HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03072006 - D.4 - 4TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP =' •''`' ;, Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �;; ;��T° County
DATE: MARCH 7, 2006
SUBJECT: PROPOSED 2006 VOTER-APPROVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT
LINE BALLOT MEASURE (COUNTYWIDE)(COUNTY FILE: GP#06-0001 AND ZT#06-
0001)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT a report from the Community Development Director on the proposed 2006 Voter-
Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE / 7 "1
✓RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM TEE
__,,APPROVE OTHER
r
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOA b NAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
1
Contact: P. Roche,CDD-Adv. Ping. (Ph#925-335-1242) ATTESTED
cc: CAO JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Clerk of the Board SUPE AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel C—
County Clerk(Elections Dept.)
Mayor/City Mgr.-(each of 19 cities in CCC) BY , DEPUTY
Chair, CCTA
March 7, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS —continued
2. RECEIVE public comment on the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban
Limit Line ballot measure.
3. ADOPT a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance that the proposed 2006 Voter-
Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line ballot measure would not result in any
significant impacts on the environment by finding that the environmental review prepared for
the proposed ballot measure is adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and DIRECT staff to file the CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/80 calling for an election on the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra
Costa County Urban Limit Line for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election (see Resolution No.
2006/80, under Attachment "A").
5. DIRECT the County Clerk to conduct the election pursuant to the California Elections Code.
This election shall be held at the time of the primary election on June 6, 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should the Board adopt the Resolution authorizing an election the County will be responsible for
bearing the cost for this election. Elections Code section 13001 provides that all expenses authorized
and incurred in the preparation and conduct of elections shall be paid by the County. The County
Elections Officer has provided an estimate of at least$110,000.00 to place this measure on the 2006
Primary Election, which covers the costs for preparing and printing ballot pamphlets.
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On July 12, 2005 the Board of Supervisors authorized staff from Community Development and County
Counsel to draft an Urban Limit Line ballot measure for the June 2006 Primary Election and to initiate
the CEQA review process on the proposed ballot measure.The Board directed that the ballot measure
should ask voters to approve amendments and updates to both the County Ordinance Code and the
General Plan that would:
• Extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026;
• Require voter approval, in addition to 4/5 approval by the Board,to expand the Urban Limit Line
boundary by more than 30 acres;
• Retain procedures for changes to the Urban Limit Line under 30 acres based on a 4/5 vote of
the Board after holding a public hearing and making one of the seven findings currently
enumerated in the County Ordinance Code;
March 7, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Page 3
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
• Incorporate procedures to review the Urban Limit Line.based on a 5-year cycle, beginning after
voter adoption, and require a review of the Urban Limit Line boundary 10 years from voter
approval (Year 2016) based on a land supply review to determine whether there is sufficient
capacity to meet 20-year housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County;
• 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 if the United States Department of
Defense determines to surplus this land area, allowing this review to occur outside the 5-year
and 10-year review cycles;
• Retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and retain protections for the County's prime
agricultural land by maintaining the 40-acre minimum parcel size for prime soils and limiting
uses to agricultural production or uses incidental to agricultural production;
• Adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map that reflects four specific changes ( items 1,2,4, and 6 from
the amendments to the"Mutually Agreeable Urban Limit Line", as proposed by Councilwoman
Amy Worth, City of Orinda):
1. Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter approved General Plan Land Use and Urban
Growth Boundary Map;
2. Locate 27 acres for a proposed public playfield as part of the Gateway development in
Orinda on the inside of the Urban Limit Line;
3. 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;
4. Locate the approved and built Alhambra Valley Ranch residential subdivision
(Subdivision Map#6443)on the inside of the Urban Limit Line and make corresponding
adjustments placing portions of waterfront area in the City of Martinez outside the Urban
Limit Line, as recommended by the Martinez City Council.
Subsequent to the Board's direction in July 2005, Urban Limit Line ballot measures for the cities of
Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg were placed on the ballot for the Special Election held on
November 5, 2005. The Urban Limit Line ballot measures were passed by the voters in the cities of
Antioch and Pittsburg. Staff has prepared the County's proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit
Line Map to reflect the Urban Limit Line boundary in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg based on the
outcome of the November 2005 elections conducted in those two cities.
Attached for the Board's consideration is Resolution No. 2006/80 which approves a ballot measure for
the June 6, 2006 Primary Election (see Attachment"A"). It includes the complete ordinance language
for the ballot measure and the new Urban Limit Line map as they would appear in the voter pamphlet.
March 7, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Page 4
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
Also attached for the Board's consideration is the CEQA review document prepared for the 2006
Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure in the form of the Notice of Negative Declaration and
Initial Study/Checklist (See Attachment "B").
As a final matter, written public comments received to date on the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved
Urban Limit Line ballot measure and/or the CEQA review are provided for the Board's consideration
(See Attachment "C"). Comment letters received to date include:
• David Shuey, Mayor, City of Clayton (2/27/2008) - This letter requests the Board modify the
proposed Urban Limit Line map in the ballot measure to include the City of Clayton's previous
request to shift the ULL boundary in the Marsh Creek Road area.
Staff Analysis: The comment letterasks fora change in the ULL boundary in the vicinity
of Marsh Creek Road. It does not raise concerns relating to potential environmental
impacts with the proposed ballot measure.
• Bob Doran, President, Board of Directors, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
(2/28/2006)—This letter comments on the County's need to plan more comprehensively for the
Discovery Bay community and Far East County.
Staff Analysis: The comment letter does not raise concerns relating to potential
environmental impacts with the proposed ballot measure.
• Lydia DuBorg, City Manager, City of Concord (2/28/2006) —The letter from the Concord City
Manager makes two comments: 1) the City is requesting removal of the ballot measure's
provision on the automatic review of the ULL boundary in the vicinity of the tideland portion of
the Concord Naval Weapons Station because it is a remainder from earlier ULL discussions
and is no longer relevant to the City; and, 2)the City is calling into question the adequacy of the
Initial Study's analysis to support a "No Impact" associated with the change in the ULL
boundary in the hills separating Concord and Pittsburg, and the City is requesting that the Initial
Study be revised and re-circulated to incorporate mitigation measures that would apply to new
visible ridgeline development in the area in question.
Staff Analysis: The comment letter from the City of Concord provides no substantial
evidence that the ballot measure (the project) will have a significant environmental
impact to support their claim the Initial Study is inadequate. In making its claim, the
City's comment letter incorrectly interprets the County General Plan and County Zoning
Code by assuming that because land is on the inside of the County's ULL it will
inevitably be developed to an urban use. At page 3 of the Concord letter it is claimed
that "since by allowing the ULL boundary adjustment, anticipated urban development
would be facilitated in an area that currently does not allow it". Staff points out that the
County General Plan makes it very clear that the fact a property is located inside the
Urban Limit Line "provides no guarantee or implication that it may be developed during
the lifetime of the General Plan".
March 7, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Page 5
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
The County General Plan expounds further on this policy at page 3-9 by explaining that
"Development of property within the ULL would be restricted by the limitations imposed
by the County's Growth Management Program, as well as by other General Plan
limitations. In addition, those properties within the ULL that do not currently have land
use designations that would permit urban development would have to apply for and
obtain a General Plan Amendment re-designating the property with a land use
designation permitting development."The action before the voters would not in any way
change the County's General Plan land use designations or policies for the hills that
separate Concord and Pittsburg.
Instead, the action voters are being asked to recognize in the County's Urban Limit Line
map the decision by Pittsburg voters from the November 5, 2005 Special Election to
establish a voter-approved Urban Limit Line for the City of Pittsburg. The voter-approved
Urban Limit Line for the City of Pittsburg is consistent with the Principles of Agreement
for establishing the Urban Limit Line as incorporated into the extension of the % cent
transportation sales tax under Measure J, approved by voters countywide in November
2004, and asking the voters to approve a Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line map
that reflects the vote in Pittsburg is also consistent with these principles.
Staff would not dispute that the action in the November 2005 Special Election by the
voters in Pittsburg to approve an Urban Limit Line may result in an indirect significant
impact on the environment, as discussed in the City of Concord's letter, but the
subsequent action by the County to ask voters countywide to approve a new and
revised County Urban Limit Line, which would recognize the November 2005 Pittsburg
voter-approved Urban Limit Line, could not and does not cause an impact on the
environment. The voters under the proposed ballot measure are being asked to
incorporate into the County's Urban Limit Line map something that has already occurred
- a ULL boundary approved by Pittsburg voters.
Concord's letter has not substantiated a causal relationship or link in terms of impact on
the environment with the County's proposed action. The fact that the City of Pittsburg in
February 2005 had circulated a subdivision map for a proposed residential development
on a hillside site in the unincorporated area is immaterial. This area will remain
designated as Agricultural Land(AL) under the General Plan and zoned for agricultural
use under the County's jurisdiction until such time as it is annexed to the city.
Staff suggests that the City of Concord's understandable and valid concerns with the
potential for visible ridgeline development on the hills that separate the two city
boundaries would be more appropriately addressed to the City of Pittsburg, rather than
the County, when Pittsburg pursues annexation of this land area.
March 7, 2006
Board of Supervisors
Proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Page 6
BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION -continued
• Donna Landeros, City Manager, City of Brentwood (2/28/2006)—The letterfrom the Brentwood
City Manager requests that the proposed ballot measure's Urban Limit Line map reflect the
original Measure C-1990 ULL map in the location of the City's Special Planning Areas(SPA)G,
H, and R. The letter suggests that the original Measure C-1990 Urban Limit Line map is the
City's equivalent of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line.
Staff Analysis: The comment letter from the Brentwood City Manager does not raise
substantive concerns relating to potential environmental impacts with the proposed
ballot measure. Instead, the City asserts that the Urban Limit Line map that was
originally included in the Measure C-1990 is still in effect. This position does not
recognize that the County's Urban Limit Line west of the city limits was lawfully modified
in the Yr. 2000 by the Board of Supervisors as authorized by the voters under Measure
C-1990. It should be noted that the City of Brentwood had joined in litigation against the
County Board of Supervisors in an attempt to convince the courts to overturn this Yr.
2000 decision. The Board's Yr. 2000 decision to modify the boundaries of the County
Urban Limit Line was upheld both in the Superior Court and in the California Appellate
Court.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
The County Elections Official has previously informed the County that sufficient time is needed by that
office to prepare, print, and distribute the ballot and voter pamphlets, particularly for those requesting
absentee ballots. Eighty-eight (88) days is the minimum amount of time for the timely completion of
these tasks. Adoption of a resolution on March 7, 2006 would provide the time for the County Clerk-
Elections Department to complete these tasks. Failure to take action in approving the resolution on
March 7, 2006 would mean that the 2006 Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line ballot measure could not
be submitted to voters for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election.
Attachments (3 items)
1. Attachment "A": Board Resolution No. 2006/80 — Resolution Calling For An Election On June 6,
2006 On Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line
2. Attachment "B": Notice of Public Review and Intent To Adopt Negative Declaration and Initial
Study/Checklist
3. Attachment "C": Written Comments Received To Date
G:Wdvance Planning adv plan\ULL Ballot Measure\BallotMcasureB0030706fnal.doc
Attachment "A": Board Resolution No. 2006/80 -- Resolution
Calling For An Election On June 6, 2006 On
Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on March 7,2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION! NO.2006180
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION )
ON JUNE 6, 2006 FOR A VOTER-APPROVED j )
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LiMIT Lli E. )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County R•SOLVES THAT:
1. . In 1990 the voters in Contra Costa Co my approved Measure C,the 65135
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Ordinan a (Ordinance No_ 90-66). Since that
time, the Urban Limit Line has been incorporatento both the County.Ordinance Code
pnd the General Plan to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural land,
o°en space, and other areas, by establishing tine beyond which no urban land uses can
be designated through the year 2010. T�e County's Urban Limit Line is currently
scW-iuled to expire in the year 2010.The Board of Supervisors recognizes that there is a
contiCLiing need to protect agricultural a7er�s
�pen space in this County
_. In November 2004, the voin Contra Costa.County approved Measure J,
a 25-year extension of the Measu a C-88 local transportation sales tax measure
previously 7 pproved by the voters ir/1988. To be eligible for its share of the sales tax
proceeds [Li.cal Transportation *intenance and Improvement funds (18% return to
source funds) and Contra Costa7ransportation for Livable Communities funds (5% TLC
funds)], the C.,,ynty must havy an Urban Limit Line, developed and maintained in
conformance w0 the "Principes of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line,"
attached and ince"porated intp Measure J. To comply with the Principles of Agreement it
is necessary to extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line beyond the year 2010.
3. Pursuant to he Principles of Agreement, the County participated in a public
process with the nineteen cities in the County to establish.a mutually agreed upon Urban
Limit Line. This process was concluded in the summer of 2005 without agreement on a
final proposal among% all the jurisdictions. Under the aforementioned Principles of
Agreement, if "no Countywide mutually agreed upon Urban Limit Line is established by
March 31, 2009, only local jurisdictions with a voter approved ULL (Urban Limit Line)will
be eligible to receive the 18% return to source or the 5% TLC funds." Prior to the
enactment of the/Principles of Agreement, the voters in San Ramon in March 2002
approved an Urt3an Growth Boundary for the City of San Ramon, and since the summer
of 2005,the voters in the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg have approved Urban Limit Lines
for those respective cities. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the need for Contra
Costa County to remain eligible for its share of Local Transportation Maintenance and
Improvemept and Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds by
securing vpter approval of an extension to the Urban Limit Line before March 31,2009.
