HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10272003 - URBAN LIMIT f
NOTICE _°)< MEETING
C0NS . COUNTY
M0N'Dt-,. , _.:.K: 2 2003
BOARD OF SUPv=:'1< `? !:; ;^,rr:.hERS, ROOM 107
MAIN ADU �ti BUILDING
v .
TOPIC: URBAN { ;> " TER INITIATIVE
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
3. DISCUSSION:
CONSIDER T rRBAN LIMIT LINE VOTER
INITIATIVE V1f l . U RIE VOTER APPROVAL FOR
EXPANSION Qi ,.';S URBAN LIMIT LINE
4. ADJOURNMENT
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR P RS;' 1fzS PLANNING TO ATTEND THIS MEETING
WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST MA r; \C. FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING
THIS MEETING OR FOR REASONABLE ACCO .-' : cZSON WITH DISABILITIES PLANNING TO
ATTEND THIS MEETING,CONTACT PATR':CK RCCH: COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT,AT 335-1242.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 27, 2003
On this date, the Board of Supervisors conducted a special meeting regarding the Urban Limit
Line Voter Initiative which would require voter approval for expansion of the County's Urban
Limit Line.
Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development Department presented the staff report.
The following people presented testimony to the Board:
Helen Allen,Vice Mayor, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord;
Susan Bonilla, Councilmember, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord;
Charlie Abrams, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Walnut Creek;
Julie Pierce, Shaping our Future, 1526 Haviland Place, Clayton;
Brian Swisher,Mayor, City of Brentwood, 1.539 Autumn Valley Way, Brentwood;
Donald P. Freitas,Mayor, City of Antioch, 2408 Whitetail Drive, Antioch;
Ed James, City Manager, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive,Concord;
Lori Salmack, Town ofMoraga, 350 Rheem Blvd.,Moraga;
Jim Blickenstaff, Mt. Diablo Sierra Club,2410 Tolavera Drive, San Ramon;
Ed Shaffer, Contra Costa Council, 2033 N. Main Street, #800, Walnut Creek;
Linda Best, Contra Costa Economic Partnership, 1320 Arnold Drive,#167, Martinez;
Marilynne Mellander, 7010 Monte Verde Drive, El Sobrante;
Julian Frazer
Laura Hoff neister, Concord City Council
Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo, 61 Kevin Court, Walnut Creek.
The following persons called in to present testimony to the Board:
Ralph.Hoffman, Danville;
Ralph Hernandez,Antioch;
Paul Cooney, Antioch;
Norma Hernandez, former City Council member,Antioch;
Angel Sudario, former City Council member, Antioch.
After public testimony, the Board then adjourned to the October 28, 2003 regular Board of
Supervisors meeting.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN
i
PREL1AMIARY DRAFT FOR DrSCUSSMAI PURPOSE5 ONLY
♦ OTER APPROVAL AL .R OR EXPANSION
OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
Shah the People of the County of Contra Costa enact an ordinance amending
the Land Use Element of the Contra County General Flan (19952010) and
the 65135 Land Preservation Flan Ordinance (Contra Costa County
Ordinance Cede, Chapter 82--1) to require voter approval by majority vote
for an expansion of the urban Limit Line of more than ten (10) acres?
TEXT FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as fellows:
Section 1. Title
This ordinance shalt be entitled the Voter Approval for Expansion of the
Urban Limit Line.
Section 2. Summary
This Ordinance amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (1995-2010) and the 65135 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance to require that any expansion of the Urban Limit Line of more
than ten (10) acres approved by the Board of Supervisors be ratified by a
majority vote of the people at a countywide election before it becomes
effective.
1
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Section 3. Statement of Purpose and Findings
The voters approve this ordinance based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C: the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance which established
that urban development-in Contra Costa County would be limited to no more
than thirty-five (35)percent of the land in the County and at least sixty five
(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 an Urban Limit Line to ensure preservation of identified
non-urban agricultural, open space, and other area by establishing a line
beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the term of the
General Plan, and to facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 land
preservation standard. At page 3-15, Land Use Element, Contra Costa
County General Plan, and at Section 82-1.018, Chapter 82-1, there is
described the procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by voter referendum. To provide
additional protection to the.County's non-urban and open space areas, as
well as the 65/35 land preservation standard, this ordinance would add the
requirement that, until December 31, 2010, the voters of Contra Costa
County must approve, by majority vote, any change by the Board of
Supervisors to the Urban Limit Line that expands of the Urban Limit Line
by more than ten (10) acres, before that change can become effective.
