HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07122005 - D2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO:
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICPCosta
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR „•..r County
DATE: JULY 129 2005
SUBJECT: REPORT ON BALLOT MEASURE FOR EXTENSION OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT report from the Community Development Director on a proposed ballot measure to
extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line.
2. ACKNOWLEDGE that the ballot measure for a proposal to extend the term of the Urban Limit
Line will generally take the form of "Plan C Compromise - Mutually Agreeable Urban Limit
Line”, including four of the Worth Amendments, as identified in the Board of Supervisors May
10, 2005 motion.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON o APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED C.. OTHER x.
t..> L&rte- 1*qTfA� o
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT W SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: P. Roche,CDD-Adv.Pin.(Ph#925-335-1242) ATTESTED
- "�00<00000,
cc: CAO JOHN SWEETEN, LERK OF THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
19 Cities
Chair,CCTA DEPUTY
July 12, 2005
Board of Supervisors
Report On Ballot Measure For Extension Of The Urban Limit Line
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
3. AUTHORIZE staff from the Community Development and County Counsel to begin drafting a
ballot measure and initiate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.
4. AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors to sign letter in response to the June 10, 2005
letter from the Mayor, City of Concord.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should the Board authorize drafting of a ballot measure and initiation of the CEQA review to extend
the term of the County's Urban Limit Line substantially based on "Plan C- Mutually Agreeable Urban
Limit Line", including four of the Worth Amendments, this would be an unfunded mandate and costs
would be incurred for staff time to undertake this effort.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On June 14, 2005 the Board of Supervisors considered and discussed the results of the June 8, 2005
Special Meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,whereby Option#2 was approved which
allows a city/town and the County to individually—or in groups— pursue a specific Urban Limit Line
ballot measure and initiate the environmental review process on their own. Should a city or the County
pursue a local ballot measure to establish their own Urban Limit Line, this would satisfy the
jurisdiction's compliance with the Measure J—Urban Limit Lines Principles. At the June 14th meeting,
the Board requested Community Development staff to return with a report on how to proceed with a
ballot measure for the unincorporated area and initiate the CEQA review process, and to draft a
response to the June 10, 2004 letter from the Mayor, City of Concord received by the Board regarding
the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station.
The Board adopted a motion on May 10, 2005 which outlined support for an Urban Limit Line under
the Measure J—Mutually Agreeable Urban Limit Line proposal based on the Plan C-Compromise, as
presented on 1/24/2005 by the Contra Costa Council, Home Builders Association, Save Mount Diablo,
Greenbelt Alliance, and California Alliance For Jobs; plus incorporating 4 of the amendments to Plan
C authored by Councilwoman Amy Worth (Orinda), specifically amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6; and,
included within the proposal an exemption with respect to the tideland portion of the Concord Naval
Weapon Station allowing the automatic commencement of the Urban Limit Line review process for this
area when the United States Department of Defense determines to dispose of the property.
Board members will recall that a key feature of the Plan C-Compromise was to leave the Urban Limit
Line in its present location, coterminous with City Limits,there would be no changes to the Urban Limit
Line for a minimum of ten years and then changes would be allowed only if it is shown that there not a
20-year housing supply in Contra Costa County per certain criteria. The Plan C-Compromise also
provided for a periodic review of the Urban Limit Line based on a 5-year cycle beginning after voter
adoption of the line.
July 12,2005
Board of Supervisors
Report On Ballot Measure For Extension Of The Urban Limit Line
Page 3
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
Another key feature under the Plan C-Compromise was the requirement that 10 years after the
adoption of the line there should be a sub-regional review of the remaining capacity of the land within
the Urban Limit Line to determine if the housing and job needs over the next 20 years could be met
within the line. This land availability review would then recommend specific changes in land use
designations within the Urban Limit Line and/or recommend the inclusion of additional land within the
Urban Limit Line to meet the 20-year housing and jobs needs.A copy of the Plan C-Compromise and
the Worth Amendments are provided for Board reference under Attachment "A".