4/ On July 12, 2005, the Board of Supervisors directed and authorized staff to
takesps to initiate the adoption of a new, voter-approved Urban Limit Line. These
steps included conducting an environmental review and preparing an Urban Limit Line
ball Ft measure to be placed on the June 2006 Primary Election Ballot. If approved, the
nesure would amend the County's General Plan (2006-2020) and the County's Land
P eservation Pian Ordinance to: (1)extend the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan
i
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2026; (2) require voter approval, in
addition to four-fifths approval by the Board of Supervisors, to expand the Urban Limit
Line by more than 30 acres; (3) provide for periodic reviews of the Urban LimitLi e,
including a mandatory mid-point review involving an evaluation of housing and job n ds;
(4) provide for an automatic review of the Urban Limit Line in the vicinity of the ti eland
portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station if the United States Depa ent of
Defense determines to surplus this property; (5) adopt a new and revised Ur an Limit
Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines by voters in t e cities of
Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflects other non-substan ' I boundary
changes at various locations; and (6) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and
protections for the County's prime agricultural land. //
5. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the value and need to continue the
Urban Limit Lime as an .effective tool for planning the orderly growth and development
within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
6. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered an Initial Study on
the proposed 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line' ballot
measure, which was prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the
Initial Study it is determined that the proposed ballot mea-:ure will not result in any
significant impacts on the environment. A Negative Declara"lin has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors concurrently herewith.
7. The Board of Supervisors, having receiver: comments from the public and
having considered these comments, directs that the '-CM Voter-Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line, as set forth in Ordinance (.U. 2006-06 on fife with the Clerk of
the.Board, be submitted to qualified voters of the C;iunty for their approval at.the June 6,
2006 primary election, in accordance with the rt=�uirements of the Califomia Elections
Code. The following ballot language for submitter of the ordinance to the voters is hereby
approved:
"Shall the voters amend the. C 5ntra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020) and the Count,:s 65135 Land Preservation Plan
Ordinance (County. Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to: (i)
extend the term of the Cc,unty's Urban Limit Line to the .Year
2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by more than
30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish new review procedures?"
8. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election
Official for election, and the C.9unty Clerk, Elections Department, is hereby authorized
and directed to provide all no ces and take all other actions necessary to holding the
election, including but not Iim' ed to providing notice of times within which arguments for
and against are submitted.
Orig.Dept: Community Deve',Jpment
Contact Person: Patrick Rochi,Adv.Ping
cc: Community Development I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
CAO action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Clerk of the Board Supervisors on the date shown.
County Counsel
Clerk,Elections Dept. ATTESTED:
JOHN CULLEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
i County Aaministrator
By: Deputy
i
/i
RESOLUTION NO. 2006/80
J
r
ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA
March 7, 2006
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered adopting Resolution No. 2006/105 calling for an
election on .lune 6, 2006 for a voter-approved Contra Costa urban limit line.
Patrick Roche of the Community Development Department presented the staff report, noting that the
language in the agenda packet materials incorporates those changes suggested by the Board in July of
2005. He said the Urban Limit Line the Board is being asked to submit to the voters incorporates the
actions taken by voters or Antioch and Pittsburg who have approved their own urban limit lines for their
cities.
Supervisor Piepho asked what the cost difference would be between placing the issue on the ballot as part
of the.Tune Primary or as part of the November General Flection.
Steve Weir, County Clerk-Recorder, responded that because there will be a countywide June election, but
because there is not normally a November primary,the June election would have the lowest cost impact
Oil the County.
Supervisor Uilkema asked what would happen if the measure does not pass; particularly, which cities
would still be in compliance, and what would the cities that were not in compliance then have to do?
Mr. Roche responded that at least four jurisdictions currently have voter-approved Urban Limit Lines
bringing them into compliance with Measure J, and that perhaps the other cities in the County without
Urban Limit Lines would have to go to their voters to approve a City-sponsored Urban Limit Line. The
other possibility is that a cities could adopt the Urban Limit Line approved countywide.
Supervisor Uilkema asked what would happen if the line passed by a majority vote in some cities but not
overall; would those cities where it passed by a majority then have a qualifying line'?
Martin Cnglcmann of Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA) staff said that CCTA does not have
a clear-cut answer. CCTA's legal counsel has advised that the one thing that is clear is that if the ballot
passes countywide, and if it passed by the majority in a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction would then be in
compliance. lie said that if the measure fails countywide, the issue becomes less clear and could be
problematic.
Supervisor Gioia noted there is an important distinction to be made. Passage by voters countywide of the
measure sponsored by the Board would not make the Urban Limit Line legrilly binding for the cities. It
would only be binding as it pertains to the determination of compliance with the Growth Management
component to Measure J to remain eligible for return-to-source funds. He noted there have been
discussions at the CCTA proposing that each city council pass a resolution stating their intention to
comply with the Urban Limit Line, and that as long as they are in compliance with that resolution,they
would then eligible for their return-to-source funds.
Supervisor Gioia asked for public comment. The following people addressed the Board:
• Julic Pierce, Councilmember of the City of Clayton, referred the Board
to Clayton's February 22, 2006 letter. She summarized the City's request
for a modification of the County's proposed urban limit line to
incorporate number three of the "Worth Amendments"as presented at
the February 26, 2005 Urban Limit Line (ULL)Conference. She said
that since all nineteen cites agreed with Worth Amendment number
three, she would think it would be appropriate for the County to honor it
as well. She further noted that correspondence with LAFCO has
indicated that if the County's Urban Limit Line is approved by voters as
proposed without this amendment, LAFCO could be expected to hold
of i
ADDEND UM TO ITEM D.4
Mcu-ch 7, 2000
Page 2 Of 3•'..
Clayton to that Urban Limit Line and would frown on a proposal from
the City to annex the land in question.
• Jim Forsberg, Director of Planning and Economic Development, City of
Concord, referenced a letter submitted by the Concord City Manager
commenting on the proposed voter-approved Urban Limit Line ballot
measure and environmental review prepared for the ballot measure. He
reiterated the City of Concord's written comments requesting that
Provision V. in the measure relating to the automatic review of the Urban
Limit Line boundary in the vicinity of the tideland portion of the
Concord Naval Weapons Station be removed because it is no longer
relevant to the City. He also reviewed another City issue relating to the
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)review prepared for the
ballot measure. He stated the City's view that revising and recirculating
the Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared by the County for the
proposed June 6,2006 measure is necessary, because the Urban Limit
Line proposed for voter approval countywide measure to be sponsored
by the Board of Supervisors would reflect the boundary of the Pittsburg
voter-approved Urban Limit Line. it is the view of the City of Concord
that the environmental review prepared for the Board's proposed ballot
measure did not fully evaluate the visual impacts associated with
potential development in the vicinity of the hills separating Concord and
Pittsburg city limits adjacent to the Concord Naval Weapons Station. He
suggested that while revision and recirculation of environmental review
to include such visual impacts would delay the election, it is the right
thing to do.
• Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, noted the November 2005 election
results of the Urban Limit Line ballot measures in Brentwood and
Antioch He stated that large amounts of money were spent in these
campaigns to confuse the voters. He requested that the Board postpone
until the General Election in November the countywide voter-approve
Urban Limit Line ballot measure.
• Michael Sarabia, Bay Point resident, noted the ULL would be more
likely to pass if the changes being proposed to the Board today are
incorporated. and
• David Reid, Green Bay Alliance, suggested more work be done to make
the Urban Limit Line more effective in controlling growth and traffic. He
requested the Board delay the election until November to allow time for
stakeholders to work with the County to develop the best possible line.
The following person provided written comment to the Board:
• Michael Sarabia, Bay Point resident, submitted additional comments via e-mail.
Chair Gioia returned the matter to the Board.
Supervisor Uilkema commented that the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure might not be ready
for the June 2006 Primary Election, and urged the Board to postpone the item until the November 2006
election to allow time to answer the questions surrounding what the outcome of the vote will mean to the
cities and the County in terms of Measure J compliance. She also said it will be important to look at the
issues raised by the City of Clayton, and at whether the same issue also exists elsewhere in the County.
ADDEND UM TO ITEM D.4
March 7, 2006
Page 3 of 3
Supervisor Piepho agreed with Supervisor Uilkema, adding there are still many issues to be addressed and
dialogue that still needs to occur in far East County, particularly with regard to infrastructure issues to
serve Discovery Bay.
Supervisor.DeSaulnier said lie would like to find out from staff which services are precluded from the lots
placed in question by the City of Clayton. He also cautioned against reading into this discussion that the
Board intends to come back with major changes to the line, if any.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, noted for the Board that August 8, 2006 would be the
very last date the Board could take an action and still make the deadline for the November 2006 election.
He added that any modifications to the proposal will need to be done fairly quickly to enable
determination of California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requirements. He cautioned that if an
Environmental Impact Report(EIR) is needed,this would mean a delay in holding the election item until
.lune of 2008 or beyond.
Supervisor Uilkema asked if the issues raised by Clayton were addressed in the CEQA review prepared
by the County for this proposed ballot measure.
Mr. Barry responded that they were not.
Chair Gioia outlined four issues that lie proposed the Board address:
1. i-low to incorporate what happened at the ballots in Antioch and Pittsburg;
2. The legal issues around what it will mean to have a CCTA-approved line;
3. The City of Clayton's request; and
4. Discovery Bay's infrastructure issues as referenced by Supervisor Pieplio.
I-[e said it seems the Board needs to address each of these issues separately, and that if there are
any other issues, that they be brought to the table quickly.
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested f►ndincy out as soon as possible whether or not an EiR will be required if
the Board opts to grant the request of the City of Clayton.
Chair Gioia noted that the City ol'Clayton could also choose to go to the ballot on its own, as a line
approved by the voters of the City of Clayton would fulfill Measure J compliance requirements.
Supervisor Uilkema Walde a motioit that was seconded by Supervisor Piepho. The Board of Supervisors
took the fiWowing action by a 4-0 vote, with Supervisor Glover absent:
DETERMINED not to submit to the County Elections Officer the proposed voter-approved Urban Limit
Line ballot measure for June 6, 2006 Primary Election; and DIRECTED staff to return to the Board with a
report on whether issues raised today can be addressed in time to meet the deadline for the November
2006 General Election.
G.\Adcance Planning\adv-plan\ULL Ballot Measure\030706 ULLaddendunvevised.doc
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
2006 Voter-Approved
Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan and the
County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance
Code Chapter 82-1) to: (i) e-wend the term of the County's Urban Limit
Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter approval to axpand the line by
more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv)
establish new review procedures?
TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter Approved Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY
This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31,
1
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan
cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres
without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line,
including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an
evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra
Costa County. (4) It provides for an automatic review of the Urban Limit
Line in the vicinity of the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons
Station if the United States Department of Defense determines to dispose of
this property. (5) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map
that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth
Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon
and also reflects other non-substantive boundary changes at various
locations. (6) Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation
standard and protections for the County's prime agricultural land.
SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35
Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter
82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban
development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five
(35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
percent of all land in the County would be preserved for
agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line
identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas
beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the
term of the General Plan.
B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that
the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 3.1,
2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to
December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's
non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years.
Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35
Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these
protections through the year 2026.
C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is
described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County
General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section
82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County's non-
urban and open space areas, this measure would require that,
through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended
to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a
3
03/07/2006
Final gallot
Language
four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the
voters.
D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of
Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle,
commencing in 201. 1., to consider whether changes should be made
to reflect changing times. This measure would also require a 10-
year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to
determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy
housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following
20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and
environmental factors, may change over the years, it is appropriate
to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid-
point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the
Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs
of the County.
E. This measure would provide for the automatic commencement of
an Urban Limit Line boundary review in the vicinity of the
tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station if the
United States Department of Defense determines to dispose of this
land area as surplus property.
4
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-
2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows:
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM
At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white
version sized 8"x 11"), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map
(11" x 17" pocket insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as
shown on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map,
which is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: "Contra Costa
County Urban Limit Line Map" and adopted to show the boundary
of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure.
2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT
The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of
"CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the
Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as
follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [exam le] is
added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [example] is
5
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by
this measure.
CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the
65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The ULL will only be
ehang
a by ., 4/5 vote of the Board of SupeR,iser-s after
€ellow-ing findings basedon substantial evidenee=in the
reeerde There will be no change to the ULL except in the
manner specified herein. There will be no change to the
ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public
hearing at which it approves the change or changes, by a
four-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following
findings based on substantial evidence in the record:
(a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency
has occurred which warrants the provision of
housing and/or other community needs within land
located outside the ULL;
(b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is
preventing the County from providing its fair share
of affordable housing or regional housing as
required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors
finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the
only feasible means to enable the County to meet
these requirements of State law;
(c) a majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the County have
approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any
portion of the land covered by the preservation
agreement;
6
03/07/2006
Final gallot
Language
(d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately
reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
(e) an objective study has determined that a change to
the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the
economic viability of the east Contra Costa County
Airport, and. either (1) mitigate adverse aviation
related to environmental or community impacts
attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the
County's aviation related needs;
(f) a change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(g) a five (5) year periodic c cy lical review of the ULL
has determined, based on criteria and factors for
establishing the ULL set forth above, that new
information is available (from city or County
growth managemcnt studies or otherwise) or
circumstance have changed, warranting a change to
the ULL.
Any General Plan amendment that would expand tile
ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval
of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the
public hearin,- and the four-fifths vote of the Board of
Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and
making one or more of the findings set forth in
subsections (a) through (Q) above. Notwithstanding the
foreQoinz, a proposed General Plan amendment to
Viand the ULL by more that: 30 acres does not require
voter approval if, after a public hearink, the Board of
Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General
Plan amendment and makes either of the following
findings based on substantial evidence in the record. (i�
the expal:sion of the ULL is necessary to avoul an
7
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the
expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or
federal law. Expansions of the ULL totalinz 30 acres or
less do not require voter approval.
[ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER
THE HEADING "CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT
LINE", at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan as follows]
The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cyclical review
of the ULL every five years.
The Board of Supervisors will revie►v the boundary of the
ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016
review is to determine whether a change to the boundary
of the County's Urban Limit Line Map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resttltin.Q from the
County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive
review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County
sufficient to satisfy housinz and lobs needs for 20 nears
thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any
other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may
conduct.
The Board of Supervisors will review the ULL in the
vicinity of the tideland portion of the Concord Naval
Weapons Station if the United States Department of
Defense determines to dispose of this land area.