2
PRELMINA RY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONI Y
.Section 4. Implementation
To implement this ordinance, page 3-15 of the Land Use Element of the
Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010) and Section 82-1.018 of
Chapter 82-1, 55/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra Costa
County Ordinance Code are amended as follows:
At page 3-15, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-
2010), under the subheading "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE"
the following sentence is added:
"If the Beard of Supervisors approves an expansion of the
Urban Limit .Line of more than ten (10) acres, this change to
the Urban Limit Line will be subject to voter approval by a
majority vote before the change- will become effective, unless,
by a 4/5 vote c�a f'the Board of Supervisors after a public hearing,
one of the following findings is made, based on substantial
evidence in the record: (i) that 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. "
To be consistent with the amended text in the General Plan, Section 82-
1.018, Changes to the Urban Limit Line, of Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code is amended by
adding the following subsection (c).
"82-1.018 (c) If the Board of Supervisors approves an
expansion to the Urban Limit Line that of more than ten (10)
acres, this change to the Urban Limit Zine will be subject to
voter approval by a majority vote before the change will
become effective, unless by 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors
3
PRELIMINARY DRAFr FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
after a public hearing, makes one of the following f ridings is
made, based on substantial evidence in the record: (i)-that 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.
Section 5. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Upon the effective date, the provisions of Section 4. A) of this
ordinance are inserted into the Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-
2410), as one of the four consolidated general plan amendments for calendar
year 2004 allowed under state law and the provisions of Section 4.B) of this
ordinance are added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code as Section
82-1.018 (c ).
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.
4
.................... _ -
__ ..
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES OM
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.
5
:.X...............................................
................
PREUMINA'RY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
VOTER APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION
OF THE URBAN LINT LINE
Shall the People of the County of Contra Costa enact an ordinance amending
the Land Use Element of the Contra County General Plan (1995-2010) and
the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to require voter approval by majority vote
for an expansion of the Urban Limit Line of more than ten (10) acres?
TEXT FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Title
This ordinance shall be entitled the Voter Approval for Expansion of the
Urban Limit Line.
Section 2. Summary
This Ordinance amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (1995-2010) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance to require that any expansion of the Urban Limit Line of more
than ten (10) acres approved by the Board of Supervisors be ratified by a
majority vote of the people at a countywide election before it becomes
effective.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT" FOR DISCU55ION PURP05ES ONL Y
Section 3. Statement of Purpose and Findings
The voters approve this ordinance based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C: the 65135
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance which established
that urban development in Contra Costa County would be limited to no more
than thirty-five (35) percent of the land in the County and at least sixty five
(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 an Urban Limit Line to ensure preservation of identified
non-urban agricultural, open space, and other area by establishing a line
beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the term of the
General Plan, and to facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 land
preservation standard. At page 3-15, Land Use Element, Contra Costa
County General Plan, and at Section 82-1.018, Chapter 82-1, there is
described the procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by voter referendum. To provide
additional protection to the County's non-urban and open space areas, as
well as the 65/35 land preservation standard, this ordinance would add the
requirement that, until December 31, 2010, the voters of Contra Costa
County must approve, by majority vote, any change by the Board of
Supervisors to the Urban Limit Line that expands of the Urban Limit Line
by more than ten (10) acres, before that change can become effective.
2
................................. .
PRFLI.MI'NARY DPAf r FOR DISCusst AI PURPOSE5 ONLY
Section 4. IMplementation
To implement this ordinance, page 3-15 of the Land Use Element of the
Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010) and Section 82-1.018 of
Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation flan Ordinance, Contra Costa
County Ordinance Code are amended as follows:
At page 3-15, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-
20 10),
1995-2010), under the subheading "CHANCES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE"
the following sentence is added:
"7,f' the Board of Supervisors approves an expansion of the
Urban Limit Line of more than ten (10) acres, this change to
the Urban Limit Line will be subject to voter approval by a
majority vote before the change will become effective, unless,
by a 415 vote of the Board of Supervisors after a public hearing,
one o,f' the following findings is made, based on substantial
evidence in the record: (i) that 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. "
To be consistent with the amended text in the General Plan, Section 82-
1.018, Changes to the Urban Limit Line, of Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code is amended by
adding the following subsection (c):
"82-1.018 (c) If the Board of Supervisors approves an
expansion to the Urban .Limit Line that of more than ten (10)
acres, this change to the Urban Limit Line will be subject to
voter approval by a majority vote before the change will
become effective, unless by 415 vote of the Board of Supervisors
3
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONL Y
after a public hearing, makes one of the following findings is
made, based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) that 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. "
Section S. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Upon the effective date, the provisions of Section 4. A) of this
ordinance are inserted into the Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-
2010), as one of the four consolidated general plan amendments for calendar
year 2004 allowed under state lave and the provisions of Section 43) of this
ordinance are added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code as Section
82-1.018 (c ).
