Urba n Development Bounda ries
a ka Urba n G rowth Bounda ry a ka Urba n Limit Line a ka Urba n Rura l Bounda ry a ka Fill in the Bla nk Bounda ry
ANNUAL C ALAFC O C ONFERENC E SEPTEMBER 2015
Purpose of Disc ussion
C ompa re a nd c ontra st Spheres of
Influenc e with different types of Urba n Development Bounda ries
Desc ribe methods of Urba n
Development Bounda ry esta blishment a nd ma intena nc e
LAFC Os role c onc erning UDBs a nd how it c ould impa c t dec ision ma king
Urba n G rowth Bounda ries in the USA
Sourc e: Wikipedia The U.S. sta tes of Oregon, Wa shington, a nd
Tennessee require c ities to esta blish urba n growth bounda ries.
C a lifornia requires ea c h c ounty to ha ve a
Loc a l Agenc y Forma tion C ommission, whic h sets urba n growth bounda ries for ea c h c ity a nd town in the c ounty.
Urba n G rowth Bounda ries in the USA
Sourc e: Wikipedia The U.S. sta tes of Oregon, Wa shington, a nd Tennessee require c ities to esta blish urba n growth bounda ries.
C a lifornia requires ea c h c ounty to ha ve a Loc a l Agenc y Forma tion C ommission, whic h sets SOIs whic h a c t a s urba n growth bounda ries for ea c h c ity a nd town in the c ounty.
UDB vs SOI
Are they the sa me ? If a C ity a dopts a UDB, should the
LAFC o a lwa ys a dopt a n SOI tha t is c oterminous to the UDB?
Whic h one should get a dopted first? Why should LAFC os c a re a bout where
UDBs a re dra wn?
C onsidera tions for SOIs
(1) The present a nd pla nned la nd uses in the a rea , inc luding a gric ultura l a nd open-spa c e la nds.
(2) The present a nd proba ble need for public fa c ilities a nd servic es in the a rea .
(3) The present c a pa c ity of public fa c ilities a nd a dequa c y of public servic es tha t the a genc y provides or is a uthorized to provide.
(4) The existenc e of a ny soc ia l or ec onomic c ommunities of interest in the a rea if the c ommission determines tha t they a re releva nt to the a genc y.
(5) … the present a nd proba ble need for those public fa c ilities a nd servic es of a ny disa dva nta ged uninc orpora ted c ommunities within the existing sphere of influenc e.
C KH Sec tion 56425(e)
Sphere of Influenc e Definition
"Sphere of influenc e" mea ns a pla n for the proba ble physic a l bounda ries a nd servic e a rea of a loc a l a genc y, a s determined by the c ommission.
Ma y a lso be more refined ba sed on loc a l polic ies esta blished to reflec t unique c irc umsta nc es
Sec onda ry Spheres Servic e Spheres Urba n Servic e Area s
C KH Sec tion 56076
UDB Definition
An Urba n Development Bounda ry is a politic a lly determined “line” tha t is dra wn a round a n urba nized a rea , outside of whic h new urba n development is severely restric ted or prohibited.
UDB Types
Single jurisdic tion Bounda ry – dra wn by a
C ity or C ounty (mo s t in C A)
Urba n G rowth Bounda ry Urba n Limit Line Area /Spec ific Pla n Area s
Regiona l Bounda ry – dra wn a round multiple jurisdic tions by a regiona l
a genc y (P o r tl a n d m e t ro a r e a, T a hoe Reg i o nal Pl a n n i n g Agenc y)
UDB vs SOI
SOIs a re a ll a bout provision of servic es UDBs a re a ll a bout growth ma na gement
SOIs a re required by C A la w UDBs a re not required by C A la w
SOIs a dopted by LAFC os UDBs a dopted by a c ity or c ounty
UDB’s in C a lifornia
Where: Mostly in the C entra l Va lley a nd SF
Ba y Area . Muc h less in Southern C a l.
When: 35% before 1990, 55% between
1990 a nd 2000, 10% a fter 2000.
How: Most by C ity C ounc il a doption.
Some by Ba llot Box. A few by C ounty Boa rd of Supervisors
Sourc e: University of Mic higa n, 2004
Determining the Size of a UDB
Ha nford Exa mple – Popula tion 45,860 1. Projec t the popula tion 20 yea rs in 2035 (90,000 people)
2. Projec t the number of housing units needed
(30,000 tota l)
3. Determine the future density of development 4. Determine the a mount of va c a nt la nd needed to build 30,000 housing units, inc luding infill sites
5. Add a dditiona l la nd for ma rket flexibility
Ha nford Proposed La nd Use Ma p Determining the Loc a tion of a UDB
Best Pra c tic es 1. Along na tura l physic a l bounda ries 2. Along existing or future ma jor tra vel wa ys 3. Along signific a nt c ha nges in topology 4. Any existing fea tures tha t c ould buffer urba nized la nd from rura l or a gric ultura l la nd.