8
03/07/2006
Final Ba/lot
Language
Any,chanke to the ULL proposed as a result of any review
artthorized by this section mast be adopted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are
effective until December 31, 2026.
B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES
I. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that
change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the
County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as
follows:
TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 2006-06
Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the
"2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit
Li ne."
Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends
Chapter 82-1. of the County Ordinance Code to extend the
term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the year 2026,
to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of
the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the
line by more than 30 acres without voter approval.
Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
9
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in
strikeout font [fie] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
"82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the
enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be
established, in approximately the location
depicted on the illustr-ati 65/35 Contra Cost
County Land Pr-eserwation Plan Map attaehed
Elx-m-bitA te�azc Contra Costa
Corinty Urban Limit Line Map" adopted by the
voters on June 6, 2006. The urban limit line gall
be is incorporated into the county's open space
conservation plan. The urban limit line shall-limi
limits potential urban development in the county
to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and
shall pFoh prohibits the county from
designating any land located outside the urban
limit line for an urban land use. The criteria and
factors for determining whether land should be
considered for location outside the urban limit line
should include (a) land which qualifies for rating
as Class I and Class lI in the Soil Conservation
Service Land Use Capability Classification, (b)
open space, parks and other recreation areas, (c)
lands with slopes in excess of twenty-six percent,
(d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate
for urban growth because of physical unsuitability
for development, unstable geological conditions,
10
03/07/2006
final Ballot
Language
inadequate water availability, the lack of
appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing
development, likelihood of substantial
environmental damage or substantial injury to fish
or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar
factors. (Ords. 2006-06.$3,.91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in
strikeout font [elle] is deleted from the existing text
and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure):
82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line.
(a) There shall be no change to the urban limit
line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in
Section 82-1.006. After- adoption of the new
general pla Except as otherwise provided in
this Section, as long as there is no violation of the
65/35 standard, the urban limit line can be
changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of
supervisors after holding a public hearing and
making one or more of the following findings
based on substantial evidence in the record:
(1) A natural or manmade disaster or public
emergency has occurred which warrants the
provision of housing and/or other community
11
03/07/2006
Final Bollot
Language
needs within land located outside the urban limit
line;
(2) An objective study has determined that the
urban Ili-nit line is preventing the county from
providing its fair share of affordable housing, or
regional housing, as required by state law, and the
board of supervisors finds that a change to the
urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible
means to enable the county to mcet these
requirements of state law;
(3) A majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the county have
approved a change to the urban limit line affecting
all or any portion of the land covered by the
preservation agreement;
(4) A minor change to the urban limit line will
more accurately reflect topographical
characteristics or legal boundaries;
(5) A five-year peried-ie c cy lical review of the
urban limit line has determined, based on the
criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit
line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new
information is available (from city or county
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstances have changed, warranting a change
to the urban limit line;
12
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
(6) An objective study has determined that a
change to the urban limit line is necessary or
desirable to further the economic viability of the
East Contra Costa County Airport, and either(i)
mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or
community impacts attributable to Buchanan
Field, or (ii) further the county's aviation related
needs; or
(7) A change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(b) Any sueh ehange shall be subjeet-te
re€er-end m as Pravided by law. r— s to the
urban limit line under- any other-eiretimstanees,
shall require avote of the people.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, any proposed General Plan
amendment that would expand the urban limit
line by more than 30 acres will require voter
approval of the proposed General Plan
amendment in addition to and following a four
-
ifths vote of the board of supervisors approving
the General.Plan amendment and making one or
more of the findings required by subsection (a)
above. Nobvithstanding the foregoing, a
proposed General Plan amendment to expand
the urban limit line by more than 30 acres does
13
03/07/2006
final Bollot
Language
not require voter approval if, after a public
hearing, the board of supervisors by a four-fifths
vote makes either of the following findings based
on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the
expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to
avoid an unconstitutional taking of private
property; or(ii) the expansion of the urban limit
line is necessary to comply with state or federal
law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do
not require voter approval.
(c) The board of supervisors may conduct a
cyclical review of the urban limit line every five
years.
(d) The board of supervisors will review the
boundary of the urban limit line in the year
2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to
determine whether a change to the boundary of
the county's urban: limit line map is warranted,
based on facts and circumstances resulting from
the county's participation with the cities in a
comprehensive review of the availability of land
ill Contra Costa County sufficient to meet
housing and jobs needs for 20 years. This
review of the urban: limit line is in addition to
any other reviews of the urban limit line the
board of supervisors may conduct.
14
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
(e) The board of supervisors will review the
urban limit line in the vicinity of the tideland
portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station: if
the United States Department of Defense
determines to dispose of this land area.
(f) Any change to the urban limit line proposed
as a result of any review authorized by this
section will not be effective unless it is approved
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
section. (Orris. 2006-06.$4, 91-1 §2, 90-66 §4.)
Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is
amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline [eraniple] while text
in strikeout font [exampl ] is deleted from the existing
text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this
measure):
82-1.028 Duration.
The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until
DeeembeF 31, 2010 Deceinber 31, 2026, to the
extent permitted by law. (Ords. 2006-06.$5, 9 1-1 §
2, 90-66 § 4).
15
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL
PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa
County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general
plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the
effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County
ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase,
part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed
regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or
repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election.
G'rAdcmlce P1.1nu.9 ,plea%.ULL Bnllor Measurc'Junc 6.2006 ULL BallolMcasurcOrdui—DrallAm
16
03/07/2006
Final Ballot
Language
FIGURE ONE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
URBAN LIMIT LINE MAP
(Note:Map is sized for the voter pamphlet)
Fy�
ruj
15
✓ Ll
a
.o: fttri,4
(ifs
� h
P
Q � P�`i`�•°`B• .�SI 414' ! .• /
N
a n£,�F� �''.p F^q� '•;' P .fir _
o
z'
cVj
1
s3
� Sao
17
Attachment "B": Notice of Public Review and Intent To
Adopt Negative Declaration and Initial
Study/Checklist
Community COr1tC'a Dennis MBarry,�AICP
GepAmbiAity
er�t Qirector
Development Costa Pi L FE
Department
County
f
County Administration Building 5�� JAN 2 7 2006 s
651 Pine Street L
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095 i;; = - ''• «�w�. r �LERK j
. is..
Phone: ,.% Y w °i
BD '
(925) 335-1210
'' 1 CUUAT
DATE: January 27, 2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
County Files: GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date,this is to advise you that the
Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the
following project:
June 6, 2006 Primary Election
Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure
Sponsored By Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
A proposed countywide ballot measure for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election to extend
the term of the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line to 2026 and establish new
procedures for voter approval on expansion of the County Urban Limit Line,as sponsored
by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors(County Files: GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-
0001)
The proposed ballot measure if adopted by the voters will not result in any significant impacts.
A copy of the Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the Negative Declaration may be
reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit
Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street,
Martinez, during normal business hours.
Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental
documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Trtesday, February 28, 2006. Any comments should be in writing
and submitted to the following address:
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Patrick Roche
e-mail address: proch@cd.cccounty.us
Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting
of the Board of Supervisors tentatively set for Tuesday, March 7, 2006. It is anticipated at this
meeting that the Board of Supervisors will adopt this Negative Declaration when they consider a
proposed resolution submitting the Urban Limit Line ballot measure to the County Elections Official
for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election. The Board of Supervisors meetings are held at the McBrien
Administration Building,Room 107, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez.
Patrick Roche
Principal PlannerQ�
cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies)
(i:Ud..vv R.nving`.dvyl.n`11.1.U.11o1 MurvRNod.c afNcg.u.<Ibcl.ntiovt006ULlb.lbmcuvrt duc
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: June 6, 2006 Primary Election Ballot Measure To
Extend the Term of the Contra Costa County Urban
Limit Line to 2026 and Establish New Procedure for
Voter Approval on Expansion of the County Urban
Limit Line; as sponsored by the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors (County Files: GP#06-0001 and
P� ZT#06-0001)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4°i Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrick Roche
(925)335-1242
4. Project Location: all of Contra Costa County
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Main County Admin. Bldg.
Martinez, CA 94553
6. General Plan DesiLmation:
Since the proposed action applies countywide the
General Plan designations are multiple and various.
7. Zoning: Since the proposed action applies countywide the
Zoning Districts are multiple and various.
8. Description of Project: A June 6, 2006 Primary Election Ballot Measure asking
the voters of Contra Costa County to amend the Land
Use and Conservation Elements of the Contra Costa
County General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code,
Chapter 82-1)to 1:
1. Extend the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation
Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code,
Chapter 82-1) and the County's Urban Limit
Line to the Year 2026.
Il. During the extended term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance
Code, Chapter 82-1) and County's Urban Limit
See Exhibit One:Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure attached to this
Checklist for the complete text amendments to both the County General Plan and County Ordinance Code,Chapter 82-
1:
Line, require voter approval to expand the
County's Urban Limit Line by more than thirty
(30) acres based on a schedule of review of the
Urban Limit Line boundary every five (5) years,
commencing in Year 2011, and require that in
the tenth year of extended term of the County's
Urban Limit Line, in Year 2016, the County
shall participate with the cities in a
comprehensive review of the availability of land
to meet a 20-year housing and jobs needs for
Contra Costa County in order to determine if
adjustments to the County's Urban Limit Line of
greater than 30 (thirty) acres would be necessary
to meet these needs.
III. Incorporate into both General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the requirement that a 4/5 vote
of the Board of Supervisors is necessary to place
a measure on the election ballot to expand the
Urban Limit Line boundary by more than thirty
(30)acres through the Year 2026.
IV. Incorporate into both the General Plan and
County Ordinance Code the procedure for the
scheduled review of the Urban Limit Line based
on the five (5) year cycle, beginning after voter
adoption in June 2006, and a required ten year
review in 2016 based on a review of land
availability to determine capacity to meet
housing and jobs needs for the County.
V. Provide in both the General Plan and County-
Ordinance
ountyOrdinance Code for the automatic
commencement of a review of the Urban Limit
Line boundary in the vicinity of the tideland
portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station
at such time as the United State Department of
Defense determines to dispose as surplus this
land area, and allow this Urban Limit Line
boundary review to occur outside the five (5)
and ten (10)year review cycles.
VI. Retain in both the General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the existing procedure for
change to the County's Urban Limit Line under
thirty(30)acres based on a 4/5 vote of the Board
of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and
making at least one of seven findings, as
currently proscribed in both the General Plan
and County Ordinance Code, based on
substantial evidence in the record.
2
VII. Retain the 65/35 standard for land preservation
in Contra Costa County, whereby sixty-five (65)
percent of the overall County land area will be
retained for non-urban uses through the year
2026.
VIII. Retain the protections for the County's prime
agricultural land, specifically the area now
designated in the General Plan as the
Agricultural Core by maintaining the 40-acre
minimum parcel size and limiting uses to
agricultural production or to uses incidental to
agricultural production.
IX. Approve a new Urban Limit Line Map for the
General Plan, as recommended by the Board of
Supervisors, which reflects the following
changes ':
a) Incorporate the City of Antioch's voter
approved Urban Limit Line, November
2005, affecting the Antioch area;
b) incorporate the City of Pittsburg's voter
approved Urban Limit Line, November
2005, affecting the Pittsburg area;
c) Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter
approved General Plan Land Use and Urban
Growth Boundary map affecting the San
Ramon area,
d) Locate twenty-seven (27) acres for a public
playfield as part of the Gateway
(Montanera) development project in the City
of Orinda on the inside of the Urban Limit
Line;
e) Locate the thirty-eight (38) acres of the Pine
Creek Detention basin owned by the Contra
Costa Water Conservation and Flood
Control District in the North Gate area on
the outside of the Urban Limit Line;
See maps attached as Figure I and Figure 2 to Exhibit 1:Proposed Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure for details on the
proposed changes to the County's Urban Limit Line Map.
3
f) Locate the approved Alhambra Valley
Ranch residential subdivision (Subdivision
No. 6443) on the inside of the Urban Limit
Line, and make corresponding adjustments
to the Urban Limit Line boundary along the
Martinez area waterfront placing certain
lands within the Citv of Martinez on the
outside of the Urban Limit Line, as
recommended by the Martinez City Council.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Contra Costa County covers approximately 733 square
miles and extends from the northeastern shore of the San
Francisco Bay easterly about 50 miles to San Joaquin
County. Contra Costa County is bordered on the south
and west by Alameda County. On the north, Contra
Costa County is bordered by Solano and Sacramento
counties and separated by the San Pablo and Suisun
Bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The
western and northern portions of the County are
urbanized with significant land area in industrial uses.
The central portion of the County is predominantly
suburban residential and commercial uses in character
with industrial uses located on the riverfront of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River. The eastern portion of
the County is also comprised of both suburban
residential and commercial uses along with industrial
uses located on the riverfront of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River. The far eastern portion of the County is
predominantly in agricultural use with some suburban
residential uses. Most the Countv's land area is
comprised of non-urban uses including agriculture,
parkland, watershed, and open space. The County's
landform is dominated and shaped by the hilly terrain of
the Diablo Range and East Bay Hills, the San Francisco-
San Pablo Bays, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta.
10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required (e.g. permits,
financing. approval, or
participation agreement): None.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/ _ Public Services
Population &Housing Circulation _ Utilities & Service
Geological Problems _ Biological Resources Svstems
Water _ Energy & Mineral _ Aesthetics
Air Quality Resources _ Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of _ Hazards f Recreation
Significance _ Noise
No Significant Impacts
Identified
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a.significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project.
Y i
1/0,7 ./a7/.
S i unature Date
Project Planner
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
6
:r
SOURCES
In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following sources and
references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department, 651 Pine Street 4th Floor-North Wing, Martinez) were consulted and incorporated herein
(where appropriate these Sources are enumerated in response to questions under Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts):
1. Project Description: June 2006 Ballot Measure To Extend the Term of the Contra Costa County
Urban Limit Line to 2026 and To Establish New Procedure for Voter Approval to .Expand the
Urban Limit Line, as sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (draft Ballot
Measure prepared by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, based on
adopted July 12. 2005 Board Order entitled "Report On Ballot Measure For Extension of The
Urban Limit Line").