Section 5. 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.
4
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSroN PURPOSES ONLY
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.
5
Daryl Hoon in Livermore
I do support putting it on the ballot for the voters to decide. They
should have put a ULL on before Dougherty Valley. Cour traffic is
going to be a mess once Dougherty Valley is fully developed.
1V�L t�6U4J 1� ,atV i•'?A aa., �vt rvuv waa,..,..a .,w..,a...
p.p. box 2000 14 (altorindca road orincdo coiifomio 94563
October 27,2003
Honorable Mark DeSaulnier
Chair,Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California.94553
Dear Chair DeSaulnier:
On behalf of the Orinda City Council,I would like to express my appreciation for the Board's
leadership in addressing issues surrounding the urban limit line. The City of Orinda believes that
the urban limit line represents an important policy instrument for effective growth management,
and believes that the issue deserves informed discussion.
As you know, the County and its nineteen cities have been working together on the Contra Carta
—Shaping our Future project,which has resulted in the development of Principles of Agreement
that were approved by the project's Policy Committee. At its meeting of October 21'`,the Orinda
City Council adopted by unanimous vote a resolution in support of these important Principles as
representing the collective vision for growth management in Contra Costa County.
The Shaping our Future Principles of Agreement include important statements regarding the
urban limit line. Among these statements are,
One agreed upon"line"should be adopted that works for both the
County and local municipalities. City boundaries and the ULL,are
considered coterminous in those cases where the existing UL.L lies
within a city boundary unless a city has taken official action to
move the'ULL within its city boundaries.
Inherent in these statements are two important planning values. First,the County and the cities
need to continue to make a good faith effort to resolve any existing disagreements concerning
where the urban limit line should be drawn. The Orinda City Council believes that such a
concerted effort will lead to"one agreed upon line that works for both the County and local
municipalities." We also believe that this effort has not yet been completed to the extent that the
existing line should be trade part of new legislation. Second,the existing urban;limit line may
need to be adjusted to reflect cities' land use policies for areas within their municipal boundaries,
i9�e,ne,rol lralormtSioe lltdminlstrnttoa Pksantr►g Parks a Re,croaHon Police, Ptrblk Works
(925)253.4200(ph) (925)253-4220(ph) (M)253.4910(ph) (925)254.2445(Ph) (925)254.6820(ph) (925)253.4,231 (ph)
(925)254-9159(fax) (925)254.2068(fax) (925)253.7719(fox) (925)253.7716(fox) (925)254-9158(fox) (925)253.7699(fax)
11lC r .Guvu i t:i3U rasa ncu cuK cuuu va�aa•aria r.,,m b,.• •ce+••�—• ---
Honorable Marg DeSaulnier
October 27,2003
Page 2
and cities should be given the time and opportunity to review and adjust the existing line within
their boundaries. We believe that,once cities are given this opportunity,"the eventually
amended and adopted line should be committed to for a longer period of time,in the range of 15
—20 years,"consistent with the Shaping our Future Principles of Agreement.
In sum,the Orinda City Council would urge that the County and cities continue to work toward
`one agreed upon`line"'prior to placing an urban limit line voter initiative on the ballot. Once
such a line has been developed,we would support legislation that would strengthen its role as a
growth management tool.
Thank you again for addressing this important issue on behalf ofthe residents of Contra Costa
County.
Sincerely,
Laura Abrams
Mayor
cc. Supervisor Gayle Uilkema,District 2
10-2x•03 10:24 From-City of Lafayette 525 214 sits T-518 P-003/003 F526
MY exutwM
ca rw raxA qw,Mww
,y ttcrn,Vieya herrex
e�+iAndwt
k�w asnyan
LA.FAYEM ttts►,tarsxin
�emaw...raeoraa�utsm
} i September 2,2043
� I
Chair Mark De Soultuar
{ Contra Ceram Board OfSupe msors
651 Fine Street,Room 106
Lafayette,CA 34553.4069
Rey Urban.Limit Line(ULf,1
s }
{ ( Beat'Chwr De5aulme:
iE
on Septernbeer 15e',you will consider the draft Urban L.invt Line voter initiative arul a cuff
mpan prepared by the County's Coe owity Development Dqmu=t The stafftepetrt
1 pre vicks a tentative schedule for placing the vow katisf a on the March 2044 ballot,and
! I indicates that the Board of Supervisors nmt approve the final wording of the itiinat ve by
November 4,2003.Additionally,to mpettrt cautiomt that slioWd*A i n itiatm e coatain
` E ties»a shWle addition of it procedural reqtirenmt for vow TaOcNticn of@te M1,,,an
argument could be mark that the initiative could have a sigifumt e#f`eat an the eenvirtt=Mt.
t As an ctswple,wwadM tht Ur'=Limit Line would triggtt°the need for ww==W
revitw,which wowd require three and pold pmt the initiative fim be;m placed an ft
Mardi 2004 ballot.
