate.^- S `•�
o a rk
a _ u
• Sit . ..
EM
�' .�Y x• 2 � !{',rwi F tr��e�.-- -_k:.` t :��'��Ct� I I 4 '
5 p
YN_�
•
"r
I I I:[per. 1FAMAW-Aspikiffly WYA a
�T
Mai 51"1
ire
ME
'NMut
�WNOZ R'�����!
� 1 E3
NOR
P \ ii .'s 'k' i-�"' F _ ■
5 J
M�PER,
I �
RN777771.
Ilia
TV 777M
t"a- t+
°r'�
M\\ �'fi.. '"� � S I r• �xb II � :� Thi
Ilan I � I .gib
► ,� - t -T>�. r� qty'7-.
r
qtr- -�.�� I7 t+`' - 2 �•a YmWIS
bey`. �yXj`':d'�'"Y�P�. S"' "4� � t •� sk"7' -, _, �_
- j
4�d
LIINJ 11111111
EF k-t .L;1 .�-F1r S. , ■.
r
rFa y E
I
�';f
Vmd tI�... � .'�� � -miss III III I II II P I - -om
'.,I
Ilil ullllll:1e '
SIIlrr, ' .3 Ilnlri'.iF� a"'� ffllll Illllltl llS - .a'Is
r _
ESE I.t1;1 WEMend I SE;
\ r
I i i f
III
G
�' `111113e
i.l
I 1`
(tom
is TI>;T t d�.�E► - I _ A
.NiRNV3Ln1J31111Jat I z It
Py m
wlvl'wa'sce �a vncrev�'r�v�l••I•.0 VINII03I'Iv:)`ZaNI.LIIVNt - CRIVAI'IfIOII 0;3:IHDVd 55-t-
901t.iZ6 114 P.M.4111.1 uueua,,sti
311)amjv1S all3d CIV1SDOU CIMVO 5C awl 3lNt'� !7 �TT ��77 r -�1 �7 r '1 I tl f 3 Z
Dl�tl siDaiIxDxd sodWVD IY DRIAO r a m I v H V o f Q 1 :1 i �1
giE��5e��E��a �a�wos uk a
;
� O
I
CA
Ll
IIA
I r4
Pi
o
' I O � o x
® 4 O al,
O
47
C4 un H
7 7fk
IRA
/ l7'
I
LEEJ 1 ~ l
i p w a- I
H. I
I
i -
w
o I � ao
�C�C7Q 114
® OC1�C7 w 6f �
C�QOC1 �•�
s
� ►: �` ! O
!
w
I�
I
DNINNVIJ R�� �•� FII�� � •�
9991'YtR'ia %:1 96SP6�77nJ"'alum VII�RI03ITV3`Z3[1IZ2IVI'tl - Q2idAI7(108 0:)!)FI7NJ SSLC X65.
9inl'rte'sie'lld Pvvll wlP'A uiuvueAStiaaa oW
3,11,N,,.15W3� UYI5aMAYO 50—Yj3�r, I H Q 0 (11 ,414
�¢ E gagg
'JNI SZOII.LIHDNd SOdWVD V MIAO'1E � 8s w
z�
- - o,
Immmm
7
...
.. z --A — 0�
�6
w
- 4
�?�"•a�r� *rye��, z _ I� �
x•c.p3
g cu3nundl 6YBd3YYngl W33YIBM3 VINN03IlV0 AM= V03VgYW kLNf100 V1S00 VNLN00 0I-6ZIGGo oN aa•
m
P (xvj 86ZL-0t8/GZB SN G.�a,tldy o �.
C (l31 DOLL-"8/GL6 '�� NY31 Yld
w 669#e VO 1433 inrrtvM SMOH auvAi if10O 3NIVHaO9 — a-131dIM Nr31 Ndu61�•O„ B
OOL 3XIS'"1S NIy/I H1NON LCLL
GO 1968 NOISIAIaGnS NVId 1NMdOl3A3a lVNH aNV dVA 3AUV1N31 ONIIS3A NyB;lo;ti;°,a
o _
¢�. �dP '� a & �m6u. gFm $$ DRmmNma" •''
rry e
t <m w
o
uoil
X00 I - -
a7uac�c6JJco}} gg
�Yyv o7p�z zz`Zr215
p
h d. C7 Aip'�F��S�wa �TaIT8��� T^E 78�6&m nARm r�m�:Rmid 99
N NNNry �Nry n
N
Q f n \ ee
•• � tNne mmnmm a• / 6 daC -s11 Zl F, 1.9 IG a „ P2mmo2am m �nn1 ^SvmimmBimm
� � w r � ��b aam .+ �•es^' mRm asm �-r?n_�3n"ss5��ve�c"^��"evs��zro
1 MARATFI.I.AM;
iLn
r m rib '
O \ 11 I 1
ODWi
\
Z LLI
ZO Fo} ,♦ l sem'/ g�\O �" o I �k _
Q Q p
V- AIN a
Z _ O � a� •I I
is g
El H El E El F21 ElZ Z
A
W W N II I
0 Ai Aj'
•m03 �• '.r. f a d N a
Via
> LU
LU W 3!D69dEil
�
I I § s
ALL
\\ i8 O'LiDYpd I gr
Li d
LL g � I
I \\ ''� l9•IDlVd I .
dY/10* I
\\ 4 I $•• I
sj
r h
\\ •kyr � ! i
ry
- ___ --�
2 \ ca.ma.w•ul
1
4-4 :AS 031101d SO-II-/O :31y0 Told
6v.y'Sl11103-10\S133NS\dML\010\6LISGU\Go6u3\:M :3YWN ONIMVdo
N stl3Ymd1 Btl013NlnSl 5Y33YIOY3 VIN2loAnv0 1,iN(100 V03WVlV )dNf100 V1S00 V&N00 61-czlssooN W_I.,
sa po a,ddv Y Q
•o, (zre)Y6ZZ-066ISZze 6 NVld 1f10J1�1� g
` 131 6UZw nNwm SBW0H auvilwoo 3NIVHaOS — a-131=1Nr3L Nd�.B,°
W 96M VJ lON1VM moms 17V31 Wd u6ua0 n t
OOZ 3L1f15"15 NIVW HLaON Lf LZ
1969 NOISIAIa6f1S NVId 1N3Wd0l3A3a -lVNIJ aNV dVW 3AIlVIN31 9NIlS3A ""° o ti;
s
/�J � �\� �y1EBl♦ �
� , U
t ^�
'vZ L ` •� I �. Q 3Nf1 12 12 Nn i
16wNO3 roawm
Vi
e!
° I
a �1I
\ o
s
3Nn N fh EFx
\\\\\ / 10HLN03 {x m I z
\ 1
I a �� 3NL1
�2 1plLLN00 Vl
_ 3Nn _ m
LLi
x ivnw y
azrnd
Q
Xx
N
.. 01x1107 I I m #I Z - m
3X11
Z
\ Olmwd I j R mULNm < `� 10aLNOJ 1n z
\\ [H'M a pl y I tVlk a
\\ a nn r n I S
II • _ a
\\ I L
■ ■ , N b
3N17 ZQFN Z - 3X11 �I i
` 1 roa1NOJ <
\\ {p g O1 n 10a1NDJ �E5
1 \
\ \ 1p
yuny :AY 031101d 90-11-00 :31Ya 101d
. 6Np•zHN1J3-ZO\S133H5\dVNl\OM0\6ZIS50\5063\:Y ;3WVN ONIMVaa
A
1 „
" VIN210dI1Y0 A1NI1o0 V03WVlV A1Nnoo V1SOo Y81NOo OL-6ZI990 aN aw
SmIISYIdl UOA Me Sl UU21 3 SW pans 0
c nd)e6ll—OYB/SZB ■�, NVId fWav � — , ryd yra,6
R, OOZZ—OYB/9i6 �, SBNOH ativ unoo 3NIVHaos - 0-i31� YY31 VW-61--Q
W 968P6 YO 1[3380 1tiNttM .... 11NOH9 SY apsS� (I�
00i 3 i°s 1S"""X180N"`_ 1968 N0151AIa8f15 Ndld 1N3Wd0'13A3a '1dNlA (]NV ddW 3ALLd1N31 JNLIS3A
Y q„Y w eo/co(r waa
m
1
I U
1 a
�n s
i
It Mkt t
� m
• x o ��I +
� a
jj/ \\ .Fns �� ♦tO� � --". �.{v/Sflf
It
tt
tt
it
Alt ., °i •¢
tt
44 t }
i
9'It
it
t
tt
mra $ Att i
^� rt
t
1101 g
p
14
gi
tt
331!! ♦
l ttSS l
-%
.4 1
kt
♦ •ey p r� fD �,/
� i • � ` jam' i
Huoy :A8 031101d 90-I1-40 �31Y0'old
6,ap'00{y10i-C0�5133HS�dY4Y1�OM110\6ZIS90\S06u3\;N ;3WYN ONIMY80
1
L N3YYtlldl 9YOL3ItlIIS1 9tl33Y19Y3 VINNOArM A1Nnoo V03WVlV A1Nnoo V1S00 VMLNOO ol—OZI590.N air
c Ss c.+°,ddr
cYrd)66ZZ-OY6/szb NVId Jllnun
c,3VO 1 OOZZ-OY6/SZY SEWOH a8y udf10O 3NIVH409 - (3-81Ary�1„d..r,N=
Y OOZ 3lIIts"IS NIV�n
NLi LZ `•, NV31 Yy-lc•0 S
1969 NOISIMIGnS NVId 1NYUOl3A34 IWAA (INV dVYV 3AIlVIN31 ONUS3A NM901 s9r° s.'
m31
bis
•w.r•tl 90/Lo/t•=�.0
Ll
N 99
EIFO(](]�0��� pow"• �
o \ II
Q1
+ � e
\\ I v q 1p Q
`\ F
is s w 3
IN
01
JL
I
n
I — I
i
x ul3na
-
/ ' I
1 _
! --
--- I
0 3tl1107 .L1 I }(l/ I
ZI J J`rts�I
ho
k.
y
J( At—
t. `\
1-4 :A9 031101d 90-11-0 :31x0 101d
6-p,irmios-YO\5133HS\dVx1\OMO\6ZIS90\S06u3\;N ;3NYN ONIMrtl0
w sYaYYndl sso136Ynsl oYaaYIBY3 01-821S90 oN air VlN80.IndO ALNnOO V03Y4YW AlNf100 V1SOO V81NOO
NO Baez-ns6/m SNO1133S SSOUO JNI4V8!) sY v^a,ddY g rn
<,31 S3WOH obiviiyno0 3NIVHdO8 — a131d wY31 Ad u~o.a
W Y'S I VO "1111 1n1111 •�� wY31 wd-6pa0 ,
OOL 311nS 16 NIYw HLtlON LfCZ S
m 1969 NOISIAI09f1S NVId 1NMdOlMm IVNIJ MIV dVW 3AIlVIN31 9NI1SM ,N NYBI;<r. a
1.0
n•
ret
c Ls
R
VLS 9'61,
e $ L'ft
9'Ss $
6'l4
4'£S
9'OY
-
6'LC3 0'9£ n f
OltH
$ 9'££
_ C'9i ,ti g L'Cti
ti'£C o
L'£4Y L'L4 +
tt are
9 9.0t �+ @ 1'61, V
sL£ F O•_ ns + Ug
w y ll£ g Ux d £fS F1
6'£C +
0.81 N N o O u
l'Of Y£S +
6 6
. I L'9Z 6
9L
9' + s'CS
l'LZ
C'fS
: c f'IZ L'C9
zLl + S s
i 6'6l +
C'6l
h'Zl
$ �o
5'll
NI 9 B L
LW
1 o
p
8 m l0 S n o 001 .
�q p q'L
8 !.
Ro g � m p N OBL
O
o !
4-1 !A8 031101d 90-ll-0 :31V0 101d
Up,s%w10d-SO\s 133H5\dVwl\OMA\6Z Iff0\f06u3\:Y :3wVN SN111Vtl0
S
of sa3andl m9lYdan91 aY3a1aa3 VIN8OAnV3 A�1,/Nnoo V03WMV�,,/ klNnOO V1SOO V81NOO 0I-64ICGO°N as
o, (%YJ)66LL-DYB/GLB S"II Y 13a UNK Y U� SN Vwo�ddY a 0)
c 31 UOLZ-OYB/9L8 :�; WOH a8vAiaf10O 3NIVHa09 — 0-131:1 "YM31 Y--QW 989Y6 YD')f33lq 10N1VM SByryM MNd u61..0
OOZ 31105"15 NIYN wwoN LCLZ
1968 NOISIAIU9f1S NVId IN3WdO-3A3a IVNI3 aNV dVA 3ALLYIN31 SHIS3A .()Hs
90/LO/,.i.0 a
� s g
lY+
F �W„
R
No
Blo
Z
w FQ
ws
O[70�
3
o
z'L —�
N I
w
F
El E-1 s E H U�
�3
1'9 r =
Ng �a
00
o Q y
0
I
lu.N :a 031101d 9°-11-,0 31YO 101d
6wD'10/YlOd-90�5133H5�dtlY11�0MA�6L 1990\906u3\-N 3YIYN ONIMYDO
d VINNo-4nV0 A1Nf100 V03WIV kLNn03 V1S00 MN00 of-azwso oN vor
Stl3MYY1 dI WOA3A96 SI Stl33gaY]
(%Vi)OOZZ-OaBLL-Ofaf6/SZ/SZfifi
piv13a aav)lanoo 1vOId)l1 6L 9a9,ddY E °'
C ('131) WV3l Wd uxo,0 z'
W 96906 v3'MO 1nMVM : SMOH a8v kibinoo 3NIVHaOe — (3131=1WY31 Wd u6�sa0 „
OOZ 311n5"16 NIYW HLlION CGLZ
1968 NOISIAKIGnS NV*ld 1N3WdOl3A3a 'lVMA (INV d` Y4 3AI1v1N31 9NI1S3A
a
r79.
U 'i A i I cs I I !I I I a
A Al
,
' C�6 xc m Y°' iN
x. _$ _ -...— O o_
YW Y9l � SS SS •`:
00+9 tl L�l15 31VARId op-W33au3 00+S tl t�tl1S 31rNNd S 0 d+9
M
N/155 s
r I c
III O
�n
Z
ry N N h a� I y1t1 I �i ° I 3gWp I (ts�
S
Q N N �ry
1N3W35Y3 , � .
................:.......
eq
3vd N
AYOt .'
ian
AM
rY
i y e v mus sLrnud a r ARU BIvnwa I
0019 0 9 004-9 00+9
ONg9Vd �� h
4°04 :A9 031101d 90-11-f0 :31VG 101d
6x9 1OW13i-Lo\S133NS\dYWl\5Ma\6Zl990\906 3\:Y ;3NYN lNtMYHa ,
y Ctl3YYtlldl anau6vnsl an33Y1nY3 VIN2iO3I1V0 A1Nnoo V03WV-1V kiNnoo V1s0O vaiNOO al-621990°N a°r
OOZL-OY6/9Z6 \� SN0IlIaN00 JNIlSIX3 N131"W.Adv
w OOZ 3119 9*65VNIVW 3WHIHInNlvm
L£LZjig " S31N0H auv kiuf100 3NIVH408 — 4131d NV31 Nd-61--0 u,
196@ N0ISIAIaem NVId 1N3Wd0MMa �VNd aNV dVW 3AIlVIN31 JN1S3A MORS 9V°"'S.eco
m
U
E�
I
$
Fig ate
24ua W� o
�6alN a>�=
5ZO
a =
?0-; Is4d $LLg
.=1 B
16
I
ash tae
f
F .
�� --
I
I
� I
\ / / 4Ali
� '0 YLGY I I 1 w
qb
':::j
s \
MucV :A8 031101d 90-11-h0 z31VO Old
6.°p'%3W1°d-YO\sl33N5\dVNl\9MO\621990\S06u3\;N :3NVN%IIMVHa
SH3NNV1d/SNOA3ASnS/SU33NiVN3 VINHOAnVo - )d Nnoo V03NVIV AdNnoo V1S00 V81NO3 0I-GZISSO ON VM'
(XVd)66ZZ-006/SZ6 (15Va) 1N3W3n0UdW1 MVNIVUCI NUOlS AINf100 5aP—Adr E
(l31 OOZZ-066/SZfiWE
MV31 Nd uM010 i
OOZ 3LIM1SStoSVNIVN H1NON LCLZ , S3WOH ailV kits 100 3NIVH009 - 0-1314 Mal Ndu6j.. e,
1969 NOISIAIasm NVId 1N3Wd013A3a IVNIA aNV dM 3AIlVIN31 JNIIS3A a Sy-1-S o a O1
Z
O 3 .
r
tea\
Hm N
z Q\
W 0
O
o a Ie
O Z Y
�Q m
a
m
CO
Q O N
'o Z
O a
0
• zoo
O Q W
zoo y
ao�o 2 . d
0 d v Cs
O
Q 8�
?m m pCE
W i
ooaZ
ZL�QJ
ty' t Y
f 1 — l
(, W
aw
i
I
S
+ � O
a
LLq�'It
ti
z _ B
r w S
o a $ z
> a
m
m
:
af
4 Nh
t
z
0
' , W
O
I
to
C W S
(
U
zz {
Y.