2. The Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020 (adopted January 18, 2005). and Initial Study
and Negative Declaration (SCH# 2004122066) and the Environmental Impact Report
(SC.H#88071904) prepared for the comprehensive update to the Contra Costa County General
Plan (approved January 1991).
3. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code,Title 8: Zoning and Title 9: Subdivisions.
4. Contra Costa County General Plan Amendment Study: Potential Modifications to the Urban
Limit Line Boundary (County File: GP#99-0001) and Environmental Impact Report (SCH#99-
1 12094), prepared by Mundie & Associates: Board Reports and Board Resolution No. 2000/366,
August 1, 2000 and Board Resolution No. 2000/451, September 25, 2000. adopting General Plan
Amendment involving modifications to the Urban Limit Line, and Court Decisions: Finley
Tassajara Corp v. County of Contra Costa, ( Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C00-
3704 and California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District. Case No. A097392).
5. Review of City General Plans, including Land Use Elements, Environmental Impact Reports for
General Plans,and related documents:
• City of Antioch General Plan (adopted November 2003)
• City of Brentwood General Plan (.adopted November 27. 2001)
• City of Concord General Plan ( adopted July 26, 1994 and as amended through April 1,
2003)
• Town of Danville 2010 General Plan (adopted 1999)
• City of Lafayette General Plan (adopted October 28. 2002)
• City of Martinez General Plan (adopted 1973) and Franklin Hills Specific Plan (adopted
August 5, 1987)
• Town of Moraga 2002 General Plan (adopted June 4. 2002)
• City of Oakley General Plan 2020(adopted December-22... 2002)
• City of Orinda General Plan 1987-2007 (adopted May 20. 1987)
• City of Pittsburg General Plan 2020(adopted August 2001)
• City of Richmond General Plan (adopted August 1994) and Land Use Map (amended May
1998)
• City of San Pablo General Plan(adopted August 1996)
• City of San Ramon General Plan 2020 (approved by voters March 5, 2002)
• City of Walnut Creek General Plan — Vision 2005 (adopted February 1989) and Land Use
Element Map(revised November 5, 1991)
6. Maps of Voter Approved City Urban Limit Line.November 8. 2005:
• City of Antioch
• City of Pittsburg
7. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Resource Mapping System — U.S
Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheet Panels — Benicia. Vine Hill, Honker Bay. Antioch North.
Jersey Island, Richmond, Briones Valley, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Antioch South, Brentwood,
Woodward Island, Las Trampas, Diablo,Tassajara, and Byron Hot Springs.
8. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) Mapping Program.
9. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted by the Contra Costa County
Airport Land Use Commission, December 13, 2000.
10. Di-af1 East Contra Costa County Habitat Plan (www.cocohcp.or(-y) and personal communication
with John Kopchik, Project Planner, 1/24,2006.
IL Contra Costa County Keynotes: Habitat Types & Rare. Endangered or Threatened Plants of
Contra Costa County (prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
February 1978). and Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas (prepared by Contra Costa County
Community Development Department,January 2004).
12. Map of Important Farmlands in Contra Costa County, Yr. 2004 (California Department. of
Conservation. Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program) and Map of Agricultural Preserves in Contra Costa County (Williamson Act contracts).
Oct. 2004.
13. Contra Costa County Inventory of Historical Sites (prepared by Contra Costa County Community
Development Department, May 1976, revised 1989. and reprinted 2001).
14. 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and 1999 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan, prepared by the Bay
Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, revised
December 1999.
15. 2004 Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese List) for Contra Costa County..
California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
8
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imnact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS—Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
(Sources: 1.23)A.5.6,7, & 8)
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
(Sources: 1,73,4,5,6,7, & 8 )
C. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
(Sources: 1,2,14.5.6,7, & 8 )
d. Create a new source of substantial
lic,ht or glare that would adversely
affect da_v or nighttime views in the
area?
(Sources: 1.2.3,4.5,6.7. & 8 )
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
Contra Costa Count), Ordinance Code. Voter approval would specifically extend the term of the
Urban Limit Line to Year 2026. amend the text in the Land Use Element relating to procedures
for expanding the Urban Limit Line. while making corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1.
65!35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. and it would amend the
County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect voter approved city Urban Limit
Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other non-substantial boundary modifications to
the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors.
The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or
indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Voter
approval would not adversely impact scenic resources or vistas, degrade the visual character or
quality, or create a new source of light and glare. Consequently, based on a review of the
proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval
would have any significant adverse impacts on the physical environment in the area of aesthetics.
9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES —In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incomorated Impact lm art
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?(Sources: 1,12) VO
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?(Sources: 1.2,3,&12) VO
c. Involve other chanes in the existinc
environment, which due to their location
or nature. could result in conversion of
farmland,to non-agricultural use?
(Sources: 1.2,5,6.7,& 12)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026. amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved cite Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch... Pittsburg. and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. Since the proposed action does not
confer any entitlement or approval of development, it would not directly or indirectly result in the
conversion of agricultural land or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict
with the County's Williamson Act Program. If approved by voters, the proposed action would
expressly retain and extend the term of protections for prime farmland in Contra Costa County.
Consequently, based on a review of the proposed ballot measure there is no substantial evidence
that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on agricultural resources.
to
t
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the prQiect:
Potentially
Significant
Potentialh unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated lm act Im act
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air qualih- plan?
(Sources: 1. 14) WO
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?(Sources: 1,14)
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is a non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
(Sources: 1,14)
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
(Sources: 1,14 )
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
(Sources: 1.14)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1.
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land .
Use Element relating to neve procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line. while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial boundary modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Consequently. based on a review of the
proposed ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have any
significant adverse impacts on air quality.
I1
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Si,-nificant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Have a Substantial adverse effect. either
directly or through habitat modifications. on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Sources: 1,2.4.5.6.7.8.10.&11)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies. regulations or by the
Calilbrnia Department of Fish and Game or
1'.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:
1.2.4,5.6.7.8,10.&11)
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to, marsh. vernal pool, coastal. etc.)
through direct removal, filling. hydrological
interruption.or other means?
(Sources: 1.2.4,5.6.7.8.10.&11) wo
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or mieratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors. or
impede the use of native wildlife nurser.
SACS?
(Sources: : 1.2.4.5.6.7.8.10.&11)
e. Conflict with anv local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(Sources: 1.2.4.5.6.7.8.10.&111
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural
Community Conservation Plan. or other
approved local. regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
(Source: 1.2.4.5.6.7.8.10.&11)
12
M
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use
Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding
amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code.. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect
voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch. Pittsburg. and San Ramon) and to make
other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to
the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the
voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or alter County
policies or regulations aimed at protecting biological resources. The action would not directly or
indirectly impact protected species or habitats or natural communities since no development or
change in policies or regulations would result from voter approval. There is a &q t Habitat
Conservation/Natural Communities Conservation Plan for eastern Contra Costa County that has
been prepared and released for public comment. It is anticipated that the q! Habitat
Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan will address the matters pertaining to
habitat protection in relation to growth and development in eastern Contra Costa County over the
next 30 years, including area inside and outside the present County Urban Limit Line.
Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line measure there is no
substantial evidence that voter approval would have any significant adverse impacts on biological
resources.
13
ti
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Sienificant Mitieation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Im r�tct Jmnact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource yas defined in Section
15064.5 (Sources: 1,2,4,5.7, &13)
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?
(Sources: 1.2.4,5,7, &13)
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geological feature?
(Sources: )
d. Disturb any human remains.
including* those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
(Sources: 1,2,4.5.7, &13)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating. to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line. while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1. 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch. Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. Tile proposed action does not confer
any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Tile proposed action would not change or
alter historical, archaeological. or paleontological resources in the County since no development
or change in policies or regulations of cultural resources would result from voter approval. Also,
voter approval would not result in disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries, since no development would be approved. Consequently, based on a review
of the proposed Urban Limit Line measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval
would have any significant adverse impacts on cultural resources.
14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS— Would the project:
PotentialIN
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imnact lncornorated Impact Impact
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects.
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geology_=ist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(Sources: 1.2.4.5.6,7, & 8)
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
(Sources: 1,3,4.5.6.7, & 8 )
3. Seismic-related around failure,
including= liquefaction`? V
(Sources: 1.'',4,5.6,7, & 8)
4. Landslides?
(Sources: 1.2,4.5.6.7. & 8)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? %0(Sources: 1,2.4,5,6,7, & 8)
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide. lateral
spreading, subsidence. liquefaction
or collapse?
(Sources: 1.2.4.5.6.7. & 8)
d. Be located on .expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1998).
creating substantial risks to life or
properly?
(Sources: 1,2.4.5,6.7. & 8 )
15
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste disposal systems
where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
(Sources: 1,2.4,5.6,7, & 8)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding=. the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch. Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not change or
alter County policies or regulations concern geological hazards. Voter approval of the proposed
Urban Limit Line measure would not expose people or structures to geological or earthquake
hazards, result in substantial soil erosion, locate structures on unstable geological unit or
expansive soil creating risk to life or property, or locate septic tanks or other alternative waste
disposal systems on soil incapable of supporting such waste disposal. Consequently, based on a
review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that
voter approval would have significant adverse geological impacts.
16
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project:
Yotcntiall.
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use or disposal
of hazardous materials?
(Sources: 1.,4,5,6; &15)
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
(Sources: : 1.2,4,5,6, &15 )
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials. substances or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
(Sources: 1,2.4,5.6, &15)
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65862.5
and. as a result. would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
(Sources:1,14,5,6, &l5)
C. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area.
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6. & 9)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6, & 9)
17
g. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency, response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5, &6)
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, in or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands? VO
(Sources: 1.2,4,5, & 6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa Counvy Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026. amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for changing the Urban Limit Line, while makin�a,
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65135 Land Preservation Plan. Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch. Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map. as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since the action does not propose
development or change County policies or regulations relating to hazards or hazardous material it
would not create or contribute to hazards. The action would not result in the transportation of
hazardous material, it would not result in use or disposal of hazardous materials, and it would not
release hazardous materials into the environment. Furthermore, the action would not result in an
increased risk of air safety hazards, and it does not expose people or structures to wildland fires.
Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no
substantial evidence that voter approval would have a direct or indirect physical impact on the
environment related to hazards or hazardous materials.
18
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially, Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5,&6)
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local uroundwater table (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,& 6)
C. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,6,7, &8)
d. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface run-off in a
manner that would result in flooding
on-or off-site?
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,6,7, &8)
e. Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7, &8)
19
1 �
1 .
f. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7, &8)
g. Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5,6,7, &8)
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures that would impede or
redirect flood floes?
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,6,7, &8)
i. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6.7, &8)
j. Inundation by seiche. tsunami, or
mudflow?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,6,7, &8)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use
Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line; while making corresponding
amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect
voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to make
other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to
the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the
voter approval of the ballot measure. Since no new development is proposed under the measure
and the measure does not facilitate new development, the proposed action would not result in the
violation of water quality or waste discharge requirements, it would not deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge of an aquifer or water table, it would
not alter existing drainage patterns, create new runoff, it would not place structures within a flood
hazard area, and it would not expose people or structures to flooding by result of a dam/levee or
tsunami/mudflow. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot
measure there is no substantial evidence that voter approval would have a direct or indirect
impact on the physical environment related to hydrology and water quality.
20
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Miti_ation Si,nificant No
Impact Incomorated Impact Impact
a. Physically divide an established
communiol?
(Sources: 1.2,5,&6:)
b. Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or the regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including. but not limited to the general
plan. specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning. ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? VO
(Sources: 1,23.5,&6 )
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan)
(Sources: 12,5,6&10)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026. amend the teat in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65;35 Land Preservation Plan. Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch... Pittsburg and San Ramon) and to
snake other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
an} entitlement or approval of development. and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action does not approve new
development because it does not change County General Plan land use designations or result in
the rezoning of land in the unincorporated area, and since the action does not change land use or
zoning it would not facilitate new development in the unincorporated area. The proposed action
involves voter approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan
that would be internally consistent with this and other elements to the General Plan. Based on a
review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence that
voter approval would result in physically, dividing an established community, conflict with
applicable land use plans or policies, and it would not conflict with an applicable (adopted)
Habitat Conservation Plan.
21
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
X. MINERAL RESOURCES— Would the project:
Potentially
SiEnificant
Potentialh Unless Less Than
Significant Miti_ation Significant No
Impact Incorporated IM
nact Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? WO
(Sources: 1.2,4.5. & 6)
b. Result in the loss or availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan.. specific plan. or other
land use plan?
(Sources: 1,2.4,5. & 6 )
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1.
65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved cit, Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch, Pittsburg. and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
any entitlement or approval of development, or no direct physical construction would result from
the voter approval of the ballot measure, which would result in a loss or availability of mineral
resources. Also, the proposed action does not change County policies or regulations aimed at the
protection and utilization of mineral resources. Consequently. based on a review of the proposed
Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical
impact on the environment related to mineral resources.
22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XI. NOISE—Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
(Sources: 1.2,4,54 6)
b. Exposure of persons to. or
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5.& 6 )
C. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5,& 6 )
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity, above levels
existing without the project?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5,& 6)
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or. where such
a plan has not been adopted.. within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5, 6, &9)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels? VO
(Sources: 1,2.4.5. 6, &9 )
23
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XI. NOISE—continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit. .Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch. Pittsburg, and San Ramon) and to
make other non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as
recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer
anv entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would
result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Since no development is proposed nor
would it occur as result of the measure's adoption,the action would not result in exposing people
to excessive noise levels. Consequently. based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line
ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical impact on the
environment related to noise.
24
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project:
Potentialiv
Significant
Potentially Unless - Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No.