I As part of the Shaping Our Futz a exercise,the County sod the nineteen imisdiefimis have
i spent at least a year and a htrlf w orleing together to develop consensus on a variety of ww*Ih-
related issues.The mnetem June et ons have,in good faint.,presented their cone m and
sugoestions for nmdifyi ns the ULL to the mmltents.In Labyettc's cam.we have asked for
! minor a4justznents to the ULL to malar tate line coterminous with the City boundodes.We are
yet to receive a response to our ULL comnerits from eidw the consultaM or the County.
It is therdore premature for a ULL voter iriitiativt to be placexi on the ballot,especially ow
that nukes no modifics6ons to the boundary lister.Befbre the Board ofSupervisors begins
discussions on the initiative,I wV you to please respond to the:comtne nts made by the Cerritos
Costs jurisdictions.
Sinm*,
i .
Carol Fcdeti&
1 Mayor
Cc:Sttpervisr Gayle Uel CM
Lsfatyctte City Council
j �.........___....... ...... .._..__......, ...__......._... ,.. teo�rre»�t�atsxyacs
�.... __..... .. 367$Mtfi I ASLO ALVD,shores 2tet,LAIPiI'YS'TE.,G"Ul4 -IOU
_ 4'nitrwom(926)21 ime ]PAX:(OM 2"0
http//-www.ti.inhycmxa.us
10-2t•03 10:24 From-City of lafayette 036 2114 3199 T-519 P-M/003 F-B2O
WTY COUNCIL
GNat fadyftN'Mayor
elft Hem,Vim Mayor
Car!Andwi
A W
LAF.�"� IN ro,rIvoto"
1 e
October 20.2003
Chi Mark De Saultuer
Contra Costa Board of Sup sons
651 Me Street: Room 106
Laky ,CA 945534058
I
Re. urban Lh"it Lure(TU)clic Hear-ing
Dear Chair DeSaulmer:
Thi you for notifying us of the October 27°'bearing can the Urbaa Lknit Line;we
appreciate the Board of Supervisors'itlterest in receiving input froom local
jurisdictions.As your hearing falls on the saim evening as our regularly scheduled
City Council meeting,we gill not be,able to participate in the meeting..
On September 2.2003,T forwarded a letter to you coritaimg LaMyctte's position on
the Urban Limit Lune.A copy of that letter is t�i
To smut ize our comments,I
believe that it is prMatum for allLL voter inbe placed on the Marchballot,
especially one that makes no modifications to the bot ndary lines.Before the Board of
Supervisors begins dimzsions on the initiative,I once again ur9P you to please
(
respond to the comments made by the Contra Costa jurisdictions.
Sincerely,
Carol Federighi
' Mayor
Cc:Supervisor Gayle'Uilkelna
1 Lafayette city Council
I1
f
I �
f
I
i
t �
POST OY'FICIt 3lUX 1966
_.. .. 3695 MT DI"LO BLVD.,SUITE Z!0.LA X&YETt7,CA 94549.1965
TELfF'k ONRi(936)2M-I%$ FAX:(925)984.1169
httVt/:www.ci.iafaycttcxa.us
C Zown of Mora8a
2'OC, DONALD DRIVE
1 n�0. BOX b€8
'—'A 34556
y, :325' -6--2590
October 27, 2003
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Fine Street.Room 106
Martinez,CA 94553-4068
Re: Urban Limit Line ( ILL)
Dear Chairman DeSaulnier and Supervisors:
On October 22, 2003,the Moraga Town Council considered the Board's proposal to place
a ballot measure on the March 2004 ballot, which would require voter approval of any
expansion of the Urban Limit Line greater than 10 acres. The purpose of this letter is to
inform you that the Town of Moraga is opposed to the current Board proposal because
placing this matter on the March 2004 ballot will not allow sufficient time to study the
implications of this action and other related growth management efforts such as Shaping
Our Future and the reauthorization of Measure C. While the Town of Moraga does not
support this Board action at this time,the Town does support efforts to make the line
coterminous with the Town boundary.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Sinceyely,
Lori Landis `
Mayor
Cc: St. Mary's College
OCT 7 2003
2-1
October 27, 21703
The Honorable Mark De Saulnier, Chairman
And Member of the Board
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Fine St.