3 O a
rN
ell +
Q
0
W
Z
W
J
U
N
n
uolo AS 031101d 90-ZI-60 :31VO 101d
6.•.G'ZSVONI33-60\S133NS\dVN1\0Mp\6ZI990\906u3\:M :3NVN ONIMV60
I J.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday July 25,2006,at 1:00 pm,in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
Hearing on.the County Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the applications of
Loving& Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant)Field Brothers &Randal Bodhaine(Owners)
for:
A Rezoning to establish a preliminary development plan, superseding one that has expired,
for 89-homes within an existing Planned Unit District(P-1), County File#RZ053158 and;
Approve the request for a final development plan to establish 89 single-family residences on the
9.3-acre property that includes the removal of 46 trees. County File#DP053027
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration .Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 4755 and 4781 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area.
For the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),
A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this project.
If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, July 25,
2006 at 12:30 pm, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve,or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call
Ryan Hernandez at 925-335-1206, Community Development Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday, July
+ 24, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: July 12, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board.of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine�inclair,Deputy Clerk
I
O�
s
co Lp�fi
AIN
do
lop5����
JAS °fi ods ��� °gti
06
co oe
Joao Vo os� Co
fi� s• °s,�e��G�
82L K'
WIN,, co
GY' °�1�fi �
dos 'N4 fi�4ti`� ON o�sti°
o
15922001\'-.\ G41ra; G�ti fis��b�'to ofi' °a•�e���i�s
BARTLET `,4791 PACHE(--
� °s����� o
MARTINEZ CA
s G
� P��o�o
159230002 1110 � �Nti6 �s��'s'�Go
FIELD BROTHERS \ Pe 3G ofi z �t* e,�' C0
1187 CAMINO VALLECII ��, � 1S �`�¢O P
LAFAYETTE CA 94549 \, S° �Ge", g
GNI,
°� ��`� �G1 �"A S�
tial��ti�fi
co
esti
159230005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA G stiff° too
PO BOX 722
SAN BRUNO CA 94066
159240007
GAFFNEY GLADE &JOAN TRE
1049 PEBBLE BEACH DR 468; 0�
CLAYTON CA 94517 MARI\
159240010 161021009'\
ANSELMO MICHAEL JR& \ GGA
ROSEANNE BRADDOCK�
4687 PACHECO BLVD PO BOX 5300\ 1 •�s. �p0�
MARTINEZ CA 94553 DANVILLE CA S\ G�NP{t`
S
161261004 161262009 e
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ERDEI VICTOR N
1220 MORELLO AVE#100 4736 PACHECO BLVD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
161262015 161262021 /
GUNSUL THOMAS KNOBLOCH ROBERT& CHRISTINA
4754 PACHECO BLVD 4734 PACHECO BLVD
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
161262023 161270011
OBRIEN AT PACHECO LLC KELLEHER WILLIAM J H & cRTY SOLUTIONS LLC
2001 WINWARD WAY#200 906 HARBOR VIEW DR 1306 ".,jTERSON LN
SAN MATEO CA 94404 MARTINEZ CA 94553 LAFAYETTE CA 94549
161570002 161570003 161570004
H & B PROPEERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC H & B PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC
1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN 1306 MASTERSON LN
LAFAYETTE CA 94549 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 LAFAYETTE CA 94549
"Contra Costa Times Legals" 'To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us
<cctlegals@cctimes.com>
cc
07/12/2006 11:30 AM
Please respond to bcc
cctlegals@cctimes.com Subject Publication Request-Loving&Campos
THE FOLLOWING e-mail contains pertinent information; please read it carefully in its
entirety.
Good Morning. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below,please
reference the LEGAL NUMBER provided. Only e-mail to cctlegals(acctimes.com regarding
Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices.'
** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION**
TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section
LEGAL NUMBER: 6175
PO#: F05508 1193
Publication: CCT
Run Date(s): 07/15
Legal Acct#: 200 4197
Total Amount: $183.40
FOR YOUR INFORMATION-Revisions/Cancellations: I will need a cancellation request
referencing the LEGAL NUMBER—or all changes attached in a final draft Microsoft Word
Document—e-mailed to cctlegals(acctimes.com by no later than 4 PM tomorrow, Thurs., 07/13.
Otherwise,the wording of the legal will publish as you e-mailed. Thanks!
Anashia Lloyd
Legal Advertising Coordinator
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359—fax
Contra Costa Times
ATTN: Legal Dept.
P.O. Box 4718
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
cctlegals @cctimes.corn.
Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com
� •r
07/12/2006 10:01 AM cc
«r
bcc
Subject Publication Request-Loving&Campos
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes:
One day only, Saturday , July 15, 2006.
Reference PO#: 1193
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
T]
Loving-Campos-072506.doc
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday July 25, 2006, at 1:00 pm, in e County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, alifornia, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the fol wing planning matter:
Hearing on the County Planning Commission's recommendatio to approve the applications
of Loving & Campos Architects Inc. (Applicant) Field rothers & Randal Bodhaine
(Owners) for:
A Rezoning to establish a preliminary developme t plan, superseding one that has
expired, for 89-homes within an existing Plan d Unit District (P-1), County File
#RZ053158 and;
Approve the request for a final development pla to establish 89 single-family residences on
the 9.3-acre property that includes the removal f 46 trees, County File#DP053027
The location of the subject property is within the nincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa,
State of California, generally identified below( more precise description may be examined in the Office
of the Director of Community Development, C unty Administration Building,Martinez, California):
The location of the subject site is 4755 and 81 Pacheco Boulevard in the Martinez area.
For the purposes of compliance with the ovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),
A Mitigated Negative Declaration of nvironmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report
required)has been issued for this prof t.
If you challenge this matter in Cou ,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing desc ed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at,or prior to,the public hearin
Prior to the hearing, Comm ity Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, July 25,
2006 at pm, in Ro 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order o (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3)clarify the issues bei considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or
narrow any differences hich remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Ryan Hernandez at 9 5-335-1206, Community Development Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday, July
24,2006 to confi our participation.
Date ;
John Cullen; lerk of the
Board of pervisors and
C un dministrator
By
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
ra
O
LAN
520
w
0
►'-. ON
r �
L
0,0, G
E z; �--
Cih
d
..y
Qi O49
i :.
�4b
all
COTS
ZOzU' i
N
W OWm w
�] x0o (i!
zN � CA 3
ONm �
D Cl) `� e
. -n m, oa
D f? CP ,
� :47
"w 7
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ; {: ; •:
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Countv
DATE: JULY 25, 2006
SUBJECT: CONTINUED ITEM FROM 7/18/2006 MEETING-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
NO. 2006/80 CALLING FOR ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 FOR THE 2006
VOTER-APPROVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE(COUNTYWIDE)
(COUNTY FILES: GP#06-0001 AND ZT#06-0001)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT a follow-up report from the Community Development Director in response to Board
Member comments raised at the Board of Supervisors July 18, 2006 meeting regarding the
proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure for the
November 7, 2006 General Election.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON oC9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ,X_,OTHER_
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT; SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
A S: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: P. Roche,CDD-Adv. Ping.(Ph#925-335-1242) ATTESTED
cc: CAO JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OP THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Mayor/City Manager (19 Cities)
Chair,CCTA , DEPUTY
S. Weir, County Clerk
July 25,2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7,2006 General Election
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
2. RECEIVE public comment on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
ballot measure proposed for the General Election on November 7, 2006.
3. ADOPT a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance that the proposed 2006 Voter-
Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure would not result in any
significant impacts on the environment by finding that the environmental review prepared for
the proposed ballot measure is adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and DIRECT staff to file the CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/80 authorizing an election on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra
Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure for the November 7, 2006 General Election (see
revised Resolution No. 2006/80, under Attachment "A").
5. DIRECT the County Clerk to conduct the election on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line-ballot measure pursuant to the California Elections Code.This election
shall be held at the time of the General Election on November 7, 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT
For a discussion on the anticipated fiscal impact of this Board action-please refer to the July 18, 2006
Board Report (see Attachment "B").
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On July 18, 2006 the Board of Supervisors received a report from the Community Development
Director and accepted public testimony on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit
Line ballot measure proposed for the November 7, -2006 General Election. The public testimony
offered at the July 18th meeting focused on whether the new County Urban Limit Line map,which is to
be included in the ballot measure, should recognize the recently enacted voter-approved Urban Limit
Lines in Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon. Two speakers from environmental organizations testified
about their concerns that the new County Urban Limit Line —?-), which voters are being asked to
approve, would represent an implied endorsement or sup. for urban development in certain
locations that are presently located outside the County's Urban Limit Line. Following this public
testimony, the Board requested staff to return to the July 25th meeting with a revision to the adopting
resolution that provides a disclaimer and to consult with the respective environmental organizations
about this proposed revision to the resolution.
Attached for the Board's consideration (see Attachment "A"), is a revised version of Resolution No.
2006/80 that states while the Board recognizes the voters of Antioch, Pittsburg,and San Ramon have
now approved Urban Limit Lines,which each anticipate urban development in certain unincorporated
areas now located outside the County's Urban Limit Line, the Board's recognition of said city voter-
approved Urban Limit Lines should not be construed as an endorsement or support by the Board for
the eventual development of urban uses in these locations. Please see the new disclaimer sentence
as the last sentence under paragraph item 4. to the attached revised resolution.
July 25, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7,2006 General Election
Page 3
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION —continued
As requested, staff provided an advance copy of the revised resolution for review and comment to
staff from the environmental organizations that testified at the July 18th Board meeting. The staff
representative for the Sierra Club — San Francisco Bay Chapter indicated his organization still had
reservations with the County's ballot measure recognizing the voter approved Urban Limit Line in
Pittsburg.
Since this matter is a continued item from the July 18, 2006 meeting, a complete copy of the Board
Report from that meeting is provided for reference ( see Attachment "B").
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
See discussion in the July 18, 2006 Board Report on the timeline for submitting the ballot measure for
the November 2006 General, Election to the County Elections Officer.
Attachments (2 items)
Attachment"A": revised Board Resolution No. 2006/80 — Resolution Calling For An
Election On November 7,2006 On The 2006 Contra Costa County Voter-
Approved Urban Limit Line; and, proposed ballot measure language
Attachment"B": July 18, 2006 Board Report, Subject: Consideration of Resolution
No. 2006/80 Calling for Election on November 7, 2006 for the 2006
Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\ULL Ballot Measure\072506boNOV62006voterullballotmeasure.doc
Attachment "A": rei 'sed Board Resolution No. 2006/80,
Re olution Calling For An Election On
No ember 7, 2006 On The 2006 Contra
Co dta County Voter-Approved Urban
Li it Line; and, proposed ballot
me sure language
i
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
If
Adopted this Resolution on July 25, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: UILKEMA,PIEPHO IDISI ULNIER,GLOVER and GIOIA
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
� I
I
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION )
ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 )
FOR A VOTER-APPROVED )
CONTRAICOSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE. )
The Board of Supervli I ors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
P�
1. In 1990 the voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure C, the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-66). Since that
time, the Urban Limit Line has been incorporated into both the County Ordinance Code
and the General Pla I I to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural land,
open space, and other-areas, by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can
be designated through the year 2010. By its terms Measure C-1990 (Ordinance No. 90-
66) is scheduled to expire In the year 2010. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that
there is a continuing need to protect agriculture and open space in this County.
2. In Novel ber 2004, the voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure J,
a 25-year extension of the Measure C-88 local transportation sales tax measure
previously approved by the voters in 1988. To be eligible for its share of the sales tax
proceeds [Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement funds (18% return to
source funds) and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds (5% TLC
funds)], the County must have an Urban Limit Line, developed and maintained in
conformance with they "Principles of Agreement for Establishing the .Urban Limit Line,
attached and incorporated into Measure J. To comply with the Principles of Agreement it
is necessary to extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line beyond the year 2010.
3. Pursuant to the Principles of Agreement, the County participated in a public
process with the nineteen cities in the County to establish a mutually agreed upon Urban
Limit Line. This process was concluded in the summer of 2005 without agreement on a
final. proposalamong all the jurisdictions. Under the aforementioned Principles of
Agreement, if "no Countywide mutually agreed upon Urban Limit Line is established by
March 31, 2009, only local jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL (Urban Limit Line) will
be eligible to receive the 18% return to source or the 5% TLC funds." Prior to the
enactment of the Principles of Agreement, the voters in San Ramon in March 2002
approved an Urban Growth Boundary for the City of San Ramon, and since the summer
of 2005, the voters i the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg have approved Urban Limit Lines
for those respective; cities. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for Contra
Costa County to remain eligible for its share of Local Transportation Maintenance and
Improvement and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds by
securing voter approval of an extension to the Urban Limit Line before March 31, 2009.
4. On JulyII 12, 2005, the Board of Supervisors directed and authorized staff to
take steps to initiates the adoption of a new, voter-approved Urban Limit Line. These
steps included cond I sting an environmental review and preparing an Urban Limit Line
ballot measure to be placed before voters in 2006. If approved, the measure would
amend the County's (General Plan (2005-2020) and the County's Land Preservation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
I �
I
Ordinance to: (1) extenId the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from
December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2026; (2) require voter approval, in addition to four-
fifths approval by the Board of Supervisors, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than
30 acres; (3) provide for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line, including a mandatory
mid-point review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) adopt a new and
revised Urban Limit Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines by
voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflects other non-
substantial boundary changes at various locations; and (5) retain the 65/35 land
preservation standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land. The Board
of Supervisors' recognition of the Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon voter-approved
Urban Limit Lines in ithe proposed ballot measure should not be construed as an
endorsement or support by the Board for the eventual development of urban uses in
these locations.
5. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the value and need to continue the
Urban Limit Line as an effective tool for planning the orderly growth and development
within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
6. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered an Initial Study on
the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot
measure, which was prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department pursuant fo the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the
Initial Study it is determined that the proposed ballot measure will not result in any
significant impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors concurrently herewith.
i
7. The Board of Supervisors, having received comments from the public and
having considered these comments, directs that the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line, as set forth in Ordinance No. 2006-06 on file with the Clerk of
the Board, be submitted to qualified voters of the County for their approval at the
November 7, 2006 general election, in accordance with the requirements of the California
Elections Code. The following ballot language for submittal of the ordinance to the voters
is hereby approved:
� I
"Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020) and the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to: (i)
extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year
2026; (ii)1require voter approval to expand the line by more than
30 acre's; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish)new review procedures?"
8. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election
Official for election, and the County Clerk, Elections Department, is hereby authorized
and directed to provide all notices and take all other actions necessary to holding the
election, including buti not limited to providing notice of times within which arguments for
and against are submitted.
i
I �
I !
Orig.Dept: Community Development
Contact Person: Patrick RoclII ie,Adv.Ping
cc: Community Development I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
CAO action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Clerk of the Board! Supervisors on the date shown.
County Counsel
Clerk,Elections Dept. ATTESTED: O�/r)C /
i ,
I JOHN C�i(,YECtlerk of the Board of Supervisors and
j County Ador
Bv: Deputy
it
I .
' I
G:Wdvance Planning\adv-plan\ULL Bellot Ilelzsur ZallotN1eo ,Board Resolution 2006-80withdisclaimer.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
i
I
i
i
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution Alo,2006180
2006 Voter Approved
Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the
County's 65135 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance
Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit
Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by
more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish new review procedures?
TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY
This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31,
2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No 2006180
cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres
without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line,
including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an
evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra
Costa County. (4) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map
that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth
Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon
and also reflects other- non-substantive boundary changes at various
locations. (5) Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation
standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land.
SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter
82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban
development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five
(35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65
percent of all land in the County would be preserved for
agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line
identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas
2
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No. 2006180
beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the
teen of the General Plan.
B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that
the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31,
2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to
December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's
non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years.
Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35
Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these
protections through the year 2026.
C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is
described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County
General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section
82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non-
urban and open space areas, this measure would require that,
through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended
to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a
four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters.
D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of
Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle,
07/25/2006
Fina/Bal/ot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made
to reflect changing.times. This measure would also require a 10-
year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to
determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy
housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following
20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and
environmental factors, may change over the years, it is appropriate
to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid-
point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the
Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs
of the County.
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-
2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows:
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM
At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white
version sized 8"x 11"), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map
(11" x 17" insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown
on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which
is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa
4
0712512006
FlnolBallot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted to show the, boundary
of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure.