Impact Incorporated Impact Imnact
a. Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
(Sources: 1,2,4.5,&6)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5,&6)
C. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
(Sources: 1.2,4.5,&6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa Count- Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of..the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding_ the Urban Limit Line. while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan; Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General .Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other
non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the
voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development., and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the
voter approval of the ballot measure. Voter approval would not induce population growth
because the measure does not propose development and development would occur as a result of
the measure. Voter approval would not result in the displacement of existing housing or people
because the measure does not propose development and development would occur as a result of
the measure's approval. Additionally, voter approval would not change County General Plan
policies regarding the location of urban uses or the intensity of urban uses (e.g. housing density)
in the unincorporated areas of the County. The proposed action would not substantially alter the
County General Plan's assumptions about population or the distribution of population in the
County. Consequently. based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there
is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect physical impact on the environment related to
population and housing.
25
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Sianificant
Potentialh Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5, & 6)
1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
3. Schools?
4. Parks?
5. Other public facilities?
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
.65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other
non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the
voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development. and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the
voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not involve or require the
physical alteration of governmental facilities. Since voter approval of the ballot measure does not
approve development, nor would it occur as a result of voter approval, the proposed action would
not induce population growth requiring new or expanded public services. Consequently, based
on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of
direct or indirect impact on the physical environment related to public services.
26
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5; & 6)
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment? %00
(Sources: 1.2,4,5, & 6)
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would amend both the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code. and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other
non-substantial modifications to the Countv's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the
voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the
voter approval of the ballot measure. The proposed action would not involve or require the
construction of new recreational facilities. Also, voters are not beim; asked to approve new
development, nor are the voters beim; asked to facilitate new development, that would induce
population growth requiring new or expanded recreational facilities. Consequently, based on a
review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct
or indirect impact on the physical environment related to recreation.
27
,i
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact lncomorated Impact Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections? v 40
(Sources: 1,2,4.5, & 6 )
b. Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
(Sources: 1.2.4.5;& 6 )
C. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns. including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks? �
(Sources: 1.2.4,5, & 6)
d. Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.�(,. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5. & 6)
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5, & 6 )
f. Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
(Sources: 1.2.4.5, & 6 )
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
(Sources: 1.2,4.5, & 6 )
28
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use
Element relating to procedures for changing the Urban Limit Line, while making corresponding
amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect
voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps and to make other non-substantial modifications to
the County's Urban Limit Line Map recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors.
The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or
indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. Voters
are not being asked.to approve new development or to facilitate subsequent approval of new
development. Therefore, the proposed action would not alter the existing transportation system
(traffic patterns, roadway, rail lines, bus routes, parking, etc.) or induce traffic placing new
demand on the existing transportation system. Consequently, based on a review of the proposed
Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no substantial evidence of direct or indirect impact on
the physical environment related to transportation/traffic.
29
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project:
Potentialh•
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitieation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board? WO
(Sources: 1.2,4,5, & 6)
b. Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
(Sources: 1.2,4,5. & 6)
C. Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage .
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
(Sources: 1.3,4,5, & 6 )
d. Have sufficient water supplies
available serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? %00
.(Sources: 1,2.4.5. & 6)
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
(Sources: )
f. Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's waste
disposal needs?
(Sources: 1,2,4,5, & 6)
g. Comply with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste? %0
(Sources: 1,2,4,5, & 6)
30
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—continued
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65135 Land Preservation Pian, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend the text in the Land
Use Element relating to procedures for expanding the Urban Limit Line, while making
corresponding amendments to Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to
reflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps (Antioch and Pittsburg) and to make other
non-substantial modifications to the County's Urban Limit Line Map, as recommended to the
voters by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development, and no direct or indirect physical construction would result from the
voter approval of the ballot measure. Voter approval of the ballot measure would not require the
construction of new utilities or service systems. Since voter approval of the ballot measure does
not approve development, nor would it occur as a result of voter approval, the proposed action
would not induce population growth requiring expanded or new utilities or service systems
Consequently, based on a review of the proposed Urban Limit Line ballot measure there is no
substantial evidence of adverse impacts on the physical environment related to utilities and
service systems..
31
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentialh•
Significant
Potentially unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact IncoMorated Imnact Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment. substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish and wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history,
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited; but
cumulatively . considerable?
(Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings.
either directly or indirectly?
SUMMARY:
No Impact.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed action if approved by voters would both amend the General Plan and Chapter 82-1,
65/35 Land Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Voter approval would
specifically extend the term of the Urban Limit Line to Year 2026, amend text in the Land Use
Element relating to procedures for changing the Urban Limit .Line, while making corresponding
amendments to Chapter 82-1. 65/35 Land .Preservation Plan, Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code, and it would amend the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan to reflect
voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps and to make other non-substantial modifications to
the County's Urban Limit Line Map recommended to the voters by the Board of Supervisors.
The proposed action does not confer any entitlement or approval of development, and no direct or
indirect physical construction would result from the voter approval of the ballot measure. The
proposed action will have no significant physical effects on the environment, either directly or
indirectly.
32
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 ULL RALLOTMEASURE
JUNE 6, 2006 PRIMARY ELECTION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
URBAN LIMIT LINE BALLOT MEASURE
Shall the People of the County of Contra Costa amend the Land Use
Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the
65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to:
1. Extend the term 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance
(County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) and the County's
Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026.
2. During the extended term of the 65/35 Land Preservation
Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1)
and County's Urban Limit Line, require voter approval to
expand the County's Urban Limit Line by more than
thirty (30) acres based on a schedule of review of the
Urban Limit Line boundary every five (5) years,
commencing in Year 2011, and require that in the tenth
year of extended term of the County's Urban Limit Line,
in Year 2016, the County shall participate with the cities
in a comprehensive review of the availability of land to
meet a 20-year housing and jobs for Contra Costa
County in order to determine if adjustments to the
1 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PURLICREVrEW
2006 ULL RALLOTMEA5URE
County's Urban Limit Line of greater than 30 (thirty)
acres would be necessary to meet these needs.
3. Incorporate into both the County General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the requirement that a 4/5 vote of the Board
of Supervisors is necessary to place a measure on the
election ballot to expand the Urban Limit Line boundary by
more than thirty (30) acres through the Year 2026.
4. Incorporate into both the County General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the procedure for the scheduled cycle of
review for the Urban Limit Line based on a five (5) year
cycle, beginning after voter adoption in June 2006, and the
required ten year land availability review in 2016 to
determine capacity to meet housing and jobs needs for the
County.
5. Provide in both the County General Plan and County
Ordinance Code for the automatic commencement of a
review of the Urban Limit Line boundary in the vicinity of
the tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station
at such time as the United State Department of Defense
determines to dispose as surplus this land area, and allow
this Urban Limit Line boundary review to occur outside
either the five (5) or required ten (10) year review cycle.
1/27/2006
M ,
•'1
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLICREVTEW
2006 ULL BALLOTMEASURE
6. Retain in both the County General Plan and County
Ordinance Code the existing procedure for change to the
County's Urban Limit Line under thirty (30) acres based on
a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public
hearing and making at least one of seven findings, as
currently proscribed in both the County General Plan and
County Ordinance Code, based on substantial evidence in
the record.
7. Retain the 65/35 standard for land preservation in Contra
Costa County, whereby sixty-five (65) percent of the overall
County land area will be retained for non-urban uses through
the year 2026.
8. Retain the protections for the County's prime agricultural
land, specifically the area now designated in the County
General Plan as the Agricultural Core by maintaining the 40-
acre minimum parcel size and limiting uses to or agricultural
production or to uses incidental to agricultural production.
9. Approve a new Urban Limit Line Map for the County
General Plan, as recommended by the Board of Supervisors,
which reflects the following changes:
3 1/27/2006
M
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 ULL RALLOTMEASURE
a) Incorporate the City of Antioch's voter approved
Urban Limit Line, November 2005, affecting the area
south of Antioch;
b) Incorporate the City of Pittsburg's voter approved
Urban Limit Line, November 2005, affecting several
locations in the Pittsburg area, including the Pittsburg
Hills, Pittsburg-Kirker Pass Road, and Pittsburg-
Waterfront;
c) Incorporate the City of San Ramon's voter approved
General Plan Land Use and Urban Growth Boundary
(equivalent to an Urban Limit Line) map affecting
several location in the San Ramon area, including San
Ramon Westside Specific Plan area and San Ramon
Northwest Specific Plan area;
d) Locate twenty-seven (27) acres for a public playfield
as part of the Gateway (Montanera) development
project in the City of Orinda on the inside of the
Urban Limit Line;
4 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PURLICREVIEW
2006 ULL RALLO7-MEA5URE
e) Locate the thirty-eight (38) acres of the Pine Creek
Detention basin owned by the Contra Costa Water
Conservation and Flood Control District in the North
Gate area on the outside of the Urban Limit Line;
f) Locate the approved Alhambra Valley Ranch
residential subdivision (Subdivision No. 6443) on the
inside of the Urban Limit Line, and make
corresponding adjustments to the Urban Limit Line
boundary along the Martinez area waterfront placing
certain lands within the City of Martinez on the
outside of the Urban Limit Line, as recommended by
the Martinez City Council.
10. Amend the Contra Costa County General Plan (200 -2020), to
incorporate this ordinance into the General Plan at Chapter 1 :
Introduction, and amend the Land Use Element to incorporate the
changes mandated by this ordinance.
5 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 UL RALLOTMEASURE
TEXT OF PROPOSED MEASURE
The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. TITLE
This measure shall be entitled the Extension of the Contra Costa County
Urban Limit Line and Voter Approval for Future Expansion of the Urban
Limit Line.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY
This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation
Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31,
2026. (2) It requires that through December 31, 2026 the voters must
approve any future General Plan amendment that would expand the Urban
Limit Line by more than thirty (30) acres and it requires that before such a
ballot to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than thirty.(30) acres can be
placed on an election ballot the Board of Supervisors by a 4/5 vote must
agree to place the measure on the ballot. (3) It incorporates a new procedure
to allow a review cycle of the Urban Limit Line based on a 5-year review,
commencing in 2011, and requires that in year ten (10) after adoption of this
ordinance there will be a comprehensive review to determine if there is
sufficient land capacity to meet the 20-year housing and job needs within the
Urban Limit Line. (4) It provides for the automatic review of the Urban
Limit Line in the vicinity of the tideland portion of the Concord Naval
Weapons Station when the United States Department of Defense determines
6 1/27/2006
Vn•
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 ULL RALLOTMEASURE
to surplus this property and allows this site specific review to occur outside
the 5-year review cycle or the 10-year comprehensive review of the Urban
Limit Line. (5) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map
reflecting the approval of a city Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth
Boundary map by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon
and non-substantial boundary changes at various locations recommended to
the voters by the Board of Supervisors after consultation and discussion with
elected representatives of the nineteen cities in Contra Costa County. (6)
Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation standard and
protections for the County's prime agricultural land.
SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and
considerations:
A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990: The
65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance
(Chapter 82-1. of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.),
which established that urban development in Contra Costa County
would be limited to no more than thirty-five (35) percent of the
land in the County and at least sixty five (65) percent of all land in
the County would be preserved for agriculture, open space,
wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also
established an Urban Limit Line to ensure preservation of
identified non-urban agricultural, open space, and other area by
7 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLICREVIEW
2006 ULL BALLOTMEA5URE
establishing a line beyond which no urban land use could be
designated during the term of the General Plan, and to facilitate the
enforcement of the 65/35 land preservation standard.
B. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code section 82-1.020 advises the
local agency formation commission ("LAFCO") to respect and
support the County's 65/35 preservation standard when
considering requests for annexation to service districts. LAFCO
had adopted policies honoring these requests, as reflected in
LAFCO General Policy Statement and LAFCO Statement of
Policy on Spheres of Influence, adopted February 10, 1999, but
this policy was modified by LAFCO on September 14, 2005.
LAFCO's policies had applied to annexations of city or County
land into service districts such as Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, the East Bay Municipal
Utility District, and the Contra Costa Water District. One purpose
of this measure is to urge LAFCO's continuing support for the
County's Urban Limit Line and other growth policies in the
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
C. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 provides
that the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31,
2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to
December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County's
non-urban and open space areas for an additional sixteen (16)
8 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 UL BALLOTMEA5URE
years. Since the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35
Land Preservation Plan in 1990 have not changed since that time, it
is appropriate to extend the term in which it will be honored to
afford the citizens of Contra Costa County its benefits through the
year 2026.
D. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed,
either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters is
described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020), and in Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code Section 82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the
County's non-urban and open space areas, as well as the 65/35
land preservation standard, this measure would add the
requirement that, with limited exceptions, until December 31,
2026, the voters of Contra Costa County must approve, by majority
vote, any change to the Urban Limit Line that expands the Urban
Limit Line by more than thirty (30) acres, before that change can
become effective. Furthermore, it requires that 4/5 vote of the
Board of Supervisors is necessary before a measure asking the
voters to expand the Urban Limit Line by thirty (30) acres may be
placed on an election ballot.
E. This measure would incorporate a procedure to allow the Board of
Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle,
commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made
to reflect changing times, but require a ten year comprehensive
9 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PURLICREI/IEW
2006 ULL RALLOTMEA5URE
review of the Urban Limit Line midway during the period between
January 1, 2011 and December 30, 2026, commencing in 2016, to
determine based on the County's participation with the cities in
Contra Costa County whether there is sufficient land available to
meet a 20-year housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County.
Since it is likely that there will be changing circumstances through
the year 2026 with respect to housing and job needs, social and/or
economic considerations, and certain environmental factors that
could impact the Urban Limit Line, it is appropriate to provide for
this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid-point of the
extended term, to determine whether expansion of the Urban Limit
Line is necessary to meet a 20-year housing and jobs needs for the
County.
F. This measure would provide for the automatic commencement of a
review of the Urban Limit Line boundary in the vicinity of the
tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station at such
time as the United State Department of Defense determines to
dispose as surplus this land area, and this measure allows this
Urban Limit Line boundary review to occur outside either the five
(5) or required ten (10) year review cycles. This review is intended
to consider whether the United States Department of Defense
determination to place the tideland portion of the Concord Naval
Weapons Station under a surplus status warrants submitting to the
voters for their approval a proposal to expand the Urban Limit
10 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 UL BALLOTMEASURE
Line by greater than thirty (30) in the vicinity of the tidelands area
now outside the Urban Limit Line.