Based on the concepts under the Plan C-Compromise along with the Worth Amendments previously
supported by the Board,the following outlines staff's understanding of what the ballot measure would
ask the voters to approve:
1. Amend and update the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, including:
a) Extend the term for the Urban Limit for another twenty years (2026);
b) Incorporate the procedure to review the Urban Limit Line based on a 5- year cycle,
beginning after voter adoption, and mandate that after 10 years from adoption a sub-
regional review of whether there is sufficient remaining capacity within the Urban Limit
Line to meet the 20-year housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County;
c) Mandate voter approval to expand Urban Limit Line boundary by more than 30 acres
following the 5-year schedule of periodic review of the Urban Limit Line and 10-year sub-
regional land availability review;
d) Provide for the automatic commencement of a review of the Urban Limit Line in the
vicinity of the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station at such time as the
United States Department of Defense determines to dispose(surplus)this land area(this
could occur outside the 5-year and 10-year cycles of review) ;
d) Retain procedure for changes to the Urban Limit Line under 30 acres based on 4/5 vote
of Board after holding public hearing and making certain findings;
e) Retain the concept of a standard for land preservation, whereby a certain percentage of
the overall County land area will be retained for non-urban uses over the twenty year
period;
f) Retain the concept of protections for the County's prime agricultural land (e.g.
Agricultural Core) by maintaining a 40-acre minimum parcel size and limiting uses to
agricultural production or uses incidental to agricultural production;
July 12, 2005
Board of Supervisors
Report On Ballot Measure For Extension Of The Urban Limit Line
Page 4
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
g) Incorporate the voter approved ordinance into the General Plan document.
h) Adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map, reflecting the following (see items 1, 2, 4, and 6
from the Worth Amendments):
i. Incorporate San Ramon's voter approved General Plan Land Use and Urban
Growth Boundary map;
ii. Locate the 27 acres for a public playfield as part of the Gateway
development in Orinda on the inside of the Urban Limit Line;
iii. Locate the 38 acres of the Pine Creek Detention Basin parcels owned by the
Contra Costa County Water Conservation and Flood Control District in the
North Gate area on the outside of the Urban Limit Line;
iv. Locate the approved Alhambra Valley Ranch residential subdivision (Sub#
6443) on the inside of the Urban Limit Line, and make corresponding
adjustments placing waterfront area in the Martinez area outside the Urban
Limit Line, as recommended by the Martinez City Council.
2. Amend the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), Land Use and Conservation
elements to incorporate the voters' approval of an updated Urban Limit Line.
At the June 14th meeting, the Board also requested staff to identifytimeline with ke
the probable Y
milestones for placing an Urban Limit Line ballot measure before the voters under three different
scenarios:
• November 8, 2005 Special Statewide Election Ballot
• June 6, 2006 Statewide Primary Election Ballot
• November 14, Statewide General Election Ballot
A detailed timeline with key milestones for each of these scenarios is provided under Attachment"B"
to this report. Staff notes that due to the County Election Official's need to prepare a Countywide
Election ballot for the November 8, 2005 Special Election Ballot it would appear to be nearly
impossible to submit an Urban Limit Line ballot measure to them on time without severely truncating
the 30-day review and comment period of draft ballot measure language by cities and the public and
without compressing time needed by staff to prepare both the ballot measure language and complete
the CEQA review.
July 12, 2005
Board of Supervisors
Report On Ballot Measure For Extension Of The Urban Limit Line
Page 5
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
As a final matter,the Board requested staff to prepare a response to the June 10, 2005 letter from the
Mayor, City of Concord. Attached for the Board's consideration under Attachment"C", is a draft letter
for the Chair of the Board's signature responding to the concerns raised in the Concord letter.
Attachments (3)
1. Attachment"A" : Plan C-Compromise and the Worth Amendments
2. Attachment"B": 3 Scenarios for placing ULL Ballot Measure before the voters
3. Attachment"C": draft response letter to Mayor, City of Concord
Attachment "A": Plan C — Compromise and the Worth Amendments
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 L7LL 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 iTLL".
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.
Page 20
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 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 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
Page 21
Non-residential 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. 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.
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 longer 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.
Page 22
Proposed Amendments to Plan C
Councilwoman Amy Worth Amendments,presented at the 2/26/2005 ULL Summit
1. As provided in the Measure J Expenditure Plan, accept minor(less than 30 acres)non-
consecutive adjustments to the ULL.