2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT
The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text -of
"CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the
Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as
follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [exam p ] is
added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [exai:nple] is
deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by
this measure.
CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the
65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The 141=1= w4l,-��
ehanged by a 4/5 vote of the -Board of S . ftef
holding a publie hearing and making one of fflefe of f
fallowing findings based an substa-ntial evidenee in
feear-d. There will be no change to the ULL except in the
manner specified herein. There will be no chance to the
ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public
hearing at which it approves the change or changes, by a
Four-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following
findings based on substantial evidence in the record:
(a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency
has occurred which warrants the provision of
housing and/or other community needs within land
located outside the ULL;
5
0712512006
Flnal,Yallof Measure Language
Board Resolution No 2006180
(b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is
preventing the County from providing its fair share
of affordable housing or regional housing as
C� 4n
required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors
finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the
only feasible means to enable the County to meet
these requirements of State law;
(c) a majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the County have
approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any
portion of the land covered by the preservation
agreement;
(d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately
reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
(e) an objective study has determined that a change to
the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the
economic viability of the east Contra Costa County
Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation
related to environmental or community impacts
attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the
County's aviation related needs;
a change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(g) a five (5) year per-iodie cyctical review of the ULL
has determined, based on criteria and factors for
establishing the ULL set forth- above, that new
information is available (from city or County
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstance have changed, warranting a change to
the ULL.
Anv General Plan amendment that would expand the
.ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval
of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the
public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board o
Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and
6
0 712 512 0 0 6
Final Ballof Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
making one or more of the findings set forth in
subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to
expand the ULL by more titan 30 acres does not require
voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of
Supervisors by a four-fifths, vote approves the General
Plan amendment and makes either of the following
findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i)
the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an
unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the
expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or
federal law. Expansions of the ULL totaling 30 acres or
less do not require voter approval.
[ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER
THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT
LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan as follows]
The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cyclical review
of the ULL every five years.
The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the
ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016
review is to determine whether a change to the boundary
of the County's Urban Limit Line Map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from the
County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive
review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County
sufficient to satisfy housing and jobs needs for 20 years
thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any
7
07125/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may
conduct.
Any chan;Te to the ULL proposed as a result of any review
authorized by this section must be adopted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are
effective until December 31, 2026.
B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES
1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that
change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the
County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as
follows:
TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 2006-06
Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the
"2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit
Line."
Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends
Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code to extend the
term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the year 2026,
to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of
the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the
line by more than 30 acres without voter approval.
Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in
8
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
strikeout font [temple] is deleted from the existing text
1.)
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
"82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the
enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be
established, in approximately the location
depicted on the illttstfa4ive 65/35 Contra Gest
County Land Pfesefvatian Plan Map attaehed
&Ehibit A to Ordinanee No. 90 66 "Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line Map" adopted by the
voters on November 7, 2006. The urban limit line
shall be is incorporated into the county's open
space conservation plan. The urban limit line shall
lim4 limits potential urban development in the
county to thirty-five percent of the land in the
county and shall pfehibi4 prohibits the county
from designating any land located outside the
urban limit line for an urban land use. The criteria
and factors for determining whether land should
be considered for location outside the urban limit
line should include (a) land which qualifies for
rating as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil
Conservation Service Land Use Capability
Classification, (b) open space, parks and other
recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of
twenty-six percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other
areas not appropriate for urban growth because of
physical unsuitability for development, unstable
geological conditions, inadequate water
availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure,
9
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
RoardResoltAlon No 2006180
distance from existing, development, likelihood of
substantial environmental damage or substantial
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other
similar factors. (Ords. 2006-06 § 2, 90-
66 § 4).
Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [examp ], text in
strikeout font [exaffi*] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line.
(a) There shall be no change to the urban limit
line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006. nef adeption of the new
genefal pla Except as otherwise provided in
this Section, as long as there is no violation of the
65/35 standard, the urban limit line can be
changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of
supervisors after holding a public hearing and
makinc, one or more of the following findings
based on substantial evidence in the record:
(1) A natural or manmade disaster or public
emergency has occurred which warrants the
provision of housing and/or other community
needs within land located outside the urban limit
line;
10
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No 2006180
(2) An objective study has determined that the
urban limit line is preventing the county from
Z:�
providing its fair share of affordable housing., or
regional housing, as required by state law, and the
zn
board of supervisors finds that a change to the
urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible
means to enable the county to meet these
requirements of state law;
(3) A majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the county have
approved a change to the urban limit line affecting
all or any portion of the land covered by the
preservation agreement;
(4) A minor change to the urban limit line will
more accurately reflect topographical
characteristics or legal boundaries;
(5) A five-year periedie cyclica review of the
urban limit line has determined, based on the
criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit
line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new
information is available (from city or county
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstances have changed, warranting a change
to the urban limit line;
(6) An objective study has determined that a
change to the urban limit line is necessary or
desirable to further the economic viability of the
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i)
mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or
community impacts attributable to Buchanan
Field, or(ii) further the county's aviation related
needs; or
(7) A change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(b) Any sueh ehange shall be subjee�-t�
r-eferendum as pr-evided by law. Changes to the
urban limit line under-any othef eifeumstanees,
shall r-equir-e a vote of the people.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, any proposed general plan
amendment that would expand the urban limit
line by more than 30 acres will require voter
approval of the proposed general plan -
amendment in addition to and following a four-
fifths vote of the board of supervisors approvin.-,
the general plan amendment and making one or
more of the findings required by subsection (a)
above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
proposed general plan amendment to expand the
urban limit line by more than 30 acres does not
require voter approval if, after a public hearing,
the board of supervisors by a four-fifths vote
makes either of the following findings based on
substantial evidence in the record. (i) the
expansion of the urban finzit line is necessary t
12
07/25/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
avoid an unconstitutional taking of private
property; or (ii) the expansion of the urban limit
line is necessary to comply with state or federal
law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do
not require voter approval.
(c) The board of supervisors may conduct a
cyclical review of the urban limit line every five
ey ars.
(d) The board of supervisors will review the
boundary of the urban limit line in the year
2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to
determine whether a change to the boundary of
the county's urban limit line map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from
the county's participation with the cities in a
comprehensive review of the availability of land
in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet
housing and lobs needs for 20 years. This
review of the urban limit line is in addition to
any other reviews of the urban limit line the
board of supervisors may conduct.
(fi Any change to the urban limit line proposed
as a result of any review authorized by this
section will not be effective unless it is approved
pursuant to the procedures set forth ill this
section. (Olds. 2006-06.$4, 91-1 §2, 90-66 §4.)
13
0712512006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline Lqyamle] while text
p_
in strikeout font [maple] is deleted from the existing,
text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this
measure):
82-1.028 Duration.
The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until
Deeefflbef: 31, 2019 December 31, 202 , to the
extent permitted.by law. (Ords. 2006-06$5, 91-1 §
2, 90-66 § 4).
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa
County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general
plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the
effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County
ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase,
14
0712512006
Fina/Ballo t Measure language
Board Resolution No,2006180
part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed
regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or
repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election.
WAdva—P1.—i.g\Ad,-pi.\ULL SA1.1 Mmsnrc\ULLBallotM�wrcNo%,20(KRcs2006�s(1((171806BoS).doc
15
07/25/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
FIGURE ONE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP
r.
t
cz
T
o WW w
EL
6 4 /
4. ys
o J
O g `
o U r Z g
73 ° !
o U
N \ 71 \<
S
IC
.a�
E
5
Grl
_ u 0
D 1111 �1�1 °a —
N
(Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet)
16
Attachment "B": July 18, 2006 Board Report, Subject:
Consideration of Resolution No.
2006/80 Calling for Election on
November 7, 2006 for the 2006 Voter-
Approved Contra Costa County Urban
Limit Line
Attachment "A": Board Resolution No. 2006/80 —
Resolution Calling For An Election On
November 7, 2006 On The 2006 Contra
Costa County Voter-Approved Urban
Limit Line; and, proposed ballot
measure language
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
7 ....;a,r; .. Costa
'*`
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �,:r_ .,---'sv County
h [fIUR
DATE: JULY 18, 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80 CALLING FOR-ELECTION
ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 FOR THE 2006 VOTER-APPROVED COINTRA COSTA
COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE (COUNTYWIDE) (COUNTY FILES: GP#06-0001 AND
ZT#06-0001)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &-BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT a report from the Community Development Director on the proposed 2006 Voter-
Approved-Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure for the November 7, 2006
General Election.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE#
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS.RECOMMENDED OTHER
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT�j SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: P. Roche, CDD-Adv. Ping.(Ph#925-335-1242) ATTESTED
cc: CAO JOHN CULLEN•, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Mayor/City Manager (19 Cities)
Chair, CCTA BY DEPUTY
S.Weir, County Clerk
July 18, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7, 2006 General Election
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
2. RECEIVE public comment on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
ballot measure proposed for the General Election on November 7, 2006.
3. ADOPT a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance that the proposed 2006 Voter-
Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure would not result in any
significant impacts on the environment by finding that the environmental review prepared for
the proposed ballot measure is adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and DIRECT staff to file the CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/80 authorizing an election on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra
Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure forthe November7, 2006 General Election (see
Resolution No. 2006/80, under Attachment "A").
5. DIRECT the County.Clerk to conduct the election on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line ballot measure pursuant to the California Elections Code.This election
shall be held at the time of the General Election on November 7, 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should the Board adopt Resolution No. 2006/80 authorizing an election the County will be responsible
for bearing the cost for this election. Elections Code section 13001 provides that all expenses
authorized and incurred in the preparation and conduct of elections shall be paid by the County. The
County Elections Officer has provided an estimate of at least $110,000.00 to place this measure on
the ballot for November 7, 2006 General Election, which covers the costs for preparing and printing
ballot pamphlets.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On May 16, 2006 the Board of Supervisors received a report from the Community Development
Director on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure proposed
for the November 7, 2006 General Election. At the May 16, 2006 meeting, the Board accepted a staff
report and analysis on potential additional ballot measure elements as presented by Supervisor Mary
Piepho, and received public testimony on the additional ballot measure elements. The Board also
reviewed a timeline of steps or milestones that need to be completed in orderto place the measure on
the ballot for the November 7, 2006 General Election. The Board at the May 16, 2006 meeting re-
affirmed its desire to bring the ballot measure forward to a countywide election for the November 2006
General Election, gave staff final direction on additional key elements to be included in the proposed
ballot measure, and, on advice from staff, directed that the CEQA Initial Study/Checklist and Notice of
Intent To Adopt A Negative Declaration for the ballot measure be re-circulated for public review and
comment since the measure had been modified from the proposal that was previously presented to
the Board on March 7, 2006.
July 18, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7,2006 General Election
Page 3
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
Based on the Board's directives from the meetings of May 9 and May 16, 2006, the 2006 Voter-
Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure would ask voters at the November 7, 2006 General
Election to approve amendments and updates to both the General Plan and the County Ordinance
Code that would include the following elements:
• Extend the term of the Urban Limit Line for another 20 years to the Year 2026;
• During the extended term (Yr. 2006 to Yr. 2026) of the Urban Limit Line require voter approval
to expand the Urban Limit Line boundary by more than 30 acres;
• Retain procedure for changes to the Urban Limit Line under 30 acres based on a 4/5 vote of
the Board after holding a public hearing and making one of the seven findings currently
enumerated in the County Ordinance Code;
• Incorporate procedures to review the Urban Limit Line based on a 5-year cycle, beginning after
voter adoption, and require a review of the Urban Limit Line boundary 10 years from voter
approval (Year 2016) based on a land supply review to determine whether there is sufficient
capacity to meet a 20-year housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County;
• Retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and retain protections for the County's prime
agricultural land by maintaining the 40-acre minimum parcel size for prime soils and limiting
uses to agricultural production or uses incidental to agricultural production; and,
• Adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map which reflects the following specific changes:
1. Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter-approved General Plan Land Use and Urban
Growth Boundary Map, approved on March 2, 2002;
2. Incorporate the City of Antioch's voter-approved Urban Limit Line map, approved on
November 8, 2005;
3. Incorporate the City of Pittsburg's voter-approved Urban Limit Line map, approved on
November 8, 2005;
4. Locate 27 acres for a proposed public playfield as part of the Gateway development in
Orinda on the inside of the Urban Limit Line;
5. Locate 38 acres of the Pine Creek Detention Basin parcels owned by the Contra Costa
County Water Conservation and Flood Control District in the North Gate Road area
near Walnut Creek on the outside of the Urban Limit Line;
6. Locate the approved Alhambra Valley Ranch residential subdivision (Subdivision Map
#6443) near the Martinez city limits inside the Urban Limit Line and make corresponding
adjustments placing waterfront area in the City of Martinez outside the Urban Limit Line,
as recommended by the Martinez City Council;
7. Locate certain parcels along Marsh Creek Road in the unincorporated area of Clayton
fully inside the Urban Limit Line where the existing line splits these parcels.
July 18, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7, 2006 General Election
Page 4
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
Attached for the Board's consideration is Resolution No. 2006/80 which approves a ballot measure for
the November 7, 2006 General Election (see Attachment "A"). It includes the complete ordinance
language for the ballot measure and the new Urban Limit Line map as they would appear in the voter
pamphlet.
Also attached for the Board's consideration is the re-circulated CEQA review document prepared for
the 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure in the form of the Notice of Negative
Declaration and Initial Study/Checklist (See Attachment "B").
The written public comments received during the noticed review period on the proposed 2006 Voter-
Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure for the November 7 2006 General Election and/or the re-
circulated CEQA review are provided for the Board's consideration (See Attachment "C"). Two
comment letters were submitted at the end of the 30-day review and comment period, which
concluded on Monday, June 26, 2006. These comment letters include:
• William Kirkpatrick, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD), June 23, 2006—This letter requests the County consider extending the term of the
Urban Limit Line to year 2030 to align with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
EBMUD planning horizons; in reference to proposal asking voter's to approve alignment of the
County Urban Limit Line map to the San Ramon's voter approved General Plan and Urban
Growth Boundary map, the letter expresses EBMUD's opposition to providing service to areas
outside of the EBMUD Ultimate Service Boundary and attaches relevant EBMUD Board
policies; and, the letter asks that non-substantial modifications be made to the County's Urban
Limit Line map such that the line conform to areas (mainly residential) that are currently
urbanized and being served by EBMUD.
Staff Analysis: The comment letter asks for a change in the ending year for the term of
the Urban Limit Line, Yr. 2030 instead of Yr. 2026, it describes current EBMUD Board
policies related to their Ultimate Service Boundary, and it asks that the County's Urban
Limit Line conform to areas that are currently urbanized and being served by EBMUD.
These comments do not raise concerns related to the environmental effects of the
proposed ballot measure, nor do they raise concerns with the conclusions from the Initial
Study/Checklist that the ballot measure will not result in any significant impacts on the
environment.
• Victor Carniglia, Deputy Director of Community Development, City of Antioch, June 23, 2006—
This letter comments on the potential land use implications for the County and the cities should
the ballot measure be approved.
Staff Analysis: The comment letter is concerned that the proposed ballot measure and
the accompanying CEQA Initial Study/Environmental Checklist do not provide a
definition for urban and non-urban uses. The commenter is advised that the ballot
measure does not propose to amend or change the existing definition of urban and non-
urban land uses in the General Plan as incorporated in the Land Use Element.
July 18, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7, 2006 General Election
Page 5
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
The comment letter also questions why the County has not updated a Year 2000
inventory on the distribution of urban and non-urban land uses, and it suggests that
65/35 standard has been reached. The commenter speculates that the 65/35 standard
may be exceeded in future in the event that more development is allowed by the County
on Bethel Island, and suggests that the 65/35 standard may affect development plans
for cities that choose to adopt the County's Urban Limit Line if approved by voters. The
commenter is advised that the ballot measure does not impose the 65/35 land
preservation standard on the cities (the 65/35 requirement, which originates from voter
approval of Measure C-1990,only applies to the County), and the commenter is further
advised that the ballot measure does not propose to amend or change the existing
General Plan land use designations and policies (or zoning regulations) for future
development on Bethel Island, which limits new residential development on-island to
one dwelling unit per parcel. Also, the commenter does not provide evidence that the
65/35 standard has been or will be exceeded.
The comment letter does not raise substantial concerns related to the environmental
effects of the proposed ballot measure, nor does it offer evidence that is contrary to or
conflicts with the conclusions from the Initial Study/Checklist that the ballot measure will
not result in any significant impacts on the environment.