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-
2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows:
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
1 . CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM
At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white
and sized "8x11"), and color version of Urban Limit Line Map
("11x17 pocket insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as
shown on Exhibit A attached to this measure, each to be re-titled
"Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map" and readopted to
show the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this
measure.
2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT
The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of
"CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9 of the
Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-
11 1/27/2006
EXHI81r ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVrEW
2006 ULL RALLOTME45URE
2020) as follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline
exam le] is added to the existing text while text in strikeout font
[ewe] is deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is
unchanged by this measure.
CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
There shall. be no change to the ULL that would violate the
65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The UL-1= will only be
reiiowir g- findin,,-s -based air, tart a4 , �;`� `
su�l;;zurmzn--t.���i��rrB
recce until December 31, 2026, anti General Plan
amendment that would expand the Urban Limit Line by
more than third (30) acres shall require passage of a
ballot measure approved by a majority of voters voting,
unless by a 4/_5 vote of the Board of Supervisors, after a
public hearing, the Board of Supervisors makes one of
the following findings, based on substantial evidence in
the record. (i) that the outward expansion of the Urban
Limit Line is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional
taking of private property, or (ii) that the expansion of
the Urban Limit Line is necessary to comply with state or
federal law. An) other change to the ULL will not
require voter approval but will require a 415 vote of the
Board of Supervisors and mai,be made only.,after a public
hearing at which one or more of the following findings is
made, based on substantial evidence in the record:
12 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 ULL BALLOTMEA5URE
(a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency
has occurred which warrants the provision of
housing and/or other community needs within land
located outside the ULL:
(b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is
preventing the County from providing its fair share
of affordable housing or regional housing as
required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors
finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the
only feasible means to enable the County to meet
these requirements of State law;
(c) a majority of the cities that are party to a
preservation agreement and the County have
approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any
portion of the land covered by the preservation
agreement:
(d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately
reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
(e) an objective study has determined that a change to
the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the
economic viability of the east Contra Costa County
Airport. and either (1) mitigate adverse aviation
related to environmental or community impacts
attributable to Buchanan Field; or (ii) further the
County's aviation related needs:
(f) a change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(g) a five (5) year persiedre c cy lical review of the ULL
has determined. based on criteria and factors for
establishing the ULL set forth above, that neva
information is available (from city or County
growth management studies or otherwise) or
circumstance have changed. warranting a change to
the ULL.
1 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PURLICREVrEW
2006 ULL SALLOTMEASURE
[ADD TWO NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER HEADING
"CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE", at page 3-9
of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows]
Upon the determination 411 the United States Department
of Defense to surplus the tideland portion of the Concord
Naval Weapons Station, a review of the boundary of the
Urban Limit Line in the vicinitlr of this land area may
commence to determine if the surplus status warrants
submitting to the voters for their approval a proposal to
expand tire Urban Limit Line by greater than thirty (30)
in the vicinity of the tidelands area now outside the Urban
Limit Line. This review ma>> occur outside the either t1:e
five (S) or required ten (10) year review cycles of the
Urban Limit Line.
The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the
Urban Limit Line midway during the period between
January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2026. The purpose of
this review is for the Board of Supervisors to determine
whether a change to the Urban Limit Line boundary is
warranted, based on current facts and circumstances.
This review of the Urban Limit Line is intended to be in
addition to any other, interim reviews of the Urban Limit
Line the Board of Supervisors mal,, choose to undertake,
as otherwise provided herein.
B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES
1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that
change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, Section 82-1.010
is amended to read as follows (the new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline exam le] while text in
strikeout font [example] is deleted from the existing text and text
in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure.):
14 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REI?EW
2006 ULL BALLOTMEA5URE
"82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the enforcement of
the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006, an urban
limit line shall be established, in the location depicted on
the illustrative "Contra Costa Countv Urban Limit
Line Map" as amended and re-titled by the voters on
June 6, 2006. The urban limit line is incorporated into
the county's open space conservation plan. The urban
limit line limits potential urban development in the
county to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and
prohibits the county from designating any land located
outside the urban limit line for an urban land use. The
criteria and factors for determining whether land should
be considered for location outside the urban limit line
should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class
I and Class II in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use
Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and other
recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of
twenty-six percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not
appropriate for urban growth because of physical
unsuitability for development, unstable geological
conditions. inadequate water avail- ability. the lack of
appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing
development. likelihood of substantial environmental
damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their
habitat, and other similar factors. (Ords. 91-1 § 2, 90-66
4).
2. To be consistent with the amended text in the General Plan,
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018,
amended to modify Subsection (b) and to add a new Subsection
(c), requiring voter approval of expansion of the Urban Limit
Line by more than thirty (30) acres, and a new Subsection (d)
providing for a review of the Urban Limit Line boundary every
five years during the period between January 1, 2011 and
December 31, 2026, as follows (the new text to be inserted is
shown in bold italics and underline exam le] while text in
15 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVrEW
2006 ULL BALLOTMEASURE
strikeout font [fie] is deleted from the existing text and text
in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure.):
82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line.
(a) There shall be no change to the urban limit line that
violates the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006.
If a proposed change to the urban limit line would expand
the urban limit line by more than thim- (30) acres, that
change must be approved by the voters as specified, and
subject to the limitations described. in Subsection (c) of this
Section. Subject to the foregoing. the urban limit line can
be changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors
after holding a public hearing and making one or more of
the following findings based on substantial evidence in the
record:
(1) A natural or manmade disaster or public emergency has
occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or
other community needs within land located outside the
urban limit line;
(2) An objective study has determined that the urban limit
line is preventing the county from providing its fair share of
affordable housing. or regional housing. as required by
state law, and the board of supervisors finds that a change
to the urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible
means to enable the county to meet these requirements of
state law:
(3) A majority, of the cities that are party to a preservation
agreement and the county have approved a change to the
urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land
covered by the preservation agreement;
(4) A minor change to the urban limit line will more
accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries:
(5) A five-year periedie cvclical review of the urban limit
line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for
establishing the urban limit line set forth in Section 82-1.010
above. that new information is available (from city or county
growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances
have changed, warranting a change to the urban limit line;
(6) An objective study has determined that a change to the
urban limit line is necessary or desirable to further the
economic viability of the East Contra Costa County
Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation-related
16 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLICREVrEW
2006 uLL BALLOrMEAsuRE
environmental or community impacts attributable to
Buchanan Field. or (ii) further the county's aviation related
needs: or
(7) A change is required to conform to applicable
California or federal law.
(b) Any change described in Subsection (a) of this Section
shall be subject to referendum as provided by law.
Changes to the urban limit line under other circumstances,
including the circumstances described in Subsection (c)
below, shall require a vote of the people, except as
otherwise provided in Subsection (c).
(c) Until December 31, 2026, any General Plan amendment
that would expand the urban limit line by more titan Mir&
(30) acres shall require voter approval, unless bl, a 415 vote,
after a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors makes one
of the findings, based on substantial evidence in
the record. (i) that the expansion of the urban limit line is
necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private
property, or (ii) that the expansion of the urban limit line is
necessary to comph! with state or federal law.
(d A review of the urban limit line in the vicinit), of the
tideland portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station will
be initiated following a determination by the United States
Department of Defense to surplus this land area. The
Purpose of this review is determine whether to submit to
voters for their approval the expansion of the urban limit
line by greater than thirt, (30) acres in the vicinity of the
tidelands area now outside the urban limit line. This revie►+y
may occur outside the either the rive (5) or ten (10) year
review cycles of the urban limit line.
(e) The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of
the urban limit line midway during the period between
Januar) 1, 2011 and December 31, 2026, in Year 2016.
The purpose of this Year 2016 review is to determine
whether a change to the boundary of the Count's Urban
Limit Line Map is warranted, based on facts and
circumstances resulting from the Counts participation
with the cities on a comprehensive review of the availability
of land in Contra Costa County to meet a 20-year housing
and lobs needs for the County. This review of the urban
17 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBUCREVIEW
2006 UL BALLOTMEASURE
limit line is intended to be in addition to ani.- other, interim
reviews of the urban limit line the Board of Supervisors
may choose to pursuant to Subsection (a) of this Section or
otherwise.
4. Section 82-1.028, Chapter 82-1, Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code is hereby amended and modified to extend the term of the
65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance to December 31 , 2026
as follows (the text to be deleted is shown with strikeout and the
new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline
[example] and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this
measure.):
82-1.028 Duration.
The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until
Deeefnbei-�01 December 31, 2026, to the extent
permitted by law. (Ords. 91-1 § 2. 90-66 § 4).
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon approval by the
voters. Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM
and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT of this
ordinance is hereby inserted into the Contra Costa County General Plan
(2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general plan amendments for
calendar year 2006 allowed under state law, immediately upon approval by
the voters.
18 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLIC REVIEW
2006 ULL BALLOTMEASURE
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall
remain in full, force, and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase,
part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed
regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences,
phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or
repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election.
G:\Ad--P)—..g�,dc-pla,.Ul-I.Mini McasurcJunc 6.2006 ULL f1aIInIMwsurc0rd—mDraf aloe
19 1/27/2006
EXHIBIT ONE
DRAFT-PUBLICREVIEW
2oo6 ULL BALLormEASURE
FIGURE: MAP OF URBAN LIMIT LINE
NOTE: A map will be included as part of the ballot measure that would be a
graphic representation of the Urban Limit Line reflecting the non-
substantial bounda7y modification, as submitted,for voter approval by the
Board, and the city Urban Limit Line maps approved by voters in Antioch,
Pittsburg and San Ramon. The ballot measure would revise and re-title two
maps in the Contra Costa Count; General Plan (2005-2020). The resulting
changes under this measure shall be reflected in Fig. 3-1, at page 3-10,
Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and
Urban Limit Line Map included in a pocket insert to the General Plan.
Attached for public review as part of the Draft- Public Review of the June
2006 ULL Ballot Measure are two maps:
• Figure 1: Proposed Urban Limit Line Map, Contra Costa County
General Plan (2005-2020) illustrating in color the changes to the
present Count Urban Limit Line, and:
• Figure 2: Detailed View, Proposed Urban Limit Line Map, Contra
Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), illustrating in color the
specific locations where changes are p7-6posed in the County Urban
Limit Line map.
G1Advance Planning adv-plan\Ordinance UraftO4-14-04noredline.doc
20 1/27/2006
.. -
-
iI
-
J° -
i
r.
i.
Y.
M 1
L -
LO
r'! xr
Y
,E
,
- T
.. .
LO
.10
:t
,
\
r :..
y'
..': N
�.." , `•.i'�: r` ,r ,!� til.. LO
.. ..�'
► Wo
�'
;- f >
0 IF
0.
N In.
1 .�►� a3F
LO
1 LO
O M
E
1 ra
y
cu
rr �
o
r..
•
\
,
C• -
- I
m
i
a
0
, I
t
1
I
•
`\ I
t.
:
,
1
J � —
th
-1
1.
o -
. .1
^ `
N r--�
N
• I
�,.
r , 1 CD
N N
IF
r.-
,
:
,
1
r
r
O
1.
O
DC
1 1
J- L-
1'
,
,
O:
�.,
LIL
:
1
C ,
r
t� o
.. 1
1 V
-7777
rl
..............
1
1
: '
V..
..
r
1
,
, Q
i
O _
(. 1
Iv
U
,
\
N. L
ti
1
:
c
a�
O
>L
ti. C
F
:
r
F'.4
i�•
,r
1
O -
i
l
F
_ 1
t• ,a:
i
�i-
/l 4, .�;.:•:..`(jam,:��.':,
1'
:r
3
l�
,--1
J
v -
N
LO
O is
N
1
J
11'
J
r
N
g N
- to
F-•1
�i.
O
_ y
,
- o
ep
L � G
1
1 II
— i
c
1
`1
- 1
1 b
Q
o i :
I
1 'l 61
1
o
O
c 0
I
s
n:
C
U.
1
Q!.
.C1
�L•
�, ..;..
G
v
b0
IUJ
1
y
m
1
1
e.
v
y
•ry
o�
:
�i
�.'r.".�'-.':.:�,.';.?r `,`i��.���. '.r.l •�
►--r ++ G
- a
v
R
m
1
v
,
,
o
o R >,
a
c , ..
• ! v L. t�.. ,
0
u v
d
�• C
1.,
F
I
^ QI
— v
t
.r
r
7
C
_
•G
.0
,11
�
f..
z.
a
„ OA
O
L`
r'
M
c6
0
j m
lu ry:40, t
m 80 o
115�-a R o
o", o o
T,�
0.41- 0
0
4 U o
0 Qj
77"
0
WT
0 J:I,i�V
5,
LL
0
V
Z7 R 0 e'i
I.A Ef_4
4R,
U
0 X,
gD
uo
0
r
P4
cri ......
cr
L) lu
u
0 .0
3.0.
u
(D
o
ir
CO
0
ca
cc
co
(TJ
cf) CL
c:
CU
C/ :�......-
c1f
C;L
CO o
........
QL
cu
ca
ca
QL
low#
QL
ctr
cc! MA
co
co
QL Q) ca
RIF
co
...............
(D BLVU.
CO
&L
Tcx
0
cl CCFo ......
j
j7;
00
444 CL YON'RD
CAN
CL
"SOL,
QL 0
CU
C:))
Mr
cx
ca
CYJ
CU
co
0
rr
0
(Z)
Alma
Rpm#
CO
ctr
co
ctr
0 0
Attachment "C": Written Comments Received To Date
.f
•
i.00
FQru:ded:18 7::?...• tar arrlte;�:1964 t�.
