Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.A 03/02/2009CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding Submission of a Ballot Measure to the Voters to Extend the Lifetime of the City's Urban Growth Boundary from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2025 90 March 2, 2009 Meeting Date: March 2, 2009 Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM ® 7:00 PM Category: ❑ Presentation ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business ® New Business Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: City Manager John Brown, Eric Danly 778-4362 City Attorney Eric Danly City Clerk Claire Cooper Community Mike Moore Development Cost of Proposal: $7,800 to $120,000, depending on election date selected, Name of Fund: plus staff and attorney time Account Number: Amount Budgeted: Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Review and discuss options for presenting a ballot measure on the UGB extension to the voters and direct staff on timing and any other issues the Council determines relevant so that staff can begin preparation of appropriate legislation in the timeframe selected. Summary Statement: The city's General Plan 2025 is based on continuation of the city's Urban Growth Boundary through 2025, the lifetime of the current General Plan. The Urban Growth Boundary limits the location of urban development and provision of city water and sewer services through December 31, 2018. It was adopted by the voters in November, 1998, and requires a vote of the people to modify or rescind it. General Plan Policy 1 -P -37(A) requires the city to present a ballot measure to the community to extend the life of the UGB to 2025. The attached report provides options for various election timelines, estimates costs and discusses other procedural requirements for a ballot measure to implement Policy 1 -P -37(A). Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. General Plan pages 1-17 through 1-20, containing text of UGB and related policies. 2. Chart of possible election dates, pre-election submission deadlines and estimated costs. Reviewed"bviCity Attornev: Anpreoved-bY City Manager: t " ,� Date: '7 /2�(/ j c�j Date: 2/e'er/,:, Rev. # 3 Date Last Revised: 2/24/09 File: 1200804.1 e CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 2, 2009 AGENDA REPORT FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF A BALLOT MEASURE TO THE VOTERS TO EXTEND THE LIFETIME OF THE CITY'S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FROM DECEMBER 31, 2018 TO DECEMBER 31, 2025 1. RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss options for presenting a ballot measure on the UGB extension to the voters and direct staff on timing and any other issues the Council determines relevant so that staff can begin preparation of appropriate legislation in the timeframe selected. 2. BACKGROUND: The City's General Plan 2025 is based on continuation of the city's Urban Growth Boundary through 2025, the lifetime of the current General Plan. The Urban Growth Boundary limits the location of urban development and provision of city water and sewer services through December 31, 2018. It was adopted by the voters in November, 1998, and requires a vote of the people to modify or rescind it. General Plan Policy 1 -P -37(A) requires the city to present a ballot measure to the community to extend the life of the UGB to 2025. Because the present UGB is in effect through 2018, any election date which precedes December 31, 2018 would comply with General Plan Policy 1 -P -37(A). Attachment 2 lists various election timelines, cost estimates and other procedural requirements for a ballot measure to implement Policy 1 -P -37(A). 3. DISCUSSION: The city can rely on the certified EIR for the General Plan to serve as the required review of environmental impacts of extending the UGB through 2025. If changes are made to the proposed UGB ballot measure other than extending its lifetime through 2025, it is possible that additional CEQA process could be needed for a council -sponsored ballot measure. The requirement and extent of any additional CEQA review is fact dependent, and would require evaluation of the nature of any changes to the UGB. For example, enlarging the UGB geographically could create environmental impacts not studied in the General Plan EIR, but so could shrinking the UGB, if a smaller UGB concentrated future development in ways that created more intense or different environmental impacts than those studied in the General Plan EIR. Because the 2008 General Plan EIR was certified and the statute of limitations for legal challenge has expired, the EIR is good for the life of the General Plan. If the Council identifies a need at some future point to modify General Plan policies, any such changes would undergo their own environmental review. If future General Plan changes created UGB-related environmental impacts different from those included in the 2008 General Plan EIR, the changed UGB impacts would be analyzed in any supplemental General Plan environmental studies. A ballot measure presented after any such changes to the General Plan could rely on those supplemental studies, in addition to the 2008 General Plan EIR. As future discretionary projects are considered, their environmental evaluation will have to consider any changed circumstances since General Plan adoption that require additional analysis and/or supplemental CEQA documents for those discretionary projects. However, that would not affect the