As a final matter related to the CEQA review for the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line
ballot measure, the State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, submitted the
Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for public comment. See attachment "D" for the
confirmation letters from the State Clearinghouse. The only comment letter that the State
Clearinghouse received was from Linda Fiac.k, Executive Director, Delta Protection Commission,
dated June 27, 2006. The letter from the Delta Protection Commission reiterates their previous
comments about the Commission's potential general planning authority within the Primary and
Secondary Zones of the Legal Delta.
Staff Analysis: The comment about the role and responsibility of the Delta Protection
Commission in reviewing proposed local government actions or development projects
within the Primary and Secondary Zones of the Legal Delta, as defined under the Delta
Protection Act of 1992, is acknowledged. However, the commenter is advised that the
proposed ballot measure would neither alter the boundary of the County's Urban Limit
Line within the Primary Zone, nor amend existing General Plan land use designations
and policies (or zoning regulations) affecting development within the Delta region of
Contra Costa County, which is located in the Primary and Secondary Zones of the Legal
Delta that fall within the jurisdiction of the Delta Protection Commission.
The Delta Protection Commission's comments do not raise concerns related to the
environmental effects of the proposed ballot measure, nor do they raise concerns with
the conclusions from the Initial Study/Checklist that the ballot measure will not result in
any significant impacts on the environment.
July 18, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Consider Resolution on Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure proposed for November 7, 2006 General Election
Page 6
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
The County Elections Official has previously informed the County that sufficient time is needed by that
office to prepare, print, and distribute the ballot and voter pamphlets, including those requesting
absentee ballots. While eighty-eight (88) days is the minimum' amount of time allowed under the
statute, the County Elections Official has previously testified before the Board that one-hundred and
ten (110) days allows for a more reasonable amount of time for public notice, publishing the ballot
arguments and rebuttals, and sending- absentee ballots to military personnel serving overseas.
Adoption of a resolution on July 18, 2006 calling for an election on November 7, 2006 would provide
sufficient time for the County Elections Official to complete necessary tasks. Failure to take action on
July 18, 2006 would likely compress the time necessary to complete necessary tasks for ballot
preparation, and therefore would reduce the likelihood that a Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot
measure could be submitted to voters for the November 7, 2006 General Election.
Attachments (4 items)
Attachment "A": Board Resolution No. 2006/80 — Resolution Calling For An Election On
November 7, 2006 On The 2006 Contra Costa County Voter-Approved
Urban Limit Line; and, proposed ballot measure language
Attachment"B": Re-circulated Notice of Public Review and Intent To Adopt Negative
Declaration and Initial Study/Checklist, November 7, 2006 General
Election, Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Sponsored by Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors
Attachment "C": Written Comments Received During Noticed Review Period On Proposed
November 7, 2006, 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot
Measure and Re-circulated CEQA Review
Attachment"D": Confirmation Letters from State Clearinghouse
GAAdvance Planning\adv-plan\ULL Ballot Measure\071806boNOV62006voterullballotmeasure.doc
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on July 18, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION )
ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 )
FOR A VOTER-APPROVED )
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE. )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
1. In 1990 the voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure C, the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-66). Since that
time, the Urban Limit Line has been incorporated into both the County Ordinance Code
and the.General Plan to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural land,
open space, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can
be designated through the year 2010. The County's Urban Limit Line is currently
scheduled to expire in the year 2010.The Board of Supervisors recognizes that there is a
continuing need to protect agricultural and open space in this County
2. In November 2004, the voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure J,
a 25-year extension of the Measure C-88 local transportation sales tax measure
previously approved by the voters in 1988. To be eligible for its share of the sales tax
proceeds [Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement funds (18% return to
source funds) and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds (5% TLC
funds)], the County must have an Urban Limit Line, developed and maintained in
conformance with the "Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line,"
attached and incorporated into Measure J. To comply with the Principles of Agreement it
is necessary to extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line beyond the year 2010.
3. Pursuant to the Principles of Agreement, the County participated in a public
process with the nineteen cities in the County to establish a mutually agreed upon Urban
Limit Line. This process was concluded in the summer of 2005 without agreement on a
final proposal among all the jurisdictions. Under the aforementioned Principles of
Agreement, if "no Countywide mutually agreed upon Urban Limit Line is established by
March 31, 2009, only local jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL (Urban Limit Line) will
be eligible to receive the 18% return to source or the 5% TLC funds." Prior to the
enactment of the Principles of Agreement, the voters in San Ramon in March 2002
approved an Urban Growth Boundary for the City of San Ramon, and since the summer
of 2005, the voters in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg have approved Urban Limit Lines
for those respective cities. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for Contra
Costa County to remain eligible for its share of Local Transportation Maintenance and
Improvement and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds by
securing voter approval of an extension to the Urban Limit Line before March 31, 2009.
4. On July 12, 2005, the Board of Supervisors directed and authorized staff to
take steps to initiate the adoption of a new, voter-approved Urban Limit Line. These
steps included conducting an environmental review and preparing an Urban Limit Line
ballot measure to be placed before voters in 2006. If approved, the measure would
amend the County's General Plan (2005-2020) and the County's Land Preservation Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
1 )
Ordinance to: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from
December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2026; (2) require voter approval, in addition to four-
fifths approval by the Board of Supervisors, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than
30 acres; (3) provide for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line, including a mandatory
mid-point review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) adopt a new and
revised Urban Limit Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines by
voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflects other non-
substantial boundary changes at various locations; and (5) retain the 65/35 land
preservation standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land.
5. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the value and need to continue the
Urban Limit Line as an effective tool for planning the orderly growth and development
within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
6. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered an Initial Study on
the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot
measure, which was prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the
Initial Study it is determined that the proposed ballot measure will not result in any
significant impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors concurrently herewith.
7. The Board of Supervisors, having received comments from the public and
having considered these comments, directs that the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line, as set forth in Ordinance No. 2006-06 on file with the Clerk of
the Board, be submitted to qualified voters of the County for their approval at the
November 7, 2006 general election, in accordance with the requirements of the California
Elections Code. The following ballot language for submittal of the ordinance to the voters
is hereby approved:
"Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020) and the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to: (i)
extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year
2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by more than
30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish new review procedures?"
8. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election
Official for election, and the County Clerk, Elections Department, is hereby authorized
and directed to provide all notices and take all other actions necessary to holding the
election, including but not limited to providing notice of times within which arguments for
and against are submitted.
Orig.Dept: Community Development
Contact Person: Patrick Roche,Adv.Ping
cc: Community Development 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
CAO action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Clerk of the Board Supervisors on the date shown.
County Counsel
Clerk,Elections Dept. ATTESTED:
JOHN CULLEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By: Deputy
G',W—ce Planning�adv planlULL Ballot Meazure'BallotM—ureBoard Resolution 2006-80(July 18,2006 Bo5).doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
2006 Voter Approved
Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the
County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance
Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit
Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by
more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish new review procedures?
TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY
This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31,
2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan
1
07/18/2006
Final Rollo tMeasure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres
without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line,
including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an
evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra
Costa County. (4) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map
that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth
Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon
and also reflects other non-substantive boundary changes at various
locations. (5) Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation
standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land.
SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter
82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban
development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five
(35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65
percent of all land in the County would be preserved for
agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line
identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas
i
2
i
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the
teen of the General Plan.
B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that
the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31,
2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to
December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's
non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years.
Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35
Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these
protections through the year 2026.
C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is
described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County
General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section
82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non-
urban and open space areas, this measure would require that,
through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended
to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a
four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters.
D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of
Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle,
07/18/2006
Fina/Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made
to reflect changing times. This measure would also require a 10-
year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to
determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy
housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following
20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and
environmental factors, may change over the years, it is appropriate
to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid-
point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the
Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs
of the County.
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-
2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows:
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM
At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white
version sized 8"x 11"), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map
(11" x 17" insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown
on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which
is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa
4
07/18/2006
Final Ra/lot Measure Language
Board Resolution No,2006/80
County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted to show the boundary
of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure.
2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT
The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of
"CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the
Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as
follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [example] is
added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [exam-pie] is
deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by
this measure.
CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the
65/35 Land Preservation Standard.
ehanb
holding b and b
one of fflofe of the-
figilowing F:.,.-1ings based on substantial evidence—int the
reeerd: There will be no change to the ULL except in the
manner specified herein. There will be no chanze to the
ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public
hearinc, at which it approves the change or chanzes, by a
four-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following
findings based on substantial evidence in the record:
(a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency
has occurred which warrants the provision of
housing and/or other community needs within land
located outside the ULL;
5
07/18/2006
Fina/Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution Na.2006/80
(b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is
preventing the County from providing its fair share
of affordable housing or regional housing as
required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors
finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the
only feasible means to enable the County to meet
these requirements of State law;
(c) a majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the County have
approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any
portion of the land covered by the preservation
agreement;
(d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately
reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
(e) an objective study has determined that a change to
the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the
economic viability of the east Contra Costa County
Airport, and either (I) mitigate adverse aviation
related to environmental or community impacts
attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the
County's aviation related needs;
(f) a change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(g) a five (5) year per-iodie c cy lical review of the ULL
has determined, based on criteria and factors for
establishing the ULL set forth above, that new
information is available (from city or County
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstance have changed, warranting a change to
the ULL.
Any General Plan amendment that would expand the
ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval
of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the
public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board of
Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and
6
07/18/2006
Fina/Ballof Measure Language
Board Resolufion No.2006/80
making one or more of the findings set forth in
subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the
oregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to
expand the ULL by more than 30 acres does not require
voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of
Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General
Plan amendment and makes either of the following
codings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i)
the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an
unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the
expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or
federal law. Expansions of the ULL totaling 30 acres or
less do not require voter approval.
[ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER
THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT
LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan as follows]
The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cvclical review
of the ULL every five years.
I
The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the
ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016
review is to determine whether a change to the boundary
of the County's Urban Limit Line Map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from the
County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive
review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County
sufficient to satisfy housing and lobs needs for 20 years
thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any
7
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006180
other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may
conduct.
Any chance to the ULL proposed as a result of any review
authorized by this section must be adopted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are
effective until December 31, 2026.
B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES
1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that
change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the
County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as
follows:
TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 2006-06
Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the
"2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit
Line."
Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends
Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code to extend the
term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the year 2026,
to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of
the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the
line by more than 30 acres without voter approval.
Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline exam le], text in
8
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
strikeout font [maple] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
"82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the
enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be
established, in approximately the location
depicted on the illlustr-ativ e 65/35 Genir- r^^+^
County hand Pr-esen,atiert Plan Map a�Raehed - ,
Ex}i-bit A tor-wee NE). 90 66 "Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line Map" adopted by the
voters on November 7, 2006. The urban limit line
shall be is incorporated into the county's open
space conservation plan. The urban limit line sli-al4
limt limits potential urban development in the
county to thirty-five percent of the land in the
county and shall pr-ohibit prohibits the county
from designating any land located outside the
urban limit line for an urban land use. The criteria
and factors for determining whether land should
be considered for location outside the urban limit
line should include (a) land which qualifies for
rating as Class I and Class II in the Soil
Conservation Service Land Use Capability
Classification, (b) open space, parks and other
recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of
twenty-six percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other
areas not appropriate for urban growth because of
physical unsuitability for development, unstable
geological conditions, inadequate water
availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure,
9
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
distance from existing development, likelihood of
substantial environmental damage or substantial
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other
similar factors. (Ords. 2006-06 §3,91-1 § 2, 90-
66 § 4).
Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in
strikeout font [ex-ample] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line.
(a) There shall be no change to the urban limit
line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006. f4ef ^d,,,.,*:,,,., of the new
be
e~^' pla ^^ Except as otherwise provided in
�
this Section, as long as there is no violation of the
65/35 standard, the urban limit line can be
changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of
supervisors after holding a public hearing and
making one or more of the following findings
based on substantial evidence in the record:
(1) A natural or manmade disaster or public
emergency has occurred which warrants the
provision of housing and/or other community
needs within land located outside the urban limit
line;
10
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
(2) An objective study has determined that the
urban limit line is preventing the county from
providing its fair share of affordable housing, or
regional housing, as required by state law, and the
board of supervisors finds that a change to the
urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible
means to enable the county to meet these
requirements of state law;
(3) A majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the county have
approved a change to the urban limit line affecting
all or any portion of the land covered by the
preservation agreement;
(4) A minor change to the urban limit line will
more accurately reflect topographical
characteristics or legal boundaries;
(5) A five-year per-iedie c clica!review of the
urban limit line has determined, based on the
criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit
line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new
information is available (from city or county
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstances have changed, warranting a change
to the urban limit line;
(6) An objective study has determined that a
change to the urban limit line is necessary or
desirable to further the economic viability of the
11
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i)
mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or
community impacts attributable to Buchanan
Field, or(ii) further the county's aviation related
needs; or
(7) A change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
b
e shall be subjeet to
r-efefenas pr—evided by law. Changes to the
line undef any other- ,
shallfequir-evote, f the peo„lo
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, any proposed general plan
amendment that would expand the urban limit
line by more than 30 acres will require voter
I
approval of the proposed general plan
amendment in addition to and following a four-
fifths vote of the board of supervisors approving
the general plan amendment and making one or
more of the findings required by subsection (a)
above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
proposed general plan amendment to expand the
urban limit line by more than 30 acres does not
require voter approval if, after a public hearing.
the board of supervisors by a four-fifths vote
makes either of the following Endings based on
substantial evidence in the record: (i) the
expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to
12
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
avoid an unconstitutional taking of private
property; or(ii) the expansion of the urban limit
line is necessary to comply with state or federal
law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do
not require voter approval.
(c) The board of supervisors may conduct a
cyclical review of the urban limit line every five
years.
(d) The board of supervisors will review the
boundary of the urban limit line in the year
2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to
determine whether a change to the boundary of
the county's urban limit line map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from
the county's participation with the cities in a
comprehensive review of the availability of land
in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet
housing and jobs needs for 20 years. This
review of the urban limit line is in addition to
any other reviews of the urban limit line the
board of supervisors may conduct.
(f) Any change to the urban limit line proposed
as a result of any review authorized by this
section will not be effective unless it is approved
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
section. (Ords. 2006-06.$4, 9 1-1 §2, 90-66 §4.)
13
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline exam le] while text
in strikeout font [ le] is deleted from the existing
text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this
measure):
82-1.028 Duration.
The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until
Deeembef 31, 2010 December 31, 2026, to the
extent permitted bylaw. (Ords. 2006-06.$5, 91-1 §
2, 90-66 § 4).
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa
County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general
plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the
effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County
ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase,
14
07/18/2006
Final Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution Na.2006/80
part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed
regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or
repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election.
G:\Adcanm Planning\ad%-pLn\ULL Ballot Mmsum\ULLBa1101MmsumNo121NK,Rcs2wK-8(1(0719(WBoS).doc
15
07/18/2006
Fina/Ballot Measure Language
Board Resolution No.2006/80
FIGURE ONE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP
t�
f
F �
Q
_o y • ,
r1
ct
� u i
I `
C�5 V
t a;1
r
74
c (a
A -
r} f:P
(Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet)
16
Attachment "B": Re-circulated Notice of Public Review
and Intent To Adopt Negative
Declaration and Initial Study/Checklist,
November 7, 2006 General Election,
Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Sponsored by Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
RA
Community Contra Com.t, cry,AICF? —
_Fw�f!itFDev iopment 6irector
Deveiopment
Costa
Department
County
County Administration Building MAY 2 6 2006
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing 7 '
S.L. 1F , C GUNTY 01 FRK
%
"
T�1� 0 Li N T Y
Martinez, California 94553-0095 Coo L'
BY DEPUTY
(925) 335-1210
Phone:
DATE: May 26, 2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT
A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County Files: GP406-0001 and ZT406-0001
State-Clearinghouse No. 2006012134
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date,this is to advise you that the
Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the
following project:
November 7,2006 General Election,Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Sponsored By Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
A proposed countywide ballot measure for the November 7, 2006 General Election to
extend the term of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and establish new
procedures for voter approval on expansion of the County Urban Limit Line,as sponsored
by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors(County Files:GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-
0001).
The proposed ballot measure if adopted by the voters will not result in any significant impacts.
A copy of the Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the Negative Declaration may be
reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit
Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street,
Martinez,during normal business hours.
[More on Next Page]
I A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration was previously issued on
January 27,2006. This new notice revises and supersedes the I./22/2006 notice because of the Contra.Costa
County Board of Supervisors postponement of the election on this matter until the November 7, 2006 General
Election,instead of the June Primary Election,and to reflect minor revisions to the ballot measure as approved
by the Board of Supervisors, which are more fully described in the revised Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist accompanying this notice,
Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental
documents extends to 5:00 P.M.,Monday,June 26,2006. Any continents should be in writing and
submitted to the following address:
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
E-mail address: proch(a,cd.cccounty.us
It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting
of the Board of Supervisors tentatively set for Tuesday, July 11, 2006. It is anticipated at this
meeting that the Board of Supervisors will adopt this Negative Declaration when they consider a
proposed resolution submitting the Urban Limit Line ballot measure to the County Elections Oficial
for the November 7, 2006 General Election. The Board of Supervisors meetings are held at the
McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez.
