At the City Council meeting of July 7, 2020, five speakers addressed the Council requesting that they seek voter extension of Measure L. Measure L was originally approved by the voters in 2003, and expires at the end of this year. The City Council directed that this item be placed on the July 21 agenda for discussion, with a resolution for consideration to place an extension ordinance on the November General Election ballot for the voters to consider. The following discussion provides a background and an overview of Measure L. It also presents items for consideration by the City Council when discussing possible extension of the Measure’s provisions.
Background and Overview of Measure L:
Measure L is a voter initiative adopted in November 2003 that reaffirms certain provisions of the City’s General Plan and requires voter approval to amend some of them.
Measure L was approved following a multiyear effort initiated by the City Council in 2000 to comprehensively amend the City’s 1992 General Plan. This General Plan amendment was ultimately approved in June 2002. Among many changes, the General Plan amendment scaled back the City’s 1992 Urban Limit Line and added certain protections for Travis Air Force Base.
The General Plan described the Urban Limit Line as follows:
The City’s proposed ultimate boundary, which will include all urban development within the City of Fairfield and may include certain permanent open space areas over which the City wishes to exercise direct control.
The 2002 amendment pulled back the Urban Limit Line in multiple areas in the western part of the City where the 1992 General Plan had authorized urban expansion. The amendment eliminated planned extension of the City limits into middle Green Valley, north of Rockville Hills Park, and along Suisun Valley Road out to Rockville Road. With this amendment, the City’s limit in the area generally known as North Cordelia became fixed at its existing location.
The 2002 amendment also added to the General Plan new protections for Travis Air Force Base. Travis protection was a topic of conversation in the City during the 1990s. Throughout the decade, a series of Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC) presented a tangible threat that the City’s largest employer – the Base – would be closed. The 2002 amendment sought to reduce the risk that encroachment of urban development would be a reason for the BRAC committee to recommend closure of Travis.
As a part of the 2002 amendment, the City Council added policies to the General Plan mandating 1) that development in the City comply with Solano County’s Land Use Compatibility Plan for Travis Air Force Base, and 2) that the City would not rezone land for new residential use where aircraft noise levels were measured at 60 db CNEL or greater for the Base’s defined “Maximum Mission”. Perhaps most notably, the comprehensive amendment eliminated plans in the 1992 General Plan to develop urban uses on several thousand acres around the Base. In place of this potential development, a new land use designation – the Travis Reserve – was established. The General Plan defines the Travis Reserve as land:
set aside for future expansion of Travis Air Force Base only. If the status of the base changes, the construction of a non-military airport and support uses may be permitted in the Travis Reserve. No residential uses will be permitted in the Travis Reserve. Until a military or airport use is proposed for land with the Travis Reserve designation, the City supports its continued use for agriculture and grazing.
The amendment established the Travis Reserve on all land within the Urban Limit Line located east of North Gate Road. This includes approximately 5,000 acres on both the north and south sides of the Travis’ eastern runway.
Following approval of the amendment to the General Plan in June 2002, a citizen’s group prepared an initiative measure that would make it harder for future City Councils to undo the new Plan. The initiative sought to 1) reaffirm specified policy language in the General Plan including the new Travis protection policies described above and policies pertaining to growth within the City’s boundaries, and 2) with limited exceptions, preclude the City Council from amending the reaffirmed policies, the Urban Limit Line, and boundaries of the Travis Reserve. Instead, through December 31, 2020, amendment could only occur by approval of Fairfield voters.
In addition to new policies described earlier, one notable policy protected by the initiative dated back to the 1992 General Plan:
Policy LU 3.1
What is urban shall be municipal, and what is rural shall be within the County. Any urban development requiring basic municipal services shall occur only within the incorporated City and within the urban limit line established by the General Plan.
In May 2003, the initiative petition was presented to the City Council. The Council decided to adopt the initiative measure rather than submit it to the voters. However, a qualified referendum petition was subsequently submitted to the City which required the Council to submit the initiative measure to the voters as Measure L since the Council did not want to repeal it. In November 2003, Measure L was approved by roughly 60% of the voters (7,130 in favor vs. 4,755 opposed).
The requirement to receive voter approval for changes to the Urban Limit Line has been sought just once in the nearly 17 years since Measure L was approved. In November 2016, more than 70% of city voters approved an expansion of the Urban Limit Line to accommodate the Pacific Flyway Center.
Implications of the December 31, 2020 date in Measure L:
On December 31, 2020, the voter approval requirements for amendments to the Urban Limit Line, Travis Reserve and Airport Noise Standards will expire. All existing policy and other aspects of the General Plan will remain unchanged. What will change, according to Policy LU 3.3, is that the City Council will once again have the authority to amend the otherwise voter-protected aspects of the General Plan described earlier. Beginning January 1, 2021, if the City Council wishes to amend any and all aspects of the General Plan, it will be able to do so without requiring a vote of the people. Unless and until the City Council chooses to amend the General Plan, all General Plan matters referenced in Measure L will continue.
Issues for Consideration:
If Measure L is extended, it could limit City Council’s ability to update the General Plan, if any changes to the Urban Limit Line or other protected policies are proposed. In other words, if the expiration date of voter control is set beyond the likely date of approval for the General Plan update, the update may require voter ratification. However, if Measure L is extended and all protected policies for the Travis Reserve and the existing (or smaller) Urban Limit Line remain the same under the General Plan update, it will not require voter ratification.
In considering this matter, it is important to note that the City Council has authorized a full-scale comprehensive update to the 2002 General Plan. Work on the update begins later this year. General Plan updates involve reconsideration, in part or in full, of many land use and growth policies and will include substantial community and voter engagement.
General Plan Policy LU 3.3 includes the language requiring voter approval of specified General Plan amendments through the end of this year. As noted earlier, speakers at the July 7 City Council meeting requested that the City Council seek voter approval to “extend” Measure L. This entails placing an initiative measure proposed by the Council on the November General Election ballot seeking voter approval to amend LU 3.3. to extend the December 31, 2020 expiration of voter control.
The key consideration is the degree of control the City Council wishes to have in amending all aspects of the General Plan. If Council wishes to have full control of the process, they should not ask the voters to consider changing the date in LU 3.3. Instead, they should take no action. In that case, on January 1, 2021, the City Council can then amend any aspect of the General Plan it wishes, subject to limitations of State law. If, on the other hand, Council members are comfortable delegating power to the voters regarding amendments protected by LU 3.3 – or if they wish to bind future Council actions - then they should consider placing a measure on the ballot to extend the expiration date in LU 3.3.
California Environmental Quality Act Review
The Ordinance being submitted to the voters is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), because it is not a “project” as defined by the Section 15378. Adoption of the ordinance does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The Ordinance does not change any existing land use policies or regulations. Instead, the ordinance is procedural in nature as it extends the voter approval requirements for certain policies in the General Plan making it more difficult to amend these policies. Further, if the Ordinance is considered a “project,” it is exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) which exempts a project from CEQA when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance simply continues an existing voter approval requirement for certain amendments to the General Plan. Any future amendments will be subject to CEQA review at the time such amendments and related projects are proposed.