use of the General Plan EIR to support a UGB ballot measure extension. General Plan Policy 1 -P -37(B) also requires a review of the UGB in 2015 to evaluate availability of vacant land, growth trends and projections, the city's economic development and affordable housing needs and infrastructure capacity, presumably to assess how the UGB is working. That review would take place whether 2 or not the UGB had been extended through 2025 at that time, absent a change to Policy 1 -P -37(B). If the intent of Policy 1 -P -37(B) is to evaluate the UGB close to the time of its expiration, an extension measure could also modify the review date. After direction from the City Council, staff and the city attorney's office will prepare a proposed ordinance malting the changes to the UGB as directed, and amending General Plan 2025 to conform. If the only change is to expiration date, the changes to the General Plan would be limited to a text corrections in Policies 1-P-31, I -P-32 and 1-P-34, changing the date of December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2025. See Attachment 1 for the full text of the General Plan UGB section, including these policies. All other provisions of General Plan 2025 presume that the UGB will remain in place through 2025. Nevertheless, a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the extension as a general plan amendment is recommended, unless the Council determines that Planning Commission consideration is not needed. At the time the Council considers the proposed ordinance it would also consider a city resolution ordering that the measure be submitted to the voters, calling a special municipal election if the date chosen is not the biennial general municipal election in November of even -numbered years, requesting consolidation if the date selected is a statewide election date and providing for the submission of ballot arguments and rebuttals. The council will also be asked to designate which member(s) or other persons will prepare a ballot argument for submission. Staff will prepare the proposed ordinance. The city attorney will prepare the resolution calling the election and other ballot related materials, such as the ballot title and summary, for submission in the appropriate time frames. A submitted ballot measure could be amended or withdrawn by the City Council up until the 83`d day prior to the election date chosen. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The cost of presenting a ballot measure to the voters will vary depending on which election date is selected for presentation. Estimated costs for several options are listed on Attachment 2 and vary from a range of $7,800-$15,600 (estimated city cost for a measure consolidated with the November, 2010 general municipal election), to as much as $120,000 (estimate for the May 191h statewide special election or a June 2009 special municipal election, without other consolidated local matters). A special election on a date other than a statewide election date would generally be more expensive than one consolidated with a statewide election. The regular municipal election (November of even numbered years) is the least expensive. Staff and attorney time to prepare the necessary legislation would be required, and any required CEQA process could also have additional costs which are presently unknown. The next general municipal election will be November 2, 2010. On February 20`h, the Governor signed emergency legislation setting a statewide election for May 19, 2009, to place 5 measures, including constitutional amendments related to the State's fiscal crisis, before the voters. Under the terms of the emergency legislation, in order to consolidate with the statewide May 19`h election, the city would have to call its own special election by resolution and approve and submit the UGB ordinance and ballot materials no later than 5 p.m. on March 6, 2009. If the city chose to call a special municipal election for the June 2, 2009 date, it would not be consolidated with any other election. The same March 6 filing deadline would apply to the city resolution, proposed UGB ordinance and ballot materials. A special election for the Petaluma UGB ballot measure in May or June 2009 was estimated by the County Clerk to cost between $3.50-$4.00 per registered voter or as much as $120,000. It would be difficult to meet the March 6th deadline without scheduling special council meetings, and there most likely would not be time for Planning Commission review. 1200804.1 3 1-P-28 The City does not guarantee that any individual project will be permitted to achieve the maximum densities shown on the Land Use Map. GOAL 1-G-4: Urban Growth Boundary Maintain a parcel -specific Urban Growth Boundary. Policies and Proorams: Policies 1-P-29 through 1-P-36 reflect the 1998 UGB ballot measure. 