Patrick Roche ,
Principal Planner
cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies)
D:UOuo.a Pbnmp+MpImLLIIL B.Ib Mmia.erNaw of Napliw paivniW006U{,IJ.II.w.ewrt.tla
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot Measure To
Extend the Term of the Contra Costa County Urban
Limit Line to 2026 and Establish New Procedure for
Voter Approval on Expansion of the County Urban
Limit Line, as sponsored by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors (County Files: GP906-0001 and'
ZT406-000 1)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4`''FloorNorth Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrick Roche
(925) 335-1242
4. Project Location: all of Contra Costa County
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Main County Admin.Bid,g.
Martinez,CA 94553
6. General Plan Designation:
Since the proposed action applies countywide the
General Plan designations are multiple and various.
7. Zoning: Since the proposed action applies countywide the
Zoning Districts are multiple and various.
8. Description of Project: A November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot Measure
asking the voters of Contra Costa County to amend the
Land Use and Conservation Elements of the Contra
Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35
Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance
Code, Chapter 82-1)to':
I. Extend the term of the 65135 Land Preservation
Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code,
Chapter 82-1) and the County's Urban Limit
Line to the Year 2026,
II. During the extended term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance
Code, Chapter 82-1) and County s Urban Limit
See Exhibit One:Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure attached to this Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist for the complete text amendments to both the County General Plan and County
Ordinance Code,Chapter 82-1.
1
Line, require voter approval to expand the
County's Urban Limit Line by more than thirty
(30) acres based on a schedule of review of the
Urban Limit Line boundary every five (5)years,
commencing in Year 2011, and require that in
the tenth year of extended term of the County's
Urban Limit Line, in Year 2016, the County
shall participate with the cities in a
comprehensive review of the availability of land
to meet a 20-year housing and jobs needs for
Contra Costa County in order to determine if
adjustments to the County's Urban Limit Line of
greater than 30 (thirty) acres would be necessary
to meet these needs.
III. Incorporate into both General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the requirement that a 4/5 vote
of the Board of Supervisors is necessary to place
a measure on the election ballot to expand the
Urban Limit Line boundary by more-than thirty
(30)acres through the Year 2026.
IV. Incorporate into both the General Plan and
County Ordinance Code the procedure for the
scheduled review of the Urban Limit Line based
on the five (5) year cycle, beginning after voter
adoption in November 2006, and a required ten
year review in 2016 based on a review of land
availability to determine capacity to meet
housing and jobs needs for the County.
V. Retain in both the General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the existing procedure for
change to the County's Urban Limit Line under
thirty(30)acres based on a 4/5 vote of the Board
of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and
making at least one of seven findings, as
currently proscribed in both the General Plan
and County Ordinance Code, based on
substantial evidence in the record.
VI. Retain the 65/35 standard for land preservation
in Contra Costa County, whereby sixty-five (65)
percent of the overall County land area will be
retained for non-urban uses through the year
2026.
VII. Retain the protections for the County's prime
agricultural land, specifically the area now
designated in the General Plan as the
Agricultural Core by maintaining the 40-acre
2
minimum parcel size and limiting uses to
agricultural production or to uses incidental to
agricultural production.
VIII. Approve a new Urban Limit Line Map for the
General Plan, as recommended by the Board of
Supervisors, which reflects the following
changes 2..
a) Incorporate the City of Antioch's voter
approved Urban Limit Line, November 8,
2005 Special Election, affecting the Antioch
area;
b) Incorporate the City of Pittsburg's voter
approved Urban Limit Line, November 8,
2005 Special Election, affecting the
Pittsburg area;
c) Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter
approved General Plan Land Use and Urban
Growth Boundary map (March 2, 2002)
affecting the San Ramon area;
d) Locate twenty-seven (27) acres for a public
piayfield as part of the Gateway
(Montanera) development project in the City
of Orinda on the inside of the Urban Limit
Line;
e) Locate the thirty-eight (38) acres of the Pine
Creek Detention basin owned by the Contra
Costa Water Conservation and Flood
Control District in the North Gate area on
the outside of the Urban Limit Line;
f) Locate the approved Alhambra Valley
Ranch residential subdivision (Subdivision
No. 6443) on the inside of the Urban Limit
Line, and make corresponding adjustments
to the Urban Limit Line boundary along the
Martinez area waterfront placing certain
lands within the City of Martinez on the
outside of the Urban Limit Line, as
recommended by the Martinez City Council.
See maps attached as Figure I and Figure 2 to this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for graphic detail on the
proposed changes to the County's Urban Limit Line Map.
3
g) Locate certain parcels along Marsh Creek
Road in the unincorporated area of Clayton
.fully inside the Urban Limit Line where the
existing line splits these parcels.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Contra Costa County covers approximately 733 square.
miles and extends from the northeastern shore of the San
Francisco Bay easterly about 50 miles to San Joaquin
County. Contra Costa County is bordered on the south
and west by Alameda County. On the north, Contra
Costa County is bordered by Solano and Sacramento
counties and separated by the San Pablo and Suisun
Bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The
western and northern portions of the County are
urbanized with significant land area in industrial uses.
The central portion of the County is predominantly
suburban residential and commercial uses in character
with industrial uses located on the riverfront of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River. The eastern portion of
the County is also comprised of both suburban
residential and commercial uses along with industrial
uses located on the riverfront of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River. The far eastern portion of the County is
predominantly in agricultural use with some suburban
residential uses. Most the County's land area is
comprised of non-urban uses including agriculture,
parkland, watershed, and open space. The County's
landform is dominated and shaped by the hilly terrain of
the Diablo Range and East Bay Hills, the San Francisco-
San Pablo Bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta.
10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required (e.g. permits,
financing, approval, or
participation agreement): None.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the folio-wing pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/ Public Services
Population &Housinc, Circulation Utilities & Service
Geological Problems Biological Resources Systems
Water Energy & Mineral — Aesthetics
— Air Quality Resources — Cultural Resources
— Mandatory Findings of — Hazards Recreation
Significance — Noise
No Significant Impacts
Identified
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EM, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project.
P9a 4 o v to
Signature Date
Project Planner
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
6
SOURCES
In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following sources and
references (which are .available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department, 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing, Martinez) were consulted and incorporated herein
(where appropriate these Sources are enumerated in response to questions under Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts):
1. Project Description: November 2006 Ballot Measure To Extend the Term of the Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and To Establish New Procedure for Voter Approval to Expand
the Urbari Limit Line, as sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (draft
Ballot Measure prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department and
County Counsel, based on adopted July 12, 2005 Board Order entitled "Report On Ballot
Measure For Extension of The Urban Limit Line" and subsequent Board actions on March 7,
2006 and May 16,2006).
2. The Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020 (adopted January 18, 2005),and Initial Study
and Negative .Declaration (SCH# 2004122066) and the Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#88071904) prepared for the comprehensive update to the Contra Costa County General
Plan (approved January 1991).
3. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Title 8: Zoning.
4. Contra Costa County General Plan Amendment Study: Potential Modifications to the Urban
Limit Line Boundary (County File: GP#99-0001) and Environmental Impact Report (SCH#99-
112094), prepared by Mundie & Associates; Board Reports and Board Resolution No. 2000/366,
August 1, 2000 and Board Resolution No. 2000/451, September 25, 2000, adopting General Plan
Amendment involving modifications to the Urban Limit Line, and Court Decisions: Finley
Tassajara Corp v. County of Contra Costa, ( Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. COO-
3 704
00-3704 and California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Case No. A097392).
5. Review of City General Plans, including Land Use Elements, Environmental Impact Reports for
General Plans, and related documents:
• City of Antioch General Plan (adopted November 2003)
• City of Brentwood General Plan (adopted November 27, 2001)
• City of Concord General Plan ( adopted July 26, 1994 and as amended through April 1,
2003)and final draft Concord 2030 General Plan,Volume 1: Plan Policies
• Town of Danville 2010 General Plan (adopted 1999)
• City of Lafayette General Pian (adopted October 28, 2002)
• City of Martinez General Plan (adopted 1973) and Franklin Hills Specific Plan (adopted
August 5, 1987)
• Town of Moraga 2002 General Plan (adopted June 4, 2002)
• City of Oakley General Plan 2020 (adopted December 22, 2002)
• City of Orinda General Plan 1987-2007 (adopted May 20, 1987)
• City of Pittsburg General Plan 2020(adopted August 2001)
7
• City of Richmond General Plan (adopted August 1994) and Land Use Map (amended May
1998)
• City of San Pablo General Plan (adopted August 1996)
• City of San Ramon General Plan 2020 and Urban Growth Boundary (approved by voters
March 5, 2002)
• City of Walnut Creek General Plan — Vision 2005 (adopted February 1989) and Land Use
Element Map (revised November 5, 1991) and draft General Plan 2025 (draft February 17,
2006)
6. Maps of Voter Approved City Urban Limit Line, Special Election on November 8, 2005:
• City of Antioch
• City of Pittsburg
7. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Resource Mapping System — U.S
Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheet Panels — Benicia, Vine Hill, Honker Bay, Antioch North,
Jersey Island, Richmond, Briones Valley, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Antioch South, Brentwood,
Woodward Island, Las Trampas; Diablo, Tassajara,'and Byron Hot Springs.
8. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) Mapping Program,
9. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted by the Contra Costa County
Airport Land Use Commission, December 13, 2000.
10. Draft East Contra Costa County Habitat Plan (www.cocohcp.oro) and personal communication
with John Kopchik, Project Planner, 1/24/2006.
11. Contra Costa County Keynotes: Habitat Types & Rare, Endangered or Threatened Plants of
Contra Costa County (prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department,
February 1978); and Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas (prepared by Contra Costa County
Community Development Department,January 2004).
12. Map of Important Farmlands in Contra Costa County, Yr. 2004 (California Department. of
Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program) and Map of Agricultural Preserves in Contra Costa County(Williamson Act contracts),
Oct. 2004.
13. Contra Costa County Inventory of Historical Sites (prepared by Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, May 1976, revised 1989, and reprinted 2001).
14. 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and 1999 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan, prepared by the Bay
Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, revised
December 1999.
15. 2004 Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese List) for Contra Costa County,
California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
8
'
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
pmontiuh
S`mificant
rutenuuh Unless Less Than
Significant m/iti.aaticm Xixoiucamt No
buuruouted bo= �ou�
L AESTHETICS —Wou\dtbeproject:
a. Have u substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? ~
(Sources: 1,2.3,4,5.6,7,6i8)
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
(Sources: l,2_3`4,5.6.7.& 8)
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its '
surroundings? �
(Sources: 1`2_3.4.5'6,7.& 8
d. Create onew source ofsubstantial light
or glare that would udvmoo}9 affect day
ocniobttinouviews bnthe area?
(Sources: 1,2.3.4.5,6,7,6L8 )
8lDNOMAJlY:
No Impact
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action ifapproved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-l. Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would opouifiuo1)y extend the tenn of the Urban Lbod Lbzc
to Year 2026, amend the text in the Lund Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the,Urban
Limit Line, *bi)c makipg uorreoppnding amendments to Chapter 82'1, 6585 Land Preservation Plan,
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Mop in the
General P\um to reflect voter approved city Urban Lbnb Linc maps (Antioch Pittsburg and Soo Ramon)
and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map` as
recommended to the vnnaro by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any)and use
entitlement or approval of development. The proposed action does not amend the County [}uooral Plan's
land use map or alter policies or implementation measures in the General P|uo relating to oucoiu reouuooa
orscenic highways. No direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the
ballot measure. Voter approval would out adversely impact scenic resources or vistas, degrade the visual
character or quality, or create a new source of light and glare. Consequently, based on u review of the
proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have
any aigoifi000tadverse impacts oothe physical environment bothe area ofaesthetics.
9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES —In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incomorated Impact Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?(Sources: 1,12)
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?(Sources: 1,2,3, &I2)
C. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland,to non-agricultural use?
(Sources: 1,2,5,6,7,& 12)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's
Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action
does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development. The proposed action does not amend
the County General Plan's land use map or alter policies or implementation measures in the General Plan
relating to agricultural resources, except that if approved by voters it would expressly retain and extend the
term of protections for prime farmland in Contra Costa County. Since the proposed action does not confer
any land use entitlement or approval of development or alter the General Plan's land use map, it would not
directly or indirectly result in the conversion of agricultural land or conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or conflict with the County's Williamson Act Program. Consequently,based on a review of
the proposed ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant
adverse impacts on agricultural resources.
10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EgPACTS
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated V Impact Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
(Sources: 1, 14) ✓
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?(Sources: 1,14) ✓
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is a non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? ✓
(Sources: 1,14)
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ✓
(Sources: I,14)
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ✓
(Sources: 1,14)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan,.Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to new
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-I,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's
Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action
does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development. The proposed action does not amend
the County General Plan's land use map or alter policies or implementation measures in the General Plan
relating to air quality. No direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of
the ballot measure. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed ballot measure there is no substantial
evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on air quality.
11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incoroorated Impact Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,&11)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10, &11)
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including but not limited ,to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal., filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10, &I1)
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? ✓
(Sources: : 1,2,4,5,6;7,8,10,&11)
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,&11)
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Pian,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan? ✓
(Source: 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10, &11)
12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
B1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65135
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures
for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban
Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch,
Pittsburg and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit
Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter County
General Plan policies or other regulations aimed at protecting biological resources, nor would the proposed
action change land use designations under the land usemap to the General Plan. The action would not
directly or indirectly impact protected species or habitats or natural communities since no development is
being approved,nor is there a change in County-policies or regulations relating to biological resources that
.n C
would facilitate new development as a result voter approval. There is a drat Habitat
Conservation/Natural Communities Conservation Plan for eastern Contra Costa County that has been
prepared and released for public comment. It is anticipated that the,anal Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Communities Conservation Plan will address the matters pertaining to habitat protection in relation to
growth and development in eastern Contra Costa County over the next 30 years, including area inside and
outside the present County Urban Limit Line. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban
Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant
adverse impacts on biological resources.
13
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated IMpact Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance icance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5.(Sources:
1,2,4,5,7,&13)
b. Cause*a substantial adverse chance in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to 15064.5? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,7,&13)
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?(Sources:
d. Disturb any human remains, including
n
'those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,7,&13)
SUMMARY:
NO IMpact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit
Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter
historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources in the County since no development is being
approved, nor is there a change in County General Plan policies or other regulations relating to cultural
resources that would result from voter approval. Also, voter approval would not result in disturbance of
human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, since no new development would be
approved or facilitated. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure
there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on cultural
resources.
14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YT. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Woo\d the JJCct:
' Potentially
5knificunz
Potentially DmJeuo Less Than
6igonifiuuuz Mitigation Significant No
1MM�1 Incorporate Impac� lmQ��t
a. Expose people or structures to potential
-nobaomtia| adverse effects, including the
risk ofloss,injury,ordeath involving:
l. Rupture ofuknown earthquake fault,
as delineated oothe most recent Alquist-
priolu Earthquake Fault Zoning, Map
issued hythe State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
o known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication °
42.
(Sources: 1,2��,6,7,&0
2. Strona seismic' ground shakio-?
(Sources: l,2.4,5.6.7`& 8)
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? ~
-
(Sources: l.2,4,5`6,7,& 8)
4. Landslides? ~
(Sources: 1,2,4,5.6,7.& 8)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss oftopsoil? �
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,6.7, &8)
C. Be located onugeologic unit orsoil that
is unstable, or that would beumo*
unstable as u result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
(Sources: \,2,4,5.6,7,& 8)
d. Belocated onexpansive soil, uadefined
in Table |8-l'Bufthe l]nifoxnn Building
Code(}A08), creating substantial risks zo
life or property?
(Sources: 1,2,4'5.6,7, & 8 ) �
c
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste disposal systems where
oep/aro are not available for the disposal
of wastewater? ^
(Sources: 1.2.4,5,6.7,6i8)
15
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IWACTS
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land .Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it.would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit
Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors, The proposed action does not confer
any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter County
General Plan policies or other regulations relating to geological hazards, nor would the proposed action
result in any change in use designations or location of uses under the land use map in the General Plan.
Voter approval of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure would not expose people or structures to
geological or earthquake hazards, result in substantial soil erosion, locate structures on unstable geological
unit or expansive soil creating risk to life or property, or locate septic tanks or other alternative waste
disposal systems on soil incapable of supporting such waste disposal. Consequently, based on a review of
the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval result in
significant and-adverse geological impacts.