Martinez,CA 94553
Dear Chairman De Saulnier and Members of the Board:
The Contra Costa Economic Partnership urges the Board not to place on the March ballot the
proposed measure to require changes in the Urban Limit Line be approved by voters.
The Urban Limit Line was approved by the voters in 1990 and delegates to the Board of
Supervisors the responsibility to manage that line in accordance with the County's needs and
changing conditions. Changes cannot be made to the line without a super majority vote
of the Board and without significant findings for such changes. The issues surrounding any
modifications can be extremely complex,requiring substantial analysis. They are not issues that
should be made through ballot box planning,which cannot adequately communicate to the voters
those complexities. They should remain with you,our elected representatives.
In particular,the ability of the County to provide adequate housing affordable to our growing
workforce is a serious challenge that is assuming crisis proportions. As 25%of our workforce
approach retirement in the next decade, it will only worsen. By requiring that any changes in the
Urban Limit Line go to the voters,you lose the flexibility you need to deal with that challenge.
We are also concerned that taking this action at this time undermines the ability to adopt a
comprehensive and collaborative approach to future growth in the County,as embodied in the
principles in Shaping Our Future. It may also compromise our ability to renew the Measure C
Sales Tax for Transportation. These two issues are clearly linked and must be addressed together.
Rather than placing this measure on the ballot at this time,we recommend that you lead an effort
to engage all stakeholders in a process to resolve the issues surrounding the Urban Limit Line and
arrive at a consensus that will guide a"smart growth"future for our County that will sustain our
economic vitality.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Linda Best
Executive Director
1320 ARNOLD CXNE, SUITE '167 • lv PTNEZ, CA 94553 + (925( 957-25701 • FAx (925) 9579723 • Emm ccep@cceconpt.ir.org
6CITY Covxcix.
TY of CONGO"
1980 Parkside Drive,MS/01 Mark A.Peterson,Mayor
Mayor
Concord,California 94513-2578 Helen M.Allen,Vice Ma' I�:,i ,/' y
Silfah Bonilla
FAx: (925) 798-0636
Laura M.Hoffmeister
w Bill McManigal
OFFICE OF THE CrrY M,4JNAeFst Mary Rae Lehman,City Clerk
Telephone: (925)671-3150 one 'Thomas Wending,Cin,Treasurer
Edward R.James,City Manager
October 22,2003
RECEIVED
OCT 2 4 2003
Mark DeSaulnier,Chair
Contra Costa County CLERK 80ARl3 OF SUPER -iSORS
Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA DO.
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street,Room 106
Martinez,CA 94553-4068
RE: proposed Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Dear Mark:
Deference is made to your letter of October 14, 2003, regarding the proposed ballot
measure that will ask voters if they support a new requirement for changes to the Urban
Limit Line. The Board of Supervisors has scheduled a special meeting on October 27,
2003 for the sole purpose of receiving public comment on this proposal.
As you know,the Policy Committee for Shaping Our Future (SOF)has approved a set of
principles, which serves as the foundation for moving ahead with the SOF project. The
Committee has asked all 19 cities and the County to consider adopting the Principles of
Agreement. The Concord City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the
Principles at its meeting of October 28, 2003. The staff report for this item is enclosed
for your information. Please note that in addition to considering the SOF Principles, the
Council is being asked to urge the Board of Supervisors to take action to reconcile the
language of the proposed ballot measure with the language of the Principles as it relates
to the Urban Limit Line.
The first principle, in part:, states that "city boundaries and the Urban Limit Line (ULL)
are considered coterminods in those cases where the existing ULL lies within the city
boundary unless a city has taken official action to move the ULL within its boundaries."
The proposed ballot measure does not include such language, and should it be passed by
the voters,will create an awkward situation for many cities in the county.
Concord has not taken a position on the proposed ballot measure; however, should the
Board of Supervisors move this proposal forward, the language must be clarified so as
not to create further confusion on this important issue.
D.
e-mail: cir�info4ci.concord.ca.us • website:www.cityofconcord.org
t t
Honorable Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
October 22,2003
Page Two
The September 22, 2003, letter from Supervisor Millie Greenberg to the SOF Policy
Committee recommending to "correct the intrusion of the ULL into the unincorporated
boundaries of cities" is a good approach to begin solving the differences between
numerous cities and the County, and to move the SOF process forward in a positive
manner.
