The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 02152005 - D4 t A 1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, District IVCosta Supervisor Federal Glover, District V County ti DATE: February 15, 2005 �oUx SUBJECT: Mutually Agreeable Urban Limit Line SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONSIDER comments from members of the Board of Supervisors regarding the status of discussions within each sub-region of the County regarding the development of a mutually agreeable Urban Limit Line (ULL). FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Following voter approval of Measure J on the November 2004 ballot, representatives of the cities and the County have been meeting in four sub-regional groups(West,Central,Southwest and East) in an attempt to fashion a mutually agreeable U LL which then may be subjected to appropriate environmental review and placement on the Countywide ballot in November 2006. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE (S): kupervisor Mark D a �_____ier Su ervisor Federal Glover ACTION OF BOARD ONAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED,_ OTHER I - �65 AP1?EAJ_'r_>tA A -F;D '90A 12 t) A<17n p VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT o CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Dennis M. Barry, AICP (9251335-1276) ATTESTED cc: County Administrator JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND Community Development Department COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MDeS\DMB:gms1ULL-mutua1 agrmt BO BY -- , DEPUTY ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA February 15, 2005 On this day,the Board of Supervisors CONSIDERED comments from Board members regarding the development of a mutually agreeable Urban Limit Line(ULL). Supervisor DeSaulnier presented a summary of the most recent Central County subregional task force meeting,noting that both Clayton and Concord are requesting moving their respective lines out from the 1990 voter-approved ULL. Supervisor DeSaulnier said he would like to develop possible compromises to Clayton and Concord's requests.For Clayton,he proposed possible County support of LAFCO annexation that would enable Clayton to receive urban services without extending the ULL.For Concord,he proposed working with Dennis Barry,Community Development Director,to develop language that would keep Concords ULL where it is,but would include a provision to trigger discussions on moving the ..line out for inclusion of the Naval Weapons Station, should the Department of Defense ever decide to surplus that land.In regard to the various circulating options for developing a mutually agreeable ULL, Supervisor DeSaulnier noted his support of Option C. Supervisor Glover noted his support of holding the current voter-approved ULL until transportation infrastructure is in place that shows measurable improvement to traffic congestion. He emphasized that improvement should be measured by congestion relief,not merely by the completion of projects. Supervisor Uilkema said that SWAT supports Option C. She proposed examining possible interrelationships between LAFCO's sphere of influence and how it could impact current ULL discussions. Supervisor Gioia responded that current ULL discussions are tied to Measure J Return to Source Funds,and that a city could annex land under LAFCO approval,but if that action is in discord with the mutually agreed upon ULL,the cost to them would be the loss of their Measure J Return to Source Funds. Mr.Barry presented staff with the background of the development on an Urban Limit Line in Contra Costa. Supervisor DeSaulnier said it would be useful to have the history of the ULL with a chronological timeline in writing before the Contra Costa Task Forces Summit meeting.Additionally,he requested a future timeline projecting the possible outcomes under the different options being proposed.He requested that this information be provided to the Board before the February 26th Summit meeting. Supervisor Piepho said she could see the Board's role in the ULL discussions as that of a mediator,to keep all the cities at the table. Supervisor Gioia noted that Measure J was developed recognizing the possibility that there might not be unanimity between the cities,and the provision for this possibility is that each city can place its line before its constituency to achieve a voter-approved ULL that would still be in compliance with the Measure J Return to Source criteria. I ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.4 February 15, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Supervisor DeSaulnier proposed that the Board shouldn't be afraid of letting the lines go before the voters,and that it is important to note that sometimes what the voters in a city want is different from what the city council members want.He stressed the importance of the Board maintaining its principles on this issue,rather than making concessions merely to keep the cities at the table. Supervisor Glover commented that compromise isn't just an issue for the Board;that all elected officials are charged with doing the will of the people.He said he would not be willing to compromise his priority of having homes where there is an infrastructure to support them. He noted that historically,the Board has taken a leadership position in holding the line. Supervisor Piepho said she would support Option C,but believes the Board needs to remain open-minded going into the summit meeting on February 26th The public was invited to address the Board.The following persons provided testimony: • Ralph A. Hernandez,Antioch resident,speaking in his capacity of Chair of Citizens for Democracy, expressed a concern that the will of Antioch council members is out of line with the desires of the city residents. • Hon.Brian Swisher,Brentwood resident,speaking in his capacity as the Mayor of Brentwood, stated that congestion relief will come from achieving a job/housing balance. • Robert Doyle, Oakland resident, speaking on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District,expressed support of Option C and suggested the effort encompass a larger vision of the County that includes the preservation of open space. • Ron Brown,Walnut Creek resident, speaking in his capacity as Executive Director of Save Mt. Diablo,expressed support of Option C. He said the ULL is part of the growth management component that was integral to both the Shaping Our Future effort and Measure J.He said there is a need to work on meeting the potential that already exists within the current line. • David Reed,Walnut Creek resident,speaking in his capacity as a representative of the Greenbelt Alliance, said the ULL discussions are really about serious traffic problems and that a failure of this project would be the failure of the congestion relief proposed to the voters in Measure J. • Mike Daly, speaking in his capacity as Conservation Director of the Sierra Club,thanked the Board for supporting the ULL.He said the only reason the Sierra Club stayed neutral on Measure J,rather than opposing it,was because of the growth management component. The Board of Supervisors took the following action by unanimous decision: RECOMMENDED staff prepare,before the February 26,2005 Contra Costa Task Forces Summit on the Urban Limit Line,background material on the history of the Urban Limit Line and a future timeline projecting possible outcomes of the different options being discussed; SUPPORTED Option C for a mutually agreed upon Urban Limit Line. . t 4 o 00 r. U " o � •►.r C- 7�, C 0 tom,. o CO CV) CO r M EMENDM r- r-: r... to: M G: q; aft k.. k•; © Y is Nr C4: by d NOW M. CT1 M tX3 O r A €' V r t•' N<e—. M CK? t`> Ota:U') J N LO iy .L :} 4Y•: h 3 z,. • o0, co o 00 00 .�.� M - ca tf) tf� tf� Ct? o= Co 0 0 co= o'o o U. �t; 'M M M cn c+r): tta <�f} Lf.� tt7 tty to>tL7 Co.. d- er M lilt M M .M LO o � U p M co r-- !�. NCO ;pMp LC) a' r U')CN !� fi to r "�> M o CX?.'� N M<C3y r ; M<CO C37;cn Csj . Q! CV CO �' Q Cp '(`•:Ct :CO: 00, LO N> M �t<+CSI M: ! 0: d' tf 7 :r-: 'M O L. N 00 to r- <C M . ;;to Cfl 00CO so00 ; ILBoom J U) p U (� }� C Q ' p R 0. cu ,Q ,r c -- CL O own C) saw 0. cu o c MENEWy.. CO U C: ~ U <U +a N Iss- !-- ;m so .� C.� C IS o C7 Z a in in wm R R C4 w q Lr) 0 U R R� W. 0 tv IP W.Uv .......... �A z in in �nii AM\ R&I.E u m ta Um 'k N q. URN— J J: : ......... ;w4 Lr) LO mw000voo� .......... .......... .......... Ln C14 Intentionally Blank • Fiscal Impacts: The proposed ULL amendment must demonstrate the ability to mitigate financial impacts upon communities within the subregion and if applicable countywide for the provision of community services. • Land Availability within the ULL: Determination that insufficient capacity exits within the current ULL, at a sub-regional level, to accommodate the land uses proposed by the ULL amendment_or a determination that the area proposed provides for orderly growtll by closing development cyaps and encourages more infill develoynient-. • Housing Production: Determination by an objective study that the ULL is significantly impeding the production of an agency's fair share of regional housing requirements, including both affordable and market rate housing, as required by State law. This objective study will address, among other issues, the amount of vacant and underutilized land designated for residential uses, along with a realistic assessment of the amount of residential development that could be expected to occur in infill settings. This criteria will be considered to be satisfied if it is determined that a ULL shift is the only feasible means of meeting an agency's affordable and market rate housing requirements. I • Contiguous Development Pattern: Proposed ULL amendments must involve lands that are contiguous to an existing already developed area and must be determined to be a "logical" contiguous extension of the existing urban area • Environmental Considerations: The proposed ULL amendment must meet the following environmental considerations, as described below: ■ Access to/Capacity of Transportation Facilities: - Land area must be within 2 miles of a freeway interchange, rail transit station, or major multi-modal public transportation hub, or have or commit to provide improvements allowing sufficient major arterial capacity linking it to such facilities without adversely impacting adjacent areas; - Land area must be served by an existing or as++rre , i. financially guaranteed,(throu-zh a comprehensive financinz mechanism such as an assessment direct) system of local and regional roadways built and operated to urban standards and an operational transit network which has sufficient capacity to provide regional access and local circulation to the areaP pro osed for urban development at the level appropriate for the level of development proposed - without adversely impacting an affected jurisdiction's ability to meet local and regional transportation policy goals or adopted levels of service standards- ■ AvailabilitylCaj2acity of Public Facilities and Services: - Land area must be served by existing, or planned2, public facilities and services districts, and/or such services shall be committed by the local "Planned public facilities and services"is defined as those services that are identified for expansion in a service provider's planning documents,with a detailed program for implementation relating to the design,capacity,location,funding,phasing,and construction. Draft Review Criteria T410,2►04y..8l 10804edit I the voters inth%e SRIALIE/l for ratification upon completion of appropriate CEQA review. Alternative 2 (all of the above but only for requests exceeding a specified number of acres) Alternative 3 (all of the above except a majority vote required of the AL14.ay ,e....er-eneecities/towns and the Board of Supervisors if over a specified number of acres) Alternative 4 (require a vote of the people in the subregion after approval by the subregional entity--no review by the other cities and/or the Board of Supervisors) (This alternative is not possible. There is nothing in State law that permits a county to submit votes to less than the county voters as a whole Alternative 5 Same as 1 or 2 above except there would be no ]public vote, *These criteria shall not apply to any request to amend the ULL that involves less than 30 acres provided that such a request is not contiguous or proximate to a previously approved amendment of less than 30 acres that has occurred within ten (10 years) of the current request. Environmental considerations outlined below shall apply. Criteria for Future ULL Modification : Any request to review or amend the ULL shall be evaluated based on: 0 Policy Compatibility: The proposed ULL amendment must be consistent with the adopted plans and policies of the public agency applicant, as well as the applicable adopted plans and policies of the regiong_�in ke .cI.Lidinabutnot limited to: the:, Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, Briones -IA. Hills Agricultural Preservation Agreement, North Gate Specific Plan, Mpr=Jn C-3 pgti A.L 9%poai�ir_ DI fi, Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Cooperative Plan etc.); This section shall k-I r -%-.JL L A%.. JL L I be applicable to cities, towns or the County that is within, contiszuous to or within 1/2 mile of the -plan area. Draft Review Criteria ,,61Q2@P4v81 1.0804edit for an expansion to the urban limit line bears the'burden to show that this evidentiary standard is adequately n1et. The ULL would apply to Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County. Alternately, cities and the County establishing the option of establishintheir own voter approved ULL or Urban Growth Boundaries. Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County agree that there pii ic ip ;0443a- it,:�r �6;0:33r-,Q periodic review of the ULL subject to the shall b._.. .9.%1 A. A.%.4 "Criteria for Future ULL Modifications" specified herein. The ULL and the "Criteria for Periodic Review of the ULL" will be placed before Contra Costa County voters in November 2006. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ULL Review Initiation: 0 Upon passage of Measure J, extending the existing 1/2 cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years, from 2009 to 2034, there shall be an opportunity to propose, review and consider amendments to the ULL. Such review may occur as soon as 2011 and thereafter in 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031. ■ Future review of the ULL may be *initiated by or through Contra Costa County or 6� t inuplur--- any of the cities or towns in Contra Costa County if ::I=L�LA L%-*. FA U R L.A.L V N-0A V%— 4411,4 A.A tl I—A 16_ A.L%-.AL &J Alternative 1 ■ An agency wishing to change the ULL must notify the sub region cities, towns and the county. Any such change must first be approved by a majority of the the sub regional entities. The burden of proof for the need for change rests with the applicant agency and must be consistent with the criteria outlined below. ■ Simultaneously with the sub region notification, all cities and towns in the County as well as the Board of Supervisors shall be notified by the applicant agency of the desire for a change. Interested parties shall have an opportunity to participate in the sub regional proceedings. ■ If approved by sub region entities, the proposed change will be submitted for .L T&L.JL y%_1 L L.., '%.—%-1 A LA.%.-A I.—A L %—F.AA LC) N�.J&L L.1 I%—.L L%.oLA... .,, cities and towns and by the approval by the UpAxe-s" Cen&arenee, aetiz4a An eii :4 W.L. LJLLA.%--- J-%-IL-L.L#�ALL-P %-f.L L.1:143 Cities representing three Board of Supervisors. �LAL 9-t);Vc e%-,-.1-F; e 0:1 ree 4a%3 3 34121 s A fourths of the city/town population encraged in. the process and a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors is required before the proposed ULL change is submitted to Draft Review Criteria.0,2004v811080 4edit Draft CRITERIA FOR PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE As part of the reauthorization of Contra Costa's 1/2-cent transportation sales tax measure (Measure J), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted a Growth Management Program that requires the establishment of a voter approved Urban Limit Line (LTLL) by November 2006. The purpose of the ULL is: (1) to ensure preservation and protection of identified non- urban land, including agricultural, open space, parkland, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which no urban uses can be designated; and, (2) to link land use decisions with the transportation investments in Measure J by channeling -future growth to locations more suitable for urban development, and (3) to limit the extension of urban services to areas within the ULL. Lands located on the inside of the ULL would be considered eligible for urban development or conversion to urban use, meaning that such lands have the potential to be developed for urban use subject to the General Plan policies and zoning regulations of the jurisdiction with land use authority over the land area. Land area located on the outside of the ULL may not be developed for urban use. The zuidincr policy regarding the periodic review of the urban limit line is based on the comprehensive analysis of land use in Contra Costa County that was completed in 2003. This analysis indicated that there is adequate development capacitor both for housing and iob growth within the current urban growth boundary ,for a -period of 25 years. Moreover, based on a. comparison with other urbanized. counties in the San Francisco, the existing 35%urbanized 65% non-urbanized land in Contra Costa County preserves less open space than other areas in the bay recrion, making it imperative that remain 11 non-urbanized areas be preserved.. As a.result, ariv decision.to expand. the urban limit line to allow additional areas for urban development should be based on a preponderance of evidence that the chancre is fundamentally necessary to achieve Countywide plannfi-icr objectives with. respect to housincr and job growth. The avolicant I As used in this context,the term "non-urban" means agricultural, open space, watershed parkland,and recreational uses that are allowed by applicable zoning, and it includes facilities for public use,which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law.The term "urban" use refers to residential, commercial, and industrial development and public facilities that rely on extensive public services or infrastructure (e.g.,, water.,sanitary sewer,flood control and drainage,fire protection,police protection.,etc.) jurisdiction proposing the ULL amendment (e.g.,, water, sanitary sewer, flood control and drainage, fire protection, police protection, schools, and parks and recreation). Applicable service districts must be wil.lincr to serve the area. If the land area will be annexed to an adjacent incorporated jurisdiction, these services must be provided at a level commensurate with those of the jurisdiction that will be annexing the land area; ■ Prime Agricultural Lands - Land area that qualifies as "prime farmland," as defined under CA Govt. Code Section 51201(c), would not be eligible for inclusion within the ULL; unless replaced within the same sub region on an acre for acre basis with appropriately purchased prime farmland that is dedicated as permanent agricultural land. ■ Topo ra hyl Terrain - Land area that is comprised of significant slopes, ridges, hilltops and ridgetops may only be included within the ULL for the specific purpose of conservation and preservation. The determination as to what landf orms are significant slopes/ridges, hilltops and ridgetops shall take into account the relative visibility of such landforms from both on and off site as compared to surrounding terrain, in addition to the slope of the landform themselves, with slopes in excess of 26% generally considered significant. - Lands that are documented to be geotechnically unstable or unsuitable for development should not be included within the ULL. ■ Open SpacelPal•kland/Recreation/Watershed Areas - Land area that is already designated or identified for open space, parkland, recreation, or watershed purposes, would not be eligible for inclusion within the ULL; - The ULL amendment shall assess the potential impact of proposed development on the habitat of �� e4-r)rotected. species, consistent with CEQA and other applicable law.TEt. , - . ;�.T- ,•; -L • Legally Binding Agreements: Whether the proposed ULL amendment would be consistent with all affected jurisdictions' existing legally binding agreements. • Future Conversion of Federally Owned Military Lands: The United States government owns significant acreage within Contra Costa County that is currently devoted to military use. Portions of these lands are located outside of the ULL, including parts of the Concord Naval Weapons Station and Camp Parks. Should Draft Review Criteria rl y611 t�,�iO4ca,'_t ` these lands become surplus to the U.S. government and eligible for consideration of reuse prior to expiration of Measure J in 2034, these lands may only be considered for inclusion within the ULL when they can be annexed, developed within and served by the most logical contiguous city in a manner that meets all other criteria set forth herein • Development within Spheres of Influence: Expansions of the ULL involving land within a city's sphere of influence shall be for the purpose of annexation by the respective city. Notwithstanding all of the above, the ULL may be changed to comply with court decisions and State or Federal legislative action. Draft Review Criteria.A1020O S]It?�st►4c&'. t �J Q n Don Blubaugh, Consultant 1867 Ygnacio Valley Rd.#370 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 925-945-1687(Phone& Fax) January 20,2005 TO: ALL ULL SUB REGIONAL TASK FORCE COMMITTEE ' MEMBERS SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE"PLAN B"FOR CONSIDERATION (REVISED) In June of this year I took on the task of facilitating discussion among the 19 cities and the county to reach an agreed upon urban limit line that could be jointly presented to the voters in 2006 as called for by the now successfully passed Measure J.That Measure, among other things,requires this effort and mandates beginning in 2009 that local return to source money is contingent on a voter approved urban growth boundary either through a joint effort or by agency by agency action. The Urban Limit Line has been a controversial subject in this County since it first came into being. The initial line was the product of a reaction to a citizen initiative that would have drawn the line much tighter than the one we have today. Cities and towns were not part of the process and the ULL has been a county government mandate. The Shaping Our Future effort of 2002 and 2003 pointed out,however,the major impact the line had on growth and development within the County. It indeed did set some outer limits on growth. Shaping Our Future demonstrated the ability of the County to handle its growth both in jobs and housing through 2030 with relatively minor changes to land use density in cities and county area willing to accommodate growth. Today,there seems little debate about the need for a ULL but where it is located remains as illusive and contentious as ever. The task mandated by Measure J is to find a common line approved by 4 of 5 supervisors and 75%of the cities representing 75%of the population,and then submit it to the voters for approval. That is not easily accomplished given the positions taken by the various parties to this effort. We simply can not achieve this goal if lines are drawn in the sand and compromise is seen as capitulation. In the end,the voters of the County should have something to vote on. In the end the public will make the right choice but all interests,private,non profit or public,must give them an opportunity to do so.This was the case in Measure J and is always the case when there are many legitimate positions at play. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 2 Our effort to develop a mutually acceptable line has been underway for five months.ULL Task Force members in West County and in the Southwest Area generally support holding the line in it current location. Central County and East County Task Forces favor expanding the line to include additional lands now. The prevailing view of the Board of Supervisors is to leave the line where it is. There is not agreement on criteria for future evaluation. Some suggest the product to date is too cumbersome and will result in no change while others view the criteria as appropriate and fitting. If there were a vote among the cities and the county today,there would not be an approved plan to present to the voters. The positions that are at play. There are those who: • say the ULL should remain where it is with no change because it has been demonstrated through Shaping Our Future that growth over the next 30 years can be accommodated within that line. • believe that portions of our county are gridlocked because transportation infrastructure has not kept pace with development. Therefore,there should be no outward expansion of the ULL until roadways are built. • believe growth and development should occur more where infrastructure already exists or where accommodations for growth can be more readily provided. They call for more development in city centers and near transportation facilities. • view efforts to prohibit ULL expansion as changing the"rules for growth and development"for those whose time has come. • want their cities to grow and develop in accordance with local plans that have been adopted on a community by community basis • view lands outside the current ULL as sensitive and should not be developed in order to preserve habitat or other environmental attributes. • view the prevailing view of Supervisors to be "hold the line at it current location."as dictating the joint line rather than negotiating a mutually acceptable line. This coupled with long standing tension between cities and the Board makes negotiations difficult. • believe the ULL line should be placed where it should be in 2034 and then change it only sparingly in the intervening period. Pian B January 20,2005 Page 3 • say leave the line where it is and change it only after putting infrastructure in place. • advocate moving the line but conditioning growth in those new areas to the construction of new or expanded infrastructure. • want the County out of the development business and who want the County to respect more land use plans of adjoining agencies within spheres of influence. • see undeveloped land designated within the ULL in the far eastern reaches of the county as hypocritical to the notion the line should not be changed to force growth nearer existing infrastructure. • view the efforts of the local consortium of business,environmental and housing groups as unduly influencing the structure of Measure J as it relates to growth management. All of these interests have legitimate concerns. It is tempting,indeed,to try to muster a prevailing view but to do so with a 4/5"'vote of the Board and 75%of the cities representing 75%of the people is not possible without all interests giving in the goal of getting something before the voters. Further,the tougher the views on where the line should be and the criteria for changing it in the future,the more likely it is that each agency will pursue its own vote with its own voters rather than attempting a more comprehensive look at the whole matter though a countywide vote.This agency by agency vote is permitted by Measure J. Additionally,there is no pressing incentive to reach agreement. Any accord reached now will not be before the voters for two years and not operative until 2009! I am going to step out of the facilitator role and recommend a framework for action. I do this not because I have more wisdom than others,but I have been listening carefully to all points of view....and for the most part came into this assignment without a position or an agenda other than to achieve an agreement as called for in Measure J.My effort in setting forth this Plan B is to try to accommodate as many interests as possible. The material you have considered previously is attached and labeled as Plan A PLAN B WITH RESPECT TO URBAN LIMIT LINE PLACEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN 2006: Orinda: Approve the 27 acre change recommended. It does add land for development and it is smaller than the threshold size set in Measure J. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 4 San Ramon: Approve the two areas for addition on the west side of town. These were voted upon as part of San Ramon's voter approved General Plan.Approve the automatic line adjustment to include Camp Parks should it be released from Federal control. development there should be permitted by the Cim. Clayton: Approve the city's request but with no additional housing units beyond what is currently allowed in the 141arsh Creek Specific Plan.Frankly this request is insignificant in terms of size but the city makes a convincing argument for adjusting the line to conform to property lines here. The land area is sensitive. Walnut Creek: Approve suggested reduction in ULL area Concord:The City wants to add 1500 acres of Concord naval Weapon's Station land now housing the port facility if this land is released for local use. The position is this is already developed land and is not a new use;it could be devoted to job producing land uses,and it is infill development. The ULL would only adjust upon Federal release. It also wants the land annexed to the City,commits to land use that is non residential and retains all revenue produced from the commercial use of the area My recommendation is to approve the ULL adjustment subject to release by the Federal government with the condition that the land be used only for commercial (job producing, non residential)purposes. The area should be annexed to Concord and the County should indicate its agreement. The process of annexation requires LAFCO approval and agreement on property tax exchange which should not be part of this agreement.. Pittsburg: Pittsburg put forth and then withdrew proposed expansion of the line for its City. On the other hand, it recently acted to condition this position on there being no significant line change for other agencies. The previously suggested additions by Pittsburg are not likely needed within the next 10 years but are integral to its general plan implementation. It has been determined that Pittsburg need not annex the identified waterfront area to accomplish its goal of using and enhancing this marshland area as mitigation for projects elsewhere in Pittsburg. Approve the inclusion of lands on the westerly and southern portions of the City as requested by the City subject to the completion of East County transportation improvements outlined below.(.Disapprove the request bordering Concord. This land is very sensitive and the number of units permitted in the Pittsburg general plan is very large given the hilly terrain. Concord is concerned about impacts on its city. The two agencies should meet and reach agreement on how to integrate its plans for this area to the mutual satisfaction of both. This land could be added to the line area at some future time. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 5 v The proposed addition near the proposed Buchanan Bypass seems to be added to help ,fund this roadway project. This request should not be approved but the bypass or some similar traffic relief measure should be built and East County cities and the County should reach an accord as ho1-if best to accomplish relief from regional traffic impacts on Pittsburg residents.) Antioch: Approve the addition of the Roddy Ranch area conditioned upon completion of transportation improvements outlined below. This land does afford an opportunity to develop more executive housing in the City but should not be built until significant traffic relief is achieved in East County. Antioch should agree to '/2 to 1/3 acre minimum lot sizes in this area. While there are environmental concerns about development in this area,there is a standing process to consider these issues. Moving the line does not assure development. ' 'I;he line would adjust upon completion of the roadway improvements = Deleted:Similar to the Naval Weapons i station item Brentwood: Approve Brentwood's request.Brentwood wants the ULL moved as Deleted:t identified in its General Plan but is willing to postpone development within these areas until completion of specified transportation improvements in East County. The City also commits to 10%affordable housing in newly annexed areas.(This position is changed from the last East County ULL meeting. The scaled back areas for inclusion have been reversed since there is still opposition to changing the line at all.) ,rSimilar to the Antioch proposal,the line would adjust upon completion of the following I Deleted: roadway improvements. Transportation Improvements Required for ULL Line Aditestments in East Cotcnty • completion of Highway 4 improvements(four lanes in each direction)to the Lone Tree/A Street Interchange • completion of the Highway 4 Bypass(2 lanes each direction)from 169/Rt 4 to Marsh Creek Road • completion of the Buchanan Road Bypass or some similarly agreed upon project to relieve traffic in this area of Pittsburg LEGAL QUESTION ABOUT A LINE MOVING IN THE FUTURE BASED UPON A CHISEEMENT OF SPECIFIED CONDITIONS There is the possibility that there are legal issues with the ULL line automatically moving at some future triggered by the completion of the transportation improvements noted above or in the case of Central County the Naval Weapons Station. If these issues are determined to be real,the ULL could be adjusted upon voter approval in 2006 but with a provision that no infrastructure or building permits for development in these areas could occur until the conditioned noted are achieved.Alternatively, Plan B January 20,2005 Page 6 legislation could be sought that would allow the line to change after conditions are met. GET THE COUNTY OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS This has been mentioned a lot during the past five months. It is interesting that cities which fight hard to resist any powers proposed to be taken from them are quick to want to take from others. Understandably,members of the Board of Supervisors have a different take on this request. Not withstanding this,my discussions with supervisors reveal they are willing to discuss development within city spheres of influence along the lines of successful cooperative programs in Santa Clara, Solano and Ventura counties. The appropriate venue to conduct these discussions is the City-County Relations Committee. To be clear,however,there are areas of the county that will always be under county control. These include Alamo,Pacheco,Rodeo,Crockett,to name just a few WITH RESPECT TO CRITERIA OR PROCESS FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE LINE; There has been real concern expressed by numerous agencies about the difficulty of ever changing the ULL in the future given the criteria that has been developed,circulated, amended,etc.(Plan A as it was devel These criteria are process driven,are initiated by an agency wishing to move the line and seen by many as impossible to meet. While the line should not be moved easily,there has been developed, in my opinion,a better approach to looking at jobs and housing needs in the future and then determining whether a line adjustment is necessary to achieve these needs. This concept has been developed by the consortium of homebuilders,business and environmental groups. The language is concise,far less onerous than what was originally recommended and allows for adjustments to the line for circumstances we don't know about today. It still requires a Formatted.Font:Bold countywide vote on adjustments to the line. The language follows: I Draft== THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE: PERIODIC REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR LAND INCLUSION As part of the reauthorization of Contra Costa's 1/2-cent transportation sales tax measure (Measure J),the Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted a Growth Management Plan B January_20,2005 Page 7 Program that requires the establishment of a voter approved Urban Limit Line(ULL)by November 2006. The purposes of the ULL are: (1)to ensure preservation and protection of identified non- urban land, including agricultural, open space, parkland, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which urban uses generally cannot be designated; (2) to link land use decisions with the transportation investments in Measure J by channeling future growth to locations more suitable for urban development; (3) to ensure that land use policies within the ULL effectively promote appropriate development that accommodates the area's projected housing and job needs over a 20-year period. The ULL would apply to Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County. Alternately, cities and the County have the option of establishing their own voter approved ULL or Urban Growth Boundaries. Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County agree that there shall be periodic review of the ULL (Periodic Review) and criteria governing amendments to the ULL (Amendment Criteria). These policies will be placed before Contra Costa County voters in November 2006. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ULL: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND LAND AVAILABILITY REVIEW 5 years after adoption of the ULL, and every 5 years thereafter, the City-County Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a review of residential and nonresidential development during the preceding 5-year period (Development Review). If the Development Review determines that there has not been substantial progress toward meeting the area's 20-year projections, the Development Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations, policies, and programs within the ULL that will demonstrably increase the likelihood that appropriate development will I occur within the ULL. Development Reviews shall occur in 2011, 2016, 2021, 20265 r Deleted:Expanding the ULL will not and 2031. be considered as an initial response to the results of a Development Review. However,if the recommended changes 10 ears after the ULL is adopted, and eve 10 ears thereafter, the City-County are not adopted within?years,the ULL y p y y I may be amended at the time of the next Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a subretrional review of the I Development Review. remaining capacity of the land within the ULL (Land Availability Review). If the Land Availability Review determines that there is no longer sufficient land planned and zoned in C-1 subrea ion to accommodate the projected housing and job needs over the next 20 year period, the Land Availability Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations within the ULL and/or recommend the inclusion of additional land such that the 20-year needs can be met within the revised ULL. Changes to the ULL,LL, w ill be subject to voter approval. Land Availability Reviews shall occur in 2016 and 2026. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 8 LAND INCLUSION CRITERIA Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area whether, in comparison with other land that might be added to the ULL, addition of the subject land will better achieve the land use, residential and employment targets, and transportation objectives of the Shaping Our Future Vision Plan. Local agencies should not be encouraged to underulke actions which would have the effect of chancyinu the character of the existing community. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services whether adding the subject land to the ULL,as compared with other land that might be added,will result in a more logical extension of public facilities and services. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences whether the consequences of adding the subject land to the ULL would be, on the whole, more positive than not including the land,and more positive than including other land. Compatibility of urban uses with nearby agricultural activities whether urban development on the subject land would likely cause a change in farm practices, or an increase in the cost of farm practices, on farms in areas designated for agriculture. f 'I'HER C'ONSll: ERATIONS IN REVIEW I Any proposed ULL amendment must be consistent with the adopted plats and- ' Formatted:Bullets and Numbering .. pc�lic�ieS...of:il�eublic»agencff'ected,a, ��rell as the applicable ad� ted 15. -1 a...nd ,Deleted:applicant I ........ 2 olicies of the ren'loil. This section s11111«..be applicable to cities. tOWTIs or the -------- CA.-ninty that:is witllttl. c0nticruous to Or Within mile of the t)lan area. 2. The pro c}Sail t.'I.I. amendment: must dc:rnogstrate the ability to miti�uate financial- Formatted:Bullets and Numbering in2pacts_gp)Li_con-itnuriities within the subregion and it»a.plicable cot.11-1twider for t (WiSM11 of coninumny services. Exemption cif'30 acres or less C'h1n(.YeS may be inade to the ULL by the Count-V or ani-city or town if ess than 30 age. Formatted:Font:Not Bold is involved and rov.ided that such an amendment is iiol_c(:)ntit~fuc*aus or proximate to (a I Deleted:30 previousiy approved amendment of less than 30 acres that has occurred within ten ('10_ _ ! Deleted: acres or less -- year.' c»the current rc7 posed ad ustnient. Formatted:underline Plan B January 20,2005 Page 9 Annexations Formatted:Font:Bold , Noty ithstandina land-umae in the i1v(Lasure J Principles of Aggreement foo- establishilWy an ULL an aaencN,. upon approval of all relevant.parties. may annex land outside the voter a pi-oved ULL if it is for the purpose of preserving parklands. open space. and aulcultural uses and where no urban development is permitted. VOTE OF THE PEOPLE All amendments to the LTLL after 20106 shall be approved by the voters except as provided herein. Formatted:Font:Bold,Underline l Intentionally Blank Contra Costa Council Home Builders Association Save Mount Diablo Greenbelt Alliance California Alliance for Jobs PLAN C — Compromise January 24, 2005 TO: ALL ULL SUB REGIONAL TASK FORCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM:Linda Best—Contra Costa Council Guy Bjerke—Home Builder's Association Ron Brown—Save Mount Diablo David Reid—Greenbelt Alliance Tomi Van de Brooke—California Alliance for Jobs SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE "PLAN C' FOR CONSIDERATION We have been meeting since the CCTA passed the Measure J language in August 2004. Our goal has been to work together to find a ULL approach that the environmental and business communities could agree on thereby avoiding the ensuing litigation and campaign battles that often follow land-use decisions. We have found common ground on the attached"Plan C". While we recognize that the recently proposed"Plan B" was an attempt to incorporate our approach, the end result left us far from the compromise position we had achieved. The crux of the compromise found by the environmental and business community was to leave the line in place for now and provide for a rational process that allowed the line to be moved in the future if the county does not have a 20 year housing supply. We agreed that the Shaping our Future came to the reasonable conclusion that, "If certain land-use planning measures were successfully implemented", then the county has a twenty year housing supply as required by law and, further, there would be no need to move the "recently adjusted ULL". This consensus group has stuck together though some very difficult decisions and both sides have given up a great deal to meet our goal. The process we developed links back to the Shaping our Future conclusion by providing for an assessment of how the county is doing in implementing the land-use planning measures assumed in Shaping our Future's conclusion that the county has a 20 year housing supply. While we appreciate those who believe that they must get all of their changes in now, we don't believe that approach will garner the support needed not only for the cities and the county to accept it but for success with the voters who will have a voice in November 2006. It is with this realistic perspective in mind that we bring forth Plan C. PLAN C WITH RESPECT TO URBAN LIMIT LINE PLACEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN 2006, there will be no changes the recently adjusted ULL for a minimum of ten years and then,changes would be allowed only if it is shown that there is not a 20 year housing supply available in the County as per criteria set forth below. THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE: PERIODIC REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR LAND INCLUSION As part of the reauthorization of Contra Costa's'/z-cent transportation sales tax measure (Measure J), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted a Growth Management Program that requires the establishment of a voter approved Urban Limit Line (ULL)by November 2006. The purposes of the ULL are: (1) to ensure preservation and protection of identified non- urban land,including agricultural, open space,parkland, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which urban uses generally cannot be designated; (2) to link land use decisions with the transportation investments in Measure J by channeling future growth to locations more suitable for urban development; (3) to ensure that land use policies within the ULL effectively promote appropriate development that accommodates the area's projected housing and job needs over a 20-year period. The ULL would apply to Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County. Alternately, cities and the County have the option of establishing their own voter approved ULL or Urban Growth Boundaries. Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County agree that there shall be periodic review of the ULL (Periodic Review) and criteria governing amendments to the ULL(Amendment Criteria). These policies will be placed before Contra Costa County voters in November 2006. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ULL: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND LAND AVAILABILITY REVIEW 5 years after adoption of the ULL, and every 5 years thereafter, the City-County Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a review of residential and Non-residential development during the precedinb 5-year-period (Development Review). If the Development Review determines that there has not been substantial progress toward meeting the area's 20-year projections, the Development Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations, policies, and programs within the ULL that will demonstrably increase the likelihood that appropriate development will occur within the ULL. Expanding the ULL will not be considered as an initial response to the results of a Development Review. Development Reviews shall occur in 2011, 20165 20219 2026, and 2031. 10 years after the ULL is adopted, and every 10 years thereafter, the City-County Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a sub-regional review of the remaining capacity of the land within the ULL(Sub-regional Land Availability Review). If the sub-regional Land Availability Review determines that there is no Ionger sufficient land planned and zoned in a sub-region to accommodate the projected housing and job needs over the next 20 year period, the Land Availability Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations within ULL and/or recommend the inclusion of additional land such that the 20-year needs can be met within the revised ULL. Changes to the ULL will be subject to voter approval. Land Availability Reviews shall occur in 2016 and 2026. LAND INCLUSION CRITERIA Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area whether, in comparison with other land that might be added to the ULL, addition of the subject land will better achieve the land use,residential and employment targets, and transportation objectives of the Shaping Our Future Vision Plan. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services whether adding the subject land to the ULL, as compared with other land that might be added, will result in a more logical extension of public facilities and services. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences whether the consequences of adding the subject land to the ULL would be, on the whole, more positive than not including the land, and more positive than including other land. Compatibility of urban uses with nearby agricultural activities whether urban development on the subject land would likely cause a change in farm practices, or an increase in the cost of farm practices, on farms in areas designated for agriculture. Intentionally Blank Don Blubaugh, Consultant 1867 Ygnacio Valley Rd.#370 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 925-945-1687(Phone& Fax) January 20,2005 TO: ALL ULL SUB REGIONAL TASK FORCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE"PLAN B"FOR CONSIDERATION (REVISED) In June of this year I took on the task of facilitating discussion among the 19 cities and the county to reach an agreed upon urban limit line that could be jointly presented to the voters in 2006 as called for by the now successfully passed Measure J.That Measure, among other things,requires this effort and mandates beginning in 2009 that local return to source money is contingent on a voter approved urban growth boundary either through a joint effort or by agency by agency action. The Urban Limit Line has been a controversial subject in this County since it first came into being. The initial line was the product of a reaction to a citizen initiative that would have drawn the line much tighter than the one we have today. Cities and towns were not part of the process and the ULL has been a county government mandate. The Shaping Our Future effort of 2002 and 2003 pointed out,however,the major impact the line had on growth and development within the County. It indeed did set some outer limits on growth. Shaping Our Future demonstrated the ability of the County to handle its growth both in jobs and housing through 2030 with relatively minor changes to land use density in cities and county area willing to accommodate growth. Today,there seems little debate about the need for a ULL but where it is located remains as illusive and contentious as ever. The task mandated by Measure J is to find a common line approved by 4 of 5 supervisors and 75%of the cities representing 75%of the population, and then submit it to the voters for approval. That is not easily accomplished given the positions taken by the various parties to this effort. We simply can not achieve this goal if lines are drawn in the sand and compromise is seen as capitulation. In the end,the voters of the County should have something to vote on. In the end the public will make the right choice but all interests, private,non profit or public,must give them an opportunity to do so.This was the case in Measure J and is always the case when there are many legitimate positions at play. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 2 Our effort to develop a mutually acceptable line has been underway for five months.ULL Task Force members in West County and in the Southwest Area generally support holding the line in it current location. Central County and East County Task Forces favor expanding the line to include additional lands now. The prevailing view of the Board of Supervisors is to leave the line where it is. There is not agreement on criteria for future evaluation. Some suggest the product to date is too cumbersome and will result in no change while others view the criteria as appropriate and fitting. If there were a vote among the cities and the county today,there would not be an approved plan to present to the voters. The positions that are at play. There are those who: • say the ULL should remain where it is with no change because it has been demonstrated through Shaping Our Future that growth over the next 30 years can be accommodated within that line. • believe that portions of our county are gridlocked because transportation infrastructure has not kept pace with development. Therefore,there should be no outward expansion of the ULL until roadways are built. • believe growth and development should occur more where infrastructure already exists or where accommodations for growth can be more readily provided. They call for more development in city centers and near transportation facilities. • view efforts to prohibit ULL expansion as changing the"rules for growth and development"for those whose time has come. • want their cities to grow and develop in accordance with local plans that have been adopted on a community by community basis • view lands outside the current ULL as sensitive and should not be developed in order to preserve habitat or other environmental attributes. • view the prevailing view of Supervisors to be "hold the line at it current location."as dictating the joint line rather than negotiating a mutually acceptable line. This coupled with long standing tension between cities and the Board makes negotiations difficult. • believe the ULL line should be placed where it should be in 2034 and then change it only sparingly in the intervening period. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 3 • say leave the line where it is and change it only after putting infrastructure in place. • advocate moving the line but conditioning growth in those new areas to the construction of new or expanded infrastructure. • want the County out of the development business and who want the County to respect more land use plans of adjoining agencies within spheres of influence. • see undeveloped land designated within the ULL in the far eastern reaches of the county as hypocritical to the notion the line should not be changed to force growth nearer existing infrastructure. • view the efforts of the local consortium of business,environmental and housing groups as unduly influencing the structure of Measure J as it relates to growth management. All of these interests have legitimate concerns. It is tempting,indeed,to try to muster a prevailing view but to do so with a 4/5`h vote of the Board and 75%of the cities representing 75%of the people is not possible without all interests giving in the goal of getting something before the voters. Further,the tougher the views on where the line should be and the criteria for changing it in the future,the more likely it is that each agency will pursue its own vote with its own voters rather than attempting a more comprehensive look at the whole matter though a countywide vote.This agency by agency vote is permitted by Measure J. Additionally,there is no pressing incentive to reach agreement. Any accord reached now will not be before the voters for two years and not operative until 2009! I am going to step out of the facilitator role and recommend a framework for action. I do this not because I have more wisdom than others,but I have been listening carefully to all points of view....and for the most part came into this assignment without a position or an agenda other than to achieve an agreement as called for in Measure J.My effort in setting forth this Plan B is to try to accommodate as many interests as possible. The material you have considered previously is attached and labeled as Plan A PLAN B WITH RESPECT TO URBAN LIMIT LINE PLACEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN 2006: Orinda: Approve the 27 acre change recommended. It does add land for development and it is smaller than the threshold size set in Measure J. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 4 San Ramon: Approve the two areas for addition on the west side of town. These were voted upon as part of San Ramon's voter approved General Plan. Approve the autclmatic line adjustment to include Camp Parks should it be released from Federal control. Any development there should be permitted by the City. Clayton: Approve the city's request but with no additional housing units beyond what is currently allowed in the Nlarsh Creek Specific Plan. Frankly this request is insignificant in terms of size but the city makes a convincing argument for adjusting the line to conform to property lines here. The land area is sensitive. Walnut Creek: Approve suggested reduction in ULL area Concord:The City wants to add 1500 acres of Concord naval Weapon's Station land now housing the port facility if this land is released for local use. The position is this is already developed land and is not a new use; it could be devoted to job producing land uses,and it is infill development. The ULL would only adjust upon Federal release. It also wants the land annexed to the City,commits to land use that is non residential and retains all revenue,produced from the commercial use of the area My recommendation is to approve the ULL adjustment subject to release by the Federal government with the condition that the land be used only for commercial (job producing, non residential)purposes. The area should be annexed to Concord and the County should indicate its agreement. The process of annexation requires LAFCO approval and agreement on property tax exchange which should not be part of this agreement.. Pittsburg: Pittsburg put forth and then withdrew proposed expansion of the line for its City. On the other hand,it recently acted to condition this position on there being no significant line change for other agencies. The previously suggested additions by Pittsburg are not likely needed within the next 10 years but are integral to its general plan implementation. It has been determined that Pittsburg need not annex the identified waterfront area to accomplish its goal of using and enhancing this marshland area as mitigation for projects elsewhere in Pittsburg. Approve the inclusion of lands on the westerly and southern portions of the City as requested by the City subject to the completion of East County transportation improvements outlined below.(.Disapprove the request bordering Concord. This land is very sensitive and the number of units permitted in the Pittsburg general plan is very large given the hilly terrain. Concord is concerned about impacts on its city. The two agencies should meet and reach agreement on how to integrate its plans for this area to the mutual satisfaction of both. This land could be added to the line area at some future time. Plan B January 20,2005 Page 5 The proposed addition near the proposed Buchanan Bypass seems to be added to help fund this roadvvay project. This request should not be approved but the bypass or some similar traffic relief measure should be built and East Count))cities and the Count, should reach an accord as h0141 best to accomplish relief from regiona.traffic impacts on Pittsburg residents.) Antioch: Approve the addition of the Roddy Ranch area conditioned upon completion of transportation improvements outlined below. This land does afford an opportunity to develop more executive housing in the City but should not be built until significant traffic relief is achieved in East County. Antioch should agree to '/2 to 1/3 acre minimum lot sizes in this area. While there are environmental concerns about development in this area,there is a standing process to consider these issues. Moving the line does not assure development. rl" a line would adjust upon completion of the roadway improvements 1 Deleted:Similar to the Naval Weapons station item Brentwood: Approve Brentwood's request.Brentwood wants the ULL moved as f Deleted.t identified in its General Plan but is willing to postpone development within these areas until completion of specified transportation improvements in East County. The City also commits to 10%affordable housing in newly annexed areas.(This position is changed from the last East County ULL meeting. The scaled back areas for inclusion have been reversed since there is still opposition to changing the line at all.) ,rSimilar to the Antioch proposal,the line would adjust upon completion of the following. Deleted: roadway improvements. Transportation Improvements Rewired for ULL Line Adjustments in East Cotcnty • completion of Highway 4 improvements(four lanes in each direction)to the Lone Tree/A Street Interchange • completion of the Highway 4 Bypass(2 lanes each direction)from 169/Rt 4 to Marsh Creek Road • completion of the Buchanan Road Bypass or some similarly agreed upon project to relieve traffic in this area of Pittsburg LEGAL QUESTION ABOUT A LINE MOVING IN THE FUTURE BASED UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF SPECIFIED CONDITIONS There is the possibility that there are legal issues with the ULL line automatically moving at some future triggered by the completion of the transportation improvements noted above or in the case of Central County the Naval Weapons Station. If these issues are determined to be real,the ULL could be adjusted upon voter approval in 2006 but with a provision that no infrastructure or building permits for development in these areas could occur until the conditioned noted are achieved.Alternatively, Plan B January 20,2005 Page 6 legislation could be sought that would allow the line to change after conditions are met. GET THE COUNTY OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS This has been mentioned a lot during the past five months. It is interesting that cities which fight hard to resist any powers proposed to be taken from them are quick to want to take from others. Understandably,members of the Board of Supervisors have a different take on this request. Not withstanding this,my discussions with supervisors reveal they are willing to discuss development within city spheres of influence along the lines of successful cooperative programs in Santa Clara,Solano and Ventura counties. The appropriate venue to conduct these discussions is the City-County Relations Committee. To be clear,however,there are areas of the county that will always be under county control. These include Alamo,Pacheco,Rodeo,Crockett,to name just a few WITH RESPECT TO CRITERIA OR PROCESS FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE LINE; There has been real concern expressed by numerous agencies about the difficulty of ever changing the ULL in the future given the criteria that has been developed, circulated, f amended,etc.(Plan A as it was dcvelThese criteria are process driven, are initiated by an agency wishing to move the line and seen by.many as impossible to meet. While the line should not be moved easily,there has been developed,in my opinion,a better approach to looking at jobs and housing needs in the future and then determining whether a line adjustment is necessary to achieve these needs. This concept has been developed by the consortium of homebui lders,business and environmental groups. The language is concise,far less onerous than what was originally recommended and allows for adjustments to the line for circumstances we don't know about today. It still requires a i Formatted:Font:Bold countywide vote on adjustments to the line. The language follows: Draft THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE: PERIODIC REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR LAND INCLUSION As part of the reauthorization of Contra Costa's'/2-cent transportation sales tax measure (Measure J),the Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted a Growth Management 1 r r Plan B January 20,2005 Page 7 Program that requires the establishment of a voter approved Urban Limit Line(ULL)by November 2006. The purposes of the ULL are: (1)to ensure preservation and protection of identified non- urban land, including agricultural, open space, parkland, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which urban uses generally cannot be designated; (2) to link land use decisions with the transportation investments in Measure J by channeling future growth to locations more suitable for urban development; (3) to ensure that land use policies within the ULL effectively promote appropriate development that accommodates the area's projected housing and job needs over a 20-year period. The ULL would apply to Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County. Alternately, cities and the County have the option of establishing their own voter approved ULL or Urban Growth Boundaries. Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County agree that there shall be periodic review of the ULL (Periodic Review) and criteria governing amendments to the ULL (Amendment Criteria). These policies will be placed before Contra Costa County voters in November 2006. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ULL: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND LAND AVAILABILITY REVIEW 5 years after adoption of the ULL, and every 5 years thereafter, the City-County Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a review of residential and nonresidential development during the preceding 5-year period (Development Review). If the Development Review determines that there has not been substantial progress toward meeting the area's 20-year projections, the Development Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations, policies, and programs within the ULL that will demonstrably increase the likelihood that appropriate development will occur within the ULL. Development Reviews shall occur in 2011, 2016, 2021, 20269 1 Deleted:Expanding the ULL will not and 2031. be considered as an initial response to the results of a Development Review. ' However,if the recommended changes 10 years after the ULL is adopted, and every 10 years thereafter, the City-County are not adopted within 2 years,the ULLmay be amended at the time of the next Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a subregrional ...review of the Development Review. remaining capacity of the land within the ULL(Land Availability Review). If the Land Availability Review determines that there is no longer sufficient land planned and zoned In a subregion to accommodate the projected housing and job needs over the next 20 year period, the Land Availability Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations within the ULL and/or recommend the inclusion of additional land such that the 20-year needs can be met within the revised ULL. Changes to t1w ULL.. will be sc biec:t to voter approvat. Land Availability Reviews shall occur in 2016 and 2026. Intentionally Blank IW%Wwi 1 4 61 r W-P X,2 G O C Alternate Urban Limit Line Proposal February 8,2005 1. The County agrees to significantly reduce the amount of the vacant acreage currently inside the ULL "bubbles" in far East County, including Bethel Island, the area east of Discovery Bay, and the land inside the LTLL surrounding the Byron Airport. a. Representatives from the County and East County cities would work together with the goal of reaching mutual agreement on the amount and location of land to remain inside the ULL "bubbles", taking into account physical and infrastructure constraints, along with a realistic assessment of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected growth in these areas. 2. The County agrees to an appropriate minimum lot size for land located outside the ULL. The 2006 ballot measure itself should contain specific language that .establishes the types of uses and the minimum lot size for land outside the ULL. a. The 1990 ballot measure that established the ULL currently allows "rural residential"uses and lot sizes outside the ULL. Based on the current wording in the County General Plan, the"rural residential" minimum lot size is 5 acres. This minirnum can be increased or decreased by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. b. The minimum lot size for land outside the ULL should be 40 acres. Exceptions would be made for land around unincorporated communities, such as Baypoint, Byron etc., and in other unique situations. Existing properties outside the ULL with lot sizes less than 40 acres in size would be"grand fathered" in. The County would agree to modify its General Plan to achieve this 40 acre minimum standard, and the County would agree to deny any subdivision maps that would violate it. c. The rationale for this minimum lot size is appropriate in the context of the ULL. Specifically, if cities are going to take a policy position that they are not going to expand their existing boundaries in the near/long term,thereby creating development pressure at the ULL boundary, then cities need some assurance that the area adjacent to their boundaries will not be developed in the County with"ranchette" or similar uses sometime in the next 30 years. 3. The City agrees to honor the current location of the ULL, subject to a 5 year periodic review. The City agrees not to request of LAFCO, or support any property owner request of LAFCO, any sphere of influence changes and/or annexations for land located outside the ULL. 4. The City agrees to accept the 5 year periodic review for any changes to the ULL. The elimination of the ULL islands makes such a periodic review workable. Without the elimination of the ULL islands, any future periodic review would not be meaningful, given that one of the first issues to be considered would be how much vacant land was available inside the ULL, which would include the ULL islands. a. The criteria for evaluating any ULL changes as part of the periodic review would be similar to those proposed under Option C at the January 26, 2005 ULL Task Force meeting. b. The process by which.decisions would be made to approve or deny a ULL change as part of the periodic review would need to be resolved. 6 2=8=05 Intentionally Blank i Revised 2/9/2005 v.l PLAN Z This Plan is proposed by the City of Brentwood (the City). The charge to the County and the cities, and therefore to this Committee, is to "cooperate in the development of a new mutually �' p agreed upon ULL and criteria for future modifications."1 The expectation was that there would be changes to the ULL in East County to reflect the needs of the area and objectives of the East County Cities. The expectation was not that the current ULL, including the changes that were not adopted by the voters, would be adopted by default or that consideration of changes would be postponed to a future date. The charge is to adopt(1) a new line and (2) criteria for future modifications. As recognized in Plan B, the City has proposed that the ULL be adjusted to include five(5) areas that are planned for development as part of the ultimate build out of the City. Although the City's General Plan has not been submitted to the voters, it enjoys widespread support and is the product of a public process that provided many opportunities for public input and discussion. In some cases (for example, the Ginochio property and the easterly area including Sellars Road), annexation and development of the area is essential to the completion of an efficient local street network to alleviate and prevent congestion. Annexation and development is essential to this objective, because the County has no funds or inclination to build the streets if the properties remain unincorporated areas and because all funds other than those that could be generated by development of the properties are already committed to the regional projects of the SR4 Bypass Authority. The two westerly areas were within the ULL established by the voters, but are outside of the revised line adopted recently by the Board of Supervisors. In general,the former Supervisors justified the revisions to the line in East County to reduce future traffic congestion and urban sprawl. Only the first applies to the westerly areas the City proposes to restore to the area within the ULL, as development of that area does not advance the current edge of urban development. That area is not on the fringe of the already developed urban uses,but instead is substantially surrounded by Antioch and Brentwood. Today, the development of the westerly area the City proposes to include would be in-fill development,not sprawl, as sewer and water facilities abut the areas the City proposes to bring within the ULL. The easterly areas are directly adjacent to the City limits and to existing urban development. Beyond those areas are the unincorporated Cypress Corridor, which is being developed to urban uses, and the already developed Discovery Bay unincorporated community,both of which constitute leapfrog and sprawl development approved by the County. Thus, the easterly areas too are in-fill development,not sprawl, that would be easily served by extension of utilities. There is sufficient capacity available to serve those areas because the City has sized the facilities to accommodate the growth contemplated by its General Plan. One of the easterly areas the City proposes to include within a revised ULL would ' Attachment A to the Growth Management Program included in Measure J-- Contra Costa's Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan(July 21, 1004). not add any residential uses,but instead would facilitate the expansion of the industrial park near the City's treatment facility, increasing the number of jobs available to local residents. The other involves moving the line easterly to include Sellars Road, the use of which is increasing as development in the unincorporated Cypress Corridor occurs. Although the County has approved the development, it has made no provision for improving this road to accommodate the increased traffic. Moving the line to include the road and intervening areas would allow the City to require those who develop the area to improve the road to handle the traffic from development in the City and unincorporated areas. BACKGROUND RE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE The ULL is part of the County General Plan and, as such, does not control annexations or the land use policies of the cities. Contrary perhaps to popular perception, in regulating land use,the cities are not subordinate to the County or to the collective voters in the County. Cities are not subdivisions of the State,but rather are political entities recognized by the Constitution,which exercise the police power, including regulation of land use, within their jurisdictions subject only to the limitations of State law on matters of statewide interest and, of course, the Constitution itself. Counties on the other hand are political subdivisions of the State whose land use jurisdiction,whether exercised by the Board or the voters, is limited to unincorporated territory. The State has not given Counties authority to enact LTLLs that constrain the growth of cities or otherwise to control annexations. Historically, cities were the sole determiners of what land, if any, they would annex. The State removed that authority from cities and vested it in LAFCO, whose decisions are not subject to voter enacted initiatives or referenda, but rather are governed by State law. Under the current law, an annexation becomes effective after approval by LAFCO, and approval of the annexing city or the county is not required. The ULL as part of Contra Costa County's General Plan, is one factor among many that LAFCO is charged to consider when deciding a request for annexation. LAFCO has adopted a policy of generally abiding by the ULL, but cannot and has not agreed to enforce it in-all circumstances. Once an annexation is complete, the County and its ULL do not control the use of the annexed property, instead the annexing city controls the use through its General Plan and other laws and regulations. WITH RESPECT TO URBAN LIMIT LINE PLACEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN 2006: Brentwood: Approve Brentwood's request to move the ULL to the positions identified in its General Plan but postpone development within these areas until satisfaction of stated conditions. Other Jurisdictions: Make changes to the Urban Limit Line affecting other jurisdictions as approved by the committee. Brentwood supports the changes requested by the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. 2 Off-setting Revisions: In order to off-set the addition of the lands proposed for inclusion within the ULL,the City proposes that the ULL be revised so that the unincorporated areas listed below are outside of the line and not available for urban development. The City makes this proposal because development of these areas truly would constitute sprawl and leapfrog development as they are not contiguous to urban areas and the services and infra- structure needed for urban development are not readily available. 1. East Discovery Bay. Move the LJLL so that all of the approximate 1,000 acres of undeveloped land is outside of the line. This land is mostly below sea level and is comprised of peat soil,which is flammable and unstable. Development of additional land that is protected from flooding only by levees and that would compound the urban sprawl and leapfrog development of the existing Discovery Bay area is not appropriate. 