16
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact ImRact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials? ✓
(Sources: 1 2,4,54,&15)
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable .upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? ✓
(Sources: : 1,2,4,5,6, &15 )
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or ✓
proposed school?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,&15)
d. Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65862.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment? ✓
(Sources:1,2,4,5,6,&15)
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area.
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,& 9) ✓
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,& 9)
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? ✓
(Sources: 1.2,4,5,&6)
17
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65135
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance.Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit
Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since the action does not approve or facilitate
development, or change County General Plan policies or other regulations relating to hazards or hazardous
material or change the use designations or location of uses under the General Plan land use map, it would
not create or contribute to hazards. The action would not result in the transportation of hazardous material,
it would not result in use or disposal of hazardous materials, and it would not release hazardous materials
into the environment, Furthermore, the action would not result in an increased risk of air safety hazards,
and it does not expose people or structures to wildland fires since it does not approve or facilitate
development(e.g. change use designations or location of uses under the land use map in the General Plan).
Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial
evidence that voter approval would have a direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to
hazards or hazardous materials.
18
'
' EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VIII. —Wonldtheproject:
^ "e...~y
Significant
Potentially Dolaaa Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lMpa jm=
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? v
(Sources: 1,2.4,5.6b6)
b. Suhauotu|)y deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
gmundwater recharge such that there
would he unet deficit in aquifer volume
or u lowering of the local groundwater
table (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits bovo,becmgraoted)? ' ~
(Sources: l.2,4,5,&6) `
C, Suhooanti/Q|y alter the omisbo& drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the. ofthe uumsuofu
/ ~
stream ordmr, in umanner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation
on-oroff-ohe? *
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8)
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
dnouahtbe alteration ofthe course ofu
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate oramount nfsurface run-off ino
manner that wouldreoolt in flooding on-
or off-uke? ~
(Souruccl2.4,l6`7,dt8)
e. Creme or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity ofexisting or
planned ouuzn water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? �
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,6,7,&8)
�
Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? ~
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7,&8)
a, Place housing within o lOO'yoar Mood
hazard area as mopped on u Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
insurance Do1e Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
19
. .
`
,
(Sources: l2/4,5,6,7'&8
b. Place within a 100'yeao flood hazard
area 000ctuzoa that vvou)d impede or .
redirect flood flows? *
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,.7,&8)
i
Expose people or structures to u
significant risk of loss, injury or death ^
involving flooding, including flooding
as u result of the failure of u levee or
dao? �
(Sources: 1,2.4'5.6.7.&8)
j. Inundation by moiube, tsunami, or
mndflow? `
(Sources: l,2.4,5,6.7.&8)
SUMMARY: `
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
Tbeosed actionif approved 6y voters would ��d �� �eG�e� B� a� (��� 82'1, 65/35Lun ' ' ocr/udon Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would opuoibod}y extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures
for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82'1. 6585
Land Preservation Plmm, Contra Costa County Ordinance Cod*, and it would amend the County's Dr600
Limit Line Map in the Gcmeral'9lun to reflect voter approved city Dr6uo Lbob Line maps (Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and ,nmake other non-substantial modifiuuzion000the County's Urban Lbo\z
Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors, The proposed action does not confer /
any land use entitlement nrapproval ofdevelopment, and no direct urindirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot meaoure. Since,no new development is being approved under
the measure, andthe measure does not facilitate new development by changing use dea�nmi000 or
location of uoea under the General Plan land use map, the proposed action would not result in the violation
of water quality or waste discharge requirements, it `*nu\d out deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
ouhynzotu)}y with groundwater recharge of an aquifer or water ta6\e, it would not alter existing drainage
pmtoou, create new runoff, i/ would not place structures vvbbin u flood hazard area and it would not
expose people or structures to flooding by result of a dam/levee or tsunami/mudflow. Consequently, based
on ocevicv/ of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no mo6oumtial evidence that voter
approval would have a direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to hydrology and water
quality.
20
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,5,&6)
b. Conflict with .any applicable land use
plan, policy, or the regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not Iimited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for:the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,3,5;&6 )
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? ✓
(Sources: 1,2,5, 6&10)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
Procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. It would also amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch,
Pittsburg and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's:Urban Limit
Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. See Figures I and 2 to this Initial
Study for more details. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of
development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the
County's Urban Limit Line ballot measure. The proposed action does not approve or facilitate new
development because it does not change use designations or location of uses under the land use map to the
General Plan, nor does it result in the rezoning of land in the unincorporated area. Since the action does not
fundamentally change land use or zoning designations, it would not in any way facilitate new development
in the unincorporated area.
Besides the procedural changes relating to future expansion of the Urban Limit Line, the proposed action
involves voter approval to conform the County's Urban Limit Line map, which is incorporated into the
Land Use Element, to the recently voter-approved Urban Limit Line maps for the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg (November 8, 2005 Special Election), and the previously voter-approved Urban Growth
Boundary for San Ramon(March 2,2002). This action would acknowledge the majority vote in those cities
21
and the determination by a majority of those voters that certain land areas now in the unincorporated area
are within the city's voter-approved Urban Limit Line,meaning that it is reasonably foreseeable these areas
will become urbanized under the city's land use jurisdiction when annexed to the city. The cities of
Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon may pursue annexation of those unincorporated areas within their
respective voter-approved Urban Limit Line without the risk of losing return to source funds from the
countywide '/'2 cent transportation sale tax program because as specified under the Growth Management
Program approved voters in November 2004 under Measure J they now have voter-approved Urban Limit
Lines. While this provides no guarantee that certain unincorporated areas now within a city voter-approved
Urban Limit Line will or should be approved for annexation, it does mean that there is no loss of important
transportation funding that would inhibit them from pursuing annexation. In fact,there are recent examples
providing evidence it would be more reasonably foreseeable that certain unincorporated areas now within a
city voter-approved Urban Limit Line will be developed to urban uses under city land use jurisdiction,
including
• City of Antioch—Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Roddy Ranch
Annexation, issued on 1/16/2006,the project addressed by this EIR is the proposed annexation of
the Roddy Ranch Annexation Area into the municipal boundary of the City of Antioch and into
the service area boundary of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. The project also encompasses
the planned provision of urban services to the Roddy Annexation Area. The'Annexation Area is a
918-acre area that was the subject of a voter-approved initiative known as Measure K, which was
passed by the City's electorate in November 2005. Measure K created a City urban limit line(the
"Urban Limit Line"), beyond which future City development is restricted.
• City of Pittsburg — Notice of Public Hearing before the Pittsburg Planning Commission on
5/23/2006, on the proposed Mirant Power Plant ''Annexation 'General Plan Amendment and
Prezoning, This is a city-initiated project to amend the Pittsburg General Plan land use
designations and/or prezone approximately 1300 acres of 17 parcels located north of Willow Pass
Road and south of Suisun Bay. This unincorporated area was included in Pittsburg's Urban Limit
Line approved by the city's voters in November 2005.
• City of San Ramon — San Ramon is processing various land use entitlement applications for the
Faria Ranch Project within the city's Northwest Specific Plan Area for development within their
Urban Growth Boundary. The proposal entails the subdivision of 448 acres for the development of
400 single family residences, 84 townhouses, 216 condominiums, and 86 senior housing units.
This project would also involve annexation of certain unincorporated land area, but within the
city's Urban Growth Boundary.
Consequently, the action to conform the County's Urban Limit Line to the cities' line would not make it
more likely that these unincorporated areas would develop to an urban use,but would reflect the reality that
these areas will likely develop under the city's jurisdiction. This prospective change in the physical
environment would not be a result of action by the County, because until such time as annexation occurs
the land uses designations or location of land uses under the land use map to the County General Plan will
not change; however, the change would result from actions approved by those respective cities following
annexation. The County has never received any requests to change General Plan land use designations in
these locations.
The procedural changes for future expansion of the Urban Limit Line and revisions to the County's Urban
Limit Line map under the proposed ballot measure would be internally consistent with the Land Use
Element and other elements to the General Plan. Based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line
ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would result in physically dividing an
established community, conflict with applicable land use plans or policies, and it would not conflict with an
applicable(adopted)Habitat Conservation Plan.
22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Im act lm act
a_ - a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
b. Result in the loss or availability of a
locally important mineral resource .
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line .to Year 2026,-amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch,
Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit
Line Map,as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any land use entitlement or approval of development, and no direct physical construction would result from
the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since no new development is being approved under the measure,
and the measure does not facilitate new development(e.g. change land use designations or location of land
uses under the General Plan land use map),the proposed action would not result in a loss or availability of
mineral resources. Also, the proposed action does not change County General Plan policies or other
regulations aimed at the protection and utilization of mineral resources. Consequently, based on a review of
the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical
impact on the environment related to mineral resources.
23
. .
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMIENTAL IMPACTS
XT. NOISE—Wuuld the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
`
Potentially Docmm Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lmpac lDcoyporated Impact Impact
a. Exposure ofpersons toorgeneration nf
onimc }uv:lx in :mccao of standards .
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
ofother ugenciaa7 �
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
6. Exposure ofpersons to, orgeneration of,
excessive zrouud boroo vibration or
ground home noise levels? +
(Sourecl,2.4.5.&6 )
C' A substantial permanent increase in `
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ^ .
ources: ,5.&6 )
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels bo �dhc
project vicinity above )evo|a existing '
without the project?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&l,2.4.5,&6)
C. For aproject located within an airport
|uod use plan or, where such o plan has
not been adopted, within two mJca of
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing �
or working in the project area to .
excessive noise levels? �
(Soureo: l,2.4,6,6,&9)
f. For a project within the vidndy of o
private airstrp,would the project expose
people residing orworking in the project .
area to excessive noise levels? *
(Sources: l,2,4'5,6, 8t0)
SUMMARY:
No Impact
DISCUSSION:
The proposedaotion if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 6585
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would opuod5cuDy extend
the term of the Urban Limit ljre to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
` 65/35Land Preservation Plan,Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XI. NOISE—continued
It would also amend.the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city
Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make other non-substantial
modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of
Supervisors. The.proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development,and
no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure.
Since no new development is beim approved under the measure, and the measure does not facilitate new
development (e.g. change land use designations or.location of land-,uses under the General Plan land use
map), the proposed action would not result in exposing people to excessive noise levels. Consequently,
based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of
direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to noise.
25
^ '
EVALUATIONOF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
}[II. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project:
Potentially.
Significant
Potentially Unless Lem 'Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Imp lmpac�
o. Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for exoop|*' by -
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (fur exump)e, through
extension of roads or other
bzfiustn/onure)? �
(Suuroeu: l,2.4,5.&6)
h, Displace substantial numbers of existing
houoioa` neceaioatbo- the construction
ofreplacement housing elsewhere?
(Sources: l,2.4.5.&6)
C. Displace substantial numbers ufpeople,
necessitating the uuuotrumium of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(Sources: },2.4,5.&'6)
SUMMARY:
NoIn7poo. '
`
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65135
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating tn
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
6585 Land Preservation Pluo, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Mop in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Lino maps (Antioch
and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit'Line Map, as
recommended tuthe voters bythe Board ofSupervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use
entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from
the voter approval ofthe ballot measure. Voter approval would not induce population growth because the
measure neither approves development, nor grants \uod use entitlements, nor facilitates new development
(e.g. change land use deyignodono or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map). New
development would not occur as uresult ofthe measure's approval. Voter approval would not result in the
displacement of existing housing or people because the measure duno not propose development and
development would occur as ur000b ofthe measure's upToovuL /\dditioouD}'' voter approval would not
ohaogeCounty General Plan land use map orpoUcicure8urdiogthe location ofurban uses orthe intensity
of urban uses (e.g, housing density) in the unincorporated areas of the County. The proposed action would
not substantially alter the County General Plan's assumptions about population or the dixoihoziun of
population in the County. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot
measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical impact on the environment.related to
population and housing.
26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XIII.
Potential]),
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
' 6�o�iuunt ��b��ioo Significant No
Impact IncoMo[§ted lLnpac� Imm
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered gnv000ncotul facilities, need for
new orphysically altered governmental
facilitieu, the construction of which
could cause significant cmvbunmcmta| '
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services?
(Sources: 12.4,5,&6)
l. Fire Protection?
2 Police Protection?
3. Schools?
4. Parka?
5. Other public facilities?
'
SUMMARY:
'
No Impact.
DISCTb: � action if approved by voters wouldamend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costo County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term ofthe Urban Limit Line toYear 2026, amend the text iothe Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while mukinge corresponding amendments tn Chapter 82-1,
6585 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it "mn|d muod the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan nnreflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps(Antioch
and andtomukoothcrnon'oubanu�i� modifications tutho.Cuunty`uUrban Limit Ijn�kdop, ua
Pittsburg)recommended to the voters by the Board— f Supervisors. The d action does not confer any land use
entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indir'ect'.,'pb'ysi'cal,,constructi'on would result from
the | of the ballot measure. The proposed-action `
map (e.c,. change land use designations or location of land,'uses)'; nor'Wo*ul& the propose d,'acti on alter
existing policies or measures relating to the provision of public-services in un nco, oiated area. The
proposed action would not involve or require the physical alteration of governmental facilities, Since voter
approval of the ballot measure does not approve or facilitate development (e.g. change land use
desi-nations or location of land uses under the General Plan land use map), ,the proposed action would not
induce population growth requiring new or expanded public services. Consequently, based on a review of
the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect impact
on the physical environment related to public services.
27
' -
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional.
parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of,
the ' facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 -
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line,while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan,,Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch
and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use
entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from
the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action does not.amend the General Plan land use
map (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses), nor would the proposed action alter
existing policies or measures relating to the provision of recreation services in the unincorporated area. The
proposed action would not involve or require the construction of new recreational facilities.Also, voters are
not being asked to approve new development,nor are the voters being asked to facilitate new development,
that would induce population growth requiring new or expanded recreational facilities. Consequently,
based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no.substantial evidence of
direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to recreation.
28
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project:
j Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact IncoMorated Impact Impact
a. Cause an increase'; in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system ' (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads,or congestion at intersections?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
b. Exceed, either , individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
(Sources:.1,2,4,5,&-6)
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an'increase in traffic
levels or a change in=location that results
in substantial safety risks?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6) ''
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses(e.g.farm equipment)?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
(Sources: 1,2;4,5,&6) y
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative
transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,&6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
29
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—continued
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures
for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit
Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps and to make other non-
substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map recommended to the voters by the Board
of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use entitlement or approval of development,
and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure.
Voters are not being asked to approve new development or to facilitate subsequent approval of new
development (e.g. change land use designations or location .of land uses under the General Plan land use
map). Besides the.procedural changes for future expansion of the Urban Limit Line, the proposed action
involves voter approval to conform the County's Urban Limit Line.map, which is incorporated into the
Land Use Element, to the voter-approved Urban Limit Line maps.for the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and
San Ramon. This action would acknowledge the majority vote in those cities.and_the determination by
those voters that certain land areas now in the unincorporated area are within the City's voter-approved
Urban Limit Line, meaning that they would eventually become annexed and urbanized under the City's
land use jurisdiction:(for more discussion on the reasonably foreseeable development of unincorporated
lands under city land use jurisdiction where there is a city voter-approved Urban Limit Line, see
DISCUSSION under IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING page 22). Therefore, the proposed action would
not alter the existing transportation system (traffic patterns, roadway,rail lines, bus routes,parking, etc.)or
induce traffic from new development placing new demand on the existing transportation system.
Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial
evidence of direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to transportation/traffic.
30
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
} V . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project:
Potentially
Siaoifiouot
potcorioJ)y Do}eoa Less Than
Significant Midga1ioo Si� ificemt No
lMpac lDegMor§ted I=zxc lM=
a. Bx000d wastewater treatment
requirements ofthe,applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
(Sources: l'2.4.5.&6)
b. Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or cxpouoino of existing
facilities, the construction of vvbiuh
uucdd cause significant cnviruoononta|
effects? ' +
(Sources: 1'2,4,5.6t6)
C. Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities, the
construction of which could ',cause
agnifioantunvirunzocntu effects? ,
(Sources: l'2,4`5,&6) �
d. Have sufficient vvocer supplies uvuUublu ------ ------ ------ ------
'
serve the project from existing
`
entitlements and resources, orare new or
expanded entitlements needed?
(Sources: l,2.4,5.6t6)
c. Result � u determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project*s
the provider's existing cuonninncots?
(Sources: ) *
[ Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capapby to accommodate the
_
project's waste disposal needs?