1-P-29 It is the policy of the City to build within the agreed upon Urban Growth Boundary. No urban development shall be permitted beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. "Urban development" shall mean development requiring one or more basic municipal services including, but not limited to, water service, sewer, improved storm drainage facilities, fire hydrants and other physical public facilities and services; but shall not mean providing municipal or public services to open space uses, public or quasi -public uses such as schools or public safety facilities. Said municipal or public services or facilities can be developed beyond the UGB to provide services within the UGB. A. Maintain a time certain and parcel -specific Urban Growth Boundary around the city, beyond which urban development will not take place. B. Use the growth management system, design review, or other project review methods to assure that the density of new residential development is greatest within and adjoining existing urbanized areas and gradually and logically lessens as it approaches the urban edge. C. Encourage the County to continue to promote agricultural land use and to strictly limit further residential infilling on lands beyond the Urban Growth Boundary within the Petaluma Planning Referral Area. 1-P-30 No urban development beyond the Urban Growth Boundary shall be served by City services except for (1) extensions to residential dwellings in existence or approved for construction on parcels created on or before December 5, 1963, (2) extensions required pursuant to the terms of a service contract in effect as of July 20,, 1998; (3) extensions to remedy a clear health ATTACHMENT Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment T hazard to residential dwellings in existence or approved for construction on parcels created on or before July 20, 1998 where there is no reasonable alternative means to remedy that health hazard; (4) extensions to open space and park uses; (5) expansion of service to public and quasi -public uses existing as of July 20, 1998; and (6) extraordinary circumstances pursuant to applicable_ General Plan policies. Extraordinary circumstances justifying extension of City services outside of the UGB shall be deemed to exist only if the City Council makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: • That the land use to which the City service would be extended is consistent with all applicable policies of the City's General Plan; and • That the land use to which the City service would be extended is compatible with open space uses as defined in Government Code section 65560 as of July 1, 1998, does not interfere with accepted agricultural practices, and does not adversely affect the stability of land use patterns in the area; and • That the property to which the City service would be extended is immediately adjacent to land already served by the service(s) to be extended; and , • That specific circumstances, unique to the property to which the City service would be extended, would otherwise deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other comparable property outside the UGB and in the vicinity of the property to be served; . and • That substantial evidence demonstrates that the proposed Qty service extension will not cause the Levels of Service specified in adopted City policies to be exceeded with respect to water, wastewater, parks, fire services, police services, storm drainage, schools, traffic and other public facilities and services. 1-P-31 Except as set forth in Policy 1-1`-32,fthe Urban Growth Boundary Policies 1-P-29, 1-P-30, 1-P-31, and 1-P-32 shall be in effect until December 31, 2018. 1-P32 The Urban Growth Boundary designated on the Petaluma General Plan Land Use Map may . be amended only by a vote of the people or pursuant to the procedures set forth below: 1-17 LA Petaluma General Plan 2025 Exception I - Affordable Housing: To comply with state law regarding the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, the City Council may amend the Urban Growth Boundary in order to include within the Urban Growth Boundary lands to be designated for residential uses, provided that no more than 5 acres of land may be brought within the Urban Growth Boundary for this purpose in any calendar year. If in any year, fewer than five acres are brought within the UGB pursuant to this policy, then the unused increment may be brought within the UGB in subsequent years, provided that, no more than 50 acres may be brought within the UGB before December 31, 2018. (Thus, for example in 2008 the City Council could, upon making the findings below, bring up to 50 acres within the UGB under this exception, provided none had previously been brought within the UGB under this exception.) Such amendment may be adopted only if the City Council makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: • The land is immediately adjacent to existing comparably developed areas and the applicant for the redesignation has provided sufficient evidence that the Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, the Community Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department, the School District(s) and other relevant City departments and public agencies have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and provide it with adequate public services; and • The proposed development will consist of at least 25 percent moderate income housing and at least 25 percent.low and very low income housing; and • That there is no existing residentially designated land available within the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate the proposed development; and • That it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate the proposed development by redesignating lands within the Urban Growth Boundary for low and very low income housing; and • The proposed development is necessary to comply with state law requirements for provision of low and very low income housing; and 1-18 • The proposed development meets the intent of General Plan policies relative to density feathering. Exception 11 -Takings: The City Council may amend the Urban Growth Boundary if it