2 Byron. Reduce the amount of land within the ULL to no more than 300 acres. Prohibit or severely limit residential development on the 300 acres, which would be available for industrial and other job generating uses. Development in this area would clearly be urban sprawl and leapfrog development,both of which should be avoided in favor of development of areas contiguous to and served by existing cities. This would be a net rnove of approximately 1,400 acres outside of the line. 3. Bethel Island. Move the ULL so that it excludes Bethel Island. Provide for continuation of existing use and retain rules allowing one residence per lot, existing on 12/31/04. Substantial additional development on an island protected from flooding only by a compromised and inadequate levee system and accessed by a single bridge of inadequate capacity is not appropriate. The area of the island may be as much as 4,000 acres; in any event, it is substantial. CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION WITHIN ULL BY BRENTWOOD. LAFCO Requirements. As a matter of law, LAFCO decides applications for annexation based upon the factors provided in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Goverrument Reorganization Act of 2000 in effect at the time of annexation. The statutory goals, adopted by the Contra Costa County LAFCO include promotion of orderly growth and development by determining logical local agency boundaries; preservation of open space by encouraging development of vacant land within cities before annexation of vacant land adjacent to cities; and preservation of prime farm land. These and other policies and procedures are set out in its publication entitled LAFCO Procedures Guide, April 2004. LAFCO adopts spheres of influence to implement these goals and reviews them every five years. In order to be annexed, land must be within the SOI. Territory planned for annexation within the near future should be within the Urban Service Area of the annexing city and included in that city's Capital Improvement Program. (LAFCO Procedures Guide, p.19-20.) Section 56668 of the Government Code requires consideration of many factors including population density, land use,topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins,the 3 likelihood of significant growth in the area,need for community services and adequacy of available governmental services, conformity with adopted LAFCO policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, consistency with city or county creneral and specific plans,policies relating to preservation of agricultural and open space lands, the SOI, comments of affected local agencies, timely availability of water supplies, the effect on the annexing city and the county in achieving their fair share of regional housing needs, comments of the affected landowners, and information relating to existing land use designations. LAFCO also considers additional local criteria, including its general policy of respecting the ULL. (LAFCO Procedures Guide,p. 21.) Additional Conditions Proposed. The City is willing to enter into an agreement and/or to support a ballot measure that implements the following conditions precedent to annexation and urban development: 1. The area to be annexed must be designated in the General Plan of the annexing city for urban development and the Plan must include plans to provide necessary infrastructure and urban services. 2. A city may not propose an annexation or permit urban development of the properties unless it first enters into a development agreement with the owners of the land to be annexed that for a minimum of ten years restricts development to that allowed by the pre-zoning in effect at the time of annexation and requires payment of all regional and local transportation fees at approval of final map or, if no subdivision is involved, at the time of the final discretionary approval. Current law requires the pre-zoning of property to be annexed and that the zoning remain in effect for two years following annexation. The development agreement would extend the time to ten years,providing more certainty that the ultimate development will be that proposed and evaluated at the time of annexation. Absent a development agreement, traffic impact fees generally are paid at issuance of building permits,which ensures a lag between the onset of the traffic impacts created by the development and the expenditure of funds on projects to mitigate those impacts. Requiring payment out front would reduce that lag time. Rather than a trickle of small payments,the entities charged with constructing necessary traffic improvements would receive a ym substantial lump sum payment in advance of occupancy of new development. Transportation Improvements Required for ULL Line Adjustments in East County: 1. Completion of Highway 4 improvements (4 lanes in each direction) to the Lone Tree /A Street Interchange. 2. Completion of the Highway 4 Bypass (2 lanes in each direction) from 169/RT 4 to Marsh Creek Road. 3. Completion of the Buchanan Road ByPass or some similarly agreed upon project to relieve traffic in the area of Pittsburg. 4 THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE: PERIODIC REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR LAND INCLUSION. City will accept either of the proposals for future review set out in Plan B or Plan C. 5 Intentionally Blank w ♦ r r i w J -k 1 F4 �f-`•��;J `.� at CD �, cr fl• N f; cpvtG t11 m,; , '� . d e �•••�- .fir,. _ Al Aa ir n P Poll �1 � Lr• k � Intentionally Blank r � 2/9/05 Oakley Proposal for East County 1. The East County sub region agrees that, there will be no land moved within the ULL line at this time in that subregion. In return for foregoing the opportunity to seek changes at this time: 2. On 1/1/2011 or after, any city may make one request for annexation of land for non-open space/recreational uses, beyond the then current ULL, and in excess of the 30 acres discussed in Measure J. Le. said annexation are all zoning purposes. 3. The applying city's request uest is to be made to LAFCo and is to be governed by state law regarding annexation procedures. Other then the following conditions, there are no additional restrictions against annexation of the requested land to city. A. The proposed application including proposed plan of development must be submitted to the county and any neighboring city(s),whose border is within 1/2 mile of the proposed annexation for that agency's written evaluation. B. LAFCo will not approve such an application if it is not approved by agencies specified in A. above. C. The proposed application is to be for one contiguous piece of land. D. Appropriate environmental protections are to be used to protect sensitive areas within said piece of land that are determined to warrant such protection as a matter of law. 4. In addition to the one time annexation described above, any city may at any time seek the annexation through LAFCo of one or more pieces of land in excess of 30 acres,provided that: A. The ULL will not change for said land. B. Such annexed land may only be used for open space and/or recreational purposes. 5. Any annexation of land sought to be brought within the ULL, other then those described above, shall conform in all respects to the requirements of Measure J. Le., they are limited to 30 acres of land that is not contiguous to any other such land, unless the voters in said city have by election, approved a change in ULL for that city. End Intentionally Blank a 01 •. ~ti, ,"die:t..�lx "• .'"k K •r?.. `Z% .T a; '. Draft THE CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE: PERIODIC REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR LAND INCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO URBAN LIMIT LINE PLACEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN 2006, there will be no changes to the recently adjusted ULL for a minimum of ten years with the exceptions as noted below. Chanes to the ULL will be ;rr:'�'a`,cawi bi dk�"..xy••+Et.w .. allowed only if it is shown that there is not ar�� e 20 year supply availableYFjse � in the County as per criteria set forth below. As part of the reauthorization of Contra Costa's 1/2-cent transportation sales tax measure (Measure J), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted a Growth Management Program that requires the establishment of a voter approved Urban Limit Line (ULL) by November 2006. The purposes of the ULL are: (1) to ensure preservation and protection of identified nonurban land, including agricultural, open space, parkland, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which urban uses generally cannot be designated; (2) to link land use decisions with the transportation investments in Measure J by channeling future growth to locations more suitable for urban development; (3) to ensure that land use policies within the ULL effectively promote appropriate development that accommodates the area's projected housing and job needs over a 20-year period. The ULL would apply to Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County. Alternately, cities and the County have the option of establishing their own voter approved ULL or Urban Growth Boundaries. Contra Costa County and all cities/towns within Contra Costa County agree that there shall be periodic review of the ULL (Periodic Review) and criteria governing amendments to the ULL (Amendment Criteria). These policies will be placed before Contra Costa County voters in November 2006. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ULL: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND LAND AVAILABILITY REVIEW 5 years after adoption of the ULL, and every 5 years thereafter, the City-County Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a review of residential and nonresidential development during the preceding 5-year period (Development Review). If the Development Review determines that there has not been substantial progress toward Y .s ` *a �f , I meeting the area's 20-year projections 01,`0 ='x y'� -d the Development Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations, policies, and programs within the ULL that will demonstrably increase the likelihood that appropriate development will occur within the ULL. 1 Expanding the ULL will not be considered as an initial response to the results of a Development Review. Development Reviews shall occur in 2011, 2016, 2021, 2026, and 2031. 10y ears after the ULL is adopted, and every 10 years thereafter, the City-County Relations Committee shall oversee the completion of a sub-regional review of the remaining capacity of the land within the ULL(Sub-regional Availability Review). If the Land Availability Review determines that there is no longer sufficient land planned and zoned to accommodate the projected housing and job needs over the next 20 year period, the Land Availability Review shall recommend specific changes in land use designations within the ULL and/or recommend the inclusion of additional land such that the 20-year needs can be met within the revised ULL. Changes to the ULL will be subject to voter approval. Land Availability Reviews shall occur in 2016 and 2026. LAND INCLUSION CRITERIA Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area - whether, in comparison with other land that might be added to the ULL, addition of the subject land will better achieve the land use, residential and employment targets, and transportation objectives of the Shaping Our Future Vision Plan. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services whether adding the subject land to the ULL, as compared with other land that might be added, will result in a more logical extension of public facilities and services. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences whether the consequences of adding the subject land to the ULL would be, on the whole, more positive than not including the land, and more positive than including other land. Compatibility of urban uses with nearby agricultural activities whether urban development on the subject land would likely cause a change in farm practices, or an increase in the cost of farm practices, on farms in areas designated for agriculture. EXCEPTIONS f�5�'��d�fi<•h 1 h'J�� Y�wr� 1. � Y4,{i�� ?�.[r+p�yty k� ��lmi@ . rwill be made in theExceptions001113" MR. . fa '• . following circumstances and all exceptions require 2/3rds vote in support of the proposal A by the sub-regional committee. s #tthe federal government release9", K r. the Concord Naval Weapon'-s Station 1. :1.::........ ........... r •v..T....� ',rY Yx n'C � :+ .. r+yK,+,Y4 r _.::";' for civilian use ti, Y a change M.5 .Ytii• r l7F.X '• 7Y aKc rG iC�'�a�f'L?/�?�. �:} ��$'�:�>Y >`S ,' ' fine to accommodate non- residential uses. h:e - r W ... ,...,. ...Y > <'':+CC'•::•.:i5..:: :..:._. ..Y:.::::,'3.•:•.vRh£: >?[: 'Q,J.,',3,';aii• Y .,h{Ay4, . ten.;.2 :q}4c/.,lt-<]�Y`1.�,'''y/SR�`ia/..../f�5., !. .'.:: .w• {.'A _ R<:N. W. ! >a. :....:..v,v.v.v:.<.L•.+...:.:. : fY, :. .... •. ; .. <. {i>::'•:f S 4 f •Y r f. ix. rc b ithe ence.A. ....... .... ...........:....:......:•....e.....::..v: ...• { 'M' S m4 th � ♦Sf "•.4.K �#,J'GG ... ��.:,, :�mY>>,"fir:�.'v>j� t6+V�»Y•ti�.n�J�•>:+,n':}:J. v..sv.:..:..a... ....'.: .l... -0U. <• a Y' .S s• .,, xr rau :1:1 � � ohe'.rLo1.AMe; :. h. _. . .... ...r <r l..;.,.. .,..... .,::.. ..;.:. :.v „L`r" ..ti t� 1}:if M;YJ+; ">'3, .