S,
7 -
.� .y: �;✓,1 11
b 3..:1 L F�3�� l' DAVID I�.Shaer,A9:rrnu
\Chr.u.q+1 R.\Clai.a IT,l';ct:AIAITA;
f ...y 19-rew A.LAurieNa:
camf,IUNI I Y .. .
Dry E,OP,u_N"r (9-'5)673-7340 6000 HER1T.•1G}%Tiz;w. • CLAYION, CALIFORNIA 94517-1250 Gres;n1r �Lr:Nw.;
E,NGr WiEItIN% (925)672-9700 TELEPHONE:(925) 673-7300 FAX (925) 672-4917 luui;K.Pnucets
791C�H' A
February 22, 2006Aa�u.,�( i °°
The Honorable John M. Gioia, Chairman FEB 2 .7 2006
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street CLtRIK 044!) � ;. RIS0a5
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Modification of Proposed Urban Limit Line in Clayton
Dear Chairman Gioia and Board of Supervisors:
We have reviewed the draft amendments to the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line(ULL)you propose for
the June 6, 2006 ballot. We are extremely disappointed the proposed ULL has not been reconfigured in the
Clayton area to follow existing parcel boundaries and allow Clayton municipal services to be extended in
accordance with the adopted Alarsh Creed:Road Specific Plan and its environmental review. The current ULL
configuration divides numerous parcels. Owners of these"half in/half out"parcels are unfairly restricted from
using their parcels for any development.Adjustments to correct these inequities were proposed by Clayton in
February 2005 and endorsed in the"Worth Amendments to the Plan C Compromise"presented at the February
26, 2005 ULL Summit.
The total net developable land area which would be added by the Clayton ULL adjustment is 30.1 acres,as
shown on the enclosed map. Since large portions of the subject area are covered by deed restrictions
prohibiting development, a maximum of only 24 residences could be built in this area.
For example, we note that adjustments in two separate areas of Martinez were included by the Board of
Supervisors in the proposed ULL. The area added by these adjustments totals 157 acres of residential land.
Since land owners in these areas could request future lot splits,the potential for growth could quickly exceed
the land for 24 residences requested by Clayton. Similar concessions were made for land in Orinda.
In order to provide policy equity for Clayton and avoid charges of discrimination, the Clayton City Council
urgently petitions the Board of Supervisors to modify the proposed ULL for the.lune 2006 ballot and adhere to
the proposed ULL shown on the enclosed map. This alignment fulfills Item 3 of the"Worth Amendments to
the Plan C Compromise" (see enclosure), unifies the half in/half out parcels on the inside of the ULL. and
instills a semblance of fairness to the proceedings.
Sincerely,
David T. Shuey
Mayor
cc: Clayton City Council
Enclosures: Proposed Urban Limit Line.Prepared 2/26/05
Worth Amendments to the Plan C Compromise CDD\2(1(14\0;-04.11:2
,k-
d 111 t�,.._..,. ,- .. ,,.,�. a•, .•,r':•� =
�, O �sc.. 1;� 'l..t$�y .•iT� _. _. �'sG.l. �§i.,.. 1!�I• u"t13',�w,; I-'r'�. G?�"s4
Tl
13 I� M ���^.+li., 1 �(. ti'�•r :r+ti: t�<� N�
O
1 as "���CJ',:� ;�}! r. :' �+Y!". fi;'i�l 'S .'` I.s,. ¢.•� •
L:!`� F'. °; '�'��:'. ,�; - _ •Mil
O � � -�%y�' pY
.:t�.1�:� l�
�P 'fE'-. !'Z�.r'J' �.. ''� � 1 .�S l4,'I �' hi;'�S�I •7. L.e
/
M w
V1 i GVobr
N
CDLIS��.��' Vim•°!."� .;�•:..` t• M ...
t. 4.c•. I ' c r'..
Ens 3Nb? Nl r.��.
t,
ARA,
v' \ ,
sem;.
�j,fix,': :[es." ♦'�.
Zg
,":. -,S..3yeie�K•:.�!;",+r?.
',"+ a W" 7� !F:(.16i_. L• N'6'471 O L'i4SY,L,FUG.Pt• '..... S•:L'4••
cl-
I CU LU UU I U.I UQ VGIIJLQ M1 IUCI AUI 1 .JL U'U I v-L,v.J
t
DISCi EliY TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY CS
1800 Willow Lake Road,Discovery Bay,CA 94514 _
Telephone; (925) 634-1131 Fax: (925) 513-2705 _.
Board Members ....
President-Bob Doran r.doranl233@sbcfilobal.net
V.President-David Piepho d.piepho@sbcglobal.ner
February 2T 2006 Treasurer-Ray Tetreault r_tetreault843 I:.rL'sbcglobal.-3el
Director-Shannon Murphy-Teixeira s.murphy_leixeira;:r:,sbcgloba-net
Contra Costa County Director-Patty Knight plhewittnus.ibrn.cont
Community Development Department
Attn:Patrick Roche
651 Pine Street,North Wing,0 Floor
,Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District's Comments on the Urban Limit Line Ballot
Measure
Dear Patrick:
The Tow=n of Discovery Bay Community Services District Board of Directors would like to submit the following as
there comments to the Notice of Public Review and Intent to adopt a Proposed Negative Declaration, for County
Files: GP#06-0001 and ZT#06-0001 for the Urban Limit Line Ballot Measure.
The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District's Board would like the County to consider a passible
amendment to be made to the ballot measure under Page 41 that is titled "Environmental Checklist Form", under
Item #8-Description of Project, Roman Numeral"IX", to add a letter"g" based on the Job!Housing balance for the
Discovery Bay area for the following reasons.!concerns:
XII Population and Housing
The Town of Discovery Bay, a Community Services District, has=15,000 residents in=5,250 homes. Only a small
percentage of the residents actually work in DB. Many must get to Highway 580 on their commute to Santa Clara
County_ Some commute to Walnut Creek or Concord via Marsh Creek Road or Highway 4. Others commute to San
Joaquin County on Highway 4 or J4. Service businesses must drive many miles each day to service the needs of our
residents adding many billable travel time hours to their services. High school students jam the roads on the way to
and from Brentwood each day. The simple fact is that highways and roads around Discovery Bay are jammed most
of the time.This causes serious delays in police, fire and emergency medical services.
The point of all of this is that Discovery Bay was designed and built without any service businesses, light industrial
or light manufacturing. These are the items necessary to provide local jobs and services, which would help to keep
people off of the roads. These are the important functions that keep a community of this size vibrant and they were
all left by the County to come with future growth.
Discovery Bay's infrastructure boasts a large modern and easily expandable wastewater treatment plant and potable
water facilities.
When cities and the press speak of East County they often overlook Far East County. We are 15,000 people at the
San Joaquin County Line surrounded by agricultural lands of very marginal activity.
,
... .. . .. .... .... ,., ,.:......, .:.
....... -
.. .. -
, .:. ... .. ..:. ...... ... ..... .. .l Y } .,. 5t,.. ".T'n. 1>
....:.:... .:. ..5 -
.,...:......" . ....,.. ::. :... .. ,_..[ €.. ;t�R•'7_�A tib -'�'+` r�; _ _ -
_ .. :.. s .:..:::_„t.,..,..:.:. s�.�k..�.ea:'�'__..�u, I ':, ^�r,,'��'�';� �'�1�> '�1....?;R'.•.t.���s�n.ru`.-tii��:.,.�.�:a���.z'�� �,s�,�.ti t„�"`=�.f
I-eb 213 06 1 U:1 Ua C;alista Anderson 92b-b1;3-2(Ub p.2
X111 Public Services
Fire Protection
The only thing that will bring our fire district into compliance with federal and state standards is more money.
The East Contra Costa Fire District (ECCFD)the successor to The East Diablo Fire Protection District, which was
funded by legislation as a volunteer and paid on call district.
• At that time Brentwood was a small city.
• Byron was a quaint wide spot in the road with 150 homes and no water to fight fires with.
• Discovery Bay was just getting started but took its time and concentrated on infrastructure (Water and
Wastewater)first.
• In addition,there were hundreds of acres of open space to protect.
Today,Brentwood is a much larger City,Byron hasn't changed and Discovery Say has
+5,240 homes. Much of the open space is still there to be protected: However even with the increased tax revenue
from Brentwood and DB there are far too little funds available to support modern fire services. Fire district
legislation provided that developers must provide stations and apparatus but it is up to the Board of Supervisors to
provide the costs for operations and staffing.
Schools are in about the same shape. With homes conte people,children and school requirements. Again,developers
must provide land and buildings but school boards and the State are responsible for funding staffing. Voters are fed
up with long-term bonds to run these schools- The state and counties have allowed school operations costs to
increase with no mind as to where the funds were going to come from.
Police services for the unincorporated parts of the county are another problem. In the case of Discovery Bay, P-
Districts in the new developments and the generation of copious amounts of real estate and property tax revenue
should have covered sheriff services befitting ±15;000 people. Again, the county has allowed these funds to be
diverted to other areas. The sheriff contends that he is not required to use the funds collected in these P-District areas
for patrol services in these same areas. This makes one wonder why there are such things as P-District charges
imposed on certain groups of homeowners when the service will not be provided there.
XV Transportation and Traffic
In general, traffic in Far East County is the same as the county aggregate. However, as the Highway 4 Bypass and
Highway 239 make things better in east and west county,much of the congestion funnels down to Far East County.
For many years Marsh Creek Rd will be the transportation corridor that connects these two roads to Highway 4 and
Jul.As a matter of fact Marsh Creek Rd will become State Highway 4.
Where will Highway 4 go? Simple answer: To Discovery Bay and then eastward via an antique 1919 bridge on
sharp curves one mile past Discovery Bay. This bridge over Old River has had numerous closures due to trucks,
which weren't designed in 1919.This bridge at times has been closed for hours, days and even months.
Highway 4 to Stockton is on poor levee road most of the way and was never meant to be used by trucks of the size
that are now beating it to death. Seeing that the State doesn't seem inclined to replace the two bridges and upgrade
the levee highway, huge trucks should be banned from it.
One can only imagine what is going to happen when you start bunching the traffic at a signal light at:Marsh Creek
and Highway 4 and then let it all go at once to try and cross this bridge.To make matters worse there is another one
of these bridges with even worse curves over Middle River at Union Point on the way to Stockton.
The traffic southbound on J4 is another nightmare. Over the narrow Kellogg Creek Bridge, in ii-ont of two schools
right on the edge of the road and through quaint Byron all dangerous accidents waiting to happen.
.... . ....:
Feb 28 06 10:10a Calista Anderson 925-513-2705 p.3
XVI Utilities and Service Systems
Discovery Bay has both water and wastewater services that may be easily expanded.
The wastewater plant is situated on the southeast side of Highway 4 on about 15 acres of the 70 acres available. This
includes a state of the art solar sludge drying facility.The sludge is reduced to Class"A"and no landfill is required.
The potable water is from wells. The aquifer level is monitored regularly and shows no sign of deterioration. Water
treatment plants are used to remove the manganese and iron from the water.No chlorine is used in the process.
The Bottom Line
Based on the above dialog, there are several key points our.Board would like to address in relation to the extension
of the ULL to 2026.
. There is another area other than East County. This place has problems unique only to an
area up against the County Line and a river. It is called Far East County, the end of the
funnel or all of the stuff stops here.
0 The County is responsible for the mess we are in now. They have allowed the
development of Discovery Bay without the necessary corrunerce, employment
opportunities and service businesses all the while promising that these services would
come with future development.
0 Until recently.no thought was given to police, fire and public safety. As a result we are
plagued with an under funded mess.
a Runoff heavy in silt and who knows what else has been allowed from the agricultural
lands west of Discovery Bay to flow into our bays and lakes.
0 Before any further traffic is dumped onto Highway 4.there need be improvements made
between Marsh Creek Rd and the Old River Bridge. Full widening to four lanes is a
must.
* We believe that it is essential that you consider how you are going to facilitate our
securing of these necessary improvements and services.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call our General Manager, Virgil Koehne at(925)634-1 13 1.
Sincerely,
Robert Doran,Board President
Town of Discovery Bay CSD
RDIm
Cc: Supervisor Many N.Piepho,District 3
St
J
A—,
'er
14 4 emU N
g
Jr
hf'j
6RI 4 110�' ULAWW5��'i
lii•i,v
FEB-2872006 TUE 01 ;29 PM CITY OF CONCORD FAX NO. 9257980636 P. 02
CrrY or CoNcoau CITY COUNCtT,
1950 Pa.rksidc Drive Susan A.Bonilla,Mayor
Concord,California 94519-2578 Mark A.Peterson,Vire'layor
ux; (925) 798-0656 Helen M.Allem
Laura M.Hoffmcistc:r
William n,Shinn
OFTIee OF TH6 CITY MnNAGrst Mary Rac Lehman;City Chn-k
Telephone: (925) 671-8150onear.- d
Thmras Wentling,City Treatiurer
Lydia L,Du Borg,City Managcr
February 28, 2006 VIA FAX: (925) 335-1299
(Hard copy via regular mail)
Mr_ Patrick Roche, Principal Planner
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: City of Concord's Comments on the Environmental Initial Study and the
Proposed Negative Declaration for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election for the
Urban Limit Line (ULL) Ballot Measure (County Files: GP 06.0001 and ZT 06-
0001)
Deal-Mr. Roche;
The City of Concord has received the above referenced Environmental Initial Study and
the proposed Negative Declaration for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election for the Urban Limit
Line (ULL) Ballot Measure. The 2006 ULL Ballot Measure would ask voters countywide to
amend the Land Use and Conservation Elements of the County General Plan and the 65/35 Land
Preservation Plan Ordinance to extend the term of the ULL to 2026 and establish new procedures
for voter approval on expansion of the ULL. The proposed ULL Ballot Measure would approve a
new ULL map for the County's General Plan that incorporates ULL boundary adjustments for
several cities that include the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, San Ramon, Orinda, Walnut Creek,
and Martinez. The Initial. Study provides an evaluation of the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed ULL Ballot measure.