5. Existing pa rc el lines.
The loc a tion of line must be c lea rly defined.
UDB Along Na tura l Physic a l Bounda ry
- UDB Along Ma jor Roa dwa y
- UDB Along Existing Fea tures
- UDB Along Future Roa dwa y
- UDB with No Physic a l Fea tures
- Method of Review
5 yea rs or 10 yea rs a re typic a l Reviewed when predetermined buildout sta tistic s a re met
Spec ified number of a c res left undeveloped Spec ified number of permits pulled
Review does not a lwa ys result in a n expa nsion.
Voter Esta blished UDB
Na pa C ounty Exa mple – Agric ultura l Preserve
Proposed by the in order to protec t produc tive a gric ultura l la nds a nd ma inta in a distinc t identity to the c ommunity
Estima tes in the1960s ha d Na pa C ounty’s popula tion following the trend within the Sa nta C la ra Va lley, with the C ity of Na pa potentia lly rea c hing upwa rds of 200,000 residents by 2000
Voter Esta blished UDB
Essentia lly a n Urba n Limit Line tha t prevents growth into a gric ultura l a rea s
Ha s limited growth in order to preserve wha t wa s seen a s the essentia l industry in the a rea
Na pa ’s c urrent popula tion wa s a pproxima tely
77,881, a c c ording to Na pa LAFC o in 2014
Approxima tely 150% lower tha n otherwise expec ted growth
Agric ultura l Preserve - Na pa
LAFC o SOIs must c onsider the limita tions of popula tion growth a nd extension of servic es into these a rea s during MSRs a nd SOI upda tes.
Ana lyzed a s pa rt of the “Tertia ry Sub-Area ” within the 2014 SOI Upda te by Na pa LAFC o for the C ity of Na pa
“… c a n not be ac c u r a t e l y d e s c ri b ed as pa r t o f t he C ity ’ s “p r o bab l e bounda r y a n d s e r v i c e a r e a” d u e to th e i r d e s i g nat i o n f o r ag r ic u l tur a l a n d open s p ac e u s e un d er t he C ounty’s G e n e r a l P l a n a n d the ab s e n c e of C i ty a c t i o n t o a mend i ts G e n e r a l P l a n a n d RUL. T h e f a c t th a t t he T e r ti a r y Stu d y A r e a i s a l so c o ve r e d by t he C ounty’s r e s tric ti o ns aga i n st the c onv e r si o n t o ur b an u s e o f ag r ic u l tur a l a n d open s p ac e l a n d s u n d er Mea s ure P furth e r i n d i c a t e s t he c u r r e n t i m p r o bab i lity o f c o ns i d e r i n g th e s e su b - a r e as as e l i g i b l e f o r annexat i o n t o the C ity. “
Agric ultura l Preserve - Na pa
Multiple impa c ts a s it rela tes to la nd use pla nning a nd growth
G enera l Pla ns must be c onsistent Loc a l Zoning ordina nc es must be c onsistent
All La nd Use dec isions must essentia lly mirror the a doption of the Agric ultura l Preserve.
MSRs, SOI Upda tes a nd future a nnexa tions must then a lso be c onsistent
LAFC O’s Role C onc erning UDBs
Response Approa c h – a fter it is a dopted
Eva lua te in Munic ipa l Servic e Review Dra w Sphere of Influenc e Roughly C oterminous
Pa rtic ipa tory Approa c h – before it is a dopted
Observe a nd/or c omment on the esta blishment of a
“UDB,” a s it ma y be na med ma ny things
Provide forma l c omments on a Dra ft EIR C olla bora te with C ity Sta ff who a re prepa ring the UDB
URBAN SERVICE AREAS
Unique Growth Management Tool in
Santa Clara County
. Neelima Palacherla
. LAFCO of Santa Clara County
CALAFCO CONFERENCE
. September 3, 2015
1
Santa Clara County
2
Santa Clara County
Land Area:
1,290 sq. mi.
Population:
1.89 million
15 cities 95% of population lives in cities
3
Dramatic Growth Statewide & in Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County’s population nearly doubled in the
50s and the 60s
1,200,000 1,000,000
800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000
-
1950 1960 1970
4
San Jose Annexations 1944-1975
5