2. Accept City and County requests for tightening of the ULL.
3. Accept adjustments to bring inside the line split parcels in Clayton where city services are
needed and where the change will not result in new development beyond that which is
currently allowed in the March Creek Specific Plan, including preserving the
undeveloped land currently protected by County scenic easements.
4. Bring inside the ULL those areas in the City of Martinez's Sphere of Influence that are
already developed and concurrently place outside the ULL an equal number of acres in
the waterfront area that are not already developed.
5. If the Federal Government releases the Concord Naval Weapons Station(CNWS) for
civilian use, the following shall occur: the ULL will be changed to include up to 1,500
acres of the tidal portion for non-residential development if, concurrently, an amount of
land equal to 125%of newly included acreage is placed outside the line from the inland
portion of the CNWS.
6. Consistent with the city of San Ramon's voter approved ULL; approve 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.
Attachment "B": 3 Scenarios for placing ULL Ballot Measure
before the voters
TIMELINE AND KEY MILESTONES
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 SPECIAL STATEWIDE ELECTION BALLOT
BOARD-INITIATED URBAN LIMIT LINE MEASURE
CEQA
DATE MILESTONE BOARD ACTION PROCESS
Deadline for Governor
June 13, 2005 to call for Special
Statewide Election for
Nov. 8, 2005
Initiate process for Board authorizes Staff finalizes
June 14, 2005 ULL Ballot Measure on staff to prepare ULL Initial Study
Board of Nov. '05 Special Ballot Measure for under CEQA
Supervisors Election. Nov. '05 Special following Board
meeting Election and authorization. (1)
determines the main
elements of the
measure.
Approve draft Approve draft ULL Circulate Initial
June 21, 2005 language for Ballot Ballot Measure Study and Notice
Board of Measure for public language for public of Intent for a
Supervisors comment comment and Negative
meeting circulate to cities and Declaration (20
stakeholders. days, closing on
July 12, 2005).
Post and file with
County Clerk.
Adopt Resolution on Accept report on Post and file
July 19, 2005 Special Measure comments received Notice of
Board of Election on draft ULL Ballot Determination
Supervisors Measure. (NOD)for
meeting (2) Negative with
Make CEQA County Clerk.
determination.
OR
Adopt Resolution
August 9, 2005 calling for a Special
Board of Measure Election to
Supervisors place ULL Measure
meeting (3) on the ballot for the
Nov.8, 2005 Special
Statewide Election.
Notes:
(1) An EIR would need to be prepared, if substantial evidence is identified or presented to support a
fair argument that the project would result in physical changes to the environment, and the
proposed action was not evaluated in a previous environmental review. An EIR could not be
completed prior to the latest date for Board consideration to approve final Ballot Measure language,
see notes 2 & 3. A Negative Declaration is anticipated should the Board-initiated ULL Ballot
Measure not propose any substantial changes to the existing ULL boundary since it would not
induce growth.
(2) The Contra Costa County Election Official requests that resolution calling the election be filed with
Registrar of Voters not less than 106 days prior to the date of the election, in order to provide
sufficient time for arguments, preparation of materials for the printer(including translation, proofing,
etc.)prior to issuing absentee ballots.
(3) 88 days prior to the election is the latest that a resolution can be filed with the County Election
Official.
Miles-.
TIMELINE AND KEY MILESTONES
NOVEMBER 14, 2806 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT
BOARD-INITIATED URBAN LIMIT LINE BALLOT MEASURE
BOARD
MEETING MILESTONE BOARD ACTION CEQA PROCESS
DATE
Earliest: Determine the Board authorizes Begin CEQA
Board Meeting elements of the staff to formally review process (1).
Sept. 13, 2005 ballot measure prepare ULL Ballot
based on report from Measure for the
Community Nov. `06 General
Development and Election
County Counsel.
Initiate process for
Latest: drafting an ULL
Board Meeting Ballot Measure to be
April 11, 2006 schedule for the
Nov. '06 General
Election.