(Sources: l.2`4.5.&6) *
�
Comply with federal, state and local
statutes and cc8u)atiouo related to solid
waste? �
(Sources: 1.2.4,5,&6)
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026,. amend-the text in the Land Use Element relating to
procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's
Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter•approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch
and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial modificationsto the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any land use
entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from
the voter approval of the ballot measure. The.proposed action does not amend the General Plan land use
map (e.g. change land use designations or location of land uses), nor would the proposed action alter
existing policies or measures relating to the provision of utilities and service systems in the unincorporated
area. Voter approval of the ballot measure would not require the construction of new utilities or service
systems. Since voter approval of the ballot measure does not,approve development, nor would it occur as a
result of voter approval, the proposed action would not induce population growth requiring expanded or
new utilities or service systems Consequently, based on areview of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot
measure there is no substantial evidence of adverse impacts on the physical environment related to utilities
and service systems.
Q
32
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potential]),
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitiization Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact IM=
a. Does the project have the. potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
and wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively
considerable means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1, 65/35
Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend
the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures
for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit
Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps and to make other non-
substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map recommended to the voters by the Board
of Supervisors. The proposed action neither confers any land use entitlement or development approval,nor
facilitates development by changing the land use designations or location of land uses under the General
Plan land use map. No direct or indirect physical construction would result from the voter,approval of the
ballot measure. The proposed action will have no significant physical effects on the environment, either
directly or indirectly.
33
Fio,ure I and Figure 2
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
r.
4 r�
t i �r•.
r*, f. •
5
, _ 51 r•
S ���Ht OM1!Fry �• � ,
CA
�. ` L1� �••111V• iii CIA .
CIO
o P", t U # .V j r
cd
may.,✓ CC 4_� �: :; •. � � �. 4 `I.'"w{ � w a ,'' �l
IS
fill
IL
iT
ct
r
\L✓ t 3� y U yl . ,f
(�� t
w
sv �'
t
r /� �: _ �'`t•."� 'd°�,$, a �:•;~� s ., Byrn � x Y�t��y,r y
t41ri•1
oe
^a a
.�o+r,,,r;,q�+:._�
„ t ah. " •..1 Sv " `^F Aw R Kms' :
ri
4 A' ir i ata
Y
y- y '
t
T
O y ,�
fig' �41
CO
p Mfr
acts
Im
�� � �o� �+ U a•
co
-'" o
lig
lin
I
� tV
1_j
G
tV u N o -d U °J a z \Y ice,
/
050
r
LL
p '-1 ami by i
�
m -
ai c epi �!'
r
d i]a rA c
O P-4
4
t
/
�Y//c�
r � i
a
a-
.
YtTwr 'i
G.
i �' ,..✓' tfy il% -.: '� � �a�+ S �,�4`t,�1� 4r�,[�r"'N n `� /''t' t`.^ d 1,✓�X
......:':' ,. I_..._ _G "''`'- w�k��� �1 {�L.� r_t, � U1 U rt.✓t tc' i ' + 3� ��y�:l t,�;r(` �`'�.
K
1e v -a -`-'fir k�.:•5 aM a
Q) O { k.!\.` J� ... '� w 'yrs�J •." `
Q �yrt�i•�'
Nr Y L 4i rr�� Ql1 r' wY
.,+ xt...r N ''r.
F$. C U `�'r`...t +1yo .?ta +mWuifgti x..� r> $ O 3
Q � d cc
1
O
>
4-9 Ca
W vu
Q•O.
i� CL
c fA
CA
pv J .;... ,�7•�;71:� ti .: _ 6+"\t�f'f'-� �,4 r1�•vd�r r }' `",
I w
;;°^
1
�a. j�} •nl`:}r''.,+1 j k r 1;{r5 I ^- - �•i` �t �4 r'9 ii�(..i�-,-!I I ..1� Ly .;r�:..,?�a54 1ya T.
1 �
'� 9 �ggk,,�p7k+�,�
L m .•' _v p11V7. rc
r
45-
k
6 ��all� If
l 1r
qN, � W;ll
r !,
V/' �. ✓^ a left�ty n T- L
.�Q
Gn'•.
co
co
r L >
�y t
U A T 0 ti W Q co
M L 4) C C W
coQ. C13
Vco
U
U oz a. >
i'
cc
cr
U r -
trl}�1 1 �• 4 '
5
` t �• ���`.��i"r� r ' _ �uF!'A31Nn tlk14WYHiv.` '+\, 6 .. .
,} ti
v
_ m
p�V
. }� W
V �W ?�."
1 N m \ N a
fel n •-� '� >
O G
E Wco
l
r
Exhibit One
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 2006 General Election
Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Revised Ba//ot Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg. 05/16/2006
2006 Voter Approved
Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the
County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance ,(County Ordinance
Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit
Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter. approval to expand the line by
more than 30 acres, (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish new review procedures?
TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY
This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31,
1
Revised Bo/%f Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mfg. 05/16/2006
2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General= Plan
cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres
without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line,
including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an
evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra
Costa County. (4) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map
that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth
Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon
and also reflects other non-substantive boundary changes at various
locations. (5) Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation
standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land.
SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter
82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban
development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five
(35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65
percent of all land in the County would be preserved for
agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line
2
Revised Ba//ot Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg, 05/16/2006
identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas
beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the
term of the General Plan,
B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that
the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31,
2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to
December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's
non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years.
Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35
Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these
protections through the year 2026.
C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is
described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County
General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section
82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non-
urban and open space areas, this measure would require that,
through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended
to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a
four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters.
J
Revised Ba//of Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mfg. 05/16/2006
D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of
Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle,
commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made
to reflect changing times. This measure would also require a 10-
year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to
determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy
housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following
20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and
environmental factors, may change over.the years, it is appropriate
to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid-
point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the
Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs
of the County.
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-
2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows:
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM
At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white
version sized 8"x 11"), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map
4
Revised Ballot Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mfg. 05/16/2006
(11" x 17" insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown
on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which
is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted to show the boundary
of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure.
2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT
The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of
"CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the
Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as
follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [example] is
added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [eX }e] is
deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by
4 ,
this measure.
CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the
65135 Land Preservation Standard.
ehanD
"ptibiie heafingr b
ane of mefe, of t
fallowing findings based aft Substantial evidenee in
reeefd: There will be no chap e to the ULL except in the
manner specified herein. There will be no change to the
ULL unless the Board of Supervisors flrst holds a public
hearing at which it approves the change or changes, by a
four-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following
_fndinQs based on substantial evidence in the record:
5
Revised Bo/%t Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg. 05/16/2006
(a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency
has occurred which warrants the provision of
housing and/or other community needs within land
located outside the ULL;
(b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is
preventing the County from providing its fair share
of affordable housing or regional housing as
required by State'law, and the Board of Supervisors
finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the
only feasible means to enable the County to meet
these requirements of State law;
(c) a majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the County have
approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any
portion of the land covered by the preservation
agreement;
(d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately
reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
(e) an objective study has determined that a change to
the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the
economic viability of the east Contra Costa County
Airport, and either (1) mitigate adverse aviation
related' to environmental or community impacts
attributable to Buchanan Field, or, (ii) further the
County's aviation related needs;
(f) a change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(g) a five (5) year peried-is cvclical review of the ULL
has determined, based on criteria and factors for
establishing the ULL set forth above, that new
information is available (from city or County
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstance have changed, warranting a change to
the ULL.
6
Revised Ballot Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mfg. 05/16/2006
Any General Plan amendment that would expand the
ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval
of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the
public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board of
Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and
making one or more of the findings set forth in
subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to
expand the ULL by more than 30 acres does not require
voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of
Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General
Plan amendment and makes either of the following
endings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i)
the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an
unconstitutional taking of private property; or 00 the
expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or
federal law. Expansions of the ULL totaling 30 acres or
less do not require voter approval.
[ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER
THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT
LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan as follows]
The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cvclical review
of the ULL every five vears.
The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the
ULL in the vear 2016. The purpose of the vear 2016
review is to determine whether a change to the boundary
7
Revised&//o t Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mfg. 05/16/2006
of the Counh,'s Urban Limit Line Map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from the
County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive
review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County
sufficient to satisfy housing and lobs needs for 20 vears
thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any
other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may
conduct.
Any chanze to the ULL proposed as a result of any review
authorized by this section must be adopted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are
'effective until December 31, 2026.
B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES
1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that
change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the
County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as
follows:
TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 2006-06
Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the
"2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit
Line."
Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends
Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code to extend the
term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the year 2026,
8
Revised Bal/of Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mfg. 05/16/2006
to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of
the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the
line by more than 30 acres without voter approval.
Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in
strikeout font [elle] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
"82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the
enforcement -of the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be
established, in approximately the location
depicted on the illustrative 65,135 r-,,,,,*,,, Gest
County Land D,-esei,-at.,n Plan Map 4 1, .1
€)ihi1 eOr- � T� "Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line Man" adopted & the
voters on June 6. 2006. The urban limit line shag
be is incorporated into the county's open space
conservation plan. The urban limit line shall limi
limits potential urban development in the county
to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and
shall -eh prohibits the county from
designating any land located outside the urban
limit line for an urban land use. The criteria and
factors for determining whether land should be
considered for location outside the urban limit line
should include (a) land which qualifies for rating
as Class I and Class 11 in the Soil Conservation
9
Revised 90//Ot Language
Per Board of.Supervisors
Mfg. 0511612006
Service Land Use Capability Classification, (b)
open space, parks and other recreation areas, (c)
lands with slopes in excess of twenty-six percent,
(d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate
for urban growth because of physical unsuitability
for development, unstable geological conditions,
inadequate water availability, the lack of
appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing
development, likelihood of substantial
environmental damage or substantial injury to fish
or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar
factors. (Ords. 2006-06 k3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [exam lej, text in
strikeout font [e*an+0e] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line.
(a) There shall be no change to the urban limit
line that violates the 65135 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006. After- adoption e the new
geaefal-planas Except as otherwise provided in
this Section, as long as there is no violation of the
65/35 standard,the urban limit line can be
changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of
supervisors after holding a public hearing and
making one or more of the following findings
based on substantial evidence in the record:
10
Revised Ballot Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg. 0511612006
(1) A natural or manmade disaster or public
emergency has occurred which warrants the
provision of housing and/or other community
needs within land located outside the urban limit
line;
(2) An objective study has determined that the
urban limit line is preventing the county from
providing its fair share of affordable housing, or
regional housing, as required by state law, and the
board of supervisors finds that a change to the
urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible
means to enable the county to meet these
requirements of state law;
(3) A majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the county have
approved a change to the urban limit line affecting
all or any portion of the land covered by the
preservation agreement;
(4) A minor change to the urban limit line will
more accurately reflect topographical
characteristics or legal boundaries;
(5) A five-year pefiedie cyctical review of the
urban limit line has determined, based on the
criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit
Line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new
Revised Ballo t Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg. 05/16/2006
information is available (from city or county
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstances have changed, warranting a change
to the urban limit line;
(6) An objective study has determined that a
change to the urban limit line is necessary or
desirable to further the economic viability of the
East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i)
mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or
community impacts attributable to Buchanan
Field, or(ii) further the county's aviation related
needs; or.
(7) A change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(b) Any sueh b
e shall be subjeet-te
r-efer-endufn as provided by-law. Changes to th
u.-ba limit limo under-afly other- n mstanees
shall fequir-evote of the people.
(b ) Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, anv proposed General Plan
amendment that would expand the urban limit
line by more than 30 acres will require voter
approval of the proposed General Plan
amendment in addition to and following a four-
fifths vote of the board of supervisors approving
the General Plan amendment and making one or
12
Revised Ballot Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg. 05/16/2006
more of the findings required by subsection (a)
above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
proposed General Plan amendment to expand
the urban limit line by more than 30 acres does
not require voter approval if, after a public
hearing, the board of supervisors by a four-fifths
vote makes either of the following findings based
on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the
expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to
avoid an unconstitutional taking of private
property; or (ii) the expansion of the urban limit
line is necessary to comply with state or federal
law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do
not require voter approval.
(c) The board of supervisors may conduct a
cvclical review of the urban limit line every five
vears.
(d) The board of supervisors will review the
boundary of the urban limit line in the year
2016. The purpose of the vear 2016 review is to
determine whether a change to the boundary of
the county's urban limit line map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from
the county's participation with the cities in a
comprehensive review of the availability of land
in Contra Costa Countv sufficient to meet
housing and lobs needs for 20 years. This
review of the urban limit line is in addition to
13
Revised Ballot Language
Per Board o{Supervisors
A tg. 05/16/2006
anv other reviews of the urban limit line the
board of supervisors may conduct.
(f) Any change to the urban limit line proposed
as a result of anv review authorized by this
section will not be effective unless it is approved
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
section. (Orris. 2006-06,$4, 91-1 §2, 90-66 §4.)
Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [example] while text
in strikeout font [ems] is deleted from the existing
text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this
measure):
82-1.028 Duration.
The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until
Deeeember �1, -2019- December 31, 2026, to the
extent permitted by law. (Ords. 2006-060, 91-1 §
2, 90-66 § 4).
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa
County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general
14
Revised Bo/%t Language
Per Board of Supervisors
Mtg. 05/16/2006
plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the
effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County
ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase,
part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed
regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional.
' SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or
repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election.
0:Advanre PiaudngWv-pl2MULL Ballot Mmmmk lLLBallotM=sumNov70UGhosstiono51000.dm
15
Revised Ba//otLanguage
Per Board of Supervisors
Al tg. 05/16/2006
FIGURE ONE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP
(Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet)
2006 Proposed Voter Approved
Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map
v
0 2.5 5
Miles c'°" BOO. " 'f
SS n •w...N.A�...
1E11CULE5 PmB0UP4 `_�_ t� h'
NQ runrr
�t x b: r.e.® .✓� f�3 F `urraN ouc�r �#�� �L
I� u ,_; 3 �.. . '•,•` .mania � x � � '�..
i t d e.N z *.s r 1 a✓ ,'. s � � 9 �. ..
!! .l HAaID f s � wtoh M i
r z '� nanoN eHENtw000 .,„3
i ✓ `.+...�: ••� � NM '. 3� R11� F �, `..try
CEPH q ki
1 t e r 1 2 d :10
', x ORsa� �••• UF�YETiE .r•^ CRENicE T � � ,� :-:Xm
__l.
1 p
Legend
Proposed Urban Limit Line
LTJ
ter.. •`-.
Agriculture,Open Space,Wetlands,
Parks and Other Non Urban Uses x
(Outside the Urban Limit.Line) +
Agricultural Core(Outside the Urban Limit Line)
i r
f r•
Prepared by Contra Costs County Community Development CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
16
Attachment "C": Written Comments Received During
Noticed Review Period On Proposed
November 7, 2006, 2006 Voter-`
Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot
Measure and Re-circulated CEQA
Review
EAST BAY
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
C;
r:
June 23, 2006
Patrick Roche, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4ch Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration -
Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure Sponsored by Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors
Dear Mr. Roche:
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Contra Costa County Urban
Limit Line Ballot Measure (County files GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001). EBMUD
has the following comments.
EBMUD requests that the County consider extending the term of the Urban Limit Line
extension to the year 2030, rather than 2026, as this would align with ABAG's and
EBMUD's planning horizons.
On page 3, Section VIII c), it states that if the ballot measure passes, the Contra Costa
County General Plan will be amended to "Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter
approved General Plan Land Use and Urban Growth Boundary Map (March 2, 2002)
affecting the San Ramon area." EBMUD opposes providing service to areas outside
of the EBMUD Ultimate Service Boundary, which was expressed to the City of
Sari Ramon in a letter (dated July 21, 2000) regarding their General Plan update.
EBMUD anticipates no service extensions outside of the current Ultimate Service
Boundary and LAFCO-approved Sphere of Influence. Pursuant to District Policies 3.01
and 3.05, EBMUD would oppose any such annexations. Further, and not withstanding
the aforementioned oppositions if EBMUD were to be so designated, EBMUD
Policy 3.08 "Advisory Election for Annexations Outside the Contra Costa County Urban
Limit Line" would apply. (Copies of policies enclosed).
Regarding page 32, Section XVI, Discussion, the County and EBMUD have discussed
making several small, non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line
Map such that the Urban Limit Line conforms to areas (mainly residential)that are
375 ELEVENTH STREET. OAKLAND. CA 94607.4240 . TOIL FREE 1-866-40-EBMUD
Patrick Roche, Principal Planner
June 23, 2006
Page 2
currently urbanized and being served by EBMUD. Please ensure that these modifications
are incorporated.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact me (510) 287-1301.
Sincerely,
William R. Kirkpatrick
Manager of Water Distribution Planning
WRK:TNS:sb
sb06 177.doc
Policy 3.01
EDMUD EFFECTIVE 08 JUL 03
ANNEXATIONS SUPERSEDES 11 AUG 98
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO:
Consider annexing territory, when requested by owners of the property or public agencies having
jurisdiction.
Conditions Annexations are subject to the following conditions:
• The territory shall be within the District ultimate service boundary.
• Generally there should be an immediate need for water service on a part or all of
the territory being annexed.