Much time and energy has been spent attempting to build consensus on the SOF project
by numerous agencies and individuals. The County Board of Supervisors now has an
opportunity to display a good faith effort by reconciling the ULL as described in the SOF
Principles of Agreement, and as recommended in Supervisor Greenberg's letter.
Your favorable consideration will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Edward R. James
City Manager
Attachment
cc: Members of the County Board of Supervisors
Mayor and Members of the Concord City Council
Lydia Du Borg,Assistant City Manager
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
AGFA rIEM No.1
conemm- REPOR110 R AI COUNCIL
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
BATE: October 28,2003
SUBS: SHAPING OUR FUTURE PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT
Renart in Brief
The City Council is beim asked to review, consider and approve the Shaping Our Future (SOF) Principles of
Agreement. The SOF Policy Committee has completed its work on the Principles of Agreement and has
forwarded this document to all 19 cities and the County for their consideration and approval. The Principles of
Agreement document incorporates the concept of the SOF vision for future countywide growth and development
and serves as the foundation for moving ahead with the SOF project.
During the last two years, the City of Concord has been participating in the SOF project that is a collaborative
effort from all 19 cities and the County to develop a future vision and a comprehensive approach to growth
management within Contra Costa County. The mission of the SOF project is to "develop a community-based,
unified vision and implementation strategies to guide the growth and development, while preserving and
enhancing the quality of life for all Contra Costans".
The SOF project utilizes a Smart Growth Strategy that balances and coordinates regional growth in concert with
transportation enhancements, while taking into account local current general plans. The SOF vision looks to
accommodate projected growth along major transportation corridors and existing downtown "centers" on bath
vacant and infill land. The SOF plan makes efficient use of buildable land while preserving open space and
agricultural land, addressing the jobs-housing balance, social equity issues, and providing more housing
opportunities.
The final implementation strategy of the SOF project is the development of a compact that contains the specifics
of implementing the vision. The compact would be developed only if there is a basic agreement in principle by a
majority of cities and the County that the vision is appropriate for the future of Contra Costa County.The City
Council would be asked at a later date to adopt this voluntary agreement.
The County Board of Supervisors is currently preparing a measure to be placed on the March 2, 2004.ballot that
would prohibit the expansion of the Urban Limit Line(ULL)without a majority voter approval.The ULL voter
initiative describes a measure to be placed on the March 2, 2004 ballot that would prohibit the expansion of the
LLL without a majority voter approval. This measure proposes an additional procedural requirement for voter
approval of an outward expansion of ULL boundaries of more than ten(10)acres.There is no language currently
proposed to realign the ULL where it is drawn within city boundaries so that it would coincide with that city's
boundary,thus rendering the proposed ballot measure to be in conflict with the SOF's Principles of Agreement.
Staff recommends that City Council accept the staff report, review the material provided, hear public comment
and take action to support the SOF vision for growth in the county by adopting Resolution No.03-62(Exhibit A)
SHAPING OUR FUTURE
PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT
-f)ctober 28,2003
Page 2
that would approve the Principles of Agreement(Exhibit B). It is further requested that the City Council forward
a letter(Exhibit F) to the Board of Supervisors that would indicate the City's support for the SOF Principles of
Agreement regarding the ULL, support the concepts outlined in Supervisor Millie Greenberg's letter to SOF
Policy Committee members (Exhibit E), and recommend that the Board of Supervisors take separate action to
reconcile the voter initiative with the SOF project.
Background
On November 13, 2001, the City Council approved the City's participation in the SOF project and appropriated
the City's proportionate share of the cost to perform the SOF study. 'Mice Mayor Helen Allen was appointed to
represent the City on the Policy-Committee that has guided the project and overall ongoing work efforts.The SOF
Policy Committee asked the City of Concord to act as the fiscal agent on behalf of the cities and County, and to
execute the agreement with a consultant to perform the SOF study. In January 2002,the City acting as the fiscal
agent on behalf of the cities and County, contracted the services of Fregonese Calthorpe and Associates,LLC to
conduct the SOF Project.
In Spring 2002, an opinion research firm conducted a series of small group discussions and a telephone survey of
Contra Costa residents. The survey highlighted the following areas of concern: traffic congestion; using open
space for new development; new investments in mass transit that need to demonstrate the ability to reduce
congestion;and the ability to maintain a high quality of life.