Earliest: Approve draft Approve draft ULL Circulate Initial
Board Meeting language for Ballot Ballot Measure study and Notice
Nov. 15, 2005 Measure for public language for public of Intent for a
comment. comment and Negative
circulate to cities Declaration (30
Latest: and stakeholders days, closing on
Board Meeting for 30 days. Dec.15, 2006, or
June 13, 2006 Feb. 17, 2006).
Post and file with
County Clerk.
Earliest: Adopt Resolution on Accept report on Post and file
Board Meeting special Measure comments Notice of
Feb. 21, 2006 Election received on draft Determination
ULL Ballot (NOD) for
OR Measure. Negative
Declaration
Latest: Make CEQA county clerk.
Board Meeting determination.
July 18, 2006 (2)
or August 8, 2006 Adopt Resolution
(3) calling for a
Special Measure
Election to place
ULL Measure on
the ballot for the
June 6, 2006
Primary Election.
(2)
Notes:
(1) An EIR would need to be prepared, if substantial evidence is identified or presented to support a
fair argument that the project would result in physical changes to the environment, and the
proposed action was not evaluated in a previous environmental review. It is doubtful that an EIR
could be completed prior to the latest date for Board consideration to approve final Ballot Measure
language, see notes 2 & 3. A Negative Declaration is anticipated should the Board-initiated ULL
Ballot Measure not propose any substantial changes to the existing ULL boundary since it would
not induce growth
(2) The Contra Costa county Election Official requests that resolution calling the election be filed with
Registrar of Voters not less than 106 days prior to the date of the election, in order to provide
sufficient time for arguments,preparation of materials for the printer(including translation,proofing,
etc.)prior to issuing absentee ballots.
(3) 88 days prior to the election is the latest that a resolution can be filed with the County Election
Official.
Attachment "C": draft response letter to Mayor, City of Concord
Contra Jolui Sweeten
The Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board
Costa and
County Administration Building County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 106Count (925)335-1900
Martinez, California 9455-3-4/068
Jolm Gioia,District I
Gayle B.Uilkema,District II
Mary Piepho,District III
Mark DeSauWer,District IV
Federal D.Glover, District V
` ��.+bier•
♦ V
•
•
July 12, 2005
Honorable Laura M. Hoffineister
Mayor, City of Concord
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01
Concord, CA 94519-2578
Subject: 2006 Ballot Measure for Extension of the County's Urban Limit Line
Dear Mayor Hoff neister:
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 2005 to the Board of Supervisor on behalf of the
Concord City Council explaining your city's position on the May 10, 2005 Board motion
which outlined our support for an Urban Limit Line under the Measure J- Mutually
Agreeable Urban Limit Line process based on the Plan C-Compromise, as presented on
January 24, 2005 by the Contra Costa Council, Home Builders Association, Save Mount
Diablo, Greenbelt Alliance, and California Alliance for Jobs.
On June 8, 2005 the Contra Costa Transportation Authority approved Option #2 which
allows a city/town and the County on their own — or in groups — to pursue the
establishment of an Urban Limit Line through a ballot measure. Based on this action, the
Board of Supervisors has determined to proceed with a ballot measure for the
unincorporated area substantially following the Plan C-Compromise proposal along with
certain of the amendments authored by Councilwoman Amy Worth.
With respect to the 1500 acre tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station,
the ballot measure would include a provision to automatically commence the review of
the Urban Limit Line boundary for this portion of the base at such time as the United
States Department of Defense determines to dispose (surplus) this land area. It should be
noted that this provision means that the review could occur outside the regular cycle of
the Urban Limit Line review, as defined under the Plan C-Compromise. Any change to
the Urban Limit Line boundary for the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons
Station exceeding 30 acres would still require voter approval.
Letter to Mayor Hoff neister re:Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
July 12,2005
Page Two
We have directed our staff to begin the process of drafting the ballot measure language
and to initiate the review process under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). It is our expectation that this ballot measure will be placed before the voters in
2006. It is our intention to circulate the draft ballot measure language to each of the 19
cities and the various stakeholder groups for a 30-day comment period prior to the
Board's formal adoption of a resolution on a special measure election and forwarding of
the ballot measure to the County Elections Official.
We look forward to the City of Concord's continued interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
ayle B. Uilkema,
Chair, Board of Supervisors