• The territory proposed for annexation should include any parcels required to
make a logical boundary.
• The annexation should facilitate the operation of the utility and be of advantage to
the community.
• The annexation should be economically sound.
• Territory within the lands included in the East Bay Watershed Master Plan must,
before annexation:
- Provide adequate facilities for removal of sewage from the watershed; and
- Comply with the District's requirements for control of soil erosion,
sedimentation and nutrient impacts within the territory.
• Territory should be outside the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area
(BHAPA)as adopted by Contra Costa County and signatory cities. If the territory
is within the BHAPA:
- The District may annex parcels owned by the District or other public
agencies, providing they will remain in public ownership.
- District policy shall be to express opposition to annexation of privately held
parcels.
Territory Outside Opposition shall be expressed to all proposed annexations outside of the ultimate
of Ultimate service boundary unless:
Service a) The requested annexation is a small boundary adjustment found by the District to
Boundary be in its best interests based on the following conditions:
(1) The property and dwelling units are the smaller part of a larger development
project located primarily within the ultimate service boundary;
Annexations NUMBER 3.01
PAGE NO.: 2
EFFECTIVE DATE: 08 JUL 03
(2) The development project is desired and approved by the city or county land
use planning agency with jurisdiction, and the land use planning and
environmental documentation recognize EBMUD as the logical provider of
water service;
(3) Annexation of the property to EBMUD represents the most practical and
feasible method of obtaining water service;
(4) The cumulative number of dwelling units outside the ultimate boundary added
as a result of such small boundary adjustments shall not exceed 100 in any
two-year period; and
(5) District Policy 3.05-Effects of Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate
Service Boundary and Policy 9.03-Water Supply Availability and Deficiency
are satisfied with regard to the effects of extension of water beyond the
ultimate service boundary; or
b) The requested annexation is to mitigate health risks,as established by the
appropriate agency, associated with existing water supplies.
Authority Resolution No. 20996, June 8, 1962
Amended by Board Motion No. 91-012, February 14, 1991
Amended by Resolution No. 33116-98,August 11, 1998
Amended by Resolution No. 33365-03,July 8, 2003
References Policy 3.05 - Effects of Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary
Policy 3.08 - Advisory Election for Annexations Outside the Contra Costa County
Urban Limit Line
Policy 9.03 - Water Supply Availability and Deficiency
46/3 Policy 3.05
EBMUD EFFECTIVE 13 FEB 01
EFFECTS OF EXTENSION OF WATER BEYOND SUPERSEDES 08 MAR 03
THE ULTIMATE SERVICE BOUNDARY
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT THAT:
The District will not extend water to areas outside the present Ultimate Service Boundary
(USB) of the District, if such extension would result in:
1. A reduction in the quantity of water available to District customers to satisfy existing or
projected levels of demand; or
2. A reduction in the quality of water available to the District customers from the District's
present water sources; or
3. An increase in costs of service for District customers.
The USB defines the territory within which the District has planned to provide water service.
The phrase "District customers" as used in this policy shall mean (i) existing water service
customers of the District and (ii) future customers, located within the present USB, but not now
receiving water service.
This policy shall not apply to proposed annexations of property to the District's service area
within the USB and such annexation shall continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Authority Board Motion, adopted on March 8, 1983
Amended by Resolution No. 33236-01, February 13, 2001.
'
Policy
�� ����
�� N�p��
�-�.�m�� ��.@0��
EZaMUD sFFsonvE 2oJAN ou
ADVISORY ELECTION FOR ANNEXATIONS oupenoEosa NEW
OUTSIDE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
URBAN LIMIT LINE
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO:
�
Call an advisory e|acd/un ifEBK8UD in designated as the preferred water service provider by
local planning agency inits envimonmnentm|dooumentaUonvvhanthe proposed deve/opme»n^io
located outside the Urban Limit Line adopted by Contra Costa County in 2000.
Purpose The purpose ofthe election shall batosubmit bothe voters within the
EBK4UDservice area the question ofwhether territory outside said Urban
Limit Line should beannexed toEBK8U[].
Events
Triggering an * EBK8U[] iaidenUfiedbyolocal planning agency inits environmental
Advisory to
as the preferred provider to deliver potable water service
Electiontoaresidentia| dova|opnnon1of2OOornnorgdwa/|ingundm /ocabed /n
territory beyond the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line. In such
cases, the matter shall baplaced onthe agenda for consideration bythe
BoardofDirectors a1aregularly scheduled public meeting. |fthe Board
determines not to oppose annexation of such territory tothe dimtrio1.
EBK4UDshall call anadvisory election onthe question whether such
territory should baannexed tnEBK8UO. The advisory election shall occur
prior b)the time the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation '
Commission /sscheduled toconsider annexation ofthe territory b»
EBK8UDand, when possible, shall beconsolidated with mgeneral
election.
• Kalocal agency designates EBK8UOaotheorofernedoroviderforvvatar
service to a residential development interritory outside the Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line that iuless than 2-Odwelling units and ianot
covered by the provisions of Policy 3.01 then EBMUDshall oppose the
annexation, and the Board ofDirectors shall determine ataregularly
scheduled public meeting whether Uocall mnadvisory election onthe
question ofwhether such territory should beannexed toEBK4UD.
° This policy shall beapplied consistent with and infurtherance ofthe
provisions ofPolicy 3.O1 -Annexations.
Authority Resolution No. 33347-O3' January 28' 2OD3
References Policy 3.01 Annexations
Policy 3.05 Effects ofExtension ufWater Beyond the Ultimate Service
Boundary
Policy 3.07 Responsibility to Serve Water Customers
Policy 7.03 Emergency Preparedness
Policy 7.09 Workplace Health and Safety
OF ANT/p
z }
CaCIFORN�P
June 26, 2006
Pat Roche
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Pat,
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration for the Urban
Limit Line (ULL) ballot measure to be considered by the voters in November 2006. We
are also very pleased to see that the County is proposing to modify its Urban Limit Line
to be consistent with the City of Antioch's Urban Limit, as established by Antioch voters
in November 2005 through the passage of Measure K. This consistency should help
ensure that the City and the County have a common vision on the future growth plans for
the Roddy Ranch area.
This letter contains a number of comments on the Negative Declaration that was
circulated for review by County staff. Our understanding is that the purpose of the
Negative Declaration is to address the environmental impacts of extending the County's
Urban Limit Line for 20 years, namely from 2006 to 2026. The County ULL originally
established by the voters in 1990 is due to expire in 2010. Our comments focus on the
possible environmental implications of this 20 year extension.
Relationship of the ULL to Future Development: A consistent theme in the proposed
Negative Declaration is the assertion that the ULL is of no real environmental
consequence, as inclusion within the ULL does not"confer any land use entitlement or
approval of development". For every environmental issue touched on in the Negative
Declaration (traffic impacts, biologic impacts, potential for flooding to impact new
development, etc.), the Initial Study concludes that there will be no impact as future
development is deemed to be speculative. In fact, every single box in the Environmental
Checklist Form is checked as "no impact".
P.O. Box 5007
Antioch, CA 94531-5007
Direct Phone 925-779-7036
Fax 925-779-7003
vcarni lia e,ci.antioch.ca.us
It's instructive to step back and examine the proposed County ULL would do from a
procedural and environmental perspective:
■ The proposed ULL would extend the County ULL for 20 years.
■ If the proposed ULL is not approved,then the ULL will expire in 2010.
■ Properties located under County jurisdiction can only develop with urban uses "inside
the ULL". However, in the absence of an established ULL (i.e. if the ULL expires in
20 10) a plausible conclusion would be that no "urban" development could move
forward in the County until a new ULL is established.
■ This scenario would potentially impact thousands of acres of land currently inside the
ULL. Much of this undeveloped vacant land inside the County ULL is located in far
East County, namely the 4000 acres of Bethel Island, the 1000 acres east of
Discovery Bay, and the 1900 acres around the Byron Airport.
■ While the preceding scenario of"no County ULL" is not likely (a ULL at some
location will inevitably get approved by the County voters), one of the key questions
before the voters (at least as it pertains to East County) is whether the County should
continue to consider the possibility of development over the next 20 years on the
6900 acres of land just mentioned in far East County.
Aside from the "big picture" issues just discussed, the proposed County ULL also
contains significant changes from a procedural perspective that have environmental
implications, as noted below:
• As previously mentioned,the Negative Declaration takes the position that any future
development inside the ULL is speculative, as a future General Plan Amendment
would likely be required for development to move forward.
• This may be a reasonable argument to make with the existing County ULL, as the
threshold to get a General Plan change (3/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors) is
roughly equivalent to what it takes to modify the ULL (4/5 vote of the Board of
Supervisors).
• However, the proposed ULL changes the rules by greatly increasing the threshold to
include property within the ULL (a 4/5 vote of the Board, plus a majority vote of
voters Countywide). As a result, inclusion in the ULL is likely a much more reliable
determinant of the future location of development over the next 20 years, as
compared to what the current General Plan designation happens to be.
• Unfortunately, the Negative Declaration does not address this "new reality", as it
assumes that inclusion within the ULL has no bearing from a CEQA perspective on
the likelihood that a given piece of property will develop.
2
The purpose and spirit of CEQA is to provide accurate information on which decision
makers can make informed decisions. The decision makers in this case include all the
registered voters in Contra Costa County. The Negative Declaration with its conclusion
of"no impacts"tends to defeat its purpose as an information document.
Land Use Impacts: As already stated, the Negative Declaration concludes for all
environmental issues that the proposed ballot measure will have no impact, and the Land
Use Section of the Environmental checklist is no exception.
■ Urban Versus Non Urban Uses: A seemingly minor but key difference between the
existing County ULL requirements (as adopted by the voters in 1990) and the
proposed ballot language, is the question of what can be developed outside the ULL.
The current language contains wording defining with some level of precision what
can be developed outside the ULL, which it defines as "non urban"uses. The
proposed ballot measure has dropped this language, presumably leaving it up to the
Board of Supervisors, and not the voters, to determine the type and intensity of
development that can happen outside the ULL. This raises the possibility of
increased development outside the ULL, over and above what is allowed by the
current ULL. The Negative Declaration does not identify or address this issue.
■ 65/35 Requirement: Both the existing and proposed ULL implementation standards
require strict adherence to the 65/35 requirement, where a minimum of 65% of the
land in the entire County (including all land inside and outside city boundaries) must
be in"non urban" uses, while a maximum of 35% of the land may be in urban uses.
A common misconception is that the 65/35 refers to the ratio of land that is outside
versus inside the ULL. That is definitely not the case, as the current ratio of land
outside/inside the ULL is approximately 54/46, which is obviously less that 65/35.
The reason for this discrepancy (and confusion) is that the 65/35 requirement is based
on actual land use, and not the location of the ULL. Based on information on the
County web site (last updated in June 2000)the ratio of urban to non urban land use
is 69.5/30.5, which more than meets the 65/35 requirement. However, this land use
ratio is now likely much closer to 65/35, given the development that has occurred
over the last 6 years (both in the County and inside city boundaries).
What the Negative Declaration fails to do in the Land Use Section, is to update from
the year 2000 the current status of the ratio of"non urban" to urban uses. How much
more development can occur if the voters agree to extend the ULL for 20 years while
maintaining the 65/35 ratio? No information is provided. A related and equally
relevant question is what happens in the case of cities that utilize the approved
County ULL to achieve their Measure J ULL compliance requirement? As you are
aware, CCTA recently approved changes to the Measure J provisions to allow cities
to use the County ULL for Measure J compliance if, 1) the County ULL is approved
by voters countywide, 2) a majority of the voters in that jurisdiction vote to approve
the County ULL, and 3) a majority of City Council members of that jurisdiction vote
to adopt the County ULL. An issue not addressed in the Negative Declaration is the
potential land use implications for any such City utilizing the County ULL for
3
Measure J compliance, if the County allows development to move forward on land
inside the ULL (such as Bethel Island) causing the 65/35 threshold to be reached.
Will such cities be allowed to develop inside their existing boundaries, or will they be
"frozen" in place? Right now the Negative Declaration under land use just states
"no impact".
We realize that an Urban Limit Line is a bit of a conundrum to address from a CEQA
perspective, as it resides in the grey area between a planning study and a discretionary
entitlement. However, it does seem the environmental documentation could be more
illuminating on the implications of voting to extend the ULL for another 20 years. In any
case we are looking forward to reviewing a revised environmental document.
Sincerely,
VICTOR CARNIGLIA
Deputy Director of Community Development
cc: Mayor and City Council Members
Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors
Donna Landeris, City of Brentwood
Karen Majors, City of Oakley
Lou Ann Texiera, LAFCO
4
Attachment "D": Confirmation Letters from State
Clearinghouse
`1k of P�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
r Governor's Office of Planning and Research
s
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit �r+rFOFCAUF����"
Arnold Schwarzenegger Sean Walsh
Governor (, 'f Director
June 29, 2006
Patrick Roche
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553
Subject: November 7,2006 General Election Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line,County
Files GP#06-001 and ZT#06-001
SCH#: 2006012134
Dear Patrick Roche:
The enclosed comment(s)on your Negative Declaration was(were)received by the State Clearinghouse
after the.end of the state review period,which closed on June 28,2006. We are forwarding these comments
to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental
document.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However,we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project.
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project,please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number(2006012134)when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
DELTA PROTECTION COMMISSION ,
14215 RIVER ROAD
P.O. BOX 530
WALNUT GROVE, CA 95690
Phone (916) 776-2290
FAX.(916) 776-2293
E-Mail: dpc@citlink.net Home Page: www.delta.ca.gov
RECEI�/E® ' '�
June 27, 2006 JUN 2 9 2006
Vol
STATE CLEARING HOUSE Vu-
State Clearinghouse
P. O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Project Manager:
SUBJECT: 'Negative Declaration for the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot
Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line, (SCH #2006012134)
The staff of the Delta Protection Commission (Commission) has reviewed the subject
document dated May 26, 2006. From the information provided, it appears that the
proposed action would not directly involve areas within the Primary and Secondary
Zones of the Legal Delta. Therefore, such action for approval or denial would not be
subject to appeal to the Commission. However, the potential for the general planning
authority that would be a result of the expansion of the Urban Limit Line to impact the
Primary and Secondary Zones should be taken into consideration as stated in the letter
provided by the Commission on February 27, 2006 (attached). Thus, the following
comments are provided as input for your analysis under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The analysis of the proposed action should provide a determination of consistency with
the Management Plan relative to potential impacts to the Primary or Secondary Zone,
particularly with respect to utilities and infrastructure, land use, agriculture, and
environment. A copy of the Management Plan is provided at the Commission's web site
www.delta.ca.gov, and staff is available to discuss the areas noted herein in greater
detail upon request.
The opportunity to provide input on the subject proposal is appreciated. As noted
above, I am available at (916) 776-2292 or at lindadpcla'�,citlink.net if you would like
further clarification with respect to the Commission's Management Plan or comments.
Sincerely,
(l
LinMdal�iack
Executive Director
cc: Patrick Roche, CCC Community Development Department
VE OF�1N 0;
STATE OF CALIFORNIAo
4 �,,
m ❑
a Governor's Office of Planning and Research 6 m
p
b
CIFOAN' State Clearinghouse and Plannin Unit � '��"��"�
f
� EOf CAttFa�
Arnold Schwarzenegger Sean Walsh
Governor _
Director
i,,.
June 29,2006
Patrick Roche
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553
Subject: November 7,2006 General Election Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line,County
Files GP#06-001 and ZT#06-001
SCH#: 2006012134
Dear Patrick Roche:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on June 28,2006,and no state agencies submitted comments by that
date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements
for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality.Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Since ly,
Terry Roberts
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323.3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2006012134
Project Title November 7,2006 Gonono|BeoUnn Ballot Measure Regarding the Urban Limit Line, County Files
Lead Agency GP#OG-DO1and ZT#OO'UO1
Contra Costa County Community Development
Type NnQ Negative Declaration
Description A proposed countywide ballot measure for the November 7,2006 General Election to extend the term
of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and establish new procedures for voter approval
onexpansion of the County Urban Limit Line,aasponsored bythe Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors(County Files:GP#O0'OOD1and ZT#V0'DOU1).
Lead Agency Contact
Name Patrick Roche
Agency Contra Costa County Community Development
Phone (925)335-1242 Fax
email
Address G51Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
City Martinez State CA Zip 94553
Project Location
County
city
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to/
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use K4u/bp|a/Vohoun
Project Issues [8hor|aouen
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3;Delta -
Agencies Protection Commission;Department of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission; Department of Water Resources;California Highway Patrol; Caltrans,
District 4; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control
Board,Region 2; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5(Sacramento); Native American
Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission
Date Received 05/302006 Start of Review 05S0/2006 End oyReview 06/202006
Note: Blanks indata fields result from insufficient information provided bylead agency.