The City has evaluated the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration and is
providing written comments on two areas of concern that include the proposed ULL Ballot
Measure language as it pertains to the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) tidal portion
and the inadequacy of the environmental analysis in the Initial Study provided for the proposed
ULL boundary adjustment.
The first area of concern is the proposed ULL Ballot language for the tidal portion of the
CN- WS, which is within Concord's Sphere of Influence. The ULL Ballot incorporates `Provision
V' that allows an off cycle review of the ULL for the CNWS tidal portion to be initiated prior to
the regular five year review cycle. Provision V does not trigger a future ULL boundary
adjustment to include the CN`WS tidal portion without further voter approval. As you may
rmrsil: rityinf'o46.concord.c-,t.us 0 tuc6si[c; www,cityofconcord.org
FEB-28-2006 TUE 0130 PM CITY OF CONCORD FAX NO. 9257980636 P. 03
Mr.Patrick Roche
February 28,2006
Page 2 of 4
recall, the City was seeking an automatic ULL boundary adjustment taking in the approximately
1,506 acre developed portion of the 7,630 acre CNWS tidal area, if the area were subject to
closure by the Department of Defense. Military base closure decisions have been made, and we
now know the tidal area will remain in military use. The City requests that `Provision V' be
removed from the ULL Ballot policy language because it is a remainder from earlier ULL
discussions and is no longer relevant to the City.
The City's second area of concern is inadequacy of the environmental analysis in the
Initial Study to support the proposed Negative Declaration provided for the proposed ULL
boundary adjustment. It should be noted that the City's comments on the Initial Study pertain
only to one of the Pittsburg ULL boundary adjustments for the area located directly adjacent to
CNWS. The City of Concord is in process to update its General Plan and as pan of the process
extended the Planning Area Boundary in this area. The boundary for the Planning Area
Boundary resulted from a viewshed analysis from several key vantage points in the City. The
intent of the Planning Area Boundary in this area is to assert the City's interest in protecting the
viewshed from visible future development that could occur within this area. The following are
the applicable Draft Concord General Plan Goal and Policy language for the Planning Area
Boundary,
Goal LU-1: Open Space Protection
Principle LU-1.1: Protect Xidgelines and Visible Hillsides
Policy LU-10.1.1 Encourage the County and adjacent cities to prohibit new
development on designated ridgelines and in protected viewsheds,
but allow appropriate beneficial and reasonable open space uses in
these areas, subject to standards for viewshed protection that will
preserve the open space character of areas that are visible from
Concord's neighborhoods and commercial districts.
Policy LU-10.1.2: On any land to be annexed to the City, require new development to
be clustered to reduce both environmental and visual impacts of
hillside development.
Policy LU-10.1.3: Work with the County and adjacent jurisdictions to ensure that
zoning and subdivision regulations applicable to all development
visible from within the City's Planning Area reflect General Plan
Policy direction.
Actions the City will request of the County and adjacent
jurisdictions include:
• Designating protected ridgelines, creeks, and other.significant
resource areas, along with daylight plane or setback
standards;
• Defining protected viewsheds; and
FEB-2872006 TUE 01 :30 PM CITY OF CONCORD FAX NO. 9257980636 P. 04
Mr.Patrick Roche
February 28:2006
Pagc 3 of 4
• Designating growth limits and clustering provisions for very
low-density hillside residential development based on slope
and elevation to ensure viewshed protection.
Policy LU-10.1.4: Minimize cut-and-fill of natural hillsides.
Policy LU-10.1.5: Ensure that developers incorporate natural creekways as open
space amenities into the design of projects as a condition of
approval.
Policy LU-10.1.6: Ensure that any development between Evora Road and State Route
4 is setback from the edge of State Route 4 to mitigate visual and
noise impacts.
Policy LU-10.1.7: Ensure that development in all adjacent jurisdictions provides
trailheads and linkages to a multi-use trail system.
Policy LU-10.1.8: Encourage the provision of wildlife corridors to ensure the
integrity of habitat linkages and preserve the character of visible
hillsides and open space.
Policy LU-10.1.9: Oppose any expansion of the County Urban Limit Line (ULL)that
would allow development in protected viewsheds or on visible
hillsides located within the City's Planning Area Boundary_
While the City is not opposed to expansion of the ULL per se, the
City would raise objections to any new development that results in
visible development on slopes and hillsides areas within the City's
Planning Area Boundary Area. The City will evaluate all
development proposals by neighboring cities and the County
within Concord's Planning Area Boundary to determine if there
are potential visual impacts.
The City of Concord as represented in the proposed General Plan policies does not
oppose the expansion of the ULL per se; however, the City would expect that any new
development proposed in this area would comply with the intent to preserve the natural character
of the ridgeline and hillside areas.
The evaluation of environmental impacts in the Initial Study does not provide adequate
analysis to ascertain that there are `no impacts' associated with Pittsburg's ULL boundary
adjustment. The statement in the `discussion' section of the Initial Study indicates that the
proposed action of the amending ULL Ballot Measure `does not confer any entitlement or
approval of development and therefore there are no adverse impacts with the proposal'. The City
would dispute this statement since by allowing the ULL boundary adjustment, anticipated urban
development would be facilitated in an area that currently does not allow it. This is not mere
conjecture but is supported by the fact that in February 2005, the City of Pittsburg circulated a
subdivision map for the proposed Montecito Residential project. This project consists of 1,135
single-family units on a 211-acre site located in the unincorporated County. The City of
Concord's initial assessment of this proposal has indicated potential significant negative visual
impacts of the proposed development from several vantage points in Concord_ These impacts
FEB-26-2UU6 'FUh U1 ;3U NM UYFY UF UUNUUHD FAX NU, 92b(98U636 F. Ub
Mr.Patrick Roche
February 28,2006
Page 4 of 4
are created from the project's cut-and-fill site grading on the ridgeline and hillside areas that
degrade the existing natural character of the area.
The County's current land use designation for the ULL boundary adjustment area is rural
conservation and Pittsburg's proposed land use is low density residential. It should be noted that
a portion of Pittsburg's ULL boundary adjustment is not located within Pittsburg's Sphere of
Influence. Therefore, given that the subject area is currently within the County's jurisdiction, it
is imperative that the County's Initial Study provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing and
proposed land uses. The City is requesting in. addition to revising and recirculating the
environmental assessment of the ULL boundary adjustment that the Initial Study incorporate
mitigation measures that would apply to new visible ridgeline development. These would ensure
that zoning and subdivision regulations applicable to new visible ridgeline development are
consistent with the City's proposed General Plan Policy direction.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study for the 2006
ULL Ballot Measure. The City looks forward to a response to the comments outlined in this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, or would like to discuss them
further, please contact me at 925-671-3150.
Very truly yours,
dC. � • 1-d1-�
Lyd E. Du Borg, City Manager
cc: Concord City Council
Concord PIanning Commission
Mark Deven, Assistant City Manager, City of Concord
Craig Labadie, City Attorney, City of Concord
Jim Forsberg,Director, Planning &Economic Development, City of Concord
Mark Boehme, Assistant City Attorney, City of Concord
Deborah Raines,Planning Manager, City of Concord
John Templeton, Transportation Manager, City of Concord
Phillip Woods, Principal Planner, City of Concord
Mayor and Council, City of Pittsburg
Planning Commission, City of Pittsburg
Marc S. Grisham, City Manager., City of Pittsburg
Melissa Ayres, Planning Director, City of Pittsburg
TRANSPAC
TRANSPLAN
Bob McCleary,Executive Director of Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Judy Dawson, Bay Point MAC
� -29'-2006 T1�E U3. 32 PM CI'T`i7 OF EFENTNOOD COI�^1,i iTy DEvE10PN1EN FIX 92' 5i6 5101
i
C.BUNTWODD
February 28, 2006
i
i
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing,4`h Floor
M Inez, CA 94553
Re. GP406-0001 and ZT #06-0001 Urban Limit Line
Ch '
and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
Th City of Brentwood has received the Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a
Proposed Negative Declaration for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election Urban Limit Line
Ba'Hot Measure sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The City
points out that the Project analyzed in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration should
include the 1990 voter-approved Urban Limit Line (CTLL) in the area immediately
surrounding the City of Brentwood, in as much as the Project acknowledges the voter-
approved ULL in the areas surrounding the Cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon.
The! City's 1990 voter-approved L'LL was not changed by the failed 2005 voter-initiative
(Measure L) which encompassed broader issues than just the ULL configuration, such as
the permanent prohibition of urban services to areas outside the City.
In the evaluation of environmental impacts throughout the Negative Declaration,
reference is made to amending "the County's Urban Limit Line Map in the General Plan
to >pIflect voter approved city Urban Limit Line maps", but Brentwood's approved 1990
ULZ is not reflected. The ULL areas which would need to be added to the Project
include Special Planning Areas (SPA) G, H, and R, all located on the west side of the
City's current limits. For consistency with the treatment of other cities with voter-
app'roved ULLs, the City of Brentwood requests that the Project be revised to include
these above-mentioned areas and the Negative Declaration recirculated.
I
Sincerely,
Do a Landeros
Bre twood City Manager
Cc:,Mayor and Councilmembers, Brentwood City Council
at Roche, CCC Community Development Department
Ci Hall 708 Third Street Brentwood, California 94513.1364 Phone: 925) 516-5400 Fax: (925) 516-5401
City (
Community Development - 104 Oak Street, Brentwood, California 94513-1335 Phone: (925) 516-5405 Fax:(925) 516-5407
Engineering Department - 120 Oak Street Brentwood, CA 94513-1335 Phone: (925) 516-5420 Fax: (925) 516-5421
Police Depa ment - 100 Chestnut Street, Breniwood, CA 94513-1304 Phone: (925) 634-6911 Fax: (925) 516-5247
Public Works - 2201 Elkins Way, Brentwood, CA 94513-7344 Phone: (925) 516-6000 Fax: (925) 516-6001
Worth Amendments to the Plan C Compromise
Presented at February 26, 2005 Urban Limit Line Conference
I. 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 (CLAWS) 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 CLAWS.
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 Carnp Parks,
should it be released from Federal control.
I/
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: JOtit Phone: f 7,3.239'
Address: J y'Zp 4vi (,414 P/&C-4- City: NAk4 41,1
Please note that if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this inform ion will become a public record of
the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting.
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
I,wish to speak on Agenda Item # Ui_I- Date: ?-7-Q6
My comments will be: �, General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before,addressing the Bo�ad.
Name: A.,,Al 0056,1164' Phone: G 71 - 3>59
0+ C
Address: I !V;D City:
(Address and phone number are�optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
Will? the Clerk of the Board in association With this n7eeling)
C �t
I am speaking for myself or organization: 4
CHECK ONE:
J�x I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 2 7,0
My comments will be: 0 General 0 For El Against
EJ I wish to speak on the subject of:
0 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leav* e these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM l
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) J
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Si"S ( IA S Phone: `'12 S q y - 3S3 S
Address: I I D 1�,�c;� 3 )V.Q, 5",A)IC 7 2 o City: �,A 1 I �r C✓-u L
Please note that if you choofse t6 provide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record of
the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting.
I am speaking for myself or organization: $f\ y 1 p i ,Pt 6L-a
CHECK ONE:
I,wish to speak on Agenda Item # • Ll Date: 3 - - 2 oo
My coromlents will be: P General ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: I l l c. e I r• 2 ('a Z _ Phone: Z 5 ; 7 OT— 0 7-5— /
Address: 2-0�` J Z City:
Please note that if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this inform tion will become a public record of
the Clerk of the Board in association with his meeting.
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
C( I,wish to speak on Agenda Item # �''� Date: 0
��My11 comments will be: ❑ General l�For ❑ Against
I wish to speak on the subject of: E:D
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM �- L
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: �'AJ kt� Phone: -7-776
Address: 1G,o( yj_ Mq«v s-7 x11 sr City: WALA)•T—(-R�
Please note that if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this information will become a
public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board along with the minutes for this meeting
I am speaking for myself or organization: .�. �f
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # . g' Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ''Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
1D> .Oq
,.:
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
03/06/2006 04:34 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht
m
Username: Michael F. Sarabia
UserAddress: 55 Pacifica Ave. , Sp #140
UserTel: 925.709-0751
UserEmail: mchlsrrb@aol.com
AgendaDate: 03/07/06
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: D.4
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 06 Mar 2006
Time: 16:34:30
Comments:
Re: 7 March Agenda Item D.4 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2006/105 calling
for an election on June 6, 2006 for a voter-approved Contra Costa County urban
limit line. (Patrick Roche, Community Development Department)
Public Comment by Michael F. Sarabia of Bay Point. CA
Imagine you like fishing very much and visit a lake well supplied with
government fish. The fish are jumping all over the lake, luring you.
Obviously, you can hardly restrain yourself. Multiply that allure by a million
and now imagine you are a developer and the state is going to use $222 Billion
for roads and other things.
Just imagine all the New Housing Developments you could sell if only you could
say "There will soon be a road near. " You will tell buyers all the taxes for
schools, mitigation and whatever (you couldn't care less after the house is
sold) . Commuting? Sell the house to the parent that stays at home, mention the
plans for new schools and show them the traffic at the noon hour, or at night
"that's the only time I can be there, do you mind?" . Contribute whatever funds
are needed to plan the new schools and never mention "teaching quality" or
"retention of quality teachers" .
How about the Urban Limit Line? A problem, right? It simply has to be
defeated, get all the developers together with the construction companies and
whatever union (foreign or domestic) wants jobs and work something out.
For example, get the largest amount of money that has never been seen and keep
it in separate organizations.
Back candidates that have already spoken for "more roads" and ignore
candidates that talk about "mass transit" or mention "Traffic Village" ever,
once, and, oh yes, investwhatever it takes to defeat the Urban Limit Line.
Put posters with "Do you want better commuting Roads? Save Tax Money and Let
the Bonds Pay for Schools and Roads. End the Urban Limit Line! " Yes, I know,
it does not make sense, but will it sell?
Michael F. Sarabia