In May 2002, a countywide visioning workshop was held and was followed in late May and early June by five
sub-regional workshops. Over 600 participants attended these workshops. Each workshop included a hands-on
mapping exercise that allowed participants to place"development types"on maps signifying where growth should
occur in Contra Costa. Based on the results from the survey and workshops, the SUP project team developed an
initial draft concept growth scenario of where the next 20 years'growth could be accommodated in the region.
In late summer,fall and winter,a series of meetings were held with the Management and Oversight corninitte m of
SOF, stakeholders, local interest groups,citizens and local city planners to gather feedback. In conjunction with
the feedback,transportation modeling was conducted to test the effectiveness of the SOF land use pattern.
In Spring 2003,there were two workshops held to review and gather feedback on the SOF vision and to discuss
the implementation plan to carry the project forward. One workshop focused on citizen participants' feedback
and the other on local government feedback. All refinements and revisions to the draft vision were incorporated
during the planning process and synthesized into the final SOF Vision summary and map(Exhibit Q.
Discussion
SOF Project Process
The SOF project utilizes a Smart Growth Strategy approach that balances and coordinates regional growth in
concert with transportation enhancements and looks at alternative growth options for the next 20 years. The
process used by SOF project consultant Fregonese-Calthorpe in developing the SOF vision was community based
with numerous interactive workshops, public opinion focus groups and polling, several key workshops for
feedback and reaction. The premise was that through the collaboration and cooperation of all cities and the
SHAPING OUR FUTURE
PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT
- '- October 28,2003
Page 3
County, and by looping at the impacts of growth, there might be a new pattern of growth emerging for
consideration in the future.
Throughout the SOF process it has been made very clear that SOF is a voluntary effort and that nothing contained
in the SOF vision or its implementing documents would require a city or the County to take any action that it
determines to be not in its interest. Endorsement of the SOF vision does not prevent cities and the County from
withdrawing support should the ongoing work move in a direction that would not be acceptable to the local
governmental agency.The City has supported this approach of a voluntary joint effort on this project.
SOF Vision Document and Map
The SOF vision document and map (Exhibit C) are the cumulative products of the project that incorporate the
collaborative contributions, feedback and critique from citizens, stakeholders, policymakers, and local area
planners. The analysis of all the compiled information that include surveys, workshops and numerous meetings
have been synthesized into these two documents. The SOF vision is summarized in the June 2003 Vision
Summary document(Exhibit Q.
The SOF vision map indicates the location of a future conceptual pattern of urbanization that will allow
jurisdictions in Contra Costa to manage growth, and shows where major regional centers, town centers, and
village centers are envisioned in the course of the next 20 years.
SOF City Profile for Concord
The SOF vision provides a 24-year forecast that incorporates a profile for each individual jurisdiction and the
County(Exhibit D;jurisdictions listed in alphabetical order). The SCF profile for Concord envisions that the City
would continue to be a major regional center over the next 20 years with the downtown area experiencing
continuedreinvestment. Since the City is primarily built out, with a very limited amount of vacant land to be
developed, the SOF vision scenario anticipates alignment of the Urban Urnit Line to encompass the Concord
Naval Weapon Staticin (CNWS).The redevelopment of the CNWS land using smart growth principles would be
able to provide adequate space to accommodate anticipated housing and employment growth for the long term
forecast. 'The SOF profile for Concord indicates that with the potential to develop a mix of housing and jobs in
downtown Concord, and room for future growth on the CNWS property, the City is poised for healthy and
balanced growth in the next 20 years.
SOF Principles of Agreement
The Principles of Agreement provides the foundation for moving forward with the Shaping Our Future project.
The Principles of Agreement encourages a continuation of dialogue among local jurisdictions in the effort to reach
agreement on a compact that would be approved and signed by a majority of local governmental agencies within
the next 6-9 months. The Principles of Agreement are broken down into the following key topics:
• Urban Limit Line
• Open Space
• General Plans and Zoning Maps
• Land Use and Transportation Connection
S.
SHAPING OUR FUTURE
PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT
-0ctober 28,2003
_ Page 4
« Economic Development
* Housing Elements
* Reinvestment and Infill Development
• Social Equity
+ School District Coordination
+ Common Database for Growth Information
+ Common Voice
• Common Vision,and
• Timeline for Resolution and Entering into a Compact
At the October 1,2003 SOF Policy Committee, City representative Vice Mayer Helen Allen made a motion to
adopt the Principles of Agreement which was seconded by District III Supervisor Millie Greenberg. The Policy
Committee discussed the item and then unanimously approved the Principles of Agreement.
