Archives



The history and future of Sonoma’s Urban Growth Boundary

Posted on October 3, 2015 by Sonoma Valley Sun

Amid the current discussions about Greenbelts separating urban areas is the relevance of Sonoma’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Established by a wide majority through a ballot measure in 1999, Sonoma’s UGB has entered the final years of its mandated lifetime of 20 years. Only five years remain before its expiration, and unless renewed in some form the development pressure which once prompted its creation will likely appear at the city’s edges.

The history of the UGB begins in the early 1990s. The city of Portland, which at that time was undergoing enormous development pressure leading to sprawl into formerly natural or agricultural areas, was the first large city to create a UGB. A master plan for the city and the surrounding area was developed and with widespread support succeeded in bringing some order to development chaos due to annexations. People concerned about controlling sprawl took notice of Portland’s success.

Here in California parcels of land are added to an incorporated city through a process called “annexation.” A landowner can apply to have a parcel included within a city limit, and legally the process of annexation completes that transaction. Thus cities grow at the edges as undeveloped parcels, often agricultural areas, are officially brought within city borders, re-zoned for one of a variety of land uses, and developed accordingly.

During the decade of the 90s Sonoma began to quickly convert surrounding agricultural land to housing developments. Much of the land in question had been in local family hands for a long time, but as the oldest in those families died or aged, a combination of tax effects and the lure of money combined to stimulate a mini-building boom. Within the last five to seven years of that decade, housing developments including many hundreds of homes built not by local families but by national home building corporations were constructed. Most of these were built in the south, southwest and southeast of the city, on agricultural land previously annexed and re-zoned for that purpose.

Controversy arose as the annexations continued, and fears of continuing sprawl stimulated city council and voter discussions. Larry Barnett, first elected to the City Council in 1994, emerged as a vocal spokesperson in favor of establishing a Sonoma UGB. Countywide, UGBs had not yet been adopted, and Sonoma would be the county’s first. Barnett recommended that the City Council place a measure on the Ballot to establish a UGB in 1997, and continued to make that same request for two years; he did not get majority council support, however.

After meeting with a group of citizens committed to establishing a UGB, a group which included Gary Edwards, (now a City Council member), the decision to draft a 20-year UGB measure, collect petition signatures and place a measure on the 1999 ballot was made.

The UGB measure established a fixed city limit beyond which land annexations were not allowed for a period of 20 years; study indicated that 20 years was long enough to reduce land speculation in anticipation of annexation. Modest exceptions to this were included to provide land for schools, affordable housing developments and public-serving facilities like hospitals. The city limit was determined after a careful analysis of the land remaining available within the limit, and that given its nature, zoning and development potential was sufficient to accommodate the housing needs and growth in population contemplated in Sonoma’s General Plan.

The UGB measure was controversial and was publicly criticized by Bill Lynch, then the publisher of the Index Tribune, and the Chamber of Commerce. A “formal” and respectful debate was held at the Vets Building and over 350 people showed up in attendance. Barnett and retired physician Wylie Hartman spoke in favor the measure; former County Supervisor Ig Vella and housing developer Art Fichtenberg spoke against it.

The arguments in favor focused on the negative effects of sprawl on traffic and small-town quality-of-life, loss of agricultural land, and the long-term negative financial effects of bedroom community expansion. The examples of Petaluma and Rohnert Park were used, both of which were suffering from significant budget deficits despite widespread, large housing developments. Arguments opposed cautioned against restraint of commercial opportunities, that areas in the county outside the UGB could develop, that housing was needed, and that the city’s economy would be stifled.

Ultimately, the UGB measure was approved with 68 percent of the vote. (It required 51 percent approval to become law.) It’s language was incorporated into the City’s General Plan. Subsequently, other cities in Sonoma County also created UGBs and the County formally established greenbelts as community separators. Since its passage in 2000, Sonoma’s economy has flourished, it’s city budget remains healthy, population growth has been restrained, and its surrounding greenbelt has been preserved.

The county government subsequently indicated that aligning its development policies and zoning with the Sonoma UGB would occur; moreover, it agreed that water, sewer and such urban services would not be extended beyond the UGB.

Renewing the UGB, should that happen, requires several steps. City government can draft a measure for ballot approval by the voters, or if that does not proceed, the citizens can once again draft a measure and circulate a ballot petition for renewal. The legal standards for measures drafted by government are more stringent than those required of citizens. In either case, a study must be done that examines the existing land uses, development potential for housing and population growth and accommodating other community needs. The period of time for such a renewal must be determined. The city’s limit must be “drawn” and that map incorporated into the measure.

A public election governs the outcome of any UGB measure, and if passed insures that only the voting public can rescind or modify a UGB, making it impossible for political changes alone to determine annexation-driven development patterns. As talk of community separators ensues, the parallel topic of Sonoma’s UGB must inevitably arise. The arguments in favor and against a UGB are essentially the same; whether voter sentiment has changed remains the outstanding question.




Sonoma Sun | Sonoma, CA