finds, by at least a six -sevenths vote and based on substantial evidence in the record, that: • The application of the Urban Growth Boundary policies would constitute an unconstitutional taking of a landownerls property; and • The amendment and associated land use designation will allow additional land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property. Exception III -Transit-Oriented or Industrial Development: The City Council may amend the Urban Growth Boundary if it finds, by at least a six -sevenths vote and based on substantial evidence in the record, that: • The lands to be included within the UGB will be used for transit oriented residential and local -serving commercial development within 1500 feet of a rail transit station; and the Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, the Community Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department, the School District(s), and other relevant City departments and public agencies have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and provide it with adequate public services. No more than 100 acres of land may be brought within the UGB for this purpose before December 31, 2018; or • The lands to be Included within the UGB will be used for office or light industrial uses to improve local employment. No land may be brought within the UGB for this purpose before January 1, 2006. No more'than 100 acres of land may be brought within the UGB for this purpose before December 31,. 2018. Such amendments may be adopted only ifthe 'City Council makes all of the following findings: — That there is no existing office or light industrial designated land available within the UGB that could accommodate the proposed development and it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate the .proposed development by redesignating lands within the UGB foroffice and light 5 industrial uses; and — That the Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, the Planning Department, Parks" and Recreation Department, the School District(s), and other relevant City departments and public agencies have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and provide it with adequate public services; and — That the land to be included (1) is immediately adjacent to the existing UGB, and (2) serviceable water and sewer connections can be provided; and — That the land to be included meets the intent of the General Plan pertaining to the preservation of open space or urban separator areas at the edge of the proposed UGB expansion area. • The following areas have been preliminarily identified as appropriate for potential future expansion of the UGB, subject to the Council making the findings set forth in the first two sections of Exception III above. The list is not intended to be exclusive. — East of Lakeville Highway in the vicinity South of Frates Road; or — West of Old Redwood Highway near Denman Road/Orchard Lane; or — The Haystack Landing area along Petaluma Boulevard South; or — Northeast corner of Corona Road and railroad tracks, north of Sonoma Mountain Parkway intersection. The specific boundaries of any amendment to the UGB will be determined at the time that the 1-P-33 amendment is adopted. Exception IV - Agriculture, Agriculture Support or Related Development The City Council may amend the Urban Growth Boundary if it finds, by at least a six -sevenths vote and based on substantial evidence in the record, that the lands to be included within the UGB will be used for an agricultural or agricultural support use. Agricultural Support Use shall mean an industrial, manufacturing or mixed use project which is determined by the City to support the regional agricultural community and economy and is dependent on municipal services to exist. Such agricultural or agricultural support use amendments may be adopted only if the City Council makes all of the following findings: Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment • That there is no existing agricultural or compatible light industrial designated land available within the UGB to accommodate the proposed development and it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate the proposed development by designating lands within the UGB for agricultural or agricultural support uses; and • That the Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, the Planning Department, Parks and Recreation Department, the School District(s), and other relevant City departments and public agencies have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development and provide it with adequate public services; and • That the land to be included (a) is immediately adjacent to the existing UGB, and (b) (serviceable water andsewer connections can be provided; and • That the land to be included meets the intent of the General Plan pertaining to the preservation of open space or urban separator areas at the edge of the proposed UGB expansion area. Prior to adopting any General Plan amendment pursuant to Exceptions I, Ii, III, or IV of this Policy 1-P-32, the City Council shall hold at least one noticed public hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony and sufficient evidence from the applicant and the public on the proposed amendment and any, findings proposed in connection with such amendment. This hearing shall be in addition to any other public hearings regularly required for a General Plan amendment. Every effort shall be made to keep the visual separation that now exists between communities, outside the Urban Growth' Boundary. All references to the Urban Limit Line in this General Plan and other City policies, ordinances, and regulations shall be considered references to the Urban Growth Boundary. 