Urban Limit Line
The first Principle in the Principles of Agreement document states that"City boundaries and the Urban Limit Line
(ULL)are considered coterminous in those cases where the existing ULL lies within a city boundary unless a city
has taken official action to move the UI.L within its city boundaries". This principle has been highlighted by
Supervisor Millie Greenberg in a letter dated September 22, 2003 to the members of the SOF Policy Committee
(Exhibit E).In the letter,she states that she has asked the Beard to consider correcting the ULL in those instances
where the ULL boundary is actually inside a jurisdiction's corporate limits. This proposal has not yet been
discussed by the Board of Supervisors.
The County Board of Supervisors is currently preparing a measure to be placed on the March 2,2004 ballot that
would prohibit the expansion of the Urban Limit Line without a majority voter approval. This measure proposes
an additional procedural requirement for voter approval of an outward expansion of ULL boundaries of more than
ten (10) acres. However, there is no language currently proposed to realign the ULL where it lies within city
boundaries so that it would'match city boundaries, thus rendering the proposed ballot measure to be in conflict
with SOF's Principles of Arent. While the City Attorney has confin-ned that any such ballot measure
reaffirming the existing ULL boundaries does not change the City's land use authority over the CNWS site, the
ballot measure remains in conflict with the SOF project,plus it does not address service district annexation issues
should property outside of the County ULL but inside City limits become available for development.
At the Board of Supervisor's October 14, 2003 meeting,the Board decided to host a countywide public meeting
on October 27, 2003 at 7 p.m. in the Supervisors' Chamber in Martinez to receive public input on the ULL voter
initiative. That meeting will take place prior to the Concord City Council action recommended in this report.
Staff has prepared a draft letter(Exhibit F)to the:Board of Supervisors that would indicate the City's support for
the SOF Principles of Agreement regarding the ULL, support the concepts outlined in Supervisor Millie
Greenberg's letter, and recommend that the.Board of Supervisors take action to reconcile the voter initiative with
the SOF project.
In the update to Concord's General Plan currently underway, staff intends to propose relocation of the Urban
Limit Line where it falls within the City's boundary to be shown on the City's General Plan diagram as one that is
SHAPING OUR FUTURE
PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT
... October 28,2003
Page 5
coterminous with the City's boundaries and with the Sphere of Influence in the CIS WS area.This correction will
rectify any inconsistency that exists,and is in accordance with the Shaping Our Future Principles of Agreement.
The Compact
The final goal of the SOF project is the adaption of a common compact for implementation of the SOF vision for
Contra Costa County.The compact would be composed of a number of policies that require the cooperation and
coordination from the local jurisdictions and the County.The compact provides a mechanism for Contra Costa
local jurisdictions and the County to work cooperatively on important livability issues and serve as the foundation
for countywide cooperation on the critical management issues.The compact would be developed only if there is a
basic concurrence on the Principles of Agreement among the jurisdictions and County that the vision is
appropriate for the future of Contra.Costa County. The SOF process will continue to work towards the signing of
the compact by a large majority of local government agencies in Contra Costa. The City Council will be asked at
a later date to adopt a voluntary agreement or compact that will contain more specifics for implementation of the
SOF vision.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact in approving the Principles of Agreement.
Public Contact
Posting of the Council Agenda.
Recommendation for Action
It is recommended that the City Council accept the staff report, hear staff's presentation, take public testimony,
discuss the SOF project, and take action to support the SOF vision for growth in the county by adopting
Resolution No. 03-62 (Exhibit A)approving the Principles of Agreement (Exhibit B). It is further requested that
the City Council review and approve forwarding a letter (Exhibit F) to the Board of Supervisors that would
indicate the City's support for the SOF Principles of Agreement regarding the LU:,,support the concepts outlined
in Supervisor Millie Greenberes letter(Exhibit E)., and recommend that the Board of Supervisors take action to
reconcile the voter initiative with the SOF Principles of Agreement.
Prepared by: Phillip Woods
Principal Planner
ward R.James Reviewed by: Deborah Maines
City Manager Planning Manager
SHAPING OUR FUTURE
PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT
-October 28,2003
Page 6
Enclosures: Exhibit A:City Council Resolution No.03-62
Exhibit B: Shaping Our Future Principles of Agreement dated October 1,2003
Exhibit C:June 2003 Vision Summary
Exhibit D:SOF City Profiles*
Exhibit E:Millie Greenberg's Letter to SOF Policy Committee Members dated September
22,2003*
Exhibit F.Draft letter from the City to the Board of Supervisors
*Document is not available electronically.
...... ........ ....... ............................ ................................... ......................
................................................................. ......... .........................................................
............................