« vY. �•y"+ "<K h>��i Lx H4}1 .: ,:<!nYi.•^A?'.v<v.:S.f.x. ,r Ya..�•S:::S Y'::..... ,.; t p 2� .�: .. t .Rr$yy.LL#:..:..�..2. • Ti...::..:.... f.��,: s,..:. 3.. ::. i+�ie r"�r »�<e',".•'. ;r�.C`l,.✓,.w s _ +A:•. 2".r}•/,uR x<we...., - ...,..... .}.>�{y: .tY%4'•Y..• L ti.S ,y,,, �.. +:<.Y 5�.•L:� ..),•+f} ;:t. .....f iN'.:.1. v:•:..y>yf'r..i^::..'{{y..m:.i.,.'i.n...:.':... .:' lC.:; L S�H4�, V.,(}ii.?kt :t.<>'�'t':'.:y'd �bv�!•�GZP .vt. .<.i :1 �< :': '�}r ,,,}'4.,4 .•< •.•Y:: .1 } \Y. ' y n :��a.�en car.:• �� . �.::...� � . : :': r��ev:e o n : ADDITIONAL MATERIAL(S) Letters and Email provided by the public Administrative, ie proof of publishing Later arriving materials such as doc- uments with signatures obtained .. F a ' I'a e l o F2 I- (C I EV E Main Identity D From. 80VOLTs -info(d) 5 2005 80volts.com= ._ 1.r _. _ �. •_ l �.1 t_ l 1 i ._ _ .. _ _ 'T _ ' 11lz1 e 2 cif 2 Developers are responsible for, if located on only one side of a road; de(Jlcaticn Of ROW for one-half of a 00' wide road (30'}. commercial projects must dedicate the right of+!fay of ore-nal;U:a 1?0' \:/ide road (10'), plus the construction of one-half of a 60' wide residential collector along their frontage plus a 12` lane in the opposite direction. If they are located on both sides of a road. they must dedicate '}0'; residential car 10D' if commercial; and are responsible for the construction of the full 00' or 100' width of improvements. It is also the Developer's responsibility to obtain the right of way and construct a 28' width section of road; (2 - 14`wide lanes) plus 0` graded shoulders for off site roads needed for access to its development the access shall be constructed at the developers expense and is not fee creditable. Signal modifications and construction required by the development are the developers cost. Any development with more than 25 lots must have 2 points of access constructed at the developers expense. Commercial projects are responsible for signal installation and modifications for their development and all acceleration and deceleration lanes. NVhy earl yotl de -elop otltside of the L'LL«'nth 110 re gal-d for N hile caller Cities Nvho are de'Veloplll`; 1-espollsibiv call 11Ut9et iiiiexatloiis fol' iiiLich lieeded PUbfic fac:llaies ali.d i-espollslbl% c oilsldei-atloi1s`.? HoNx, M-e VOU tlpholdillg the llltelltioiis of the t.'L.L. -heli \,'Utl ai-e lief 1111t1:2�atlll2 VOL11 ts`) Is the �Ltst �l t001 to dr*l-\'e developllleilt chid its Bees lllto 'Y"U11r pock-els"" Nk liat are volt �;Ulll�tCj �% hack tU the liel.ohbUrulo conilllLillltles, •Ur the abo\-' developlilellt Z-Hid its ill.lpacls?'? Please help ille 1llldel-stalld. Sillcereiv. Resident cif F sir L;:tst C otllltN. 1" '2 00 TO: CCC Board of Supervisors: February 14, 2005 FROM: Ralph A. Hernandez, Chair- Citizens For Democracy Members of the Board: Our organization is hereby going on record IN SUPPORT of leaving the existing Urban Limit Line where it currently is, and are AGAINST it being moved. It has only been four years since it was adjusted by the Board to its current line,, after many hours and days of public hearings and hundreds giving comments thereon(by citizens, Elected Officials and organizations' representatives). We also are hereby going on record as pointing outthat if the ULL is moved to accommodate any city's DEMANDS or requests to move the fine then it will trigger other cities' DEMANDING or requesting to also have the ULL adjusted for them. An example of such is the City of Pittsburg threatening such(CC Times article of 2/10/05, pg. A3). The realities of the ULL situation is that there is very little concern for other citiesand their populace's impacts by certain cities' Leaders. In fact, as in Antioch's case, the Leaders have cared very little about their decisions' impacts upon their own and other's community and populace, while favoring the Development, Consultant and Landowner interests. We will hereby use the City of Antioch as a classic example of the aforementioned. Antioch has never been held to answer on its violating the Growth Management requirements of the existing Measure C, but instead has essentially been rewarded by annually receiving their share of the half cent Sales Tax. In 1993 the City of Antioch sexed a total of about 3,500 acres previously within the County's jurisdiction, under the clearly stated claims of preventing the County's plans for growth thereon and to have "local control" thereby. Those acres are currently referred to as Future Urban Area#I (FETA#I - 2,700 acres) and Future Urban Area#2 (FUA#2 - 800+acres). I know, when I was on the then City Council makeup I was convinced to vote on such annexation proposal by the other Council Members, with such warnings still ringing in my ears, and the other Council Members guaranteeing no growth or plans would come forth for at least 20+years. Well, within a couple years the plans for growth there commenced,with between 5,000 to 10,000+total residential units to be built there. This in addition to the thousands of homes previously approved and to be built nearby in the other S/E areas. So much for their stated concerns of the County's alleged growth plans! Antioch's rapid growth has been such that it is now the second largest city in the County, only behind#1 Concord (both have over 100,000 populations apiece). It appears that Antioch's voracious appetite for more and more growth still has not been satiated. And, they stiff want more acreage(over 1,000 acres)for development to be annexed to the City, and even demanding such Via the ULL changes sought. There obviously is no concern by Antioch's Elected Officials for its obvious impacts to its community and those outside of Antioch. Counting FUA#1, FUA #2) and other as yet undeveloped acreage within Antioch's current city limits, there are about 5,000 or more total acres for development(with a potential of over 10,000 more homes). Does Antioch need more at this time, or in the near future? Obviously not! During this past November's General Election campaigns four of the five Members on the Council ran for office (3 seats, one trying to unseat the Mayor). Over, and over, and over, most BRAGGED about having "reduced" the city's past residential growth by "90%". This they had also previously been saying for over a year, and it was repeated at their 2/8/05 Council Meeting when discussing the ULL, and their desire to annex more acreage (the Roddy Ranch and Ginocchio, properties). Councilman Arne Simonsen was absent from this last Council meeting but forwarded his written e-mail communication wherein he too claims/brags that "...since 2000..." they've reduced growth (via new home building permits issued) "by over 90%." I have attached a copy of his communication for • • your information. Antioch's previous annual residential growth was a high of over 1,000 units to a low of about 450 units, the stated annual average being about 750. Let's do the math. Considering that they claim to have reduced growth by "900/o" or more "since 2000"then the city reportedly has reduced growth to about 45 to 100 residential units a year. Taking that into consideration, then the City of Antioch has a minimum of 45, to a high of over 100, years worth of possible residential growth acreage with FUA #1 and FUA #2 alone! They therefore DO NOT need any more acreage annexed to the City of Antioch presently, in the near, or even the far future- at least not before the year 2050. And,the additional burden and responsibilities that come with more annexed lands to Antioch would undoubtedly fiu-her adversely impact our already overstretched and overtaxed community. Antioch currently can not responsibly provide for what it currently has, and adding more to our's and the overall County's miseries is definitely NOT the answer. Antioch's promises of the past, recent, and for the future must be taken in light of the results experienced by everyone. In a nut shell, maintaining the existing ULL is the only answer to protect our citizenry, financial stability, services to the public, and government in general, from the adverse effects of too much growth and the ambitions of the power-hungry! And, neither Plan A, B, or C are solutions. There is regular claims that improving Highway 4 in East County will correct the problems and therefore should allow for more residential growth. Only they are wrong again! Our city streets are and have been greatly and adversely impacted by all of the rampant and unmitigated growth. Many a time those traveling within the city have to wait 2, 3 and 4 changes of the traffic lights in order to be able to get through certain intersections. It includes non-commute times and weekends. Many of the public we have spoken with have said they have to schedule when to drive in town in order to have an easier travel. So. Highway 4 improvements alone are not the answer, the inner city infrastructure too needs to be greatly improved. Overcrowded and/or impacted schools, lack of sufficient Public Safety personnel and resources, strained general public services, lowered abilities to maintain parks and critical infrastructure, etc., are way too common - and worsening. Our quality of life in Antioch, and outside of Antioch, has diminished to the point that there is a notable exodus by our citizenry for places to live away from this County. Many of these consequences can be attributed to the rampant and improperly mitigated impacts of new and further development. Antioch's Elected Officials claim they represent our citizenry on the subject of the ULL and demanded annexations of the Roddy Ranch and Ginocchio properties. That is NOT what most of the citizenry has told us. It has reached a point where there are and have been behind-the-scenes meetings and discussions of citizens and organizations g taking common action,in these matters. Our Elected Leaders are no longer trusted to properly represent the public . on the ULL matters, and we thousands disagree with the 5 Members of the Council as to moving the ULL annexation of more acreage, etc. Hold the Line where it presently is. It is time that the public be heard and the adverse actions of a few be curtailed. Very truly yours, kov /-10/ Ralph A. Hernandez, Chair Citizens For Democracy c/o 2718 Barcelona Cr. Antioch, Ca., 94509 #(925) 757-8943 2 Page I of 2 Martin,, Jolene ---------------From: asimonsen4@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:29 PM To: Martin, Jolene; Chalk, Janet Cc: Pappas Diaz, Linda; Jakel, Jim Subject: Agenda Item#6 Jolene/Janet, Could you please pass along my comment regarding Agenda Item#6 to Mayor Freitas and the Council this evening. Arne My position regarding Antioch's request for the location of the Urban Limit Line has not changed. Antioch is only asking for one half of the land that was taken by the Supervisors' action in 2000. Any variation of Plan B,must include the.items in my previous.Council.input at the-previous meeting,. with emphasis towards including economic development and improvements in the j obs-housing ratio as one of the criteria for bringing Roddy Ranch outside the Urban Limit Line. The remaining land in our request would not be developed until Highway 4 is widened to Lone Tree Way and Balfour Road is Widened to two lanes in both directions from Deer Valley Road to the Highway 4 Bypass,portions of which have already been widened. The Antioch City Council should oppose Brentwood's request for land south of FUA1,which violates the boundary agreement between our two cities. It should be emphasized to the East County ULL Task Force that this Council has been responsible in controlling growth in our city since 2000 by reducing the number of new home building permits by over 90%. And that we are committed to controlling residential housing growth until such time as Highway 4 has been widened to the junction with the Bypass and the Bypass is widened from to two lanes in each direction from Highway 4 to Marsh Creek Road. The Antioch City Council should support the inclusion of the Buchanan Bypass to provide an additional major east-west arterial from Lone Tree Way to Kirker Pass Road to address our transportation issues. The issue of the arbitrary revised Urban Limit Line has poisoned every regional effort since 20'00.As Mayor Freitas stated at the Contra Costa Transportation Authority meetings,we want peace in our lifetime. We must not allow outside forces which cannot get elected to office to dictate something that is counter to our General Plan or the General Plans of the other 18 cities. Lastly,I would not presume to know what is in the General Plan of the other 18 cities and I would doubt that they have read Antioch's General Plan. The purpose of the four regional ULL Task Forces was to define a ULL for their area,not the ULL for cities outside their task force area. This should be 2/8/2005 • Page 2 of 2 emphasized at the East County ULL Task Ford meeting. Respectfully, Arne Simonsen Council Member 2/8/2005