1-P-34 The Urban Growth Boundary shall coincide with, the line shown on the official General Plan Land Use Map until December 31, 2018. 1-P-35 Growth shall be contained within the boundaries of the Urban Growth Boundary. The necessary infrastructure for growth will be provided within the Urban Growth Boundary. 1-19 Petaluma General Plan ?O;:S ------- 1-P-36 fi{u'•jE - its: av .'-';•Ihy�'N.�; �.; :?:.c� P Die Urban Grauri, Bound,' seeks to enuzrr vivo nnr dnrdopnrnrt does not Hund into turm... rGug rrnx/ngrirulruml land', and liuritj hruairrg ranrnurtion to 'rear rnbeu izfimnuzrunr and tervires are arrembIr (Gnvillia Drive in vire Mee r Hd6 mxm. a r. nnvvz 'dg' nrr /;; rvn. Hud o vingard at rhe nnrem rrl,r n( soumin, sLmrv; r 1-20 For properties adjoining the Urban Growth Boundary, it is the intent of the City that projects developed in the City or requesting City services shall be of limited density (as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map), unless greater density is required to satisfy the requirements of state housing laws, and shall be designed to preserve the visual and physical openness and preserve the aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the property proximate to the rural areas outside of the designated Urban Growth Boundary. End of UGB Ballot Measure. 1-P-37 Ensure that the UGB continues to serve the community while allowing for consideration of development to meet the goals of this document. A. Present a ballot measure to the community to extend the life of the existing UGB ballot measure to 2025, consistent with the General Plan 2025. B. By, or during, year 2015, independently or as part of comprehensive General Plan review, analyze the Urban Growth Boundary that includes assessment of a comprehensive range of factors, including: • . Availability of vacant land • Growth trends and projections • City's economic development and affordable housing needs, and • Infrastructure capacity 1-P-38 Require all development outside of city limits and within the UGB to annex to the city as a condition of extension of City services. Annexation requires the extension of both potable water and sewer services in compliance with adopted Master Plans, in conjunction with other public improvements as doomed appropriate by the City. 1-P-39 Consider the use of Specific or Master Plans for major annexations beyond the 1998 UGB to ensure orderly development as well as financln for necessary infrastructure and services. ATTACHMENT 2 SAMPLE ELECTION DATES, ESTIMATED COSTS AND SUBMISSION DEADLINES: PETALUMA UGB MODIFICATION BALLOT MEASURE Petaluma's Charter provides that the city's regular municipal election shall be held on the statewide general election date, which is the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even -numbered years. Under the Charter, all other municipal elections are "special elections." The California Elections Code provides that municipal special elections must be on one of four dates called "established election dates," absent exceptions for certain voter initiatives which do not apply to the UGB measure. Those dates are: 2nd Tuesday in April, even numbered years 151 Tuesday after 1st Monday in March, odd numbered years 1st Tuesday after 1st Monday in June in each year (in even years, this is the statewide direct primary date; for 2009, the Governor is reportedly considering not calling a special election for this date, but instead calling a special election for a date in May, 2009) 1st Tuesday after 1st Monday in November (in even years, this is the statewide general election date, and the city's regular municipal election date) Election Date1TVDe May 19, 2009 special municipal election consolidated with special statewide election June 2, 2009 special municipal election November 3, 2009 special municipal election Cost Estimate Der City Clerk* Deadline for Submission of Ordinance. Ballot Measure $90,004120,000 @ $3.50-$4 per registered voter March 6, 2009 At least $90,000-$120,000 @ March 6, 2009 $3.50-$4 per registered voter Likely similar to June, 2009, August 7, 2009 depending on whether other local measures are scheduled for this date June 8, 2010 Cost of the entire election estimated March 12, 2010 special municipal election, at approximately $85,000, compared to statewide direct primary range of $55,000-75,000 for entire municipal election on November 2, 2010; cost attributable to ballot measure depends on other consolidated measures in Petaluma. November 2, 2010 $7,800-$15,600 August 6, 2010 regular municipal election, Entire election: $55,000-75,000 with statewide general election one ballot measure. Cost of the November, 2006 casino ballot measure (regular municipal election) was approximately $5,600. Cost of the November, 2008 Measure K (regular municipal election) has only a preliminary cost estimate from the Registrar's office at this time of $7,500. * Sonoma County finance staff have told the City Clerk informally that general election costs overall will increase over time because of increased County costs and increases in the number of registered voters in Petaluma. Estimates for ballot measures depend in part on the total cost of the entire general election in Petaluma (number of voters, County election expenses) and the length of the ballot measure itself. #1194909 2